Re: tesla coil power ?! (fwd)

["High Voltage list" <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Steven Roys <sroys@xxxxxxxxxx>



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:16:56 +0100
From: Chris Swinson <list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: High Voltage list <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: tesla coil power ?! (fwd)

OK,

I am going to bring this thread to a close for now. Apart from drifting off 
in all directions, with misunderstandings its getting nowhere.

http://www.altenergy-pro.com/device02.htm

This device will be the one I am going to construct. It is almost identical 
to my setup just lower power. The primary supply transformer I do not have 
specs of so will have to make an educated guess. Current there will not need 
to be much. The small lamps look to be neon. and the resistors are to 
current limit the lamps. Normally these lamps have 100K resistors in series 
with them. As we are running probably in the KV range then 1MEG will have to 
be used.

operation I assume is that the centre coil has an LED to indicate 
transmission power. Each of the 3 receiver coils also has a similar 
arrangement with the neon and resistor. The basic idea is to show that when 
you turn up the brightness of the lamp, the transmitter lamp does not 
decrees in brightness.

Now for the If's and Butt's.

It is probable that the receiver lamps can be made to go brighter than the 
transmission lamps. This does not indicate more power output than input. In 
fact if you could turn up the transmission coil to max brightness, IMHO, 
then receiver coils will only be able to , at best, get to the same 
brightness. Though I think there will be a loss as I found in my larger 
system.

The primary power is being burned up across the transmitter coils primary. 
It is doubtful that you could light up more lamps other than connecting them 
directly to the transformer.  This is in effect where I got "stuck" at.

It is probable that more lamps can be made to light using more receiver 
coils than connecting them to the transmitter coil alone. At this point we 
can say we have OU (as proven in my setup). However when you take the wall 
current to the final output currents we will probably have a overall loss. 
So the argument I was trying to point out is how valid this setup actually 
is.

The board I think is not intended to be an OU demonstration. It is to prove 
that the receivers do not load the transmitter and that is all.  It will 
probably be easy to light up 3 lamps the same brightness as the transmitter 
coil, however unless we load the transmitter fully, then load the receivers 
fully, then even though it looks to be working , its not actually a fair 
test.

We need to prove the max energy in the transmitter first. This will depend 
on the transformer used. Each lamp will take about half a watt of power. So 
we need to keep adding lamps to the transmitter until it starts to drop in 
power. Then we will have our max transmission power rating.

As we do not want to kill the transmission power, we then need to take off 
the loading of the transmitter totally. If we can only light 5lamps on the 
transmitter than we assume we can light up 5lamps on the receiver coils 
also. IMHO, I assume there will be losses like I found in my system (some 
are arguing that this shouldn't happen, but that's another problem for 
another day) so I guess only 4 lamps will be able to be used on each 
receiver coil.

At this point, we could only light 5 lamps in the first place, so 3 receiver 
coils with 4 lamps each is 12 lamps . This is exactly the setup I did but 
with 100watts.

The next point is where people loose faith.  where the inverter may only be 
80% efficient, there will be some overall primary losses somewhere. So if we 
take wall current , or wattage input to keep things simple, then for a start 
we have 12 lamps output at 0.5watts which is 12x0.5 = 6watts. Now if the 
inverter needs 24watts to operate then overall we are only 25% efficient. 
However there is nothing to stop us adding in more receiver coils to improve 
the odds.

The problem with my setup is I think I had 75% loss in my primary system. I 
had 500watts input and 100watts output. It is very possible that this 
smaller unit will be much more efficient as it is all solid state.

If we assume the inverter is 3watts input, then accounting for some losses, 
say 2.5 watts actual transmission power (5 lamps). then 3 receiver coil 
outputs even though there is still losses, we can obtain overall 6watts 
output.

The problem is with my setup is I have lost 400watts somewhere. If we deal 
on pure voltage output levels with a tesla coil. Then there are better solid 
state designs which can be much more efficient than spark gap coils. Going 
by a quick look around, if I take 500watts to produce 100KV, then there are 
solid state designs which appear to be able to do the same for 100watts. In 
anycase this smaller demo should provide a lot of answers in working out 
input vs output power with efficiency tests also.

It is unknown why I went from 500watts to 100watts on my system. Though each 
of my receiver coils obtained 100watts each. So in practice if I built 6 
receiver coils then I would have 500watts in and 600watts out. I could 
easily build 10 coils into the system for 500watts in and 1,000watts out. 
Though due to lacks of time,space,funds, the system will probably be never 
built.

Getting back on track, I will build the demo board over the next few weeks 
and get back to the list once done. As nothing ever goes to plan it could 
take longer. I can publish all the specs and construction, though the 
problem is as so many people are all over the world, even obtaining the same 
parts could be a problem. The problem is also, if people do not follow the 
plans EXACTLY then the system will not work.

A interesting test was done at my old company, they got 10 people to build 
10 circuits which took about a hour each. out of 100 built circuits , only 
10 worked and they did not work very well. They all started out with exactly 
the same parts and diagrams. So assuming 90% will fail in pure construction, 
then how many will fail when using different parts aswell ?

The only solution would be to supply the units built up for people to 
experiment with. While some will now loose interest in parting with cash to 
buy the things I do not see that there is any other choice.

So before I start on this epic, I will need to know how many people would be 
serious about obtaining the demo units.  If only  a couple of people are 
interested then its not worth me spending much time on the units. I will 
still make a video the units operation for everyone to see, though it does 
not really help with any real progress with the design. What also worries me 
if people will just take one of the units to the patent office and claim as 
their own work for selfish reasons.

In anycase, the units may not be OU, these are to demonstrate proof of 
concept. This is to investigate the effects. All is within physics laws and 
everything is accepted. The thing people do not accept is that OU can come 
from it. While this may or may not be true, how do we REALLY know until we 
try ?  I could sit here and say we will fly to the moon, though this is not 
trying. This is giving up even before starting. Anyone who thinks the 
project is doomed to fail, then these are lazy people who cannot be bothered 
to even try.  trying is the key failure or  not. I have failed many times 
with many things. The results are still very important.

Knowing what does not work is just as valuable as knowing what does work! 
Saying it can't work right form the start is foolish to a point. Miss one 
single factor and the thoughts are meaningless. People should put their 
efforts into thinking up ways it CAN be made to work, not just thinking up 
ways that it CANNOT work!! I hope people can understand the points I am 
trying to make! So will see what peoples thoughts are on the units before 
anything else.

Chris