From: Malcolm Watts [SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 2:34 PM
To: Tesla List
Subject: Re: Voltage/Length (fwd)
> From: John H. Couture [SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 12:37 AM
> To: Tesla List
> Subject: Re: Voltage/Length (fwd)
> At 11:10 PM 1/27/98 +0000, you wrote:
> >From: Malcolm Watts [SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 3:35 PM
> >To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> >Subject: Re: Voltage/Length (fwd)
> >The closest I have come is to measure single shot attached spark
> >lengths (impulse only) as D.C. Cox has done. I have compared those
> >with measurements from other impulse sources (Marx Banks) whose
> >theoretical outputs can be made to match real outputs very closely
> >in practice. The 3'/MV figure is a guide I use although I recognize
> The 3 ft/MV at least is a number to work with. In an earlier post Cox said
> he thought a 5 ft spark represented one million volts. My engineering text
> says that about a 4 ft spark is one MV. But this is a one shot peak voltage.
> I would expect that multiple sparks as with Tesla coil operation would give
> a spark closer to 5 ft.
> Vs = 65 x 49.8^.7 = 1000 KV
> This equation has been used by many coilers and found to be as close as can
> be expected to reality.
I think you can do an awful lot better at 1MV under repetitive
conditions. I can match that length at less than 500kV. I don't
recall Mr Cox ever saying that "5' = 1MV" To the contrary, he has
repeatedly stated that he has obtained around 9' under repetitive
conditions at that voltage.
I am now going to give an example where, despite all the careful
measurements in the world, that notion might be subject to question.
The cruncher: has this been tested **at different primary energies**
(a) at the same break rate ?
(b) at a lesser break rate to maintain an identical power throughput ?
Let me put it like this: There are an infinite number of systems that
may be configured to generate a MV, but each with a different primary
energy content. i.e. - a system operating with lower Ep is obviously
going to have a lower Ctot in the secondary system to reach that
voltage. There is no question that can be done. The difference
between each at a constant power throughput is voltage vs current i.e.
if each generates 1MV, the available current must be different if
each operates at the same frequency.
This is what I mean by careful experiment. Nothing you have
suggested about any experiment is exhaustive in this regard.
> >*proven* to be real. This brings us into the realm of model validity
> >which is outside the scope of this post.
> Model validity is very important and must be capable of being verified by
> calculations done correctly. This is especially important when energy,
> power, and secondary volts are involved. This is because the Tesla coil
> system does unfamiliar engineering magic with these variables. The JHCTES TC
> computer program attempts to unravel the intricacies of TC design. As there
> are no similar TC programs at present it is not possible to make comparisons
> and changes so as to improve it.
Model validity is tested by carefully devised experiments IMHO. I
question this constant appeal to "magic". Either the thing is
understandable in engineering terms or it is not. I have yet to see a
proof that "magic" plays any part in science.
> >What calculations? Calculations are trivial if one has a formula but
> >having a formula is dependent on formulating for a particular piece
> >of hardware.
> Calculations are not trivial when done correctly. Calcs give the facts
> rather than subjective opinions. For example the confusion that coilers have
> over power and energy could be lessened if calculations of examples were shown.
Beware of garbage in, garbage out. Correct formulation is the key.
Anyone can use a calculator.
> >that have no basis in reality. It would appear from what people have
> >said that Tuve et al's work is flawed and therefore useless. One can
> How can anyone say that Tuve et al's work is flawed when they do not
> understand the fundamentals involved? I would not say that the tests and
> calcs of these three scientists were flawed unless I could repeat their
> tests and calculations and show where they erred.
They themselves admitted to experimental error. I am inclined to take
their word for it if what they said has been reported correctly. If I
refuted my own results which would you believe: that the results were
good or not? I think you are going too far in saying that no-one but
yourself understands the fundamentals.
> >purpose. Personally, I would accept a quanitifiable error of 1% in
> >measuring TC output voltage as being close enough to be useful in
> >choosing between models. Jim's technique is a good one in my opinion.
> >It gets asymptotically closer to the real answer. It will never get
> Jim Monte's or anyone's secondary voltage tests and extrapolation have the
> advantage that the tests can be easily verified up to 2 million volts. This
> is the range of engineering lab high voltage tests that have been published
> by several labs in this and other countries. The spark lengths, air
> conditions, etc. have been carefully documented. They are all one shot and
> not multiple sparks like with Tesla coils. Coilers have found that multiple
> sparks are longer than one shots because of the ionization of the spark air
> path. The Vs equation above gives spark lengths that are slightly longer
> than the HV lab sparks for this reason.
When you say one shot, are you talking impulse or DC? There is a
world of difference between those modes of operation.
I've yet to see an equation giving spark lengths for TCs that
take break rate into account. One can argue that an equation
giving length as a function of power does that by proxy but such
equations as I've see ignore voltage.