[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [TCML] VTTC-tuning. John got me started ;-)



Hi DC,

This is great work! I remember when you and Malcolm were discussing the pulsed dc results. One thing I was pointing to was not a comparison, but rather a direct measurement of the waveform. For example, using a current transformer for base current and some other method for the top terminal voltage, couple both waveforms onto a dual trace storage scope capturing base current and top voltage in time (before, during, and after breakout). That particular type of data is difficult (but it will tell you so much about breakout, spark loading, how the top volts change with breakout, etc.).

For the purposes which Dex is looking at, I think a DC pulse measurement and then comparison to a similar setup is certainly close enough for a decent approximation. Even simply measuring base current over time and applying it to his equation, he can dial in the equation with an efficiency factor to match some other data set. He can then compare it to various gap breakdown voltages, break-rates, etc.. to ensure it follows as hoped.

But for "direct" measurement over time, this is more difficult. I have always liked Terry's idea of calibrating the antenna array at some distance to avoid probe loading issues. It's the calibration that is difficult. However, this is really the best attack to the problem as I see it. If this antenna is calibrated, then direct oscilloscope connection is possible for the entire waveform. I built a copy of Terry's antenna for both current and voltage measurement (the dual antenna version). It has come in handy for various measurements. Terry might be annoyed, but right now I'm using it to pick up a particular station on my FM in the garage (can't seem to get the station clearly with anything else). Just one of those days where I got annoyed and finally gave Terry's antenna a try (and it worked, although directional adjustment was necessary for best reception). I suspect the fractal design is why it manages to capture the 96.7 FM in CA.

Take care,
Bart

DC Cox wrote:
Actually, we can measure the top terminal potential of any Tesla transformer
with reasonable accuracy.

In a recent textbook on HV engineering, authors state (after many tests and
measurements):

"HV max potential across a sparkgap is independent of waveform."

I should qualify this statement.  If RF, the spark has to be pulsed, not
continuous so it can "grow" to long lengths.

Years ago I set up some tests using an ignitron to produce single shot
pulses in an air core transformer.  Another, easier way for the average
experimenter to do this would be
to use a 10-20 MEG HV resistor to charge the HV cap off a rectified DC HV
power supply.  Adding diodes to the output of a pole xmfr and use 20 meg
resistors.  Be sure to discharge the cap
and short it out before touching any circuit that has had a cap charged on
DC, not AC, potentials.

This produces a single shot pulse of HV off the sec coil every 5-10
seconds.  I used a standard 1/2 inch rod gap off the toroid to fire to a
ground electrode which was also a 1/2" rod gap.

By comparing my distance measurements to 1/2 inch dia rod gap charts for
impulse generators, the HV was the same.

I double confirmed this by using single shots across a large 1 MEV antique
X-ray tube, and be careful measurement of X-rays, was able to confirm the
voltage was
equal to my simple spark gap measurements.

A coil producing 15 ft. sparks at 15 kVA, showed a max peak potential of 985
kV.  The spark gap distance in single shot pulsed DC mode was only 6 ft.
Much less than the full power
operation.

The math, however, is the same.  A coil produces the same potential whether
it is running in single shot mode or operating at 500 pulses/sec.  The spark
at high rep rate is much longer
due to the continuous pumping of the ion field above the coil, and also due
to certain metastable decays of ions in or near the spark channel.

Be comparing sparkgap measurements with X-ray measurements, and also Terry
Fritz's work, a simple equation emerges:

Vsec = Vpri x 70% x SQR (Ls/Lp).

My measurements were also in close agreement with pulsed field mode
measurements made on an "antenna" system developed by Terry Fritz several
years ago  Terry was kind enough to lend me his antenna system, and I did a
calibration with a 200 kV DC X-ray power supply on a toroid atop an unground
Tesla transformer.  The antenna was calibrated accurately at 200 kV with it
being placed at a distance of 12 feet from the toroid.  Then by running the
coil in single pulsed DC mode we could take calibrated measurements of the
max peak output.

All the math analysis techniques were reported in several references in Mark
Denocoli's paper on Resonance Transformers.  See the appendix of his
excellent paper.  Many of the equations worked out 50 years ago by Drude,
et. al., are still accurate today.

So, you can take all kinds of measurements, some simple, some complex, but
the equation listed above will be a reliable indicator of your coil's
potential.  All you have to do is hook up a nice Wavetek meter, take the
inductance measurements, then do some math based on the spark gap firing
voltage, and you have the answer.

One word of caution in your calculations:   Don't take a 12 kV NST and
assume the pri spark gap potential is 1.4 x Erms, ie, 16.8 kV, if your total
spark gap is set up at 200 mils (0.200").  It will only be a fraction of
this value because the correct Vpri to use is the "measured sparkgap
breakdown potential", not the max Epeak value of the pri power transformer.
In summary, Vpri is dependent on the total sparkgap setting in mils.

A few years ago I made careful measurements of sparkgap breakdown potentials
from 5 kV up to 26 kV (above 26 kV erratic corona and Trichel pulses made
measurements difficult at close gap settings), and posted this vs. the mil
spacing of the 1/2 dia. rod sparkgap.  This data is posted somewhere in the
archives for retrival if you're interested in the full chart.  This chart
and your inductance meter is all you need to get an accurate estimate of
your coil's output potential.  And the beauty is these measurements are
taken with the coil not operating.  Even outputs for new designs run in
JAVATC can be accurately calculated.

Regards,

Dr. Resonance







On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:43 PM, bartb <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dex Dexter wrote:

I  measured nothing.

Ok. Then di/dt is based on some predictions? You stated that it works out
near to DC's equation, so I assumed you had made a measurement.

And even if I measure current ,how to measure top volts to determine what
efficiency factors enter the formula?

Difficult for a direct measurement. DC Cox does have a method which he uses
for approximation, but I have not tried it myself. Unfortunately, I don't
remember the details and can't find any info about it on my pc.

How did you and others found factor of 0.7 for a typical spark gap tesla
coil?

DC I expect is looking at the equation V = Vp*sqrt(Ls/Lp) and comparing
those results to his measured approximations and inserting the efficiency
factor of 0.7 as an average over whatever series of measurements were made
(and this is only an assumption on my part). As you know, losses are not
part of the equation but they exist.

For Lp, the inductance at low frequency is fine. For the secondary, it
would be more accurate to insert the high frequency inductance. In many
coils, it's not a large change, but there are geometries where the distance
between the two do become significant. As long as you always use the high
frequency inductance, then your good for all geometries. As you know, the
top terminal affects the peak potential due to breakout. Note that this
equation or anything similar will never account for the top terminal
geometry and the surface field developed due to the charge and where corona
inception occurs followed by breakout. This is a physical limitation that
should also be accounted for, but until we can directly measure the top
voltage at the terminal of a Tesla coil with accuracy, then we can only make
educated guesses.

Take care,
Bart


Dex
--- bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

From: bartb <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla Coil Mailing List <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Subject: Re: [TCML] VTTC-tuning. John got me started ;-)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:00:50 -0700

Hi Dex,

Moderators are not going to change an equation. They may later reply and
correct it with a reply, but they don't need to be messing with a persons
equation (what is obvious is subjective to how much attention is being paid
to the equation). Their looking for more of content as it relates to the
TCML and not necessarily every calculation detail.

DC's equation as you state is a standard energy equation that has been
around forever. What DC is doing is showing are losses with the efficiency
factor of 0.7. The same equation is derived with the capacitances as well.
Your equation is dependent on di/dt. Have you measured this yet? If yes,
what was the change in current and over what time frame (0 to peak). May as
well state L also. This equation requires measurement to verify, so I can't
go any further without some data if you have it.

Take care,
Bart



_____________________________________________________________
Washington DC's Largest FREE Email service. ---> http://www.DCemail.com<http://www.dcemail.com/>---> A Washington Online Community Member --->
http://www.DCpages.com <http://www.dcpages.com/>
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla



_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla

_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla

_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla