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

RE: [TCML] 60 Hz Binary Resonant Primary Design

Pardon me for asking, but what in the world are you talking about? The
best I can figure is that this new system is impractical to build due to
the large value inductors and capacitors required. Obviously input VA
would play a factor in choosing the appropriate values of L & C;
correct? Do you have any photographs of your coil? I heard a while back
that someone on the list was offering 1H air-wound cores very
inexpensively. I am anxious to find out more about your theory. Please
advise on your progress.  


-----Original Message-----
From: tesla-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tesla-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Harvey Norris
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:54 PM
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [TCML] 60 Hz Binary Resonant Primary Design

    A new sort of "quenched" arc gap is again brought up, to describe
the secondary ballasting system, and for considerations of probable
actions for primary ballasting.  Inductive air core secondary reactive
balancing of nameplate 150 nf values has been achieved in duplicate, or
in a binary fashion.
   To describe the arc gap may sound initially confusing. For the system
worked out here it must necessarily use large C values for 60 Hz. It is
best understood as a single Marx gap set-up. Two capacities are charged
up oppositely and discharged from the opposite ends not connected to the
voltage supply. However  reactively balanced air core large induction
coils are in parallel to this sort of arc gap. When the arc gap is
shorted the secondary voltage process is basically "self ballasted for
arc quenching purposes" where its conduction levels at short can be
   When two capacities being charged oppositely in parallel are
connected at midpt short, the new resultant capacity is half the amount
now in series. The same principle can be shown inversely for the
inductive reactive counterpart especially with mutual inductance
considerations for tuning. It can be shown that when two 180 phased
series resonant voltage rises are shorted at their midpoints, the
current across that midpoint path is then reactively limited to its
pathways of identical reactance in series on either side of the midpoint
path. However what may not be readily understood or addressed as a
potential arc gap improvement of that mechanism is the fact that when
the inductive reactive midpoint path shares the same lines as the
capacitive reactive midpoint path, because each current is 180 out of
phase, the new current limitation across that path becomes double of
either side alone. To address this issue, each side must be isolated
from the other
 in which case the measurement becomes two 150 nf values in series ~ 75
nf/ balanced by two 65 H coil formations in series with mutual
inductance to tune by.
    In this specific case here the 60 hz parallel tank factor appears to
have an acting Q factor of 6.
What this means of course is that a great gain of efficiency stands to
be gained by the power factor correction afforded by these large coils.
What this means in practicality is that a pole pig transformer on arc
gap short will act as if it is charging a 75/6 = 12.5 nf, but the actual
capacity being charged is 75 nf.  However the peculiarities of this
binary resonant design are are large draw before arc ignition whereby
150 nf in parallel being charged equates to a huge 300 nf draw, so the
scheme seems unworkable with NST's.

    It then becomes problematic to how such a charging sytem should be
employed with primaries.
I believe the best approach would be to put the arc gap midway along the
primaries pathway. A considerable amount of reduction of primary
inductance seems necessary since the C values are comparatively high.
However the paradox in this scheme is the ungodly high inductances
themselves employed in the secondary C power factor corrections and how
they might be interacted with the engaging primary inductances
Harvey D Norris.

Tesla mailing list

Tesla mailing list