Is there really no interest in this trumpet coil project, or am I being
censored from participating?
David W. Thomson
On Sat, Mar 7, 2026 at 8:51 PM David Thomson <aetherwizard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dick,
>>
>> The secondary is a logarithmic taper rather than a straight cone.
>>
>> The flare points downward toward ground, so the broad diameter is at the
>> base and the smaller diameter is at the top near the topload. The reason
>> for that choice is not cosmetic. I am trying to bias the resonator so the
>> lower region better supports the strong current regime while the upper
>> region and topload better support the strong potential regime.
>>
>> To lightning fun: if you are tight on time and funds, I think the best
>> way to start is with a modest taper, not an extreme one. The most useful
>> first comparison would be a trumpet secondary and a plain cylindrical
>> control using the same topload family and roughly similar overall height
>> and wire length. That gives a cleaner comparison than trying to optimize
>> sparks.
>>
>> To Sulaiman: I agree with your corona concern. That is one of the reasons
>> the experiment has to be run in a no-streamer regime. Once corona or
>> streamers appear, the effective capacitance changes, charge leaks off, and
>> the resonator stops behaving like the closed system I need for the
>> comparison. So this is not meant to be a "big spark" project. It is a
>> measurement project, much closer in spirit to Tesla's transmission side
>> than the entertainment side.
>>
>> I also want to mention that I updated the Zenodo paper because I found a
>> real issue in the earlier formulation and I did not want to leave it
>> uncorrected.
>>
>> The old version described the top channel in the familiar form
>>
>> q = C_top * V_pk
>>
>> and used a magnetic proxy of the form
>>
>> Q = kappa * I_pk
>>
>> That was acceptable as a first bridge statement in ordinary electrical
>> language, but it was not self-consistent in QMU. In QMU, capacitance is
>> reciprocal to potential, so C_top * V_pk cannot directly serve as the QMU
>> charge equation. Also, kappa * I_pk is only a current proxy, not an actual
>> transferred charge.
>>
>> The revised paper fixes that in a cleaner way.
>>
>> The top electrostatic channel is now defined through the SI-to-QMU bridge
>> as
>>
>> q_e_top^(2) = ccf * C_top * V_pk
>>
>> and the ground magnetic channel is now defined from the measured
>> return-current transfer over the charging interval as
>>
>> q_m_gnd^(2) = ccf * int I_g(t) dt
>>
>> taken from the current zero crossing up to the same voltage crest. That
>> leads to the extracted test relation
>>
>> alpha_extracted = C_top * V_pk / (8 * pi * int I_g(t) dt)
>>
>> The charge conversion factor cancels in the extracted ratio, which is
>> actually an advantage because it means the test can be carried out with
>> ordinary calibrated lab measurements.
>>
>> Another important correction is that the paper now separates total
>> terminal capacitance from the metallic topload share. In other words, it
>> distinguishes C_term from C_top. That was necessary so the experiment does
>> not reduce to a trivial restatement of ordinary continuity using the same
>> total charge on both sides.
>>
>> The updated paper also adds several practical safeguards:
>>
>> 1.
>>
>> transfer-function de-embedding for the voltage and current channels
>> 2.
>>
>> a single defined ground-return path so the integrated current really
>> means what it is supposed to mean
>> 3.
>>
>> an explicit streamer/corona gate
>> 4.
>>
>> intentional coupling sweeps rather than assuming coupling away
>> 5.
>>
>> replication under more than one drive modality
>>
>> So the update was necessary because I found a dimensional inconsistency
>> in the earlier draft and corrected it before asking anyone else to spend
>> time or money on a build. The core idea did not go away. The paper is now
>> more rigorous and more falsifiable.
>>
>> For builders, the practical message is still straightforward:
>>
>> -
>>
>> broad base, narrow top
>> -
>>
>> smooth topload
>> -
>>
>> no-streamer operation
>> -
>>
>> measure voltage and ground-return current on the same cycle
>> -
>>
>> compare trumpet geometry against a cylindrical control
>>
>> The updated paper is here:
>>
>> https://zenodo.org/records/18906297
>>
>> If anyone on the list wants to try a modest build or even just discuss
>> practical measurement methods for C_top, V_pk, or the ground-return current
>> channel, I would be glad to compare notes.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> David W. Thomson
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list -- tcml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to tcml-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx