## Resonant Current Ballasting (RCB) for Alternator TC /Pt 1

Expand Messages
• I have to admit that I have a fascination for the alternator powered tesla coil idea, so some efforts to place possible components in place have took place
Message 1 of 1 , Dec 18, 2001
I have to admit that I have a fascination for the alternator powered
tesla coil idea, so some efforts to place possible components in
place have took place using the radio shack Mega speaker cable
spirals. I am working the possibilities out for the pole pig
transformer that powers a binary resonant primary tank circuit.

Now this BRS tesla tank circuit has already been demonstated to
work with functioning of the Megacable spirals where the theorized
frequency would be in the 300,000 hz range, but the secondaries of sr
fe design, with large internal capacitance as the mechanism to place
its frequency down to that of the primary. This did not work, so now
the Binary Resonant Tesla coil primaries are again calculated.

Using .642 mh = 6.42*10^-3 H and .75 nf/2 = .325 nf = 3.25*10^-10 F
as the factors the circuit sees during arcing to be the factors to
determine the resonant frequency, we find that

R(f) =1/2 pi * sq rt LC where LC = 20.865 *10^-13 and sq rt LC= 1.44
*10^-6
multiplying this by 2 pi yeilds 9.07 * 10^-6 of which its reciprocal
yeilds 110,237 hz, not the xpected 300,000, so this is noted as
possible past mistake to be looked into again.

Since the L and C quantities the circuit sees are different between
open and close swith made by arc, it becomes imporatnat to note the
LC values also on open switch. It is assumed that L stays the same
by mutual induction, or actually it is given the the value L/2 and C
is doubled, thus LC remains constant.

This is because prior to arcing two parallel branches exist, where
each opposite pole pig secondary potential has direct connection to
both L and C as separate branches, thus two C values have direct
contact to those values, and charge up to opposite polarities. Since
for a tesla primary application, where L and C are not resonant to
the source frequency, the source frequency sees predominantly
capacitive reactance, and the small cancellation of reactance made by
the primaries is of no consequence. Thus before arcing we have two
parallel reactances adding to 2C. During arcing the circuit then sees
twice the inductance that the single side has as a component because
the two former inductive reactance components in parallel have now
been converted to the series configuration. Likewise the predominant
current flow branches of remaining capacitive reactance, far in
excess to their attached primaries inductive reactance, during arcing
become reactances in series, thus reducing the capacitive reactance
value to the estimation of C/2.

Now since the inductive reactance is small compared to the
capacitive, a special situation would seem to be indicated in making
comparisons to the BRS. In the BRS, the arc, and its possible
measured amperage consumptions, can be modeled by the amperage
conduction at midpoint short, which turns the dual parallel 180
phased series resonances essentially into two tanks in series, with
2Q squared more impedance, meaning a small current doubling to be
measured across midpoint pathway.

However since the BRS Tank circuit actually charges two caps up to
source potential, and then discharges them at twice the voltage
interaction, it would be bettter to call this a Marx bank tank. This
in more in accordance with the terminologies that tesla coilers can
accept or understand. They sure as hell dont understand RESONANT
CURRENT BALLASTING, so thats what becomes the issue for now.

When I am done with things, I ought to get an actual voltage rise to
the primary of transformer, by RCB, as we can nickname it. I started
working on this at the yearly NE Ohio teslathon. Later I did produce
the running primary(Marx tank discharge, as suggestions for a better
name are welcome!) arc gap, using 14 gauge coils of
10 mh on each phase of alternator, with the pole pig primary placed
as a midpoint path between the LC
resonances.

A funny thing happened then, the observations didnt match the theory.
Now I had noted that the amperage to be made to the primary, if two
phases of the ordinary 12 ohm DSR were used, would be minimal if we
modeled that pig primary amperage as a short. As I have seemingly
discovered, there is a real problem with defining the amperage
measured at short with the conventional definition I once thought
applied, in that the internal branch must be "current limited" by the
outside impedances placed across that branch. Now according to that
definition at a certain applied voltage, the current being observed
across the "inside branch, which becomes known as a interphasal
pathway with two alternator resonant phases, or delta series
resonant, or DSR phasings" would be at a maximum measurement with a
short placed on that branch. Now that observation itself, when the
impedance itself of the outside branches is the limiting factor, IS
THE SOLE BASIS FOR THE CONCEPT OF POLE PIG BALLASTING FOR TC PRIMARY
USAGE.

It is by no means RCB, so let these differences be explained. First
let us return the the vast impedance differences of L and C, ONLY
TOWARDS THE SOURCE FREQUENCY. The L quantity essentially is a short,
because it has small reactance to the source frequency. Two standard
methods initially made by N Tesla in CSN in 1899 show that the first
method has fallen in disfavor, and Terry Fritz of tesla list has
shown that the unfavored method produces bad kickback effects to
input NST transformer. So everyone else neglects that first method,
INCLUDING EVEN TESLA? Perhaps he needs to get back here in a sort of
reincarnation to make that possibility viable. All joking aside, I
have often entertained the fact bounced around in a mind cage, that
this was my job. So if it is my job, better to get it done as soon as
possible before someone else does it!

To return to the obvious picture, the current measured in a short,
(interphasally between resonances) DOES have the distinction of being
limited by the outside impedances. HOWEVER THOSE OUTSIDE IMPEDANCES
ARE THEMSELVES DETERMINED BY THE SHORT. It is the short itself that
makes the circuits a tank with that line being shared by two tank
resonances. Here we have the placement of an object as load that also
changes the limiting impedances that govern how much current limiting
can take place! Now a mere resistance will probably obey the current
limited laws,(DUH, I dont know for sure, since nothing can be taken
for granite), but a resonance stacked within a resonance as the
interphasal pathway does appear to violate those laws, if I am not
mistaken, which has often happened in suppositions. THE REASON THAT
MORE CURRENT CAN EXIST ON THAT(CURRENT LIMITED) PATHWAY THAN EXISTS
WITH A SHORT FOR EQUAL VOLTAGE INPUT, IS THE FACT THAT IMPEDANCE
PLACED ON THE INSIDE BRANCH, MAKES THE OUTSIDE BRANCHES APPEAR WITH
LESS IMPEDANCE, thus changing the original current limiting
considerations shown with a short. The more "impedance" we add as a
load, the more the resonance acts as a high voltage transformation to
that load, as previously described as a resonant transformer in first
archived postings.

Now going by the 'current limiting on interior branchways hypothesis'
the 12 ohm DSR would not allow enough current for a pole pig
transformer to power anything so the reactance was decreased 10 fold
by setting up single coil resonances on two phases. These were tried
with 10 mh 14 gauge coils using 10 uf for resonance, with reactance
tests of both components confirming resonance, since at typical
voltage application, only 60 ma could exist on interphasal with the
12 ohm DSR, this was replaced with single coil 1.2 ohm DSR's. Without
being certain we could also deduce that even with single coils, the
short amount of amperage across the interphasing of pole pig primary
would still still be inadequate, since the short in that condition
should have only delivered only 10 times more current at .6 amps.
This however was adequate to get the marx bank tank primary to work.

Now in that situation a PECULIAR THING was noted. I think I had
measured 25 mh for pig primary/open secondary then, which may had be
a mistake since that may have been the 1.5 KVA observation, but i NOW
READ 34 mH, so the archived info of a 3.6 greater than expected
impedance of 10 KVA pig primary @ 480 hz may be wrong. The old
Wavetech LCR meter must be acting up again, and at one pt some time
ago, I more or less determined that being in the mere prescence
strong fields, especially those spatial resonant high induction coils
was not good for the LCR meter, causing wide variations in its
values. In any case I should post it to tesla list for observation,
such as how can the 1.5KVA open secondary transformer register 25 mh,
and the 10 KVA only register 34. A minus sign was also there, so
perhaps the batteries need looked at.

But back to the subject here, the amperage consumption of two C
quantities in series can be shorted by a loop on one of those C
values, whereby the voltage across the shorted component goes
minimal, and the amperage is doubled, since C must have gone in half
by the short. If we again do this to the second C value in series, we
would have effectively placed the entire voltage source to short.
Essentially the shorts are actually the comparatively small inductive
reactances placed on either side of the twin ray, or resonant and
yeilding saying given up some time ago, in favor of the binary
resonant. In any case the application of HOW THINGS SHOULD WORK are
under way with experimentation directly from the alternator stator
with Mega Cable 4 series winds, where even further taking apart of
ideas cause things to be even further tore apart! There is also a
three dimensional winding approach to be tried for increasing q which
will soon be tried and reported upon. But here the considerations
involve using a low L value.

As it seems to be theorized, it is the L value of the(interior
pathway) load with respect to the L value of the outer DSR, that
determines whether the load recieves action as a step up of voltage.
In the case of 60 henry coils of 23 gauge wire it does somewhat a
job, but it should actually do one HELL of a better job in that
category, wherby if 18 gauge coils were made available, progress at
480 hz resoanance as far as q factors for voltage rise would be
probable.

But here the DISTRIBUTION factor of using TWO 10 mh coils across some
34? mh of pole pig meant that those ratios were not good, and in fact
unusual measured were resorted to make the circuit even work! Perhaps
it is a delusion induced by only using two of three phases of the WYE
based stator. Nevertheless the single phased 60 hz BRS observations
DO BECOME VERY QUESTIONABLE, as to what the resultant observations
should be when applied to alternator inputs. Great problems exist in
that category, so it may not be proper to allow the BRS idea to
govern all operations. The problems of deviances of parallel 180
phased high induction coil resonances with single phased alternator
inputs at 480 hz, are first noted that the parallel branchings of
predicted currrents do not seem to develope, and that another phase
of the alternator must be used to procur that function for opposite
voltage gain. However after making the voltage input from two of the
alternator phases to the pole pig primary, it was discovered that the
theory was BACKWARDS, OR EVEN INVALID FOR THIS CASE! The conventional
DSR arrangement, even for two of them is in the ORDERED direction of
LC, LC around the circle. The BISECTING LC MIDPT ROUTE, of couse is
termed interphasal for the simple fact that it connects the phases
between themselves. However for the first attempt at making the
logical test, it showed that only maximum current would go through
the outer branchways and hardly none would go through the pole pig
primary. Thus one phase's LC orientation to supply line connections
was turned around and it worked sufficiently to deliver INTERPHASAL
RCB, which was referered to as 60 DEGREE INTERPHASAL RCB.

Now it becomes evident that this 60 degree method must have only been
a consequence of the fact the OUTER
DSR L's were not small regard to the L pig primary load. So some
smaller inductances of 1/4 the first try are made as 4 spirals,
tested as a thought 2.25 mh. These spirals do not appear to resonate
as predicted, where by without analysing the whole situation I had
posted the following raving on tesla list. However I would think that
IF the L quantities are made VERY small, and the C quantities large
the resonance would NOT suffer. But apparently this is so, but a 20%
variance was discovered today in further tests. I would think the
building of this low 1 ohm NEW OUTER DSR, might be using to be placed
behind the existing 12 ohm DSR for further voltage rise probability,
but for now 50 % losses, with some kind of indicated improvements for
that assesment will be reported upon.

Sincerely HDN

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:20:47 -0700
From: "Tesla list" <tesla@...>
To: tesla@...
Subject: Spiral Architect/ alternator inputs @ 480 hz.

Original poster: "harvey norris by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla@...>" <harvich@...>

Have now aquired 5 of these dual flat cable speaker
windings which of course come in pairs of wire for the
production of two ended currents demanding a return
line ect. They are available at Radio Shack with a
costly price of 19.99 a clip, if I remember right, as
a Megacable Flat Speaker Wire wound spiral from the
box.

The spirals can be lined up in a row and windings
measured a layer at a time for inductance, as they are
connected in series, and placed together for mutual
inductance.

on a 4 layer, total 2 coil reading:
1 layer-172 uh
2 layer-642 uh
3 layer -1.33 mh
4 layer -2.28 mh

The exponential rise of inductance with amounts of
equation.

So we have a relatively small length of wire of 200 ft
containing only 1 ohm for the total resistance, and
indicating 2 and 1/4 mh inductance.

Having an alternator AC input of 480 hz I then merely
connected the proper capacity of some 48 uf in series
with results of only 50% of real currents and
resonant voltage rise to enable the predicted currents
that would actually develope according to the L and C
values given for the circuit.

Usually those kind of deviances are attributed to the
REAL vs IDEAL predictions made by equation, and the
equation only model what should happen by amperage and
voltage considerations of resonance.

Now usually those disclaimers seem valid for the case
of interwinding capacitances enabling a lack of
resonance capability by great amounts of this
interwinding capacitance that does not seem to be
negotiated away by the opposite reactance in
cancellation. For a 20,000 wind coil on 5 inch air
core of 23 gauge wire, there is a marked decrease of
ability to resonate, going from 60 hz to 480 hz.

At 60 hz the best resonance obtainable is 4/5ths the
ohms law value, but at 8 times the frequency made by
480 hz by alternator inputs this only becomes 1/40th
the value.

In many respects, the laws of resonance are only
indicated as the actions exercized by IDEAL
components, but when the REAL components are shown as
actions, in most every case, resonance is never
realized to the full extent made by the case with the
ideal components.

Usually it is the case that the shorter amount of wire
used makes for the acting in the ideal manner, where
the real conduction that results is closely in
accordance with those predictions.

It may very well be that the PVC of the wire
insulation between windings is the factor for not
acheiving resonance, where typically the idea of
trying both larger and smaller quantities of C can be
tried to see if this 50% conduction barrier, itself
guaranteed by resonance, can be made.

Sincerely HDN

=====
Binary Resonant System http://members3.boardhost.com/teslafy/

Note/ Unfinished Tesla List entry at messageboard deals with some
issues of the dual spiral as dual tank adaptation. I will also
repost this soon. HDN
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.