Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

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

Expand Messages
  • harvich
    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.

      To show the inductance readings added for each layer
      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
      turns is nothing unusual at all, already made by
      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
      disclaimer made that the ideal quantities made by
      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.