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

RCB2/Internal Stator Limitations noted by Paul Nicholson

Expand Messages
  • harvich
    An added dimension of the effect of driving a low resistance tank q WITHOUT considering how low a resistance that the stator emf source has as R(int) has
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 21, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      An added dimension of the effect of driving a low resistance tank q
      WITHOUT considering how low a resistance that the stator emf source
      has as R(int) has instigated a new line of thinking to explain lack
      of tank resonance. Following is tesla list reply thanking Paul N for
      pointing this out.

      : Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:53:48 -0700
      From: "Tesla list" <tesla@...>
      To: tesla@...
      Subject: Re: Spiral Architect/ alternator inputs @ 480 hz.

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

      --- Tesla list <tesla@...> wrote:
      > Original poster: "Paul Nicholson by way of Terry
      > Fritz <twftesla@...>"
      > <paul@...>
      > Harvey,
      > If I follow your post correctly, you've got 2.28mH
      > resonating with 48uF, you're driving the two in
      > series
      > with an alternator at 480Hz, and you're getting a
      > poor
      > resonance?
      Yes, there appears to have actually been about 27%
      more inductive reactance than the LCR meter reading of
      2.28 mh would predict. Shorting both L and C
      components individually so that they both seemed to
      provide equal conductions yeilded a better combination
      yeilding 35 uf used for the conduction, but the q
      voltage rise factor never seems to go past 4, when 7
      is needed to cause conduction at ohms law resonance,
      for it to act in the ideal component fashion.

      Now this seems perplexing because I seem to recall
      using 14 gauge 10 mh coils before where using ~10 uf
      the coils would act in the ideal fashion and allow
      ohms law conduction. The 10 mh coils in resonance on
      two alternator phases with a 10 KVA pole pig primary
      as a load between the midpoints of those resonances,
      fashioned as 60 degree resonances as LC connections to
      the dual stator supply line served to act as a sort of
      current limiting to the pole pig,for TC primary
      application, but only a distribution of all stator
      voltages with losses across the L components of the
      (outside)resonances occured. Yet the same or similar
      dual delta series resonant current ballasting method
      applied to a NST primary did produce a voltage rise to
      the primary, but the application would not run the
      same arc gap as the pole pig transformer could with a
      mere 15 volts across its secondary at 480 hz, because
      of the current limiting problems with a NST secondary
      which suffers a 8 fold reduction of normal 60 hz
      current limited values at 8 times the frequency.

      So the work investigating the spirals are that they
      would then be a far lower inductance with relationship
      to that of the pole pig to TC primary impedance as it
      gets delivered as a interphasal load across the two
      phases, thus the NST example should be repeatable for
      the pole pig example by simply using low L values for
      the outside resonant components.

      Since the alternator itself delivers less the
      household voltage values, and 20 volts is more or less
      ideal application for alternator AC output, a
      preliminary voltage rise on outside phasing components
      that will pull larger amounts of amperage, and also
      deliver a voltage gain to the input transformer is
      hoped for in this approach. I seem to read 34 mh for
      the pole pig primary, so in the former testings using
      the two 11 mh coils, no voltage rise, but only voltage
      distribution developed because the impedance of the
      primary load appeared large to the individual
      reactances themselves acting as current limiters to
      the primary. Additionally the amount of current drawn
      at short between the resonances was not an appreciable
      quantity for practical TC application, (using 10 mh
      coils) By geting lower L values and R to resonate with
      the stator outputs, this would seem to be a correct
      > Have you taken into account the internal resistance
      > of
      > the alternator? The Q is 6.283 * 480 * L / R, which
      > comes out at around Q=7 if you take as R the 1 ohm
      > resistance of the coil. But really you have to add
      > the
      > alternator's internal resistance to get the total R,
      > and if thats just a few ohms it will completely
      > dampen your resonance. Have you measured the output
      > impedance of your alternator at 480Hz, and are you
      > including that in the total circuit resistance when
      > you predict the performance?
      > Cheers,
      > --
      > Paul Nicholson
      > Manchester, UK

      No I haven't and thanks for pointing it out. I have
      since retuned the coils for what should be a higher
      voltage gain, but there is still not the correct
      value tried for series resonance. Since the resistance
      of the source emf stator seems to be about 1/3 of the
      load, perhaps it is correct to think one volt will not
      produce one amp on a 1 ohm resonant circuit, but
      rather the total resistance being possibly 4/3 rds
      higher, the source must be current limited to to 3/4
      of the previously calculated ohms law value of
      conduction that should be available at series
      resonance, for this 3 fold ratio example for ri(int)
      vs r (load)or thats how I seem to be interpreting
      things here. The stator resistance reading seems to
      fluctating quite a bit, and perhaps the 50% lack of
      conduction might be better explained by actually
      taking into account the added supposed impedance of
      the source stator phase, itself measured .23 mh, and
      for this example, that should only increase the total
      inductance of the situation 10 %,if we view that
      inductance being in series rather than parallel to the
      inductance being resonated,if that is the correct way
      to view it. Thus the C value derived for resonance
      might be retried at a 10 % lower level then the normal
      resonant values being tried. However tank circuit
      tests in parallel resonance show a fairly meaningless
      curve, where the impedance level the stator sees
      will remain constant, but the current conductions
      inside the the loop keep going up when using
      35-48 uf which were tried in 1 uf additions of tank
      circuit where the circuit seems to yeild a Q of 5 fold
      reduction of outside amperage input to currents
      inside the loop, but no marked point of further
      impedance increase after a certain point where that
      might again be due to internal source emf
      considerations. Thanks for pointing this internal emf
      consideration out Paul!
      Sincerely HDN
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.