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

Tesla's "Obvious 3/4 wavelength 9/19/1899 comment"/ The Source Frequency Magnifi

Expand Messages
  • Harvey D Norris
    To: jlnlabs@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 To cite Tesla here from Sept 19, CSN, pg 191 on 6 different magnifier schemes; In Figures 5 And 6 it is
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 4, 2004
      To: jlnlabs@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004

      To cite Tesla here from Sept 19, CSN, pg 191 on 6
      different magnifier schemes;
      In Figures 5 And 6 it is found best to make extra coil
      3/4 wave length, and the secondary 1/4 for obvious

      At first reading of this entry, I was mystified, as it
      does not seem obvious to me at all why Tesla would say
      it was obvious, but to the rest of us it remains a
      mystery! The commentator of Tesla's volume of work,
      Marincic of Tesla Belgrade museum honoring Tesla's
      work also does not give a great clue to thinking here,
      where his entry clarifications in the CSN appendix
      usually provide valuable subsidiary information. If in
      fact Marincic would comment on that date, as to "WHY"
      something is obvious; he declines to do so in the CSN
      commentary. The magnifier scheme was of course an
      outside influence chanelled to an inside influence,
      where the "extra coil" was the "magnifier".

      Backtracking through things: I could myself make some
      comments here. In fact Tesla's ideas involving the air
      core transformer idea DO have significant analogies to
      ordinary science, although that may not be readily
      evident. Tesla's ideas about air core transformers
      seem to have ALWAYS involved transforming a lower
      source frequency, (ie 60 hz power grid these days) to
      a higher frequency, by means of an arc gap on the
      primary where the combination of the L and C values on
      that primary would dictate what high frequency was
      released by the arcing activity on the primary. The
      secondary would match that vibration because it
      "naturally" resonated at the frequency negotiated by
      the combination of L and C made on the primary via
      exciting arc gap, and essentially then in the making
      of a tesla coil, the correct combinations of L and C
      on the primary must be found to be in the correct
      parameters for the secondaries "natural" resonant
      frequency, where the secondaries vibration can also be
      changed by the addition of a globe or torus as the top
      terminal of the secondary. In this situation the
      primary has discreet L and C values, but the secondary
      does not so easily have these same discrete L and C
      values, and the secondaries options for changing its
      resonant parameters only includes the spacing between
      windings, or the addition of a polar capacity top
      load. Thus in the construction of a tesla coil, once
      the secondary is built, the rest of the job consists
      of matching the discreet primary L and C values to
      meet the requirements of the secondaries "natural"
      resonant frequency. One quantity can be varied,(the
      primary LC combination) but the other one, (the
      secondary) cannot easily be varied. Now enter the
      complication of the magnifier. Now we have a air core
      secondary AND the extra coil. The extra coil in fact
      is at a very far distance from the actual primary LC
      arc gap, but the actual secondary in the magnifier is
      not, where the secondary in the magnifier is "closely"
      coupled to the primary, whereas in the two element
      traditional tesla coil, the secondary is more
      "loosely" coupled to the primary, meaning a wider air
      gap exists between primary and secondary in the
      traditional two element air core resonator. To make up
      for the shortcomings in design of the magnifier a
      simple shortcut was made. There is traditionally a
      direct electrical connection, or what is termed a line
      coupling; by wire with the secondary top ending and
      the extra coil at its bottom ending, and because of
      this no "extraordinary" magic exists on that air core
      transformation, in fact the transformation of energy
      through air seems more sensible, since the distances
      between actual primary and secondary connections are
      reduced on THAT magnifier design. What PAUL HARVEY
      might say is the rest of the story, is what Tesla is
      speaking of on those entries of Colorado Spring notes
      of Sept 19th, 1899, is 6 different ideas of magnifier
      designs, and no.s 5 and 6 DO NOT CONTAIN a line
      connection or line coupling between the secondary and
      the extra coil. Additionally EVERY builder of Teslas
      magnifier system ALWAYS includes that line connection
      between secondary and extra coil, or the other
      combinations illustrated in figures 1-4 of the
      Colorado Spring Notes. Beyond this fact is also the
      mention that the modern builders of magnifier systems
      OR A COMBINATION OF SUCH. It is very plain that Tesla
      did NOT construct his magnifier system in that way, as
      his "extra coil" was in the confines of a much larger
      secondary ring, and so I am somewhat baffled at the
      construction of modern day magnifiers, that do not
      remotely resemble the construction principle of
      Tesla's actual magnifier system. This is why it is
      also noted that figures 5 and 6 are what should be
      termed "inductive only" magnifiers, since no line
      connections exist between those secondary components
      and the extra coil, save for their ground connections,
      and essentially that represents a tesla coil secondary
      WITHIN another secondary, making for TWO air core
      transformations, and not merely ONE. Here then the
      distinction between Tesla's statements on that date
      become more self evident. If the extra coil,
      containing finer wire then the bulky secondary of the
      fifty foot ring, also containing far more winds and
      length of wire then the extra coil, then the actual
      resonant frequency of the extra coil would be far
      lower then the actual resonant frequency of the
      secondary, and in fact Tesla notes that it should be a
      lower third harmonic frequency then what the secondary
      is actually tuned at via its primary LC combination.
      Thus the extra coil, being tuned at 3/4 wavelength,
      might have approximately three times the wire length
      that the actual secondary employed, which was
      ordinarily tuned at 1/4 wavelength, again via LC
      combinations of its primary values. But that comment
      only applies to the "inductive" only magnifier.

      Now some more apt comparisons to the current magnifier
      practice might also be compared. In fact the line
      coupled magnifier idea seems to have great merit. But
      first let a modern demonstration be made of Tesla's
      method be shown. We can take a frequency on the border
      of ferromagnetic effects, say 500 hz. We do not need
      to convert that to a higher frequency via an arc gap,
      instead we can directly use that 500 hz. We can make a
      primary consisting of L and C values. We then can also
      make a secondary consisting of discreet L and C
      values, which is not possible with high frequency
      transformers. In this situation TWO influences can be
      placed on the secondary, both that of the air core
      induction AND that of direct line coupling. In that
      situation both effects can be added to the secondary,
      just like Tesla's original magnifier design that
      employed BOTH effects. In the source frequency
      configuration however a most unusual effect can be
      shown. We can hook a neon to the secondary, so that
      when that secondary reaches a certain threshold
      voltage it will light the neon bulb placed as a load.
      We can then place the primary directly over the
      secondary, so that we imagine that maximum flux change
      between the primary and secondary should occur. The
      neon does not light at this position of closest
      interaction. Then we can slowly pull the primary away
      from the secondary, so then we imagine that the mutual
      induction between the components is decreasing. As we
      do this, if the secondary is tuned in the proper way,
      we find that after a certain distance between primary
      and secondary is reached, then the neon bulb lights
      up! The secondary actually gains more voltage as the
      flux linkage is decreased, BECAUSE IT CAN BE TUNED
      THAT WAY!, by choice of the appropriate C value the
      secondary is given. The secondary can actually be
      tuned to respond best when it is at a given distance
      away from the primary, and given that type of
      "distance" tuning it does not respond as well when
      given a higher flux linkage with the primary, which
      would then demand a different C value to work best in
      that space. Such "illogical" tunings are perfectly
      possible for source frequency air core
      interactions.The secondary has an impedance based on
      the distance between it and the primary: when both of
      those components have forced currents through them. We
      can actually tune that secondary to act in its best
      manner according to how the primary changes its
      impedance and how far that primary exists apart from
      the secondary. But this situation can only be sensibly
      seen and tuned when both components have a direct
      electrical connection to its source, or what is termed
      line coupled action. Remarkably in some circumstances
      we can sever the forced currents on the secondary, or
      its line coupled connections, and when the action of
      currents is given the neon load, and its currents
      negotiated solely from air core induction effects, we
      obtain more currents then would exist then if that
      secondary in fact did have a direct electrical
      connection to its source! In the most remarkable of
      demonstrations that resembles the triple resonant
      action of the line coupled magnifier, compared to
      tesla's high frequency magnifier applied to source
      frequency currents, we can take a tank circuit of
      twenty coils, and by directly line coupling those
      coils to the source of emf, we can obtain 20 ma
      current flow through those coils. Now we can compare
      this to the magnifier circuit. Now only two of the
      same coils are directly line coupled to the source, vs
      the former 20 coils. The amperage input of the source
      rises to 80 ma. That 80 ma undergoes resonant rise of
      amperage, where it acts as the primary of the air core
      transformer. The secondary acts to raise the initial
      voltage, and the third component then is the same set
      of twenty coils, again configured as a tank, which is
      line coupled to the secondary. In that secondary we
      also read 80 ma! The 80 ma that went through 20 coils,
      or sets of ten in parallel fashioned as a tank, first
      went through the air before reaching those coils, and
      those coils are not directly conected to the source of
      emf, they are only connected to the secondary by line
      coupling, where that secondary recieves its energy
      through the air via induction of a source emf that
      draws 80 ma. A tank circuit drawing 80 ma as the
      primary reproduces that same current on a tank coil
      system ten times the resistance of that same primary,
      so we have 80 ma input to a two coil tank, making the
      end result of the same 80 ma circulating through
      twenty identical coils configured as the same tank
      circuit, only it is ten times the resistance of the
      initial primary tank. If we then take the same twenty
      coil tank circuit; eliminate its connection as the
      third ending of the magnifier; and instead give it a
      direct connection to the same volatge source of emf,
      it then recieves one fourth the current at 20 ma! We
      obtain 4 times less current from the same voltage
      source through the direct line connections of the
      wire, then if instead the same currents are obtained
      through air? No wonder they call it a magnifier! There
      are of course some additional parameters involved here
      that make this perfomance possible, but the facts as
      stated seem to be true. Some of the things that make
      this phenomenal demonstration possible is that in the
      initial stage of step up of voltage in the air core
      transformer, the amp turns on the secondary exceed the
      amp-turns of the primary. Additionally the q factor of
      the tank circuit is almost doubled when driven from
      the second stage of the magnifier, vs when driven
      straight from the source of emf. If those subsidiary
      facts were not mentioned, along with others not
      mentioned; that output performance would be deemed

      Sincerely HDN
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.