Re: [usa-tesla] Re: Ohms Law Value at Series Resonance?
- People who can do documentation are a vital link in the development of inventions. Since so many of our best inventors have no funding at all, we run into this situation too often. I've had the same problem as everyone else with this particular work -- looking at the pure text obviously isn't doing it justice.
If Mr. Norris happens to be anywhere around the places i travel, i'd be willing to stop by and take some pictures, write up some stuff, and get it out there. PESwiki would also be interested.
I live in Loveland, Colorado and regularly go all up and down the Front Range from Cheyenne to Denver, and by extension can materialize anywhere else in Colorado.
Later this month i'm planning on traveling to Albany New York, which means i'd be able to work in the Mohawk and Hudson Valleys, New York City, and New Jersey. Then am planning to spend a few days in Philadelphia working on the possible Tesla Days conference before returning here.
Most of my cross-country travel is on Amtrak so any place along a rail line could become a stop. Since this appears to be a sort of emergency, i'd just ask that somehow a place to stay & meals be provided while i'm on the project.
Sent: Apr 26, 2012 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Re: Ohms Law Value at Series Resonance?
None of this makes any sense at all without a diagram showing the actual configuration, the measurement points, and the measurements and predicted values for each point. Try that and we might have some sensible comments.
Harvey D Norris wrote:
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:
> Harvey. You are strongly overstating the dif between a freshman EE class, and a grad student level evaluation of a range of real applications. The freshman uses simple coil and capacitor models and does his lab demo with components that fall in the range where all the little idiosyncrasies do not apply. In fact, as all skilled and experienced EEs, and even some physicists, know, inductors and capacitors typically have a well behaved nearly ideal range of behavior,
If we took a single coil and then air core coupled it with another coil by mutual inductance, the inductive reactance of the first coil will be reduced. If we then used that lowered reactance and gave it an identical capacitive reactance, the current would never be able to reach its ohms law value expressed from the single coil. The Q factor of that coil could not reach the X(L)/R ratio. If it did all of the apparent VI input energy would have been used up,(because now in these ideal conditions VI=I^2R and no energy would be left over for the secondary to record any current. If it did there would be more power out then what went in. If the secondary were made more receptive by it also having a C value in its loop, this would further drive the primaries inductive reactance down again by a smaller margin. If the circuit were retuned again, the same thing would apply and the single inductor would deviate even more from its ideal behavior. However for just the single inductor without any other receptors in space around it, we are still confronted with the electric field between the windings, or the internal capacity of the coil. If the series resonance were ideal, ALL of the available electric field created by the series resonant rise of voltage would be in the capacitor, and none would be left over to manifest itself in the internal capacity of the coil.
I will clarify then the measurements made in http://www.youtube.com/wa
First the total current was measured for two 14 gauge coil spools in isolation and in series @ 2.6 ohms and given an opposing capacitive reactance within 1% of the needed value. Stopping the video at 1:06 shows those notes where it is indicated that
16.05 volts enables 5.11 A
Only 82.8% of the expected 6.17 A developes if the load were truly 2.6 ohms. The resonance has not come very close to its ohms law value at all. This to me is not operating in an ideal range of behavior. When I showed the circuit to my friend who nit pics and has an electronics associate degree, he protested that I was not counting the resistance of all the connecting wires, so I replaced all the capacitive alligator clips with tight 14 gauge wire connections. At 5:20 in the video most of these can be seen, but there would have to be some 170 ft of 14 gauge wire involved for his protest to be valid. Then he said the circuit wasn't perfectly balanced and the books can't be wrong. This too is invalid because the ratio X(L)/R is not large, thus we do not have a narrow bandwidth of resonance.
Next the cap bank was shorted to find the Impedance of just the inductive side. The variac supplying this voltage of the low end of its 150 volt range then showed 18.74 volts enabling 1.67 A for Z=11.22 ohms. After subtracting the squares to find the square of X(L):(Z^2-R^2=X(L)^2) for the actual 2.6 ohms resistance X(L)= 10.9 ohms
Lastly the inductive side was shorted to determine X(C).
Notice that the variac supply then rose to its highest value where 19.54 volts enabled 1.78 A, which gives X(C)= 10.97 ohms, within 1 % of the needed value. My electronics friend also noted the the wireless amperage meter was very accurate in comparison to meters he brought over, and it was very convenient to have both amperage and voltage displays on the same screen. My actual repeat of these observations on the video was unduly long due to inadequate preparation. I hope I have made my point here. If I had used actual alternator frequencies (~465Hz) for the demo, the discrepancies between ideal and real behavior would have been vast, as I had mentioned only ~30% of the expected amperage developed in that case.
Internal capacity must become more predominant at higher frequencies.
-- Michael Riversong Tesla Academy Fort Collins, Colorado www.teslaacademy.info rivedu@...