The Tesla Project

[allcanadian]

@ wattsup
You are correct, the diode will conduct current (+) with the arrow of the diode pointing in the direction of the current----- it will also allow electron flow( - ) to travel in the opposite direction against the arrow--- there are always two flows, electron flow and current flow. It should be known however that electron flow is the "cause" of current flow, if no electrons move there can be no current which should raise questions as to what "electric current" really is. I believe Walter Russell left us a clue---

"All things are one, but made to appear as two extensions of the centered one"

In our project we have current entering a high inductance, the current is transformed into high potential (voltage) by a rapid collapse of the magnetic field---- a large potential difference(voltage) is generated which means there are many electrons in one area (-) and very few in another(+). My point in all of this was to show that we have to get past our preoccupation with only "current" flow and consider the electric fields as well ie.. electrons.

@Charlie_V
Anything I can tell you I got from reading Tesla's literature, Tesla's "Colorado Springs Notes" would explain more than I ever could. In regards to Tesla's "extra coil", it is not well known but this may have been a resonant coil, I mean mechanically resonant. Both ends would be attached firmly and the coil itself would vibrate mechanically and electrically, the resonant relationship between the two is unknown. I got this information from a website which I never bookmarked so I have no idea where to find it. The prospect of mechanical resonance certainly adds another dimension to his apparatus, If the space between the windings was varied we could also consider this space a variable capacitance as well 

P.S.--- the "spark gap" in the circuit I posted is a poor rendition of a switch 

[Charlie_V]

The equal amount of electrons makes sense for the mass equality.  I wonder how much more of an improvement it makes in the system?  Have you guys tested this by making a primary/secondary thats mass matched and one that isn't? 

Now about the extra coil, although the extra coil may have been mechanically oscillating, in his Colorado Spring notes he only ever mentions electrical oscillation.  Since he gives dimensions and period/frequency of the electrical signal, the length of his extra coil always matches 1/4 wavelength of whatever his electrical frequency is (I did the calculations for all the extra coils).  But adding a mechanical oscillation to the system would be pretty neat. 

When he winds the coils, any of them on the secondary side, he winds them with about 1 inch between windings and 2-3 inches for the last 5 or so.  He's doing this because if you wound them like a regular transformer (packed tightly) each winding would be very close to the next and when energized would be storing a portion of the energy as charge like a capacitor - aka the distributed capacitance of the coil.  He says he doesn't want this - calling it evil - because the more energy stored as charge in the coil, the less energy is allowed to bounce between its terminals.

In one of the experiments he notices that the bottom connection of the secondary coil is arcing over the lighting arrestors to ground.  He finds that a water pipe (actually he had the whole system grounded to the water line) has a standing wave generated upon it.  He takes a coil he had on hand (one that was tightly wound, the windings packed together) and attaches it to the water pipe, 500 feet from the transmitter, and is able to get a 1 inch spark from the top of the coil.  Although the coil was a 1/4 wavelength (which I calculated from the length he gave) of the frequency in the main oscillator, the self capacitance of the coil was way to large and it gave a very crappy resonant rise.  Later on he repeats the experiment with a better coil, after attaching the "new coil" as he calls it,  to the metal water pipe 500 feet away, he can get a spark of about 5 inches from the top of the coil, the resonant rise greatly increased. 

The extra coil, he discovered, greatly improved the resonant rise because it was not magnetically coupled to the primary.  Apparently, the primary acts to dampen the electrical resonance of the secondary - this is just what he says, I've never tested to see.  When you have an extra coil in place, the extra coil is far away from the primary, does not share in the mutual flux, and can "freely oscillate", meaning the damping factor in the electrical oscillation is very low.  AllCanadian, your oscilloscope pictures in the beginning of this forum show the resonant oscillation he was talking about.  You can see the dampening effect, the less capacitance you can make in your secondary coil, the longer it should oscillate before it dies down. 

What is the frequency you are using in your setup?  This is the equation Tesla uses to determine his frequency (Atleast this is what he used in his notes):

T = (2Ïâ,¬/10?)*(L*C)^0.5

Where T is the period (in seconds), L is the inductance (in henries) , and C is the capacitance (in farads).  The frequency will be 1/T.  Its very clear that when he began his Colorado experiments he was trying to do something very different than what he ends up doing in the end.  I think he was trying to break down the air between the ionosphere and his transmitter in the beginning - his first patents describe this I think.  Then he discovered you can create ground currents and he switched directions of his research.  Imagine using one wire as both the positive and return - no loop as in conventional circuits.  Its all possible with standing waves, atleast that's what I will attempt to reprove. 

[armagdn03]

@c Charlie_V

Thank you for your insightful and well written post! some things to think about. I am begining to go back through the springs notes and take note of his math, seems you are going down this road as we speak.

@all

I don't really recall Tesla using the word "electron" perhaps we should leave it out of our vocab for consistency. We need not talk about the water in waves to talk about the energy carried.

[wattsup]

@AC

Thanks for your explain. I am still iffy jiffy but hey, that's what a thick skull is for. lol

@Charlie_V

"Called it evil" - Roberto and Otto should read this as it  has bearing on the TPU 10 and even the ECD.

Regarding the formula, could you run an example calculation to show how to use this formula, so there are no misunderstandings.

Also, great post.

@all

OK here is the EC Trial #3, as far as I can best estimate, is how the primary side will work. Using a variety of caps with this scheme both on the primary and secondary side, the secondary output while running a 12 vdc bulb would light off the secondary and the voltage would hold steady at around 17 vdc. I did some 10 seconds starts-up without a load and voltages ranged from 34 to 81 vdc. Shit. All this is done and I'm only using some mA off the battery, and the battery when not used keeps going back up to around 12.6. I never recharged the battery through all my tests, I started at 12.8 and now I'm at 12.6.

Now for the secondary side relay...............

[allcanadian]

@armagdn03
I agree, I have regrets I even mentioned the "e" word, it has no place here.