Tesla coil coupling and pole frequencies
Both poles for the general case, where primary and secondary are tuned to different frequencies, as they are in practice. The f/√(1±k) shortcut is only right at equal tuning, and the self-check line below shows the difference. It also tells you which pole a stock driver will sit on, and whether that changes during the ramp.
JavaTC gives the secondary's frequency with no arc and the coupling k from your coil's dimensions; the primary's comes from the primary tank page. Under an arc the streamer adds capacitance to the top and pulls the secondary down. That frequency cannot be calculated exactly, so the page estimates it from the arc's length and shows how much the estimate depends on the arc's capacitance per metre. If you have measured it, enter the measurement instead.
from (1 - ω₁²/ω²)(1 - ω₂²/ω²) = k² [lossless coupled circuits] ω±² = [ω₁²+ω₂² ± √((ω₁²-ω₂²)² + 4k²ω₁²ω₂²)] / [2(1-k²)] at ω₁=ω₂ this reduces to ω₀/√(1∓k) from a sweep (dips f₋, f₊, peak f_s): P = f₊²f₋², A = f₊² + f₋² f_pri² = P·f_s²/(A·f_s² - P) k² = 1 - f_pri²·f_s²/P under arc: f = f_sec·√(C_es/(C_es + c·l)), c = 4.14 pF/m (this site's fit on the reference coil's 1.5 m arc) or 8 (Mikkelsen's arc model) pole rule (davekni, Uspring): f_pri < f_sec → lower; f_pri > f_sec → upper 1 - k²/2 < f_pri/f_sec < 1: too close to call (simulated: upper)
The formula is lossless. Under arc load the ZCS points (the zeros of phase) no longer sit at these poles. Uspring showed that under heavy load there may be only one zero left, and otherwise there are three, the middle one unstable. Our circuit simulation (01.11.2026) puts numbers on it: three zeros appear whenever k²·Q₂/2 exceeds |1 - (f_pri/f_sec)²|, so at a coupling of 0.2 even with the two tuned 20 % apart. The zero nearer the primary's tuning moved under 0.5 % with load and the other up to about 3 %, and a zero-crossing driver never locked on the middle one.
It needs a tuned primary: DRSSTC or QCW. An SSTC with no primary capacitor has no poles in this sense.
The pole rule comes from two practitioners’ experience. It is not a theorem.