[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: RE- Secondary wire & insu
Subject: Re: RE- Secondary wire & insu
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 04:32:43 +0500
From: "Alfred A. Skrocki" <alfred.skrocki-at-cybernetworking-dot-com>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
On Mon, 9 Jun 1997 09:28:04 +1200 Malcolm Watts
<MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz> wrote;
> Hello Alfred,
>
> > I wasn't making a wholesale dismissal of modern enamel insulation, I
> > was just pointing out that with the more efficient coils being built
> > there is no commercialy available insulation that will hold up with
> > out spacing the turns and personaly in comparing identical
> > secondaries with bare wire, modern enamel and double cotton coated
> > (all being coated with polyurethane when done) the coils wound
> > with double cotton coated wire perform better ie. longer discharge,
> > thicker sparks and more branching.
>
> Considering the normally high Q's of typical secondaries, how do you
> explain this performance?
I don't think the difference is related to Q, you can wind two coils,
one with bare wire and the other with cotton coated wire and if the
spacing between turns of the actual wire is the same the resultant Q
is going to be the same, but the cotton coated wire is going to have
better turn to turn insulation because the cotton is wicking up more
insulation between the turns and hence those coils are capable of
handeling greater turn to turn voltages. This seems in line with the
fact that the coil wound with enamel coated wire perform much better
than those wound with bare wire.
Sincerely
\\\|///
\\ ~ ~ //
( -at- -at- )
-----o00o-(_)-o00o-----
Alfred A. Skrocki
alfred.skrocki-at-cybernetworking-dot-com
.ooo0 0ooo.
-----( )---( )-----
\ ( ) /
\_) (_/