[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: John Freau efficiency theory, apology?



Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <FutureT-at-aol-dot-com>

In a message dated 6/28/02 10:33:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
writes:

Greg,

No apology needed.  I didn't see your comments as a personal
attack or criticism, but merely as a search for the truth.  You
mentioned that your previous coils worked well, and I certainly
expect that they should.  Richard Hull's Nemesis coil was the
most impressive coil I've personally seen in operation. 

There's one point that I can't stress enough....  Slight changes
in the number of turns, (i.e, from 1000 turns to 1400 turns), aspect 
ratios, etc, *won't* make a *big* difference in performance.  The 
difference if often only 5% to 10% in spark length.  These 
differences can *only* be seen by directly comparing various 
designs.  In other words it's not so much that a certain design 
will work *poorly*, but rather that it may not be *optimal*.  
A person who simply wants a coil which works well can 
follow traditional methods and still obtain good performance.
My suggestions are only for those who desire the optimum 
performance.  No guarantees either.  I'm simply offering my
findings from my work. 

Cheers,
John


>
> Original poster: "Mr Gregory Peters by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <s371034-at-student.uq.edu.au>
>
> My last post was not a personal attack at John, nor was it questioning
> the validity of his theory. I was merely stating that his coil design
> guidelines go against many of the things that I have previously been
> told make  a good coil. My previous coil "education" came primarily from
> Richard Hull about seven years ago. He used to suggest low aspect ratio
> coils, with no more than 1000 turns of relatively heay wire. This
> contrasts to John's suggestion of a high aspect ratio coil with 1500
> turns of wire. Aside from my last coil, all my previously built coils
> have performed very well and were built using Richard's guidelines, so I
> couldn't see any reason to change my techniques. Now that I have fried a
> secondary, I am open to new ideas. I apologise if the last post was
> taken personally by anyone on the list, particularly John.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Greg Peters