[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
RE: Spheres vs Toriods
-
To: tesla <tesla-at-grendel.objinc-dot-com>
-
Subject: RE: Spheres vs Toriods
-
From: Richard Hull <whitlock-dot-com!RICHARDH-at-uucp-1.csn-dot-net>
-
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 96 09:34:00 PST
-
>Received: from valriva.whitlock-dot-com (valriva.whitlock-dot-com [198.69.64.3]) by uucp-1.csn-dot-net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA15314 for <grendel!grendel.objinc-dot-com!tesla-at-uucp-1.csn-dot-net>; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 07:34:36 -0700
-
Encoding: 60 TEXT
Jack,
The sphere is obviously the better terminal for voltage buildup, but it
offers zero electrostatic shielding or shanding of the top of the tesla
coils resonator. It is not stackable or attachable to a lot of systems
without boring holes in it. As you say, it is the most expensive form of
terminal to spin and weld to perfection. All of these points add up to the
sphere actually being the worst terminal for a Tesla coil. The fact that
the sphere or some form of oblate is both theoretically and in actuality the
ideal terminal for voltage standoff, doesn't mean beans if the coil hasn't
the proper shielding and field shaping to survive the rise of voltage that
the terminal can actually store.
The tesla coil is a form of pulse charged electrostatic generator or charge
pump when very large terminal capacities are used. This capacitance seems
to be best developed in Toroidial termnals provided large cross sectional
diameters are used. The superb field shaping action and stackability of the
toroid shape makes it the number one choice for Tesla coils.
Richard Hull, TCBOR
----------
From: tesla
To: 73041.2215; 73663.1536; BrittB7556; JHERRON; JOHNBATES3; abourass;
atech; av599; davide; funkadelic; jbiehler; jmonty; kg7bz; koppemha; logue;
mackte; nwtnmike; osburnw; pinsky; richardh; rmessick; rnicker; rwstephens;
shu95mmc; stevej; twill19; yiorgos
Subject: Spheres vs Toriods
Date: Wednesday, April 03, 1996 8:05PM