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

Coil questions

Quoting DavidF4797-at-aol-dot-com:

> 2.) Richard Quick (who seems to be very knowledgeable about 
> these things) seems to like the Noon computer program for 
> calculating the basics of coil design.  

We should split a few hairs here for the sake of accuracy.
I use Walt's Tesla coil designer as a simple, fast, number
cruncher to predict and examine the basic parameters of my own
coil designs both before and after coil systems are built. I have
found this program to be accurate (+/- 10%) in calculating tank
circuit and secondary coil resonant frequencies. It is fast,
covers a wide variety of calculations, and does not kick out the
input data with error messages stating that the coils are
inherently defective. Once you use this software, and can
interpolate the output data by comparing to measured systems, you
can actually tune a coil using the software by localized the tap
point on the primary.

> He, and others, however, also say that the shape of the primary
> [inverted conical helix, and flat pancake] and the resulting 
> improved coupling charactoristics and uniform excitation of
> the secondary will "blow away other designs by producing bigger
> sparks with much less input power." 

True.

> In using the Noon software, however, I noticed that the 
> softwares' calculated output voltage for any Tesla coil 
> secondary is directly related to (and only to) the input power
> (wattage) of the driving supply.  This seems to indicate to me
> that either Mr. Quick or Mr. Noon is incorrect. (I suspect that
> Mr. Quick has the right idea).  If this is so, how would one 
> modify the answer supplied by the Noon software so that it 
> might more accurately represent the output voltage of a 
> properly coupled and uniformly driven coil set? 

These results are only going to be obtained by incorporating
greater bodies of empirical data into the software. I have yet to
meet any software that can predict this with any real accuracy.
In my opinion, given the number of variables present, it is
really folly to try. The programmer would be better off spending
the time building coils.

Quoting Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>:
Subject: Re: v/meter

> I have to give a here...here to that one!  Man if I had a buck
> for every volt/inch or watts/foot proclamation I have heard 
> since I got in this business, I could go to Paris for the 
> summer!

> There is NO repeat NO definitive statable volt per inch or watt
> per foot general rule under any even a narrow range of 
> circumstances.  Only a single specific circumstance!!!!  You 
> can't move even a pinch off what you've got or the statement is
> now a joke.  there are probably 10 variables with affect any 
> result, virtually none of which are transferable to an average
> situation.

> We can state these generalizations, but they lead us into a 
> position of having to crab or yield when someone else shows our
> proclamations to be in error and then they, in their turn, are
> shown to be just plain wrong, too.

> I would always hate to say "give it up".  But, hey, this is as
> close to a totally lost scientific cause as I have ever seen. 
> Is even 10% good enough?  Is 10% by calculation or even general
> rule really realizable?

> Air is of variable pressure and humidity.  Surface areas and 
> geometries of electrodes vary from one instance to the next.  
> Frequency and wave shape play a significant role in arc length. 
> Finally, as stated above, the word "ARC" is the quintesential 
> definition of NON-LINEAR!    Richard Hull, TCBOR

Thanks Richard!

Richard Quick

... If all else fails... Throw another megavolt across it!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12