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

RE: Arc length vs pwr

Hi all,
        When I first started coiling I used to think these figures 
were the thing....

> The TCD Manual graph shows typical Tesla coil spark lengths vs wattage as
> follows: 
> 
> 500 w/11 in, 1 KW/20 in, 2 KW/32 in, 5 KW/64 in, 10 KW/110 in

I now think these figures are seriously out of date. I have personally 
done better than the 2kW figure at 720W and others have done better 
still. I think it possible that some of the work I and others are 
currently doing is going to show further improvement still.

> In the TCD Manual I guesstimate that the theoretical spark length
> for magnifiers would be up to about 1.5 times the classical coil
> length. However, I have not seen data to indicate this is possible
> when rigid test comparisons are made.

I think you should be looking at lengths for a given k and gap 
configuration rather than any particular secondary/tertiary 
configuration for a given power level. Other variables are also 
relevant - e.g. peak power, PRF.... 

> Note that the spark lengths shown by the graph can vary greatly
> depending on several factors. For example, spark lengths for the
> same wattage are greater with pole transformers than for neons.

I can see no reason why this should be true. Power is power. What
reason/s support that statement?

> Also, the spark lengths are increased when the Tesla coil primary
> voltage and/or the secondary coil inductance are increased, etc.

I agree with the primary voltage bit but I'd like to see a reason
for the second assertion.

Malcolm

Dan wrote....
>     This can't be correct. My current coil uses a 1KW  (9KV+120Ma)
> neon sign transformer with .03 uF of tank capacitance. My secondary
> is 4.5" dia with 937 turns of 24 AWG magnet wire. My secondary inductance
> is 19.88988 MH. And my toriod capacity is about 12 pF. My Resonate
> frequency is 252 KHZ and my max sustained spark length is 30". My max
> strike distance measured is 35-36". Unless my neon is not shunting the
> current correctly, there is something incorrect about these calculations.
> 
> D. Gowin