RE: neon vs. potential transformer

To: "'Tesla List'" <tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com>
Subject: RE: neon vs. potential transformer
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:01:38 -0500
Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net

From: 	FutureT-at-aol-dot-com[SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
Sent: 	Wednesday, July 16, 1997 8:47 AM
To: 	tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: 	Re: neon vs. potential transformer

In a message dated 97-07-16 12:08:55 EDT, you write:

<< 
> I am intending to replace my 3 1/2" secondary with a 6" soon, so
> theoretically I should be able to run more turns on my primary as you
> suggest and hopefully get a bit better performance. I also have a theory
> that lower freq coils seem to produce longer spark - have you found this
> to be so?

> Cheers,

> Peter E.
  >>

Peter,

I did some testing of the low frequency idea, but I didn't see much 
improvement...I had hoped I would have seen an improvement since
skin effect and radiation losses are lower at lower freq.  Still, I like the
idea of low frequency operation.  There might not be too much 
difference between 100kHz and 250kHz, but if you go high enough, like
800kHz, the spark will probably weaken and start to take on a flame-
like appearance. 

John Freau