Re: How should we measure coil efficiency, was neon vs. potenti
From: Peter Electric[SMTP:elekessy-at-macquarie.matra-dot-com.au]
Reply To: elekessy-at-macquarie.matra-dot-com.au
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 1997 6:55 AM
To: Tesla List
Subject: Re: How should we measure coil efficiency, was neon vs. potenti
Tesla List wrote:
> From: John H. Couture[SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 1997 2:08 PM
> To: Tesla List
> Subject: Re: How should we measure coil efficiency, was neon vs. potenti
> At 08:22 AM 7/23/97 +0000, you wrote:
> >From: Alfred A. Skrocki[SMTP:alfred.skrocki-at-cybernetworking-dot-com]
> >Reply To: alfred.skrocki-at-cybernetworking-dot-com
> >Sent: Monday, July 21, 1997 6:00 PM
> >To: Tesla List
> >Subject: Re: How should we measure coil efficiency, was neon vs. potenti
> Alfred -
> Where did you find that higher frequency gives shorter sparks? I believe
> it is the other way around. The higher the frequency the longer the spark.
> Energy = hf h = Planck's constant f = freq.
> From the above equation the energy increases as the frequency increases,
> other factors being equal. This would mean when the frequency increases the
> spark length increases.
> But frequency is a minor factor. The major cause of air ionization is the
> voltage and the higher voltages give longer sparks.
Have you actually built a TC or do you just read textbooks and recite
If you build a few you will find that Alfred is right here and the small
inductance, high freq. secondary TC's do generally produce shorter
sparks that are more "spray" like in appearance. I believe that the
really long, slow, branching discharges are only possible with lower
frequency, larger inductance secondaries. And, no, I can not produce a
formula to prove this!