Re: HF sparks

From: 	John H. Couture[SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
Sent: 	Thursday, July 31, 1997 5:18 PM
To: 	Tesla List
Subject: 	Re: HF sparks

At 01:30 PM 7/31/97 +0000, you wrote:
>From: 	Peter Electric[SMTP:elekessy-at-macquarie.matra-dot-com.au]
>Reply To: 	elekessy-at-macquarie.matra-dot-com.au
>Sent: 	Thursday, July 31, 1997 7:18 AM
>To: 	Tesla List
>Subject: 	Re: HF sparks

>>From my own observations so far and from other peoples posts I am
>inclined to agree with all of your points except number 3. In the past,
>folk seemed to have built Tc's using the clasic formula for Capacitance
>vs input power and these have have been good performers. Recently
>though, Bert pool and others seem to have been using relatively small
>caps with higher break rates and getting very impressive results.
>Maybe not quite in the same league but I have recently re-fitted my 3
>1/2" 15KV 60Ma TC with a .01uF cap after blowing up my .015uF earlier.
>After re-tuning the primary, the forced air gap seems to fire faster but
>the length or appearance of the sparks seems to be the same (about 30"
>with my present  20" by 8" toroid).
>I am about to wind a new 6" secondary and I intend to leave all other
>parameters the same so it will be interesting to see if the lower freq.
>produces a longer spark?
>Cheers, Peter E.
    Peter E.

  Try using 365 KHZ for your operating frequency. This is a possible optimum
frequency for 900 watts input that coilers have used in the past. This comes
from the equation

       KHZ = 3032.5 x W^-.2767 - 96.4       W = watts input

  The primary and secondary tank parameters would be found using the equation

      KHZ = 1/(6.283 sqrt(LC))

   Design the system so it can be adjusted in operating frequency about plus
or minus 20%. Test using spark length. Post your results on the T. List. You
will be the first person to determine if the coilers in the past were doing
it right.

    John Couture