Re: RE- Secondary wire & insu

• To: tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: RE- Secondary wire & insu
• From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
• Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 08:09:21 -0500
• Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net

Subject:       Re: RE- Secondary wire & insu
       Date:   Fri, 6 Jun 1997 18:07:40 +1200
       From:   "Malcolm Watts" <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
Organization:  Wellington Polytechnic, NZ
         To:   tesla-at-pupman-dot-com


Hi Robert, all,

>        From:  robert.michaels-at-online.sme-dot-org (Robert Michaels)
> Organization: Society of Manufacturing Engineers
>          To:  tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> 
<snip>
>         -- To compare wire enamels of 1907 (or whenever) to those of
>                 1997 is truly to compare persimmons and mangos.
>                 "Back then" they were little more than furniture
>                 varnish, their high-frequency electrical characteristics
>                 were ...?!?!?.   Today, wire enamels are specially
>                 designed and formulated for optimal electrical
>                 characteristics; it's a whole technology in itself.
> 
>         -- In all but the highest powered Tesla coils, the volts-per-
>                 turn of the secondary is apt to be below the breakdown
>                 voltage of the wire enamel.

Hear hear I say. I have tested 1mm Cu diameter polythermaleze coated
wire to withstand in excess of 8kVDC for short periods between 
adjacent wires. I would say at least 3kV/turn with this insulation 
thickness would be a go for TCs. Only high powered coils would come 
close to taxing this.

Malcolm
<snip>

• Prev: Re: Secondary wire & insulation
• Next: Compuserve limit
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread