Secondary Q values

To: "'Tesla List'" <tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Secondary Q values
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:10:36 -0500
Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net

----------
From: 	Greg Leyh[SMTP:lod-at-pacbell-dot-net]
Sent: 	Tuesday, June 17, 1997 11:36 PM
To: 	Tesla List
Subject: 	Re: Secondary Q values

John Freau wrote:

> 
> The efficient results that coilers have obtained using cardboard
> secondaries (with a Q of 10) seems to support this view.

A Q of 10???  What did they wind it with -- toaster wire??

> I agree that the often ignored area of power supply to TC matching,
> is an intriquing and important subject that warrants further research
> efforts.

If an unloaded Q of <100 would suffice, then it seems that the 
space-wound geometry with a small toroid would be the best approach, 
in order to achieve a lower L/C at the lowest cost. Why add extra turns
to the sec, if doing so only forces the addition of a larger toroid to 
compensate?  The extra turns do not add extra voltage.

-GL