[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Secondary Q values
From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com[SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 1997 4:29 AM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Secondary Q values
In a message dated 97-06-18 01:41:58 EDT, you write:
< A Q of 10??? What did they wind it with -- toaster wire??
Someone had mentioned this Q value of 10, perhaps it was actually
higher. Has anyone "out there" measured the Q of their cardboard
secondaries? It would be interesting to compare with better plastics.
> > 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
>>
Greg,
Maybe the geometry you suggest above IS best overall, certainly your
coil which basically follows this approach gives excellent results. It
would be a great boon to TC construction if smaller toroids could be
used without penalty, (but I may be wrong about the needed Q).
Maybe I'll make this my next project -- to compare the two approaches.
Perhaps someone else will try these tests also -- seems like one of
the most important research aspects of the present.
John Freau