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

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