Secondary Q values
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 1997 4:29 AM
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
> 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.
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.