Re: Superconducting magnifier

To: "'Tesla List'" <tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Superconducting magnifier
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 06:38:09 -0600
Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net


From: 	Malcolm Watts[SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
Sent: 	Wednesday, November 05, 1997 12:39 AM
To: 	Tesla List
Subject: 	Re: Superconducting magnifier

Jim all,

> From:   Jim Lux[SMTP:jimlux-at-earthlink-dot-net]
> Sent:   Tuesday, November 04, 1997 10:13 AM
> To:     Tesla List
> Subject:    Re: Superconducting magnifier
> 
> 
> > As I understand it the superconducting effect is destroyed by intense
> > magnetic fields because they destroy the electron coupling. Since
> > powerfull feilds are the aim in Tesla coils, I don't think that any sort
> > of superconducting system could work, sorry to dash your hopes, but
> > that's physics for you.
> 
> I don't think the magnetic field in a tesla coil would be high enough to
> quench the superconductor.  Your problem would be constructing a dewar that
> is insulating electrically for the voltage required, and will still hold
> the LHe or LH2, and not pick up too much frost on the outside. Perhaps a
> little creative glass blowing? And, as I recall, most LHe dewars have a
> radiation baffle(s) inside as well as LN2 layers. I am not up on the latest
> in LHe dewar technology though; with all the superconducting MRI's there
> has been a lot of development on LHe cryostats and refrigerators.
> 
> However, submerging the tesla coil in LN2 might be interesting. LN2 is a
> fairly good insulator, it is cheap ($.30/gal in large quantities, $2.00/gal
> in small) and at 77K, the resistance of the copper windings will be very
> low, so you should get real low losses and very high Q, which should give
> you good performance.

I fear the primary gap will kill your aspirations rather quickly.

Malcolm