[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Secondary Coil Turns



----------
From:  Michael Nolley [SMTP:mhnolley-at-willamette.edu]
Sent:  Friday, June 12, 1998 9:39 AM
To:  Tesla List
Cc:  'Tesla List'
Subject:  Re: Secondary Coil Turns



On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Tesla List wrote:

> 
> ----------
> From:  Barton B. Anderson [SMTP:mopar-at-uswest-dot-net]
> Sent:  Monday, June 08, 1998 8:22 PM
> To:  Tesla List
> Subject:  Re: Secondary Coil Turns
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Tesla List wrote:
> 
> > ----------
> > From:  Steve Young [SMTP:youngs-at-konnections-dot-com]
> > Sent:  Saturday, June 06, 1998 10:45 PM
> > To:  Tesla List
> > Subject:  Secondary Coil Turns
> >
> > To all,
> >
> > In many postings I have read, the general advise is to not exceed about
> > 1,000 turns on the secondary of disruptive TCs.  For example, Bert Pool's
> > excellent "Building Conventional Tesla Coils" states secondary coils should
> > be at least 400 turns, but no more than 1,000 turns.
> >
> > Question:  If the length to diameter ratio is kept within reason (3-5:1),
> > why not use 1,200 or 1,500 turns?  At least this would lower the operating
> > frequency which is advantageous, even if secondary voltage doesn't increase
> > much.  Has someone done experiments which indicate about 1,000 turns is the
> > point of diminishing returns?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for comments,
> >
> > --Steve
> 
> Steve, good question. This is one of those grey areas I've also wondered about.
> I'm suspecting that a coil with say 1,500 turns would build a pretty high dc
> resistance based on the length and the reduced wire diameter to keep a coil
> within "ratio's". Probably not advantagous. My secondary using 18awg, 12.5"
> diam., measured 16.2 ohms (calc to be 16.4ohms). I think it wise to keep the dc
> resistance as low as possible. I would like to comment more here, but there
> have been some fantastic postings recently which has got me re-thinking "every"
> aspect of how a TC operates. I hope others comment here and shed more "spark"
> on the statement of the 1,000 turn limit. Anyone?
> 
> Bart
> 
> 
 I would be interested to see how superconductivity research will affect 
TC's, laboratory built or otherwise, in the next couple of years.. 
eliminating losses due to resistance would magnify the output 
considerably.  I imagine, though that we're at least 10-15 years away 
since superconductors are notoriously difficult to engineer-- any 
comments on the implications, though?


		--Mike