Re: Questions for the simulators.

Comments below.

Tesla List wrote:

> Original Poster: Eddie Burwell <eburwell-at-HIWAAY-dot-net>
> Bart, your data is beautiful, I just wish it included more coils that
> deviate from the norm.

Data is on it's way (and some do deviate from the norm) but not from the shape
(yet). I have recently contacted around 150 coilers for data and it's
coming in.
BTW, if anyone did not receive an email from me for stats of your system, it's
only because I did not have your email address or I had an old one. I will
post to
the List asking for stats once I get past the surge of data that is coming
in at
the moment (time management).

>  As for shaping the secondary, I give an hour glass
> only as an example. My thought is that the shape of the coil could be used
> to improve the field shaping for the purpose of increasing the maximum arc
> length possible before secondary breakdown. From my brief readings on HV
> pulse transformer design I gleaned that sharp field gradients near the
> secondary windings are not desirable. Perhaps someone could use a field
> solver to explore the possibilities(Jim??? Any other takers?).

Well, I can't comment much (no knowledge in that area) but I do beleive field
shaping does play a role in arc performance, so who knows. Although myself
and I'm
sure most others have thought about secondary shaping, I doubt many of us have
actually gone as far as to build a coil with a shape that is something
other than
a cylinder since cyclinders are just plain easy to come by. I would
consider it
unexplored area.

> Another possibility would be a secondary that transitioned from a flat
> spiral to a cylinder. A highly coupled coil could be made without the
> breakdown risks of a cylindrical secondary inside a conical or helical
> primary. This arrangement would be like a hybridized pulse transformer and
> resonator.

The breakdown risks on a high coupled system will occur not necessarily
from the
pri/sec proximity, but from the output terminal down the secondary to relative
ground. Coupling over 0.2 is acheived, but rarely, and usually not beyond

> Food for thought,
> Eddie Burwell

More food for thought,