Re: Sonotube loss corrections

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Sonotube loss corrections
• From: Eddie Burwell <eburwell-at-HIWAAY-dot-net> (by way of Terry Fritz <twf-at-verinet-dot-com>)
• Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 22:26:50 -0700
• Approved: twf-at-verinet-dot-com

At 04:52 PM 1/8/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Original Poster: "Adam Parker" <park_e_r-at-hiwaay-dot-net> 
>
>Hey,
>As I've mentioned before, I've got ahold of one of those big sonotube-forms.
>According to Richard's Guide the Colorado Springs Notes (May I add that I
>HIGHLY recommend this book to any Tesla builder, even if they don't own a
>copy of the notes. It can be had at:
>http://www.amazon-dot-com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0963601229/qid%3D915755324/002-423851
>9-0607813 ), the card board material is about the worst thing on the face of
>the earth as far as overall Q goes. I know it should definately be treated
>to lower conductivity. But what can I do that will help the loss? I know I
>can't all but eliminate it, but, how much improvement would a layer of LDPE
>glued over the form offer? I'm assuming the underlying cardboard would still
>"hold back" the form's effect on Q. Any ideas on effectively reducing the
>loss on these terrible (but cheap!) forms?
>
>      Thanks a bunch,
>
>          Adam
>
>

Adam,
  I use one of these forms for a 12" 2KVA system. It seems to work well for
me.  I impregnated mine thoroughly with a mixture of rosin and paraffin. I
used a space heater to help heat the form (while rotating the form with my
coil winding rig) for the wax to soak in.  Be careful not to set anything
fire if you try this. 
  A quick measurement of the Q of my coil yields a value of 208 which is
more than adequate.


Eddie Burwell

• Prev: One more thing
• Next: Re: Resonant charging and quench time
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread