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

Re: why 1:5 and max 1000? (fwd)

Hello again,

I think this issue of the secondary aspect ratio returns again to the
Medhurst data. The obvious linear association between the Medhurst data and
the surface area to volume ratio points inevitably to the relationship
between Q and the surface area to volume ratio of the coil which is
optimized at the maximum volume to surface area ratio.
If you do the calculations yourself, you'll see.

Bryan Kaufman


> From: Malcolm Watts <malcolm.watts-at-wnp.ac.nz>
> To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Subject: Re: why 1:5 and max 1000? (fwd)
>
> Hi Arwin,
>                 The 5:1 aspect ratio together with the 1000 turns is a
> guide that will get you a secondary with a good Q. Using this guide
> forces you to use a winding wire with a suitable thickness that offers
> a balance between inductance and resistance. Note also that if you
> use this guide and space wind a coil, you do pretty much the same
> if the wire thickness is not less than half the inter-turn distance.
> Space winding is more hassle but does save on wire costs. The
> reason why there is not much difference between the two has to do
> with a reduced proximity effect for the space wind.
>
> Regards,
> Malcolm
>
> > Original Poster: Tesla List <mod1-at-pupman-dot-com>
>
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 21:10:15 +0200
> > From: arrie <solva-at-xs4all.nl>
> > To: "tesla-at-pupman-dot-com" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> > Subject: why 1:5 and max 1000?
> >
> > Dear all, after having build a few small tcīs  i am collecting now the
> > pieces for a large one. Having a 10" sec. form, 2x 8000 kv 700mA, 2
> > selfrolled polycaps (56+42 nF) and a rebuild static gap with cooling
> > bodies as seen on the net somwhere (where???). i a looking forward to
> > assemvble the whole thing.
> >
> > What  bothers me is that i donīt understand the max prractical ratio
> > of 1:5 and the max turns of 1000. Are thes practical values or can it
> > be calculated with which formulas???
> >
> > Thanks, Arwin Holland
> >