[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Q?
Hello Reinhard,
As you say:
> Original Poster: "Reinhard Walter Buchner" <rw.buchner-at-verbund-dot-net>
>
> Hi Malcom,
>
> > Original Poster: "Malcolm Watts" <malcolm.watts-at-wnp.ac.nz>
> >
> > I would like to comment on one thing in this piece:
> > Why not? I would go for minimum losses (read high Q) in anything
> > bearing in mind that there are always tradeoffs to be made. For
> > example, one might cram some more inductance into a secondary
> > using smaller wire so that more inductance was required for the
> > primary in turn raising the Q of the primary which is certainly
> > desirable. In this instance, you are trading secondary Q for primary
> > Q. The better option is to build a bigger secondary so maintaining
> > secondary Q as well.
>
> Hmm, somehow, today is not our agreement day ;o)). I think
> primary Q is of almost no importance in a TC. Primary Q is
> already pretty low and once the gap fires, your primary Q will
> drop like a rock, anyway. I think putting effort into a high Q
> secondary is the more effective way to go. I canīt really see
> an improvement in upgrading the primary Q. Put a good (high Q)
> secondary into a low Q primary circuit and you will still get pretty
> good results. Put a low Q secondary into a super-high Q primary
> circuit and your results wonīt be worth beans ;o)).
I agree with that last bit but I wouldn't compromise on the primary
either - the oscilloscope says it makes a significant difference as do
the sparks in my experience.
Regards,
Malcolm