Re: Lousy Losses

["Barton B. Anderson" <tesla123-at-xxxxxxxxxxx> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-xxxxxxxxxx>)]

Hi Albert, 

Good post. I think we all agree regarding the sparkgap. But regarding the
secondary former, I was under the assumption that the Q measurement was low in
comparison to other plastic formers. If this is the case, then there is
something more to the cardboard forms. I agree that cardboard forms will work
just fine and any difference in performance is probably difficult to see, but
once you've gone as far as you can with your spark gap, etc.., why not try to
build a higher Q secondary. 

Bart 

Tesla list wrote: 
>
> Original poster: "Albert Hassick" <uncadoc-at-juno-dot-com> 
>
> Hi all. 
> Well, this is the way I see it.  I think that even with a 5% loss in the 
> cardboard form that other members are alluding to.  I still do not see a 
> problem with the cardboard forms.  O.K., lets see now, I think that 
> amount of power in a Tesla coil can be achieved by a properly set and 
> functioning spark gap.   I will argue that even the most pristine users 
> of plastic/fiberglass/g-10 tube or whatever would still need to augment 
> their spark gaps for maximum output.  I do not think that the secondary 
> cardboard or plastic form would ever really make that big a difference in 
> the real world.  I hate to say it, but here it is!!!!!  If you want to 
> really improve your coil output, then you should be realistically be 
> trying to improve your spark gap.  The spark gap is the ultimate 
> denominator in all Tesla systems.  The properly set spark gap will mean 
> the difference between a truly awesome Tesla coil or a mediocre coil.  I 
> just know this as a fact!  The best arrangement possible of spark gap 
> electrodes will more than negate any negative bias towards a cardboard 
> coil.  If your spark gap is optimal, then you will meet or exceed all 
> given parameters for your coil!   AL.