Re: Secondary Q

["Ray von Postel" <vonpostel-at-xxxxxxxxxxx> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-xxxxxxxxxx>)]

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "Kennan C Herrick" <kcha1-at-juno-dot-com>
>
> 2.48?...A Q of 2.48??  I am shocked!...shocked!  Here, during all these
> years of thinking about Tesla coils--over 60 of them, I will have you
> know!--I've been under the misapprehension that Tesla-coilers depended
> upon, cherished and highly valued...resonance!  But no..., no..., no...
> Q?...who needs it?  Resonance, even...who needs it?  With the power and
> voltage of a Grand Coulee or a TMI or even, in better times, of a
> Chernobyl, coupled thru a vast pile of pole pigs, who needs resonance?

Big snip.

Kennan:

Agreed!  After years of design and operation of LC circuits I too reached
the conclusion that anything you do to cut down the resistance, which
increases the Q, is to the good.  You have to remember that as the Q
decreases the bandwidth increases and can produce a double humped resonance
curve of lower amplitude than can be achieved
when resistance is minimal.    I thought the idea was to produce the maximum
electrical energy rather than to dissipate power in the form of heat.  Any
heat is wasted power.  "Waste not, want not".

It should also be remembered that the equation for the resonant frequency of
a circuit depends upon inductance, capacitance, and RESISTANCE. The effect
of the latter is usually minimal excepting in low Q circuits.  (low Q
considered anything less than 12)

Ray