RE: Tesla Coil Blunders

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "John H. Couture by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>


Ed -

Please refer to my reply to Malcolm' post. Have you ever made the resonant
frequency test with the operational TC? If so, how did it compare with the
signal generator low power test?

John Couture

----------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 7:04 PM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Tesla Coil Blunders


Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>"
<evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Tesla list wrote:
>
> Original poster: "John H. Couture by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
>
> Malcolm -
>
> Sorry - the two R's are shown in the following equations:
>
>    Q = Xl/Rq  Rq = Xl/Q
>
>    F = .159 sqrt(1/LC - (Rf/2L)^2)
>
>    Rf = 2L sqrt(1/LC - (6.283F)^2)
>
> The Rq in the Q factor equation is the one to which you are referring. The
> other Rf is the one in the Resonant Frequency equation and is a different
> resistance. This resistance affects the resonant frequency of the RLC
> circuit.
>
> The meager TC operating test data (scope/antenna probe) I have been able
to
> collect from coilers indicates this Rf may be involved in reducing the
> resonant frequency compared to the low voltage, low current
> Wheeler/Medhurst/Freq meter test.
>
> This resonant frequency reduction has resulted in coilers and TC
programers
> having to make an adjustment in the calculation of the resonant frequency
> compared to the operating test. Apparently you haven't noticed this
> reduction.
>
> John Couture

	Any secondary with enough resistance to produce a noticable change in
frequency would be so very lossy that it couldn't function at all.
Calculate the equivalent Q for a frequency shift of a couple of
percent.

Ed