JF efficiency theory (again)

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

Original poster: "Mike Novak by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <acmnovak-at-msn-dot-com>


 First off, If you haven't done so already, read through
http://hometown.aol-dot-com/FutureT/page5.html

I was wondering why some coilers get such good results when completely
disregaurding such details. For instance, Ross Overstreet's coil:
6"x24" wound with #22 for a total of ~880 turns, a primary of approx 7-8
turns (from the photo) and ~2.2kVA input along with a static gap. He gets
6-7 ft sparks which is just about right from 1.7(sqrt(input power)).
However, he's only using half the reccommended number of turns on both the
primary AND secondary. Is it possible that it is not the NUMBER of turns,
that maybe it's simply proportionate on some level?

Also, I Find that where people follow the 1600 turn rule they, more often
than not, neglect the 24-34 primary turn suggestion. I personally don't see
how one could always use 24-34 turns and still maintain a resonant
condition. How is anyone supposed to achive such high levels of efficiency
if they must choose between resonance and high primary surge impedance? Are
we just supposed to use thin wire on the primary?
I once used two #22 wires in parallel for the primary on an early coil I
made. It worked quite well too.

If we want high primary surge impedance, why does everyone concern
themselves with using welding cable as tank wiring?

Mike Waddick and I compare notes often and he is using the 6x24 with #22 as
well. Wouldn't the optimal wire guage be as follows?:

diameter                guage
2                                 34
4                                 28
6                                 24
8                                 22
10                               20
12                               20
14                               18
16                               16


Just trying to get more bang for my buck,

-Mike Novak