[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Subject*: Re: JF efficiency theory (again)*From*: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>*Date*: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:08:04 -0700*Resent-Date*: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:11:56 -0700*Resent-From*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Resent-Message-ID*: <EvxBQ.A.rzB.kqgk6-at-poodle>*Resent-Sender*: tesla-request-at-pupman-dot-com

Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net> Tesla list wrote: > > 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? What is supposed to be magic about 1600 turns? As long as the primary and secondary are in tune, the inductance only affects the resonant frequency for any given secondary geometry and primary capacitor. Ed

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Mot DC Ps** - Next by Date:
**Re: VTTC output** - Prev by thread:
**Re: JF efficiency theory (again)** - Next by thread:
**RE: JF efficiency theory (again)** - Index(es):