[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ryan's Coil = DOA :(
Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <FutureT-at-aol-dot-com>
In a message dated 1/10/01 11:46:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:
Al,
The free-standing coil that you advocate, is not free standing at all.
The coating that holds it together may have just as much loss as
a typical plastic form. Also, carbon can track right through the
coating material. Regarding the amount of loss in a typical
plastic form.... it is negligable. You will not see any difference in
spark length with or without a form. You are correct that I aim for
max efficiency in my coils. But I only concern myself with things
that will cause a noticeable improvement. I often use polyethylene
for my forms, which does not seem to carbon track. The losses
are super low, completely negligable for our purposes.
I would not be so presumptious as to assume what Tesla would or
would not do today. But Tesla was a practical man, I don't think
he would have wasted his time on efforts that show no payoff.
Regarding the Q of the coil. It's simply not that important in a
spark gap coil. It is more important in a CW driven coil however.
I don't think a no-form secondary would save thousands of watts
even in a coil system of the magnitude envisioned by Tesla's
transmission of power system. Besides, such a system seems
to be un-workable anyhow, in the best judgement of today's
researchers who have advanced well beyond Tesla's work.
John Freau
--
> Original poster: "Albert Hassick by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>"
> <uncadoc-at-juno-dot-com>
>
> Hi John, and all list members. I have never made a true skeleton frame
> air core secondary. But have you attempted to make one of them for
> yourself? I am going to apply some non computer logic here. Seems the
> "Q" of the air core coil would be somewhat enhanced by having a skeleton
> frame or no frame at all. After all, every little bit of efficiency we
> can garner, no matter how minuscule a gain we can achieve it is still
> nonetheless a gain and can be applied to the overall efficiency and
> streamer output length or power transmission capacity of the Tesla coil.
> Is this not what list members are striving for in their computer modeled
> programs? Imagine a secondary/tertiary coil wound around a slim paper
> tube, then apply coats of poly/epoxy/fiberglass/shellac or whatever to
> the exterior of the coil and let it set up hard. Then unpeel the
> interior paper form until you had only a solid column of copper magnet
> wire, supported only by the resin that was applied to the outside portion
> of the coil. You could use a release agent or wax paper or UHMW slippery
> sheet film between the wire and the expendable form so that it would peel
> away easily. The UHMW film sheet could also be used as a stand alone
> form, that could easily be removed once the air core coil binding resins
> had set up. And; Would this not result in a somewhat superior coil?
> Since it would now be very,very nearly a true 'air coupled coil' with no
> plastic tube or cardboard to get in the way of the coupling. No lossy
> materials in the core to induce arcing or carbon tracking. I mean, air
> directly to air would give the absolute best coil would it not? Not
> only that, there would also be no tantamount losses endured by the use of
> any type of "lossy" coil form that probably 99.9% of coilers use now,
> myself included; whether it be plastic/paper/bakelite or whatever.
> This is why I stand my ground and adamantly say that Tesla would most
> likely embrace a free standing air coil if he had access to the modern
> resins that we take for granted today. Tesla would not be one to tolerate
> 'carbon' tracking in his coils. Also, a small amount of efficiency
> gained in a small coil can easily become 100's if not 1,000's of watts
> extra output in the giant scale of what Tesla had envisioned for world
> power at Wardenclyffe. Al.
>