Re: Coil ratio; width versus length.

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

Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Hi John,

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<FutureT-at-aol-dot-com>
>
> > his coil is doing well at turning power into sparklength. It does not mean
> > that this
> > is the limit for the coil, just that it's doing better than most, which I
> > consider
> > optimized (there's probably a better word).
>
> You bring up a good point.  I usually use that word too, and talk
> about an optimal design, perhaps reaching or exceeding my
> equation's predictions.  But I agree a better word is desireable.
> Sometimes I say an "efficient" coil, and that may be better,
> because to claim an optimal design may be too much at
> this stage of the game.  After all, who's to say what's really
> optimal?  When I do say optimal, I just really mean more or
> less optimal, or hopefully approaching optimal, or something like that.
> I think that's generally understood by the list readers, although
> some newbies could be mislead and think that some perfect
> performance standard has been achieved.
>
> Cheers,
> John

Agree. I've never liked even using the word "efficiency" because of the many
discussions in the past on the subject and the many different points of
reference
to it. But I think we can call it a "low-loss" design. This term should be
easily
understood that it refers to the entire system from start to finish, not
just one
part of the coil. With this in mind, a "low-loss" design will maximize the
output
for whatever that potential is on each coil.

Your equations can be viewed as predicted sparklengths for power input based on
low-loss systems.

Take care,
Bart