[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Structural support, was: oil dielectric
Original poster: "rob by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <rob-at-pythonemproject-dot-com>
Tesla list wrote:
> Original poster: "davep by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> >>Absolutely! And a glazed surface would be preferable to reduce
> >>absorption of potentially conductive material. Ceramic has been used for
> >>high power RF coil forms for almost 100 years. The downside to using
> >>ceramic is that it's significantly heavier and more brittle than PVC.
> > You are correct about the ceramics being much heavier and more brittle. I
> > questions about useing 300 series (non-magnetic) stainless in another
> > post.This would allow for a thinner coating of ceramic. Reply posts
> > metals would absorbe energy in the form of heat causeing losses in the
> coil, as
> > well as expansion and contraction in the steel tube. I would not see any
> > problem with using pvc coated with ceramic
> Why coat the PVC with ceramic?
> What benefit or purpose is obtained?
> As many have pointed out (and demonstrated) PVC (or HDPE) is
> fine, as is, as a form/support.
> When dealing with 10s of KW of RF, in the vicinity
> of hot tubes, Ceramics have a place. Or did. Ceramics
> were used when HDPE (etc) did not exist.
You can get some relative indication of RF losses for a material by
putting it into a microwave oven. I did this once to dry out a piece of
ABS (for my swimming pool :) and did not notice much heating. Rob.
The Numeric Python EM Project