Re: The Tabletop Tesla Coil Showdown - OFFICIAL RULES and WEBSITE

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

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>

Dear competition enthusiasts,
                               After following this correspondence I 
am forced to ask once again, "what is the point"?

On 1 Oct 2002, at 16:57, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<dhmccauley-at-spacecatlighting-dot-com>
> 
> > 2.  Coil must be of a "conventional" type meaning the tank circuit can
> only
> > be comprised of the NST, spark gap, capacitor, and primary coil.
> > Intermediate rectification and voltage multiplier circuits are not
> > permitted as are the use of additional transformers to step the voltage
> up.
> > This includes magnifier type designs.
> >
> > GL> It's probably academic since folks are unlikely to bother with a
> > magnifier configuration on a table-top coil, but I don't see where that
> > would violate the underlying spirit of the competition - using the same
> > basic power supply without running it into the danger-zone.  If adding
> > diodes, 3rd coils, or magic beans between the power supply and top load
> > improves performance without overstressing anything, then great!  Of
> > greater concern is governing the gap.  I KNOW that I can get better
> > performance if I open up my gap.  I would propose setting a .050" maximum
> > static gap to keep the field safe and level, except that this may hobble
> > category 3 entries using higher than a 4kV NST.  Maybe just for category 1
> &
> > 2?
> >
> > DM>>>>>>Except how would you regulate rotary gaps??  Also, the voltage
> > characterics of a gap
> > are also dependent on the physical characteristics of the gap as well.  A
> > 0.050" wide gap using (2) 3" copper pipes is much different than a 0.050"
> > point-point gap.
> >
> > GLGL> Because depending on break rate and cap size, RSG's may exhibit a
> cap
> > charging voltage that may be in excess of what's safe for the NST.  I
> > propose allowing RSG's only in category 3.   I fully understand that the
> > breakdown voltage of static gaps is dependant upon electrode geometry,
> > among other things.  But keeping the breakdown voltage high IS part of the
> > art, and specifying a maximum separation will impose an easily met limit
> to
> > Vgap to keep things safe and fair for categories 1 & 2.  If one wanted to
> > use a needle gap, it would certainly have little chance of being a
> > contender, regardless of such rules.  If you don't want limits imposed on
> > your Vgap, you'll have to enter under category 3.  And I should probably
> > also suggest that for multi-stage static gaps for category 1 or 2, the sum
> > total of all gap segments must not exceed 0.050".
> >
> > Regards, Gary Lau
> > MA, USA
> 
> But then again, this may be all part of the design process.  One would have
> to compromise between reliability and longevity of the NST and output power
> of the coil.  I think the builder should have full freedom here.  I realize
> very large gap spacing can lead to catastrophic failure, but hey, if they
> build a system that can withstand 5 minutes continuous duty with large gap
> spacing, then my congrats.
> 
> Dan

We now seem to have moved from a simple unmodified transformer to one 
which has had some shunts removed (is now on steroids), that you are 
now allowed to operate under conditions which will allow far higher 
primary voltages than the open-circuit rating of the transformer is 
designed to withstand if it will take it (i.e. if you are very lucky 
and have buckets of money to find "the one"). Sounds somewhat similar 
to the GMHEICxxx "competition".

     Allow me to suggest a simple goal which is open to all comers: 
beat John Freau's formula:  Sparklength = 1.7 x SQRT(V x A) for a 
single resonator system to allow refinement of the above formula 
and/or set a new standard.

Regards,
Malcolm