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

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

Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>

Hi Gary,

If one were to use a fuse, you could specify that it had to be directly on
the NST "after" PFC caps and such.  That would render the PFC caps and such
useless.  I would think there would be a rule (perhaps and assumed one)
that immersing the fuse in liquid helium, mercury, or other attempts to
fiddle with its function would not be allowed ;-)  Input voltage would
probably have to be right at the NST input terminal too since line sag can
have a significant affect.  Maybe a little correction factor for that (k :
V)  Of course, the coil should run as a "normal" Tesla coil as opposed to a
10,000,000 Joule Marx generator that takes two weeks to charge up ;-)  I
would think 25 BPS to CW would cover that.  A continuous run of 60 seconds
should be within the ability of a fast blow fuse to do well.

May I also suggest that there should be "classes" of achievement rather
than a single "winner".  You could say that anyone who gets to John's
formula in streamer length is in class "C", anyone who beats it by 30% is
in class "B" and anyone reaching 150% is in class "A" or something like
that.  Then there could be a lot of "winners" and you would not have people
fighting between themselves, but rather the next goal.  I can see ending up
with five people arguing over 12.576, 12.5762, 12.57598, 12..... if there
were just "one" winner.  Having a range for the "winner's classes" solves
those little arguments over tiny measurements.  I guess we could make
little certificates or something...

I would keep the rules really simple.  My GMHEICSLR rules did not have any
problems.  Everyone pretty much got the idea and I never got any questions
about it.  I don't think "cheating" is a big concern as long as there is a
grand judge to decide on goofy stuff.  If I have a 5 inch coil running on
top of a pole and it gets hit by a 20 mile long lighting strike, I should
not win, but maybe the judge could give me an "interesting try"
certificate.  ;-))  There could also be an honorable mention certificate
for those who love their coils even if the sparks are short can say they
"won something" ;-))  Certificates in some file format could be E-mailed so
the cost and time involved would be tiny...  The few top dogs might get a
nicer one signed and with a ribbon or something special like that.

I like the fuse idea since "any" conventional coil could enter.  It would
be funny seeing a big pig coil against a little 5 inch high one ;-)  Of
course, the little coil would win easily since the big coil's magnetization
currents are about 1/4 amp right there ;-)  I am not sure a "big" coil
could even breakout at 1 amp...  I would think even tube or solid state
coil's might have a chance, but I don't know of any that could outperform a
spark gap coil... It would be interesting to see what size of coil really
is "best".

I assume the coil would have to arc to ground from fixed points x number of
times per minute or something like that.  There are statistical and
probability factors there, but if someone wants to sit there for three days
waiting for those 5 longest arcs in a minute to win, they probably deserve
it ;-))

Just some thoughts that may help ;-)

Cheers,

	Terry

At 08:45 PM 10/6/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>I think that trying to have everyone measure the operating power of a coil, 
>even just VA, particularly when using static gaps, will result in a lot of 
>wrong measurements.  Terry's standard fuse suggestion overcomes the problem 
>somewhat, but then the run time, off time, and fuse temperature becomes 
>critical.  I like NST secondary VA - Isc times Voc, as anyone with a 
>multimeter can measure it.
>
>Still reviewing public opinion, Gary Lau
>MA, USA
>
>
>
>
>Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<FutureT-at-aol-dot-com>
>
>In a message dated 10/4/02 10:37:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>writes:
>
>
>>
>> I'm leery of attempting to accurately gauge entries for true Watts.  I
>> assume the formula deals in true watts, not VA, right?  
>
>
>
>Gary,
>
>Yes, I did write the formula for true Watts originally.  
>Folks often quote it as VA though.  VA could be used
>for the competition since it would simply hurt one's
>results if they had a poor PF.  One still wonders what
>quality of voltmeter or ammeter may wind up being used 
>in some instances.
>
>John
>
>