RE: The PING Test

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

Original poster: "John H. Couture by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <couturejh-at-mgte-dot-com>


Malcolm -

I cannot agree with you about the Q factor and the overall efficiency. It
does make sense and I showed in my post how any coiler can make the test and
do the calcs. Note that a Q factor of 300 would be about 183 cycles to 10%
using the ping test. This would give a very low resistance and a very high
secondary voltage which appears to be contrary to the actual test voltage.

What do you think about my question at the bottom of my post. Should I
increase or decrease the turns to increase the secondary voltage and spark
length for the same H/D coilform? There apparently aren't many coilers that
wish to comment on that question. It's certainly a very important decision
that ever coiler is confronted with when he builds a Tesla coil. It is
obvious that there is an optimum number of turns for a certain H/D coilform.

Most coilers use 1000 turns for that particular H/D coilform but what
happens if you increase or decrease the turns? I haven't heard of any coiler
that has researched this problem. With big coils this type of research can
be expensive. However, with the 4KV/20ma contest this can be easily and
inexpensively researched. It will be interesting to see how this contest
develops.

John Couture

-----------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 4:36 PM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: RE: The PING Test


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

Hello John,

On 24 Sep 2002, at 11:46, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "John H. Couture by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <couturejh-at-mgte-dot-com>
>
>
> Malcolm -
>
> One way of looking at this result is to consider the overall efficiency
> which would then be
>
>   OAE = 400 x 100/(300 x 8) = 16.67%

I hardly need to point out that Q is proportional to efficiency so
that assertion doesn't make sense.

> But how did you get the Q of 300? I have not as yet found Q's that high.
Did
> you use the Ping test? What were the parameters of the secondary coil?

I have posted details of this coil so many times I simply can't be
bothered doing it again. There will posts of mine in the list
archives with the relevant details. I've mentioned it sometime in the
past couple of months on the list (yet again). There is also an
article of mine somewhere on Terry's website giving details of the
secondary. Q's that high are not difficult to obtain if you know how.
I've used both ping tests and steady state swept frequencies to
measure the coil.

Regards,
Malcolm