Re: Electrical Properties of Aluminum and Network Analzyer was : RE: Brass

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

Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <dhmccauley-at-spacecatlighting-dot-com>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: Electrical Properties of Aluminum and Network Analzyer was :
RE: Brass


 > Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>
 >
 > Tesla list wrote:
 >  >
 >  > Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>"
 > <dhmccauley-at-spacecatlighting-dot-com>
 >  >
 >  > Terry,
 >  >
 >  > That test is severely flawed:
 >  > First, we already know that for the same cross-sectional area, aluminum
has
 >  > a higher resisitivity per unit length than copper.  No need to use
 >  > a network analyzer for this.
 >  > Secondly, a network analyzer is not going to tell you squat about how
an
 >  > oxidized coil performs under high rf current conditions like those
occurring
 >  > in a
 >  > tesla coil.  You really need to make the measurements somehow at the
rated
 >  > power levels you are going to operate at for the data to be meaningful.
 >  >
 >  > The Captain
 >
 > Guess I disagree with that.  The increase in effective resistance due
 > to skin effect is independent of the current; there's no mechanism which
 > could make it any different.
 >
 >
 > Ed

Thats where you are wrong Ed.  At high power, things are always much
different than at low power.  For example, take a 10 foot piece of waveguide
and hook it up to your
network analyzer.  The thing looks like an ideal transmission line.
Reflected RF is practically nil.  Now measure it again but at 600 kW peak
power.  You cannot imagine the
things that start going haywire.