[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Alternate toroid shapes



Original poster: "John Richardson" <jprich-at-up-dot-net> 



 > Has anyone done any experimentation into toroid topload shapes other than
 > the typical round designs that all use?  Visualize a cross section of the
 > minor diameter that is tear drop shaped as opposed to perfectly round,
with
 > the point of the tear drop facing out


I meant to include the fact that the small end of the tear drop shape would
have a nice radius to it.  I'm just throwing thoughts out, trying to see if
there are any inherent advantages in something different.  Seems to me that
the next level of Tesla coil improvement is going to be in gaps and
potentially new topload configurations, now that the other parameters have
been studied in depth.  I suppose that the only way is to try it, and make a
side to side comparison.  It would seem that a topload with a tear drop
cross section would allow consistent control of where breakout would occur,
i.e. if the smaller of the two cross sectional radius' were facing out and
with a slight upward tilt, the field control would most certainly push the
streamers up and away from sensitive coil components.  And, just maybe,
there is a shape beyond what we are used to that would offer enough
performance advantages to make construction useful.

John Richardson



 > Hi John,
 >      The typical TC Toroidal topload (more specifically a Torus) is
usually
 > chosen because the uniform radius of curvature reduces corona discharge,
 > and the simple symmetry lends itself to a single set of equations for
 > calculating the capacitance. I believe that the shape you describe having
a
 > sharp ridge around its equator would enhance coronal discharge and
preclude
 > the higher voltage buildup provided by the conventional shape. Also, I
 > believe each and every asymmetric shape would have to have its own unique
 > set of equations to do the Capacitance calculations. This seems a major
 > undertaking for what I believe would be reduced performance.
 >
 > Matt D.