Re: mini coil primary coupling ?

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

Original poster: "Laurence Davis by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <meknar-at-hotmail-dot-com>

comments below...

>Original poster: "Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz by way of Terry Fritz 
><teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <acmq-at-compuland-dot-com.br>
>
>Tesla list wrote:
> >
> > Original poster: "Laurence Davis by way of Terry Fritz 
> <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <meknar-at-hotmail-dot-com>
> >
> > I'm near to complete the mini coil.  I've decided to make a conical
> > primary, since i've heard they
> > are more efficient for a small coil.  I'm aiming for a coupling of 0.18,
> > which i thought I had heard was optimal.
>
>Mode 5:6, with energy transfer in 3 cycles. A good mode, but quenching
>starts to be a problem.
=== I am curious how you came up with mode that it would be running from just
the coupling factor.  Is this from experience or calculations that show 
that mode most efficient
with 0.18k?

<snip>

>Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz
Perhaps I am not understanding coupling.  when I try to envision the energy 
transfer...
I look at it as light.  waveform peaks would be a point source of light.
the light emits in all directions.
In a vacuum, these wavefronts move at the speed of light.  When they move 
through matter, they are delayed.  I'm stretching here, but as the distance 
from a em source is increased by X, the field drops by 1/X.  I learned that 
from playing with spools of wire and increasing the distance and measuring 
voltage output. (500ft spools of 12awg connected to 120vac, with a 1/2 
steel square channel as a lossy 'core').
Does this effect slow the wavefront this much?

Is coupling a percentage of energy received?  is it unitless? does a 
coupling of 0.5 mean that complete energy transfer is in 2 cycles? ... 
0.33k in 3 cycles? (light goes on)  so .18 means complete energy xfer in 6 
cycles? (oh wait you said 3 cycles for complete transfer).

tnx, larry.

_