Re: NST power rating con

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

Original poster: Ed Phillips <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net> 

Tesla list wrote:
 >
 > Original poster: Thomas <tom-at-pwrcom-dot-com.au>
 >
 > The more I look into this the more proof I get that the actual power
 > available from an NST is only half of the face plate values' product, i.e.
 >
 > P =(V x I)/2
 >
 > It's the only way I could get this to work out:
 >
 > http://www.users.bigpond-dot-net.au/broken.trout/Rotary_eqns.pdf
 >
 > Also it gives an extremely close value (+10%err) for spark length when half
 > the secondary VA is used for P in: L = 1.7sqrt(P) for my coil.
 >
 > I think the +10% length measured is due to the primary cap being resonant
 > with the NST, and a slightly too wide spark gap.
 >
 > Why is this con(fidence trick) by NST manufacturers not mentioned on any
 > Tesla coil design web sites (that I've seen)?
 >
 > It's almost as bad as the *peak music power* con used by cheap audio gear
 > manufacturers.
 >
 > Tom L.


	Not exactly correct.  With a pure resistive load the power output limit
is as you say.  With a resistive/capacitive load as in TC applications
the power can be very much higher than the product of name plate
open-circuit voltage and short-circuit current.  I've never seen an NST
rated in watts.  Has anyone else?

Ed