RE: Secondary size

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

Original poster: Brett Miller <brmtesla2-at-yahoo-dot-com> 



Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:

Original poster: "Luke"

Hmmm got ya.
Thanx for the idea behind your method, glad you sited your REASONS.
I have noticed all the coils in a particular range are about the same
height etc. The bummer is all the seems to be offered for a reason as
to why they are that tall is, "well that's what works good." Or
"Everyone else's is that way so it's the best rule."

I would be ok with following a chart or just plain ol' going with what
the masses say they have used as sooo many do, IF there were some
reasons as to why they are in those ranges. I may have to bite the
bullet and just go with what ever THEY say is right. But even if it is
beyond my comprehension as far as the actual calculations etc. someone
out there should be able to explain why you don't go over or under a
certain dia or hieght for a certain power input if you want good
results.

Without going into the calculations one can explain why you want to
avoid a resonant size cap for an NST. So why can no one offer solid
reasons for even one secondary dimension?

Luke,

You may want to search the TCML archives.  I found quite a bit of info on 
my own hard drive archives about this same subject, including several very 
enlightening posts from John (Freau) dating back to 2000, which I felt 
motivated to save in my "secondary" directory.  If you are having trouble 
digging up the relevant data from the archives, I will be glad to help 
point you in the right direction off list.  Back around 10 years ago when 
Richard Quick was talking about this stuff on BBS's, he gave quite a 
verbose (and somewhat creative might I add...) explanation of why a 3:1 
aspect ratio was best.  Now we know that a 4.5:1 to 5:1 is better for 
longer arcs.  We know this through a combination of experience, computer 
modeling, emperical testing, measurement, and calculation.

If you allow yourself to be intimidated by math, you won't make it very far 
with this.  Remember, even if you aren't a Richard P. Feynmann, you can 
still utilize the power of computers to help you work out the math and 
derive mathematical models.  Wasn't it you, Terry?...who said (with a 
little tongue in cheek intended I'm sure) a couple years back:  "...No one 
does math anymore, we use computer software..."

I agree with you that you shouldn't be doing something a certain way out of 
an appeal to a majority or worse yet...authority.  It *is* important to 
know why a component works the way it does in a system, so you can make 
improvements and most importantly, operate it safely.  You have to be able 
to think unconventionally in order to be someone who has the potential to 
make advancements in a field.  That's what people like Terry, John, Paul, 
Finn H., and many others have done to advance the front of TC science to 
the level we currently enjoy.  Don't just answer the questions, question 
the answers.

I, myself am still smack in the middle of replicating the work of the folks 
who's names you see above, and I've been building tesla coils for over 5 years.

But please don't take my word for any of this.  If you really want to "bite 
the bullet" with this, design your own experiment.  Construct two tesla 
coils.  One with a "popular" 4.5:1 aspect ratio, and another with an 
alternate ratio and see what you get.

-Brett

"..I saw as far as I did, because I stood on the shoulders of 
giants..."  -Einstein?

hot-streamer-dot-com/brett


Luke Galyan
Bluu-at-cox-dot-net