[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Golka Photos
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Golka Photos
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:06:56 -0600
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Old-return-path: <email@example.com>
- Resent-date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:14:40 -0600 (MDT)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <rdorbD.A.-jE.O7-UCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: David Speck <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I was taught that if your primary coil was suspended in imaginary outer
space, the EM field it created would extend symmetrically in both
directions from the coil. Thus it would seem to me that for best possible
performance, you would not want to have anything that would present a
significant load within the space of influence of the primary.
"Someday", when I build my big coil, I'm going to try supporting the
primary at least as far off the floor as the secondary is tall, with
nothing directly under the coil. It will be interesting to see how it works.
So how close is too close?
I've also wondered if the usual arrangement, with transformers, spark
gap rotation/airflow motors, filter components, PFC correction, etc.
directly under the primary cause problems as well. I suppose one could
add or remove "dummy" NST's and note the effect. Even if they aren't too
lossy, ferrous materials less than a foot from the bottom of the coils
might affect the k.