Re: .

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: boris petkovic <petkovic7@xxxxxxxxx>

Hi Bart,

Few comments interspersed.
-----

> Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson"
> <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
<Big Snip>

> Q measurement is correct, and we all know, there are
> a lot of "what
> can go wrong will go wrong" when measuring Q.
-----
What can go terribly wrong in measuring Q of a Tesla
coil resonator?
With probes, low Z signal generators ,or a bit
sophisticated device called "pinger" , obtaining Q
under various circumstances is a relatively simple
procedure.
-----


>
> I'll be interested in what you come up with. Do you
> have all the
> goodies? Low Z amp? etc... If you need one, just
> ask. I can send my
> own your way or Terry may be able to londer his,
> etc. I think it's
> definitely worthwhile. Also, I would set up a flat
> ground plane for
> measurement somewhere where external effects are not
> capable of much
> influence. When I make Q measurements, I always do
> these in the
> backyard so that there is nothing to affect the
> reading. I keep the
> probe at least 10 feet away from the coil at center
> toroid height.
> I'll usually throw down a flat metal plate equal to
> the toroid OD for
> the ground plane.
------
Maybe  we should also suggest using a counterpoise for
even better preceision.
-----


> My personal coils have been rather
> low Q (300's
> range).
-----
Umh..come again?
I would think Q=300 is not a low Q range for Tesla
coils.
-----

> It will be interesting if you can measure in
> the predicted 600's range.
-----
Oh yes,but I'm rather pesimistic that he will measure
above 600.
Solely to mention one obstacle.In the limit of a
superconducting coil case what about dielectric loss
at tesla coil frequencies?
Speaking of which,G.Johnson makes some good points
regarding that issue in his paper:
http://www.eece.ksu.edu/~gjohnson/tcchap3.pdf

All the Best,
Boris