[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: .



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