Re: Wire Length (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Moderated and approved by: Gerry Reynolds <greynolds@xxxxxxxxxx>



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 12:21:16 -0800
From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Wire Length (fwd)

Tesla list wrote:

>Moderated and approved by: Gerry Reynolds <greynolds@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 14:29:11 EST
>From: Mddeming@xxxxxxx
>To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Wire Length (fwd)
> 
>"Insulation problems are quite are with this configuration, but we 
>will  see."
> 
>Please translate?
>
Hi Matt, my thoughts out ran my fingers. I meant to say, "insulation 
problems are quite different with this configuration". There are a many 
ways to implement the primary (outer edge or anywhere below the 
primary). Thus, high coupling can be achieved with a "much" larger 
airgap than used on a classic 2 coil system.

For example, take this new flat secondary and place a 2 turn primary 5" 
below it (wind 2 turns starting at the outer rim diameter and wind 
inward with a typical .25" spacing between the 2 turns). You'll end up 
with a k of .358 which is twice the norm and yet is still a 5" airgap 
from the secondary.

Now imagine the airgap for a typical full energy transfer mode (3.5 
cycles) which is a k of 0.153. The primary would end up 16.125" below 
the secondary. Quite different! If this gap is too far away to be 
practical, you "might" think to try a 2 turn primary helical similarly, 
but you'll still require 15.725". Even winding on the same horizontal 
plane around the outer edge of the primary would yield a 14" airgap. So, 
for me, lets learn to deal with a higher k for this configuration.

Take care,
Bart