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

Re: conical secondaries (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:52:05 -0700
From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: conical secondaries (fwd)

Hi Mike,

I'm not sure about your theory with "e-field shaping" or the previous "a 
conical can handle greater power". To analyze these, there must be some 
equivalent from a solenoid to a cone geometry. Probably best to keep the 
wire length the same to achieve this. The cone then takes on a size 
which would may appear different than expected. Due to the cones large 
capacitive and inductive values which dominate the lower 40% of the 
coil, the field gradients along the coil would be quite different. And, 
what is the best angle? Shallow, deep, or maybe somewhere in the middle? 
How does top load geometry affect the coil?  A lot of typical "real" 
physics to look at. Sounds like fun.

Maybe at some point I'll try to look at that. It would be good if 
someone like Paul Nicholson could look at those specifics with his 
higher resolution software (not to mention his superior knowledge of 
analysis and ability to make sense of it all). It's likely he already 
looked at this. Right now I'm in the middle of coding some other needs. 
I'll throw it on the to-do list however.

Antonio's programs may be suited for that particular task. And of 
course, any of you can give it a go with either my software or Antonio's 
since they are there for "your" use. They'll even run on old Windows 98 
and maybe even 95. Of course, if anyone here is still using widows 3.11, 
we need an "intervention".

Take care,

Tesla list wrote:

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Mike <megavolts61@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: conical secondaries (fwd)
>Hi all,
>      My guess is that the conical shape would have one benefit.  The
>E-field shape created by such geometry would tend to repel the streamers
>up and out, resulting in less chance of primary strikes.  Aslide from
>that, I can't see much advantage and I can imagine that the self
>capacitance of the coil would be increased compared(and hence lower
>frequency given all else equal)  to a helical coil with the same length of
>wire and a diamter equal to the place on the cone where half the wire is
>above and half below that turn.  I'm sure someone like Bart could analyze
>such a comparison...along with mapping of the E-field to see if my notion
>is valid.  I don't have such programs on this puter.
>  Mike
>  In a message dated 6/15/07 10:19:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
>tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
>The  advantage of a conical coil is that it can contain more power
>  (current
>times potential) before breaking out than if a pure flat spiral or
>  pure
>solenoid coil were used. 
>Why? I thought that breakout was a function of the top load geometry.
>So if  you are trying to build a small coil to
>handle the maximum power, the  conical secondary is the way to go.  
>David W. Thomson   
>Matt D.
>Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! 
>Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.