Re: fFINAL REPORT Cu COIL vs Al COIL (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:32:54 -0700
From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: fFINAL REPORT Cu COIL vs Al COIL (fwd)

Hi Ed,

I'm still analyzing your results. The Q is starting to be a problem with 
me. Not the values, but the difference between aluminum and copper. I'm 
not sure why. I've managed to model both materials through 5Mhz, 4.5, 4, 
etc.. down to 2.5Mhz. But, my Q ratios are not reflective of your 
measurements. What concerns me is the differential between Al and Cu. 
Once I actually knocked the frequency into your measurement range, I'm 
finding a ratio of 1.4 between the two materials in both frequency 
measurement extremes. So, I'm kind of wondering why Q was as high as it 
was with the Al. Interesting problem. Should keep me busy. Maybe I'll 
learn something new!

Take care,
Bart

> I agree that in principle the Q meter calibration shouldn't affect the comparison.  Problem was I did the whole frequency run for each coil at one time and it's difficult to reset the RF drive very accurately since it's way down the meter scale.  I thought the consistency was pretty good but not what one would like.  All in all this was a fun excercise and just tells me that if I decided to wind an aluminum primary I'd use bigger tubing than for copper.  I still suspect that, even with an NST, any primary that doesn't get "too hot to handle" doesn't have enough loss to have much effect on streamer length.  Could be wrong of course.  All in all a fun excercise.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>