RE: Aluminium Wire (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:23:31 -0700
From: Frank <fxrays@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Aluminium Wire  (fwd)

Aluminium is used for the plates in variable air capacitors, plate 
cap heat sinks and other various components in radio transmitters 
from VLF to VHF and in high power. If it was such a loser for RF, 
they would not widely use it.

It is used on transmission lines because it is MUCH cheaper than 
copper. They compensate for the loss by increasing the diameter. The 
steel core is for the mechanical strength to support the line.
Frank

At 07:08 PM 9/28/2007 -0600, you wrote:

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:54:25 -0700
>From: Dr.Hankenstein <Dr.Hankenstein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: Aluminium Wire  (fwd)
>
>Good point, Gary, and nice job on the experimenting.
>
>I agree that aluminum works well for RF signals in the frequency range most
>of us coilers deal with. For example: A 525kv, 1100megawatt-rated
>transmission line strung with aluminum conductors stretching several
>hundred miles might typically use a PLC (Power Line Carrier) with tuned
>wavetraps on each end of the line for voice/data/relaying. They normally
>operate in the frequency range of 30~500khz with only 80 watts of drive!
>(That's only 0.000007% of the total power the line is carrying, for
>comparison!).....and, they've been doing it for over 40 years effectively.
>I don't think the power company would be doing this if the losses were too
>great. I do prefer to see some substantiating results/comparisons such as
>yours rather than a carte blanch statement suggesting that "aluminum is a
>loser" for RF.
>
>Woo
>
>PS: 73's & nice antenna and ground switch arrangement, Ralph
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: 9/28/2007 6:47:10 AM
> > Subject: RE: Aluminium Wire  (fwd)
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:42:06 -0400
> > From: "Lau, Gary" <Gary.Lau@xxxxxx>
> > To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: RE: Aluminium Wire  (fwd)
> >
> > Yes, I believe that aluminum being "bad" for RF is just one of those
> > myths that won't die.  I performed an exhaustive test of various primary
> > conductor geometries, including Al vs. Cu wire.  Aside from the DC
> > resistance being different, the Al primary did not exhibit any
> > surprising increases in AC resistance as I swept from 40 KHz to 800 KHz.
> > See http://www.laushaus.com/tesla/primary_resistance.htm
> >
> > Regards, Gary Lau
> > MA, USA
> >
> > > From: Dr.Hankenstein <Dr.Hankenstein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Re: Aluminium Wire  (fwd)
> > >
> > > Why would aluminum be considered "bad" for RF?
> > > My antennas work great...and they're made out of aluminum!
> > > So does the top-load on my tesla coil...five foot cross section, 5kva
> > input, 10 foot
> > > sparks....and it's aluminum! see:
> > http://www.drspark.org/images/wwt6.jpg
> > > Perhaps working with unconventional materials and designs is what
> > coiling is all
> > > about; what do you think?.
> > >
> > > Woo
> > >
> > >
> > > > [Original Message]
> > > > From: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Date: 9/27/2007 7:52:22 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Aluminium Wire  (fwd)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:21:09 -0500
> > > > From: resonance <resonance@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Subject: Re: Aluminium Wire  (fwd)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alum will work but limits your peak primary current.  Alum is not
> > very good
> > > > at RF frequencies.  It is used for 60 Hz commercial power
> > transmission lines
> > > > but not good above a few hundred Hz.
> > > >
> > > > Been there, done that, and took measurements.  Alum was a loser for
> > best
> > > > coil performance.
> > > >
> > > > Dr. Resonance
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Resonance Research Corp.
> > > > www.resonanceresearch.com
> >
> >