Re: Aluminium aka Aluminum Wire (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:39:43 -0700
From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Aluminium aka Aluminum Wire (fwd)

Very true Gary. But considering we use them mainly as dissipation mass, 
they serve the purpose well. In short fat blocks like that, almost 
anything will do (even iron masses). It's when we start winding coils 
with these materials that we experience losses we can measure. I have no 
doubt we can wind a secondary from Al magnet wire and have it perform 
well, but the design itself will be different from what we are use to 
(that thousand turn recommendation will change).

There's no doubt that RF losses will be at least 150% higher, but in the 
tank discharge arena, it's not a factor worth discussing. If you look at 
the losses on the total system scale, this particular loss in the 
primary circuit is extremely negligible and why the RF with aluminum is 
interpreted as a myth hoax.

But, insert those losses to the secondary side, and then we need to 
start looking a little closer. In many cases it will not be a problem 
(many secondary geometry's can be made rather efficient with aluminum 
wire), but there are situations where it will drop output as compared to 
a copper winding.

No matter what material we use for wire, the conductance of that 
material is just as important as the length and size of the conductor. 
We can't change physics (just do our best to understand and design 
accordingly). In some cases, aluminum will be a poor choice and copper 
will be far better. In other cases, aluminum will be just fine for the 
application. The real task is deciding when the one with lesser 
conductance is ok (and when it is not).

Take care,
Bart

Tesla list wrote:

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:09:28 -0400
>From: "Lau, Gary" <Gary.Lau@xxxxxx>
>To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: Aluminium aka Aluminum Wire (fwd)
>
>Hi Bart:
>
>Thanks, that's a great link.  I never looked too closely at the relative
>resistivities before.  In addition to the wide range of alloy
>resistivities, I was also surprised with how poorly brass compares to
>aluminum - TWICE the resistance!
>
>Regards, Gary Lau
>MA, USA
>
>  
>
>>From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: Aluminium aka Aluminum Wire (fwd)
>>
>>I goofed the link. Left out a "d" in "eddy". Here's the correct link.
>>http://www.eddy-current.com/condres.htm
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>