RE: [TCML] HIGH Q number crunching WIP update

["Lau, Gary" <Gary.Lau@xxxxxx>]

It might be prudent to think about just what coil parameter really correlates with "performance".  You suggest that the output KV would indicate relative performance.

I would point out that an easy way to boost the peak secondary voltage is to minimize secondary capacitance.  By conservation of energy, the same input bang translated to a smaller topload capacitance would yield a correspondingly higher voltage.  But the experience of anyone who has experimented with different topload sizes is that larger toploads almost always result in longer sparks.  Granted, the resulting topload voltage is no doubt lower with the bigger toploads, but it points out that what constitutes "performance" may not be topload voltage.

It's also not clear to me that secondary Q is terribly important to performance, by any measure, in a disruptive coil.  For CW coils, it does matter though.

I'm not familiar with how JavaTC arrives at things.  Did JavaTC give expected Q's of your competing coils?  Have calculated values been validated with actual measurements?

Gray Lau
MA, USA



> -----Original Message-----
> From: tesla-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tesla-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Chris Swinson
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:31 AM
> To: Tesla Coil Mailing List
> Subject: [TCML] HIGH Q number crunching WIP update
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> 2 PDF files, the first one shows the demo coil in JAVATC but reduced to 0.6J
> ( running on 8KV )
>
> The second pdf shows my current construction for my high Q system. OK I
> missed out a fair few bits, but according to the results the high Q 80turn
> coil can easily do just as well as the 895 turn demo coil.
>
> For those who want to skip to the point, both designs appear to output the
> same KV ( well they do math wise). Though I hope my high Q design will
> actually perform a lot better than a conventional coil... easier said than
> done, but every step of the way is a calculation nightmare, but getting
> there!!
>
> http://www.future-technologies.co.uk/temp/javatc.pdf
>
> http://www.future-technologies.co.uk/temp/javatcQ.pdf
>
> http://www.future-technologies.co.uk/IMPULSE/20kvq/ ( a little more info )
>
> There are 2 designs using the same secondary, one is a high Q LV design
> (100V solid state design) and the listed 20KV design. There is actually a
> lot of work and data to crunch and of course is taking its time to build :-(
>
> Currently building a 20KV pulse cap out of tin foil and food tubs, been 10
> years since I built one, the good old days ;-)
>
> I might also add apologies for the poor pdf print out, and poor WIP hack of
> JAVATC too :)
>
> Chris
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tesla mailing list
> Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla