[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Q?
In a message dated 3/13/00 3:01:07 AM Central Standard Time, tesla@pupman.com
writes:
<< I would go for minimum losses (read high Q) in anything
> > bearing in mind that there are always tradeoffs to be made >>
Hi Malcolm and Reinhard,
I have been lurking in the background for fear of being trampled upon by
giants.
I suspect I started your thread by responding to a question about Q with a
statement
to the effect that while maximum Q or Figure of Merit is desirable in a CW
coil, it is not
always desirable in a disruptive coil. My thinking :-)) being along the
lines that a Tesla
coil is a very broadly tuned device. In tuning my little VTTC and my bipolar
I have used
a signal generator and an oscilloscope. I find a very sharp f res for the
secondary, but
only a very broad response when I try to tune the entire system. From the
little I can understand in Terman or Henney or Circ # 74, this is a
confirmation of the broadband
character of the Tesla system. It may also be a confirmation of the fact that
I have never built a real TC the way you guys have. :-)) If a TC is designed
for max Q doesn't this
waste a lot of the energy that is really being just thrown out to the
secondary over a very broad spectrum, and shouldn't the TC be tuned to
respond broadly to at least below the
3 Db point?
Thanks for an interesting subject. I'm goin out to clean the erasers. :-))
Happy day,
Ralph Zekelman