Re: ribbon vs. tubing

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: ribbon vs. tubing
From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:05:25 -0800
Tesla List wrote:
> 
> >From Benson_Barry%PAX5-at-mr.nawcad.navy.mil Tue Dec  3 22:57:42 1996
> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 07:13:00 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Benson_Barry%PAX5-at-mr.nawcad.navy.mil
> To: tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
> Subject: RE: ribbon vs. tubing
> 
> In one of Richard Hull's video tapes there
> was a primary made with ribbon.  The sharp
> edges seemed to attract an inordinate
> amount of strikes from the secondary.
> When it was changed to copper tubing the
> secondary streamers stopped striking it.
> The self capacity would seem to be higher
> also.  Richard's small coil uses ribbon
> for the primary and seems to work very well
> but it does not produce sparks big enough to
> strike the primary.  I have always had good
> results with copper tubing.  It is also good
> for the electrostatic design of the TC.
> Barry


Barry,

You are correct in the above.  I prefer very large tubing for the big 
stuff at very high primary voltages and ribbon for smaller systems where 
loss is a concern.  Note*  Ribbon can be made to not attract hits, but I 
have opted from copper tubing on my big units as a matter of convenience 
and ease of manufacture.

The ideal ribbon would be of an "I" beam design with the top and bottom 
of the "I" being replaced with tubing.  I noted this many years ago in my 
lab notebook, but the ribbon would have to be formed and the tubing 
brazed or soldered onto the top and bottom of the ribbon afterwards.  
This would be a tedious and time consuming operation which would gain 
little for all the effort.

Richard Hull, TCBOR