[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Wire Guage Sizes (for Q)



Subject:  Re: Wire Guage Sizes (for Q)
  Date:  Wed, 28 May 1997 18:46:35 -0400 (EDT)
  From:  richard hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net>
    To:  Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>


>
>There is one bottom-line relationship between wire guage 
>and secondary size, and that is Q.
>
>The secondary coil will transfer most of its energy to the 
>arc in less than 10 cycles, when properly designed and
>loaded.  Therefore, as a rule of thumb, the unloaded Q of 
>the secondary should be about 100, since any increase 
>in Q beyond this point can yield only single-digit percent
>improvements in the efficiency, and cost seems to go up
>as the square of Q.
>
>Given that Q = 2*pi*F*Lsec/Rsec,   and Q = 100,
>
>Then Rsec = 2*pi*F*Lsec/100.
>
>At this point, plug in your favorite equations that relate
>coil size vs. frequency and inductance, and
>wire resistance vs. winding length and skin depth.
>
>-GL
>
>

I would agree wholeheartedly here.  Most of our work indicates that a
coil
with a naked 707 bandpass Q of more than 120 is just an exercise in
futility.  A coil seems to do its best between a Q of 80-100 anything
below
this and you see a differential (in the toilet), anything much above you
don't see much of anything (no increase).  A good heavy loaded Q might
be in
the 40-80 range depending on coil size and other factors.  These guarded
generalizations are from measurements and real multiple working system
analysis and not maff coagulation.

Richard Hull, TCBOR