[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PVC Wire for a secondary?
Tesla List wrote:
> Original Poster: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
> Ed, Malcolm, All -
> My remarks were in regards to the typical magnet wire with 1 mil ordinary
> enamel insulation that is normally used by coilers for small coils. I
> understand that you and Hull used the more expensive magnet wire with
> thicker enamel insulation of higher quality. This magnet wire would have
> less losses similar to PVC.
> When I was developing the JHCTES Ver 2.3 TC computer program I realized that
> a parameter that would indicate the voltage stress between the secondary
> wire turns would be valuable information to the designer and would remove
> some of the randomness and error of the Tesla coil design. There are several
> ways this stress can be represented in a computer program and I choose a
> "volts per turn" parameter.
> To my knowledge no one has ever given a recommended secondary wire
> "insulation requirements" for a certain design of Tesla coil except as shown
> by the JHCTES program. The usual wire tables do not give this type of
> information for a particular Tesla coil because this parameter is dependent
> on many variables that a computer program would have to coordinate.
Richard Hull used any magnet wire he had on hand to wind secondary coils
and none of it that I'm aware of was anything special!
I also buy anything that's readily available in the way of magnet wire.
I don't hunt around for anything special.
The magnet wire I am currently using on my magnifier extra coil measures
.043" with the enamel and .040" bare which gives a total insulation
thickness of .0015". If, as you say, "normal" magnet wire enamel
insulation thickness (I have never heard of this) is 1 mil or .001" then
I'm not so sure the extra .0005" (5 TEN THOUSANTHS) of an inch of
insulation is what's preventing my extra coil from self destructing by
insulation breakdown. This extra coil has a total run time of 15 hours
on it! "Less losses, similar to PVC", from an extra .0005" of insulation
doesn't really seem logical to me either.
Ed Wingate RATCB