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

Re: Q?



In a message dated 3/13/00 3:01:07 AM Central Standard Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-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