[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Tesla Coil Blunderbusses
Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>
> I wonder if just observing the gap by eye or with some sort of light
> meter to gauge its brightness might be a quick test that folks could
> use if they don't have a scope hook up. The coil would be tuned for
> it's best output at low power, then the power would be turned up and
> the gap brightness observed. Next, the coil would be re-tuned for
> longest spark output, and the gap brightness would be observed to see
> if it gets dimmer. If it gets dimmer, this would suggest a faster
> quenching, and would suggest that this outward tune point permits less
> energy to return to the primary, either because of greater spark
> loading, or for some other reason. Often, a more inward tune point
> gives more numerous, but shorter sparks. I've noticed that numerous
> sparks often gives better quenching than fewer longer sparks, so if
> the quenching improves in the experiment, this would be significant.
> If the quenching gets worse, then it could mean that poorer quenching
> is desireable up to a point as has been suggested by some in the past.
Myself included. I pondered this apparent paradox over the break. We
*know* quench is largely dictated by secondary losses so I wonder if
such tuning would have any effect. Problem is, I'm still wondering
because I was unable to perform the test. My garage is totally
unsuitable for a variety of reasons so I simply must find time and
space to do it here at work. I hope we have an open day this year. I
would get a grand opportunity to test in the best possible
surroundings. I'd like to settle the question once and for all.
> It is certainly true that the streamer-loaded coil should have a
> rather wide bandwidth. It will be interesting to see the results of
> your scope observations.
Join the club :(