Re: Coil ratio; width versus length.

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <FutureT-at-aol-dot-com>

In a message dated 4/8/02 3:57:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
writes:

Bart,

The problem with calling it a low loss system is it does not consider
the growth of sparks in the air.  Higher bps may make the sparks
brighter rather than longer to some extent, so this is not necessarily
a loss, since some folks may prefer the brighter sparks.  What I'm 
saying is that some aspects of my designs may reduce losses, but 
other aspects may increase the spark length in ways that do not 
directly involve lowered losses.  

Hmmmm.  I'm thinking of a new term here....  something like a
"high spark length to input power ratio" or a "high L/P ratio" design.  
Or perhaps a high "SL/IP" design.  My equations would then be
viewed as predicting the performance of high L/P ratio designs, 
or high spark length to power input design.  This terminology
seems a little cumbersome though.

Cheers,
John


>
> Agree. I've never liked even using the word "efficiency" because of the many
> discussions in the past on the subject and the many different points of
> reference
> to it. But I think we can call it a "low-loss" design. This term should be
> easily
> understood that it refers to the entire system from start to finish, not
> just one
> part of the coil. With this in mind, a "low-loss" design will maximize the
> output
> for whatever that potential is on each coil.
>
> Your equations can be viewed as predicted sparklengths for power input based
> on
> low-loss systems.
>
> Take care,
> Bart
>
>