Re: 7.5 or 5.0kv

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

Original poster: "colin.heath4 by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <colin.heath4-at-ntlworld-dot-com>

hi there,
             i have used oil burner transformers on a coil with the same size
secondary as yours with an 11nF tank cap which is large and a three segment
gap.
this performed fine with 6" or so with out to much playing around and a
smaller toroid than yours
i would say 5kv is fine but obviously the higher voltage gives better
performance with less heating losses than the same given power of a lower
voltage
if you want any more info on my coil give me a mail
cheers
colin heath

----- Original Message -----
From: Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 5:08 AM
Subject: 7.5 or 5.0kv


 > Original poster: "John Richardson by way of Terry Fritz
<teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <jprich-at-up-dot-net>
 >
 > Hello,
 >
 > Attempt number two on the toroid went better.  Still rather homely, but
 > everything is relative.
 >
 > I have another question for you guys:  Over the weekend I wound a
secondary
 > out of #32 heavy build, 13" of windings, on 2" PVC pipe.  I want to keep
 > this small, so I plan to mount the whole pri/sec assembly on one of these
 > 12" fiberboard circles that Home Depot sells for about two bucks.  The
 > toroid is the previously mentioned disaster with measurements about 9 by 3
 > 1/2.  I've collected a wide variety of transformers over time, and was
 > hoping to use a 5kv/20ma ignition transformer that I robbed out of a small
 > space heater.  Would this be acceptable, or would I be better off with one
 > of the 7.5/30s?  I have looked thru the archives and tried to search the
 > Tesla Ring (hard to find anything using keywords on the Webring), and
 > haven't come up with anything definitive.  This is my first coil since I
 > was a kid (Model T coil driven; didn't work so well), and I would like to
 > avoid screwing it up right off.  Looking for a few thoughts given the
 > secondary size.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > John Richardson
 >
 >
 >