[TCML] Would a Tesla coil work in a vaccum?
jimlux at earthlink.net
Sun Apr 18 08:27:30 MDT 2010
Brian Hall wrote:
> But if air is not necessary for the coupling to work, if no physical
> medium is required to transmit the electromagnetic energy - as the
> absence of air between the coils, from what I gather, would not
> interfere with the production of resonant rise, then should we
> really keep classifying it as an 'air core' transformer then?
> Granted, it is very rare that one hears of a tesla coil being built
> in anything other than 1 atm, but I cant help but think that this is
As you surmise, the term "air core" inductor arises in the context of
differentiation from "iron core" inductors. One could also refer to it
as a "coreless" inductor.
> I know it may have been called an 'air core resonant transformer' for
> a very long time, and old habits die hard, but if having air present
> between the primary and secondary is not a _requirement_ for it to
> work - then perhaps the 'air core' part of what we call it should be
> omitted - or otherwise reflect the nature of what is always true
> about the coupling and transfer of energy from one coil to the other
> - whether in oil, air, or vaccum, just so long as the fluid between
> the pri. and sec. it is a non-conductive material?
It's a term that has been around for centuries, and isn't likely to go
Sort of like how a "transformer" might better be described as "coupled
More information about the Tesla