Re: Are Monster Toploads Really Needed?

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

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>

Hi Al,
       I have to agree with Antonio and others based on running 
experience. An increase of around 100% in terminal capacitance for 
one of my coils resulted in far louder and brighter sparks in 
addition to a 20% increase in sparklength. At the same time it is 
fair to note that primary inductance was boosted to maintain tune, 
primary losses were measurably decreased and k increased slightly. 

Regards,
Malcolm

On 22 Apr 01, at 15:16, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <acmq-at-compuland-dot-com.br>
> 
> Tesla list wrote:
> > 
> > Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>"
> <uncadoc-at-juno-dot-com>
> > 
> > Hi all, Is it not possible that a tank circuit with an appropriately
> > wound coil could work without a monster toriod topload and give
> > equally devastating arcs?  I still stand by my statement that our
> > coil can produce an equal arc when tuned with a toroid, sphere, or
> > no topload at all.  The arc length remains the same as long as the
> > primary is tuned for optimum coupling.    Al.
> 
> The formation of bright sparks/streamers needs large amounts of charge
> immediately available. A coil without top terminal keeps most of the
> charge stored on its self-capacitance insulated from the top of the
> coil by it's inductance, and not immediately available. The voltage at
> the top can be very high, but there is no energy available for long,
> bright sparks. All that is obtained are relatively faint corona
> plumes, with the current limited to the value of the relatively small
> RF secondary current. No tuning can improve this.
> 
> Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz
> 
> 
> 
> 
>