[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ryan's Coil = DOA :(



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

In a message dated 1/10/01 11:46:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:

Al,

The free-standing coil that you advocate, is not free standing at all.
The coating that holds it together may have just as much loss as
a typical plastic form.  Also, carbon can track right through the 
coating material.  Regarding the amount of loss in a typical
plastic form.... it is negligable.  You will not see any difference in
spark length with or without a form.  You are correct that I aim for
max efficiency in my coils.  But I only concern myself with things
that will cause a noticeable improvement.  I often use polyethylene
for my forms, which does not seem to carbon track.  The losses
are super low, completely negligable for our purposes.

I would not be so presumptious as to assume what Tesla would or
would not do today.  But Tesla was a practical man, I don't think
he would have wasted his time on efforts that show no payoff.

Regarding the Q of the coil.  It's simply not that important in a
spark gap coil.  It is more important in a CW driven coil however.

I don't think a no-form secondary would save thousands of watts
even in a coil system of the magnitude envisioned by Tesla's 
transmission of power system.  Besides, such a system seems 
to be un-workable anyhow, in the best judgement of today's 
researchers who have advanced well beyond Tesla's work.

John Freau
--

> Original poster: "Albert Hassick by way of Terry Fritz 
<twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" 
> <uncadoc-at-juno-dot-com>
>  
>  Hi John, and all list members.  I have never made a true skeleton frame
>  air core secondary.  But have you attempted to make one of them for
>  yourself?  I am going to apply some non computer logic here.  Seems the
>  "Q" of the air core coil would be somewhat enhanced by having a skeleton
>  frame or no frame at all. After all, every little bit of efficiency we
>  can garner, no matter how minuscule a gain we can achieve it is still
>  nonetheless a gain and can be applied to the overall efficiency and
>  streamer output length or power transmission capacity of the Tesla coil.
>  Is this not what list members are striving for in their computer modeled
>  programs?  Imagine a secondary/tertiary coil wound around a slim paper
>  tube, then apply coats of poly/epoxy/fiberglass/shellac or whatever to
>  the exterior of the coil and let it set up hard.  Then unpeel the
>  interior paper form until you had only a solid column of copper magnet
>  wire, supported only by the resin that was applied to the outside portion
>  of the coil. You could use a release agent or wax paper or UHMW slippery
>  sheet film between the wire and the expendable form so that it would peel
>  away easily.  The UHMW film sheet could also be used as a stand alone
>  form, that could easily be removed once the air core coil binding resins
>  had set up. And;  Would this not result in a somewhat superior coil? 
>  Since it would now be very,very nearly a true 'air coupled coil' with no
>  plastic tube or cardboard to get in the way of the coupling. No lossy
>  materials in the core to induce arcing or carbon tracking.  I mean, air
>  directly to air would give the absolute best coil would it not?    Not
>  only that, there would also be no tantamount losses endured by the use of
>  any type of "lossy" coil form that probably 99.9% of coilers use now,
>  myself included;  whether it be plastic/paper/bakelite or whatever.  
>  This is why I stand my ground and adamantly say that Tesla would most
>  likely embrace a free standing air coil if he had access to the modern
>  resins that we take for granted today. Tesla would not be one to tolerate
>  'carbon' tracking in his coils.  Also, a small amount of efficiency
>  gained in a small coil can easily become 100's if not 1,000's of watts
>  extra output in the giant scale of what Tesla had envisioned for world
>  power at Wardenclyffe.   Al.
>