[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Golka Photos
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
 
- Subject: Re: Golka Photos
 
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
 
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:06:56 -0600
 
- Delivered-to: testla@pupman.com
 
- Delivered-to: tesla@pupman.com
 
- Old-return-path: <teslalist@twfpowerelectronics.com>
 
- Resent-date: Wed,  6 Apr 2005 08:14:40 -0600 (MDT)
 
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
 
- Resent-message-id: <rdorbD.A.-jE.O7-UCB@poodle>
 
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
 
Original poster: David Speck <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Phil,
I was taught that if your primary coil was suspended in imaginary outer 
space, the EM field it created would extend symmetrically in both 
directions from the coil.  Thus it would seem to me that for best possible 
performance, you would not want to have anything that would present a 
significant load within the space of influence of the primary.
"Someday", when I build my big coil, I'm going to try supporting the 
primary at least as far off the floor as the secondary is tall, with 
nothing directly under the coil.  It will be interesting to see how it works.
Dave
    So how close is too close?
    I've also wondered if the usual arrangement, with transformers, spark 
gap rotation/airflow motors, filter components, PFC correction, etc. 
directly under the primary cause problems as well. I suppose one could 
add or remove "dummy" NST's and note the effect. Even if they aren't too 
lossy, ferrous materials less than a foot from the bottom of the coils 
might affect the k.
-Phil LaBudde