Re: Hello

To: tesla-at-grendel.objinc-dot-com
Subject: Re: Hello
From: napier-at-cats.ucsc.edu (Lisa Napier)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 95 09:22:03 EDT
>Received: from ns-1.csn-dot-net (root-at-ns-1.csn-dot-net [199.117.27.21]) by uucp-1.csn-dot-net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA00580 for <tesla-at-grendel.objinc-dot-com>; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 10:59:35 -0600

On Wed, 4 Oct 1995 10:00:08 +0700 you wrote:

>	Now, my understanding is that from this SCTC we get a reduced size
>and weight than a conventional one because the energy handling abilities are
>greater on a size to weight ratio with standard conductors.  However, the
>number of turns of the coil don't change.  Now I may be able to create a
>free standing coil that is I would have NO interior material (such as a PVC
>pipe).  Is this a problem?  That is, I am under the impression that the
>PVC acts as a way to absorb the stray RF energy from the coil.  That I beleive
>is why the RF loss is important for the core (?) material.
>
>						Will...
>

It is my understanding that RF losses are unfavorable.  We try to use
low loss materials like acrylic and polycarbonate but they are
expensive.  Many people use
PVC.  This material absorbs water so it has to be dryed and sealed to
be effective.  There has been discusion on this list about how to
build a free standing coil form.  I don't recall if anyone ever had an
effective method that was also cheap and easy, but the result would be
a coil with less loss which equals higher Q.  That means more
efficient as I understand it.

Mark R. Napier
napier-at-cats.ucsc.edu