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

RE: Spheres vs Toriods

At 09:32 AM 4/4/96 +0700, you wrote:
>>From uucp-1.csn-dot-net!smtpgate.whitlock-dot-com.!RICHARDH-at-whitlock-dot-com Thu Apr
4 09:18 MST 1996
>>Received: from valriva.whitlock-dot-com (valriva.whitlock-dot-com [198.69.64.3])
by uucp-1.csn-dot-net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA15314 for
<grendel!grendel.objinc-dot-com!tesla-at-uucp-1.csn-dot-net>; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 07:34:36
-0700
>From: Richard Hull <whitlock-dot-com!RICHARDH-at-uucp-1.csn-dot-net>
>To: tesla <tesla-at-grendel.objinc-dot-com>
>Subject: RE: Spheres vs Toriods
>Date: Thu, 04 Apr 96 09:34:00 PST
>Encoding: 60 TEXT
>
>
>Jack,
>
>The sphere is obviously the better terminal for voltage buildup, but it 
>offers zero electrostatic shielding or shanding of the top of the tesla 
>coils resonator.  It is not stackable or attachable to a lot of systems 
>without boring holes in it.  As you say, it is the most expensive form of 
>terminal to spin and weld to perfection.  All of these points add up to the 
>sphere actually being the worst terminal for a Tesla coil.   The fact that 
>the sphere or some form of oblate is both theoretically and in actuality the 
>ideal terminal for voltage standoff, doesn't mean beans if the coil hasn't 
>the proper shielding and field shaping to survive the rise of voltage that 
>the terminal can actually store.
>
>The tesla coil is a form of pulse charged electrostatic generator or charge 
>pump when very large terminal capacities are used.  This capacitance seems 
>to be best developed in Toroidial termnals provided large cross sectional 
>diameters are used.  The superb field shaping action and stackability of the 
>toroid shape makes it the number one choice for Tesla coils.
>
>Richard Hull, TCBOR

Richard,
        Thank you for a clear and understandable explanation.  I simply had
not gotten past the "high voltage terminal" and had ignored the different
requirements of a different application.
Thanks again,
Jack