Re: Tesla Coil toroid Size (the point of no return)

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Tesla Coil toroid Size (the point of no return)
• From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com (by way of Terry Fritz <terryf-at-verinet-dot-com>)
• Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:05:37 -0600
• Approved: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com

In a message dated 98-09-11 23:19:17 EDT, you write:

<< 
>   John F -
 
>   I agree and that would be part of the increment loss that I mentioned.
> How would you determine this "point of no return" when you design your
coils?
 
>   John C. >>

John,

I just use rules of thumb, based on my (and other's) experience for 
determining gap robustness and design, for adequate quenching.  I
don't have any magic techniques for this.  For small TC's I might use
a static gap, and I'd use a rotary for larger coils.  Rotaries are much
less likely to hit this quenching *wall*.  All my coils are experimental,
so I often test the coils using a number of different gaps anyhow. 

Regarding spark-overs and other voltage breakdown conditions of
the primary or secondary coils, I also rely on experience, and
experiment.

BTW, when I sometimes speak of my 42" spark TC, or my 64" spark 
TC, etc, these are actually the same coil.  I just change the cap size, 
toroid, and power input, thereby converting one coil into the other as 
needed for various research requirements.  A given primary/secondary
coil arrangement can work well over a range of power inputs.

John Freau

• Prev: Re: association of women coilers
• Next: Re: association of women coilers
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread