Re: Tesla Coil toroid Size

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Tesla Coil toroid Size
From: "Barton B. Anderson" <mopar-at-uswest-dot-net> (by way of Terry Fritz <terryf-at-verinet-dot-com>)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:19:20 -0600
Approved: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com

John,

Tesla List wrote:
> 
> Original Poster: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
> 
>   Bart -
> 
>   Changing from one toroid to another toroid may not give enough change in
> energy to be detected at the input. What sizes were the toroids? Try the
> large toroid vs a 2 or 3 inch sphere, if the TC can be tuned.

The bottom toroid is 29.5" x 6.6". The top toroid is
7.5" x 36". I don't think I can tune in a sphere that
small.

>   Did you say that the spark did not lenghten when you used the larger
> toroid? This is contrary to what other coilers have found. However, this is
> possible if some other parameter changed such as finding the proper tune
> point.

It is possible that my tuning is not 100%. When I tuned
the bottom toroid (some time back), I used controlled
sparks. But when I added the second toroid I did not.
I'll go back and retune under the same controlled
sparks.

<snip>
> The em field is of little significance in this case because we are only
> interested in input energy vs output energy.

My only thought here was if the em field restricts or
promotes breakout, therefore affecting sparklength. I'm
not sure. It seems we haven't
groveled into em field discussions much and the effects.

<snip>
> I just assumed the input energy had
> increased. I did not have the instruments to measure the input.

Well, somethings driving long sparks, and we know the an
undersized toroid decreases capable length. Also, in
retrospec, how many times have we seen that a toroid was
too large for a coil and a pointed object was placed on
the toroid to promote breakout - and it worked. It would
appear that a larger toroid requires more energy to
breakout, not necessarily Vs. I would suspect this is
where bps becomes significant?

Bart