Re: Q?

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Q?
From: "Reinhard Walter Buchner" <rw.buchner-at-verbund-dot-net> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:55:07 -0700
Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

Hi Malcom,

> Original Poster: "Malcolm Watts" <malcolm.watts-at-wnp.ac.nz>
>
> I would like to comment on one thing in this piece:
> Why not?  I would go for minimum losses (read high Q) in anything
> bearing in mind that there are always tradeoffs to be made. For
> example, one might cram some more inductance into a secondary
> using smaller wire so that more inductance was required for the
> primary in turn raising the Q of the primary which is certainly
> desirable. In this instance, you are trading secondary Q for primary
> Q. The better option is to build a bigger secondary so maintaining
> secondary Q as well.

Hmm, somehow, today is not our agreement day ;o)). I think
primary Q is of almost no importance in a TC. Primary Q is
already pretty low and once the gap fires, your primary Q will
drop like a rock, anyway. I think putting effort into a high Q
secondary is the more effective way to go. I can´t really see
an improvement in upgrading the primary Q. Put a good (high Q)
secondary into a low Q primary circuit and you will still get pretty
good results. Put a low Q secondary into a super-high Q primary
circuit and your results won´t be worth beans ;o)).

Coiler greets from Germany,
Reinhard