Re: NST power rating con

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz> 

Hi Tom,

On 2 Oct 2003, at 6:52, Tesla list wrote:

 > Original poster: Thomas <tom-at-pwrcom-dot-com.au>
 >
 > The more I look into this the more proof I get that the actual power
 > available from an NST is only half of the face plate values' product, i.e.
 >
 > P =(V x I)/2
 >
 > It's the only way I could get this to work out:
 >
 > http://www.users.bigpond-dot-net.au/broken.trout/Rotary_eqns.pdf
 >
 > Also it gives an extremely close value (+10%err) for spark length when half
 > the secondary VA is used for P in: L = 1.7sqrt(P) for my coil.
 >
 > I think the +10% length measured is due to the primary cap being resonant
 > with the NST, and a slightly too wide spark gap.
 >
 > Why is this con(fidence trick) by NST manufacturers not mentioned on any
 > Tesla coil design web sites (that I've seen)?
 >
 > It's almost as bad as the *peak music power* con used by cheap audio gear
 > manufacturers.
 >
 > Tom L.

I don't think it's a confidence trick. NSTs were never designed to be
punished the way we do. We all know why they are built the way they
are.

Malcolm