• Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

My first tesla coil build

Status
Not open for further replies.

DerStrom8

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member
Well you can start by not calling it a Tesla Coil. A Slayer Exciter is not a Tesla coil.

Some design tesla coils also require fine-tuning the length of the primary, so using bare-wire primaries which can be clipped onto is useful.
This is required for actual Tesla Coils which are made up of at least two tuned resonant circuits.

For my small desktop Tesla coil, none of this matters.
Because yours is not a true Tesla coil (there are no tuned resonant circuits, just the one resonant circuit made up of the secondary coil and topload). It is simply a high frequency oscillator.

There are also a number of grammatical and spelling errors. Might want to read through it carefully. Additionally, some of your "explanations" for certain choices are not accurate or are incomplete. I'm not going to go through and list them here, you should probably do a little more research on the theory of operation of a Slayer circuit.
 

elpechos

New Member
"This is required for actual Tesla Coils which are made up of at least two tuned resonant circuits."

This definition would rule out many solid state Tesla coils as being Tesla coils.

The second tuned circuit created between a capacitor and the primary in a 'real' spark-gap coil is only really required if you have a spark-gap, or are using a solid-state driver which is switching at a lower harmonic of the resonant frequency of the coil.

Realistically, a tuned driver circuit in a solid state Tesla coil is taking the place of a tuned LC primary/capacitor circuit in a 'real' Tesla coil and the operation is otherwise the same. So the solid state version isn't any less 'real' perse.
 

elpechos

New Member
Eh. It doesn't really matter.
If you want to consider the secondary being driven by a LC circuit formed by a primary and a capacitor as a Tesla coil, and any other configuration not a Tesla coil. Then by that definition, the slayer, and any other 'direct drive' type circuits, are not Tesla coils by your definition. It doesn't seem like a meaningful physical or practical distinction to make, though. You've merely replaced one LC oscillator with a solid state oscillator that does the same thing.
You're definitely right that my grammar is bad though. I'd also be more interested in mistakes in the descriptions that aren't just splitting hairs over terminology.
Cheers
 

elpechos

New Member
I've modified the text in the post to this

"Some Tesla coil designs also require fine-tuning the length of the primary, so using a bare-wire primary whose length can easily be adjusted with alligator clips is useful. For my small desktop Tesla coil using the slayer exciter circuit, none of this matters. The slayer circuit automatically tunes itself to the resonant frequency of the secondary, so fine-tuning of the primary isn't required"

I feel this statement is more physically accurate. The purpose of tuning the primary is specific to Tesla (Not in your definition) coils that use a LC circuit to drive the secondary.
 

elpechos

New Member
DerStrom. Looks like wikipedia suggests the slayer is a Tesla coil
  • Single resonant solid state Tesla coil (SRSSTC) - In this circuit the primary does not have a capacitor and so is not a tuned circuit; only the secondary is. The pulses of current to the primary from the switching transistors excite resonance in the secondary tuned circuit. Single tuned SSTCs are simpler, but don't have as high a Q and cannot produce as high voltage from a given input power as the DRSSTC.
The slayer clearly falls under this definition.

There's in fact a broad range of different types listed which differ fairly significantly from the dual tuned spark gap type:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_coil#Types

Cheers
 
Last edited:

DerStrom8

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member
elpechos You provide some compelling arguments (with the exception of citing Wikipedia, which you really shouldn't ever do) and I will concede that it is a matter of semantics. Feel free to carry on and I will abstain from "correcting" you when you refer to a Slayer exciter as a Tesla coil.
 

elpechos

New Member
As usual wiki gives references to the classifications of types but summarizes it more succinctly than the original sources.

Wikipedia has also been tested numerous times and found to be as accurate, or more so, than most well respected sources of information.

http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

There's no practical reason not to quote wikipedia. It gives as much weighting as quoting anything else and is generally more convenient.

It's jut as possible to cite wrong MIT, cambridge, or britannica papers as it is to cite wrong wikipedia info. From a purely statistical standpoint, a citation from wikipedia has the same chance as being correct as any other paper so should be treated as such

For details into accuracy of wikipedia see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

you might note that most other sources (eg, published papers) have few studies into their accuracy so it's difficult to tell which journals are accurate or not, whilst wikipedias accuracy is subject to analysis routinely

A citation of wikipedia is statistically (and also empirically proven to be) strongly more convincing argument of correctness than citing some other random **** on the internet.

If wikipedia says something is so, more than 95/100 times wikipedia is right. So unless you're in the lucky 1%, you're probably wrong.
 
Last edited:

DerStrom8

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member
The link is dead.

EDIT: I fixed your link.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

EE World Online Articles

Loading
Top