[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
RE: Even More Mini Coils (twin)
From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com[SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 1997 3:35 PM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Even More Mini Coils (twin)
>As a result of this series of experiments, I now think one of the
>primaries typically used in twin coil systems is redundant. The
>only requirement for energy transfer is that it gets to the system
>as a whole. The current is efficiently transferred from the base of
>the driven coil to the base of the free-standing one. Also, resonator
>winding directions no longer matter because the operating mode is
>now different. Perhaps someone with a larger twin system could
>check it out and let us know please.
>Thanks,
>Malcolm >>
Malcolm,
A very nice, and interesting experiment.
In a way, your system is something like a "magnifier in reverse", in the
sense that the additional secondary is fed at its base, except from the
bottom of the first sec, instead of the top. Of course it's not really like
a magnifier, but it shares the base feed aspect.
The experiment implies (IMO) that a small number of turns could be
substituted for the "driven" secondary, and then both secondaries
could be remotely set up, each connected to opposite ends of the
"small middle coil". This would truly make it into a twin magnifier,
with both resonators driven from opposite ends of one secondary, or
middle coil. Spark length would probably remain about the same. I
think someone mentioned something like this once on the list also.
But the greatest change here would be that the coupling would change,
becoming much tighter in typical magnifier fashion, and a faster quench
time would be needed, of course.
Back to your coil, I agree, your finding does simplify the constuction
of twin coils, since winding directions no longer matter, only one
primary is needed, less tank losses occur since long interconnecting
wires between primariesare not needed, etc. So efficiency should be
better also.
I would imagine that anyone testing the concept should keep the overall
coupling of the system constant between the before and after systems.
Thinking out "loud" (written, actually) again,
John Freau