Re: Conical Primaries (was Conical secondaries)

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

Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Hi John,

Agreed. Also, I'll be running ACMI and MandK programs for Fr and Coupling
comparisons to see how they sort out
with my tests on conicals.

Take care,
Bart A.

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "John H. Couture by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
>
> Bart -
>
> You may be correct about the flux linkages. I was thinking about the
> coupling which is about .195 for the spiral and .326 for the helical coil
> for the JHCTES default coil. More coupling more flux linkages? Your tests
> will provide the correct answer. There is nothing that beats a test when a
> question arises.
>
> John Couture
>
> -------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 6:57 AM
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Conical secondaries
>
> Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>
>
> Hi John,
>
> Yes, I'll report my measurements on cone primary's but I believe flux
> linkage will actually be less than helix
> or spirals when the inner diameter is unchanged for reason's regarding the
> inducing relationships between turn
> to turn and with those, the inducing affect the secondary has on the
> primary at these angles. Tests will either
> confirm this or prove otherwise. I can't run sparks at the moment for two
> reasons. Spark gap is in the middle
> of a change (dc motor controlled phasing - I personally like this as
> compared to a variac phasing method) and I
> knocked over BC2 (12.75" secondary) this weekend with toroid Fr
> measurements. I had pulley above adjusting
> toroid level and when I wasn't looking, it fell over landing on my dc sync
> adjustment motor (low gear speed
> type) and put a 2" dent in the secondary about 3/4 from the top of the
> secondary. Measurement's are fine at low
> voltage, but I'll have to repair for high voltage sparking. Probably flip
> over after repair.
>
> I'll report my findings upon measurement. BTW, toroid measurements are
> showing approximately 16% lower Fr when
> toroid is mounted vs. no toroid. This equates to a larger than 16% if
> applied to toroid capacitance. However,
> as far as the height above the secondary, the Fr changed only slightly. I
> think it's wise to change the Fr
> appropriately vs. a toroid or sphere capacitance adjustment, but I need to
> check the sphere next as well as
> another toroid (smaller in cord but larger in diameter across), as well as
> another toroid even smaller I have
> on hand.
>
> Also, I did running Fr measurements with a loop antenna a year ago and the
> Fr as compared to low voltage
> measurement using a Frequency meter and Terry's tuner circuit differed by
> only 1kHz. This technique of
> measurement is proving very accurate. I wasn't worried about actual Fr, but
> more concerned with Fr change,
> however, it appears to agree regardless (added benefit). As with TSSP, the
> inductance may be changing, but in a
> program, what is important is that either Ls or Ctotal is adjusted to
> appropriately predict Fr so that the
> primary is accurately adjusted.
>
> Take care,
> Bart A.
>
> Tesla list wrote:
>
> > Original poster: "John H. Couture by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
> >
> > Bart -
> >
> > I haven't seen any test data on flat vs inverted cone primaries and will
> be
> > anxious to hear about what you find. It is my understanding that the
> > advantage, if any, of the inverted cone is that it provides more coupling,
> > more flux linkages, and more output compared to the flat primary. In other
> > words the inverted cone gives the advantages of both the flat primary and
> > the helical coil primary.
> >
> > Could you test not only the inductances but also the couplings using the
> > same secondary coil? Testing the outputs would also help but could be very
> > difficult using a test method with metered inputs and controlled sparks.
> >
> > John Couture
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 7:02 AM
> > To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> > Subject: Re: Conical secondaries
> >
> > Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz
> > <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Interesting you brought this up. I just bought 100 ft of primary tubing at
> > Home
> > Base (btw, going out of business and 50 to 70% off) to wind conical
> > primary's and
> > test against calculated inductances via Fr measurements. Conical primary's
> > are
> > cone's (I know, duh). The only problem with a conical primary is that the
> > outer
> > windings are typically higher up on the secondary and therefore have
> greater
> > potential to take a strike from the secondary streamers. What if it is
> wound
> > downward? The secondary coupling would then need to be checked via current
> > measurement to see how far down the secondary should actually be to
> achieve
> > similar coupling on an upright cone. This is part of my current
> experiments
> > coming
> > soon.
> >
> > Bart A.