RE: Toroid Proximity (was Primary Design)


There is probably  a relationship which can be reduced to an equation which 
would put one in the ball park.  We really don't develop theory, but instead 
note relationships and tend to "tune for minimum smoke".  It is sad when one 
pulls out all the instruments, finds the optimum toroid position based on Q 
and then has the wisdom and experience to realize that it all goes in the 
toilet the moment the sparking begins.  Considering that the equation might 
get one close and actual instrumentation, dead on, the loss of this 
precision in dynamic running seems a bit ridiculous.  I always instrument 
the toroid into position and then adjust it in numerous test runs and judge 
by optical appearance of the spark (color and diameter) and length.

The best generalized advice that I might give (and I hate generalizations) 
is that it appears that if one elevates the toroid to the point where it no 
longer couples to the resonator or begins to develop its its full isotropic 
capacity, then you are in a loss of Q situation.  Please note that there are 
exceptions.  With a toroid jammed down on the top turns, a Q drop is noted, 
usually.  Slight elevation of the toroid will see the Q rise a bit and then 
at some greater elevation the Q will peak and then fall off with further 
elevation.  We have had to jam toroids on the upper windings and leave them 
there in a reduced Q position to secure other electrostatic benefits which 
far override the loss of Q as in our 1foot long resonators developing 9.5 
feet of discharge spark.  This was accomplished only last month with 
magnifier #11-E.

Richard Hull, TCBOR
From: tesla
To: 73041.2215; 73663.1536; BrittB7556; JHERRON; JOHNBATES3; abourass; 
atech; av599; davide; funkadelic; jbiehler; jmonty; kg7bz; koppemha; logue; 
mackte; nwtnmike; osburnw; pinsky; richardh; rmessick; rnicker; rwstephens; 
shu95mmc; stevej; twill19; yiorgos
Subject: Toroid Proximity (was Primary Design)
Date: Monday, April 01, 1996 8:04PM