Re: Best Primary Coil

Subject:     Re: Best Primary Coil
      Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 21:40:41 -0700
      From: Gary Weaver <gweaver-at-earthlink-dot-net>
        To:  Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>

Tesla List wrote:
> Subject:  Re: Best Primary Coil
>   Date:   Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:07:00 -0400
>   From:   "Thomas McGahee" <tom_mcgahee-at-sigmais-dot-com>
>     To:   "Tesla List" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> >
> >
> >
> > For several months I have been building and testing primary coils.
> --BIG SNIP--
> >
> > Gary Weaver
> Gary,
> Thank you ever so much for sharing the fruits of your research with us!
> This is precisely the kind of stuff that we really need to see on this
> list. I am sure that there will be others who have come to different
> conclusions than you based on their own experimentation. I can only hope
> that *they* will also share their findings with us.
> I am sure that most of us are aware that there probably is no *one*
> "BEST"
> way to build a Tesla coil. When we change a single variable, it often
> has
> wide-ranging repurcussions and necessitates further changes to get the
> optimization just right. That synergy that we all hope will be ours is
> an
> elusive little thing, isn't it? But well worth the effort!
> Our theories, our hunches, our gut reactions must all be tempered by
> experimentation. The final proof is always in the doing of it.
> Gary, it is obvious that you have been taking copious notes on what you
> have done. You mentioned in your post that you wanted to keep the post
> short so we would all read it. OK. After reading it and filing it away
> in
> several locations under various headings on my computer systems, I have
> a
> request to make.
> Not everyone may be interested in all the nitty gritty details that you
> left out in your post, but *I* sure am, and I am sure that there are
> others
> on this list that are also interested in getting as many of the facts as
> possible. I would appreciate it if you were to post any additional facts
> that you may have left out of the original post.
> I also have an additional parameter that I think needs to be added to
> the
> set of experiments, and that has to do with the effect of the largest
> diameter of the coil. For example, which is better, a primary coil that
> begins 1" from the secondary and has an inductance of X, or a primary
> that
> begins 4" from the secondary and has the same inductance. (It will have
> fewer turns to have the same inductance). You might be able to test this
> without having to wind any new primaries: instead of using the inner
> turn
> as the beginning turn, use the outermost turn as the beginning, and tap
> *in* instead of tapping *out*.
> Also, for tuning, it has always seemed to me that it would make more
> sense
> to tap *in* instead of *out* since the inner turns have less inductance
> per
> turn that the outer turns, and so tapping *in* would give one greater
> control over the total inductance. Actually, I guess that it would make
> the
> MOST sense to be able to tap BOTH in and out. One could tap outwards one
> turn too many and then begin to tap outwards from the inner turn to get
> the
> inductance just right.
> So much experimenting still to do!
> Thanks again, Gary, for sharing your experiments with us!
> Fr. Tom McGahee

I will put together some figures and post them when I can.  That
lots of typing and lots of figures, something I was trying to avoid.  

Gary Weaver