[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Secondary coil form questions (fwd)





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:55:42 -0500
From: "Edward J. Wingate" <ewing7-at-frontiernet-dot-net>
To: Tesla List <mod1-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Secondary coil form questions (fwd)

Tesla List wrote:
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 20:40:28 -0500 (EST)
> From: richard hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net>
> To: Tesla List <mod1-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Subject: Re: Secondary coil form questions (fwd)
> 
> At 10:51 PM 2/22/97 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 14:42:38 -0800
> >From: Bert Hickman <bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-com>
> >To: Tesla List <mod1-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com>
> >Subject: Re: Secondary coil form questions (fwd)
> >
>  snip
> 
> >> With Ed's system there are two primaries which share a common tank circuit.
> >> assuming the primarys are wound in the same relative direction, the
> >> secondaries would have to be wound oppositely to get maximum leap between
> >> the pair!  (phasing).  The bottom line is one of the major coil windings,
> >> primary or secondary ought to be reversed to get true half wave action.
> >>
> >> I think I'm right on this one.
> >>
> >> Richard Hull, TCBOR
> >
> >
> >Richard & Ed,
> >
> >Couldn't you just reverse the phasing on one of the primaries instead if
> >this was a problem?
> >
> >-- Bert --
> >
> >
> >
> >Bert,
> 
> Check my last sentence above...  I think that's what I said in the "bottom
> line".  One major winding must be reversed.  Ed runs nice parallel primary
> busses and crossing them would present a problem.  Thus, he wound his
> secondaries oppositely and good thing, too!  I've seen his system kick butt
> in person for several runs on two different visits.  He was kind enough to
> supply footage for several of our video reports as well.  It is awesome.
> 
> Richard Hull, TCBOR

Richard & Bert,

Thanks Richard, I throughly enjoy cranking up the twin system for folks.

The reason it has taken so long to answer this post is that before I
commented I wanted to be certain about what I said.  Conjecture and
theory are fine, but I still like solid documentation. Sooo.. part of my
Sunday afternoon was spent down in the lab freezin' my buns off at 25
degrees F.( still no heat, and still wintertime in the northeast)
tearing down the magnifier and setting up the twin coil to try some
experiments with switching primary leads. I thought I had tried this
once, but had no documentation.   Richard, you are right, when I
switched the primary leads to the base of the left hand coil and applied
the power the arcover on that coil looked like the 4th of July and the
two coils would not fire to each other indicating that they were now in
phase. It's a good thing that I had a quick hand on the controls,
because at first everything seemed Ok, but suddenly, at a certain point
in the power up the left coil went into it's arcover mode. I have been
told by some people in the past that the secondaries on a twin coil
could be wound in the same direction and it would still work fine. I
don't remember if any mention was made of the primaries, but my
experiment seems to bear out the fact that either one secondary or one
primary must be wound in reverse. Or, possibly, in the case of the
primary be wired in reverse. Anyone out there willing to build a twin
with the secondaries wound in the same direction and one primary wound
in reverse to prove out the premise??

Ed Wingate