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

Re: Secondary coil form questions (fwd)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 11:51:04 -0500
From: "Robert W. Stephens" <rwstephens-at-headwaters-dot-com>
To: Tesla List <mod1-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Secondary coil form questions (fwd)

> Date:          Wed, 26 Feb 1997 21:31:49 -0700 (MST)
> From:          Tesla List <mod1-at-pupman-dot-com>
> To:            tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject:       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

Ed,

The timing of your question is uncanny.  I have answered it in my 
own post appearing simultaneously with yours entitled "Newborn coil - 
will be twins".  I explain that I am indeed winding two identical 
secondaries and will be employing primaries with reversed turns 
sense.  I guess we'll soon see.

That lab of yours certainly IS cold. Hope you didn't lose any body 
parts to frostbite! : )

Cheers,
rwstephens