[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
RE: Latest magnifier results - wire shape
Subject: RE: Latest magnifier results - wire shape
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 22:40:13 +0000
From: "Bert Pool" <bertpool-at-flash-dot-net>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 01:17:53 -0500
> To: tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
> Subject: RE: Latest magnifier results - wire shape
> From: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Subject: RE: Latest magnifier results - wire shape
> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 17:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Edward V. Phillips" <ed-at-alumni.caltech.edu>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>
>
> Bert:
> Please explain "four layer secondary". Not quite sure
> what you're talking about, and if you've published an explanation
> haven't seen it. Bank winding?
> Ed
>
>
I covered this in earlier posts, but here it is again.
We wound our first layer exactly as always. The second layer over
over the first - same direction. You'll find that it is very
important that there be NO gaps in the underlying layer or you will
have problems with the next layer. We did a total of four layers.
Next, we soldered all four wires together. In effect, the four coils
are in parallel. If you use two layers of wire, you've just cut the
d.c. resistance of the wire in half. Since we used four layers, we
cut the resistance to 1/4. Our four 14 gauge wire is equivalent to
one 10 gauge wire. BUT, we could not have wound a 10 gauge wire
secondary on this form and had the same high inductance! Large gauge
wire equivalency, high inductance, small form - exactly what we hoped
to achieve. And it works. We've had no failures on our driver (four
layers) or or resonator (two layered 18 gauge enamel). I was worried
about inter-turn capacitance, but it does not appear to cause us any
hardships.
Bert Pool
bertpool-at-flash-dot-net