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

Re: GNATS meeting, and harmony/synergy



Subject: 
        Re: GNATS meeting, and harmony/synergy
  Date: 
        Sat, 22 Mar 1997 18:19:14 -0500
  From: 
        "Robert W. Stephens" <rwstephens-at-headwaters-dot-com>
    To: 
        Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>


> Date:          Fri, 21 Mar 1997 23:58:23 -0600
> To:            tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
> Subject:       Re: GNATS meeting, and harmony/synergy
> From:          Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>

> Subject: 
>             Re: GNATS meeting, and harmony/synergy
>        Date: 
>             Fri, 21 Mar 1997 01:22:59 -0800
>        From: 
>             Open Minded <"unknown-at-apc-dot-net 
> 
> Tesla List wrote:
> > 
> > Subject:
> >         Re: GNATS meeting, and harmony/synergy
> >   Date:
> >         Thu, 20 Mar 1997 01:24:06 -0500 (EST)
> >   From:
> >         richard hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net>
> >     To:
> >         Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> > 
> > >
> > >Richard,
> > >
> > >One thing that you mentioned and I forgot to mention is that Jeff and I
> > >tried getting the gap to work with just the primary and no secondary at
> > >all.  Same flaming!  This now indicates to me that the 6" secondary was
> > >taking energy out of the system and allowing the gap to quench.
> > >
> > >I am going to try an experiment sometime this weekend if I get the
> > >chance.
> > >I'm going to rig a pulley in the garage and attach a line through it to
> > >the top of the coil.  Then while the coil is running I'll try to slowly
> > >raise the secondary and see where the output is the best.  I figure the
> > >best output will imply the "best" use of energy.
> > >
> > >Here's another question -- If I really work on a gap system that allows
> > >me
> > >to produce a nice snappy spark on the rotary with no secondary in the
> > >circuit, do you think that I would then have a really excellent gap
> > >system
> > >that would Do Great Things, or would it be just an exercize?  Of course,
> > >if
> > >no one knows, I can always try the experiment too.
> > >
> > >
> > >Chip
> > >
> > 
> > Chip,
> > 
> > This is one reason I usually opt for lotsa' turns in the primary.  It
> > slows
> > the thing down a bit and quenching is a little easier.
> > 
> > If you make a gap that doesn't flame with a 3 turn primary and a
> > moderately
> > large cap, you really have something!  If you take a .01ufd and a 15
> > turn
> > primary, you should quench ok with two series static gaps!  The gap
> > should
> > really be tuned and set for a specific system.  Nebulous statement, but
> > a
> > bit of experimentation and hands on will soon have that synergy
> > flowing.  An
> > experienced builder's best guess stands a far better chance of success
> > than
> > a Pspice model wielded by a novice.
> > 
> > Richard Hull, TCBOR
> 
> 
> Richard -
> 
>   What about a rotary? I've got 0.06uF worth of primary C, and am
> running about 3-3/4 turns on my primary. No flames, but wicked
> 6' sparks out of the coil...I guess I did something right.
> 
> - Brent

Brent,

Of course, nobody should try to argue with success, but like one of 
your teachers, Bill Wysock, you have become a capacitor beater!(IMO).
I'm about halfway between your extreme of very low primary inductance,
and
the rest of the cool cats on this list.  I have very successful coils 
that operate with flat spirals in the 5-6 turn range.  That 
represents however somewhat more than twice the primary L that you 
are using.  With very low primary L , the primary circuit 
intreconnection leadlength takes on a more significant role in 
absorbing generated RF power through inherent off-axis inductance.

You are clearly routing your wiring in a good, low loss mode to get 
such good performance out of a 3+ turn primary.  

I recommend that you investigate employing an increased primary L.  
The resultant reduced surge current will reduce power lost in the 
gap, and will make your capacitors live longer.

rwstephens