Re: Tesla Twin

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Tesla Twin
From: Tesla List <mod1-at-pupman-dot-com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 22:15:54 -0600 (MDT)
Approved: mod1-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:51:20 +1200
From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Tesla Twin

Hi Skip,

> From: Skip Greiner <sgreiner-at-wwnet-dot-com>
> To: tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Subject: Tesla Twin
> 
> Hi All
> 
> Well I am finally back and hope to do some serious coiling again.
> 
> I have a question.... I am going to put together a low power twin,
> probably about 2 kw input. I plan only to drive one secondary. The other
> secondary will be direct coupled to the first primary....base to base. I
> believe that the second primary should act as a perfect counterpoise to
> the driven primary.

Harking back to the minicoil experiments, they won't quite match 
because the driven one has a primary impedance attached to it. The 
degree of imbalance shows up in the length of arc you can get from 
the base connection to a ground. You can alter toploads slightly to 
minimize this too :)  However, as Bert pointed out, you can expect 
longer attached sparks than for a single coil. I obtained best results
with closest balance and no ground connection. Pri-sec clearances 
will be a problem if the imbalance is severe enough. Might pay to 
single shot the system to aid in getting this right.

> The question.... Should the secondaries, when used in this configuration
> be wound in the same direction or should they be wound in opposite
> directions?

It doesn't matter as they are not magnetically/capacitively coupled 
to any degree. I ran the minicoils over a foot apart at one stage and 
noted no difference in operation. Coupling is entirely by base 
current.

Nice one. 
Malcolm