Re: Latest coil - update

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Latest coil - update
• From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
• Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 17:31:14 -0600
• Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
• Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

In a message dated 99-09-10 07:57:24 EDT, you write:

<< was placed between the transition cone (hey, it sounds better than
> dishpan) and the dryer-duct toroids. The breakout point on the top
> toroid was somewhere around 15" above the top winding of the
> secondary.The racing sparks finally stopped with this setup. But there
> was still a lot of corona around the secondary, just no sparks.
 
> But I am only getting 70" sparks now. Lost 10" of spark by doing these
> things. I wonder if it is worth losing that much spark length? 

>Alan

Alan,

I wonder why those changes would reduce the spark length?  I
didn't expect that.  It could be that the total secondary and toroid C
is now just too large for the amount of power, that's my guess.  

I suspect that if you built a new secondary that is narrower, maybe
8" or 9" wide, but taller at maybe 32" or so, then use the toroid combo,
it would work well.  I say this because when I once used a wide short
secondary, it both developed racing sparks, and demanded a smaller
toroid.  I suspect that if the power is limited, the total combined 
secondary and topload C shouldn't be too large.  (if one is larger, the
other must be smaller and vice versa).

In general, I found wide short secondaries to be *troublesome*.  But
it's mostly the shortness that causes the real trouble.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers,
John Freau

• Prev: Re: Latest coil
• Next: Re: neons
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread