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

Re: Larger secondary more efficiency?

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Larger secondary more efficiency?
From: Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 23:57:23 -0600
Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme
In-Reply-To: <002901c031b0$e6ffc1e0$369d6dcb-at-kellywil>
References: <4.1.20001008215017.00a298d0-at-pop.dnvr.uswest-dot-net>

At 06:21 PM 10/9/2000 +1300, you wrote:
snip...> Terry
>
>I must clarify here. When I say 11.8 inches, I mean diameter. I intended on
>making the secondary
>8" wide and 40" tall,
>but 11.8" Wide is all I can get. I would keep the 40" Tall dimension.
>Is this too large?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alan Williams
>

Hi Alan,

"I" think 8 wide by 40 tall is fine.  That is right in line with all the
calculations and stuff.  You will not go wrong with this size...

Cheers,

	Terry

References:
- Re: Larger secondary more efficiency?
  - From: Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>

Prev by Date: Re: Tungsten Electrodes .25"
Next by Date: Re: Larger secondary more efficiency?
Prev by thread: Re: Larger secondary more efficiency?
Next by thread: Re: Larger secondary more efficiency?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread