Re: Tesla Coil Blunderbusses

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <FutureT-at-aol-dot-com>

In a message dated 4/10/01 10:48:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:

> >      Suppose the tuning difference results in the secondary being
>  > unable to backload to the primary as effectively as it would if the
>  > tuning of the circuits was identical. Two things would result: energy
>  > would be bottled up in the secondary for longer and this amounts to an
>  > earlier gap quench by proxy. 

Malcolm, all,

I wonder if just observing the gap by eye or with some sort of light
meter to gauge its brightness might be a quick test that folks could
use if they don't have a scope hook up.  The coil would be tuned
for it's best output at low power, then the power would be turned
up and the gap brightness observed.  Next, the coil would be 
re-tuned for longest spark output, and the gap brightness would be
observed to see if it gets dimmer.  If it gets dimmer, this would
suggest a faster quenching, and would suggest that this outward
tune point permits less energy to return to the primary, either because
of greater spark loading, or for some other reason.  Often, a more
inward tune point gives more numerous, but shorter sparks.  I've
noticed that numerous sparks often gives better quenching than
fewer longer sparks, so if the quenching improves in the experiment,
this would be significant.  If the quenching gets worse, then it
could mean that poorer quenching is desireable up to a point as
has been suggested by some in the past.  

It is certainly true that the streamer-loaded coil should have a rather
wide bandwidth.  It will be interesting to see the results of your
scope observations.

Cheers,
John