Re: Conical Secondary

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

Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Tesla list wrote:
> 
> Original poster: "Bert Hickman by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-net>
> 
> Chris,
> 
> It really shouldn't matter very much - I'd go with the larger diameter
> on the base to make it somewhat more stable.
> 
> -- Bert --
> --
> Bert Hickman
> Stoneridge Engineering
> Email:    bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-net
> Web Site: http://www.teslamania-dot-com
> 
> Tesla list wrote:
> >
> > Original poster: "Chris Snyder by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <csnyder-at-ga.prestige-dot-net>
> >
> > Hey list,
> >
> >     My secondary form is slightly conical, only less than an inch, but it
> still
> > raised a question... Would it be better to have the smaller end on the
bottom
> > or top? At first I thought at the bottom because I imagined it would be
more
> > "in contact" with the primary field. Last night though, I saw a page with
> > somebody having the smaller end on top and now I'm not sure... Any
> thoughts? Oh
> > yea, my primary is a flat spiral. Thanks everyone
> >
> > -Chris Snyder

	Smaller end at the top "looks better" and having big end at the bottom
will improve the coupling.  There have been some severely conical coils
built and, while the look interesting, not sure there is any merit to
that configuration.  Comments anyone?

Ed