Re: Lower secondary cself => better performance?

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

Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Malcolm, 

You just posted some very clear common sense. In my opinion, coilers should
take a second look here and is mainly my reason to reply. 

This is one of those posts all coilers should keep. It clearly points out the
basic changes we make to our coils and what occurs that is not always realized.
I know you are pointing out a situation to help keep testing equal between coil
configuratinos, but the underlying result identifies some of the changes that
occurs when we make changes to our coils. Hope others see what I see. 

Take care, 
Bart A. 
  
>
> Hi Duncan, 
>             As you suggest, isolating the various factors is required 
> to test some of the ideas floating around. Typically, one adds 
> topload, then adds Lp which affects two parameters straight away - 
> the primary gap loss as well as the Ctop/Cs ratio in the secondary. 
> The gain in the primary can be quite significant and can easily be 
> seen on the scope if breakout is suppressed, especially if the 
> primary had a poor L/C ratio to begin with. Additionally, k is most 
> likely altered as well. 
>      This suggests that a cleaner approach is called for - holding 
> the primary losses constant as one changes the topload. Both Lp and 
> Cp should be increased proportionally to maintain tune and Vp backed 
> off to maintain the same Ep. Increasing Ctop and Lp added 25% length 
> to the output of one of my coils with no other change. Caveat though - 
> the quench characteristics changed markedly and required some 
> airblast through the gap where previously there had been none. In 
> talking about quench I referring to the power-arc type quench. 
>