Re: Dual primaries?

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

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

In a message dated 7/1/01 1:32:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com 
writes:

Chris,

Well Lou Balint has built a magifier which uses two power supplies,
tank caps, primaries, secondaries, and sync gaps, all feeding a
single resonator.  If you use static gaps, the basic effect will
be an increase in the effective breakrate.  In Lou's case, he had
to concern himself with the phasing of the 120 bps sync gaps.
It was necessary to phase the gap so that one gap fired, and
rang down, and the other gap fired immediately after.  Both fired
more or less at the peaks of the 60Hz sine wave, but one had
to fire first then the other.  If the gaps were set so they fired at
the same time, the RF phase was mostly random, so the 
sparks were shorter.  The RF phase is random in this case 
because mechanical systems such as a spark gap are not
really very precise timing-wise.  Using two of everything is
usually less efficient than just using a larger transformer due to 
increased losses in the components

John
-

> 
>  Hello list, I have been pondering a design for a while now that I believe 
>  has not yet been discussed (and there may be a good reason for that):
>  Would there be any advantage to using 2 primary circuits matched as close 
as
>  possible on the same secondary? 2 caps, 2 primary coils, 2 nst's (or
>  whatever) and 2 static gaps in close proximity of each other. Wouldn't the
>  frequency of both coils "sync up" and dump more magnetic flux into the
>  secondary thus producing a larger output. Or is this just a dumb 
inefficient
>  way to simulate connecting two xformers in parallel?
>  Has anyone tried using a rotary air tool/ comperssor as the base component
>  of an async. rotary gap? If your air was dry would you be able to float the
>  tool?
>  Just a few thoughts,
>  Chris