Re: Fanciful spark-augmenter

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

Original poster: "Scott Fulks by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <darkthing-at-earthlink-dot-net>

KCH wrote:
> The purpose of doing all of this would be, of course, to allow for a
> significantly larger build-up of energy than otherwise could be
> accomodated in a s.s. system before secondary-spark break-out.

I have been following these posts with some interest, as I think that one of
the most enjoyable aspects of coiling is doing research on new ways to
improve the art.  However, this idea of using a switched half of the primary
to buck the field and alter the frequency seems flawed to me.

In a solid-state coil, the secondary is used as the energy storage device.
The Q of the secondary is high, so the cycles build up on one another until
breakout voltages are achieved.  In your example you are using the primary
tank as the energy storage device instead (as is done in a disruptive coil),
which due to it's low Q will be much less efficient at building up energy
from a relatively low-powered solid state oscillator. Additionally, even
though the primary and secondary are not resonant during the ring-up, there
will still be losses due to the coupling of the coils, and that energy will
simply be wasted.  A transformer still works at nonresonant frequencies, it
just doesn't build up energy.  Also I think the paralleled segments of the
primary would give additional losses from the autotransformer effect.

I think you have an interesting idea about trying to get disruptive coil
performance from an SS coil, but I don't think this circuit would work well
in practice.

Regards,
Scott Fulks (darkthing-at-earthlink-dot-net)