Re: double wrapped secondary

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

Original poster: "maykrug by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <mf31-at-qwest-dot-net>

ok, labor intensive, divergent, copper slag, got it.
i've got a couple books here with chapters on transformers, no mention.
diy articles on rewinding, vs just buying the darn thing.
it stands to reason when you take something apart, put it back together the 
way you found it, usually.
so you must have learned the reasons somewhere, trial and error, or 
possibly in a book.
maybe you could suggest one, or just say no, no, no, don't ever do 
that.

12:39 PM 11/13/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz 
><twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>
>
>On 13 Nov 2001, at 7:50, Tesla list wrote:
>
> > Original poster: "maykrug by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
><mf31-at-qwest-dot-net>
> >
> > all the examples i've seen, references heard, suggest that all the
> > secondaries are a single wrap
> > of wire from end to end. ?, what are the expected results of having a
> > second layer wrapped back
> > on top of the first,obviously one continuous length.
>
>And connected to the first layer in which way? Consider the
>implications if they are not wired directly in parallel.
>
>Malcolm