Re: Tried again tonight, still have problem

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

Original poster: Esondrmn-at-aol-dot-com 

In a message dated 12/6/03 11:56:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:

Robert,

The message I just read from Gerry R about your primary capacitor size 
seems like a very good question.  I have a 6" secondary with 27.6" of # 22 
wire.  I use two toroids larger than yours.  My primary cap is .05 ufd, or 
50 nf.  The resonant frequency of the system is about 106 khz.  If your cap 
really is 6 times larger than mine, I don't see how your system can be in 
tune.  Can you give us all the design details of your system so we can run 
some numbers on it?  Or, is the cap really 32nf?

Thanks, Ed Sonderman

>Hi Robert,
>
>      I'm just guessing, but it sounds like your coil is setting up a node too
>near the top of the secondary. You might try changing the size of the tank
>capacitor, or rebuilding the secondary with different dimensions/wire. If
>you suspect more breakout at the bottom of the toroid because of roughness,
>why not just flip it over?
>
>Ryan Molecke
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
>Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 9:24 AM
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: Tried again tonight, still have problem
>
>
>Original poster: "Robert Hanford" <pomnept-at-comcast-dot-net>
>
>
>Hi all,
>My secondary doesn't appear to have any additional marks inside it. The
>toroid is 27.5'' from outer edge to edge and 8'' diameter aluminum duct
>covered in al. tape. The problem is that all of its output is directed
>donwards. I have raised the secondary quite a bit. The toroid too.The system
>uses 2 15k-at-70ma NSTs ,320 nF primary cap and a sucker gap set at .25 ".
>Secondary is 6.32''. I don't see any visibly sharp objects on the bottom of
>the toroid, but will look at that closely. Still looking for clues. Didn't
>come up with anything exactly like this on pupman search. I suppose /hope
>its something dumb/simple. Still looking for ideas!
>Many thanks,
>Robert Hanford