Re: just wondering

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

Original poster: robert & june heidlebaugh <rheidlebaugh-at-desertgate-dot-com> 

Mike: One coiler last year did a great amount of work with flat coils. I do
not have his list address at this time, He perfected a winding method of
winding on a flat board with double sided tape. another member of the list
wound flat coils with an odd number of spokes so the coils had a basket
spider web appearance. If you search the list files for last year these men
did a lot of fine work with flat coils.
         Robert   H
-- 


 > From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
 > Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:54:28 -0600
 > To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
 > Subject: Re: just wondering
 > Resent-From: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
 > Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:59:03 -0600
 >
 > Original poster: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com
 >
 > In a message dated 4/24/04 7:27:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
 > tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:
 >
 >> Hi all,
 >>> I was just curious whether anyone on the list has tried building a
 >>> magnifier system using flat coils.   It would seem that using flat coils,
 >>> particularly for the primary/secondary portion of a maggie would really
 >>> give great coupling.  Another possible advantage for this might be had for
 >>> systems that have one side of the primary grounded.  Then the secondary
 >>> could be grounded to the same point(thinking along the outer edge of the
 >>> spirals).  As long as they are suitably insulated,  This would seem to 
have
 >>> some possibilities.
 >>> Any comments?
 >>> Mike
 >
 >
 > Mike,
 >
 > Bob Svangren of the Northwest coil builders tried something like that,
 > except his extra coil was attached to the secondary directly so there
 > was magnetic coupling to some degree between secondary and
 > extra-coil.  But I don't remember if he saw any particular advantage.
 > I think Bob used the grounding method you mentioned.  If he had
 > raised his extra coil higher above the secondary, the setup would
 > have been exactly as you have described I think.
 >
 > John
 >
 >