Re: "NEW" idea ?? on primary tapping...

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

Original poster: "chris" <ctom-at-toast-dot-net> 

Why not just build the primary and secondary supports on a "lazy susan" type
base and rotate the coil around a short tap wire point for tuning? One would
need to arrange a suitable ground connection to keep the center contact and
inside primary connection free as well, but it shouldn't be too tough. Just
lock the base in place once a good tuning point is reached. It seems like
such an arrangement would remove a lot of the stray effects of having long
wires strung under and around the base.
Am I missing anything?

----------
 >From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
 >To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
 >Subject: Re: "NEW" idea ?? on primary tapping...
 >Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2004, 3:11 PM
 >

 > Original poster: "Mark Broker" <mbroker-at-thegeekgroup-dot-org>
 >
 > Thank you, Rob, for explaining that - I guess I ended my thought before I
 > really explained myself :p
 >
 > Basically the feeder ring and jumper will complete, more or less, one turn
 > of the primary.  I would imagine there to be all sorts of complicated
 > mutual coupling going on, too.
 >
 > All that said, lots of careful tuning by Steve Ward, Scott Coppersmith, and
 > Sean Taylor resulted in a twin setup that uses this primary tapping method
 > that works quite good. :)
 >
 > Mark Broker
 > Chief Engineer, The Geek Group
 >
 >
 > On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:28:39 -0700, Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
 >
 >>Original poster: "Rob Maas" <robm-at-nikhef.nl>
 >>
 >>But how do you tune such an arrangement: if you tune
 >>first the primary (no connection with the feeder ring
 >>yet), and then make a tap to the feeder ring, it is
 >>inevitable that part of the circumference of the feeder
 >>ring is either added or subtracted from the just carefully-
 >>tuned primary, thereby immediately ruining the tuning.
 >>
 >>If, prior to tuning, there is already a connection between
 >>primary and feeder ring, changing (as a way of tuning)
 >>this connection point, basically does not change the total
 >>primary inductance at all, because what is added on the
 >>primary proper is subtracted from the feeder ring, and vice
 >>versa. Or am I missing something very fundamental here?
 >>
 >>Rob
 >>
 >>>Original poster: "Yurtle Turtle" <yurtle_t-at-yahoo-dot-com>
 >>>The way I understand his proposal, you'd be able to
 >>>tap it anywhere you want, just like with a long wire,
 >>>but without the hassle. He's proposing a ring be
 >>>placed below the primary. A short jumper would go from
 >>>anywhere along the ring to any point on the primary.
 >>>Just invision a strike ring below the primary. Since
 >>>he's not proposing a closed circle, it shouldn't sap
 >>>away any more energy than a strike ring would.
 >>>
 >>>Adam
 >
 >
 >
 >