Re: good scopes for coiling

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

On 13 May 2005, at 23:02, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "Mercurus2000" <mercurus2000@xxxxxxx>
>
> Couldn't you take like you said a 555 timer, connect the pulsing
> squarewave output to a TC secondary, then connect a diode to the
> topload and connect a digital voltmeter to the diode and get a idea of
> the resonant frequency? Adam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tesla
> list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx> To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, May 13,
> 2005 10:49 AM Subject: Re: good scopes for coiling

In a word, no, not if you are after accuracy. Anything you connect
directly to the secondary is going to boost its puny capacitance out
of sight.

Malcolm

>
> Original poster: Karl Lindheimer <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> A scope and/or frequency generator can be quite helpful in Tesla Coil
> duty, and for just about any other project that will come along.
> Since I am on a low "fixed budget" as it were, I built a 555 timer
> waveform generator for about $8.00 total.  I used an inexpensive
> multi-meter for several years before snagging a Tektronics 265B scope
> for under $100 on Ebay.  This scope is the best addition to my test
> bench in many years, and continues to impress.  My Tek scope is rugged
> and parts are still obtainable from junked scopes.
>
> Hope that the above helps,
>
> Karl
>
> On May 12, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Tesla list wrote:
>
>  >Original poster: "keith" <keith.cc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>  >
>  >I'm looking to buy a scope and/or frequency generator for coiling
>  and >general use, but I don't really have any idea about
>  manufacturers/models >etc ­ what are some good ones to look for? I've
>  read that the older tube >scopes are better than modern solid state
>  ones for the stressful >environments generally encountered in high
>  voltage work, and given that >I'm still new to coiling/hv devices,
>  something that has a good chance of >surviving a few careless
>  errors/poorly designed experiments would be good. >Relatively low
>  cost would also be nice. Thanks. > >Keith C >
>
>
>