Re: bang power ? (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:22:29 EDT
From: FIFTYGUY@xxxxxxx
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: bang power ? (fwd)

 
 
In a message dated 9/29/07 1:22:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

 
>In the example I provided for Chris, I assumed that we used the  same 

>primary before and after (i.e., "all other things remain the same"  

>except for doubling Cp). However, the primary tap location needed  to 

>change in order to halve Lp so that we could bring the system back  into 

>tune. But changing the primary tap has the effect of changing the  

>primary's effective outer diameter. Since this changes the  geometric 

>relationship between primary and secondary, we do, in fact, alter  "k".


    Thanks for clearing this up!
    This would be one argument for the classic use of  variable off-axis 
inductance for tuning - it doesn't affect "k". 
    Also a good reason for using a "good number" of  turns on the primary - 
along with less frequency tuning  sensitivity, it would have less effect on 
coupling. Which relates to why I  was looking at Dr. Rzeszotarski's paper. I was 
checking to see if I was within  recommended "surge impedance" guidelines 
(although it seems this rule of thumb  has either been ignored or disproved since 
then). 
    Tuning the primary by moving the tap along the  *inside* turns would give 
finer frequency tuning with a correspondingly smaller  change in "k", correct?
 
-Phil LaBudde

Center for the Advanced Study of Ballistic  Improbabilities



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com