[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Racing sparks
Original poster: Thomas <tom-at-pwrcom-dot-com.au>
Bart, I've already removed an inner turn, this solved the problem of primary
to secondary arcing, but I do not want to do it again, it was quite a chore.
JAVATC predicts that raising the secondary about 30mm will have the same
effect on coupling as flattening the primary, so I'm going to try that first
I thought "Increasing the proximity between coils" would increase the
coupling? Did you mean decrease?
Thanks for your help,
Original poster: Bart Anderson <classi6-at-classictesla-dot-com>
0.17 is quite high on a 2-coil system. Increasing the proximity between
coils is my preference. Because you have a lock-in setup for the
an alternative to increase the proximity between coils is to remove 1
on the ID of the primary.
Tesla list wrote:
>Original poster: "Tom Luttrell" <tom-at-pwrcom-dot-com.au>
>I rebuilt my blower spark gap,
>This has allowed for a considerable improvement in airflow and streamer
>length. I'm now getting the occasional hit to the strike rail,
>that did not ever happen with my previous gap.
>This new gap just fires at a setting of 8mm with only the NST
>as opposed to about 5 to 6mm for my previous gap. I put this down to
>sharper rim of the pipefittings as opposed to the flat brass rod face
>my first gap (http://www.webclot-dot-com//high_volt/images/toms_gap2.jpg).
>Unfortunately it's too good. After about 5 to 10 seconds of operation I
>start to see racing sparks on the secondary.
>My primary is an inverted cone (30°) and the coupling is probably a bit
>tight (JAVATC calculates it to be 0.17).
>The way I see it I have the following options:
>1) reduce input power via my new yet to arrive variac
>2) reduce the spark gap (and hence firing voltage)
>3) cut down the primary supports so it becomes a flat pancake coil
>4) raise the secondary height.
>Options 1 and 2 have the advantage of being easy but would negate the
>recent gain in streamer length.
>Options 3 and 4 would require some major rework, including
>to the mechanical method by which a 1/4 turn twist of the secondary
>it in place.
>I'd be interested in reading any thoughts you may have on this matter.