Re: [] conical secondary (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:47:42 -0500
From: resonance <resonance@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [] conical secondary (fwd)



There is no need to move anything.  Use JAVATC, set the coupling to 0.12 to 
0.14 for classic coils, and you will get it right the first time.

Dr. Resonance


>
> Yes the coupling will be higher if the secondary base is wider, but one
> simply has to move the primary closer to achieve whatever coupling is
> desired.
>
> Why would corona losses be reduced with a conical secondary?  With a
> toroid atop a cylindrical secondary, I see no corona.
>
> Claims that conical (or pancake) secondaries are more efficient appear
> to be lacking evidence.  Jeff Behary's site (correct URL is
> www.electrotherapymuseum.com) is richly decorated with photos of
> non-cylindrical secondary coils, but there are precious few words
> describing the rest of the coil components by which to judge just how
> efficient the coil might actually be, and nothing actually making a fair
> comparison.  Making a coil simply produce photogenic sparks does not
> demonstrate superior efficiency.
>
> Regards, Gary Lau
> MA, USA