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

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

Original poster: "Yurtle Turtle" <yurtle_t-at-yahoo-dot-com> 

I can tell you from experience that the routing of my
long wire tap affects tuning. Since I have enough wire
to go to the "worst" extreme of my primary, I usually
have a fair amount "left over". That wire has
inductance, and how it happens to "hang" affects
tuning. I'd expect the "BunnyKiller's" method to be
much more stable than "hanging wire".

Adam

--- 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
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo-dot-com