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

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

Original poster: "David Rieben" <drieben-at-midsouth.rr-dot-com> 

Hi Adam, Scot,

Wouldn't the primary tuning loop or "C", as someone else referred to it,
also add some additional inductance? I don't think that there's really any
way around some small additional inductance (or minute cap.) from the
tap lead. Whether it's the standard straight wire lead that has to be long
enough to reach the remotest tap-point of the primary coil or the tuning
loop"C", there still has to be a giving length of conductor to reach from
the primary capacitor/spark gap to reach the primary coil tuned tap point.
I suppose the "C" loop can somewhat shorten this required path and would
probably offer better asthetics ;^) Another idea that I'm employing into my
current big coil project is to cut a hole large enough to insert the primary
tap lead through in the priamry/secondary support deck between each
of the primary coil support blocks and keep the primary capacitor tap
lead connection point at near center of the lower support deck. That
allows me to keep the lenght the primary tap lead down to about 24" and
yet allows me to tap any part of the primary coil through any one of the
8 holes, since there are 8 primary supports. The primary outer diameter
will be appr 40" diameter.

David Rieben


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: "NEW" idea ?? on primary tapping...


 > 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
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >