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

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

Original poster: "Mark Broker" <mbroker-at-thegeekgroup-dot-org> 

Thank you, Rob, for explaining that - I guess I ended my thought before I 
really explained myself :p

Basically the feeder ring and jumper will complete, more or less, one turn 
of the primary.  I would imagine there to be all sorts of complicated 
mutual coupling going on, too.

All that said, lots of careful tuning by Steve Ward, Scott Coppersmith, and 
Sean Taylor resulted in a twin setup that uses this primary tapping method 
that works quite good. :)

Mark Broker
Chief Engineer, The Geek Group


On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:28:39 -0700, 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