RE: first coil progress...

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Lau, Gary" <Gary.Lau@xxxxxx>

Thank you Matt.  Let me just pull my foot out of my mouth here ...
<pop>.  There.

Yes - it would indeed be difficult to see pri-sec trades with no
secondary present!  I was thinking about there being longer intervals of
RF in the primary circuit without the presence of a secondary, which
triggered the thought of poor quenching, and my fingers somehow typed
the wrong words.  So yes, I meant to refer to a single, extended
ring-down per bang.  Wouldn't one long ringdown per bang result in a
significantly higher RMS current than one quickly-quenched ringdown per
bang, even though the initial peak current is the same?

Gary Lau
MA, USA


> Original poster: Mddeming@xxxxxxx
>
> In a message dated 10/2/06 2:33:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> Snip....
>
> Concerning my belief that running a complete primary circuit with no
> secondary would increase the RMS current through the cap - Terry's
> simulation and response takes me by surprise!  I had always heard that
> this was not a safe thing to do, and reasoned that by removing the
> secondary and eliminating any quenching, the peak current remains the
> same, but you just get more pri-sec trades in the same bang-interval,
so
> wouldn't this raise the RMS current?  Or are the gap losses so huge
that
> what isn't transferred to the secondary is mostly burned up in the
gap?
>
> Snip....
>
> Hi Gary,
>
>      I'm not sure I follow how you get more pri-sec trades with the
> secondary removed. Did you mean more damped oscillations in the
> primary per bang?
>
> Matt D.
>