Re: Wireless power transmission (fwd) electrostatic speakers (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:07:04 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: gary350@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Wireless power transmission (fwd) electrostatic speakers

You mentioned electrostatic speakers.  When I was in college my roommate
was into stero systems.  He had a magazine I beleiver it was some type of
hobby type stero do it your self electron magazine the name is on the tip
of my tongue I might recall the name later.  The magazine had a good
artical about how electrostatic speakers work and how to build your own.  
I built some electrostatic speakers and they worked great many times
better than any factory made speaker that I had.  Now that I think of it I
beleive the magazine was called, Stero Review.  Anyway....that was about
1973 or 74.  As I recall I used the high voltage output of a tube
amplifier to make the electrostatic speakers work.  Electrostatic speakers
operate on a high voltage about 350 volts or somewhere in that range.  
The output voltage of a Tesla Coil will not work for electrostatic
speakers and neither will low voltage. The electrostatic speakers is
basically a flat plate capacitor 1 plate is ridged the other plate is
allowed to move.  The output transformer in the stero is a step down
transformer from 350 Volt of the DC power supply at B+ on the tube.  The
output transformer secondary winding was 8 ohms.  I connected another
stero output transformer in series with the transformer that was in the
stero.  The two 8 ohm secondary coils were connected in series and the 2nd
transformer stepped the voltage back up to high voltage.  That voltage was
used to drive the electrostatic speaker.  In those days I had more time on
my hands than I knew what to do with and it was a very fun experement.




-----Original Message-----
>From: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Jun 26, 2007 8:42 AM
>To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Wireless power transmission (fwd)
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 06:26:48 -0500
>From: Scott Stephens <radon86@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Wireless power transmission (fwd)
>
>Tesla list wrote:
>> From: David Thomson <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>   
>Sorry for not butting-in sooner; 'been busy...
>> When the ion
>> density is maximized for the strength of the E field, the Tesla coil no
>> longer emits ions (potential in E field equals potential in coil).  If,
>> however, you build a receiver that taps the potential of the E field, a
>> stream of ions will be emitted by the Tesla coil to fill the "tunnel" of
>> lower potential.  Thus, power can be transmitted in a more or less straight
>> line right through the air, just as Tesla claimed.
>>   
>Few weeks back I noticed in some trade mag an old ~1960 patent for an
>ion-speaker. They don't seem to have proliferated so I suspect the
>efficiency is poor. Searching on electrostatic speakers makes it
>questionable whether thermal or electronic forces predominate
>transducing sound.
>
>When Tesla coils generate ions, "field emission" results in significant
>(if not predominant) energy loss according to the emitters "work
>function". Then there's "attachment" of ions to electro-negative oxygen,
>ozone generation, UV generation. I suspect no useful energy could be
>transmitted thus.
>
>But I've been interested in the feasibility of a VanDeGraaf-like
>generator based on spraying ions into a stream of circulating fluid.
>Perhaps letting the ions "attach" to oxygen at the emitter-base, then
>using a short-UV lamp to knock the electrons off at the top
>collector-terminal.
>
>Anyone have any idea how practical such a notion is? Every so often I
>hunt around for usable equations but find none. I'd like to be able to
>evaluate the relative merits of charge-carrier gases like Air, H2, Cl2
>at various pressures.
>
>Blowing pressurized air through a couple tubes with a fan would be more
>simple and robust, but perhaps less effective, than a belt on pulley.
>
>Scott
>
>
>