[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text? (fwd)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:30:15 +0000
From: nancylavoie@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text? (fwd)

Try reading Tesla's Colorado Springs Lab Notes.If I remember correctly he
only states that mathematicly he should have been able to light as many as
200 bulbs and I don't believe he ever once gives a solid number for the
distance from the lab that he was able to light even a single bulb.There
are however several photos showing it happening if there is any doubt
about even the principles involved.Someone on the list has pulled this off
(I can't remember who...Richard Quick, maybe) and reported distances of a
quarter mile with a small coil.I agree though,there is alot of crap put
out there and between the free energy loons and the media it's hard to
believe anything. I personally don't think that Tesla was a deliberate
liar (maybe misguided in a couple of things) so I would only consider his
word to be the truth in this case. Wyatt

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx> 

> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:59:19 +0800 
> From: Peter Terren 
> To: Tesla list 
> Subject: Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text? 
> 
> I have had the need on several occasions now to correct myths about Tesla 
> but lack the knowledge base. Does anyone recommend a book that will have 
> this sort of information. 
> 
> Things like 
> "Lit up 200 light globes at 40 miles." 
> Hard to conceive doing this even with a wire. Think about it in terms of 
> wire resistance for DC particularly if only conventional mains voltages. 
> Suppose light globes are 100V 50W then 200 x 50W = 1kW. At 100V this is 
> 10A. Even 10 ohms will be a major problem and would require very thick wire 
> to get 0.25 ohms per mile. 2 Two strands of 0 SWG = 9mm thick would do this. 
> And this is just one way. It assumes a very good earth is available at both 
> ends. Use one strand of 9mm and you will light up the globes at 1/4 current 
> and perhaps 1/10 brightness. 
> At current copper prices that is something like $14,000. Not counting 
> supports etc. 
> Using low frequency AC allows voltage step up then the supports become 
> important and you need to run transformers at either end. And using high 
> frequency or even Tesla output is out of the question due to corona, 
> capacitative and inductance issues. 
> To do that as a wireless setup even with a mile high transmitter and 
> receiver and resonant setup would seem far fetched to get that sort of 
> performance 
> 
> I understand that this was press hyperbole that has grown by word of mouth. 
> I recall someone stating that the original experiment was that he lit up 
> some globes just outside the lab earthed to a pipe. I don't have the 
> background for that. 
> 
> Similarly, Tunguska explosions, death rays, resonant vibrations and 100MV 
> sparks are all ludicrous. 
> 
> Can anyone help direct me? 
> 
> Peter 
> 
> 
>