Re: Splitting & Tank

Hi all,
          I am extremely reluctant to get embroiled in what seems to 
me to be a rather opiniated set of claims, but I just can't let this
go without some comment. This is a response to Robert Michael's com-
munication rebuffing Richard Quick on the subject of grounded coils.
RM> It's this:  Tho Dr. Tesla was a brilliant and distinguished
RM> engineer, inventor, and visionary, he was a lousy 
RM> businessman.

So ?   I don't think anyone can be everything to everyone.

RM>   By failing to capitalize on most of his discoveries, he
RM>   opened the door for the unscrupulous to move in and
RM>   exploit his work.
Of course, these days, large powerful firms are well known for
quashing their competitors who may be lacking capital, by 
resorting to the courtroom (may the richest win seems to be the 
guiding principle here). As usual, nothing seems to have changed
in a hundred years :(

RM>               How a man could do the mathematics for polyphase
RM>               ac induction motors, transformers, generators and
RM>               distribution systems =in his head= but be unable to 
RM>               keep simple accounts or follow a business plan is 
RM>               beyond my ken.  

Well my understanding is that he was more a visualizer than a 
mathematician. It is a technique I can relate to.

RM>  The most blatant and scurrilous instance of such theft 
RM>  occurred with the circuit Mr. Quick depicted and to 
RM>  which I objected. The thief seemed to think that by making a 
RM>  coil with the common bottom connection (and some other minor
RM>  alterations) he had circumvented Dr. Tesla's brilliant
RM>  discoveries and proprietary rights.
Does the circuit in question appear in the "Colorado Springs Notes"
or not ?
RM>  Why he didn't go full bore and defend his patents
RM>  we'll never know, but he didn't.
Perhaps a lack of capital ?  It has been said that the major bene-
ficiaries of patents are patent lawyers.

RM>         So -- I wrote to Mr. Quick:--
> RM>> The point of this post is to protest, please, in very strong
> RM>> terms the implication that such a circuit is a Tesla Coil.
> RM>> It is not.  Dr. Tesla would be especially peeved to see it
> RM>> characterized as such.
RM>   I did not say, everyone, that Dr. Tesla never laid eye, hand,
RM>   or thought to such a circuit.  Only that such circuits ought
RM>   not to be called Tesla Coils, and, out of respect ought not
RM>   to be discussed in the same breath (or mailing list) with
RM>   such -- per, I do believe, Dr. Tesla's own wishes.
Well, that is your belief. It need not apply to everyone.

>                         - - - - - - - -
RM>  While I have your rapt and unwavering attention, dear people,
RM>  permit me to confess:  I =am indeed= something of a purist.
RM>  This business of using modern materials, tools, and instru-
RM>  ments to construct high-voltage resonant circuits is -- is --
RM>  well -- it's =fascinating= !   But, is it Tesla??
Are you suggesting that N. Tesla did not use the best materials he
could obtain at the time ?  Would he have used materials such as
gutta-percha and wood had plastics been at hand? How many IC designers
design circuits without the aid of computers as was the grand old 
tradition 30 or so years ago ?

RM>  Constructing any circuit, using any materials, devising any
RM>  technique - just so long as it has a resonant transformer
RM>  and produces a long(er), thick(er) spark  (how phallic!) is
RM>  New Age Tesla-ing (as I call it). It's okay as far as it goes,
Presumably your argument applies to Robert Golka whose magnifier
setup (or at least one version) looked somewhat different to Tesla's 
original ?  You may object to the devices we build because of the 
materials we use, but I would consider it sacrilege to attach the
name of anyone BUT Tesla to them. We are, IMHO, building them
according to the principles he devised.

Just as a matter of curiosity, do you build Tesla Coils ?   Perhaps
you would enlighten us as to what is and what isn't such a coil ?