Re: Classic coil

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Classic coil
• From: Ed Harris <harris-at-parkave-dot-net>
• Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 05:06:57 -0400

    [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]



> From Hans.Grimstad-at-maxware.no Sun Dec  1 22:28:46 1996
> Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:34:05 +0100
> From: Hans.Grimstad-at-maxware.no
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Classic coil
> 
> It seems that a lot of people are designing coils with much bigger
conversion ratios 
> (1:67 for a coil with 1000 windings on the secondary and 15 on the
primary). I would 
> say that Teslas results with this coil are quite impressive. Why the big
secondaries 
> in "modern" coils ? 
> 
> 
> Hans J|rgen Grimstad
> 

Hi Hans,

	Isn't this the coil which he has immersed in oil? If so, I don't think
that
the ouput of that coil was anywhere near what Tesla got when he scaled up
ala Colorado Springs magnifier (and what many of the list members have
achieved themselves). Also with the secondary coil in oil, you can get away
with
 stressing a smaller coil considerably more without worrying about
breakdown 
within the coil form.


-Ed Harris

• Prev: No Subject
• Next: Re: Ed H's Nifty Program (was: Magnifier system)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread