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

Re: Gap Losses

At 04:26 AM 10/1/96 +0000, you wrote:
>> >> Subject: Re: Gap Losses
>
>From hullr-at-whitlock-dot-comMon Sep 30 22:17:58 1996
>Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 11:15:54 -0700
>From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: Re: Gap Losses
>
>> >From couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-netSat Sep 28 14:56:07 1996
>> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 18:39:56 +0000
>> From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
>> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>> Subject: Re: Gap Losses
>> 
>> At 04:26 AM 9/27/96 +0000, you wrote:
>> >> Subject: Re: Gap Losses
>> >> >Subject: Gap Losses
>> >
>> >From hullr-at-whitlock-dot-comThu Sep 26 21:46:35 1996
>> >Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 10:11:00 -0700
>> >From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
>> >To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>> >Subject: Re: Gap Losses
>> >>
>> >> >From couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-netWed Sep 25 22:10:41 1996
>> >> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 22:08:02 +0000
>> >> From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
>> >> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>> >> Subject: Re: Gap Losses
>> >>
>> >> At 04:25 AM 9/25/96 +0000, you wrote:
>> >> >From rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-comTue Sep 24 22:21:55 1996
>> >> >Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 04:18:51 -0700
>> >> >From: Richard Wayne Wall <rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com>
>> >> >To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>> >> >Subject: Gap Losses
>> >> >
>
>
>Megasnip
>
>
>> The 'easy way' test would have to be with a complete Tesla coil operating
>> with a continuous stream of sparks from the secondary terminal (length not
>> important). The load at the ammeter could then be considered at almost 100%
>> POWER FACTOR. The advantage of this test, of course, is that many coilers
>> have the equipment to try it but very few coilers, if any, will be able to
>> do the other three tests.
>> 
>> I must admit the above is based on estimates made by me and all comments are
>> welcome.
>> I would be especially interested in comments from R. Hull and R. Wall.
>> 
>> Jack Couture
>> JHC Engineering
>> San Diego, CA
>
>Jack,
>
>I agree with all you say, but to me, the power input to my system is 
>based on what I pay Virginia Power for runnin' the thing at the meter 
>base.  Power output is the actual power contained in the sparks 
>themselves.  The latter is very tough to measure.  I still would imagine 
>that 20% return on the input power is a darned good coil.
>
>Richard Hull, TCBOR


>Richard -

Virginia Power does not make you pay for power (kilowatts). It makes you pay
for energy (kilowatt hours). Power is not work, only energy is work and
something customers are willing to pay for.

Power output of sparks? You mean energy output of sparks such as heat and
other forms of radiation. Energy involves losses, power does not. Power is
the capability to do work (energy). Power multiplied by time is work (energy).

The cofusion over power vs energy is used by the free energy and over unity
people to prove their arguments.

I would appreciate it if you would perform the test I described with one of
your operating coils and advise us of the results. It would help pin down
the estimated losses in the spark gap. Still waiting for comments from R.
Wall who started all this discussion.

Jack Couture