Re: New pictures [ Mag vs Conv.]

From: 	FutureT-at-aol-dot-com[SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
Sent: 	Saturday, July 26, 1997 3:44 PM
To: 	tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: 	Re: New pictures

> John, how would you compare them?  The resonator coil on my magnifier 
> is only 8 inches by 24 inches.  I can't build a conventional coil 
> with a secondary this size that produces 11 to 15 foot sparks.  And 
> if you start trying to compare input power versus spark length, then 
> you get back into the dog-chasing-its-tail arguments that you and 
> others on this list have been debating back and forth for the past 
> week.  
> Big magnifiers can produce big sparks.  Small magnifiers don't appear 
> to be any better than a conventional coil of the approximate same 
> size.  Richard Hull's 11-E maggie with the tiny 4 inch by 12 inch 
> resonator (30 gauge wire) always astounds everyone with its 10 and 11 
> foot sparks.  How do you compare that coil against any conventional 
> coil?  No one has ever produced 10+ foot sparks with a conventional 
> coil this size, not even the Good Doctor himself. 

Bert, All,

I think the size of the driver should be included when discussing the
size of a magnifier coil, after all a conventional coil doesn't need a 
driver.  It doesn't seem "fair" to consider only the resonator and 
ignore the size of the driver.  When the driver and resonator together
are considered, it may be as large or larger than a corresponding
conventional TC secondary.

>Frankly, I don't 
> think there will ever be a "best" way to compare conventional 
> coils versus magnifiers - the engineering design of the drivers is 
> totally different, the operation of the resonant coil is very 
> different, and even the character of the sparks, in my opinion, is 
> different.  Apples and tangerines.

I don't see anything wrong with using power vs. spark length as a
method for comparing magnifier vs. classic TCs.  In the lower 
powered work I've done, I didn't see any difference in the spark
character, etc.  I suspect that the operation of magnifiers and classic
TCs are more alike than different.  

> Stepping back from magnifiers for a short while, Bill Emery and I are 
> winding the largest conventional coil we've ever attempted.  It is 
> 18.5 inches in diameter and 55.50 inches in length and is wound with 
> 14 gauge wire.  The complete coil and form will weigh over 300 
> pounds.  We will run this as a conventional coil, not a magnifier.  
> We expect minimum 15 foot sparks, and maybe some as long as 18 feet.  
> The toroid will have a cross section of 20 inches and will be 8 feet 
>snip>  Hopefully, we'll gain enough experience from building the 
> 18.5 inch coil which will allow us to successfully build and operate 
> this 28.5 inch monster.  This coil should perform about the same as 
> Greg Leyh's excellent coil.  We will not, however, run this coil on 
> d.c. as Greg has done.

Exciting plans you and Bill have, and nice work on the magnifier!

John Freau

> Bert Pool
> bertpool-at-flash-dot-net