Re: In vs. Out

From: 	FutureT-at-aol-dot-com[SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
Sent: 	Sunday, July 27, 1997 8:55 AM
To: 	tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: 	Re: In vs. Out

In a message dated 97-07-27 10:28:20 EDT, you write:

<< at the risk of being somewhat of a radical here, why not try a totally 
> different tact - let us imagine that input power is at least well defined
> in theory measurable (a hot wire and a photo cell being one way).
> Imagine a "quality" metric which is a function of 2 variables - spark
> and overall intensity.  Max spark length can be measured,it's a number of 
> meters (feet, centimeters, Ells, whatever unit you choose)
> Intensity can also be objectively measured - a convenient unit is total 
> brightness, measured using a "standard" photo cell with a "standard" lens.
>This could be cheap stuff, like a silicon solar cell from Radio shack with
> lens, at a specified distance, or a cadmium sulfide photo resistor mounted
> a disposable camera body.
> The quality metric should give a bigger number for more brightness,and for 
> more spark length.  So, I would recommend something of the form:
>   (brighness/K)*spark length
> Select K so that given agreed units of brighness (ohms mesured on the
> cell, candellas, lumens per steradian, again, whatever you agree on) the 
> result of a bright spark divided by K will be close to 1, that way a "weak 
> spark" will be penalized in a standard maner, and a nice thick spark will
> suitably rewarded.
> Note that you would also want to average the reading over several seconds.


Nothing radical there, I was thinking of something similar.  In theory this
should work.  It solves the brightness variable.  Somehow though, if 
someone built a coil that gave a monstrously bright, but very short 
spark, and we had to give it the same efficiency rating as a coil with
a much longer but dimmer spark...it just wouldn't seem "right" 
somehow even though it is technically correct...hmmm.

John Freau