-- BEGIN included message
- To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
- Subject: Re: S.G. Replacmt-update
- From: richard hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 20:21:30 -0500 (EST)
At 12:28 AM 3/6/97 -0600, you wrote: >FutureT-at-aol-dot-com wrote: >> >> Richard, Bert, All, >> >> Regarding Lou Balint's experiment in which he used a transistor to replace a >> spark gap in a TC, and used ferrite to boost the coupling to k = .84, and in >> which optimal quench time (which prevented splitting of frequencies) was >> originally found to be 1.2uS, which was surprisingly rapid: ( I >> unfortunately forget the original freq. and can't find the original post. :( >> ) >> >> In a new test, Lou set up everything the same as before, but varied the >> voltage to the transistor base. At some lower voltage setting, the optimal >> quench time now ranged from 3uS to 5uS depending on the voltage. The >> original voltage still gave a 1.2uS optimal quench time. He suggests that >> more work is needed. This was a very quick test, so voltages, turn on/off >> points, Q, etc were not monitored. Unfortunately, Lou stated that he does >> not plan to continue along this line of investigation, due to other research >> demands. >> >> Happy and "quenchy" coiling, >> >> John Freau > > >John, Thanks for the report. This shows that with real tight coupling, super human efforts are demanded to get the best results. A mechanical assemblage of even superlative construction is almost out of the question. This is why I use the series quench gap and the reduced coupling of about .4 on maggey #11. The match may not be perfect, but it is good. Tesla's work in 1899 was highly suspect when one views his rotten gap system against all the other nice stuff he used. He never achieved 4 times his resonator length. I blame this on his 1899 insulation limitations. Lousey field control and bad gapping for his .6 coupling Richard Hull, TCBOR
-- END included message