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

Re: Tube Type Tesla Coils



-- BEGIN included message





At 11:24 PM 3/8/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Return-Path: <tesla-request-at-pupman-dot-com>
>Received: from ns-1.csn-dot-net ([199.117.27.21]) by mail.stic-dot-net
>          (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 0-10265) with ESMTP id AAA250
>          for <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 11:31:58 -0600
>Received: from poodle.pupman-dot-com (slist-at-pupman-dot-com [204.133.95.34])
>	by ns-1.csn-dot-net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA12995
>	for <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 10:31:53 -0700 (MST)
>Received: (from slist-at-localhost) by poodle.pupman-dot-com (8.7.6/8.7.1) id
KAA19057; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 10:31:17 -0700
>Received: from ns-1.csn-dot-net (nameserv [199.117.27.21]) by poodle.pupman-dot-com
(8.7.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id KAA19044 for <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>; Sat, 8 Mar 1997
10:31:10 -0700
>Received: from credit (credit.headwaters-dot-com [204.101.212.2])
>	by ns-1.csn-dot-net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA12484
>	for <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 10:03:56 -0700 (MST)
>Received: from remote_139.headwaters-dot-com by credit;
(5.65/1.1.8.2/17Feb97-0626PM)
>	id AA25938; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 12:19:27 -0500
>X-Envelope-From: stephens-at-credit.headwaters-dot-com  Sat Mar  8 10:31:15 1997
>Message-ID: <9703081719.AA25938-at-credit>
>Comments: Authenticated sender is <stephens-at-mail.headwaters-dot-com>
>From: "Robert W. Stephens" <rwstephens-at-headwaters-dot-com>
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Date: Sat, 8 Mar 97 16:58:15 +0000
>Subject: Re: Tube Type Tesla Coils
>Reply-To: rwstephens-at-headwaters-dot-com
>Priority: normal
>X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10)
>
>> To:            Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>> From:          "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
>> Subject:       Tube Type Tesla Coils
>> Date:          Thu, 6 Mar 1997 06:30:50 +0000
>
>> 
>> To All -
>> 
>>
>> My question is " Should tube TC's be on a separate Tesla List of it's own?".
>> Coilers who are interested in tube types will then not have to scan thru
>> classical coil (or magnifier) postings to find the information they need.
>> 
>> John C. 
>
>John, All,
>
>The points you make that a Vac tube TC is not *technically* a true 
>Tesla coil are well taken and I agree.  Note also that  Magnifiers are 
>as different from a classical two coil T.C. as a vac tube T.C. is.  
>However by a circumstance of history, a Magnifier IS BY VIRTUE OF ITS 
>INVENTOR a real Tesla coil. : )
>
>For the convenience of keeping  RF generated arcs and sparks all in 
>one place, I vote on keeping chatter about vac tube T.C.'s on this 
>list.
>
>IMHO,
>rwstephens 
>
-----------------------------------------------------

I believe Magnifiers are real Tesla coils. They work by charging a capacitor
to create a dampened sine wave in the transformation of a low voltage to an
ultra high voltage. This is the same operation as a classical coil. This is
a unique electrical phenomena and has several advantages over all other
electrical apparatus. It is the only apparatus that can change the voltage
at theoretically unlimited elctrical power. Tesla needed this special
requirement for his World Electrical System. This is why Tesla researched
both classical coils and magnifiers.

Note that electrical resonance is only part of the Tesla coil operation.
Resonance is also part of other electrical devices and not something special
to Tesla coils. One of the advantages of the dampened sine wave is that it
creates a much higher voltage amplitude for a fixed amount of energy
compared to the continuous sine wave. Tesla needed the highest voltages he
could develop. 

The Tesla coil invention and dampened sine waves gave Tesla the maximum
voltages and energy transfer of any electrical apparatus in his day. This is
also true today and for this reason the Tesla coil is still a very unique
apparatus. A pulse wave can create a greater amplitude but at a lower power
level so pulse transformers were not good enough for Tesla's system.
>
I would agree that keeping all RF generated arcs and sparks in one place
would be an advantage provided the number of postings did not get out of
control. It appears that the number of postings are becoming too great for
efficient communication of the various arcs and sparks devices.

John C.






-- END included message