[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Magnifier vs Classical TC
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 07:43:59 +0000
From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Magnifier vs Classical TC
At 05:25 PM 10/15/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:15:05 -0400 (EDT)
>From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: Re: Magnifier vs Classical TC
>
>John,
>
>To properly compare a small magnifier and a classic TC, we would
>have to quench on the first beat freq. notch, I have not been able to
>achieve this in a small magnifier even at a loose k = .29. I don't
>know if anyone has had better quenching results. I guess one way
>to compare would be to *degrade* the quench of the classic coil to
>match that of the magnifier. A strange concept, but it may shed a
>little light.
>
>John Freau
>
---------------------------------------------------------
John F. -
I would have to disagree with this. To make the comparison we only need to
know the true watt second input and the spark length. What goes on
in-between is not a concern. If the true watt second inputs are the same,
the coil system with the longest spark length wins. However, the type of
gap and number of gap breaks would have to be the same to eliminate the
differencies in efficiencies of gap systems.
The spark would have to be a controlled spark length which is an
indication of output energy. A longer controlled spark length indicates
more energy. The magnifier could win only if this system has a higher
overall efficiency. This seems highly unlikely because of the added wiring
and extra coil. But Tesla apparently believed it is a more efficient system.
Unfortunately he never commented on this aspect of the subject.
I have not heard of any controlled tests comparing the magnifier with the
classical Tesla coil. Some coilers with magnifiers have made these tests but
the results appear to be uncertain.
John Couture