[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Secondary Frequency(fwd)
----------
From: Barton B. Anderson [SMTP:mopar-at-uswest-dot-net]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 1998 7:53 PM
To: Tesla List
Subject: Re: Secondary Frequency(fwd)
Richard,
I think we all (those who posted-then some) would *agree* and say "here-here!",
(since we were expressing why 200-200 was way off). Hence, a question emerges:::>
where does the rule of 25% come from? The is a massive error factor and hard to
accept.
Bart
Tesla List wrote:
> ----------
> From: Richard Hull [SMTP:rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net]
> Sent: Sunday, August 23, 1998 11:00 PM
> To: Tesla List
> Subject: Re: Secondary Frequency(fwd)
>
> Tesla List wrote:
>
> > ----------
> > From: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com [SMTP:terryf-at-verinet-dot-com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 11:41 PM
> > To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> > Subject: Re: Secondary Frequency(fwd)
> >
> > I just tallied the responses:
> >
> > Another Coiler 418kHz 275kHz
> > Reinhard 200 200
> > Mark S. Rzeszotarski 360 285
> > John Couture 324.0 250.3
> > Ed Sonderman 375 296
> > Dave Sharp 393 310
> > Bert Hickman 410-430 275-295
> > Bart Anderson 367 290
> >
> > Perhaps if these coils are really built we would see who is closest! Or,
> > perhaps it is better if we don't go there :-))
> >
> > Terry Fritz (who goes with Mark Rzeszotarski in such matters :-))
>
> .......................................
>
> I love, I love it to death!!! Remember guys +/-25% is the rule! (for all to
> save face-except mister 200 -200) A wink is as good as a nod to a blind bat.
> (Monty Python)
>
> I am quite confident that someone up above has probably hit it pretty darned
> close to what the actual working value on a static sig. gen. would show! I
> am also confident that another different person on the list has hit it pretty
> close to the actual non-loaded dynamic run values.
>
> What can I say, but..... great work guys with a significant "here here" to
> Bert Hickman who was savy enough to give a range of values. (though he may or
> may not be correct in his coagulated figures.)
>
> It is, of course, tacitly agreed we shouldn't actually build anything.....
> After all this is the internet and there is lttle need to hurt the feelings
> of the entire above listed members minus the one who mathematically guessed
> correctly.
>
> With a hearty guffaw and a tongue pressed firmly in cheek, and with an
> absolute disregard to what the real value is, I remain, safely and firmly
> non-commited. I do know..... It will work...... It will spark The
> frequency* will be what it will be regardless of the math or the best laid
> plans of mice and men.
>
> Richard Hull, TCBOR
>
> *this actual, REAL OPERATING frequency is assumed to be the mean frequency of
> oscillation about what might be best termed the exact frequency of dynamic
> resonance.