Re: RF biological hazards? (fwd)

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: RF biological hazards? (fwd)
From: Tesla List <mod1-at-pupman-dot-com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 15:32:20 -0600 (MDT)
Approved: mod1-at-pupman-dot-com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 08:42:14 +1200
From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: RF biological hazards? (fwd)

Hi Jim,

> Date: Wed, 06 May 98 00:58:22 EDT
> From: Jim Monte <JDM95003-at-UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: RF biological hazards? (fwd)
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just a comment on the skin effect:
> 
<snip>
> It seems like the skin effect will be about the same for both CW and
> non-CW.  The time-domain output of a non-CW coil would look pretty much
> like the product of a CW coil and a rectangular pulse with a low duty
> cycle.  So the corresponding spectral content of the non-CW coil
> would be the convolution of the CW coil spectrum with that of the
> rectangular pulse (a sinc function).  This convolution will spread
> the spectrum a bit (the lower the duty cycle, the greater the spread)
> but the energy should still be concentrated at the frequencies of the
> CW coil output.

Agree. However, misfires and irregularities in the gap makes 
themselves known to the shocked. The output of an ignition coil rings.
You know what that feels like. It is hard to generalize for a TC. 
Sometimes you feel nothing, other times.....  I can say from 
experience that a coil run with a high primary energy content is 
certain to give a few belts whether run repetitively or not. One 
cannot explain those observations by considering Fr in isolation.

Malcolm