Re: Sparklength inquiry

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Sparklength inquiry
From: "Barton B. Anderson" <mopar-at-uswest-dot-net> (by way of Terry Fritz <terryf-at-verinet-dot-com>)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:55:24 -0600
Approved: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com

Bill,
When I read John's post and the "last" question, your
name immediately came to mind as I'm sure with most of
us. You just brought on a HUGE GRIN when I read this.
Let me be the first to say "538KW, GO FOR IT!" (and
don't forget the invitations).
Bart 

Tesla List wrote:
> 
> Original Poster: "Wysock, William C." <Wysock-at-courier8.aero-dot-org>
> 
>  ----------
> From: Tesla List
> To: Tesla List
> Subject: Re: Sparklength inquiry
> Date: Friday, September 25, 1998 10:40AM
> 
> Original Poster: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
> 
>   JohnF, Greg, Bart -
> 
>   Apparently we all agree with the fact that the TC spark length is related
> to input power. However, we differ in how this relationship varies with
> power. For example the following listing compares the JohnF streamer sparks
> with the JHCTES controlled spark lengths.
> 
> <snip>
> 
>   As both curves are based on limited coiler data the only way to solve the
> problem is to collect more data from coilers. I agree a good survey would
> be useful.
> 
> Who is going to do the 538 KW test?
> 
>   John Couture
> 
>  --------------------------
> 
> To John C., John F. G.L., All,
> 
> The answer to John's last question?  Answer: Probably me.
> 
> Bill Wysock
>  -------------------------------------------
> Tesla Technology Research