Re: Magnifiers vs. normal TC's, was secondary wavelength

["Ed Phillips" <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)]

Tesla list wrote:
> 
> Original poster: "Albert Hassick" <uncadoc-at-juno-dot-com>
> 
> Hi Luc.  The fact is, is that Tesla is still the Man!  I am not
> downplaying the efforts of John, Antonio, Terry, Jim, Malcolm, Ross or
> anyone else on the list.  I am simply stating that there is not a one of
> us on this list, myself included, that have yet to acheive what Tesla did
> 100 years ago.  And that includes spark length and power output and
> efficiency of the magnifying coil.  It is easy to sit down at a pc and
> play with figures that someone worked with 100 years ago and improve upon
> his work.  But take away your pc's and what have you got?  PC's are
> nothing but brute force stupid instruments, and any programmer will admit
> this.  When you guys with all your pc's build a working Colorado Springs
> or  Wardenclyff model that works better than what Tesla did. I will
> humbly accept what you say.  But until then, the empirical work of Tesla
> has yet to be beat!  Keep on coiling!   AL.

Several questions/comments:

1. On what basis do you make your claim about the spark length and
efficiency of the CS work?  Where are the supporting data?  There have
been several postings here with regard to the actual spark length, and
there is no data in CSN about the "efficiency", however you define it.

2. What was actually accomplished at Wardencluff (in the way of big
sparks or "efficiency")?  Just looked at Anderson's book and can't find
anything there.

3. Tesla didn't have a PC, but he certainly had perserverence and if you
will read CSN you will find numerous examples of rather laborious
calculations he carried out to find such simple things as primary
inductance.  He clearly knew what he was doing as far as the
mathematical design of the circuit components was concerned.

	Tesla was a neat guy but he wasn't a diety!

Ed