Re: darn the formula torpedoes

["Metlicka Marc" <mystuffs-at-orwell-dot-net> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)]

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com
>
> In a message dated 9/28/00 4:53:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> writes:
>
> > it's not the fact that it is a magnifier that makes it
> >  more efficient, it is simply that certain parameters such as the
> >  inductance and frequency have changed.  In fact this may be the
> >  very reason why magifiers are sometimes believed to be more
> >  efficient.  A two coil system can be built that has the same
> >  inductance and frequency as the magifier.... and it will give the
> >  same results.  How do I know this? I have done the tests.  Anyone
> >  who wishes to prove this to themselves can do this same test.
> >
>
> >  John Freau
>
> Adding to my post:   In one magnifier test, I simply placed the
> extra coil on top of the driver, (they were the same diameter),
> to turn the magnifier into a classic coil, and the sparks got one
> inch longer.

john, this is interesting, could the added length be do to the magnetic field
coupling into the windings of the extra coil when you placed it onto the
driver?
i actually see a couple reasons why a magnifier would be less efficient, one
being the resistance of the transmission line connecting the driver to the
extra
coil? the other being that the extra coil is removed from the flux of the
primary, i know that in the corum papers that they state that the
inductance into
the secondary windings is not an issue, but i can't see how it wouldn't be? if
the river is wound with say, 300 turns and the extra coil with say 800,
then the
flux only couples into the 300 turns, or am i missing something here? it only
stands to reason, at least in my eyes, that the more turns in the field,
the more
initial v? of coarse i can be wrong, i have much, much more reading to do.
respectfully,  marc
(snip)

>
> John Freau