Re: magnifier vs two coil system

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Brad Huff by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <huffb-at-avalon-dot-net>

John,
Why does Richard Hull's magnifier and some of the other designs that I've
read about use break rates of 1000bps or more? They seem to use smaller
capacitors and higher break rates. Also, I've seen the photos of small
helical resonators producing very large arcs. Richard seemed very excited
about this in his writings. Has this fallen out of favor and does he no
longer believe that this is the proper way to construct a coil?-----
Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: magnifier vs two coil system


> Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<FutureT-at-aol-dot-com>
>
> Brad,
>
> It seems that the magnifier does not offer any noticeable
> efficiency advantage over a normal two coil system.  The operation
> of both types of coil are basically the same, except for some
> extra resonances in the magnifier coils.  Some have chosen
> the magnifier design for novelty or for space constraints,
> convenience of setting up, etc.
>
> Antonio has worked out a special mathematical relationship
> for the coils which promises to give a slight magnifier advantage,
> but this may be very difficult to achieve in practice, due to
> difficulties with quenching, exact tuning, loading, etc.
>
> It had been believed by some, that a magnifier offered faster energy
> transfer due to the tight driver coupling.  It turns out that this
> is not the case.  The important thing is the overall or
> effective system coupling, which tends to be the same as
> that of a normal two coil system.  A magnifier seems to work
> most "efficiently" with a low breakrate, and tolerates a normal
> rotary gap, all the same as a two coil system does.
>
> Cheers,
> John
>
>
>
>