Re: Experimental results? (II)

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

Original poster: "davep by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <davep-at-quik-dot-com>

Tesla list wrote:

> I don't believe a flat spiral coil outputs any meaningful radiation in the
> classical sense.  I run these flat spiral coils at full power within ten
> feet of my computer while the computer is on and there is no interference of
> any kind.  I have a small black and white TV I use to monitor RF
> interference, the only thing I see resembles a pulse wave across the middle
> of the screen.  The flat spiral coil appears to generate an electrostatic
> standing wave with the two peaks over the two poles of the coil.  The arcing
> action appears to be caused from longitudinal waves interacting with the
> electrostatic charge.  I haven't heard any complaints at all from the
> neighbors.

	Perhaps the system is inefficient?
 
> Believe it or not, the original Star Wars movie showed the planet Alderon
> being blown apart in a spherical radiated explosion.  But in the remake,
> they replaced it with a longitudinal explosion.  They did this, according to
> news accounts, because NASA has since experimented with explosions in space
> and determined that space explosions are longitudinal, not spherical.  Once
> again, c^2 is in line with developing modern physics.

	cf my last.  'news accounts' of movies are press releases,
	written by the studios, eg advertising.  Science news comes from
	scientific journals, or from popularization's, as Scientific
	American, etc.
 
> >What did you use to measure these things that you've "ascertained"?

> In my trigonometry book, a cycle is 360 degrees.

	The engineering usage of the word cycle is a bit different.

> I'm not dismissing anything.  I'm adding to the base of knowledge.  c^2 in
> no way offends RF physics.  It describes a physics not seen by RF.  Just
> because a new formula shows an additional knowledge relating to energy does
> not mean previous knowledge is useless.

	nor does it mean it is correct...

> It does clarify a few previous misconceptions,

	perhaps.

> but it doesn't totally replace the previous base of
> knowledge.  And I'm not presenting a completely thought out theory.  I'm
> presenting, for those interested, the beginning of a new theory.  I need
> help in developing c^2, that is why I'm sharing my ideas.  It's not going to
> hurt my feelings if what I'm seeing is a mere illusion.  But what I'm seeing
> goes beyond illusion and is reflected in real life situations.

	Seeing is a tricky thing.  While willful illusion (as movie fx)
	may not be present, it is exceeding easy to misinterpret
	what IS seen.

> If you are not comfortable with this theory, there is no reason you
> can't just explain to me in your own understanding what is happening
> in these coils.  I am interested in any information that describes the
> workings of a flat spiral secondary.

	Probably, same things as are at work in a solenoidal secondary,
	modified by the shape.  All that been reported seems
	conventional.  Solenoid has the (apparent) advantage that the
	HV end is elevated from ground, giving more room to work.

> >Y'know, I just -knew- when this started that eventually you would demand
>> that -we- prove your theory for you.
 
> Excuse me?!  I thought this was a Tesla coil list?  Don't you guys already
> have a flat spiral coil in your basement?  Tesla didn't waste his career on
> toy solenoid coils.

	I suggest reviewing his secondary and tertiary in Colorado Springs:
	both were solenoidal.  Many of his earlier coils were solenoidal.

> Sure, they're easy to build and useful for some experiments in Colorado
> Springs, but Tesla coils proper ARE flat spiral and conical coils.
>  You mean you don't know the measurements of a true Tesla
> coil and how it works?

	This definition comes from?
 
> >Despite your reply to me stating that you aren't claiming that this flat
> coil is 3 phase, and your statement on your new list that it made no
> difference if you used one or all three windings, you continue to call it a
> "wye coil".

> Do you have difficulty understanding that a coil can be built for use with 3
> phase alternating currents but then be put into use with single phase,
> simply because I choose to do so?  Just because I use a coil designed for
> three phase doesn't mean I expect to put single phase into the coil and get
> three phase out.  The name "wye" coil refers to the schematic diagram for
> this coil.  It is, in fact, a wye coil.  I'm currently building a motor
> driven, modified automobile alternator power source to do the actual three
> phase experiments with.  I don't know what will happen, as I am not aware of
> any literature describing this type of experiment.  But in the meantime, I
> needed another flat spiral coil because I shocked my other 13" single wound
> coil pretty bad and reduced the output.  The results of inputting single
> phase into the wye coil were a complete surprise to me,

	Why?

	(hint: there is extensive engineering literature on operating
	three phase gear in single phase mode...)

	best
	dwp