Re: Three coils, one form was Ball Lightning

["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:

> Original poster: "Pete Komen by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <pkomen-at-zianet-dot-com>

> Marc,
 
> Wouldn't you get just one resonance with 3 inductors in parallel?

	If i read right, this is three secondaries on one form.
	If the 'upper' ends are not connected to each other (?)
	the windings would not be 'in parallel'.  To the extent
	that the excitation is broad band, three freqs are quite
	possible.  (WHICH one one tunes the primary to is an
	'interesting" question.

> Pete

	best
	dwp
=======================================================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 3:13 PM
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Ball Lightning
> 
> Original poster: "Metlicka Marc by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> <mystuffs-at-orwell-dot-net>
> 
> Malcolm, All
> This was one of the things i was curious about when i brought up my idea
> of winding two or three coils on one form a while back. I wondered if i
> used my idea of starting the first coil at the base, then the next coil
> of a different size wire at 4" or so above the base, and a third above
> that, then use three primaries, each tuned to it's corresponding
> secondary. Using two or three legs of three phase wye and using stsg's
> for each separate tank.
> <snip>

>  Strange ideas from a strange mind,
> Marc