RE: longitudinal waves

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

Original poster: "David Thomson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <dave-at-volantis-dot-org>

Hi Matt,

>Perhaps someone could explain then, why Tesla's own illustration and text
for the Wardencliffe System (pat.no.1119732) shows  a system of three
HELICAL coils, a primary, secondary, and "induction coil" att ached to the
toroidal top by a "steel pipe"? No flat spiral coils are in evidence.

Tesla explains this quite well in patent 1119732 himself.  I refer you to
page one, last paragraph, "...the transmitting circuit, in its general
features, is identical with that described and claimed in my original
Patents Nos. 645576 and 649621."

When looking at the diagram in patent 1119732, the flat spiral coil is
designated by A.  The primary coil C is left to be either a solenoid or flat
spiral coil underneath or around the secondary flat spiral.  (This is all
supported in patent 649621.)  The center of the flat spiral coil A is
connected to a tall solenoid coil B.  Coil B gives an added boost to the
output voltage.  The outer lead of coil A is connected to ground with the
option to connect to the ground of coil C or not.

I have been surmising this very same layout for my coil.  This, I would
guess from looking at the pulse model, is the most favorable arrangement for
maximizing the energy of the system.

Why this should work so well is the flat spiral secondary generates the
strong longitudinal component of the wave.  The primary coil (if arranged as
Marc did in solenoid form) adds voltage to the wave, and the booster
solenoid coil further supports the voltage increase.  Both the voltage and
the longitudinal components work together.  I believe the rotational vector
of the pulse should also be supported in this arrangement and have an
experiment designed to test this idea as well.

Also note the boot Tesla places over the top of the booster coil.  This is
designed to capture the corona discharge and put it back into the terminal
output.

You cannot rely on the scale of the drawing provided in patent 1119732 as it
clearly contradicts the words of the patent in many ways.  It is meant,
obviously, only as a general diagram to convey general principles, not as a
building schematic.

Dave