Re: longitudinal waves

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

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

In a message dated 3/8/02 4:57:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
writes:



>
> 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. 



When I look closely, the A points to the inner helical coil, not the cover over
the coils.
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.



This is only true if there are longitudinal waves, which begs the question.

>
> 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.


By parallel argument, we cannot rely on the diagrams in the earlier two patents
for nonexistent devices to define the configuration of the third nonexistent
device. We are left with the question of whether he contradicted himself WITHIN
patent 1119732 or BETWEEN patent 1119732 and patents 649621 & 645567. Since
these all were patents for hypothetical machines which were never saw actual
service, we're back to a "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin"-type
discussion.

Matt D.