Re: Richard's mama can whip yo mama

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

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

In a message dated 4/30/02 9:58:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
writes:


>
> Bert,
> Good to hear some defence for the Magnifier, the magnificent work Richard 
> Hull and his group did seems to be ignored with little follow on work from 
> where they left off.



Paul,

Well I did a number of years of work on the magnifiers.  I never
saw the claimed advantages.  I was certainly hopeful at first,
and thought maybe I was doing something wrong.  After many
tests, I concluded that the advantages simply weren't there,
at least not at the lower power levels I tested.  Others on the list
came to the same conclusion at higher power levels, from both a
theoretical and empirical standpoint.  If the magnifiers did give
an advantage, I'd be the first to admit it, and I'd be a vocal
proponent for them.  

>
> Magnifiers for some reason are often quickly and unjustifiably criticised on 
> this list.



I don't think the magnifiers are being criticized.  Magnifiers work
fine.  It's just that they don't seem to offer the advantages that 
are claimed for them.  Saying such a thing seems entirely
justified to me.  No one's saying magnifiers are no good, 
they're just saying they're not "better" than two coil systems. 
They may offer certain "advantages" such as ease of setup, 
size and fit for certain buildings, etc. 

>
> There has to be some value in the 3rd coil resonating in free space without 
> the problems and losses involved with mutual inductance.



Hmmm.  This seems like a speculative statement.
It would be great if lots of folks built magnifiers, and compared
them to two coil systems, to see the results for themselves.
If I had a large work space, I'd do high powered magnifier tests.

Cheers,
John

>
> Paul A.