Re: ISSTC Components

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

Original poster: humanb-at-chaoticuniverse-dot-com 

I think the real achivements here have been the quality
of documentation (so others can follow), and the
improved technology of the IGBT's. It hasn't hurt that
those UCC chips have an "enable" either ;-) Pulsing
those transisters while using Discrete's can be a
pain... SSTC's have come a long way, the level of
complexity is so much less than it was, now they are
pretty much on par with a Staccato VTTC. Speaking of
such, I have pretty much limited mine to mimicking a
VTTC (noise issues, my wife just can't stand those
screaming tendrils), but those sword-like sparks just
are not to be it seems...

Regards,

David Trimmell

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 07:07:40 -0600, "Tesla list" wrote:

 >
 > Original poster: "Steven Ward" <srward16-at-hotmail-dot-com>
 >>>>Snip<<<<<<<<<<<<>
 > > > That's not to belittle your achievement in any way
 > but just to make
 > > > known that an exhaustive search for prior art is
 > not a bad thing
 > > > before making claims of originality.
 >
 > Agreed.  but...
 >
 > IF people had done such things in the past, why is it
 > that people are
 > amazed when these new SSTCs are more efficient at
 > making long sparks that
 > spark gap coils???  I mean... SOMETHING is different
 > here ;).  Did the
 > technology exist 10 years ago but somehow was
 > forgotten?  I dont think
 > thats possible with such a tight group as the TCML and
 > coilers in general.
 >
 > I also must note that when i claimed to be the
inventor
 > of the *ISSTC* i
 > simply meant to clarify because it is MY coil that has
 > sparked Dan Ms work
 > that John Cooper was then refering to.. not really to
 > make a bold claim of
 > originality.  Still, point well taken.
 >
 > Steve