Re: About the skin effect in humans

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

Original poster: "Dr. Resonance" <resonance-at-jvlnet-dot-com> 


There were no 125 ft. long sparks in Col. Springs.  The max spark length was
approx 35 ft.  John O'Neil's book on Tesla has propagated this rumor far too
long.

  A 125 ft. long spark would have required a power source of over 1,000,000
Watts --- something the power generating station could not supply.

A thorough analysis of Tesla's Col. Springs work was presented by Richard
Hull in his book on the topic.

Unfortunately, Tesla estimated his voltage outputs with spark lengths --- a
serious problem that has fooled many an experimenter and even university
professors.  RF spark length applies to available power and especially
current.  Potential difference, ie, voltage, depends on the energy in the
system minus losses of the system, and is clearly promulated in the
equation:

     Esec = k * Epri * SQR Lsec/Lpri

k is the efficiency factor

You can apply this equation to any TC system including Tesla's to determine
the output potential.  One can operate a TC as in a single pulse mode with
ignitrons firing every 10 sec.   The spark length to a grounded terminal is
measured and the potential is computed and compared to the above equation.
 >From this data one can determine the efficiency of the system.

Ross Engineering has a SF6 potential divider that can also measured TC
outputs within 1%.  Ross's divider measures potentials from DC to 10 MHZ
with accuracy.

I suggest you obtain a copy of Rich's book --- it's excellent reading and
good analysis of Tesla's Col. Springs work.



Dr. Resonance

 >  >  >
 >  >  > Well trust me, Tesla himself said how many volts where in his coils.
 > Just
 >  >  > look up some info on him, especially biographies and interviews, he
 >  > explains
 >  >  > how he set his stunts up. I mean this is the man himself, I find it
 >  > somewhat
 >  >  > odd that many people here don't seem to know that much about the man
 > that
 >  >  > made the devices your building and his great work. If anyone is to
know
 >  > what
 >  >  > the effects were, it was Tesla himself.
 >  >  > BTW, Many of Tesla's close friends even witnessed Tesla producing
small
 >  > bits
 >  >  > of ball lightning and rolling them down his suitcoat arm, and
actually
 >  >  > lighting the air in his lab itself a glow with spectactors in it,
 > without
 >  > a
 >  >  > light source. There are many secrets alot of engineers don't know
that
 >  > Tesla
 >  >  > took to the grave with him, don't underestimate the man's
knowledge.:)
 >  >
 >  > There are an enormous number of biographies and works about Tesla that,
 >  > shall we say, lack rigor.  Tesla was not only a gifted engineer, but
quite
 >  > the showman and promoter.  However, as has been discussed at great
length
 > on
 >  > this list (among other places), actual details of how he did some
things
 > is
 >  > hard to come by.  There are also cases of "creative description", often
 >  > repeated and enhanced by later writers (consider, for example, the
famous
 >  > 132 foot sparks from the Colorado Springs system)
 >  >
 >  > Whether or not Tesla ran RF power through himself, and survived,
doesn't
 > say
 >  > much about the safety of doing it.  You'll have to admit that there is
a
 >  > whole lot more knowledge about RF propagation AND about the effects on
 >  > humans than there was 100 years ago.
 >  >
 >  > As for Tesla taking secrets to the grave:  Aren't you aware that Tesla,
 >  > Edison, and Marconi are all living on a high Tepui in the remote
 > Venezuelan
 >  > hinterlands, having had eternal youth conferred on them by an
application
 > of
 >  > potentials of high voltage and high frequency?  <grin>
 >  >
 >  > But really... The most rookie fresh-out-of-school engineer today knows
a
 > LOT
 >  > more about some aspects of electromagnetics and propagation of EM waves
 > than
 >  > Tesla did.  Tesla did have a conceptual gift and an amazing ability to
 >  > conceive of an overall system, but in terms of raw information
available,
 >  > there's been a lot discovered, both in terms of basic knowledge, and in
 >  > terms of analytical techniques.
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >
 >