RE: was RE: First coil built

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

Original poster: "Day, Michael" <Michael.Day-at-USPTO.GOV> 

Your points are well taken.  It seems that I have heard it said that when you
take the overall system into account, there does not appear to be any benefit
in a magnifier configuration.  The math would indicate that magnifiers could
provide improved efficiencies from quicker energy exchanges and reduces gap
losses, however, these results seem to have proved illusive.  Possibly the
Holy Grail of coiling.  Alternatively, maybe DRSSTC technology will provide
the solutions.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 6:38 PM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: was RE: First coil built


Original poster: "Peter Terren" <pterren1-at-iinet-dot-net.au>

Once you take into account the secondary coil height (?3 feet from memory)
added to the tertiary height of 1 foot the spark length to height ratio
(11:4) was a lot less and quite comparable to a normal Tesla coil. My TC
has a 3:1 ratio of spark length to height of secondary winding.
Richard Hull's classic TC had a spark to sec. ratio of 3.5. This is from a
quote on his site:(as I can't get through to his site)
http://www.richmond.infi-dot-net/~rhull/highenergy003.htm
"Among the finest of our systems was "Nemesis", a 14" diameter, 48 inch
tall classic coil which regularly produced 14 foot long arcs when operated
near its maximum of 9kva input energy. Another superb Tesla coil system was
Magnifier #11E which utilized a small 12 inch long, 3 inch
diameter resonator that produced an astounding 10 feet of output arc with
only 5-6kva input energy."

To quote John Freau "I wonder if anyone has placed a 1" tall tiny resonator
coil on top of their
classic coil and called it a magnifier and then claimed a spark length of
of 100 times the resonator length or whatever?"