[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Who all has built OLTCs?
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Who all has built OLTCs?
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:42:11 -0600
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Old-return-path: <email@example.com>
- Resent-date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:57:44 -0600 (MDT)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <xkuyAD.A.3kE.218ZCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: Jerry White <starcatfisher@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I know, old school, but where can I find more info on the OLTC? Also I am
want to build a fly back/ ignition coil driver based on a 555. What would
be a good frequency to tune to for starters?
Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Original poster: Terry Fritz
It is sort of like the salt water vs. MMC thing.... If you want to make a
solid state coil that is real simple and easy to understand, the OLTC is
it. If you want super high performance with more cost, knowledge needed,
then the DRSSTC....
For high reliability manned space flight use, the OLTC is best :o))) But
nothing beats the "performance" of the DRSSTC even if it does blow it guts
out now and then... However, or friends across the pond have really taken
the OLTC to super high levels!!!
The DRSSTC also has the advantage in that "I" did not make up the
At 12:28 PM 4/20/2005, you wrote:
>wow dan! what a statement. the drsstc hasnt stopped blowing up silicone
>yet but man y oltc have been built very reliable. i think ok on the
>performance front they come in second but if i had to put one of them into
>commercial use it would be the oltc for its reliabilty.
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Tesla list"
>Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:01 PM
>Subject: RE: Who all has built OLTCs?
>>Original poster: "Mccauley, Daniel H"
>>OLTC means "Obsolete at Last, Tesla Coil"
>> >OK, I will ask the silly question. What does
>> >the "OL" mean? (You need to realize there are a lot of us who
>> >are relatively new to this
>> >Sam Johnson