[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ALF: why not DRSSTC?

To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: ALF: why not DRSSTC?
From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:02 -0600
Delivered-to: testla@pupman.com
Delivered-to: tesla@pupman.com
Old-return-path: <vardin@twfpowerelectronics.com>
Resent-date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:09:20 -0600 (MDT)
Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Resent-message-id: <WPvwz.A.6i.OHaMDB@poodle>
Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx

Original poster: Jim Lux <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

At 10:33 PM 9/20/2005, you wrote:

Original poster: Terry Fritz <vardin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi,
The ALF is a "BIG" project by any standard. Best to stay with rock solid stuff to get it up and running and make the investors happy ;-)) Then, going to DRSSTC should not be a great leap...

The DRSSTC is definitely "leading edge"! But with the giant investment in the ALF project, the "bleeding edge" also has to be avoided!!!

Sometimes investors want "high risk, high reward", and leave the steady conservative advances to others. Compare, for instance, Rutan's approach to human spaceflight and NASA's.

Prev by Date: Re: ALF: why not DRSSTC?
Next by Date: skin depth in round conductors Re: 8 kHz Tesla Coil
Previous by thread: Re: ALF: why not DRSSTC?
Next by thread: Re: ALF: why not DRSSTC?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread