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

Re: potential gain vs. power in TC systems



Original poster: "D.C. Cox" <resonance@xxxxxxxxxx>


It's a 3rd resonator, ie, magnifier design.

Dr. Resonance




Original poster: "BRIAN FOLEY" <ka1bbg@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi, Doc what is meant by Hulls coil being "base driven" is that driven like
an Oudin coil? do you know where to find pictures of Hulls coil? thanks,
brian f.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: potential gain vs. power in TC systems


> Original poster: "D.C. Cox" <resonance@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> Having observed both Hull and Wysock's systems in operation I tend to
> believe the peak currents are higher --- the sparks are much brighter.
>
> Dr. Resonance
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:00 AM
> Subject: Re: potential gain vs. power in TC systems
>
>
> >Original poster: Finn Hammer <f-h@xxxx>
> >
> >
> >
> >Tesla list wrote:
> >
> >>Original poster: "D.C. Cox" <resonance@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >snip
> >
> >
> >>Richard Hull's record of spark length = 13 x secondary inductor
> >>length was achieved driving a 4 inch dia. coil which featured over
> >>1,000 turns of fine stranded closewound enamel magnet wire, I
> >>believe it was around #28 or # 30 AWG.  A very tiny sec coil
> >>closewound delivering 11-12 ft long sparks!!  It was amazing to see
> >>in operation.
> >>
> >>Dr. Resonance
> >
> >How relevant is this example?
> >1, R. Hull was basedriving, not a secondary, but a tertiary coil,
> >with who knows what voltage from a who knows how long a secondary coil.
> >Much has been said to awe the field controll in that setup, but
> >without any record of the voltage across the tertiary coil who can
> >say how big an acheivement it is?
> >R. Hull wrote much about the efficiency of this short resonator, and
> >may have initiated the beleif, that magnifiers are inherently more
> >efficient than classic coils, something that nobody have later been
> >able to confirm.
> >
> >Cheers, Finn Hammer
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>