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

Re: SRSG - rotor attachment

Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


I am not a mechanical or power transmission engineer but using this method
without a hub to restrain the split ring assuming the mounting screw is on
one of the wings is a bad idea.
I doubt you need much more than rudimentary mechanical experience to
conclude this.
Defining what the expected skills of rudimentary mechanical experience is
could be tricky.
Perhaps not using a split ring in the way suggested is one of them.

Robert (R. A.) Jones
A1 Accounting, Inc., Fl
407 649 6400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: SRSG - rotor attachment

> Original poster: Mddeming@xxxxxxx
> Hi David, Scott,
> `    I fully agree that anyone building a TC is taking certain risks
> and coilers should consider this when engaging in the hobby. There
> are many intrinsic risks that are carefully pointed out in the safety
> pages on many of the members web sites and in the archives. Just as
> in extreme sports, to raise an alarm that it is in general, not safe
> is a disservice.
>      However,  when a piece of equipment or a technique is published
> worldwide to beginners as well as experienced participants as a
> recommended technique or device, then pointing out any possible
> structural/mechanical shortcomings is not only permissible, it's
> laudatory.  The problem is not in " a power transmission engineer's
> point of view" , it's the mechanical engineers who are groaning over
> this one. No one is saying you shouldn't use it or that it's not
> working for you, but any idea that is "broadcast" should be subjected
> to closer scrutiny. So, IMHO, "Thanks to you both!"
> Matt D.
> In a message dated 5/14/06 7:35:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Original poster: "David Rieben" <drieben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Hi Scott,
> I wouldn't even try to argue with you about whether or not
> my setup is "conventional" or "risky" from a power transmission
> engineer's point of view. You're probably absolutely correct!
> I'm also sure it  wouldn't pass OSHA's standards, either! ;^0
> As far as that goes, I'm sure most electrical power engineers
> (except for maybe the ones on this list) :^)) would tell most, if not all,
> of us coilers that from a safety standpoint, our beloved Tesla coils are
> "extremely risky and unconvetntional", too, even with all of the
> proper dedicated RF grounding, line filtering, ect.  I'm sure an OSHA rep
> would have "heart failure" if he were to look at the setup of most of our
> coils and would never allow for such an extremely hazardous contraption
> to be placed in a public display or an industrial occupational setting!
Why do
> you think that "Tesla coil" insurance is so exhorbitantly expensive,
> even for the "real"
> Tesla coil  "pros" like Jeff Parrise, Bill Wysock, or Greg Leyh when
> they are the ones
> who "really" know what they're doing? The way I see it, I'm
> not  running my RSG 24/7
> for weeks or months at a time, so I think in my situation, my split
> taper bushing
> being used "outside the box" of its intended use will serve my
> purposes just fine ;^)
> I WAS safe enough to built my RSG "inside of a Lexan box", though, to
> myself not only from a hub possibly  flying loose, but also from
> possible flying shards
> of tungsten, in case it were to fail in that particular manner.
> I think it all comes down to risk management. By the very fact that you
build a
> Tesla coil, you are taking on some risk, both mechanical and
> electrical, and probably
> other risks as well. There's just no way around that! If one cannot
> deal with this fact,
> then they just don't need to build a coil at all. End of story! For
> those of us who
> are willing to accept the risks involved with this hobby, what we try
> to do is to
> minimize the risk to acceptable levels. By building a Lexan box shield
> my RSG, I'm reducing the risk of possible injury due to possible
> failure of the RSG components to very acceptable levels. I am NOT
> the risk, but I AM greatly reducing it. The same goes for using
> proper line filtering,
> dedicated RF grounds, panel metering, ect. Some of us obviously go
> further to reduce
> the risks than others but obviously, we all practice a least some
> level of risk reduction
> since there seems to be remarkably few reported mishaps (at least
> mishaps that people
> are willing to admit to) ;^) Let's try to keep it that way ;^))
> David Rieben