[Prev][Index][Thread]
Re: Computer data
From: richard hull[SMTP:rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net]
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 1997 8:14 PM
To: Tesla List
Subject: Re: Computer data
At 07:33 PM 8/31/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>From: Greg Leyh[SMTP:lod-at-pacbell-dot-net]
>Sent: Sunday, August 31, 1997 2:41 PM
>To: Tesla List
>Subject: Re: Computer data
>
>DR.RESONANCE wrote:
>
>
>> Even without CW the tank current will dip as noted on the primary side
>> ammeters. We did this experiment in Calif. in 1981 with Bill Wysock
>> running one of
>> his large coils -- I believe it was a model 10. The coil output was around
>> 32 ft. long spark.
>
>Bill certainly has an unusual way of rating the performance of his coils. He
>may be stretching things a bit to derive a 32 ft. arc length, at least from
>the pictures shown in http://www.ocws-dot-com/tesla/model10.html.
>It appears that he measures the peak _diameter_ of the arc striking range,
>rather than the actual arc length. This could explain the 55 ft. claims made
>in the second photo at http://www.ocws-dot-com/tesla/model13.html. Tesla also
used
>this peak diameter measurement method at one point to measure the
performance of
>his Colorado Springs expmt, where he describes the arcs as being "50 ft
across."
snip
>-GL
Well spoken Greg!
I'm glad to see some seriousness in the noting of claims about spark length.
At one time I though Tesla lied about his spark lengths, but in the CSN he
notes specifically what he measured.
In most cases he states "point to point - straight line". In a couple of
notes he claims the sparking circle diameter point to point. Finally, the
one that causes all the hassles, (128') sparks, he is equally clear and
specific. He states that if the longest opposing sparks on a diameter were
"Straightend out" instead of twisting and turning, the total spark linear
distance tip to tip of the circle diameter would be 128'. In his notes,
Tesla is most specific and infinitely clear. Likewise Tesla never mentions
"arc one" off of the tower mast itself, anywhere. (other than arcing across
the champagne bottles to the wood of the tower. Total distance 18"
Most people reading the claims hear what they want to hear and many don't
know beans about coiling. So we are stuck with the 128 footers touted and
boomed in the literature. As tesla aged and wrote wilder and wilder
articles, he noted the 128' sparks himself, but did not explain as he did in
his Colorado Notes. In all fairness, as he wrote very little, most of his
articles were from extended interviews. He may have explained to the
reporters correctly, but they just dropped minor details in favor of... 128
FOOT ARCS!
Consider his coil driver of ~50 foot diameter...place an 8 foot diameter
extra coil in the center. Take all discharges as originating at the outer
periphery of the extra coil on the large exposed top turns (often with a 30"
sphere mounted centered on the turn). Using simple logic one can see that
for Tesla to hit the top turn of his driver (on the insulators), he would
arc 21 feet and with the sphere, <20 feet. Study the photos in the CSN.
How many top turn hits are there? The bulk of the sparks at the CSL were
well under 20 feet point to point. Careful reading will note that Tesla
talks about Mr. Alley getting hit outside the driver. He notes he was
unharmed due to weakness of the spark at that range. He also notes that on
rare ocassions a spark might dive to the corner of the building. This is
the distance I give in my book as the absolute longest point to point spark
noted in the CSN.... 30-35 feet... very rare. Tesla never gives this
distance, but it can be computed easily enough.
I and most coilers adopt the point to point, straight line striking
distance, to a grounded object of the farthest spark for the value of spark
distance for our coils.
Like you, I often wonder about the criteria used by other more established
figures. I have captured video images, printed and micrometered real photos
and print outs of these systems. (allowing for normal lens types and lateral
leaps and aberrations) By "our standards", they fall well short of the mark
of the claims made. Therefore, they must use some other method of arc
determination to which we are not privy.
Richard Hull, TCBOR