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

Re: Magnifier vs Classical TC





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:02:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Magnifier vs Classical TC  

In a message dated 97-10-16 10:24:06 EDT, you write:

<< To properly compare a small magnifier and a classic TC, we would
> >have to quench on the first beat freq. notch, I have not been able to
> >achieve this in a small magnifier even at a loose k = .29.  I don't
> >know if anyone has had better quenching results.   I guess one way
> >to compare would be to *degrade* the quench of the classic coil to
> >match that of the magnifier.  A strange concept, but it may shed a
> >little light.
> >
> >John Freau
> >
 ---------------------------------------------------------
 
>   John F. -
 
>   I would have to disagree with this. To make the comparison we only need
to
> know the true watt second input and the spark length. What goes on
> in-between is not a concern. If the true watt second inputs are the same,
 >the coil system with the longest spark length wins.  However, the type of
> gap and number of gap breaks would have to be the same to eliminate the
> differencies in efficiencies of gap systems.
 
>   The spark would have to be a controlled spark length which is an
> indication of output energy. >snippers>

>   John Couture
  >>

John,

I don't know how I forgot your *demand* for controlled sparks.  I of
course am less concerned with the *true* efficiency, being more
concerned with free air spark length for a given wallplug power,
despite any limitations of that measure.  I won't go into the pros
and cons of this as we and others have hashed this out in
previous posts  :)

John Freau