[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Secondary Frequency(fwd)
----------
From: John H. Couture [SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 1998 9:58 AM
To: Tesla List
Subject: Re: Secondary Frequency(fwd)
Richard -
I think you missed the point of what this listing is telling us. As I
have pointed out before if the calcs and tests do not agree then either the
calcs are incorrect or the tests are wrong.
It is obvious from the listing that some of the calcs are incorrect. The
point, therefore, is that some coilers are misunderstanding how to do the
calcs correctly, otherwise, all the answers would be the same. The
differences in assumed values must be taken into consideration.
If the tests on these coils are done properly we will find out who has
done the calcs correctly. Of course, the +/- error of the tests must be
taken into account.
This is an excellent way to get calcs and tests standardised for Tesla
coils which has never been done before in spite of the fact that several
coilers have tried.
I was disappointed that you did not submit the results of your calcs.
John Couture
----------------------------------
At 11:45 PM 8/23/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>----------
>From: Richard Hull [SMTP:rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net]
>Sent: Sunday, August 23, 1998 11:00 PM
>To: Tesla List
>Subject: Re: Secondary Frequency(fwd)
>
>
>
>Tesla List wrote:
>
>> ----------
>> From: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com [SMTP:terryf-at-verinet-dot-com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 11:41 PM
>> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>> Subject: Re: Secondary Frequency(fwd)
>>
>> I just tallied the responses:
>>
>> Another Coiler 418kHz 275kHz
>> Reinhard 200 200
>> Mark S. Rzeszotarski 360 285
>> John Couture 324.0 250.3
>> Ed Sonderman 375 296
>> Dave Sharp 393 310
>> Bert Hickman 410-430 275-295
>> Bart Anderson 367 290
>>
>> Perhaps if these coils are really built we would see who is closest! Or,
>> perhaps it is better if we don't go there :-))
>>
>> Terry Fritz (who goes with Mark Rzeszotarski in such matters :-))
>
>.......................................
>
>I love, I love it to death!!! Remember guys +/-25% is the rule! (for all to
>save face-except mister 200 -200) A wink is as good as a nod to a blind bat.
>(Monty Python)
>
>I am quite confident that someone up above has probably hit it pretty darned
>close to what the actual working value on a static sig. gen. would show! I
>am also confident that another different person on the list has hit it pretty
>close to the actual non-loaded dynamic run values.
>
>What can I say, but..... great work guys with a significant "here here" to
>Bert Hickman who was savy enough to give a range of values. (though he may or
>may not be correct in his coagulated figures.)
>
>It is, of course, tacitly agreed we shouldn't actually build anything.....
>After all this is the internet and there is lttle need to hurt the feelings
>of the entire above listed members minus the one who mathematically guessed
>correctly.
>
>With a hearty guffaw and a tongue pressed firmly in cheek, and with an
>absolute disregard to what the real value is, I remain, safely and firmly
>non-commited. I do know..... It will work...... It will spark The
>frequency* will be what it will be regardless of the math or the best laid
>plans of mice and men.
>
>Richard Hull, TCBOR