Re: Output

["Malcolm Watts" <M.J.Watts-at-massey.ac.nz> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)]

Hi Dan,

On 31 Aug 00, at 17:42, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "Dan Kunkel" <dankunkel-at-hotmail-dot-com> 
> 
> 
> >I'm still troubled by this 50% thing based on my scope
> >observations. I'd humbly suggest that a primary being allowed
> >to ring its course and one ringing for only several cycles
> >(and hugely decrementing due to energy transfer to the
> >secondary) are two different animals, especially if the
> >secondary loses its load fast enough through a well
> >established discharge path to prevent a reverse transfer.
> >
> >Regards,
> >malcolm
> >
> >
> 
> Malcolm,
> 
> you ought to check Tesla's Colorado Springs Notes. In the beginning he 
> tackles primary oscillations. he used an actively quenched gap (motor) but 
> added one (or two) extra capacitors and another coil (inductance) into the 
> tank. he concluded once the gap was quenched, the oscillations were allowed 
> to flow between the primary cap/coil and the extra cap/coil without the gap 
> firing, this allowed for maximum oscillations occur. i don't have the 
> schematics at the computer right now. but if you are interested i will 
> surely post them...there are several variations. some of them look 
> 'dangerously' close to the equidrive system that we know today.

Yes, I've read the Notes several times and seen this circuit 
of course. I'm unable to see what that has to do with claims 
of a 50% loss in the gap beyond knowing that Tesla also 
disliked the gap? I'm further at a loss to see why you would 
want prolonged oscillations in the primary. ?  

Malcolm