[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: About the skin effect in humans
Original poster: "Dr. Resonance" <resonance-at-jvlnet-dot-com>
Our analysis (and Rich's) is based on modern science --- physics. It's
physically impossible to obtain a spark over 100 ft long running the power
levels Tesla had available.
To make matters worse, he was using glass dielectric caps --- terribly
inefficient for a Tesla coil. Try it yourself --- replace a MMC cap with
some glass beer bottle caps and see what happens.
Richard's analysis of Tesla's work is perhaps the most thorough I've ever
seen. You will enjoy the book as it makes constant day-by-day comparisons
to Tesla's work at Col. Springs.
Dr. Resonance
Resonance Research Corporation
E11870 Shadylane Rd.
Baraboo WI 53913
>
> I'll check it out when I get more money, I'm afraid tho a theoretical
> analysis and equations to back it up, can't disprove what tesla saw and
> measured, It's like finding a equation that says the sky is red when you
can
> verify with your own eyes in reality that it's blue. If Tesla saw what he
> saw and the streamer lengths he said were actually atleast 100 feet, but
> where curiously curved in odd angles. So Tesla recalculated the length to
> take in account the curve of the streamers striking the ground. In a
> straight line OUT from the third coil they were about 35-50 feet, but
taking
> in account the curiously curved shape of the streamers hitting the earth,
> they were around 124-128 feet. He even mentioned being struck by one of
> these streamers when operating the power switch and said they were so
feeble
> they didn't even hurt. This anyone could verify by reading Tesla's
Colorado
> Springs notes. I don't believe Tesla's mind was wandering when he wrote
his
> notes down either. That's just a assumption to back up the numbers you get
> in Hull's equations. Perhaps the equations are off slightly? Or maybe
> Richard didn't take into account other details of the setup? I'm not
trying
> to insult Richard's analysis in any way, I just think there might be some
> details that were left out. I hope to get my hands on his book, I'm
> interested in any materials regarding Tesla's work, but for now I'll take
> the word from the person who was actually there than from someone who is
> making their own analysis of his notes.
> Adam
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 4:03 PM
> Subject: Re: About the skin effect in humans
>
>
> > Original poster: "Dr. Resonance" <resonance-at-jvlnet-dot-com>
> >
> >
> > Read Richard Hull's book --- then you will understand.
> >
> > Dr. Resonance
> >
> > >
> > > I'm afraid you're wrong about the largest streamers being 35 in
length
> > max,
> > > I have the actual copy of Tesla's colorado springs notes, According
to
> > > Tesla's own words in writing in his notes, he said in one instance
with
> > his
> > > extra coil in action streamers "50" feet in length he recorded, and
in
> the
> > > next page after watching the streamers at higher power and noticing
> their
> > > extremely curved path from top to ground the streamers were actually
> > 120-130
> > > feet in length. If the terminal was raised higher above the ground
he
> > would
> > > have been able to easily get this in a straight discharge to a
elevated
> > > grounded terminal. This was his direct observation and words, not a
> > estimate
> > > on voltage but actual easy, observable spark length that anyone with
a
> > good
> > > eye which Tesla had could verify.He also goes on to comment that he
> could
> > > get streamers much larger but was afraid of lighting his building on
> fire.
> > > He also goes on to give clues that his magnifier setup wasn't
actually
> > > running at it's most efficient either, because already he was
pushing
> > > burning his building down. You could be skeptical of this, but it
> doesn't
> > > make much since, these are his personal notes, the he didn't mean to
> > reveal
> > > to anyone. So if he was lying about it, he would be lying to
himself,
> > which
> > > doesn't make any sense at all.
> > > On another note, Tesla actually used the Wardenclyffe Tower. It was
> > verified
> > > in the New York Sun reported on July 16, 1903:
> > > Natives hereabouts are intensely interested in the nightly
> electrical
> > > display shown from tall tower where Nikola is conducting his
exeriments
> in
> > > wireless telegraphy and telephony. For a time, the air was filling
with
> > > blinding streaks of electricity traveling thro the darkness on some
> > > mysterious errand.
> > > Tesla gave no explanations.
> > > These incidents were also verified in the recorded conversations
Tesla
> had
> > > with his attorney that I have. Who knows just how large the
streamers
> or
> > > better put the artificial lightning being issued from his tower.
It's
> > quite
> > > possible they easily dwarfed Electrum.
> > > Adam
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> > > To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 8:49 PM
> > > Subject: Re: About the skin effect in humans
> > >
> > >
> > > > Original poster: "Dr. Resonance" <resonance-at-jvlnet-dot-com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There were no 125 ft. long sparks in Col. Springs. The max spark
> > length
> > > was
> > > > approx 35 ft. John O'Neil's book on Tesla has propagated this
rumor
> > far
> > > too
> > > > long.
> > > >
> > > > A 125 ft. long spark would have required a power source of over
> > > 1,000,000
> > > > Watts --- something the power generating station could not
supply.
> > > >
> > > > A thorough analysis of Tesla's Col. Springs work was presented by
> > Richard
> > > > Hull in his book on the topic.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, Tesla estimated his voltage outputs with spark
> > lengths ---
> > > a
> > > > serious problem that has fooled many an experimenter and even
> > university
> > > > professors. RF spark length applies to available power and
> especially
> > > > current. Potential difference, ie, voltage, depends on the
energy
> in
> > the
> > > > system minus losses of the system, and is clearly promulated in
the
> > > > equation:
> > > >
> > > > Esec = k * Epri * SQR Lsec/Lpri
> > > >
> > > > k is the efficiency factor
> > > >
> > > > You can apply this equation to any TC system including Tesla's to
> > > determine
> > > > the output potential. One can operate a TC as in a single pulse
> mode
> > with
> > > > ignitrons firing every 10 sec. The spark length to a grounded
> > terminal
> > > is
> > > > measured and the potential is computed and compared to the above
> > equation.
> > > > >From this data one can determine the efficiency of the system.
> > > >
> > > > Ross Engineering has a SF6 potential divider that can also
measured
> TC
> > > > outputs within 1%. Ross's divider measures potentials from DC to
10
> > MHZ
> > > > with accuracy.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest you obtain a copy of Rich's book --- it's excellent
> reading
> > and
> > > > good analysis of Tesla's Col. Springs work.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dr. Resonance
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>