RE: very confused coil results

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>

Hi Dave,
         Your questions deserve some answers:

On 9 Apr 2002, at 12:27, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "David Thomson by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <dave-at-volantis-dot-org>
> 
> Hi Malcolm,
> 
> >All I can say is "good luck". It is documented in the CS Notes that all
> those magnificent photos taken of Tesla's magnifying transmitter were time
> exposures, each featuring "many closures of the switch" of a duration of a
> second or so. I wonder why, by his own admission, he didn't run the machine
> continuously?
> 
> Thank you for your well wishes.  I know that several of Tesla's experimental
> coil layouts were not run continuously.  But at least one run was left on
> for an hour or so.  This was the run that generated the huge lightning storm
> and blew out the Colorado Springs power station.  Not all of Tesla's
> experiments were identical.  He was there for collecting data and that meant
> building systems that would over heat so he could measure the limits of
> various configurations.  It was from the combined data that Tesla was able
> to "scientifically design" Wardencliffe.  The photographs were a sideshow to
> woo investors.

I will revisit the CSN to see what Tesla had to say about the 
generator failure. It has been some time since I last picked the book 
up. Generated a lightning storm? You mean he actually created CBs 
above the lab??
 
> I have been studying Tesla's works for 3 years now on a daily basis and have
> developed a new energy model to more fully understand his work.  And like I
> mentioned before, I am already building and running these coil
> configurations continuously for hours at a time, with no heating whatsoever.
> I'm beyond theory and actually practicing what Tesla was doing.  I have
> documented this and put the information on the web for you to review.  I
> don't see why you should continue to deny it is possible to continuously run
> a properly designed coil when I have offered evidence that can be
> duplicated.  BTW, what happened to all the flat spiral coil experiments on
> this list?  Are people finding out that I'm right and are afraid to admit it
> publicly?
> 
> Dave

First off, nothing that I've seen in your evidential photos shows me 
anything that I would consider requires a revision of any theory. 
Perhaps there is a photo I've missed? The last one I saw was a candle-
stick secondary producing some corona and driven by a spiral primary. 
The discharges reminded me of my first attempts to build a working 
coil.

     When I have less pressing matters to attend to, I will indeed 
wind a spiral secondary and characterize it. I apologize for not 
placing it at the top of my priority list. I can only do so much at 
once.

     Finally, I am the first to admit when my thinking is 
demonstrated to be in error. I am afraid of nothing in science. 
Regarding the current debate over Coulombs and suchlike, I take it 
that you would agree that the energy contained in a capacitance = 
(C.V^2)/2 ?

Regards,
malcolm