Re: magnifier vs two coil system

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

Original poster: "rheidlebaugh by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <rheidlebaugh-at-zialink-dot-com>

BRAD: I DONT INTEND TO GET INTO THE POLITICALY SUICIDAL DISCUSSION that
tesla and bendix went to war over. The use of a 1 wire current system goes
to the 1/4 wave concept. I realize there is a qroup that say the quarter
wave concept dose not apply because we use an equivelent not actual quarter
wave length, but ...In any resonant system a point of resonant length exists
where current gose from max I to max E and zero along a length. By using a
length a current can be induced into a single wire to transpher AC power
with no second wire to provide returm path. The one wire serves both out
going and the return AC path. This point creates standing waves. A tuned
antenna or a wave guide uses this concept to conduct power to a load point
or to free space. 1000 watts of power is pushed into a single length rod
conductor and at  another point a single length rod conducts power to a
reciever system. The debate comes with efficency and political power not can
or should it be done. $ banker is king
     Robert  H

> From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:12:04 -0600
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: magnifier vs two coil system
> Resent-From: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:32:21 -0600
> 
> Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>
> 
> On 28 Apr 2002, at 15:39, Tesla list wrote:
> 
>> Original poster: "Gary Hill by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> <garyhill2-at-earthlink-dot-net>
>> 
>> Brad
>> 
>> I don't think you have missed anything that everyone else didn't miss also.
>> If you throw a bunch of parts together into a "car" configuration, you may
>> end with something that looks  like a car. However if you don't understand
>> how a car works and what it is for it is very unlikely that  you can make a
>> working car even if you have all the right parts. Some here have made tesla
>> coils in a magnifier configuation. I don't have any reason to believe that
>> any of those coils actually magnified anything.
> 
> Except voltage. But then so does a 2-coil system.
> 
>> I remember reading a paper written by Tesla somewhere  on the net. ( lost
>> the URL ) In this paper Tesla talked about a convention or something  that
>> he had been at demonstrating  how it was possible to run  many different
>> appliances with only one wire. ( No return wire )
>> He then wrote that learning about  powering things with one wire led to
>> wireless transmition and wireless led to the magnifier.
>> 
>> Does anyone here understand  how to power something  with one wire?  I don't
>> think so. This kind of knowledge is shunned. Any one with any real education
>> will tell you that it is imposable. Why is it imposable? Because it doesn't
>> fit into the rules set forth by a few men a hundred and some years ago. Did
>> these men that wrote the rules about how electrons react really know
>> everything that can be known about electrons?
> 
> These rules which certain people on the list are so keen to rewrite
> have not only stood the test of time when applied in practice, but
> have withstood the many assaults launched upon them. It all depends
> on what you mean by "one wire". If you don't have a return path of
> any sort, be it ground, capacitance or whatever, then you may be
> really up against it. To my knowledge, Tesla never conducted his
> expts in outer space where parasitic return paths are minimal. I
> might further add that formulating rules was not an attempt to
> dictate the behaviour of electrons either. It was an attempt to find
> some kind of order in situations which were not at all understood at
> the time.
> 
>> Tesla was quietly shunned when it was learned that what he was trying to do
>> at Warrencliff would eventually provide free or nearly free energy for
>> almost anyone  in the world.
> 
> Was he? Perhaps Morgan wasn't convinced that letting consumers have
> power for free was a good idea, or maybe he wonder about backing a
> scheme whose viability was questionable. Then there was the old
> wrangle over who invented radio which didn't popularize Tesla in some
> quarters. But this list is evidence that he was not forgotten but at
> least some who recognize his considerable contributions to humanity.
> 
>> Some say that Warrencliff wouldn't work. I disagree. If it wasn't workable
>> and provable  they would have simply let Tesla make a fool of himself. The
>> fact that Tesla was suddenly a nobody  in spite of his success and fame says
>> it all to me.
>> 
>> I am not here because I want to make big sparks. I believe that Tesla was
>> the master  of  electrical resonance. I have no formal training in
>> electronics.  I thought this might be the place to learn about  resonant
>> circuits.
> 
> An excellent choice. There are some excellent engineers and
> scientists on the list.
> 
>> I have seen articles on a couple of websites that talk of a Packard that
>> Tesla had. It was powered by "collected" energy, one article said is would
>> run up to 90 MPH.
>> 
>> I believe that Tesla powered the  Packard  using some kind of resonant
>> circuit and probably his one wire power transfer technology.
> 
> Unfortunately I have to point out that belief does not constitute
> proof. In fact it doesn't admit much room for debate either. All the
> circuits I've seen in Tesla's note have a return path of one sort or
> another. And none were claimed by him to put out more energy than
> they consumed.
> I'm going to print that paper whose url is shown below for deeper
> scrutiny but so far it doesn't look terribly convincing.
> 
> Regards,
> malcolm
> 
>> here is a URL that is related to one wire power transfer
>> http://www.cheniere-dot-org/techpapers/Final%20Secret%20of%2015%20Feb%201994/ind
>> ex.html
> 
> 
> 
>> Gary H
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>> To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 10:44 AM
>> Subject: magnifier vs two coil system
>> 
>> 
>>> Original poster: "Brad Huff by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
>> <huffb-at-avalon-dot-net>
>>> 
>>> After reading some of Richard Hull's notes from 1995-1996, on his
>> magnifier
>>> experiments I have been given to believe that this was the only way to
>> proceed
>>> for large coil designs. However I see very little posted on this subject
>>> lately, and it seems people are still leaning to the two coil design. I
>> haven't
>>> looked through the archives but I'm wondering if the magnifier wasn't as
>>> promising as origionaly thought or "What have I missed"?-Brad.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>