Re: magnifier vs two coil system

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

Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Tesla list wrote:

> > 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.

	Right on; the magnifier may in some circumstances be a more convenient
arrangement.  There are some differences in the principle of operation
but the results are similar.  Tesla refers to the magnification of
"horsepower" but what he is really talking about is the difference
between instantaneous / peak power and average power and I think he has
been misinterpreted by wishful thinkers.

> > 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. 

	What appliances did he demonstrate, and what was the operating
frequency?

> > 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.

	In his demo's the return circuit was in the capacitance to ground at
the "far" end of the device.  Same principle as when you light a bulb on
the output of a TC.  In that case YOU form the return circuit.  If
you'll read his wireless power transmission patents carefully he clearly
states that he is using the ionized upper atmosphere as one conductor of
a transmission line and the earth as the other.

	One thing worth noting.  If you read CSN carefully you'll see that (at
least at that time) Tesla DID design things and calculate using the same
laws of physics which we use unto this day. Of course, a few years later
things appear to have changed with him. Since he did tend to use
extravagent language and some of the things of which he wrote weren't
common enough to have accepted names it's quite possible that a lot of
what he wrote has been misinterpreted.  Hard to tell over the distance
of so many years.

Ed

Ed