Re: Tesla Coil Patent USP # 577670

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

Original poster: "Harvey Norris by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <harvich-at-yahoo-dot-com>


--- Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
 > Original poster: "Wall Richard Wayne by way of Terry
 > Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com>
 >
 >
 > 1/25/03
 >
 > List,
 >
 > The following is a reference to Tesla's patent #
 > 577670.  This is a
 > mechanical/magnetic interrupter invented by Nikola
 > Tesla following his work
 > with spark gaps.  Modern technology allows us to use
 > mechanical
 > interrupters that eliminate the bothersome slip
 > rings.  They are
 > commercially available.
 >
 > This is definitely a "new" idea (1897) that was
 > originated by Nikola Tesla
 > that needs exploring in our coil switches.  It is on
 > topic to building and
 > operating Tesla coils.  If you disagree with any of
 > the content please
 > ignore it and dispense with any ad hominem attacks.
 >
 > http://www.geocities-dot-com/theadamsmotor/scalar.html
 >
 > RWW
 >
I would definitely state that Tim Harwoood, is not a
cautious researcher. He is prone to make sporiadic
comments or even outbursts in the regard  to what can
be obtained in regards to an air core transformer
example. I have already researched this phenomenon to
a sensible degree, by use of alternator AC inputs at
480 hz. "IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS", THE OUTPUT DOES
APPEAR TO EXCEED THAT OF THE INPUT, BUT ONLY ON THOSE
REACTIVE CURRENTS AS ARE MEASURED.

What this means in laymans terms is that the volt-
amps input/ becomes a leeser volume compared to the
volt- amps output on secondary. A tendency to form an
opinion of overunity can be based on those
observations. However the TRUE opinion as to whether
this "hypothetical" overunity exists, should be
quickly dispelled by making measurements on the basis
of the true power expended as the heat loss I^2R
encountered with both input and output.

Sadly to say, even using these sensible
considerations: when a part is allowed to assume a
free vibration unencumbered by the loading down of a
load, the numbers still do not match well. A reactive
load will assume a vibration in excess to that
inputed.

One must "isolate" the load as to what its comparisons
of input allow as its sensible input. These are the
longoing actions of dreamers of free energy have
always proposed: that a small input can enable a
larger one as output. This is indeed true for reactive
fields, but obviously must fail when the the load is
of a nature to stop the secondary vibration, by virtue
of comparison as to V(int) of the source, to V(int) of
the load. HDN


=====
Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/