[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: DRSS-XXX?
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: DRSS-XXX?
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:32:05 -0600
- Delivered-to: chip@pupman.com
- Delivered-to: tesla@pupman.com
- Old-return-path: <teslalist@twfpowerelectronics.com>
- Resent-date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:32:15 -0600 (MDT)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <Qs_tgB.A.7yF.5gWYCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: "Derek Woodroffe" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Matt D, All,
"At some point in evolution, The DRSSWXYZ-TC Resonant Transformer System
will no longer be called a Tesla Coil."
Why ???
A radio is still called a radio?
A vacuum cleaner is still called a vacuum cleaner?
Both work in very different ways to how they used to.
These things are not called by names because of how they work. It's what
they do that matters. The "output" of a SGTC and a DRSSTC are the same, they
are still transformers, and they still rely on principles that tesla himself
would understand. All that has happened is that we have found a few
replacements for a spark gap with modern technology.
The rest of the control and innovation is mainly to stop the modern
technology that replaced this spark gap from exploding. Is it a huge leap in
technology to make a device function as a spark gap and to be complex as a
modern DRSSTC? Some improvement!!
I suggest a new breed, not species..
Derek