[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Isotropic Capacitance
How does a body contained in a vacuum relate to Richard Hull's Rule of 30?
Regards;
Dennis C. Lee
At 09:51 PM 5/31/96 -0600, you wrote:
>> Subject: Re: Isotropic Capacitance
>
>>From hullr-at-whitlock-dot-comFri May 31 21:30:23 1996
>Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 10:58:01 -0700
>From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: Re: Isotropic Capacitance
>
>Tesla List wrote:
>>
>> >From ed-at-alumni.caltech.eduWed May 29 19:06:05 1996
>> Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 15:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: "Edward V. Phillips" <ed-at-alumni.caltech.edu>
>> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>> Subject: Re: Isotropic Capacitance
>>
>> Re: Richard H's "Rule of 30"
>> "There is a rule of thumb. Don't over use it, though. If a body is over
>> 30 of its maximum dimension distant from any other body, then its
>> apparent isotropic capacity is stable and may be considered to be fully
>> developed."
>> That sounds very, very conservative to me.
>> Ed Phillips
>
>
>Ed,
>
>It was meant to be conservative. Otherwise I would hear the pouting of
>Tesla buffs about how my "law of 10 or 15 or 20" didn't work well!
>Some how suggestions and general rules of thumb often magically develop
>into canonical law when repeated often enough in closed circles.
>
>Richard Hull, TCBOR
>
>