[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Isotropic Capacitance
Tesla List wrote:
>
> >> Subject: Re: Isotropic Capacitance
> >Subject: Re: Isotropic Capacitance
> >> Subject: Re: Isotropic Capacitance
>
> >From atech-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-comSun Jun 2 08:14:35 1996
> Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 22:55:57 -0700
> From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: 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
> >
> >Dennis, All
Vacuum k=1.00000 or air k=1.0... something, The isotropic capacitance
is virtually the same!
Richard Hull, TCBOR