[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Primary Qs
Tesla List wrote:
>
> >From bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-comSun Oct 6 13:25:15 1996
> Date: Sat, 05 Oct 1996 19:41:10 -0700
> From: Bert Hickman <bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Primary Qs
>
> Tesla List wrote:
> <Biggg Snip to pertinent (or impertinent :^)) section...>
>
> > With Tesla coil builders, we have a bunch of dorks dinkin' around with
> > gaps with no controls and virtually no knowledge. To give these folks
> > Pachen's equation is a bit like inviting a biker mama to the opera. She
> > will expect to be entertained just as the coilers will stream out there
> > and turn the handle on the equation. She will most likely be bored to
> > tears (there are exceptions) and the coiler will most likely not apply
> > the equation corectly or wisely. (there are exceptions) The unknowns are
> > the biker mama's ability to adapt and enjoy new things, and the A and B
> > constants to be derived or more often guessed at by the coiler.
> >
> > Both the biker mama and the coiler have the right to go to the opera and
> > know of and apply paschen's equation, respectively. It is just that the
> > vast majority of either set of beings will undoubtedly be disappointed in
> > the results.
> >
> > Remember folks, if you are out havin' fun and looking for sparks, use
> > equations the least and the power switch the most. You will develop a
> > feel for the system and all the charcteristics which science seeks to pin
> > down with precision. You will ultimately acquire a general comprehension
> > of materials and methods required through deed and artifice. Most of
> > your work will evolve through hunches and guess work.
> >
> > If you are out to further the science of High voltage resonant
> > systems, then be very mindful of the need for physical constants in
> > formulating equations. You will need to do a bit of lab work to define
> > them in order to apply the mathematics which guides you hand.
> >
> > I'm a little of both and a lot of neither. Engineers rely on mathematics
> > to design a lot of stuff. Old engineers rely on experience to temper the
> > rush to accept the math as something precise and use a lot of "fudge
> > factors" (formerly, physical constants) in creating real works.
> >
> > Richard Hull, TCBOR
>
> Richard, (and Richard, Robert, Malcolm, and all the others...)
>
> I loved your imagery above (ROTFLMAO)! I'm certainly one of those dorks,
> dinkin' around with gaps, struggling to re-understand many of the
> "fundamentals" I supposedly learned 30 years ago. :?) Thanks to a little
> dinkin' (well, all right, a lot of dinkin'), coupled with the common
> sense from those in this forum, I've come to better appreciate Tesla,
> his research, how much he knew, and how _little_ we truly know, even
> today. After 26 years of engineering, I certainly agree: all "constants"
> are variables. Most non-linear behavior is heavily dependent on
> difficult-to-measure parameters, defying precise mathematical analysis.
> Tesla had the "feel" for what would work - the mathematical tools often
> had to come later (in some cases, much later).
With the above statement, and self-realization, you are not one of the
"dorks", but like us all, you are still dinkin' around, but with some
knowledge now. Dorks seem to never learn and drop out of the race, often
never even becoming, "also rans".
Richard Hull, TCBOR
>
> The best theoretical work still must pass the test of experiment.
> However, the most truly NEW discoveries come by dinkin' around first,
> accidentally uncovering an oddity, trying to explain it with known
> theory/math, and then doin' more educated dinkin'. Once you begin
> peeling the layers off an onion, there always another layer below - its
> the same with coiling! Its only through experimenting that more exciting
> (re)discoveries will come. Richard, your DC experiments and outstanding
> maggie research, Malcolm's latest Q and gap measurements - there's
> really nobody other than coilers doing this kind of work today. Its just
> too "old" a technology... look at some of the best books covering the
> fundamental areas with any depth - they're all 50 - 100 years old!
Well spoken! Thanks, too, for the compliments! The key is in dinkin
around and then finding out just what happened, go back, dink some more,
but from a stand point of a newly defined goal based on the last dink
with considered fore-thought. Finally, if you feel up to it, postulate
and theorize. Try and see if stable mathematical expressions can be
generated without too many variable constants (oxymoron) required.
You can go to the bank with the core equations of old mechanics and
electrostatics (f=ma, s=1/2gt^2, Q=cv, Ek=1/2mv^2, etc). I'm not so sure
that the non-linear nature of the spark gap will ever allow equations
to be developed which give results as pure and instantly usable as the
foregoing equations. Again, Paschen's equation is fine for fixed smaller
systems in sealed chambers with known gases at known pressures.
Richard Hull, TCBOR
>
> Seems to me there's plenty of room for biker mamas, dorks, grizzled old
> engineers, computer nerds, and even a rock star or two manning the
> variacs - there's over 200 of us on this conference!. Try your hunches!
> Ask about anything that seems odd or that you don't understand. Tell us
> about any wierd phenomena you've seen while experimenting - try stump
> the experts on the conference! Share what works... and what doesn't.
> We'll all learn something, and gain a worldwide circle of friends. And
> we just _might_ discover something new.
>
> Safe (and appreciative) coilin' to (all of) ya!
>
> -- Bert --
Nice pensive, well thought out, post with a "pump 'em up" at the end!!
Go team!
Richard Hull, TCBOR