[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Can't just change one thing! (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 18:38:45 -0400
From: Richard Hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Can't just change one thing! (fwd)
Tesla List wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 23:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Michael Nolley <mhnolley-at-willamette.edu>
> To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Cc: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Can't just change one thing! (fwd)
>
> On Tue, 28 Jul 1998, Tesla List wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:08:44 -0400
> > From: Richard Hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net>
> > To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> > Subject: Can't just change one thing!
> >
> > All,
> >
> > At the TCBOM (Tesla Coil Builders of Maryland) Teslathon last Sunday,
> > John Freau and I sat and talked about what we were doing and some of the
> > tests we have made in the past. This follows Johns recent post on the
> > small wire coils.
> >
> > We both laughingly admitted to ourselves that is is just about
> > impossible to change just one system variable of any kind over a decent
> > range in any tesla system. That is, to check for precise effects. We
> > can glean some basic info, but the other parameters of the system have
> > to track what we change. If we change one thing a little , then we are
> > ok, but let us move something over a full range of adjustment, and if we
> > are still trying to keep apples separated from oranges, the whole thing
> > falls apart. Make a big change in one thing and you must compensate
> > with a least one other variable and over an equally vast range, thus,
> > destroying any sense of uniformity in what the new effect or property
> > really relates to! If we try and "share the load" by adjusting several
> > variables only a little, we are really leaping into the fire. This is
> > especially true if we do indeed move the unknown over a wide range.
> >
> > Thus, starting with a fixed system and then say going from no toroid to
> > a 60" diameter by 12" cross section unit will not leave us with any
> > meaningful data. As we go, we must adjust the power input, the tune
> > point by altering the resonator, the primary tap or the capacitance.
> > One or more changes in the above might mean increasing the rep rate or
> > even altering the gap. In the end we have nothing resembling the start
> > point system and no real data other than an epiphany born of hands on
> > experience.
> >
> > Those who have really worked with coils know exactly what John and I
> > were frustrated and amused over.
> >
> >
> > Richard Hull, TCBOR
> >
> >
> Extremely interesting comment-- and I think I see the conundrum--
> it is a version of the usual butterfly-in-Bermuda banter, the effects of
> changing one aspect of a system may vastly alter the system itself and
> all of its assumed parameters, so that the resulting effect may not
> correspond just to the adjustment, but to all of the things it affects.
> This breaks down commonly held assumptions about the
> "separateness" of abstract terms which we may apply to the Tesla coil,
> and also any sense that there is a "theory" behind the event which may
> explain it completely. Am I in the ballpark? Agree, disagree?
> Mike
Mike,
You are in the ballpark! I basically meant that only the general integration
of effects in such a complex system through the concious human engine, based
on numerous observations of real systems, stands much chance of really
affecting the formulation of some ideas about how to proceed to improve
operation of the Tesla system.
I have nothing against theorizing, etc. It is just that I sift such
machinations from others through the seive of experience.
In short, nothing works like hard won experience.
Richard Hull, TCBOR