[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: darn the formula torpedoes
In a message dated 9/28/00 7:47:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Original poster: "Metlicka Marc" <mystuffs-at-orwell-dot-net>
> tesla coil myths were truth some years ago. it was only after someone
> dared to venture from the norm and try a test on there own that these
> myths were found, and i would not say that the things that are thought
> of as "truth" now, are not going to be myths in the future?
You raise important issues here. I'm sure that some of today's
new truths will found to be myths in the future, since this has
always happened in science, so we can only do our best for
now. Open-mindedness is important... to prevent one's self from
becoming dogmatic about a particular approach or belief. If an
idea is found to be bogus, we will toss it into the ash-heap.
Yes, new ideas and approaches, and careful experiments are
essential for best results.
> as you stated, "we now know that higher surge impedance reduces gap
> losses and increases the spark length", how do we know this, by
> experimentation, but is it only the higher impedance? or could there be
> other factors involved, to say no means that were at the same standstill
> of ten years ago, to say yes means that more experiments need to be
We know that by experiment and by the theories that have been
confirmed by experiment. But yes, there are probably other factors
that help such as the lower frequency that usually results. There is
no doubt that a lot more experiments are needed to really pin
everything down. But in the meantime, we can get longer sparks
by using these principles.
> your testing has shown wonderful things, as has terry's and all
> those that talk about such things off list, are these things off list
> because they are felt to be above the heads of the general list? or
> could it be that discoveries are wished to be limited to a closer group?
Things that have been discussed off-list, have also been discussed
on the list. I'm not aware of any wish to keep the ideas a secret.
I certainly discuss my ideas freely on the list... if anything, probably
to the point where they might bore folks.
> i would think that even a man that sits in a toll booth, six days a
> week, or a woman that washes six tons of laundry a week could have an
> idea that could be helpful, if not the turning factor of science? all
> i'm tying to say is that most great discoveries have been , either by
> accident, or sometimes by an individual that may not be able to realize
> that he had two different shoes on, but somewhere there is a nebie
> coiler that will not let anything stand in his or her way, they may make
> a discovery that will put all other discoveries behind, they may look at
> it in such a simple realm as to see the obvious, they may have one
> hundred silly ideas, but the silly ones led to the great one.
> limited thinking and a closed mind has never led to anything but
> stagnation, maybe an hour glass secondary, maybe a secondary wound on a
> quartz form, maybe a spark gap coated with diamond film deposits, the
> possibilities are endless. one observant radio man, gave us radar, one
> great man knew that dc was not the best way to transmit electricity far
> distances and some knew that if gravity is a force, then there has to be
> a counter force. we knew that we could never travel faster then the
> speed of light, but now we are not so sure, so if an idea is had, then
> please try it, the only losers will be the ones that don't.
Yes, tesla discoveries are not limited to an elite band of high-horse
researchers. Many important findings have been made by newbies,
tinkerers, etc. All the info is of value. I learn from other's work as
well as from my own.
> experiments? how many times does the same test have to be done, with the
> exact same output, in order for it to be truth? and john, no insult
> intended, but i have been to your sight often, i have never seen the
> controlled experiments and there direct out come, i have read the
> efficiency theory with third party interviews stating these theories,
> but no actual testing outlines? and no breakdown of test procedures for
> possible duplication?
I'm gradually adding stuff to my webpages, but it's taking me awhile.
I have a series of 25 videotapes that I've made over the last 10 years
or so, and these tapes show most of the tests I've made. There are
other coilers who have a complete set of these tapes and are more
familiar with my work. Much of my work has also been posted on
this list over the last few years. The website shows mostly my
conclusions rather than how the conclusions were formed. Most of
my work is based on the findings of other's such as Skip Greiner
(120 bps sync for NST's), Malcolm (gap loss conditions), Corums
(low frequency gives times for gap de-ionization), TCBOR (large
toroids and high inductances). Note: I'm not implying that the
people mentioned necessarily discovered the principles mentioned
(they may or may not for a particular case), rather I'm saying that
I learned about the particular principle from that person or source.
Many of my experiments were not properly controlled although
they of course should be....and this is why I try to encourage
others to repeat the tests, etc. If I'm wrong about something
I have no problem with that. If someone sets out to prove that
I'm wrong and succeeds, I will be grateful to them for having
shown me the truth, and the errors in my thoughts.
As far as seeing some of the experiments that prove the
principles of gap losses, etc., I refer you to the work of Malcolm
and others, which is all posted in the Archives. I don't
remember the exact date or subject headings of all the posts,
etc. If someone really wants to find all this, they'll search for
it. I admit to being a little lazy when it comes to references...
one of my weak points for sure. Gap loss characterics are also
discussed in various text-books, etc, so it's nothing really
new. Others on this list are more familiar with these book
titles, etc. I do this Tesla coil work for fun, so whatever doesn't
appeal to me, I simply don't do, or it takes me a long time.
In any case, others are working on these issues, so more
information will be available soon. I do make the effort to
try to popularize some of these ideas, so that others may
become aware of them and benefit from them. I have found
that despite the quantities of postings, some folks just don't
have the time to read many of the postings, and remain
un-aware of these principles.
> i believe math is the only absolute truth, but
> yet even Einstein had let others force him to doubt his results, the
> expansion of the universe, he worked long and hard until he finally
> could prove it wasn't expanding, Hubbell comes along and shows, with red
> shift, that it truly was expanding, Einstein said that this was his
> biggest embarrassment and that he would never forgive himself for
> letting others force him to doubt himself, he died with that guilt.
I don't know if math is the only absolute truth, but mistakes such as
Einstein's are all part of the wonder and magic of learning. We are
all students, and we all make mistakes. There is no shame in
being wrong, and there is no glory in not trying something, at least
that is my view. Despite this, I believe we owe it to ourselves and to
other's to do our best work, and to work carefully, etc., and to
point out things that we see, if we think it might be of benefit to
> note to all coilers, if you want to try, try, if you want to do, do. it
> just may be your little discovery that leads to a great one, but only
> those that are secure enough in themselves, will admit that your idea
> inspired them.
These comments are very true.
> now that i've probably alienated myself from the few remaining that hold
> me with any amount of creditability, i'll say, coil on, but always, be
> double safe.
I think that wise people will see great wisdom in your comments.