Re: "New Inductance Formula"

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Alexander Rice by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <alex-at-rices.myip-dot-org>

28/04/2002 00:48:07, "Tesla list" 
<tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:

>Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry 
Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>
>
>Tesla list wrote:
>> 
>> Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz 
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
><jim-at-jlproduction-dot-com>
>> 
>> My God,
>> Do ANY of you guys really understand all 
that???
>> :)
>> Jim
>
>	Nope!  Way over beyond my understanding.
>
>Ed

Jim,Ed, All

If you read it carefully and disect the 
nonsense you only need A-Level physics and 
Maths to interpret it, the problem is that it 
is based on a slightly flawed resoning that if 
you don't understnd the units involved then 
the formaula that has been used for many years 
without hitch and was derived by one of the 
top minds of the day must be wrong and that 
you should write a new one. I didnt follow the 
math particularly carefully but it looks 
suspect to say the least - what the 
'conductance of free space' has to do with the 
inductance of something in it escapes me -
anyway the conductance quoted (2.112E-4 
siemens(mhos in modern units) is equal to a 
resistance of about 4700 ohms (per what unit i 
have no idea - conductance is a property of a 
discrete object rather than a 'substance' such 
as the 'aether' [sic - ether]) this is held 
out by the experiemntal observation that it 
appers to be out by a factor of about 500 
where as Wheeler gets you to within less than 
1%. The only way to get better than this is to 
use an infinite series, which i believe is 
what Wheeler is an approximation to - if it 
were really as simple as a linear formaula 
derived from the basic units you would have 
though somebody would alredy have noticed it 
by no wouldnt you...

Dont get me wrong, theres nothing better for 
ones understanding of a mathematical formaula 
than to attempt to derive it from first 
principals,but at least try to understand the 
principles and if (when) it doesnt work out 
dont bother to publish it.

just my 2c

regards and respect to all

Alex

terry - if this is deemed to be just an 
irrelevent continuation of a largely irelevant 
topic, then kill it or snip the dull bits but 
i do think that if people insist on posting 
stuff like this for public auditing then that 
is what should happen.

>>We can cetainly comment on a new formulas presented here.  That is how we
can all decide if it is valid or not.  If there are errors or inaccuracies
there is no shame.  Goodness knows even "i" have posted some quite flawed
"new" equations in my time :-))  but only by us all taking a look at it can
we see if it is of use to us. - Terry<<