RE: New Inductance Formula

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

Original poster: "David Thomson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <dave-at-volantis-dot-org>

I made a mistake in the previous post.  Pi should be squared.

Paul,

Have you actually tried the formula?  What about it is nonsense or crank?
I'm surprised.  Of all people, I thought you would be the first to try it
and see what it does.  It wouldn't bother me at all if you could show it
doesn't work.

I'm using this formula in real Tesla coil design and it works great.  Humor
yourself and try it please.

Here it is again, hopefully in better format...

               (N * R)^2
mH = -----------------------------
     L * c * Cd * 16 * pi^2 *10^-4

N is the number of turns
R is the average radius
L is the length of the wire (not length of the windings)
c = 2.99 x 10^8
Cd = 2.112 x 10^-4
pi = 3.14159

I have a little more detail on the formula and how Cd was derived at
http://www.tesla-coil-builder-dot-com/inductance.htm

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 11:11 AM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: New Inductance Formula


Original poster: "Paul Nicholson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<paul-at-abelian.demon.co.uk>

Jim wrote:

> Do ANY of you guys really understand all that???

Nope.  It's complete nonsense.  Best thing is to ignore crank
postings.  See the various Tesla related yahoo groups for examples
of the consequences of not doing so.  Those who enjoy the
ultimately futile task of refuting pseudoscience will find
plenty of sport.
--
Paul Nicholson
--