RE: New Inductance Formula

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

Original poster: "Loudner, Godfrey by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <gloudner-at-SINTE.EDU>

Hello Dave

It seems like you are doing some sort of dimensional analysis (juggling
units). It is true that some formulas can be guessed at using dimensional
analysis. For example watt = volt x ampere, thereby P = VI. Because there
are an infinite number of expressions which  reduce to a given unit from
other units, dimensional analysis becomes useless in complicated situations.
In this case, the laws of physics must be relied upon to uniquely determine
correct formulas. If the laws of physics yield a set of equations just too
complicated to handle, then curve fitting techniques can be applied to a
mass of measurements to give useful approximate formulas. Your inductance
formula is fatally flawed and you should move on to greener pastures.
Believe me, your paper will not be accepted for publication in any
scientific journal.  

Godfrey Loudner    

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Tesla list [SMTP:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
> Sent:	Sunday, April 28, 2002 4:41 PM
> To:	tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject:	RE: New Inductance Formula
> 
> Original poster: "David Thomson by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <dave-at-volantis-dot-org>
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> >Inductance is defined as the flux linkages divided by the current causing
> the flux or
> >   L = A/I
> 
> In the MKS system the equivalent expression would be
> 
> 	L = weber/amp
> 
> Inductance can also be defined as the impedance per cycle:
> 
> 	L = Ohm/Hz
> 
> And in terms of Coulomb's constant as:
> 
> 	L = m/c*Cd*16*pi^2*10^-7
> 
> I'll be writing a scientific paper for publication on how the above
> expression is derived.
> 
> I don't have any references for these last two inductance relationships
> other than my own work.
> 
> Dave
> 
>