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>

Hi Godfrey,

Thank you for your comments.

>Your inductance formula is fatally flawed and you should move on to greener
pastures.

This is why I don't take all the advice of "old timers".  If I had merely
accepted your view that the formula was fatally flawed and left it alone, I
would have failed.  But I could see, through my dimensional analysis, that I
was on the right track.  Nothing is coincidence in dimensional analysis and
it can be used to achieve breakthroughs in science.

It turns out that I could merge Wheeler's formula with my dimensional
analysis of Coulomb's constant and achieve the results I was seeking.  I now
have a fully functional formula that gives not only the correct value, but
the correct units for inductance.  By "correct value" I'm using Wheeler's
formula as the standard.  I don't necessarily believe the quest stops here,
though.  As I mentioned in my reply to Harvey, I'm not satisfied that
inductance must be empirically deduced.  There is a chain of events in
nature that specifically yields inductance.  I intend to find out what it
is.  And for now, I feel that dimensional analysis will be the key to
understanding the exact nature of inductance.

I would encourage you and others on this list interested in physics research
to join me in this quest to fully understand inductance.  Tesla coiling is a
useful tool for understanding the full nature of inductance.  I don't know
about you, but I get a big thrill out of cutting edge research.  It makes
life worth living.

>Believe me, your paper will not be accepted for publication in any
scientific journal.

Do you think my latest improvement will not be accepted for publication?

Dave