Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Variable Capacitance and Inductance]]

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

Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Tesla list wrote:
> 
> Original poster: "David Thomson by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <dave-at-volantis-dot-org>
> 
> Hi Matt,
> 
> >> Your unqualified criticism of Tesla is much like
> >> Richard Hull's, it is based merely on personal opinion.

	That opinion is based on a knowlege of "how things work", in the sense
of observation of cause and effect.  If a theory gives the correct
answer EVERY time it is used, that's good evidence that it's pretty at
least close to correct.  In the case of electrostatic and
electromagnetic effects in linear media, theory gives answers which are
as accurate and repeatable as the accuracy of the known physical
dimensions of the system being analyzed.  If there are any discrepancies
they must be measured in parts per million and not parts per thousand. 
Nothing that Tesla has written mentions attempts at measurements and
predictions of that resolution and precision, and I can't see any reason
why he would have been interested in performing them.  His work,
particularly that described in CSN, is a straightforward application of
well-known physical principals to the solution of the problem at hand -
wireless power transmission.  The principals weren't new, but his
application of them certainly was.  Too bad he went off the deep end on
power transmission and too bad he isn't around to answer questions about
some of the fallacies in what he wrote and thus apparently thought.

> >Likewise worship of his infallibility is based "merely on personal
> opinion". CSN is an excellent early work on electrical theory and
> measurement.

	CSN is a very interesting lab notebook and contains many fascinating
and illuminating examples of how Tesla looked at his work and how he
went about calculating the meaning of it. It was a diary and was not
intended as a reference book. There are far superior (more complete and
far more detailed) works on electrical theory and measurement which date
back at least to the 1880's. I have several in my library. 
 
> I'm pointing out the data provided by Tesla in CSN and sharing an article
> about Tesla's work.  There is no worshipping here.  If you disagree with his
> data, explain why.  The responses I have seen, in Richard Hull's book and
> several people on this list (Terry is the only person to provide data in his
> reply,) has been opinions about Tesla's work.  I'm really beginning to
> wonder why this is called a "Tesla List." It seems every time Tesla's name
> comes up everybody has to doubt his work.  Did Tesla do anything right?

	Of course he did many things right.  The questions are of his
interpretation of what he did and he wrote.  

	This is not called a Tesla List because everyone doubts his work.  What
is your idea of a "Tesla List"?  A place to glorify him right or wront? 
What we do doubt is a lot of the stuff which has been published about
it, including things ascribed to Tesla himself.  This is particularly
the case when what he says seems to fall into the field of
"irreproducible results".  His experiments were straightforward and
readily duplicated.  The effects you report are not.  

 
> You're right.  If people weren't nitpicking and claiming we should measure
> the environmental factors affecting capacitance and inductance without the
> environmental factors being there, we might learn something.

	What to learn and how to go about learning it?  Explain.  Might be fun
to try.
 
> What's so wrong about admitting that a Tesla secondary coil's inductance has
> minute variations in inductance over time?  Does that imply the entire
> knowledge base of physics will fall apart or something?

	No one doubts that the inductance change by minute amounts due to
temperature expansion and other mechanical effects.  Depending on the
coil form and the winding geometry, changes can be a fraction of a
percent for large temperature changes.  What we reject outright is the
thought that sunlight or moonshine or gamma rays or whatever change the
inductance.  An exception to that would be if there were enough energy
absorbed to change the temperature and hence the coil dimensions.

Ed