RE: Variable Capacitance and Inductance

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

Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>

Hi Dave,

At 08:10 PM 5/25/2002 -0500, you wrote:
....
>
>The modern Wheeler's equations already account for the earth's effects.
>What I'm doing now, as a result of this discussion, is searching NASA files
>for any information about air core coils in space.  If I don't find anything
>this weekend, I'll write NASA and ask for information.  If I'm right about
>Wheeler's formula already taking the earth effect into account, then an air
>core coil in space will have a slightly higher inductance reading.  If I'm
>wrong, it won't.

Jim Lux may know such things.

>
>>So Tesla's tests could have a lot of interfeerence error :-(  Atmospheric
>electrity, AC hum, sun spots...   That stuff is not the raised sphere's
>problem.
>
>Capacitance is not entirely a property of the sphere.  That's why the
>formulas for capacitor capacitance and coil inductance have constants
>attached to them that account for the effects of free space.  So it is the
>raised sphere's problem because it's effective capacitance in the circuit
>must deal with the effects of "interference" as you call it.  The
>"interference" or added dielectric strength has to be dealt with by the
>oscillating system.  It can't be ignored.
>
>>It would have to be reproduced today with trusted equipment where the
>details are known or could be determined.  Then the results could be
>beleived and trusted.
>
>Exactly.  That's all I'm saying too.  We need to duplicate Tesla's work
>before we can conclusively say he was right or wrong.

If Tesla's data can be extracted, we may be able to determine what his
setup was as long as the measruments of "it" were accurate.  If we have
data points, we may be able to find the situation that matches it.

>
>>I see Paul just delivered a good knockout punch  =:o<
>
>I didn't think so.  He misrepresented my position to the point that he was
>attacking something I didn't say or believe.  I would call it shadow boxing
>:-).
>

I was worried about posting it since it was sort of a flame.  Glade to see
you responded calmly :-)  That puts out the flames real fast :-))

>>What would be needed is a clear table for values of the 30 inch sphear's
>elevation vs. capacitance with the wire there.  Like this:
>
>I'll get to this later.  I've got to leave for a bit.

That would be great.  That would provide a solid starting point "we" could
"all" understand.

Cheers,

	Terry


>
>Dave
>
>