[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Variable Capacitance and Inductance

Original poster: "Gary Peterson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <glpeterson-at-tfcbooks-dot-com>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 7:21 PM
Subject: RE: Variable Capacitance and Inductance

". . . The [isotropic] capacity increased as the conduct­ing surface was
elevated, in open space, from one-half to three-quarters of 1 per cent per
foot of elevation. In buildings, however, or near large structures, this
increase often amounted to 50 per cent per foot of elevation, . . ."

> . . . I have found several errors in Tesla's work in my studies.
> I have found another one.  In reviewing Tesla's notes specifically related
> to measuring the capacitance of a "large structure" on page 282 of his
> he states, "The rise in the effective capacity for 47 feet and 6" was ...
> 26.2%.  Per one hundred feet it would be from this: 55.16% or a little
> 1/2% per foot."  It seems Tesla incorrectly remembered the details of his
> notes and wrote in his article "50 per cent per foot of elevation" when he
> should have written "50 per cent per one hundred feet of elevation."

I too have found problems in reports of Tesla's work, but here it appears to
be a typographical error.  I'd guess a special case figure of 5 percent per
foot would be within tolerable limits.  Tesla was a good experimentalist and
it's a fair assumption that his measurements were somewhat accurate.  Has
anyone seen the original article or is this discussion based upon the
reprint which appears in Ratslaff's book, TESLA SAID?  BTW, I've posted the
text of the article and also a drawing of Tesla's C/S measurement apparatus
at http://www.tfcbooks-dot-com/writings/discover.htm.