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

*To*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Subject*: Re: Variable Capacitance and Inductance*From*: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>*Date*: Sat, 25 May 2002 20:54:06 -0600*Resent-Date*: Sat, 25 May 2002 20:54:32 -0600*Resent-From*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Resent-Message-ID*: <XP9sT.A.r0H.n5E88-at-poodle>*Resent-Sender*: tesla-request-at-pupman-dot-com

Original poster: "Emil J. Schauer by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <eschauer-at-adelphia-dot-net> Paul, Thank you for saying what should have been said long ago. I hope your post will end this lunacy. Emil ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 12:48 PM Subject: RE: Variable Capacitance and Inductance > Original poster: "Paul Nicholson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <paul-at-abelian.demon.co.uk> > > I've read some of the posts on this thread and it's clear that > David hasn't got much of a clue what he's on about. > > There are no scientific issues at stake here - nobody needs to present > data or arguments to prove anything. David needs to do some basic > study on his own - concentrating on understanding what voltage, > current, inductance, capacitance, charge, EMF, etc actually mean. > Right now David is wasting everyone's time and making a nonsense of the > list by carrying on as if his naive ideas based on elementary mistakes > represent some new work that needs to be discussed in a scientific way. > > It is not the inductance of David's coil that is varying, it is his > measurement of the inductance that varies. The gross variation > mentioned is undoubtably due to carelessness in not excluding line > frequency induction. That ought to be obvious. David needs to sort > himself out and learn a lot of basic concepts, as well as learning > how to do measurements, how to do 'science'. > > At present, David makes a post with elementary errors, someone corrects > it, and David responds to them as if they are presenting an alternative > scientific theory, to be discussed and argued. You can't pretend to > do 'research' on a subject upon you know little or nothing about with- > out making a fool of yourself. We're heading for a repeat of the > 70-odd long, daft, and pointless list posts we had recently on > Wheeler's formula. > > Sorry, I'm not going to bother to go over all the trivial errors in > David's posts - I'm sure they're obvious to all and I'm not going to > do David's studying for him. > > The crass and ludicrously arrogant suggestion that the laws of > inductance are wrong, based on a few faulty measurements, is only > matched in sheer lunacy by the enthusiasm with which other list > members encourage this bull and try to elevate it to the status of > a 'theory'. Perhaps in future we should just respond to this kind of > trolling with references to suitable textbooks in order to avoid silly > debates on non-issues? > > I notice that the notion of effective inductance differing from the > 'DC' inductance has crept into this non-discussion. That certainly > isn't anything new - its just one of those things that are obvious > from the definition of inductance and the Neumann integral - it > definately isn't mine or Terry's 'new theory'. We take the trouble to > test for it not to prove the underlying physics - that's ancient stuff, > but to satisfy ourselves that we're applying it correctly. > > As a general point, when we get answers that are unexpected we do not > suppose that so-and-so great scientist who first worked out the basic > physics was wrong. Instead we look to our own errors of which there > are many. We have measurement errors, programming errors, errors which > occur because we apply bits of physics in the wrong context, errors > which occur because sometimes we have to make approximations, errors > because we have mis-interpreted the results, errors because we see what > we want or expect to see, errors in which we get the right experimental > results but draw the wrong conclusions, and nastiest of all - the > errors in our work that we don't yet know about! > > Tiptoeing through this personal minefield of error is what the methods > of science are there to help us with. Goodness knows, in this field of > Tesla coiling doing any sort of 'research' requires some sort of effort > on the part of the researcher to give themselves a thorough grounding > in basic electrical engineering and basic physics, and to acquire an > appreciation of what the methods of science are there for. > > Fortunately, I've noticed that you don't need to know anything > very advanced - you just need to be really solid on the basics and you > can make great progress. Tssp hasn't turned up anything original or > made any new laws. It's just an example of carefully applying some > very basic laws of electrics to the TC. We're applying Kirchhoff's, > Faraday's, Coulomb's, Ohm's, Biot-Savart laws - all really basic stuff > that you learn at school, not university. We call it 'research' when > really it's just an exercise that might help us make better coils. We > apply the methods of science, not because we're doing 'new' stuff, but > simply to try to avoid making errors. It's as well for list members > to remind themselves of that from time to time, and not get carried > away with the fanciful notion that any of us are doing 'New' science. > -- > Paul Nicholson > -- > > >

- Prev by Date:
**Re: depotting** - Next by Date:
**More on Thoriated Tungsten** - Prev by thread:
**RE: Variable Capacitance and Inductance** - Next by thread:
**RE: Variable Capacitance and Inductance** - Index(es):