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

Re: Variable Capacitance and Inductance

Original poster: "Emil J. Schauer by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <eschauer-at-adelphia-dot-net>


Thank you for saying what should have been said long ago. I hope your post
will end this lunacy.


----- 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
> --