[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Variable Capacitance and Inductance
Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>
(Gary thanks for putting this up for everyone).
I think Tesla identifies what he was measuring when he discusses frequency
or "vibration" as objects are
elevated or whatever. This in itself identifies Tesla was measuring change
of frequency due to the
affects of external objects to the test object. We've been measuring these
changes since the advent of
electricity. I'm not sure when man actually understood object to object
affects, but we know today they
are always there. Change is constant. It is unclear to me if Tesla was
referencing affects of object to
the test object or if he actually thought the object itself was changing.
Personally, based on all the
tests Tesla has made throughout his experiments, I think he understood this
better than we do due to the
number of encounters he had with it, but probably just didn't express it
clearly enough where literals
can be taken at face value. It wouldn't be the first time.
Tesla list wrote:
> Original poster: "Gary Peterson by way of Terry Fritz
> ----- 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.