RE: Theory acceptance- Displacement current?

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Yurtle Turtle <yurtle_t@xxxxxxxxx>



--- Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Original poster: "David Thomson" <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi Terry,
>
<snip>
>
> Detectors are not the only valuable tool for Tesla
> coilers.
> Theory works well, too.  How do you "detect" the
> self capacitance
> of a coil?  How do you "detect" the coupling
> coefficient of the
> primary and secondary?  You can't, but you can
> calculate it from
> other measurements.
>
> So what if we can't detect displacement currents?
> But if we can
> write an equation or develop a model that helps us
> design a
> better coil, why not use it?  Maybe some don't want
> to use the
> new model, but maybe I would?

So go and develop these theories and equations. I
don't see anyone trying to stop you.

>
> I have developed all kinds of new equations useful
> for
> manipulating charge and understanding the mechanical
> processes.
> The mathematics work out fine.  The only problem
> with my theory
> is that it isn't the old men's theory.  It's a new
> theory, yet it
> is mathematically sound and testable.

Then publish your theories and equations, run some
irrefutable tests and offer links to it all.

>
> Be more honest.  This list is not interested in new
> theories that
> can make better Tesla coils, unless they are
> improvements on the
> old theory.  There is an absolute dislike on this
> list for
> anything new.  It's the "teaching an old dog to do
> new tricks
> thing."  Let's face it, if the guys with degrees on
> this list had
> to pick up a new foundation for physics, they would
> essentially
> be put back to ground zero.  Their egos can't deal
> with that.
> It's like the introduction of computers.  The
> old-timers knew how
> to balance their books on paper and didn't care
> about computers.
> This held everyone else back while we waited for the
> old-timers
> to retire.

I remember numerous improvements on this list, which
came about from some "wild ideas" such as the MMC,
LTR, triggered gaps, etc. Heck the LTR was based on
Little more than a computer model at first. But enough
people started testing it that we all soon came to
believe that it was real, and not some fluke of the
model. There were more than a few skeptics about the
triggered gap, but enough folks persevered and soon
proved that it could work. Go build your theories,
equations and run some good solid tests and give us a
link. But do some research and try to get a feel for
what kinds of tests will be valid to the scientific
community. Anyone can throw a bunch of wire in the
corner and say they get certain results, but if it's
not documented adequately, so someone else can
duplicate your experiments and confirm your results,
you'll remain "pseudo-science" to most list members.
>
> I have developed a fairly detailed system of
> physics, based on
> the same empirical data that the old-timers use.
> But unlike the
> old-timers physics, my physics has a mathematically
> correct
> Unified Force Theory.  My theory quantifies the
> difference
> between electrostatic charge and electromagnetic
> charge.  This
> opens all kinds of doors for Tesla coilers.  Also,
> the geometry
> of charge in this model is not a point, like it is
> in the
> old-timers physics.  The geometry of charge has a
> helical
> structure, and this structure is mathematically
> derived from the
> data.  Tell me that a model with helical electrons
> isn't useful
> for Tesla coilers.

I've heard this for a while now, but have yet to see
links offered to the masses. Science is skeptical by
its very nature. Most new comets are discovered by
amateurs, but they must convince the experts before
anyone will listen to them. And that can only be done
by following acceptable guidelines for new
discoveries/theories.
>
> But I know what it's going to come down to.  This is
> a list for
> building Tesla coils according to the old-timers.
> It is not
> about building coils according to Nikola Tesla's
> designs or
> theories.  And this is not a list for new theories.
> So just say
> it as it really is.  There is nothing wrong with
> running the list
> according to your own desires.  If people don't like
> it, they can
> go somewhere else.
>
> Dave
>
Amen. Now how about building a coil that outperforms
all of ours. That will get our attention.

Adam

_