No Subject

Hi Paul,

At 09:36 AM 8/23/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Terry,
>
>Concerning your web page topsync.html, I'm afraid your
>conclusions are erroneous. The lack of phase shift
>along the coil is perfectly in accordance with a
>transmission line model. While the individual forward
>and reflected components do suffer a substantial phase 
>shift the quantity being measured is the sum of the two, 
>and whenever the magnitude of the reflection coefficient
>is unity, the net phase shift is zero - the wave is
>standing. 

Yes!  You are totally correct.  I have not re-visited that paper in some
time, but some of the statements I made "then" are NOT correct!  I can
point to the initial responses and perhaps support the conclusions, but the
steady state phase statements or obviously wrong.  I know a lot more about
this now than I did then...   Even though this paper has errors, it did
spark a great deal of work in this area which has paid off many fold.  So
even "mistakes" have their value ;-)  It seemed to have had the right wild
and brash "the old theory is wrong!! and here is the new!!" flavor to it...
 The previous theories were ripe for change and this set a lot of people
into the "leap forward" mode to find new ideas to support the latest evidence.

>
>I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out already, but
>I think you should withdraw this page as I have come
>across others misled by this.

I am too!!  Perhaps no one reads them ;-))  I guess "I" haven't for awhile!
 At the time, simply being "able" to make such measurements was the
"biggest deal" of the paper.  The fiber optics systems used have now been
replicated all over the world...  However, I "still" believe that the
secondary acts more like a simple inductor than a transmission line.  I
have worked with Malcolm Watts and Robert Jones (he really knows a lot
about wave theory!!  Taught me much!) on secondary system theory and it is
now believed that the secondary is acting more in accordance with flexible
beam theory from mechanics rather than classical transmission line theory.
The secondary coil's parts are coupled from section to section which
drastically changes the governing equations.  This work is ongoing and not
yet complete.  Sort of a "computer modeling playground" trying to explain
obvious real world data...

>
>Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I think its 
>important that an influential website supplies correct
>information.

Don't be sorry!  The reason I wrote this up is so that others could review
it and find such problems!  Only by the input of others can such mistakes
be found and corrected so that we are all kept on the right course to the
"truth".  I always invite comments and questions so that we can all have
the best and fastest path to knowledge in this area.  It is far better to
be enlightened, rather than continuing in darkness...

>
>Obviously, your corollary that the lack of phase shift
>enables application of a lumped LC model still stands, and
>your phase shift measurements continue to support this
>conclusion.

Even "i" the old "lumped theory guy", realizes that it is really far more
complex than any of us has thought previously.  However, the path to the
solution is clear.  We just have to struggle along that path awhile yet
before the next set of "answers" tells us we are still wrong ;-))  So far,
NO Tesla coil secondary theory has stood up to the test of time well.  I
have no illusions about any present ideas doing any better.  However, we
always seem better off today than we were yesterday, so the quest is
worthwhile.  Of course, if this was easy, it would not be so much fun chasing!!

I will review this (also time to look at the other papers...) and add the
corrections as I now know them...  I wish some other people would try to do
papers like this because it really makes things so much easier in the long
run.  Many people are afraid of criticism or the possibility of being
wrong.  But continuing on the wrong ideas or path is far worse than being
straightened out!!  I love to work on the state of the art theories (the
"bleeding edge" ;-)) but I hate to waste time on things that are wrong but
no one tells me...  Admittedly, I am no Einstein, but I try really hard ;-)

The new mechanical analogies are very exciting!  Of course, if history
holds, they will be proven all wrong too ;-))  But it is the best we have
right now, and that is were we are.

I would like your permission to post this to the Tesla coil e-mail list so
that the ~800 members there can be "clued in" on this.  That is by far that
fastest way to correct the "sins of the past" and get started on the
future!  Let me know if I may forward your original comments and the
answers I have given here. 

Cheers,

	Terry


>
>Regards,
>--
>Paul Nicholson,
>Manchester, UK.
>--