Re: Tesla's Radio Circuit (was tuning more accurately than 5%) (fwd)

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Tesla's Radio Circuit (was tuning more accurately than 5%) (fwd)
From: Tesla List <mod1-at-pupman-dot-com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:54:21 -0600 (MDT)
Approved: mod1-at-pupman-dot-com



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 22:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Nolley <mhnolley-at-willamette.edu>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Cc: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Tesla's Radio Circuit (was tuning more accurately than 5%) (fwd)



On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Tesla List wrote:

> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 06:37:39 +0000
> From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
> To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Subject: Re: Tesla's Radio Circuit (was tuning more accurately than 5%)  (fwd)
> 
> 
>   Mike -
> 
>   Do you believe the Tesla coil was a new idea or was it just a modified
> induction coil?
> 
>   Please - yes or no
> 
>   john Couture
> 
Neither of your yes/no questions deserve simple yes/no answers.
	The first question "are raised secondary coils better than 
perfectly designed Tesla coils"
	If you assume that Tesla coils can be built perfectly using 
traditional theory, then yes, this statement would be true.  I think, 
however, that Tesla coils cannot be built perfectly-- I would venture to 
say that no scientific experiment in the course of human existence has 
ever produced perfectly consistent results; perfection exists outside of 
human comprehension as a theoretical "synthetic" guide for human works, 
it never may manifest itself.  This is fortunate as well, since as a 
result the human mind may never exhaust Nature's reserves of complexity 
and originality.  
	Raising the secondary, put very simply, corrects experimental 
error.  Since we, as scientists deal with the world, experimental error  
may never be eradicated with any prior act of theorization.
	The world does not conform to theory, theory corresponds, 
incompletely, and partially, to the world. 
	In response to your second question, I think that the Tesla coil 
is not so fixed in identity as you would presume, the name "Tesla coil" 
might be applied to a variety of things, modified induction coils to 
giant magnifiers--  the "classic" Tesla coil existed only as one step in 
a series of continuous inventions by Tesla, starting with a high 
frequency-driven coil, and finally culminating in the magnifiers in 
Colorado Springs.  Certainly, the Tesla coil is not just a modified 
induction coil-- it is a transformed, distorted, "geniused" version of an 
induction coil, if you wish to use more romantic terms.  The point is, 
Tesla didn't just pull it out of his holy ass-- without someting going 
down his throat first.  In this case, it was probably the induction 
coil Tesla ate.  So yes, and no.  
	Does it make sense now?
			-Mike