Re: Isotropic Capacitance

Tesla List wrote:
> >From brzozoww-at-rchland.vnet.ibm-dot-comSat May 25 11:56:06 1996
> Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 15:54:18 -0400 (EST)
> From: Wesley Brzozowski <brzozoww-at-rchland.vnet.ibm-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Isotropic Capacitance

Wes B. Replied:
>   Since most real-world problems don't have any
> exact, closed-form mathematical solution, (at least that we've yet been
> able to find) we are forced to either work with approximations or go with
> computer-based numerical solutions. These are still approximations, but we
> can usually make them very, very close to what's really measured.
> > 
> Considering all this, your original comment that the measued value can be
> off by 20% is really quite encouraging. (I prefer to see it as the
> measured value is __only__ off by 20%.) From time to time we'll see
> comments that this or that thing doesn't match "theory". Now, while there
> are real-word measurements that don't match the best available theory, I
> wonder how much of that truly exists in the coiling world.

Richard Hull's response:

Thanks for the nice response and thoughts Wes.  I agree that the equation 
is an approximation and that 20% is acceptable accuracy in this instance. 
 There is a vast difference between theoretical physics and application 
engineering.  Most coilers ae seeking answers ,and in doing so, they grab 
the physics texts and apply the equations only to discover they are off 
by 20% (in this case).  They are actually trying to engineer a coil 
system, but expecting too much out of the math.  As an engineer, myself, 
I have long used equations as a directional measure only and have come to 
expect "out of the ball park" answers.  We might just say Tsk Tsk and 
write others off as part of the great unwashed masses, but they are 
hopeful of a real world solution from the mathematics (as most of them 
have been taught).  I have long railed against the precise quantitization 
of coil building and have long felt it as much of an art as a science.  I 
don;t demean the effort, I just don't hold out much hope for great 
precision in this work.

Richard Hull's original statement:
> >   Naked monopolar charges are suppossedly not
> > allowed anymore than magnetic monopoles.  Theory is great, but it must be
> > self-consistent when viewed from every angle.
> Wes B. Responded:

> This is an interesting comment; I wasn't even aware that magnetic
> monopoles were not "allowed"; simply that there's no evidence for
> their existence. Maxwell's Equations could easily be retrofitted to
> handle them; in fact the absence of monopoles causes us to leave out
> terms that really look like they belong there. That's not to say that
> I expect monopoles to exist. There are Grand Unification Theories
> that don't allow them, of course. There's also at least one that
> requires one or more to exist. All of these GUTs represent a lot of
> really excellent and really hard work, though no more than one of
> them can be correct, and perhaps none of them are even close. I
> could be wrong, but I suspect that no consensus has been reached,
> and the jury is still out on this one. (Personally, I expect we'll
> find a unicorn before we find a monopole, but my track record at
> prediction has been less than remarkable...)

Richard Hull responds:

You'll note that I said "supposedly".  I have talked with a number of 
physicists, scientific investigators and serious experimenters.  We were 
all taught (often for the sake of avoiding discussion on the matter) that 
monopolar fields, both electric and magnetic don't exist.  I, like you, 
am more than willing to take a wait and see attitude in the matter.  My 
statement above was more a jabe at traditionl thinking.  I have done a 
lot of experiments and feel that if monopoles do exist, they do not 
casually intrude on simple experiment and as such are a non-issue in the 
practical world.  Regardless of the many proposed Grand unified theories 
and even with retrofitting Maxwell's equations we are left with 
theoretical machinations about the "possibilties of monopoles"  no 
experiments have shown them to exist.  

Richard HUll wrote:

> > A fantastic book I am currently wading through calls into question some
> > aspects of Maxwell's equations especially as regards displacement
> > currents and their hypothesized attendant magnetic fields and further
> > points up and mathematically proves that some of his equations have no
> > demostrable causal relationships.  This is a very well done piece of work
> > by Dr. Oleg Jefmenko, professor at West Virginia State Univ.  If anyone

Wes B. Responded:
> You omitted the title of the Good Doctor's work. As you mentioned in a
> personal note, I suspect we're straining the limits of what's allowed
> on this list, and I am trying to turn the subject back toward coiling
> at every opportunity. Certainly, if there is a problem in Maxwell's
> Equations, it could affect our coiling predictions. However, if it's
> wise to suspect the validity of established scientific conventions, it
> might seem even wiser to also suspect the validity of its challengers,
> as there are so many more instances of the challenges falling apart than
> the conventions. To this effect, if you can again describe a published
> experiment that backs up such a claim, it would be helpful. I kinda
> like seeing old established ideas getting swept away, but really good
> revolutionary ideas are rare things. Separating them from the "also-rans"

Richard Hull responds:

The book is entitled, "Causality, Electromatic Induction and Gravitation, 
Oleg Jefimenko, 1991, Eclectret Scientific.  It is available from 21st 
Century Books.

I doubt that Jefimenko's conclusions even if 100% correct would impact 
our coiling equations or electromagnetic theory application in any real 
way.  He mainly makes points concerning the causality of certain 
'supposedly" accepted and taught doctrines within EM theory.  The most 
important item is the "supposed magnetic field created by a displacement 
current."  It seems this was an assumption by Maxwell to make his 
equations jibe with one another.  Jefimenko points out that Maxwell, in 
his own words, doubted the real world existence of this magnetic field.  
To this day, no one has ever measured a magnetic field associated with a 
pure displacement current.  Note* A number of researchers have tried and 
failed.  (see his book for references on the specific experiments 
performed by others as late as 1990.)

Wes B continues:

> By the way, in my last note I asked wether you had any data concerning
> measured toroid capacitance compared to the equations that get passed
> around. That short sentence must have been lost amid the rest of my
> voluminous verbiage, but I'm really interested in hearing of whatever
> you've found. They have the look of empirical equations, fitted to
> data, rather than something derived, which adds a bit more uncertainty
> on my part, so I'd greatly value your experience in the matter. Thanks
> for the interesting discussion & take care.
> Wes B.

Richard Hull responds:

Nope!  I have never seen a working equation, (theoretical or emperically 
derived), for the capacitance of any isolated body which consistently 
gives results even close to reality.  We mesure ours experimentally in 
place or at the point of use.

I know that poor, long suffering Chip must wish this thread to end.  The 
idea of isotropic capacity is crucial to Tesla coil work and most 
advanced experimenters should seek to grasp more than just acceptance of 
its existence.  Thanks for the lively discussion, once again.

Richard Hull, TCBOR