[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Needle Glow Discharge/ Malcolm comments on Corum
Tesla List wrote:
>
> Original Poster: "Harvey D Norris" <Tesla4-at-excite-dot-com>
>
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 18:48:04 -0600, Tesla List wrote:
>
> > Original Poster: "Malcolm Watts" <malcolm.watts-at-wnp.ac.nz>
> >
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > > Original Poster: "Robert Jones" <alwynj48-at-earthlink-dot-net>
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > >When I read that the Corums call the lumped parameter model a "naive
> > > >swindle" I thought: Who would write a thing like that? Who would use
> > > >that sort of language to drive a point home?
> > > >
> > > >Certainly nobody that I would trust.
> There is such a thing known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> A quick rehash of that simply means that we change what we try to observe by
> our method of observation.
The uncertainty statement applies at the quantum or microscopic level.
At the macroscopic or real-world level that the effects of the
observation are completely predictable if the experimenter is careful
enough to measure and correct for all disturbances.
This principle does not appear to hold in the
> construction of tesla coils because L and C of the primary tank circuit are
> designed for secondary considerations, if an improper secondary arrangement
> is inserted into that space, it does not resonate. However it is entirely
> possible to create a situation where ANY coil will reasonably resonate at
> its own ringing freq when inserted into a special kind of high freq field.
> This is done by creating a circuit condition whereby the postulated and
> observed magnetic fields from scope observations can instantaneously
> reverse directions and polarity. The mechanism for this is not entirely
> understood, but stands the total theoretical test of observation of
> causitive circuit considerations.
I've read this a couple of times and don't understand what is being
said. Does anyone?
Ed