Re: Keeping up with the theory (was is Corum and Corumforbidden topic?)

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>

Hi Ray,

Paul's program number crunches from pure basic physics.  No empirical stuff
there :-))  No experimental data is needed except to verify that it is
working properly.  However, unlike a nice closed form equation, the
programs simulate the physics of a coil and literally calculate the thing
out using trillions of math operations...

E-Tesla6 uses curve fitted equations from data collected from Paul's
program running an array of coils for Les, but the rest is also pure math
and physics.  Strictly speaking, I guess it does not need any experimental
data either since it can all be done with a computer.

Granted we are not deriving the answer from great over all God like
knowledge, but we are just good enough to get a computer to reproduce the
physics of a coil that we arbitrarily type in and the computer crunches the
answer we would see if we actually built and ran it.  I guess it depends
one how one defines "empirical".  In a way, we just measure a computer
simulation rather than an actual coil.  However, we do know far more about
how the data is made where in an experimental case we may just have a set
of data and have no idea how it is related to anything...  Pual's program
is based on the physics in the paper at:

http://hot-streamer-dot-com/temp/pn2511-10e.pdf

There is not a lot of "guess work" in it :-))

Of course, Medhurst and Wheeler are pure empirical data fitted equations
from tons of experimental data.

A few of us like to watch coils operate on computer screens but we get out
to the real sparks now and then too ;-)  I will admit, "I" get just as much
fun out of the computer kind :o))  However, most people rate fun in the
amount of nitrogen burned ;-))

Cheers,

	Terry


At 04:54 PM 5/3/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Terry:
>I agree that the equations and programs being used give practical values,
>but as far as I know they are derived by curve fitting or some other
>method of approximation.
>
>Because they are based on experimental data, they can only be considered
>reliable over the range of data upon which they are based.  
>
>My suggested project would be to come up with a mathematically
>derived equation or set of equations which can be proven general
>in application for a SOLENOID.  
>
>Empirically derived equations/formula are sometimes a first step.
>Fortunately, those for distributed capacitance of a solenoid are
>close enough to be useful engineering tools.  As you say, they
>are within a few percent.  I suggest that "a few percent" may
>be satisfactory engineering, but it is not necessarily good science.
>At this point, we don't know if the lack of precision and accuracy
>of both our calculations and experimental data is hiding something
>totally unknown and unsuspected.  
>
>Please don't take this as a put down.  The computer programs and
>other works are, to the best of my knowledge, state of the art.  My 
>objective
>was to point out that we do not know with certainty a fundamental
>fact relating to a major component, the solenoid.  I also recognize that
>many of list members have no interest in calculations.  Their enjoyment
>is based on a different perspective than mine.  Perhaps I aim to fall
>within the definition of expert:
>
>"An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
>until he knows everything about nothing."
> 
>Best
>
>Ray
>
>
>
>Tesla list wrote:
>
>>Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>
>>
>>Hi Ray,
>>
>big snip
>
>>
>>E-Tesla6 does this:
>>
>>E-Tesla6 - The next version of E-Tesla that uses the latest secondary
>>voltage profile data from Paul Nicholson's TSSP project. This program
>>predicts the resonant frequency of a secondary coil and top load given the
>>physical dimensions of the secondary and toroid. 
>>
>>
>>http://www.abelian.demon.co.uk/tssp/model.html
>>
>>Medhurst's formula works very well on a bare secondary coil but cannot do a
>>coil with a top terminal.
>>
>>All these methods are accurate with a few percent.  Paul's is by far the
>>most sophisticated and versatile.
>>
>>The programs are not actually "equations" but big number crunchers.  One
>>may be able to come up with empirical equations from Pauls' giant
>>calculated data base:
>>
>>http://www.abelian.demon.co.uk/tssp/vsd/
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>	Terry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>