From: "Terrell W. Fritz"
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 21:47:23 -0600
Subject: Re: [TSSP] Interesting article on Medhurst, Wheeler, modeling,
Hi Paul, At 10:48 AM 6/5/2001 +0100, you wrote: > >The original intent of this project was to find some academic >institution or journal that would apply some proper peer review. That >hasn't happened, I'm afraid. Posted up on the web like it is, our work >is just another cranky Tesla theory, of which there have been more than >enough over the years. What should we do about that? Anyone know of a >department anywhere that does this kind of thing - I don't. I looked around a bit today and it looks like the antenna design folks are really sharp on this stuff. They typically don't deal with more than one frequency so it does not get mentioned much, but they are the most likely to easily understand what we are talking about. They also are really sharp on such matters in general. Many of the papers are "published" by the private companies they work for. There are a few people "calling for papers". I would think our project would have a good chance of getting attention simply because it is very "different" than the usual stuff. It seems like the first step is to actually have a fairly finished paper to send around. I get the impression there are a lot of people willing to "look" at papers in this area. With the net, we can really touch base with a vast number of places. They also look like the sort of folks who could find errors and all that with ease if they are there. So once a paper is together, I think finding readers will be fairly easy especially with such a different subject mater than the usual antenna stuff... We will sink or swim from there... Such a paper should be fairy short and directly to the major points so it is an "easy" read. I know a few "paper people" so I can ask around about the tips and tricks of this. I do get the impression that the peer review folks are much more interested in looking at results rather than work in progress... > >Yes, indeed. On the whole, the project is lacking in experimental >evidence. We have, thanks to you and a few others, a number of >measurements of higher mode frequencies, most of which agree nicely. >Many do not, these are the small radius and high elevation coils. To >add experimental weight to the Cint issue, we need some of those >'unequivocal' results applied to the higher mode frequencies. We need >to be able to show, without a shadow of a doubt, that the correct >dispersion cannot be reproduced without Cint, and that when Cint is >introduced, the correct mode frequencies come out. This should be done >for a short coil, say h/d = 1 or less, so that the effect is largest. >As it happens, these are the hardest to model, and I need to smarten up >the Cint calculation in order to tackle it. I plan to introduce a short >range approximation using pieces of an elliptic integral, stitched >together and normalised to match the longer range Cint as presently >calculated using the boundary element method. This will give us a >reliable and justifiable short range interpolation to improve the >accuracy at small h/d, but it's at least a month or two's work. I have some short coils too when you need some data on them. I normally don't think of them as Tesla coils but they sound like just what you are looking for. Let me know where your curiosity leads. Cheers, Terry
Maintainer Paul Nicholson, paul@abelian.demon.co.uk.