Check out Robert Distinti.
https://www.youtube.com/user/rdistinti/videos?shelf_id=0&sort=dd&view=0&spfreload=10


Let the tearing ceremony begin...  :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EISYtEBFsxg

Enjoy

element 119

Mucho thanks for this :thumbsup:

Yes!  More evidence that helps to explain what Ben Rich meant when he said, "There is an error in the equations. We know what it is."

No collage for me so I have to rely on someone with a Masters degree like Mr. Distinti. So I hope anyone here with a complete understanding will set the record straight if he is in error.  :)

Also for got to mention he has a web site if someone wants to contact him... http://www.distinti.com/

element 119

It would be cool to wind some coils, calculate their theoretical values, both the traditional way and the Distinti way and then compare the two with what an LC meter says about the coils inductances.
The one calculation method that which comes more close to the "truth", with the "truth" being what the LC meter shows, would be the winner then.

Sounds like rocket science?
It ain't.

KISS ;-)

Heres an exerp from his thesis - "since rlc corcuits are modelled with second order DE's there must be second order equations for electromagnetic fields"

LOL WUT

Firstly, a linear circuits behaviour is based for kirchoffs laws and they are ordinary differential solutions which will always have a non jomgenous soliotion ( has nothkng to do with the furlds being generated) .... Secondly magnetic fields are computed in industry using magneto hydrodynamics which is a cariant of the navier stokes equatins which are non linear differential equations and they requee numerocal appeoximation ( finite element analysis)

Wat a fuxking shill

Actually, a comparison between traditionally calculated coils VS Distinti calculated ditos would provide enough proof to which of the theories holds water the best.