[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 08:45:55 +1200
From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)
Hi Michael,
> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 10:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Michael Nolley <mhnolley-at-willamette.edu>
> To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Cc: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Jul 1998, Tesla List wrote:
<snip>
> An interesting question has been raised by the proceedings
> between John and the rest of the group-- does theory determine practice,
> or the reverse? Western science has in some ways been the history of
> Johns and Malcoms, those who prefer to rely upon previously existing
> theories, the truth of which they often times aren't willing to question,
> and those who question established theory, often times without the
> clarity of knowledge that the former display.
Dear me. I think you do me an injustice :( I do actually build and
fire coils. In fact, the thoughts I put onto the list are the endpoint
rationalization of experimental results. The theory I espouse is a
serious attempt to make sense of what I see in practice. Of course I
am not alone. I have taken on board the great ideas of many others
who also have added to the big picture through countless hours in
the lab.
> The sometimes unresolvable
> dialectic between these two forces could be evidenced by Galileo's
> struggle against the Catholic church and the predominance of the
> Aristotelian world view, or the apparent battle in modern physics
> between determinism and chaos theory. The point is-- neither side has a
> monopoly on truth-- a deterministic and "complete" theory which although
> structurally sound may not reflect the true operation of the Tesla coil, or
> the indeterminacy of as-yet-unformulated practical rules.
> John, I was reacting to your comment "What you are saying contradicts
> what theory says"
>From both a theoretical and practical standpoint, there is no way the
transfer is lossless. I have posted on this a number of times. Perhaps
I should simply shut up and be satisfied with what I know.
Malcolm
<snip>