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:


>     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.