[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 23:11:46 -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 Sat, 18 Jul 1998, Tesla List wrote:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 08:44:16 -0500
> From: "Barton B. Anderson" <mopar-at-uswest-dot-net>
> To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Subject: Re: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)
>
> Malcolm,
>
> Tesla List wrote:
>
> > ---------- 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>
>
> Malcolm,
>
> I and countless others know the valuable contributions you have made. You are
> *highly* respected for your work in all realms of TC's including building,
> measurements, experiments, theory, and making sense of your results. Please don't
> "shut up" due to "one person's" use of words. I'm sure Michael had no intent to
> discredit, but when you are used in his example, it can definately feel that way.
>
> Bart
>
sorry for the long snip... Bart, you're right, the tone of that
commentary at the end seemed a little harsh.. but as with all online
communication, sometimes we fire it off before we think about it...
Upon re-thinking the situation, it seems the difference in the way
John and those in TCBOR think is analogous to the respectively analytical
and creative aspects of one science-- I found the disagreements between
the two parties both interesting and troubling, since I think both sides
tend to misunderstand the standpoint of the other-- the benefits and
disadvantages of a formal theory of TC operation which can a priori
deduce its resonant frequency, etc, and also of an informal more
practical system which incorporates some experimental "hand dirtying"
tweaking. I tend to think that the most flexible systems of building
and operating anything incorporate elements of both processes, the
creative and analytical. I guess I hypothesized that both parties had
qualms about crossing over-- John particularly-- making hardline theory
OUT of experimental data. I might have been wrong about the rest of
you. It is clear that the definition scientist is far broader than I
insinuated-- I was just trying to be inflammatory. Sorry.
Michael