[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Corum's new paper, a "naive swindle"?

Welcome to the list.  The Corums' viewpoint is very unpopular on this
> list.  I first came to doubt the Corums' views after reading your comments
> in your book supplement in 1995.  I later did experiments myself
> that showed flaws in the Corums' views.  A number of other folks on
> this list have posted rebuttals to the Corums' views.
> 
> I have to agree with Terry's comments that folks probably often just read
> the Corums' comments and don't really understand what's involved, and
> are swayed by their flowery language

	I've never met the Corums and have no idea as to their personal
integrity.  However, I have read several of their papers and often find
them to express rather simple stuff with enough excess verbage to cover
up what they're trying to say.  [I must admit that many engineers I know
do exactly that; some know what they're talking about and some don't.]
In the case of the Corums, I have more of a complaint about triviality
than with correctness.  All of their assertions are subject to exact
mathematical verification.  With regard to their lumped-constant vs
distributed transmission line stuff, the distinction they attempt to
draw doesn't change the answers by enough to be interested in.  Of
course an unloaded coil represents a short distributed transmission
line.  Of course a typical heavily top-loaded coil comes close to being
a lumped-constant circuit.  So what?

	As for the distributed transmission line stuff, I've done enough
experiments with different unloaded coils to convince me that the
performance is predicted within a percent or so from conventional
inductance formula and Medhurst's or Palermo's approximations for
effective capacitance.  I see no reason to resort to anything more
complicated, or to confuse the neophyte with it.  The non-linear
impedance effects of TC streamers and sparks completely negate any value
of exact calculations.

	Would be interested in seeing the Corums' response to some of the
comments here.  For what it's worth, an friend of mine who is a serious
mathematical analyst heard at least one of the Corums present some of
their stuff before a government-sponsored working group studying impulse
radar and its possible capabilities for detecting "stealth" aircraft. 
He also felt the papers were trivial, although not necessarily
incorrect.

 and tend to believe their comments
> based on trust and faith, rather than due to scientific evidence.
> 
> Cheers,
> John Freau

Ed