Re: Keeping up with the theory (was is Corum and Corum forbiddentopic?)

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Tesla list wrote:
> 
> Original poster: "davep by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<davep-at-quik-dot-com>
> 
> > It surprises me that the field of Tesla coiling is so poorly
> > developed.  In its journey down history the Tesla coil just doesn't
> > seem to have acquired a normal body of engineering knowledge behind
> > it, in the same way that other branches of electrical engineering
> > have.  Instead it's collected a huge tangle of modern superstitions -
> > a ragbag assortment of notions that don't make sense and don't work.

	I suspect the reason there hasn't been more work is that, with the sole
exception of the streamer loading, the operation of TC's obeys normal
circuit theory and there really aren't any mysteries and there's not
really anything which needs to be learned.  As for the streamers, I'm
not enough of a physicist to know whether any useful analysis is
possible.  Anything else I'm missing?

> >>The other thought was that you could set up some form of peer
> >>reviewed journal on "tesla coil theory", but, who would would the
> >>reviewers be?
> 
> > I just don't know who, or how that would work.  Peer review systems
> > are normally supported by an established institution of sufficient
> > quorum to achieve stability, although even that doesn't guarantee
> > rationality (eg Homeopathy).  We don't have such a foundation. Those
> > that existed in the past encouraged pseudoscience, eg ITS, TCBA.
> > Where is the ARRL or RSGB of coiling?

	I never thought that Harry advocated pseudoscience, or that he believed
in it.  I think the TCBA News was a "noble endeavor" and was sorry to
see it go.  He did publish some far out stuff, but never got the idea it
was for anything more than amusement.

Ed