RE: A photographic tutorial of Pancake Coil winding...with movies...(fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:47:15 +0100
From: Colin Dancer <colind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Tesla list' <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: A photographic tutorial of Pancake Coil winding...with
    movies...(fwd)

So just to be clear:

* you have claimed in past emails that you have a theory that describes a 
  longitudinal resonance mode for electrons in metal pipes (and prior to
that
  in free air)

* you are willing and keen to talk in woolly pseudo scientific terms about
this theory
  and what grand predictions it makes

* I have taken the time to consider your claims in detail, including
answering 
  some of the specific questions you raised, using terms with
  precise and commonly agreed meanings.  I remain perfectly happy to
continue
  these discussions, answering specific concerns you have about my analysis.

* when I ask you simple direct questions such as "which direction are the
  electrons moving in?", "what forces makes them oscillate", "why aren't
such
  motions damped out by random collisions" you refuse to answer.

> Please do not become impatient and try to drag me into a theoretical
debate
> on the Aether Physics Model.  You must be aware that it is really a sore
topic on this
> list.  It is enough that we can talk about longitudinal waves in the third
coil.
> Either it can be proved to exist, or not.  The physics theory behind it
can come
> later, if the experiment is successful.  And even then, it will still be a
sore spot.

I am not impatient, I am just tired of you answering people's queries to
your emails with
"that's not what I'm talking about" and "you're closed to new thoughts",
implying that
a majority of people on this list are not interested in new ideas.  

I believe that most people are on this list to share thoughts on the
fascinating area of Tesla coils.  Different people take different
approaches, from purely theoretical or purely practical, to working on a
concordance of the two.  I believe the common thread is a willingness to set
ones ideas and experiences out in a plain and clear fashion, a willingness
to answer questions in a straight forward fashion without personal attack,
and a desire to help others.  

Pseudoscientific waffle frequently comes up on the list, no doubt attracted
by some of Tesla's wilder claims.  This is not normally rejected out of hand
but is instead met by people asking for evidence and clarification of
claims.  

Common responses by the pseudoscientist (in rough order) are:

* continued use of vague terms so as not to be tied down
* failure to accept or properly respond to people making simple points which
totally undermine the claims
* experiments so vague or borderline as to be impossible to repeat
* changing of claims when one is pinned down either on faulty theory or duff
experiments
* silent dropping of threads when it is clear the original case has fallen
apart
* misapplication of words with scientific meaning but in a totally
inappropriate context
* claims that the other person(s) has misunderstood one's theory or
experiments
* claims that the other person(s) has a closed mind and just isn't
willing/able to understand
* personal attack
* a prolonged sulk when the thread finally gets shutdown, normally with a
final word (often via personal email) bemoaning people's unwillingness to
consider new ideas

This cycle tends to repeat once the original raiser hopes that the people
who raised the original queries have got bored enough not to reply.

I would like to break this cycle.  

I am simply asking you to describe in plain terms (with commonly agreed
meaning) what you are claiming is happening.  This can either be with a
clear theory, or with a well described experiment which others can then
repeat.  If your basic terms are not clear, then you should be willing to
answer questions until they are.

If people then point out problems with your theory or experiment these
should be addressed and either the theory improved or defeat accepted.  Just
moving on without closure after other people have put in large amounts of
time responding to you is not really acceptable.

I would like to have a sensible discussion about your ideas.  

If you are unwilling or unable to present your ideas in plain terms and
answer simple questions then I would have to ask what relevance your emails
have to the list topic.