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

Re: Soljacic wins $10k MIT Young Scholar Award (fwd)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 17:21:03 -0700
From: Ed Phillips <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Soljacic wins $10k MIT Young Scholar Award (fwd)

Tesla list wrote:

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:28:23 -0700
>From: Jim Lux <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Soljacic wins $10k MIT Young Scholar Award (fwd)
>
>Tesla list wrote:
>  
>
>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:00:29 -0500
>>From: Matthew Boddicker <shmerpleton_town@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: RE: Soljacic wins $10k MIT Young Scholar Award (fwd)
>>
>>This is Matthew Boddicker
>>
>>Has Soljacic actually published or written a research paper stating his 
>>findings?
>>    
>>
>Yes.. Science Magazine about a month ago. Link in the archives
>
>  All that I know of the project is from the media. Why not
>  
>
>>eliminate the middle man go directly to the source of the commotion? Who 
>>knows? Maybe the paper is poorly written and unscientific. 
>>    
>>
>Not terrible from a writing standpoint, nor not entirely unscientific.
>Also, if the
>  
>
>>paper isn't out for the public and the experiment repeatable, that is bad 
>>science. 
>>    
>>
>
>Science is OK (repeats what's been known for 100 yrs), the objection is 
>to the presentation that this is something new and different (it's not), 
>and that it's going to revolutionize power distribution (it won't, not 
>given practical constraints)
>I am probably an idealist by saying that last sentence. Still,
>  
>
>>there must be a way to actually read his paper.
>>    
>>
>
>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143254
>
>  
>
>>Thanks,
>>Matthew Boddicker
>>
I've just forwarded the original article and the one in Science to you. 
The original one is more ostentatious than the second but both make 
patently false claims about potential performance. The authors don't 
bother to mention that to send power to a given distance with large 
coils and a given efficiency is not the same as sending it with small 
coils [the ratio of coil diameter to distance is what counts] and also 
make claims about the relative orientation of the coils being unimportant.

Ed