Re: Aluminium Wire (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:14:36 EDT
From: Mddeming@xxxxxxx
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Aluminium Wire  (fwd)

 
In a message dated 9/29/07 2:42:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007  11:11:30 -0700
From: Barton B. Anderson  <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list  <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Aluminium Wire   (fwd)

Yes, Adam is a wise man! Too often an experiment is made by a  coiler and 
then endless debate about how the test should have been  performed or the 
coils should have been wound, etc..

Take  care,
Bart




Hi Chris, Bart, Adam, All
 
    A couple of random thoughts:
 
     Isn't peer review traditionally done after  there are some results? Had 
Columbus run his ideas past his more  mathematically adept colleagues prior to 
departure, he would have known his  calculations were off by 400%, meaning 
the proposed voyage was  impossible, and so he would never have left. ;^)  (Of 
course, that  might have been a better outcome for the western hemisphere, but 
that's a debate  for another forum)
 
    I have never read a professionally published paper  that wasn't 
criticized for methodology and/or conclusions by at least two  people. The procedure is 
to evaluate the criticism, modify procedures if  warranted, repeat, if 
necessary, and republish; but that iteration.  a.k.a. "endless debate". is the 
nature of the science beast. This naturally  presumes that the experimenter, the 
methodology, and the critics are all  rational. (Occasionally, one, two, or all 
three are missing.) Pitfalls can  be avoided by getting some knowledgeable 
advice, but waiting until everyone is  satisfied with what you are going to do 
means accomplishing almost nothing per  unit time.
 
My 2 cents,
 
Matt D.



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com