Re: Aluminium Wire (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:17:18 -0700
From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Aluminium Wire  (fwd)

All true Matt, but the voyage of Columbus is a wee bit out there 
considering the situation. Just some thoughts of what might constitute a 
reasonable measure of one to the other is all that is needed. For 
example, if Chris wound a coil too short in length that his measuring 
equipment was unable to differentiate might lead to another one of those 
blanket statements, and this time in the other extreme. In my opinion, 
it's reasonable to simulate a respectable difference, build it, measure 
it, and then see how sparks relate to those differences. That appears so 
basic when reading it, but if the math isn't performed ahead of time, 
it's a crap shoot (conclusions drawn from unknowns are meaningless).

Take care,
Bart


Tesla list wrote:

>---------- 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
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>