Re: Aluminium Wire (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Yurtle Turtle <yurtle_t@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Aluminium Wire  (fwd)

Matt,
I agree, if the experimenter knows what he's trying to
prove, and sets up his experiment appropriately, such
as trying to minimize the number of variables, such as
winding length, turns, diameter, etc. for each trial
run. Using common equipment such as the same primary,
cap, psu, ground, topload, etc., while varying only
the secondary will yield more trusted results than
running two kinda similar units, located in different
places in the garage, with different caps, psu,
topload, etc.

We've all seen experiments where multiple variables
were changed (sometimes this is unavoidable), leaving
the interpretation of the results up to speculation,
and much debate. I didn't mean to imply that everyone
needs pre-approval over means and methods. However,
you've been on the list long enough to have seen some
pretty outrageous claims with little in the way of
specifics. Some folks will take "peer review"
comments/criticism constructively and will revise
their experiment. Others will latch onto a "new
version of physics" and will resist offering
specifics; instead asking for donations to help them
save our planet with free energy ;-)

Adam

--- Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
> 
> 
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search 
that gives answers, not web links. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC