Re: [TCML] Wireless Transmission Theory

[Ed Phillips <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ed,

FWIW, there are also physicists on the list who think it's off base. Most  
just ignore the bait.

Matt D."

	I know that but I'm one who can't resist the bait!  I grew up in a family of technical people and family gatherings often turned into fierce debates among the "men folk" while the women sat around and marvelled at all of the foolish uproar.  Eventually I had a "girl cousin" who had the audacity to get her MS in Physics from Stanford and although she was really a very meek and mild young lady still is at age 76) she got dragged into those discussion herself.  The key to winning a point seemed to be shouting the loudest and the longest.

	Net result is that I get a kick out of some of these discussions even though I understand fully that some of the unwilling audience has the same outlook as the "women folk" above - seems like a waste of time to them and they have other interests to be served.  They're correct of course, particularly on a list like this where most of the participants are guys who go out and do stuff rather than sit around and talk about it.

Ed

	Gotta comment on this quote in your note:

"For a physicist wanting to explain *all* aspects of TCs, the  lumped
analysis is not useful.  It's analogous to a semiconductor  physicist
knowing Ohm's law or transistor equations: you'll never get a  research
paper published about transistor equations!  There's no  "Unknown" to be
explored.  New science occurs at a way deeper level  than most engineers
ever go.  And most of the time, new science has no  practical purpose, so
an engineer would regard those who pursue "doing  science" as wasting time."

	I won't argue the first point although I am curious about what additional insight is gained by treating a Tesla coil as a [somewhat] distributed circuit.  As for the bit about semiconductor physicists the author is apparently unfamiliar with the very extensive literature on the subject of semiconductor physics and techniques for computing and describing phenomena.  I get the Transactions of the IEEE Professional Group on Electron Devices and most issues have a multitude of "research papers about transistor equations" and ways to make them more general and more accurate.  As for engineers and "new science" I'll agree that many, but by no means most, engineers don't dig very deep into the science behind their work.  They are mostly the guys who took an aptitude test in high school and as a result ended up in engineering.  The rest are deeply interested in scientific progress and try to keep abreast of it as a means for learning ways to do their jobs better but also because of intellectual curiousity.  They tend to be guys whose interest in things scientific and engineering began at an early age and who did experimental work as kids.  They know the value of science new and old!!


_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla