Re: [TCML] Wireless Transmission Theory

["Neal Namowicz" <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I dunno, I'm not qualified to participate, but I, for one, like to sit back 
and watch it all unfold.

Neal


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Phillips" <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Tesla Coil Mailing List" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [TCML] Wireless Transmission Theory


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

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