From: Marco.Denicolai@tellabs.com
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:44:02 +0300
Subject: RE: [TSSP] Papers
Hi Paul, > -----Original Message----- > From: paul@abelian.demon.co.uk [mailto:paul@abelian.demon.co.uk] > Sent: 7. lokakuuta 2002 12:38 > To: tssp@abelian.demon.co.uk > Subject: Re: [TSSP] Papers > > > Hi All, > > My gut feeling is that indeed there is material within the > project that would be worthy of a proper write up. Yes, indeed. > The reasons I haven't set about doing this are several, > some of which are: > > a) You'll notice the lack of references to earlier work in > the various project docs. That's not so say that earlier > work doesn't exist, just that we haven't done the necessary > trawl through the literature to establish just where our > efforts fit into the existing knowledge on the subject of > resonating solenoids. Now in some ways we've more or less > started from scratch, deriving things from basic principles, > so in that sense there's not much to refer to. But it's > important to make an effort to find out if earlier work has > come to the same conclusions re the equations of the coil, > equivalent reactances, V and I profiles, etc, to which we > would make due reference. That would take maybe a few weeks > work in a university library, and not really possible via > the public local library 'service' in rural parts of the UK. Correct. Search with selected keywords, print the papers, read carefully. And it's a three-like process that spreads from each reference. A few weeks would be enough, I guess. > b) I don't know how to write a paper. I've no professor to > look over my shoulder and advise what should go in and what > should be left out, etc, etc. Without such support, I don't > know how an amateur can produce a paper isn't immediately > recognisable as 'clearly the work of an amateur'. I think that is not a problem. You can find every kind of papers published. More friendly, where even "I" or "we" appear, or the usual impersonal style. Usually collecting 5 - 10 papers from the targeted journal is enough to understand the preferred style. Paper organization (abstract, previous work, etc.) is almost standard and can be gathered from a number of sources, least but not last from the journal own design rules (usually freely available). The usual trick is not to repeat yourself in the abstract and the conclusion chapters. > c) Without affiliation to a recognised academic institute it > would be hard to get an amateur paper into the peer review > system, except perhaps through some of the more 'desperate' > journals. Mere mention of the word Tesla would destine > any submission to the bin, I think, in view of the number > of crank papers received every month by physics depts and > journals. I think serious journals review all material received, even if a well-know university departmentt is not mentioned in the paper... Most of time is poor content and poor preparation that call for trash can, I guess... > d) There are lots of technical weaknesses which would be > quickly identified by an expert, and all these would have to > be sorted out. Again, lack of a 'prof' who can give a brutally > fair assessment of where the work stands on the road to > publication is a severe handicap. In my experience, profs are too busy and reviewers are too busy. I think your weak points will be found only by other scientists. They will criticise your points in following papers referencing your. That will be the only form of "public shame" you'll have to stand. I had a current arrow direction wrong in one of my drawings. It was printed in my licentiate thesis wrong and it was going even into the published article until (luckly) a coiler noticed it. Nobody will check thoroughly your paper until he/she is going to really use it for something (e.g. code some software). > e) Some of the experimental work would have to be repeated > under more controlled conditions. We would have to do a proper > job of estimating the errors in both measurements and predictions > (a tough job), and we would have to make an effort to pin > down more carefully the limitations of the programs/theories, > etc. For example, can you apply (as I did yesterday) tssp > to calculating the Fres of a UHF resonator, or a loading coil > for a HF tuner? If you mean to be sure we didn't measure white noise, ok. For reporting in the paper I think it's different. Usually you don't have the space to 100% describe your experimental setup. Read someone else's paper: you'll never find all information to really duplicate their experiments. Results are reported at large, the setup is usually a minor thing (strange but true IMHO!). > Ok, that's just a few points. It's all do-able, but represents > a lot of work. Best tackled by someone in the project who > can work within academia, has the use of a 'prof', library, > etc. They would gain career mileage by pulling together this > research and putting it on a professional level, but they would > be presenting the work of the project rather than their own, > which would have a higher work/reward ratio. You are right, it is a considerable amount of work. But think about this: WE ARE NOT IN A HURRY! > A minimal scope for an article would be to derive the > differential equations of a single coil, and show that their > solution matches measured mode spectra and V/I profiles. >My problem is that when I read your math I feel myself miserable :) Even if I have been studying math many years at university and elsewhere, I am partly lost-in-space when I try to follow your flow. I couldn't find an error (besides a trivial one)... Sure, I can apply your equations and write software computing them. But I understand them only partly. I think I'm missing a decent physics background, being limited to electronics and information science. > Are there any suggestions as to a way forward? Should I write a > modest article anyway just to see how it looks? IMHO you could advance on two fronts: 1. Update and keep up-to-date pn1401 and such "math for dummies" kind of (and I count myself amoung these dummies :) 2. Think to a significative result/finding that: - can fit in some 4 - 5 pages - can stand by itself. The article alone must make some sense without the need to read other 50 references - can be of public interest also outside the coiler's community >How would I > go about doing a thorough search for prior work on the mode > spectra of solenoids? For instance, here in Finland, all the libraries (even the university ones) are public. Anybody can get a card and start borrowing. From their terminals you have access to a lot of journals (almost ALL). You pay only what you print on paper. But you can download (or send to yourself by email or put on diskette) as many PDF as you like, for free. All articles are in PDF format! I guess you are the best person to dig into your local university library for references. What you'll find will also tell you in what journal your paper is most likely to be published. Even better if your article can constitute a continuation/critic (positive) to a previous one. > Who else has written up definitions of > equivalent reactances? That would be my first stumbling block. > -- > Paul Nicholson, > -- > Paul, I could help you in formatting/editing the to-be article, make it "fluid", etc. I'm not an expert, really. I just got one through... And I'm assuming we are not in a hurry, are we? I could also manage to get you the referenced articles (PDF format), but I need from you the article names. Usually the title and the abstract are public domain on the web, so you should base on those your first choice. Then, once found some good ones, we should follow their references and so on... Best Regards ============================================================ The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs ============================================================
Maintainer Paul Nicholson, paul@abelian.demon.co.uk.