From: Paul
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 00:34:51 +0000
Subject: [TSSP] pn2511 is baloney
Terry wrote (in another thread):
> Your work and your new paper will define coiling for decades if not
> centuries!! I am still dog paddling through your big paper but your
> work is obviously defining the art by many orders of magnitude over
> what has been!!
Kind words, thanks. But I prefer to call it 'our' work - there's no
way I'd get this done alone. And whether it's right or not remains to
be seen, although I don't believe the material in pn2511 is far off
the mark. I've called it secondary 'basics' because it's just a
summary of everything we can write down about the secondary using
straightforward circuit theory, ie the easy stuff. Everything in
pn2511 comes from the differential equs for the coupling derived in
section 4. tsim is based on these too, and its comparison with
measurement is the only basis we have for the correctness of sect 4.
Measurements made to test the relations given in sections 6 to 9
(which all follow from sect 4), will add further weight, which is why
I've put up a things-to-do list. Ultimately whether or not this work
has any long term value depends utterly on the efforts of the list
members to a) scrutinise the theory, and b) supporting measurements.
In both these respect this is very much a group effort and my part in
typing up the docs and maintaining the code is a minimal contribution.
I'd just like to say a few things on the subject of 'getting things
right'.
Terry wrote (a week or so ago):
> ... So don't screw up!
I'll try not to, but...
Sometimes I get 70, 80, maybe even 90% marks when I take exams, but
never 100%. When I write a computer program, I always get some bugs -
even after 20 odd years practice I can't do better than one mistake
per 20 lines average, and thats probably considered a good score. On
that basis you should assume that any work that I report is probably
between 5% and 30% wrong! Pretty bad eh? By this argument I shift the
responsibility for correctness to the group as a whole, along with any
credit for results. Like most amateurs, my knowledge of physics,
maths, and electronics is patchy at best, so I'm counting on members
of the tssp list to be super-critical of anything that comes across
it, because by myself, there's no way I could safely contribute
anything to a reliable body of knowledge in such a tricky field as
this.
Professional scientists know only too well how easy it is to be
fooled. It's not without good reason that they have to jump through
hoops to get work published. If their results or ideas survive a
grilling by colleagues and professors, they may then submit a paper.
This will only be published after a stiff review by independent
workers in the field. Even then, eventual publication is not a stamp
of correctness, merely an indication that the work is not obviously
wrong. Only after publication does a theory begin the long process
towards becoming accepted knowledge.
The amateur scientist is at a severe disadvantage in this respect. It
is extremely, frighteningly, easy for the amateur, working in relative
isolation, to become self-convinced of an idea which would, in an
academic environment, not survive through a tea break with colleagues.
Admittedly, an amateur may occasionally achieve a breakthrough simply
through being unfettered by a particular academic dogma, but this is
very rare.
When it comes to tesla coiling, we are all amateurs - I've not yet
come across an academic department involved in this subject. Like the
early days of radio, the field is dominated by amateurs like
ourselves, and the situation is ripe for myths and errors to take root
and propagate.
Typically, ideas put forward are insufficiently challenged by argument
or experiment and by this means faulty notions can all too easily
become established. We looked at some examples of this in the tesla
community a few months back. The situation is made worse by the WWW -
anyone can post anything they like and are quite at liberty to ignore
critisicm - a far cry from the academic, whose career may depend on
how well an idea can be defended in front of a stern audience.
So, to members of the list, please consider this an appeal for greater
skepticism. Be tough on project material, because our mutual criticism
is the only means available to us with which to filter out the dross
and hopefully leave behind some worthwhile enduring knowledge. If you
approach pn2511, etc, with the attitude given in the subject line,
then we'll have less chance of collectively screwing up.
Some random thoughts:
-I make mistakes-
-You make mistakes-
-Just because its a nice idea, doesn't make it correct-
-Just because its your idea, doesn't make it correct-
-If an idea is correct, it will remain correct after an arbitrary
amount of scrutiny-
-If it's mathematically inconsistent - its wrong-
-If it disagrees with experiment - its wrong-
Above all, equip yourselves with a Baloney Detection Kit. See
http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcourse/lost/sagan.htm
http://www.noah.org/science/reason.html
and buy Carl's awesome book!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/
0345409469/csicop/107-4789342-9206937
Another fascinating read is
http://www.bestsellerreviews.com/p/Robert_Park/
Voodoo_Science_The_Road_from_Foolishness_to_Fraud_0195135156.htm
Regards,
--
Paul Nicholson,
Manchester, UK.
--
Maintainer Paul Nicholson, paul@abelian.demon.co.uk.