From: "Terrell W. Fritz"
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 19:37:47 -0700
Subject: Re: [TSSP] pn2511 is baloney
Hi Paul, You bring up many interesting points! The science of Tesla coils is not at all easy. The high voltages, "mad science" stigma, lack of solid data, and many other factors (like trying not to get killed!) makes this a darn hard "science". Unlike math, physics, and the well known sciences, if you get into trouble, there is no place to turn. I have asked the list many questions only to get zero response. Not because there was no interest but because no one knew the answer. We can't go to the text books or wise old professor for our answers. The "old timers" of coiling can tell us how to "crank up that variac boy and give her more juice" but secondary voltage profile... "It's a sine wave boy... trust me". Heck, they don't know... We truly are in a "bleeding edge" science. There are no text books, or answers to the high level questions. We just have to stick our necks out and try to figure it out from ground zero. Will we be wrong? Well... Everyone that has gone before us for the last 100 years has been wrong! So our chances are not good. However, none of those "wrong" people has been hurt at all by trying. We do have three big advantages. We have computers that can crank equations and numbers by brute force, we have the Internet so many experts can collaborate regardless of were they are or what they normally do, and we have great instruments. Take these away from us and we would all be lost. Only Tesla, Gauss, Einstein... and the other true geniuses would feel at home. You may remember my "Malcolm's ruler" idea for secondary behavior. I did my secondary voltage profile measurement fully expecting it to show that (I thought I would prove you wrong ;-)). I mentally tried to look at the numbers while I was taking them and was sure it was working. However, when I sat down and plotted the numbers it did not match the ruler at all. It matched your profile! Maybe I have been doing this long enough that I was able to forget that old ruler thing instantly and switch to the new TSSP stuff in a flash. Unlike some things, Tesla coiling does not remember you when you are wrong, it remembers you when you are right! You may be a bit surprised to know that this is the second great secondary behavior project Malcolm, Mark, Richard (Craven), and I have been in. I started one a few years ago to! We got all our data together, looked at it, looked at it, looked..... We never could figure out the next step... However, you have the background and knowledge to "put it all together" where others have failed. Your computer skills and being able to understand the problems and bring what it takes together to find the answers are something that has not been done before. In this case, it appears to have been the magic step that was needed to finally propel us to the next level! Don't worry too much about being wrong. I can assure you that Malcolm, Mark, and I have been working an such things for many many years. We have seen a lot of ideas come and go. Personally, I think you (we) are dead right this time (I said that the last time too...;-)). The fact that the program and the real measurement matched is simply stunning. That is the first time either one was seriously tried and they got the same answer independently! That is real tough to argue with. If we are shown to be wrong, no one will blame us since they would come to the same conclusion in our shoes. Someone once wrote me in a panic about saying something wrong on the Tesla list and ruining their reputation. They were wondering what to do. I told them to wait maybe two whole days until it was completely forgotten. It was... I note you left out something in my "... So don't screw up!". You left out the ":-)))))". I guess I was trying to say that you simply "can't" screw up!! It is impossible!! You may spell something wrong or miss a sign in some equation but those that find such things will be proud that they were able to find any error at all. If pn2511 is published in a truly professional journal, having some guru finding an error would be an honor and a great help. They all understand that it is the best there is and you want to tell others of it and see if they can add to it. When it is really introduced to the Tesla list, Antonio, and all the other Ph.Ds will give it a fine proof read (you will be surprised how fast the Corum's get hold of it too ;-)). The are spellers, punctuators, equation experts, math experts, and about 20 medical doctors to revive us if it goes bad! Beyond that, there really isn't anyone else on earth who will be able to really find great flaws in it just from lack of knowledge in this area. That is just the way it is... I briefly read through a few of your references below. I don't think they apply. If they do, "others" will have to tell us since we are not qualified to judge our work in their eyes... Many of the references are "light reading" as far as science is concerned. Most scientist don't care if your right or wrong, they just want to know what you know... We can always send it to TCBA to get it published too! That really is Tesla coiling's science journal and it has a very far reach. Oh well, time to take coupling measurements... The science goes on... Cheers, Terry PS - Of course, the real reason we do this is because we love this stuff!!! At 12:34 AM 12/25/2000 +0000, you wrote: >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.