From: Paul
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 21:44:50 +0000
Subject: Re: [TSSP] pn2511 is baloney
In reply to Terry's comments from a few days ago. Terry wrote [referring to gradient comparisons]: > 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. Yep, thats a good example of the kind of solid confirmation that is needed in order to make progress. > You may be a bit surprised to know that this is the second great > secondary behavior project ...We never could figure out the next > step... Wasn't aware of the earlier project. As for the next step, well the missing key would be the differential equation for the secondary. (pn2511, eq 4.9 and 4.11). That's the bit that opens the door to precision modeling and enables meaningful definitions of equivalent reactances, etc. One can collect data 'till the cows come home but not much sense will be made without a framework to hang it on. > 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. Perhaps not. When you're fishing around in the dark with no guiding theory, it's OK to go off on a hunch in an attempt to get a handle on the problem. But if we wish to carefully confirm a proposed theory, I think we must take up a more skeptical attitude if we want the results to be enduring. In a way you're right that it doesn't matter if pn2511 is faulty, because measurements will confirm or refute the various parts of it - providing they are done of course! But a great deal of effort can be wasted by others attempting to work with faulty premises, and I wouldn't like to be responsible for that, so I just wish to make sure that we make every effort to check and cross check things. Its for our own benefit too, as we must have a firm foundation from which to tackle the hard problems to come. > TCBA Not heard of that one. I just did a web search and found their subject index. Seems they accept articles on 'free energy', 'Philadelphia experiment', 'Schumann', etc, and articles by the Corums. No reputable publication would touch that kind of stuff. There must be professional HV or RF journals that might be more suitable, but since our work is already on the web (although not widely publicised), it's unlikely to be considered for publication. Cheers, -- Paul Nicholson, Manchester, UK. --
Maintainer Paul Nicholson, paul@abelian.demon.co.uk.