[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Corum's new paper, a "naive swindle"?



Hi Noah,

> Original Poster: "Benkanosan" <benkanosan-at-townsqr-dot-com> 
> 
> HI, Y'ALL
> It is so great to become part of such an enthusiastic and bright group of
> amateur coilers. I am a little awed by the intelligence shown by "lay
> amateurs" in pursuing such a highly tecnical and scientifically founded
> hobby. One little thing bothers me.  Why is there so much personal acrimony
> directed toward some theorists who have published results? I refer
> particularly to the subject title of this email as an example: "naive
> swindle". I had the opportunity to have a number of conversations with Dr.
> James Corum years ago when he was a full professor of electrical
> engineering, and had several conversations with him about relativity theory,
> Tesla, etc. I can assure you, Jim Corum is a man of immense personal
> integrity, extreme intelligence, and unquestionable good will.  How is it
> that so much negative energy is directed toward his work?  If one disagrees
> with a scientist's position, ad hominum argumentation is usually not the way
> to express the correctness of an opposing theory ("naive swindle" - wow,
> that's pretty nasty talk!) Am I missing something in all this that more
> experienced coilers can clue me in on? Thanks, guys (and gals). Happy
> coiling!
> Noah
<snip>

       While I don't personally support the tone of the title that you 
objected to, I think the tone of the paper it addresses also speaks for 
itself. This subject has been discussed at length over a number of 
years and the conclusions of some of us were not arrived at lightly. 
In fact, they were arrived at after a good deal of thought, 
experimentation and some rather clever measurement techniques. I 
am sure that if the exhaustive efforts to verify the Corum's theory 
had concurred with it then it would be embraced wholeheartedly. In 
the last day or so I asked for someone, anyone, to provide me with 
the exact experimental setup which shows that resonator behaviour 
changes from a lumped during primary dwell to 1/4 wave following 
the gap extinguishing in the two coil system. So far I have only met 
with a deafening silence. And this is by no means the first time 
either. I have never observed such behaviour during the most 
carefully crafted experiments and I have good reason for thinking 
that they do not occur. I once put the question to the Ken Corum 
directly and received the response that my "thinking was incorrect" 
without a jot of evidence or substantiation. So far, my experiments 
have indicated that it is.
       Moreover, we have discovered by experiment that there is 
nothing magical about magnifiers either. We know that the 
secondary and extra coil can be considered a single system and we 
have good rules for predicting the resonant frequency of the 
combined structure. Having said that, one of us has developed a 
design method for getting all energy into the resonator itself. 
       You mention published results. I have the 1990 ITS Notes which 
contain two papers by the authors. I see plenty of theory, drawings 
of waveforms (scope photos would be a good deal more convincing) 
and some "measured" resonator Q's (which based on personal 
experience should have been far better) which were also "predicted" 
(how is not said) but there is an implication there as well. . Please 
present these results to the list and end my personal agony.

Regards,
Malcolm
<snip>