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

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Corum's new paper, a "naive swindle"?
• From: "Dan and Nancy" <ntesla-at-ntesla.csd.sc.edu> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
• Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:04:51 -0600
• Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
• Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

At 11:36 AM 4/12/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Original Poster: "Benkanosan" <benkanosan-at-townsqr-dot-com> 
>
>HI, Y'ALL

[snip]

>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

Uhhh, if I understand it correctly, the term "naive swindle" was used by
the Corums to describe the lumped-parameter model of Tesla-coiling. The
"nasty talk", as you say, came from *them* ;)
Happy coiling to you too!
Dan
ntesla-at-ntesla.cs.dsc.edu

• Prev: List.
• Next: Re: Control Box
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread