🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3996@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>
>> Don't you just hate it when we know-it-all graduate students insist upon
>> experimental evidence and mathematical consistency before we are willing
>> to consider your brilliant ideas?  It just doesn't seem fair.
>
>
>    Mathematical consistency? I ask for your arguments to be consistent with
>   I=V/r (ohms law) and am told ``ohms law doesn't apply  to  everything  in
>   the world''( as if it were inappropriate to associate it with the subject
>   of  electromagnetic  induction)  .  Then  I ask for I(in) to equal I(out)
>   (Kirchoff's Law) in a thought experiment about two postings back and  I'm
>   told  ``  Kirchhoff's 'law' is not a universal 'law of nature' '' which I
>   guess means we can somehow get more electrons out of a system than we put
>   in.

     Electrons?  Electrons?  We don't need no stinking electrons.

     Also, may I ask you to repeat your arguments in sanskrit while I'm
     stuffing Maxwell's equations into Ohm's law form?

     Also, repeat after me, singing 'Fish heads, fish heads, roly-poly, 
     fish heads.  Fish heads, fish heads, eat em up yum'.

>    Experimental evidence? Have you graduate students ever experimented with
>   a Tesla coil? I doubt you even know what  one  is,  much  less  built  or
>   operated  one  .   Us  engineering  technicians  (undegreed mechanics who
>   actually design and build our own equipment) have  no  problem  with  the
>   idea  that a transmitter is affected by it's receiver , yet it appears to
>   be the subject of endless debate with you guys. If you need  a  reference
>   for  this  look on page 39 of the September 91 issue of Radio Electronics
>   (instructions for operating a Tesla coil):

    You haven't been around here long, have ya, pardner?  I imagine that
    Tesla coils have been discussed here at least half a million times in 
    the nine or so years I've had access.

>   "Be  aware  that  any change in the physical surroundings around the coil
>   will change it's resonant frequency and the tune control will need to  be
>   adjusted to maintain resonance."

    Be aware that any changes have been shown to propagate at a speed less
    than or equal to the speed of light, mon ami.

>    Finally - whether you like it or not ,if you are responding to my  posts
>   by  definition  you  are  considering  my  ideas.  Whether or not you are

     No, actually I was just having a little fun.  Try that 'fish head'
     song again.  I think you might like it.

>   actually addressing the issues raised is something else entirely. When  I
>   give  you  a  published reference (indicating that it's not really ``my''
>   brilliant idea) I get back ``this is hardly Physics  Review  Letters  '',
>   attempting  to  degrade someone else's work by sneering at the publisher.
>   From what I can see, you're just a clique of uppity brats who do  nothing
>   but exchange theoretical musings and never actually prove anything.

     No, actually I was sneering at the author and only pointing out the
     editorial policy of the journal.  However, I sneer at you too,
     you silly kniggit.

>    If this seems a little harsh let me add that I don't really ``hate  it''
>   when  confronted  with academic snobbishness. I actually enjoy destroying
>   your facades.

     Surprisingly enough, the facade stands.  I suggest you put actual
     ammunition in your guns.

     Amused...

                               dale bass


-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926