RFI
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] Final Re about bullcrap smell tests :)

To: "Mike Martin" <mike@rfiservices.com>,"'Tom Rauch'" <w8ji@contesting.com>, <rfi@contesting.com>,<rfi-bounces@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] Final Re about bullcrap smell tests :)
From: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:43:50 -0700
List-post: <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Martin" <mike@rfiservices.com>

> Tom,
> I think what you mean is If I'm not going to agree with the common
> assumptions I shouldn't tell people about my experience.
> I think people shouldn't ask questions if they are only going to agree
with
> the answer they want to hear. Some people talk to themselves so they get
the
> answer they want.

No, you should be all means tell everyone about your
experience. There is nothing better than experimental data.
But don't be surprised if people raise questions about your
data if it contradicts established scientific principles and a
large body of other seemingly credible data. I mean, aren't
you curious why you were not hearing any interference from
the systems you surveyed? Whenever I get experimental data
that contradicts established theory, I get very skeptical and
start looking for alternative explanations.

As far as "getting the answer I want", I would love nothing more
than to believe that BPL is a not a problem. Then I could spend
more time doing what I enjoy rather than reading and writing
ECFS comments on the BPL NOI. Believe me, spening time
thinking about BPL is the last thing I want to be doing with my
discretionary time.


> Further more, those who gain knowledge via resources other than experience
> may learn that "Misinformation does far more harm than we ever might
> imagine".

I won't argue with you there. A scientific theory isn't worth
the paper it's printed on if it doesn't provide meaningful
predictions of experimental outcomes. The other side of
that coin, however, is that experimental data can be subject
confounding factors. Experiments that are readily repeatable
by others carry the most scientific weight. Cold fusion is
the classic example. I don't think anyone has ever accused
those two guys from Utah of committing fraud. They simple
made an error in their experiments. Their results couldn't be
duplicated. You made a set of observations that contradict
many other observations and established theory.  The best
thing you can do is to elaborate on exactly how and where
and under what conditions you made your observations.
Then perhaps we can get on to explaining why you saw what
you saw. Maybe the system you surveyed was notched and
notching works better than we thought (I have heard that 30dB
is the best they can do). Or maybe the system wasn't being
used at the time you did your survey.

73 de Mike, W4EF...........................................

> I'll keep giving talks and those that don't want to hear about my
experience
> can stay home.
> My most recent presentation had an attendance of 40+ people. I've received
> 16 emails from attendees that appreciated my time and possibly the
content.
> I handed out 75 business cards to close to half as many people. It's
obvious
> to me there is a difference of opinion and I welcome them.
> I think that's about all I need to say on the topic. As I said before,
> My Telephone number is available and published for those I can assist.
> Best wishes,
> Mike Martin
> RFI Services
> Cell 240-508-3760
> Office 301-855-5961
> Nextel Direct 164*21*29180
> Fax 410-741-5153
> mike@rfiservices.com
>
> Check out Our Web Site at rfiservices.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rauch [mailto:w8ji@contesting.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 6:57 PM
> To: Mike Martin; 'Michael Tope'
> Cc: rfi@contesting.com; rfi-bounces@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RFI] RFI Services bullcrap smell test :)
>
> Mike,
> If people are leaving your talks with the impression that
> injecting power lines with small transmitters (BPL) can't
> and won't cause problems, maybe you should refrain from any
> talks until you figure out WHY people walk away with an
> impression so far from reality.
>
> This stuff certainly isn't rocket science. It's conventional
> well-established transmission line theory.
>
> Misinformation does far more harm than we ever might
> imagine.
>
> 73 Tom





_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>