|
From Smudge's analysis, I get the impression that Coler didn't understand much of the invention, and that if there really was an invention, it was probably Unruh who thought it up. The problem is that most of the information comes from Coler, so it can even be misleading if you follow him. In his conclusion to the 1947 report, CS Hudson suggested, for the 6-month extension of Coler's work, to build the device in its simplest form. I think he was right, and that today we need to take his method of simplification even further. The best method, in my opinion, is to try to acquire, from the arrangements of the device, an idea of the elementary principle that would lead to the OU. If OU occurs, it's because certain conditions have been met at a specific point in the circuit (or points, since the device has a periodic configuration). But where? Does the OU come out of the coils, the wire, the magnets, and where exactly? The whole device serves only to obtain these conditions, and certainly other ways of doing things could obtain the same ones. Without the theoretical idea, which may come from a very local arrangement at one point in the circuit or from the particularities of the materials used, something unusual that we might notice, then given the apparent instability of the system, it will be difficult if not impossible to reproduce.
---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
|