In article <chickie-050594215254 at girch45.med.uth.tmc.edu> chickie at girch1.med.uth.tmc.edu (chris hickie) writes:
In article <Bo2vERL.gokelly at delphi.com>, GREGORY C.O'KELLY
<gokelly at delphi.com> wrote:
> Action Potentials and saltatory conduction have long been
> method and axiom for the neursciences. The theory behind them has
> been presented in detail by Dr. John Koester in chapters 6, 7, and 8
> of the PRINCIPLES OF NEUROLOGY
Care to give a better reference? I can't *find* this book listed in either
the Texas Medical Center Library or the National Library of Medicine.
What year was it published? Who published it?
> in the essays "Membrane Potential",
> "Passive Membrane Properties of the Neuron", and "Voltage-Gated Ion
> Channels and the Generation of the Action Potential". Unfortunately,
> upon careful examination and reading it is found that the cited
> equations for electrical circuitry do not support the claims made for
> either action potentials or saltatory conduction by myelination.
> This is shown by the application of mathematics to the equations
> presented by Dr. Koester, especially in Appendix A of that volume.
> The details of this analysis are presented in the paper, "Action
> Potentials: Valued Tradition or Embarrassment?"
Why not just tell us here what the meat of your argument is?
Or is it too _complex_ to post?
> This paper has
> considerable consequences for the neurosciences both in the opening
> of vast new fields of investigation, and in the discrediting of the
> clinically inconsequential findings of the old school of the
> neurosciences which has its roots in the ideas of John Eccles,
> Kenneth Cole, Alan Hodgkin, and Andrew Huxley.
Coming soon to a journal near us, perhaps? Will we see you in Miami
John Edstrom | edstrom @ elmer.hsc.ucalgary.ca
Division of Neuroscience
University Calgary School of Medicine
3330 Hospital Drive NW
Calgary, Alberta T2N 3Y4
(403) 220 4493 voice
(403) 283 2700 FAX