Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: TESLA/MAXWELL

Expand Messages
  • arc@peoplepc.com
    From: Michael Riversong Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 1:27 pm Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] FWD: Maxwell and Tesla At 02:00 PM 1/30/02 -0800, you wrote:
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      From: Michael Riversong <rivedu@e...>
      Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 1:27 pm
      Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] FWD: Maxwell and Tesla

      At 02:00 PM 1/30/02 -0800, you wrote:
      From: davep <davep@q...>
      Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 9:47 pm
      Subject: Re: [Elfrad-Group] Maxwell and Tesla
      David Thomson wrote:
      Hi Rich,
      Nobody is saying that longitudinal waves are a different type of
      electromagnetic radiation. EM is EM. What IS being said is that a
      Hertzian wave, that is, a wave that can be modulated because it
      has a positive and negative voltage oscillation, is not what Tesla
      was using. Tesla did not create a 6 or 8Hz radiation wave that could
      be modulated.

      Michael Riversong <rivedu@e...> wrote:
      IF we recognize only four fundamental forces of nature, the kind of
      confusion expressed in this thread will continue. It gets compounded by good-hearted attempts to apply the "original" Herzian, or
      "original" Tesla principles.
      First, let me confess that I'm not the world's greatest
      mathemetician. But I do know this -- the type of calculus used to express the characteristics of a typical electromagnetic Herzian wave work very well in only that context. But partly because of the presence of irrational numbers in the system, these calculations will always fall apart when we try to apply the same math to other forces.
      So at this time, it would be a good thing for us to do two things.
      First, assume (even if only as a fantasy) that there really are five forces, and that everything we see is some combination of these forces. As part of this assumption, put in the data that resonance is the "master force" that in some ways regulates all the other forces,
      -- determining their ultimate expression in every physical case.
      Then, use the mathematical principles appropriate to each force, to
      calculate its proper operation. Here is the best hint table that I've
      managed to develop so far:
      Electromagnetic vector calculus
      Strong Nuclear Arithmetic
      Weak Nuclear Fractals
      Gravity Synergetics (a form of topology developed by Buckminster Fuller)
      Resonance, possibly Quaternions, and proportional frequency
      calculations

      The longitudinal waves discussed in this thread may be some combination of electromagnetic, gravity, and resonance as a coherent energy form.
      One way to think of these forces, incidentally, is as extreme positions on a star-shaped scale. As you get closer to the center of the scale, you get more of the forces in combination.
      I put this out here not to refute anyone, since I have very deep respect for each of the individuals participating in this thread. Instead, this should be regarded as a "thought tool" that you can use for a different persepctive on the situation. Those who are working more closely on practical projects would perhaps get more out of this alternative thinking process. Please do let me know if this star-shaped thinking produces practical results.
      -- Michael Riversong **
      Professional Harpist, Educator, and Writer **
      RivEdu@e... ** Phone: (307)635-0900 FAX (413)691-0399
      http://home.earthlink.net/~mriversong
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: herzog <herzog@f...>
      Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 2:53 pm
      Subject: Flame, on list, because not enough address for off list.

      Besides this crap needs to be dispelled.

      quote: You guys are as far off base as Hertz was 130 years ago,
      regurgitating the same pathetic nonsence that they threw at Tesla. Get a tin cup and a white cane to complete the ensemble.
      Ken Adachi mailto:Editor@e...
      end quote.

      DAMMIT! You are off base, and completely IGNORANT knocking the blind
      beggar, and buying into that useless stereotype of the blind. That is
      pathetic nonsense of the worst kind. (And you can't spell nonsense!)

      Blind people are just people, who usually have to work harder than others just to hold even. But they now include professionals, as well as bums; but I never yet have seen a blind beggar; just wino's.
      After my first wife died, I married a blind person, because she was a
      full person, had worked and paid her own way all her life. When I met her, she was a volunteer co-ordinator, and rehabilitation teacher, but had worked and paid her way since a teenager.
      I've met many more: Piano tuners, switchboard operators, computer work, Film spoolers, and unspoolers. Also housewives, mothers, osteopath, physical therapist, secretary. I've met only two who live on SSDI.
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: Ed Phillips <evp@P...>
      Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 4:28 pm
      Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] TESLA/MAXWELL

      Jim Farrer <jfarrer@b...> wrote:
      ===>>JSF 1/30/02 My viewpoint has been that any building (or anything
      else material) has a resonant frequency. Input mechanical power to an
      I beam in the building, in the form of a solid THWACCK (sp?), and the
      building will certainly shudder. Repeat said THWAACK at the resonant
      frequency of the building, and it should begin to vibrate at its
      resonant frequency. There, OF COURSE, must be sufficient energy inparted to said I beam to overcome the damping caused by several things: the connection of the I beam to earth, the shaking walls dissipating energy to the air in the rooms which is caused to
      vibrate, etc. I've always felt that the power loss was so great that even 100 psi steam pressure wouldn't contain enough power to cause the building to move in response at all.

      Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
      Vibrating the building, and destroying it are quite different things.
      A few years ago some seismologists at Caltech put a low frequency vibrator (a mass on the end of a boom, and rotated with a motor) on top of the Millikan Library on the Pasadena campus. They were able to get the building to vibrate enough to shake the ground underneath it with enough intensity that the vibrations could be observed on Mount Wilson, about 10 miles away. In the course of the experiments, they were able to get enough vibration to rattle the cases on air conditioning equipment on the roof. No damage, of course.

      previous message:
      If you do some calculations on trying to couple any energy to the
      ionosphere, you first must take into account the capacitance to
      earth, which is of the order of 400 microfarads! Calculate the reactance at any resonable frequency, calculate the resonant current which would flow, estimate the resistance of the circuit, and you will see the futility in it all. If by some miracle you could build a transmitter with low enough resistance

      Jim Farrer <jfarrer@b...> wrote:
      ===>>JSF 1/30/02
      Miracle? The old pre WW II radios had a final amplifier with an
      output resistance of 5k to 10k, but the speakers of that day usually had voice coils of about 16 ohms (I believe 8 ohm ones came in
      later). To couple these two dissimilar devices, an "output transformer" was used. Would this trick be so impossible here?
      Perhaps I should have used loss instead of resistance; the two are
      synonomous in a "Tesla" resonator. The use of a transformer for
      impedance transformation doesn't have anything to do with loss.

      previous message:
      then you still have the losses of the transmission line composed of the spherical ionosphere (which isn't there all the time, of course),
      and the spherical surface of the earth. Both are of relatively low
      conductivity, and the losses would be enormous.

      Jim Farrer <jfarrer@b...> wrote:
      ===>>JSF 1/30/02 But didn't Tesla consider ionizing a vertical column
      of air, thus lowering the losses? Is this trick perhaps being used in
      Alaska by HAARP?

      Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
      I don't remember seeing anything he wrote about ionizing a vertical
      column. Have you? In any case, can't imagine any way he could have
      produced such a spatially selective effect at the frequencies he
      proposed.

      previous message:
      Tesla's work was all based on resonance. He was fascinated with efficiency, and was forever trying to develop devices and technology that gave the consumer the most bang for the buck.

      Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
      The efficiency is dependent on the losses in the circuit, and not
      changed at all by resonance.

      previous message:
      Marconi's work involved resonance, but only to the point where it was
      necessary to generate a signal and modulate it. For example, Marconi gradually realized that a given frequency can be generated, and a message could be modulated onto that frequency for the purpose of sending a communication. -- Although it was Tesla who first succeeded in sending intelligence over the radio wave when he demonstrated his remote control boat in the late 1890s. For that, Tesla eventually was recognized by the Supreme Court as the true inventor of radio. So if
      HAARP is based upon Marconi, and Marconi's work is based upon Tesla's work, then HAARP is based upon Tesla.

      Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
      Several comments. First of all, Marconi never claimed he invented
      "radio". What he did, and what he patented, was and were
      "improvements" to the art, and produced the first really usable wireless systems. When he decided to do his first experiments as a very young man, he studied under Dr. Righi in Italy, and educated himself on the state of the art at that time.. Third, what the Supreme Court ruled, and quite rightly, was that Tesla's patents on tuned circuits invalidated patents by Marconi. Fourth, the connection between HAARP and Marconi isn't evident to me. HAARP isn't an invention; it is a large array of relatively low frequency (of the order of 4 MHz) transmitters and antennas which project a beam upward into the ionosphere, where they can get enough energy density to create ionization. Perhaps you should say that HAARP is a straightforward design based on all of the prior engineering art.

      previous message:
      Tesla admitted that resonance could be employed for manipulating the weather, causing earthquakes, and even generating remote explosive forces. He even used the technology to build a particle beam weapon in his later years.

      Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
      Purely anecdotal stuff. If Tesla "admitted" something, that didn't make it true. Apparently, he went somewhat around the bend after the
      Wardenclyffe days, and said and wrote a lot of wild things which I
      suspect he didn't really believe.

      previous message:
      Today's military would not turn down an opportunity for developing a new and more exotic weapon. And it would be difficult to believe the military is not using HAARP for weapons testing, weather control, and possibly even power distribution. They may even use it for communica
      .... civilizations, and cooking hamburgers on the Fourth of July. Who
      really knows at this point?

      Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
      The guys who built and operate it know.

      previous message:
      HAARP is definitely based on Tesla's work, but Tesla didn't develop it in this direction.

      Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
      Irrelevant and meaningless. See comments above.

      previous message:
      He probably would have done it given the opportunity, but Tesla was ignored by the military, thanks to Thomas Edison. The FBI didn't even realize how important Tesla's papers were to national security until after his death.

      Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
      Again anecdotal.

      previous message:
      As far as many in the military industrial complex know, Marconi is
      the inventor of radio, and Nikola Tesla is some obscure name attributed to quack medical devices.

      Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
      History of science and technology isn't taught much in engineering
      schools today. I suspect that any guy who has heard of Marconi,
      probably also has heard of Tesla, and has at least some idea of the contributions of each.
      Ed
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: "Michael Smith" <michaelsmith_au2000@y...>
      Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 3:15 am
      Subject: Re: [energy2000] FWD: Maxwell and Tesla

      Previous messages:
      <SNIP>

      It should be noted thought this does not stop you from modulating a scalar wave.
      Michael Smith
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: Steve Wingate <stevew77@p...>
      Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 3:33 am
      Subject: Re: Tesla/Maxwell

      On 31 Jan 02, at 10:23, james wrote:
      http://alexfrolov.narod.ru/longfortelecom.htm
      http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html
      http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lmdtem.htm
      (click on hyperlink at bottom of page for more)
      http://www.borderlands.com/catalog/fenergy.htm
      (Eric P. Dollard section)
      <SNIP>

      Steve Wingate <stevew77@p...> wrote:
      Thank you James, great artices! I like this quote from the first
      article especially:

      More 60 years ago Nikola Tesla wrote: "I showed that the universal medium is a gaseous body in which only longitudinal pulses can be propagated, involving alternating compressions and expansions similar to those produced by sound waves in the air. Thus, a wireless transmitter does not Hertz waves which are a myth, but sound waves in the ether, behaving in every respect like those in the air, except that, owing to the great elastic force and extremely small density of the medium, their speed is that of light."
      It is part of N.Tesla's article -- "Pioneer Radio Engineer Gives Views on Power", published in New York Herald Tribune, Sept. 11, 1932, [ 2, p.94 ]. American scientist Thomas E. Bearden explained this statement of Tesla in this way: Ordinary receivers use so-called
      "precessia of electrons" phenomenon, that is a result of interaction between electron gas of antenna wires, metal, and longitudinal waves
      [2]. Tesla wrote about great mistake of modern science:
      "The Hertz wave theory of wireless transmission may be kept up for a while, but I do not hesitate to say, that in a short time, it will be
      recognized as one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history", -- article "The True Wireless" [2, p.95].
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: Steve Wingate <stevew77@p...>
      Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 3:51 am
      Subject: Re: Tesla/Maxwell

      From : http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html
      "Tesla's other big mistake was in thinking that his wireless transmission system had nothing to do with "Hertzian" waves. In fact, the waves in a coaxial transmission line are not much different than the waves which fly off any dipole antenna connected to the end of that transmission line. Whether it is ruled by "near field", or "far field" equations, electromagnetism is electromagnetism."

      Steve Wingate <stevew77@p...> wrote:
      The problem here is that the surface wave in Tesla's wireless transmission system *was* a longitudinal wave, at least near the surface of the Earth where most of the energy was concentrated. This becomes clear from a close study of his basic circuit for creating the wireless transmission system generator. This differs
      significantly from a 1/4 wave AM transmitter antenna, which creates Hertzian waves, and is driven with a single ended signal from the base of the 1/4 wave antenna. Also, near fields are not the same as far field propagating EM waves; they are very different, and have different properties such as E and H fields that are not mutually orthogonal.
      Steve
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: "David Thomson" <dave@v...>
      Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 10:05 am
      Subject: RE: [Elfrad-Group] Re: Tesla/Maxwell

      Here is the complete text of the article by Nikola Tesla called "The True Wireless", that was printed in the Electrical Experimenter, May, 1919.
      http://www.tfcbooks.com/writings/wireless.htm

      David Thomson
      dave@v... <mailto:dave@v...>
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: John Schnurer <herman@a...>
      Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 6:28 pm
      Subject: Re: [free_energy] Tesla

      Dear Dieter,

      What is the QTI Group?
      One way you can send electromagnetic energy with low loss over
      moderate distances is to use pairs of parabolic reflectors. Provided the size is great enough, and the reflective surfaces are good enough and not too rough or out of dimensions, it is possible to send
      energy. There are conversion loses, and environmental losses, but it
      is possible to select materials, and choose wavelengths, and arrive at an OK effect.
      I do not feel there is a whole boat-load of validity to claims with
      a basis of:
      Text and URL sites derived from "Because WE said so" people, who hang a group of non-coherent, out of context "word salads" out together
      with the name Tesla, and provide this as "Proof".
      But I will keep an open mind.
      JH
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: "Dieter W. Blum" <qti@u...>
      Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:36 pm
      Subject: RE: [free_energy] Tesla

      Dear John:

      Thank You! At least someone read my hastily created post of late last night! I maintain what I said in that post; i.e., that the wireless transmission of electromagnetic energy (through dielectric media, whether for a short, medium or long distance) is very inefficient when compared to the constrained and guided transmission of the same energy (eg. Pointing vector etc.) via waveguides, conductors, or the like. Of course, focused transmission and reception antennas (shape and configuration depending upon where in the EM spectrum we like to be situated, etc.) are a factor; however, the intervening dielectric does behave most unkindly. I appreciate your suggestion of parabolic (hence, focused antennae), since most all others concerning these posts re. Tesla, have been discussing the propagation of spherical plane waves. I'm not sure what you mean by an "OK" effect?, -- i.e., 10% or 20% of the transmission efficiency when compared to a physically coupled or guided means. If the energy source is totally free, then I guess it doesn't matter, hence the renewed interest in the possible microwave relaying to the earth's surface of solar energy captured by spaceborne receptors.
      I'm not certain what your last comment was referring to; I myself
      have studied Tesla long and hard -- in respect to both his wireless energy transmission claims, or what others currently believe he tried to do in this area, but did not achieve -- but as well, the
      misconceptions surrounding his contributions to AC and polyphase developments, and electrical energy distribution etc.
      I am not a "Tesla" basher, but must say that there certainly is a lot of hype surrounding his supposed achievements (started by Tesla himself more than a hundred years ago, when things were much less understood); anyway, to answer your first query, the QTI Group is a private and independant R&D entity that concentrates on applied electrodynamics research and all that such implies.
      Ciao - Dieter
      Dieter Wolfgang Blum Principal Researcher and President
      The QTI Group
      5115-244th Street Aldergrove, B.C. Canada V2Z 1G5
      Tel:(+1)604.857.5031 Fax:(+1)604.857.5071 Cell:(+1)604.727.4424
      www.pixii.com qti@p... qti@u...
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: "alex" <telecomt@t...>
      Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 2:08 pm
      Subject: Re: [teslafy] TESLA/MAXWELL

      Previous messages:
      <SNIP>

      Sometimes a platoon can destroy a bridge
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: scott saxbury <scottsbm2@y...>
      Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 6:37 am
      Subject: Re: [TheoryOfEverything] TESLA/MAXWELL

      previous message:
      Tesla built, among other things, electro-mechanical oscillators. These 5 pound devices that he carried in his coat pocket could
      completely shatter the tallest skyscrapers utilizing the power of
      resonance.

      previous message:
      Baloney! There is no "power" in resonance! In a resonant circuit, the
      voltage (or current) in increased by resonance, but the out can't be
      more than the energy in, even though the peak powers may be
      different..

      scott saxbury <scottsbm2@y...> wrote:
      I assume what they meant was the type of "resonance" that destroyed the Tacoma Narrows bridge when the vibrations raised by wind weren't taken into account, not resonance circuits. It's still silly; the
      philosopher Bacon made many of the exact same claims attributed to Tesla, and you didn't see him destroying armies or shattering castles, did you?
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: "David Thomson" <dave@v...>
      Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 9:20 pm
      Subject: RE: [usa-tesla] TESLA/MAXWELL

      David Thomson
      dave@v... <mailto:dave@v...>

      Previous message:
      A few years ago, some seismologists at Caltech put a low frequency vibrator (a mass on the end of a boom and rotated with a motor) on top of the Millikan Library on the Pasadena campus. They were able to get the building to vibrate enough to shake the ground underneath it with enough intensity that the vibrations could be observed on Mount Wilson, about 10 miles away. In the course of the experiments, they were able to get enough vibration to rattle the cases on air conditioning equipment on the roof. No damage, of course.

      "David Thomson" <dave@v...> wrote:
      About 100 years ago, Nikola Tesla put a 5lb mechanical oscillator on a tall steel structure, and the entire steel structure ultimately ended up in a very contorted, and completely destroyed condition. Nikola Tesla also put one of these 5lb devices on the structure of the building his lab was in (a high rise in New York City). According to the newspaper accounts, two police officers rushed in just in time to see Tesla smashing the device with a sledge hammer. According to Tesla, this was done according to the principles of resonance. Nikola Tesla publicly claimed that it was within his ability to establish a resonance within the earth that could literally split the earth in two. You might call this baloney, but then, who are you? Are you a greater genius than Nikola Tesla?

      Previous message:
      I don't remember seeing anything he wrote about ionizing a vertical
      column. Have you?

      "David Thomson" <dave@v...> wrote:
      Yes, I have. Also, he has a patent that specifically mentions raising the potential of the atmosphere to 20-50 million Volts for the purpose of making the atmosphere behave as though it were more rarefied. Pumping 50 million Volts into the atmosphere is ionizing it in my book.

      Previous message:
      Tesla's work was all based on resonance. He was fascinated with
      efficiency, and was forever trying to develop devices and technology that gave the consumer the most bang for the buck. The efficiency is dependent on the losses in the circuit, and not changed at all by resonance.

      "David Thomson" <dave@v...> wrote:
      Ed, you apparently don't see resonance in its full scope. Resonance can be used to store energy by utilizing another form of energy (usually static) to power half of the oscillation. For example, swinging a child in a swing. You only put force into one half of the cycle, gravity puts force into the other half. By carefully timing your pushes, you can build up a pretty high swing and even cause the child to completely spin around in complete circles if you weren't careful. And you will agree, that you aren't strong enough to push the child all the way around on the first push. You have to use
      resonance to accumulate your energy, until it takes just one more good push to go all the way around.
      In the case of earth resonance, the static energy is the earth's magnetic field. In the case of a building, the static energy is the elasticity of the building materials. Resonance, when used for that purpose, can accumulate tremendous amounts of energy. Or, if used in a radio, resonance can be used as a carrier wave for a modulated signal. It's the stored energy in the resonant frequency, that allows the radio carrier signal to travel as far from the transmitter as it does. And when there is no longer any energy to maintain the resonance, it damps out. Tesla found ways of fully exploiting resonance beyond a mere carrier wave.

      Previous message:
      Several comments. First of all, Marconi never claimed he invented
      "radio". What he did, and what he patented, was and were
      "improvements" to the art, and produced the first really usable wireless systems.

      "David Thomson" <dave@v...> wrote:
      Somebody sure is claiming Marconi invented the radio! Pick up any
      high-school history text, and read it for yourself. Go to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, and see who the inventor of radio is. They still claim Marconi invented the radio at the Smithsonian. If Marconi knew he didn't invent the radio, why did he allow others to believe he did? Your observations don't add up to the facts.

      Previous message:
      Third, what the Supreme Court ruled, and quite rightly, was that Tesla's patents on tuned circuits invalidated patents by Marconi.

      "David Thomson" <dave@v...> wrote:
      So you agree Marconi tried to pass himself off as the inventor of tuned circuits? That's what a radio is. Whatever it was that Marconi claimed to be the inventor of, it wasn't him, but Tesla, who invented it. That's why the Supreme Court invalidated Marconi's patents. He didn't invent them.

      Previous message:
      Perhaps you should say that HAARP is a straightforward design based on all of the prior engineering art.

      "David Thomson" <dave@v...> wrote:
      Perhaps it should be said HAARP is based directly on Tesla's patents 787,412 and 645,576, among others. Tesla's Wardencliffe project was designed to pump upwards of 50 million volts directly above the
      tower, as well as into the ground. It was Tesla who first suggested ionizing the atmosphere, such that it would light up the sky above cities. This is certainly what HAARP is doing. Anybody who makes the statement that HAARP was invented by Tesla is not far off the mark.

      Previous message:
      Purely anecdotal stuff. If Tesla "admitted" something, that didn't make it true. Apparently, he went somewhat around the bend after the Wardenclyffe days, and said and wrote a lot of wild things which I suspect he didn't really believe.

      "David Thomson" <dave@v...> wrote:
      More accurately, just because you say Tesla didn't do it, doesn't mean he didn't. You are obviously not very well read on Nikola Tesla, the things he did, the things he said, and the things others witnessed. I suppose you would deny that the Office of Alien Property ever kept Tesla's notes secret, or that the FBI considered his notes a national security issue, or that the British were close to a 30 million dollar contract for his Death Ray invention, or that he was scheduled to meet with the President of the United States to share his invention, or that he was awarded the Edison Award by the IEEE, or that he was considered for the Nobel Prize in Physics -- all of
      these events occurring after Wardenclyffe.

      Previous message:
      History of science and technology isn't taught much in engineering schools today. I suspect that any guy who has heard of Marconi probably also has heard of Tesla, and has at least some idea of the contributions of each.

      "David Thomson" <dave@v...> wrote:
      The history of science and technology for a given field is usually covered briefly in the first chapter of textbooks. You must have on your shelf several old books on radio engineering. Why don't you walk over and open them, and look for Nikola Tesla's name and Marconi's name. If you find one book that mentions Tesla's name in it, please give me the title, author, and edition. I have a dozen such books, and none of them mention Tesla, and at least six of them mention Marconi as the inventor of radio. Not the inventor of tuned circuits, or the improver of the high voltage oscillator, but the inventor. Tesla is not even mentioned. Go ahead, look at your own books in your library right now, and tell me one reference that mentions Tesla.

      On a random basis, walk up to any electrical engineer and ask them
      who invented radio. Also ask them if they have any clue as to what Nikola Tesla invented, or if they have even heard of him.
      I have talked to many electrical engineers, both civilian and military. The vast majority never heard his name mentioned in school, and almost all of them know for a fact that Marconi was the inventor of radio. Your suspicions are not only anecdotal, they are wrong.
      Ed, you have spoken with an air of authority on many issues which you
      obviously are not fully educated on. There are many people on these lists who are far more familiar with Nikola Tesla's life and accomplishments than you have presented yourself to be. Stick to your field of expertise, and learn from others about Nikola Tesla.

      Dave


      ________________________________________________
      PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
      http://www.peoplepc.com
    • arc@peoplepc.com
      From: pauldude000 Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 2:51 pm Subject: Re: TESLA/MAXWELL Previous messages: I have to disagree, to a point.
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        From: "pauldude000" <pauldude000@y...>
        Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 2:51 pm
        Subject: Re: TESLA/MAXWELL

        Previous messages:
        <SNIP>

        I have to disagree, to a point. Mechanical resonance is highly
        destructive in any mechanical system. Wind blowing over a bridge can
        set up a resonance which will rip the bridge apart, and mechanical
        resonance in complex machines will vibrate them to pieces. Mechanical
        resonance is a problem addressed by engineers on a daily basis in
        their designs. However, for a five pound machine to cause mechanical
        resonance which would destroy a building does seem a mite
        farfetched, as no amount of vibration from a five pound object could
        possibly move the mass contained in a building to set up said
        resonance in any time span which I can comprehend.

        Using sound pressure waves possibly, but it would still require
        MASSIVE amplifiers etc..., or at least a unique design for direct
        energy conversion, such as burning high energy fuel then with exhaust
        modulated to directly produce sound waves, to achieve the necessary
        energy required (It requires x amount of energy to move y mass
        minimum, either all at once or additive, no exceptions) -- which would exceed the five pound decription by a large degree.

        As far as electrical resonance, it does create special
        characteristics of the amount of efficiency of the circuit. For
        instance, examine the properties of an efficiently operating Tesla
        coil. The first thing noticed is that the coil does not follow the
        1:1 turn ratio. The fact that the coil is resonant, frequency matched
        between the primary and secondary with high Q, allows a higher
        voltage/turns ratio than an unmatched set could produce. Is this
        magic? NO, simply efficiency of the circuit; since most circuits are
        HIGHLY inefficient.

        A good comparison would be a mechanical car engine. Currently, they
        WASTE MOST of the gasoline which enters the cylinders (different
        combustion temperatures etc.. from the various components which
        combined are called gas). IE current engines are highly inefficient.
        Simple modifications to an engine may well increase the efficiency of
        the system, providing more output of said system. The same is true
        for electric circuits or gasoline engines. If you wish to think about
        efficiency in an electric system, consider the available output of a
        theoretical system using superconductors, in comparison to an
        equivalent normal system of the same type.

        Tesla merely "tweaked" his electrical systems, for more performance
        so to speak.

        Paul Andrulis
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        From: Jim Farrer <jfarrer@b...>
        Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 9:52 am
        Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Re: Tesla/Maxwell

        Previous messages:
        <SNIP>

        Thanks for this email, Steve. I missed this in James's article, or
        haven't gotten to it yet. (I'm way behind on my reading. It is truly
        GREAT to see more action on this List!)

        ===>> What say you, Frred Bach, Fred Mg Gailliard, Bert Hickman, and
        Ed Phillips?????

        You've asked repeatedly for proof that Tesla said thus and so, and
        here it is. Do you accept the idea (Can't say 'fact') that Tesla
        said this? Believed this? I seem to recall that Tesla said this in
        his 1900 article for Century Magazine. (Could be wrong, don't have it in hand). If so, Tesla was in his prime at this period.
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        From: Ed Phillips <evp@P...>
        Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 11:44 am
        Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] TESLA/MAXWELL

        Previous messages:
        "The history of science and technology for a given field is usually
        covered briefly in the first chapter of textbooks. You must have on your shelf several old books on radio engineering. Why don't you walk over and open them, and look for Nikola Tesla's name and Marconi's name. If you find one book that mentions Tesla's name in it, please give me the title, author, and edition."

        Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
        The oldest such relevant book I have is:
        "Wireless Telegraphy" by Zenneck and Seeling, First Edition,
        McGraw Hill Book Company, New York. 1915
        This is a translation of a German text which was first published in
        1906. There is no mention of the "invention" of wireless or priority
        thereof, but a thorough discussion of the principles involved and the
        apparatus involved. He cites Tesla as originator of the use of arc
        discharges for producing continuous waves of high frequency, and quotes Morgan on Tesla's proposal to use braided wires to reduce the resistance of high frequency conductors. Marconi is much more widely cited in connection with apparatus for which he or the Marconi
        Company introduced.

        An early English book which I don't have, and have been unable to
        get, is Fleming's Electric Wave Telegraphy". Don't know what he says.
        I just dug out at random a number of test or reference books on the
        subject of wireless/radio in which I can find no mention of Tesla or
        Marconi, or any comments whatsoever as to the "inventor" of wireless
        communication. These include:
        "Robinson's of Radio Telegraph and Telephony for the use of Naval
        Electricians", by Robinson, Todd, and Hooper, Fourth Revised
        Edition, The United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, 1918.
        (Had a first edition (1911) but traded that off many years ago.)
        "The Principles Underlying Radio Communication", Radio Pamphlet
        No.40, Signal Corps, U.S. Army, Government Printing Office, 1918
        "RADIO TELEGRAPHY AND TELEPHONY" by Duncan and Drew, John Wiley
        & ons, New York, 1929
        "Radio Engineering", Terman, First Edition, McGraw Hill Book
        Company, New York, 1932.
        "THE RADIO ENGINEERING HANDBOOK", Keith Henney editor, Second
        Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1935

        Also took a look at wireless books intended for amateurs. Same thing.
        No mention of inventors at all. Among these are:
        "Wireless Telegraph Construction for Amateurs", A. P. Morgan,
        Second Editon, D. VAN NOSTRAND, New York, 1911
        "The Book of Wireless" by A. F. Collins (a prolific author of
        practical wireless construction articles), D. APPLETON AND
        COMPANY, New York, 1916
        "Practical Wireless Telegraphy", E. E. Bucher, "Revised Edition",
        Wireless Press Inc., New York, 1921
        This has quite a bit of descriptive material on Marconi Company
        equipment, but no mention of invention.

        Previous messages:
        "I have a dozen such books, and none of them mention Tesla, and at
        least six of them mention Marconi as the inventor of radio. Not the
        inventor of tuned circuits or the improver of the high voltage
        oscillator, but the inventor. Tesla is not even mentioned. Go ahead, look at your own books in your library right now, and tell me one reference that mentions Tesla.

        Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
        Publications which do mention Tesla and Marconi include:
        "THE DEVELOPMENT OF WIRELESS TO 1920", George Shires, Arno Press,
        New York, 1977
        This should be mandatory reading for you. It discusses early workers on wireless communication (Preece, Lodge, Popoff, etc.), and includes
        reprints of many early writings on the subject. One quote from the
        chapter "The Evolution of Electric Wave Telegraphy" by Fleming: A
        quote: "In 1892 Nikola Tesla captured the attention of the whole
        scientific world by his fascinating experiments on high frequency
        electric currents. He stimulated the scientific imagination of
        others, as well as displayed his own, and created widespread interest in his brilliant demonstrations." Note that the latter NEVER included any on wireless signalling! The same chapter gives a good discussion of what Marconi did do, when he did it, when he demonstrated it, etc.
        A later section includes the lecture Marconi gave upon his receipt of
        the Nobel Prize. One sentence says: "I did, however, attend one
        course of lectures on physics under the late Professr Rosa at Liverno, and I was, I think I might say, fairly well acquainted with publications of that time dealing with scientific subjects, including the works of Hertz, Branly, and Righi". He couldn't have been acquainted with the work of Tesla, since he never published anything.
        Marconi then discusses his experiments, and what follows, but never makes any claim as to having been the inventor of wireless. I think it is pretty clear he wasn't concerned with priority of invention, but with priority of application.

        Another must read is:
        "SYNTONY AND SPARK, THE ORIGINS OF RADIO", by Hugh Aitken, Wiley and
        Sons, New York", 1977.
        Aitken does go extensively into the contributions of many early
        experimenters and developers, including Hertz, Lodge, Tesla, and Marconi to name a few. He describes the early demonstrations (Marconi was by no means the first, and Tesla never demonstrated anything, at least publicly). Dr. Aitken is a professor of economics at Amherst, and a noted historian on economic and technical matters. I also recommend his work "The Continuous Wave", which has further information on the subject, and in particular, on generation of CW,
        on which Tesla did publish and demonstrate a lot, and was probably the formost early innovator and inventor.

        Some more works which specifically discuss Tesla's priority in wireless signalling include:
        "THE AWA REVIEW", Volume 1, article by Leland Anderson titled "JOHN
        STONE STONE ON NIKOLA TESLA'S PRIORITY IN RADIO AND CONTINUOUS-
        WAVE RADIOFREQUENCY APPARATUS".
        As you must know, Anderson is probably best-informed author of works
        telling what Tesla really did, based on Tesla's writings, many of which are in Anderson's possession. To quote from this article:
        "Knowledge about Tesla's work has been severely limited, because, as an independent inventor, [Ed's comment - so was Marconi], he conducted his work in secrecy, and did not associate himself with a business enterprise which could have perpetuated the record of his accomplishments. However, writings are surfacing from special
        archives showing his work ante-dates that of many [Ed - by no means all] others in radio and allied arts."
        Perhaps Anderson's most compelling discussions OF Tesla's priorities
        are in his:
        "NIKOLA TESLA ON HIS WORK WITH ALTERNATING CURRENTS"
        This is a comb-bound work without date or mention of the publisher.
        Almost positive I got it from the TESLA BOOK COMPANY a couple of
        years back. If you by any mischance, don't have it, by all means get it, and read it!

        Previous messages:
        "On a random basis, walk up to any electrical engineer and ask them who invented radio. Also ask them if they have any clue as to what Nikola Tesla invented, or if they have even heard of him."

        Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
        Most of the EE's I work with haven't much interest in history of any
        sort, and couldn't even tell you who was "The Great White Father in
        Washington", or the perpetrator of the New Deal!

        Previous messages:
        "I have talked to many electrical engineers, both civilian and
        military. The vast majority never heard his name mentioned in school, and almost all of them know for a fact that Marconi was the inventor of radio. Your suspicions are not only anecdotal, they are wrong."

        Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
        That could well be true; I don't know. During my college days
        (1942-1948), I first heard of Tesla in an introductory course on AC
        Machinery, a field in which he was indisputably a pioneer, and can't
        remember ever hearing of Marconi in the class room or any textbooks.

        Previous messages:
        "Ed, you have spoken with an air of authority on many issues which
        you obviously are not fully educated on. There are many people on these lists who are far more familiar with Nikola Tesla's life and accomplishments than you have presented yourself to be. Stick to your field of expertise, and learn from others about Nikola Tesla."

        Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
        Well, as you can see below, I've tried to educate myself, and have
        read what at least some others have written about Tesla. To me the most important single reference is:
        "THE INVENTIONS, RESEARCHS and WRITINGS of NIKOLA TESLA", Thomas
        Cummorford Morgan, originally published by THE ELECTRICAL ENGINEER,
        New York, 1894.
        As you know, Morgan was a prominent electrical engineer, past president of the AIEE among other things, and contemporary of Tesla. This has to be the definitive reference on Tesla's work during the time when Marconi and others were experimenting with "wireless". The various articles in Tesla's own words are masterpieces of technical writing, clear and descriptive, and remarkable considering that English wasn't his first, or even his second language. His exposition is beautiful and unambiguous. I think there is a single reference to remote signalling, but I can't find it this morning - perhaps you can dig it out and let me know where it is. These works would establish,
        if there were any doubt on anyone's part, Tesla's position as originator of modern AC equipment and systems. The results of this work affect us all in our daily lives, and the single-phase induction motor, perhaps his greatest single invention, is ubiquitous. I'll bet there's a dozen or more in every household in the civilized world. At the moment, I can't lay my hands on the book which gives his famous lecture "EXPERIMENTS ALTERNATE CURRENTS OF HIGH POTENTIAL AND HIGH FREQUENCY', but it's around here somewhere. Lots of demonstrations, but none on signalling.....

        Of equal interest are the "COLORADO SPRINGS NOTEs 1899-1900", as they
        show with his own informal words how he went about things, how he
        thought, and how he did his design work. Wireless signalling isn't
        really covered at all. Anyone who has CSN has, or should have,
        Richard Hull's excellent "The Tesla Coil Builder's Guide to the Colorado Springs Notes of Nikola Tesla". I like his note in the introduction "I believe none of what I hear, half of what I read, 90% of what I see, and 100% of WHAT I CAN REPRODUCE BY EXPERIMENT". I guess that applies to what I have seen of recent writings about
        Tesla, which seem to me to be mostly hearsay. Other writings I consider worthwhile reading include O'Neill's "Prodigal Genius", and Hunt & Draper's "Lightning in His Hands". The rest I've read is, in my opinion, trash, anecdote, hearsay, and mythology. The worst of these of course is Cheney, who writes on a mystical level, and is, at least to me, full of nonsensical stuff. The PBS "TESLA Master of Lightning" has lots of interesting pictures in it, but the commentary (largely by Cheny?) is pretty trivial.

        TESLA BOOK COMPANY's "DR. NIKOLA TESLA, Complete Patents" is a valuable resource, as are the four volumes of "DR. NIKOLA TESLA, SELECTED PATENT WRAPPERS", also compiled by Ratzlaff. Most of the material here was probably written by Tesla's lawyers, but it's fascinating reading, and gives a good picture of how Tesla, the lawyers, and the Patent Office went about things in those days.

        Dave, if you can point me toward any other worthwhile references
        which include AUTHENTICATABLE material and contemporary references to some of the other wonderful things attributed to Tesla, I'd appreciate it. I'll get them and read them.

        Ed

        Wow! How this has rambled. Of course, it's a fascinating subject, and
        one about which heated discussions will never end.
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        From: Ed Phillips <evp@P...>
        Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 12:02 pm
        Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Re: Tesla/Maxwell

        Previous messages:
        More 60 years ago Nikola Tesla wrote: "I showed that the universal medium is a gaseous body, in which only longitudinal pulses can be propagated, involving alternating compressions and expansions similar to those produced by sound waves in the air.

        Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
        If you read Tesla's description of his demonstration, what he showed
        was conduction of current through a tube filled with ionized gas. The
        return circuit was through the ground, although he doesn't mention that.

        Previous messages:
        Thus, a wireless transmitter does not produce Hertz waves, which are a myth, but sound waves in the ether, behaving in every respect like those in the air, except that, owing to the great elastic force and
        extremely small density of the medium, their speed is that of light."

        Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
        Well, the Hertzian waves are alive and thriving, and have been for well over a century.

        Previous messages:
        scientist Thomas E. Bearden explained this statement of Tesla in this
        way: Ordinary receivers use the so-called "precessia of electrons" phenomenon, that is a result of interaction between electron gas and antenna wires, metal, and longitudinal waves [2]. Tesla wrote about great mistake of modern science:
        "The Hertz wave theory of wireless transmission may be kept up for a while, but I do not hesitate to say, that in a short time, it will be
        recognized as one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history", article "The True Wireless" [ 2, p.95 ].

        Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
        How does "Dr. Bearden" explain this one? Why has this "most
        remarkable and inexplicable aberration" stuck around for so long?

        Ed
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        From: "David Thomson" <dave@v...>
        Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 12:50 pm
        Subject: RE: [usa-tesla] TESLA/MAXWELL

        Previous messages:
        Wow! How this has rambled. Of course, it's a fascinating subject and one about which heated discussions will never end.

        "David Thomson" <dave@v...> wrote:
        Hi Ed,
        Even if we do disagree in the future, I will now regard you with much more respect. Rich Oliver also has shown the same desire to communicate with science, fact, and scholarship.

        A good Tesla-authored article to read concerning longitudinal waves can be read right here on the Internet at...
        http://www.tfcbooks.com/writings/wireless.htm
        Tesla's article on The Problem of Increasing Human Energy is a good read, and is available at...
        http://www.tfcbooks.com/writings/energy.htm
        In fact, many of the Tesla articles are available at...
        http://www.tfcbooks.com/writings/contents.htm

        I have just finished reading all of Tesla's patents in the past few weeks, and will be reading them again, as I write commentaries and cross-references for a Tesla CD I'm producing. You may want to read Tesla's FBI file, but it is time consuming to get the bits and pieces of good information out of this huge, non searchable text. You can download it straight from the FBI website...
        http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex.htm
        I have many of the radio engineering books you have, but you mentioned a couple I haven't read. Another good book about Tesla you must read is "Wizard" by Marc Seifer. I purchased an autographed
        copy, as it really is well written, and covers lots of details about Tesla's life.
        http://www.netsense.net/tesla/frames.html

        Currently, I am doing research on Tesla's spiral coils. Today, I built a circuit that appears to generate longitudinal electrostatic waves. I'm not making this claim, just that I am pursuing the possibility. You can see this experiment and schematic at my new yahoogroups list for Flat Spiral Secondaries at...
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spiralcoils/

        I own Colorado Springs Notes, and Richard Hull's notes on it. Richard Hull is truly an expert in the field, but I have noticed his preoccupation with Tesla coils, at least publicly, is with producing large sparks. He glosses over many important points Tesla makes in his CSN. Of course, they're only important if you are researching Tesla's receivers, as I am. There are so many people out there preoccupied with spark design, that I have turned my attention to wave geometry, and the interaction of all things in the universe
        by way of Tesla's waves. My favorite quote of Tesla's that I have only seen published in his FBI file is, "There is no energy in
        matter, except that which it receives from the environment." This was Tesla's answer to Einstein's e=mc^2. Where Einstein saw the universe as matter containing energy, Tesla saw the universe as energy manifested as matter.

        I also have a bunch of the fringe books claiming all kinds of inaccurate theories, such as Tesla causing the Tunguska Blast, and rumor stories concerning his alleged exotic inventions. I read these books looking for clues, not answers. For example, there are several accounts by newspaper articles and Tesla's nephew, that he made a black box power supply that operated a Pierce Arrow automobile. There are even parts lists floating around describing the tubes, coils, and resistors that went into the black box. This may be true or nonsense,
        -- my goal is to determine whether it is fact or fiction by building it myself. And since the details are not complete in the rumors, I'm thoroughly researching Tesla's patents, articles, other rumors, and whatever it takes to get a working understanding of the world as Tesla saw it. I don't want to see Tesla through the eyes of a modern engineer or physicist. There is too much circumstantial evidence
        already known to suggest Tesla truly did have a better way of seeing the world. The only way we can tell for sure, is to fully understand his position, do his experiments, build things the way he built them, and see for ourselves if they work. As you rightfully quoted Richard Hull, we can only believe with 100% the things we can replicate for ourselves.

        If you monitor the Flat Spiral Secondaries list, you will see, over time, just how much more knowledge Tesla had that we are just now learning. There are some pretty interesting things about these flat spiral secondaries that you can see for yourself. Electrostatics, resonance, longitudinal waves, -- it all sounds like hocus-pocus until you actually build the things, and see that it really does
        work.

        Dave David Thomson dave@v... <mailto:dave@v...>
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        From: Steve Wingate <stevew77@p...>
        Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 12:57 pm
        Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Re: Tesla/Maxwell

        Previous messages:
        <SNIP>

        Ed,
        What Tesla is saying is that Hertzian waves are misinterpreted.
        Steve
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        From: Fred Bach <music@e...>
        Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 2:24 pm
        Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] TESLA/MAXWELL

        David Thomson wrote:
        "I don't want to see Tesla through the eyes of a modern engineer or physicist."

        Why not? The other stuff you say in the paragraph above is fine, but just exactly what are you afraid of?
        .. Fred Bach music@t...
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        From: "David Thomson" <dave@v...>
        Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 2:41 pm
        Subject: RE: [usa-tesla] TESLA/MAXWELL

        Hi Fred,
        I'm not afraid of anything. It's advanced problem solving. When you can't find the obvious answer, eliminate the obvious assumptions. I've witnessed engineer after engineer come up to bat, and tell how it is impossible for Tesla to be right. They all just "know" Tesla is wrong because he goes against mainstream science. It's like solving impedance with an imaginary number. Everybody knows that you can't have a square root of negative 1, but it works.
        Dave David Thomson dave@v... <mailto:dave@v...>
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        From: Jet Black <tesla@o...>
        Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 3:19 pm
        Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] TESLA/MAXWELL

        From my "historical" readings, somewhat paltry to yours Ed, the closest thing you will get to seeing Tesla's name in books circa
        1900, is seeing the name Westinghouse & that Edison character. It appears that all American published books give Tesla a very wide berth; books published in the UK give him a nod, & a few vague paragraphs, ie: "The Inventors Cavalcade" - pub. Lindsay Drummond
        Ltd., 1944, chapter 3: "Tesla the Croation Edison" -- somewhat
        insulting, but it does mention his first day of work for Edison -- began the transmission of 3 phase current which resulted in his Niagra Falls hydro electric project -- it briefly mentions Tesla's spectacular coil discharges @ 1 million oscillations a second, VIP,
        -- the book says this is what led him to make his HF Medical equipment using a method called "diathermy" -- the heat treatment of diseased internal tissues & organs -- there's an amusing story about Mark Twain & this equipment in other books, late one night in Tesla's lab -- Marconi & Hertz get a very good write up in this book, along with numerous other "European" inventors & scientists which fail to
        make any US published book I have seen. If anyone has the historical time line I posted on-list a few years back, you will see their names, -- it might be worth reposting (if anyone has it handy, I don't), as there has been much reference to the history of
        "electricity" of late; it contains Thales of Miletus getting shocked by Amber in 600 B.C. to the 1941 first test flights of jet powered planes -- I suspect that murderous engineering techno menace, Adolph Hitler, was well into flying jet & rocket powered planes by 1941.

        As far as modern day Technical & Engineering books, Tesla's name appears in most of them; the SI unit index at the back always has him in it, but there is no real mention of Tesla in relation to "magnetic flux density" (magnetic induction) in these books.
        http://www.emf-data.org/datasets/002/iitri15.html
        no mention of Tesla here
        http://www.chemie.de/tools/units.php3?language=e&property=kg%2FA*s%5E2
        WELL worth bookmarking, the name Tesla appears on this page, & it lets you convert things you never thought possible :)
        As long as Tesla's name remains in the good company of his fellow SI unit companions, there will always be someone who is educated enough to spot "the odd name out", and do a bit of research on this Tesla fellow who they have never heard of before.

        Thanks for the book names Ed
        JB
        P.S. It's wonderful to see that for all his great work/thievery, that there is no SI unit named the Edison..............
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        From: Ed Phillips <evp@P...>
        Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 3:34 pm
        Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] TESLA/MAXWELL

        David:

        Will look through those references when I get time, and send any
        comments then. Looks like it will take a lot (of time). Have read
        favorable comments on Seifer's book, but haven't picked it up yet. I
        don't understand all of the excitement about flat spirals and, for that matter, Tesla's interest in them. They're awkward to build and handle, and certainly don't give the lowest losses for a given amount of copper. Will look at whatever you sent on that subject too.

        After I sent that note off, I dug out a set of URL's covering early work on wireless transmission, and will post it here along with some comments, also, when I get a chance. I guess my feelings about the
        "invention of wireless/radio" is that there were many guys working on it at about the same time, and that neither Tesla or Marconi was the first to demonstrate something that worked. Maxwell worked out the theory, although in awkward mathematics which was turned into the more familiar form by Oliver Heaviside later in the century. Hertz clearly was the inventor of equipment to transmit radio waves, and his work inspired all of that which followed. He was trying to demonstrate that Maxwell was correct, and in the course of his demonstration, he first conceived (in his mind) the design of a spark transmitter, and then went on to build it, and perform his experiments. That was truly an invention, and one of the essential hardware ingredients for the later work. Strongly recommend you read a biography of Hertz, who was a remarkable guy, and whose most creative work was not in the field of EM waves at all. I think the following comment sort of sums up the whole subject for me:
        "The evolution of this method is interesting because it illustrates how one art is built upon another, and also the familiar story of separate inventors arriving at the same answer almost simultneously, actually somewhat in advance of instrumentalities having the characteristics to make the invention practically serviceable."

        This actually referred to radar, where the names of both Tesla and Hertz are to be found as well. Tesla appears to have been the first
        to conceive of the general idea, and Marconi appears to have been the first to have written a more explicit suggestion as to what might be done. Interestingly enough, there was a REAL inventor of radar. The German Christian Hulsemeir invented, built, and tried to sell a working radar in the period 1904 to 1906; some of his original equipment still exists, and there is no doubt it worked. His patent on the "Telemobilescope" is interesting reading. Apparently, neither Tesla or Marconi was at all aware of his device, as both wrote stuff on the possiblity long after his work was completed. The history of radar is of great interest to me, since I've been working in that field since 1945, only about a decade after the development of the first practical radar systems.
        Fun subject!
        Ed
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        From: Ed Phillips <evp@P...>
        Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 3:40 pm
        Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Re: Tesla/Maxwell

        Steve Wingate wrote:
        Ed,
        What Tesla is saying is that Hertzian waves are misinterpreted.
        Steve

        From: Ed Phillips <evp@P...> wrote:
        Sure doesn't sound like it to me:

        "Thus, a wireless transmitter does not produce Hertz waves, which are a myth, but sound waves in the ether, behaving in every respect like those in the air, except that, owing to the great elastic force and extremely small density of the medium, their speed is that of light."

        The reference to the ether is mystifying, since this was written long
        after the Michelson-Morley (sp?) experiment demolished the
        ether/aether theory altogether. Very hard to believe Tesla wasn't aware of it. As for the myth and misunderstanding, Hertz's theory and explanation fit all known observations, and are in universal use today. They never "faded away".

        Ed


        ________________________________________________
        PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
        http://www.peoplepc.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.