[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TC Electrostatics
Tesla List wrote:
>
> > > Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics
> > Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics
> > > Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics
>
> >From bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-com Sun Dec 8 11:50:41 1996
> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 22:06:41 -0800
> From: Bert Hickman <bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics
>
> Tesla List wrote:
> >
> > > Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics
> >
> > >From hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com Thu Dec 5 00:19:44 1996
> > Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:33:28 -0800
> > From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
> > To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> > Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics
> >
> > Tesla List wrote:
> > >
> > > >From DavidF4797-at-aol-dot-com Mon Dec 2 22:28:02 1996
> > > Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:47:15 -0500
> > > From: DavidF4797-at-aol-dot-com
> > > To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> > > Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics
> > >
> > > In a message dated 96-12-02 00:49:22 EST, RWW writes;
> > >
> > > <Big Snip>
> > >
> > > << These TCs emit an explosive scalar wave. They are also
> > > scalar translators and these scalar waves are immediately reconverted
> > > back to EM. >>
> > >
> > > <Snip>
> > >
> > > What, exactly are "scalar waves"?
> > > I often see references to these mysterious waves mentioned in the "fringe"
> > > literature but have never come across a definition of any kind. The closest
> > > thing that I can find in the regular literature is that of a "scalar field"
> > > but even that definition is circular and not informative. Am I correct in
> > > assuming that a "scalar" anything is a thing which has Magnitude but no
> > > Direction? And what does this look like in a wave or a field?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > -DavidF-
> >
> > David,
> >
> > The fringe freaks use the "scalar wave" as a form of instant"Teslarian
> > nirvana". The hard liners don't want to discuss it due to the
> > aforementioned fringe crowd's rabidity. There is little betwixt and
> > between. Most definitions are circualr because its all a mystery, still.
> >
> > There is some serious research work going on, but it is hard to break out
> > of educational molds or preconceived notions. This is as much of a
> > "non-answer" as I can give, but sets the stage for understanding why the
> > subject is a real hot potato one way of the other.
> >
> > Richard Hull, TCBOR
>
> Richard (Hull and Wall);
>
> Now you've really got my curiosity aroused! What is a scalar wave? Is
> there any scientific (i.e., repeatable, measurable, whatever-able)
> evidence for their existance? Are there any experiments that average
> coilers could perform that involve scalar waves? Or, should discussion
> of them be continue to be banished to the "other" list?
>
> None of my EM/Field Theory books talk about scalar waves (although
> admittedly I don't have any of the "works" of Bearden et al...). I am
> familiar with electrostatic potential, V, which is a scalar quantity. Is
> this what is meant? If there's something else involved, where is serious
> research being done concerning this?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know - I'm not really a hard-liner...more like a
> firm-liner... really! :^)
>
> Safe EM (and scalar wave(?)) coilin' to ya!
>
> -- Bert --
Bert,
Research is being done on this question with real equipment and in a real
scientific manner by only a few individuals. I am not ready to go public
with any pronouncements, but an interesting series of events are taking
place. They relate to pulsed systems only of large peak energies. The
failure of the mainline physics community to find any
measurable associated electromagnetic field due to slow time variant
electric potentials within dielectrics has me concerned. ( recent work of
Dr. D.F. Bartlett, Journal of American physics.) Some recent work by the
Russians on solitary electric waves and my own recent experiments have
left me puzzled and curious. This is enough for me to suspend all
"common wisdom" until I check it out personally. I see what I perceive
as "too many chinks and too many patches".
I attempt to answer my own questions, or at least seek to do so without
swallowing even the most cherished codisils of science in whole form
without my own tests. I think that we might be able to adequately
expalin many phenomena with many different logical arguements and even
mathematics. Each school might develop vast proofs for there system.
Obviously only one is correct. It is only with the correct "core level"
understanding that new and different concepts can be developed. I'm just
making sure the core level is sound, as I have been taught.
You may be right about Bearden. I have never read one of his works, but
have personally met the man. He is an interseting fellow, but his ideas
are too nebulous, to readily flowing for my tastes, and I haven't seen
much hands-on work from him. This separates the guessers from the truly
informed. Many a supposedly wise man can be readily mis-informed.
Either intentionally by ill-intentioned parties or by mistaken authority.
Richard Hull, TCBOR