Re: TC Electrostatics

Tesla List wrote:

> Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics
> >From hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com Mon Dec  9 21:20:29 1996
> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 01:56:34 -0800
> From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics
<BIGG Snip>
I previously wrote:
> >
> > 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


Thanks for the update. Please keep us informed if anything develops out
of this. And again, thanks for taking my request for further information
in a serious vein. I too believe we that we certainly don't know
everything there is to know about EM/Electrostatic/dielectric

Safe coilin' to you, Richard!

-- Bert --