Re: Need help comprehending EM

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Need help comprehending EM
• From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
• Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 10:53:53 -0700

Tesla List wrote:
> 
> >From ed-at-alumni.caltech.eduThu Jul 18 22:39:34 1996
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 16:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Edward V. Phillips" <ed-at-alumni.caltech.edu>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Need help comprehending EM
> 
> Re: "Forget Maxwell!  He's dead!  Do your own work!"
> Richard:
>         That sounds a little extreme.  In our business we do a
> great deal of first order, second order, and even fancier modeling
> based on math models based on Maxwell's equations, and they give
> answers as good as the approximations involved, converging exact
> results in analytic and testable cases.  Not sure whether your
> reference is to high-energy particle physics, where things are
> potentially very much different.
>         Any further explanation?
> Ed Phillips


Ed, 

If you will note in my post, I mentioned that this "statement" was 
extreme, but the message was received and decoded by me in the proper 
perspective and context.

I even noted in my post that most of Maxwell's equations seem to satisfy 
many engineering requirements.

It was the core theoretical model and visualization which I was not too 
sure of.

Richard Hull, TCBOR

• Prev: Re: 3/4 wavelength secondaries
• Next: Skin Effect & Primary Current?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread