Re: Tesla's Energy Transmission (Warning: Another Long Post)

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Tesla's Energy Transmission (Warning: Another Long Post)
From: Clifford D Fahrer <cfahrer-at-in-touch-dot-net> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:35:44 -0700
Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

Big <snip>

> It is also easy to dismiss Tesla's theories if you are trying to think about
> them in regards to conventional EM theories, but unless someone actually
> duplicates his work EXACTLY,  how can it be proved that he was incorrect?
> Perhaps it is due to my lack of electronic training(I learned most of what I
> know on my own) that allows me to think that there could be more than meets
> the eye in this area.  I have read and reread as much of the available
> material about Tesla in hopes of catching on to what he was really thinking,
> which is difficult to do this since one has to filter through other's
> opinions and ideas as to what Tesla himself was thinking.  All I can really
> say is that he insisted that his longitudinal waves were not like the
> ordinary Hertzian waves and yet we still today try to equate the two.
>

Mike,
I agree with your thought on "who knows what Tesla was thinking".  One
other thing
to consider when reading Tesla's works is the terminology he used.  Many
electrical terms we use today to describe our circuits were not around Tesla's
day.  He had to use the best words that were common in those days.  This means
analysing these notes and papers today MIGHT have a different electrical
meaning
to people, and also MIGHT be hard to understand.

my 2 Cents worth

Cliff

>