RE: Tesla's World Electrical System (was Field Mill Voltmeter

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>

Hello Bill,
            Does substantial evidence for such a system exist then? I 
take it from your note below that it does.

On 3 May 01, at 20:14, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>"
> <wysock-at-ttr-dot-com>
> 
> To all on the Tesla List.
> 
> Thank you John C.!!!  To everyone; please don't "rush to judgment"
> when it comes to your conceptions of what Tesla was trying to do! In
> his own words, his system (was not) Hertzian electromagnetic wave
> propagated energy (which, as everyone knows, attenuates by the square
> of doubling the distance).  I see a myriad of posts to this list,
> suggesting that Tesla was using "classical" Hertzian electromagnetic
> wave propagation.  Tesla states time and again, "this is not so".
> 
> I know there are many members of this list that are thirsting
> for knowledge and insight, as to what Dr. Tesla meant, by his
> printed (and otherwise quoted) words.  We have all waited at
> least 100+ years (as per Tesla's own predictions), to solve the
> riddle of this  wireless electrical energy transmission problem.
> 
> I can only quote Dr. Tesla once again: "See the excitement
> coming!"  Translation:  I (personally) believe that Tesla had indeed
> solved the riddle of (almost lossless) electrical energy transmission
> (without wires).  I don't expect anyone to believe this on this list. 
> However, I have satisfied myself as to the practiclity (of this method
> and process), and hold out hope that one day soon, this method will be
> widely accepted, in today's paradigm view of how things work.

Can you give us any idea of a time frame? Within a year? 10 years?
 
> Until all the experimental proof can be verified by indepentent
> sources, it will remain, as it has, for over 100 years, a subject for
> constant debate, argument, and disbelief.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Bill Wysock.

If such evidence does exist, why is not open to scrutiny by list 
members? Why prolong the agony? Or is it something we should cease to 
speculate over, such speculation obviously being a waste of time and 
totally unproductive if the outcome is in fact a "given", one way or 
the other? Do you consider no-one on the list to be sufficiently 
qualified to examine such evidence as exists and perform tests (and I 
won't be so bold as to include myself on the list of those who one 
might consider to be qualified)?

Regards,
Malcolm

<snip for a degree of brevity>