Re: magnifier vs two coil system

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

Original poster: "Paul Nicholson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <paul-at-abelian.demon.co.uk>

Gary Hill wrote:

> Does anyone here understand  how to power something  with one
> wire?

Yes, and you can power things with no wires if necessary.  No big
deal.

> This kind of knowledge is shunned.

Rubbish.  Have you by any chance been soaking up Bearden's religious
rantings?  

> Any one with any real education will tell you that it is imposable.

I have a very real education.  So have many on this list, so your're
not going to be able to get away with any crass statements :)

> Why is it imposable?

Because Bearden, et al, want you to believe that they have discovered
some exciting new physics that the establishment would rather you
didn't know about. 

> Some say that Warrencliff wouldn't work. I disagree. 

Why do you disagree?  Are you an expert?  

> I have no formal training in electronics. 

Ok, not an expert then, so why are you keen to discard scientific
knowledge?  Is it the appeal of jumping to the defense of a much-
maligned genius?  

> I thought this might be the place to learn about  resonant
> circuits.

It would have been, but not with your approach.  On here we use
science and engineering to understand TCs.  You may do better with
your beliefs on the usa-tesla list on yahoo.

> I have seen articles on a couple of websites that talk of a
> Packard that Tesla had. It was powered by "collected" energy, one
> article said is would run up to 90 MPH.

And you believed that?  You accepted it without question?  Will you
now go on to construct your own version of new physics, because all
the physicists from the last hundred years are either stupid or in
league with some sinister government plot?  

> If it wasn't workable and provable they would have simply let
> Tesla make a fool of himself.

Yes, they did, and he did.  IMO Tesla could have been a good
scientist - he certainly had the vision, the open mind, and the
enthusiasm.  But he also had credulity, and lacked the ability to
critically assess his own ideas.  

> http://www.cheniere-dot-org/... 

Ah, now I understand why you're coming at us with this cranky
point of view.  

This is a classic case of someone with an interest in TCs and
electronics coming to the net to find info, and what does the guy
get - Beardens cranky nonsense site!  So now we have another true
believer and one less electronics engineer.

Gary, if you were in need of medical advice, would you visit a
qualified doctor, or the street corner quack selling snake oil?

Beardens views are totally nutty, and very, very wrong.  His site
contains lots of inane religious rants, along with a few impressive
looking mathematical papers.  Impressive looking that is, unless you
know any math, in which case you can see that they are riddled with
elementary errors in both the math and physics.  In common with most
pseudoscience cranks, the material on this site is intended to 
impress only those with little or no understanding of physics.  In
that respect, it does work, and in the USA it even leads to some
squandering of your tax dollars!  
--
Paul Nicholson
--