Re: Hertzian and non-Hertzian waves

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

Original poster: "Mark Fergerson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <mfergerson1-at-cox-dot-net>

Tesla list wrote:
> 
> Original poster: "Paul Nicholson by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <paul-at-abelian.demon.co.uk>
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Having received a great deal of positive feedback for my notes
> on this subject, both from list members and beyond, I've been
> encouraged to rework the material a little.  I've added some stuff
> and corrected a few problems.
> 
> The emphasis has changed slightly.  In particular, Gary Peterson
> informs me that Tesla never used the term 'non-Hertzian',
> although his explanations usually stressed the non-use of Hertzian
> waves.  Non-Hertzian must be a label that subsequent generations
> have added to describe Tesla's proposals for the use of 'current
> energy'.  Therefore I've abandoned any attempts to interpret this
> term as a synonym for reactive near field.
> 
> I've also been looking at an article 'The True Wireless' from 1919.
> In this popular article, Tesla attempts to explain the principles
> of his power distribution plans.  In my revisions I've tried to
> use this document to gain some insight into Tesla's flawed
> understanding of fields and charges.
> 
> The URL remains the same,
> 
>  http://www.abelian.demon.co.uk/tesla-notes/030802.html
> 
> Many thanks to all who sent me lots of encouragement, and perhaps
> I'll try to practice more of this non-technical, unrigorous,
> hand-waving waffle.
> --
> Paul Nicholson
> --

  I got into an argument about the 1/r^n
dependence of near and far fields in
sci.physics, and after we disabused each
other of some misconceptions I presented
your page for comparison with some of
the "explanations" seen there. Your page
was called "a good read" by a guy who
used to design particle accelerators!

  Mark L. Fergerson