RE: Longitudinal Waves - Request for clarification

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

Original poster: "Colin Dancer by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <CMD-at-dataconnection-dot-com>

Hi Dave,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. 

I must confess, however, that your response only strengthens my belief that
further discussion of your "theory" has no place on a list focussed on the
practical and theoretical elements of Tesla coils.  It is obviously up to
our moderator to make the decision as to whether this thread should be
terminated, but your quote "Longitudinal pulses do not have E and B fields"
does not seem to strengthen your case.

My request for you to describe the space and time variations of the E and B
fields of your waves was specifically to give you the chance to describe
properties of your waves which we might be able to test for, or which might
reasonably be expected to interact with the elements of a Tesla coil.  Your
failure to provide such a description either here or on your Yahoo group
"spiral coils" (which I have spent some time studying) leaves your case
seriously weakened.

At the heart of the scientific method is that a theory must make testable
predictions.  Traditional EM theory and the more recent QED make many
predictions which can and have been verified. I will not claim that these
theories are perfect (i.e. that there might not be conditions where they
could fail), but any new theory must explain at least as much as the current
theories and must then go on to make testable predictions where the existing
theories fail and the new theory succeeds.

I am unable to find a single testable prediction your theory makes, and the
fact that you now claim your waves have no E or B fields seems to
significantly cut down on the likely hood of any such test existing.

Before you respond, I would like to emphasis that I _have_ read most of the
material on your Yahoo group, but must sadly report that it does not hold
together as a coherent theory.  These is much use of scientific sounding
terminology but there is no coherent description (mathematical or otherwise)
of your theory, and no set to of testable predictions.

I wish you well perusing your theories, but until such time as you can come
up with a clear (ideally mathematical) description of the properties of your
waves which leads to testable predictions, then personally I would be
happiest if you pursued both the theoretical and "practical" elements of
your theory in a list other than this one. 

Colin.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: 10 March 2002 02:19
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: RE: Longitudinal Waves - Request for clarification


Original poster: "David Thomson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<dave-at-volantis-dot-org>

Hi Colin,

a) How are the E & B fields of longitudinal waves supposed to vary in space
and time?

Longitudinal pulses do not have E and B fields.  Longitudinal waves vary in
space and time by length (or time) and density.  The reason it can be either
length or time is because light has a set speed (in a vacuum and for all
practical purposes).  Light travels about 186000 miles in one second so in
three seconds light will have traveled either 3 seconds or 3 times 186000
miles.  The density of light has been experimentally observed and reported
as "wave packets" in regards to photons.  Whereas potential is opposed by
the permeability of space to create magnetism, the longitudinal component of
the pulse is opposed by the permeability of space to create compression
waves.

The energy of the potential and magnetic forces is equal to the energy of
the longitudinal forces.  The energy is the same, except that they are
viewed from different angles.  And because the energy is viewed from a
different angle, different properties can be observed.  It's like looking at
an object from the front or the side.  Based on our angle of observation we
can draw different yet equally valid conclusions about the characteristics
of an object.  The more views we have of an object, the more accurate our
understanding of it becomes.  Longitudinal waves do not replace E and B
forces.  They just give us a more complete picture of energy.

b) How does this vary from classic far-field radiation & near-field
induction effects?

To begin with, longitudinal waves are not exclusive of or opposed to classic
EM.  They are a further development of.  Energy has other properties than E
& B fields.  It also has rotation, and longitudinal propagation.  This is
very evident when looking at a graphic model of an energy pulse.

c) How are these waves created and measured?

Longitudinal waves are created at the same time as the potential and the
rotation.  An energy pulse is a multidimensional unit.  I give a detailed
description of how all these components of a wave are related in my c^2
paper, so I will not repeat it here.

>Without a clear description of the physical properties of your
"longitudinal waves" further discussion in this list feels like just so much
hot air.

I can't make you read my paper.  But until you do, you can't judge my
position.  It may seem like hot air to you, but everybody else's uninformed
opinion of my views looks equally unsubstantial to me.  What is so hard
about seeing energy from a different angle?

> Maybe I'm in a minority. Maybe the majority of people want to focus on
untestable theories

There's nothing untestable about a real quality of energy.  How can you not
see the longitudinal component of energy?  I have drawn you a clear picture
and posted a link to it in several posts.

>However assuming that most of use are practical experimenters interested in
exploring the objective reality around us, could we _please_ either have a
testable theory or could we bring the discussion of LWs in this forum to a
close?
P.S. I do not intend the above to be a personal attack, but I am frankly
tired of the hijacking of a wonderful resource for coilers by
pseudo-science.

I don't take your position as an attack on me.  But you must take the time
to understand my position before attacking my ideas.  There is nothing new
about longitudinal waves.  They have been recognized by qualified men
throughout the past several hundred years, if not longer; including the
inventor of the Tesla coil.  Not only am I actually working with
longitudinal waves of electricity, but I am demonstrating them to the group
through flat spiral coils, which is very much on topic.  I can't help it if
there is a mental block to the idea of longitudinal waves.

Take a look at my MathCAD generated graphics, the formulas I used to draw
the graphics, and the connection to c^2 that I used to establish the
formulas.  There is nothing mystical or pseudo science about this.  It is
all very logical, common sense, simple to understand, practical, and useful.
Are you afraid of actually reading my paper?  If there is a flaw in it,
point it out.  But don't keep telling me I'm wrong because you say so.

Dave