Re: Wireless Transmission

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Mark Fergerson <mfergerson1@xxxxxxx>

Tesla list wrote:
> Original poster: stork <stork@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Mike,
> This is an excellent post and mirrors my sentiments exactly.  This 
> particular topic seems like it surfaces about every year or so on the 
> Tesla list and is usually initiated by a relatively new member who is 
> unaware of previous discussions.  You are right that there are two camps 
> who vehemently defend their positions.  This is how science has progressed 
> for eons and won't ever change.  On this list there is one group who 
> proclaims that this is how science is, we've discovered all there is to 
> know and and their ad hominem charge that if you hold other opininons you 
> are a wierd,  pseudo science protagonist.  The other group tends to have 
> an open mind and a let's see what is possible attitude.

  I was pretty much with you up to that point. To me (and AFAICT most of 
the members), the dividing line isn't vehement adherence to a particular 
theory or belief, but experiment. If it works, investigate. If it doesn't, 
drop it (barring stupid hardware screwups etc).

  Last year it was flat spirals that were supposedly "best" at producing 
scalar waves, but the reproducibility wasn't there.

> Terry, God bless him, tries to keep the discussion civil , but after a few 
> days usually closes the topic.  Like all people he has his biases and 
> other than when he admittedly unnecessarily censors posts, does a great 
> job as moderator.  He feels compelled to not ruffle the feathers of 
> certain list members.

  ISTM Terry tends to drop threads when they get off-topic to coiling. 
This thread is rapidly headed that way. ;>)

> An example of closed minded science is Paul Nicholson's explaination of 
> charge, et cetera, referred to by Bert Hickman.  Paul who I generally 
> repect, starts out by setting the arguement that there are only certain 
> things allowed as goverened by 100 year old EM physic .  And that's it.
> He gives absolutely no reason or hard data as to why he imposes such 
> stingent restrictions.

  Uh, the "hard data" is exactly the reason that supports adherence to 
"100 year old EM physics" in this case. There simply are no repeatable 
counterexamples (except those that demonstrate what we already know, that 
under "extreme circumstances" Maxwell is a subset of QED). And yes, I've 
looked hard at "fringe" stuff. So-called "loopholes" are always instructive 
one way or the other. Some lead to new paths of knowledge, but most are 
dead ends.

  Scalar enthusiast may turn out to be right in the end, but so far, 
there's no "reason or hard data" to support their beliefs.

  Mind you I _want_ it to be real too, but show me the hardware...

> I must point out that there are many other phenomena well known to physics 
> that fall well outside Paul's arbitray restrictions.  All the obseved 
> magical quantum effects.

<snip>

  Can you suggest how quantum effects might be observed and accentuated in 
Tesla coils? Remember, experimentalism trumps opinion.

> Ultimately we will travel through ot the Universe by teleportation base on 
> this rudimentary science now in place.

  Maybe, maybe not. But we won't know without solid, reproducible macro 
effects at "shirtsleeve" temp and pressure, which conditions preclude most 
of the effects you cited.

> My  plea is to allow others to express their opinions openly and freely on 
> this list rather than insist on very pedantic closed minded applications 
> of tighly guarded opinions.

  Opinions are irrelevant to hardware. If it works, it works; if it 
doesn't, it just doesn't.

  Tesla also got seriously pedantic and closed-minded on how he thought 
his stuff worked and most times he was right, but too often he was just 
plain wrong.

  Mark L. Fergerson