[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Wireless Transmission

Original poster: "Stephen Mathieson" <sm@xxxxxxxxxx>

Robert Heinlein once wrote that Robert everything is theoretically
impossible, until it is done.  All this talk about wireless transmission of
power being impossible is done by people who don't know how to do it.

Even cold fusion is no longer "junk science" though anyone uninformed would
argue about that. Recently the DoE budgeted money for research into "low
energy nuclear interactions" when they found that even though the original
cold fusion results could not be obtained consistently, they could be

One should be very careful when saying something is impossible.

Stephen A. Mathieson

-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 8:22 PM
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Wireless Transmission

Original poster: Brett Miller <brmtesla2@xxxxxxxxx>


--- Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 > Original poster: "Mike" <induction@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 > Hi Brett,
 >                Yes it is true Einstein held up his
 > work for all to see
 > and if needed, to contest. That is why I mentioned
 > him, to show
 > that even a person of his great caliber could,

I am not sure what you mean by "great caliber".
Perhaps you are refering to the general and special
theories of relativity.  He did have a unique way of
looking at physics that allowed him to solve some of
the problems that had caused other physicists to fail
to see the elegant picture that lead to relativity.
Yet a person's character is not what is important to
science.  We are all biased in one way or another
becasue we are emotional beings...like I said before,
the scientific method and the global competition among
scientists has always compensated eventually, when
someone fudges the data to make it fit their own
delusions or wishful thinking.  (Just like what has
happened with Tesla's later years) The personal
character and lack of compassion in Sir Isaac Newton's
life has been called into question, but his
contribution to physics is undenyable.

 > When somebody is looking for history, you give them
 > the whole book, not
 > selected pages.

True, but we are generally trying to do science here,
where it's rigourous standards of evidence and
quantification tend to weed out nonsense.  There is a
reason for our reliance on "conventional physics".  It
works.  It is based on years of testing and
experience.  There are plenty of mathematical models
that are testable and make predictions...in fact there
are so many legitimate competing theories in physics
that we will be busy for years.  I think the
competition factor is often underestimated.  Remember
what happened with "cold fusion"?  It was announced,
with great fanfare, by its originators...and I am sure
you can imagine where their bias was oriented.  But
cold fusion did not last long.  Their results could
not be replicated by other scientists...some who
wanted them to fail, but also by others who could
wanted it to be a success.

Most scientists (or amateurs for that matter) don't
even have time to entertain quack or fake science.  99
percent will not even dignify pseudoscientists with a
responce.  I do not agree with that stance, I believe
knowledge and education is the way to combat bunk, not
ignoring it and hoping it will go away.  It's just
that a lot of people who work hard at being engineers
for a living, don't have time to explain the
difference between baloney and real theory to the
average citizen.  Too bad the schools couldn't have
done that for us.

 > Mostly I was
 > not
 > comfortable with Tesla being ragged on and thought
 > he
 > deserved better than that,

Tesla may have been really great to party with and a
fun guy...I have no idea.  But it is not Tesla's
character that was questioned, but the alledged
science found in the CSN papers.

I will use myself as a final example.  I did a test a
while ago (sometime last year) where I performed a
comparison of two static gap geometries.  I was
attempting to get a bit of armchair evidence on what
parameter was more important for quenching:  several
large electrodes, or many smaller electrodes?  I was
very careful in measuring each gap, used a calibrated
Tek O'Scope and documented my measurements, using a 6"
dia TC set to a constant input voltage.

I received many responces from the list regarding the
experiment, many were highly critical and a good
majority pointed out that my test was not accurately
controlled.  It is easy to become offended by such
things, but I realized peer review like that was more
precious than gold for someone like me who is not even
a professional engineer or scientist.  How often do I
get the chance to have my little penny ante attempts
peer reviewed by the amazing people on this list, many
who are trained professionals?  So instead of feeling
like I had been "ragged on", I took the comments under
advisement and learned from them.



PS:  See Stephen Hawkings' "Black Holes and Baby
Universes"  Ch. 10 "My Position"
Carl Sagan, "The Demon Haunted World"  (the whole thing)