[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Kaluza and Klein
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Kaluza and Klein
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:08:13 -0700
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Old-return-path: <email@example.com>
- Resent-date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:08:16 -0700 (MST)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <UcRhYC.A.fKD.AbGTCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
There is an alternative hypothesis to consider......
On 31 Mar 2005, at 13:05, Tesla list wrote:
> Original poster: Terry Fritz <teslalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Kaluza and Kline's work is a little above me: [:-) But Einstein
> spent a few years on it so I think it has not gone under reported...
> But it appears to only be really useful in say super high
> gravitational fields or at super high relative speeds approaching that
> of light. In those cases, it should help predict the effects of
> relativity and distortions of measurements made outside of that
> (relative) gravity or speed.
> However, the gravity here is about 1.0 and pretty steady. The speed
> at which my coils travel relative to say surrounding test equipment is
> far less than a meter/hour... The coils with heavy transformers
> travel even slower :o)) I can adjust for the speed of light in fiber
> optic cables if needed. But so far, a 15nS delay has not been a
> Perhaps if there were a Tesla coil on say the space station and it
> were being monitored from earth, such effects might "begin" to be
> noticeable (The GPS system certainly does have to fiddle with
> relativistic effects!). But they are not of concern to the average
> coiler. I certainly would not discount any measurements or regard all
> measurments as useless due to relativistic effects.
> I think the real bottom line is if I measure a coil's Fo at 100kHz and
> some theory says it should be 123kHz... Well, I would be happy to
> push the cal/check button a few times and have a few other folks
> repeat the test independently to be sure there is not a testing error,
> but if the measurement and the theory just do not agree, I think the
> "theory" is the problem.
In the case of the Q vs VSWR thing there are indications that
the methods used to measure coil Q at the time were highly suspect
leading to far lower figures than should have been obtained. I recall
(if memory serves) reading that in at least one case a scope was
connected directly to the top of a coil - an absolute no-no as
everyone on this list is or should be aware.
I don't think relativity has a thing to do with resonator
operation; finite light speed yes, but that's it.
Relativity theory is neat, but I don't think
> it is a factor at all for the practical work we do. If anyone knows
> where the effects of relativity have poisoned test results or Tesla
> coiling measurements, please point those errors out, and we'll fix
> At 03:40 PM 3/30/2005, you wrote:
> > > Coils are relativistic devices. You cannot say for sure that the
> > > ground is firm beneath your feet when taking measurements of
> > > relativistic effects.
> >The ground has always held up fine for me and my coils ;-)) I have
> >never had a problem with measurements once I figured out how to do
> >them right. Ignoring real world data is.... We'll, I'll stop
> >Kaluza and Klein showed in the 1920's that the Maxwell's equations
> >can be derived by extending general relativity into five dimensions.
> >This strategy of using higher dimensions to unify different forces is
> >an active area of research in particle physics.
> >Maybe you should read Kaluza Klein. Jared is right from this stand
> >point. Maybe you and Paul should lighten up a bit and cut him a
> >little slack.
> >In ten years this list will be arguing about the quantum nature of
> >Tesla coils. It is just the natural progression of discovery in this
> >scientific field.