RE: Physics of Wireless Transmission

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "David Thomson" <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Matt,

>      The way it will probably work is that if, in the course
> of building Tesla Coils, people start getting wrong answers
> from existing theory, THEN they might look to a new theory.

The way it works in this particular thread, I showed how people
were getting wrong answers from the relativistic charge equation.
The claim was made that good ol' 100 year old General Relativity
theory was right, even though nobody here seemed to know what the
equations were.  I found a web page produced by one of this
country's most knowledgeable relativists and showed that the
explanation of his solution was not accurate.  He claimed the
result "must be" magnetic field strength when the unit was that
of magnetic flux density.  Terry provided a link to a page, which
according to the National Institute of *Standards* and
Technology, also misidentified the unit of magnetic flux density
as magnetic field strength.

We're building Tesla coils here.  We're enthusiasts who want to
know the precise physics behind how these coils work.  For the
most part, conventional physics works quite well to get our coils
working.  But occasionally, various members of the group find
better performance tables, better materials, better geometrical
designs, and better circuit designs.  I happen to find a better
quantum model that matches the geometry of the effects we are
witnessing.  In fact, my theory is the only quantum model that
provides a geometry of quantum structure.  According to the
standard physics models, charge is a point, with no geometry.

What harm does it do to present a geometrical model of subatomic
structure, which is empirically based and mathematically correct?
Especially when it predicts that there are geometrical
differences in the two types of charges and we can use Tesla
coils to demonstrate the prediction.

Dave