Re: Non-Radiative Evanescent Waves are back in the news... (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed, let's end the political stuff.

Chip

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:08:48 EDT
From: Mddeming@xxxxxxx
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Non-Radiative Evanescent Waves are back in the news... (fwd)

 
In a message dated 6/10/2007 9:52:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

From:  Scott Stephens <scottxs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list  <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Non-Radiative Evanescent Waves are  back in the news... (fwd)

Tesla list wrote:
> Hello  All,
>    Can someone explain to me why the word 'Evanescent'  is used?
Googling 'evanescent "near field" radio' I  got:
http://www.nearfield.com/amta/amta94_EMI.htm

Indeed, the  near-field, reactive area is the "evanescent near-field".

Perhaps  resonators could be strung at intervals of a meter or so?  Why
bother?

What really stinks about this quack science is the bad  name it gives the
good stuff. For instance how do we know "global warming"  isn't just a
scam to increase taxes on energy, and extort revenue from the  energy
industry the same way tobacco has been demonized and  taxed/extorted?
Because the professors that make their living off  government largess say
so? That's the problem with the corrupt,  government-academia complex.
Like the boy that cries  wolf.

Scott




Hi Scott,
 
A couple of mistakes. First of all, the near-field effect they describe is  
rehashed, dressed-up, overblown, old technology, but it is NOT pseudoscience.  
Secondly, when, in the examples you cite, YOU take the side of bushy-thinking  
pseudoscience, the only one you discredit in the eyes of the world is 
YOURSELF.  Jim is right, the neurotic, "ala dexter", conspiracy-theory rant stuff  
doesn't belong on this list; there are many other sites that would welcome  it.
 
Sincerely,
 
Matt D.
 
 



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.