RE: 3 Coil System Speed of acoustic waves in electrons (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:22:26 -0500
From: David Thomson <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Tesla list' <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: 3 Coil System      Speed of acoustic waves in electrons (fwd)

Hi Colin,

> Can I ask what kind of longitudinal waves you talking about?  
> Plasma waves in the sea of Fermi electrons in the metal?  

If we can't call them free electrons in copper, then let's call them Tesla
electrons, since he discovered this phenomenon long before Fermi.  

> This is a well studied area, and while you can get Plasmons 
> (see wikipedia), these are high frequency in nature up in the 
> terahertz plus region.  

You are right, it is a well-studied phenomenon.  Tesla wrote extensively
about standing waves of electrons in metals at much lower frequencies
(Inventions, Researches, and Writings of Nikola Tesla), which is what I'm
working with.  

> The fundamental reason why it just isn't going to happen as 
> you suggest is that any mechanical style vibrations in the 
> bulk of the metal are tied into the motion of the positively 
> charged atomic nuclei (which carry most of the mass).  

I'm not talking about molecular motion, I'm working with electron motion.

> The free electrons are so light in mass (compared to the strength 
> of the electrostatic field between them and the nuclei), that 
> their density exactly tracks the motion of the nuclei giving 
> you zero charge separation. 

Nonsense.  The electrons are held in place by electrostatic force, whereas
nuclei are held in place by the strong force.  The electrostatic force is
much weaker, thus electrons bound by it are easier to oscillate than the
strong force.  The mass of the electron is irrelevant, as the electrostatic
charge is the same for the electron and the proton, of which the proton is
1836 times more massive.  All this means is that the electrons can move more
easily while the protons are much harder to move.

> Finally, your data doesn't match the observed speed of sound 
> in metals, which is ~5.1km/s for Al & ~3.6km/s for Cu

You have made the same error as Bert.  I never said anything about the speed
of sound in metals.  I was specifically talking about the longitudinal
motion of the free electrons.  

> I don't mean to be negative, but when you say that you're 
> picking up resonance on the pipes are you absolutely sure 
> you've eliminated other possible reasons for your detector 
> showing a peak? 

Be as negative as you want.  The best kind of negativity would be for you to
perform this simple experiment for yourself and show different results.  

> I can also say with first hand experience, that for most 
> magnifiers the product of the inductance of the third coil 
> and the top load is the critical factor in tuning, and the 
> tertiary coil is definitely not equivalent to a metal pipe of 
> the same dimensions.

If you build your three coil systems similar to Bart, I would understand.
But if you build your three coil system according to how Nikola Tesla built
his, with the third coil inductively uncoupled from the secondary (50 feet
diameter secondary, eight feet diameter third coil) then there is no
meaningful inductive coupling to worry about.

As far as the third coil being equivalent to a metal pipe of same
dimensions, that is easily proved, as I have already done.

Dave