Re: [TCML] Tesla Coiling Without Sparks

["Dr. John W. Gudenas" <comsciprof@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I normally avoid these discussions and I firmly believe in keeping the  
TCML moderated as suggested by Chip.
However, as long as Chip posted Gary's note he might consider posting   
the correct  Conan Doyle quote.

Sherlock Holmes to Watson in The Sign of Four, 1890
"Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the  
truth."

Of course how does one know all factors have been eliminated or even  
identified properly?

Conan Doyle was also a great believer in spiritualsm. He is not a  
particularly useful individual to justify a behavior or method. He  
wrote fiction.
John W. G.

John W. Gudenas, Ph.D.
Professor of Computer Science
On Feb 6, 2008, at 1:08 AM, Gary Peterson wrote:

> Recently Ed Philips and I have been engaged in a Tesla coil related  
> discussion, a small portion of which I would like to share with the  
> list.
>
> > Am I correct in my understanding that your objectives are to  
> > demonstrate that there is a way to communicate energy from one  
> > point to another by means other than mutual capacitance, mutual  
> > inductance, or electromagnetic radiation?
>
> SNIP.............BIG SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > . . . I'm trying to devise experiments which . . . would be  
> > definitive one way or another. . . . In principle if one could  
> > define the transmitting and equipment sufficiently accurately it  
> > would be possible to use conventional theory to predict the exact  
> > amount of energy being delivered and compare that to the amount  
> > actually measured by experiment.
>
> Instead of depending solely on an abstract mathematical description  
> of the Tesla coil transmitter, why not also measure its 'ordinary  
> radio wave output' with a calibrated radio receiver?  There is every  
> indication that when you do this you will find the radio-wave output  
> is so low as to be undetectable, or nearly so, only a few  
> wavelengths away from the Tesla coil transmitter, no matter how hard  
> you try.  Of course, your Tesla coil transmitter must be highly  
> refined.  The next step is to set up a refined Tesla coil receiver,  
> tune in the Tesla coil transmitter, and measure the received signal  
> strength.  If, under the same Tesla coil transmitter conditions, the  
> strength of the signal indicated on the radio receiver is nil while  
> the strength of the signal received via the Tesla coil receiver is  
> somewhat more substantial, then the energy of latter received signal  
> must have made its way from the Tesla coil transmitter to the Tesla  
> coil receiver at least in part by some means other than ordinary  
> radio waves.  In the words of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,
>
> "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how  
> improbable, must be the truth."
>
> Regards,
> Gary
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ed Phillips" <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Gary:
> >
> >   . . .  I have been pondering this question for several days:  "If  
> > I measure an electric or magnetic field strength at a point is  
> > there any way to determine the mechanism which produced it?"  So  
> > far the only answer I come up with is NO.  The measurement will  
> > give a value of voltage or magnetic field but that's it.  If it  
> > were possible to do some sufficiently accurate field distribution  
> > over a region of space measurements the answer might be different.
> >
> >    Am I correct in my understanding that your objectives are to  
> > demonstrate that there is a way to communicate energy from one  
> > point to another by means other than mutual capacitance, mutual  
> > inductance, or electromagnetic radiation?  I think you've  
> > intentionally eliminated direct conduction via the ionized upper  
> > atmosphere with earth return as proposed in Tesla's patents and  
> > writings because of the impossibility of demonstrating that on a  
> > small scale and instead are looking for some other phenomena which  
> > can be verified by reasonable performable experiments.  Is that  
> > correct?  That's the approach I've been thinking about and I'm  
> > trying to devise experiments which, if I performed them myself,  
> > would be definitive one way or another.  So far no luck.  In  
> > principle if one could define the transmitting and equipment  
> > sufficiently accurately it would be possible to use conventional  
> > theory to predict the exact amount of energy being delivered and  
> > compare that to the amount actually measured by experiment.   
> > Unfortunately I don't know of any way of doing this because of the  
> > difficulties in defining the two ends of the circuit with enough  
> > accuracy along with the additional one that affordable measurements  
> > of electric and magnetic RF fields tend to have experimental errors  
> > of the order of a few percent at best and that those errors would  
> > make it impossible to detect anomalous amounts of energy  
> > transfer. . . .
> >
> > Ed
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tesla mailing list
> Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla

John W. Gudenas, Ph.D.
Professor of Computer Science


_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla