Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 13:03:40 -0800
Subscriber: hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com Thu Jan 2 22:37:45 1997

Tesla List wrote:
> 
> Subscriber: ed-at-alumni.caltech.edu Sat Dec 21 15:33:26 1996
> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:31:13 -0800 (PST)
> From: "Edward V. Phillips" <ed-at-alumni.caltech.edu>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: TC Electrostatics (fwd)
> 
> Richard:
> "Again, verified by the old mechanical
> (pondermotive) 300 year old instruments."
>         Second time you've referred to pondermotive!  First
> time I've ever heard the term.  Please explain....
> Ed Phillips

Ed,

Just getting around to the mulitple hundreds of messages accumulated 
while I was gone.

Pondermotive is a very old term. (newtonian dynamics)  I have picked up 
on it from Dr. Peter Graneau.  It is quite simple actually.  It means 
literally a ponderable-motive-force.  This means it is macroscopic and 
not some interatom or inter-molecular related force, but a rather 
signifcant force capable of doing real work in the real world due to a 
single causitive agent. An example would be, pushing a mass about which 
can be viewed with the unaided eye, such as found in a large magnetic or 
electrostatic force.  Whimpy forces found in nature, while real, can 
never be considered pondermotive.  They remain unusable in 
macroscopic wheelwork, if you will.

Richard Hull, TCBOR