RE: (Fwd) RE: Longitudinal Waves

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "David Thomson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <dave-at-volantis-dot-org>

Hi Malcolm,

>your suspicions about the oscilloscope are wrong.

For the reasons I cited in previous posts, I will maintain my position.
There's no sense in debating the point further, however, until I can either
provide information from a study already completed or prove the point with
evidence myself.

>> Your explanation is helpful.  At what point of the cycle is new energy
>> added?  We know there are losses in the system, so at some point the
energy
>> has to be replaced, correct?
>>
>> I'm going to jump ahead of your answer, because I can't see how energy
would
>> be efficiently added gradually through the entire cycle, it must be added
as
>> a pulse at a given time.

>The fact that you don't see how does not mean that it doesn't happen.
>In fact the energy exchange is a continuous process with the tiniest
>of time delays between the pusher and pushed.

The fact that nobody has explained precisely how the energy is added to the
wave to keep it oscillating as a sine wave is what will keep me on my
current theory.

I'm open to learning, and I realize most of you here are experts in your
field.  I'll listen.  So far, nobody has explained to me in precise terms
how the center of a flat spiral coil can have an electrostatic charge, the
outer windings have a steady zero (or near zero) volts, and electric
movement still takes place between the two.

>    Are the "laws" established laws, verified and agreed as having been
verified by the scientific community? If not and they do not agree with
observation (or vice versa), which would you be the first to suspect?

Since when does a new theory have to be established law?

Look, longitudinal waves were not first conceived by me.  They have been
reported extensively by one of the greatest electric geniuses of all time.
"Established laws", as far as I know, don't recognize longitudinal waves as
occurring in EMR.  Yet there is no problem describing longitudinal waves
occurring as sound in the atmosphere or other fluids.  The scientific
community cannot agree on the exact nature of light, let alone the
quarterwave length of coils, or the DC component of a high voltage
oscillator.  All of these uncertainties have the potential of being
clarified in my theory.  Should I abandon my theory just because it hasn't
been proven?  What do you think I should do?

I'll listen to any information relevant to the science of my theory, but I'm
not merely going to accept an "it's not possible" answer just because
someone not fully familiar with my theory has his doubts.

This week I have some more experiments lined up to investigate the nature of
the electrostatic charge in the flat spiral.  I built another 30"
electrostatically sealed plate to place below the coil and balance the
charge from the upper plate.  I'm going to do some research to see how I can
conclusively prove there is a constant electrostatic charge in the plates
with the materials and equipment I have on hand.  It can't be all that
difficult.

Also, I plan to test for the presence of longitudinal waves.  It would seem
to follow that IF a flat spiral coil produces longitudinal waves, then
another flat spiral coil should receive them if situated in the same plane.
It would be highly unlikely that a zero volt wire at the edge of one flat
spiral coil could transfer energy to the edge of an adjacent flat spiral
coil through transverse RF.  So if energy is received by the receiving coil,
there would be sufficient evidence to suggest longitudinal waves were
present.  I'm not saying it would be conclusive, but it would be evidence in
favor of it.  After that, it would be a matter of modulating and
demodulating to transceive a signal.

Just give me one good reason why I shouldn't pursue longitudinal waves in a
flat spiral secondary and a theory that would explain them.

Dave