Re: 7.1Hz, how the heck did Tesla succeed?

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: robert heidlebaugh <rheidlebaugh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Charles: in responce to your posting. In 1961 at hill AFB our radar signal
cable was sabotaged .In order to re-establish we used tesla ground wave
propigation to bipass normal cable communications with good results using
30Mhz not ELF. Our antenna was two ground stakes spaced in 1/2 wave length
intervals aligned toward our recieve station and the reciever stakes
oriented 90o to the transmitter site. Actual stake spacing was by trial
tuned for max signal. Our signal strength was well within servicable
limitations. After repair was made normal cable service was restored for
security reasons.
   Robert   H



--


> From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:45:12 -0600
> To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: 7.1Hz, how the heck did Tesla succeed?
> Resent-From: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
> Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:16:23 -0600 (MDT)
>
> Original poster: Charles Brush <cfbrush@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Much of this discussion has focused on EM transmission theory but it always
> seemed to me that Tesla was focused more on electric or electrostatic
> fields rather than magnetic fields.  There is a very interesting web page
> authored by Oliver Nichelson that talks in depth about this, and he makes a
> pretty good case for an electrostatic induction based system.  No idea if
> it is any more workable that EM, but it seems fit more with what Telsa was
> describing (giant terminals, very high potentials, non-Hertzian, etc.):
>
> http://prometheus.al.ru/phisik/wireless.htm
>
> I'd be interested in hearing any comments on this.
>
> Zap!
>
>
> Charles Brush
> http://www.ElectricMuseum.com
>
>