Tagged: Tesla Debate
June 14, 2016 at 12:36 pm #7869Don CheesemanForum Participant
In reply to both our intrepid debaters, Murray and Gary, I would like to start by thanking them both for their well thought out and prepared positions.
I read the three parts of this debate with great interest and admiration. I then wrestled with my own mind and abilities on whether to write a reply and as to what side to favour, as both parties had compelling arguments. With much delay, I decided, I would write something and then decide if it was of sufficient value to anyone to encourage me to submit it.
What follows are my mental wanderings.
As background to my right to reply, I am a student of heavy and light current electrical engineering for about fifty -five years. I have had the opportunity to study and practise in a wide variety of scientific applied and non-applied electrical situations.
After military and British university training I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to work in research funded by assorted government agencies in several countries. In this past, I have been active in the Canadian standards setting of the CAN/CSA 22.3 Transmission Lines Standards C22.3 No.7 Underground and Systems C22.3 No.1 Overhead Systems among others.
Some of my research wandered near to the subject at hand but at no time did I or my associated find any answers to the debated proposition. I find, as I capture my thoughts in this reply, I waffle very consistently to both sides of the debate and find my thoughts wander to sympathize with both positions.
I have had opportunity in the 1980’s to study near field effects, while working on a national committee studying the effects of personal communication devises (PSD) on the environment and human health, for DOC, CSA and Health Canada. The two of the largest PSD’s manufacturers at that time were proposing to transmitting 100 milliwatts peak power in a pulsed 400 hertz ping pong transmit-receive rate in the frequency band of 1.6 GHz band radiated through a dipole as a transmission scheme. We studied the modal position of the handset and antenna in relation to the standard human head and found statistical evidence of possible interference with mitosis (cell division) that would be normally only be expected with higher energy photons of ionizing radiation. Studies were therefore curtailed and consequently therefore conclusions were not proven. But a mystery did present itself in the near field of the first quarter wave even at low test powers. It was generally concluded that current and voltage peaks and nulls occurred in the human tissue that had a rather homogeneous cubic impedance of around 1000 ohms, near zero phase angle, but this did not explain in any way the apparent effect on DND mutations. Perhaps this mystery (if not facts) supports Murray’s position. Is there a mystery energy form other than the “E” and “H” wave we understand to follow know formuli in the far field?
But on the other hand in support of Gary’s position, I would point out that the simple use of Ohms law and the law of energy conservation can convince me that any antenna array that I and other far more experience than me have studied, have accounted for all of the energy going to an antenna and measures with great accuracy the energy coming of the antenna in the “E” and “H” fields along with “R” lost heat and the reflected power back down the antenna to dissipate in the transmitter output stages. When these powers are added up there is very little energy left for this other “Scalar Transmission Wave” and certainly not enough for economical power transmission. But even the law of energy conservation is perhaps flawed or incomplete considering, that in general relativity conservation of energy-momentum is expressed with the aid of a stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor. Therefore the theory of general relativity leaves open the question of whether there is a conservation of energy for the entire universe. Another “mystery” appear before us.
But … I realize some of you are saying that the transmitter I was testing was not a longitudinal wave generator and not at all like a spark. Quite right and most astute. But I have also had the opportunity to study electrostatic discharge ESD, in some detail and have been influential in the standardized measurements and control of these types ESD sparks and of lightening in more than 14 of its known forms. I acknowledge that these small ESD sparks and large “sparks” (lightening produced by nature), do emit frequencies across the electromagnetic spectrum from DC through the radio band, to light, to X Ray, on to Gama Rays. I further acknowledge that this is another “wave” mystery and it has not been measured to any great understanding by the scientific community.
I firmly do believe that the more we know the more we should acknowledge that we do not understand. I point out that we of applied science use the effects of magnetism, electrostatic fields and gravity with great accuracy and repeat-ability….but we do not have the understanding of their sub atomic properties. Other non-applied scientist speak of seven dimensions, anti matter, cold fusion and dabble near the “mysteries“ of mitosis, life and creation. We must acknowledge that they are still mysteries beyond our (or as least my) present knowledge. This leaves room for either position to be found the final truth.
As I fade into the obscurity of the long retire and some mental atrophy, I would continually encourage those following behind me to keep an open mind as to new discoveries at the same time fully use the knowledge we presently have, to strive to apply logic, repeat-ability and truth in our quest for “scalar transmissions”.
I again humbly thank Murray and Gary for their passion, knowledge, time and effort for this excellent debate.
Don Cheeseman retire mentally and physically more fully each day and living north of sixty.
References that may be found helpful to my fellow debaters:
Bakshi, U. A.; Godse, A. P. (2009). Basic Electronics Engineering. Technical Publications. pp. 8–10. ISBN 978-81-8431-580-6.
Mohr, Peter J.; Taylor, Barry N.; Newell, David B. (2008). “CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 2006”. Rev. Mod. Phys. 80 (2): 633–730. arXiv:0801.0028. Bibcode:2008RvMP…80..633M. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.633. Direct link to value.
Condon, J. J.; Ransom, S. M. “Essential Radio Astronomy: Pulsar Properties”. National Radio Astronomy Observatory. Retrieved 2008-01-05.
Feynman, Richard; Leighton, Robert; Sands, Matthew (1963). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.1. USA: Addison-Wesley. pp. 2–5. ISBN 0-201-02116-1.
L’Annunziata, Michael; Baradei, Mohammad (2003). Handbook of Radioactivity Analysis. Academic Press. p. 58. ISBN 0-12-436603-1.
Grupen, Claus; Cowan, G.; Eidelman, S. D.; Stroh, T. (2005). Astroparticle Physics. Springer. p. 109. ISBN 3-540-25312-2.
“Gamma-Rays”. Hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-16.
“Reference Solar Spectral Irradiance: Air Mass 1.5”. Retrieved 2009-11-12.
Uses of Electromagnetic Waves | gcse-revision, physics, waves, uses-electromagnetic-waves | Revision World
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.