From: richard.quick-at-slug.st-louis.mo.us
         To: pierson-at-cimcad.enet.dec-dot-com 
    Subject: various
Routed Thru: chip-at-grendel.objinc-dot-com

 dwp> I have stated as _an_ _opinion_ that i consider earth
 dwp> current transfer of power to be unlikely to be usuful for
 dwp> commercial purposes.  I have stated (as an implicit) fact   
 dwp> that i could be wrong. I did not do so in the post          
 dwp> referenced here.

 dwp> We differ on some technical details.  And, perhaps on       
 dwp> assesment of the lieklyhood of some things. 

I will agree to that. At least to agree to disagree :-)

What put the bee into my bonnet was that no references were cited
that I could refer to other than the one which I just happened to
be familiar with, and that appeared to suffer from misinterpreted

I am not close minded. And I am of a very curious sort. I will
chase down even obscure references at times in search for a
tidbit, especially if it concerns this hobby. In my school of
learning such things a accurate footnotes, bibliographies,
specific references cited, formularies, reproducible experiments,
etc. give direction and data sources that enhance and broaden the
learning experience.

I am not one to blindly believe, like some, that all of Tesla's 
ideas were correct, or that all of the references about him are
correct. Indeed I have at times seen what must be considered to
be either serious errors in Tesla's science, or errors in the way
it has been reported. Sometimes even a combination of both.

But much of Tesla's work concerning oscillators, coils, wireless,
power transmission, etc. can now be methodically reproduced by a
serious hobbyist. Researching back to Tesla's patents and
reproducing circuits and experiments allows us first hand review
of data that Tesla must have been quite familiar with. I believe
that Tesla made a statement at one point in time which implied
that he was 100 years ahead of the competition in wireless and
power processing; and indeed about 95 years later the Magnifier
circuit is just now coming out of the dusty pages of history
books, lab notes, patent applications, faded photographic plates,
and other reference material, into the modern coilers laboratory. 

Not having the "armchair" type of scientific inclination, I have 
personally experienced the beauty of some of Tesla's power
processing logic. When duplicating Tesla's power processing and
transmission experiments up to, and including, small Magnifiers,
I find no basic flaws in Tesla's thinking in this area. These
experiments will frequently discern the divergence between what
Tesla must have understood as fact, and what has been recorded.
The fallibility of the records (and peoples perceptions) extends
even so far as his signed patent applications, which can be
misleading in many ways.

Modern science is supposed to be conducted in a different manner
from that which Tesla worked under. I will fault Tesla as he
should have been setting the standard, not working below it.
Today we expect much higher standards in areas of documentation,
accuracy, and reproducibility. To bring Tesla's work into the
context of modern science, into the "fold" sort of speak,
requires that Tesla's work be thoroughly reexamined and re-
documented. But just because the standards of Tesla's material
has been low in the past, does not mean that I would allow modern
standards to sag in the slightest. It would be a disservice both
to any rexamination Tesla, and to modern science.

... If all else fails... Throw another megavolt across it!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12