>From richard.quick-at-slug.st-louis.mo.us Sat Jan  7 01:15 MST 1995
>dwp> (browsing thru some of the old files...)

>RQ> ... and then commenting without firm documentation...

>dwp> Electrical energy conducted thru the earth dissipates[1] rapidly.  
>dwp> Sea water is not bad. Pure water/fresh water is lossy. Resistance 
>dwp> of "soil" varies all over the lot. (pun.  ha.) Its relatively easy
>dwp> to measure the resistance of any patch of soil.

>dwp> By dissipates, i means loses energy, not just spreads out...

>You learned this from AM radio theory I presume? 
	am, fm, any conventional physics.  Yes.  I approach the study of Tesla
	fron convenentional physics.  I was not aware of a requirement not to.

>SR> Studies and theories of earth resonances and lightning model...
>dwp> Yep.  Model.  As used means "simplify reality to the point...." 

>You are so very quick to side against this whole idea... Almost 
>as if it threatened your well being.
	Not at all.  Models are not reality.  They are models.  Not against.
	Simply where the model departs form measurable....

>SR> the earth as a large, negatively charged, perfectly conducting
>dwp> Yep..   Thast the way they model it.  But it isn't.  

>Do you see what I mean? Please present the data to support your 
>view... Or is this simply a "radio" engineers "closed minded 
>approach" that Mr. Tesla spoke of over and over. He warned time
>and time again how wrong your ideas are.  
	Nicola Tesla dies before my ideas were born.  The conductivity has been
	measured, time and again (and no, i don't have the studies.  Old copies
	of the IRE journals, new studies for Loran C (100KHz) Omega (15.mumble
	KHz) have been done.

>SR> sphere or surface covered by a thin dielectric layer (the 
>SR> atmosphere up to about 30 mi.), followed by another conducting 
>SR> layer (the ionosphere); essentially a giant capacitor

>dwp> Yep.  A giant capacitor with one resitivep plate.

>SR> The "resistance" of any particular cubic meter of soil doesn't 
>SR> play much  of a role in the earth resonances that Tesla envisioned
>SR> (that incidentally have been experimentally demonstrated - Schuman
>SR> resonances I think? - by showing that the the atmosphere can be 
>SR> used as a lossless waveguide). >

>dwp> Yep.  I know all that.  Schuman resonances.  There are lotsa 
>dwp> kinds of resonances.  Good ones (high Q) and bad ones (low q) 

>Just like there are lots of engineers...
	Resonances come in differnt sorts.  RQ has spoken accurately of this.
	All i submit is that thet earth resonace may be sharp or may be 
	narrow.  I do not deny its existence.

>SR> And if the earth does indeed act as a perfectly conducting
>dwp>        We know it is not.
>Who are "We"?   What specific "data" are "you" working from?
	Any measured from DC on up.  No.  I don't have specific studies.  They

>dwp| The mesurements are not easy.  I listend to a description of 
>dwp| one such set, at the second ITS Con.  They were working with 
>dwp| good equipment, in a lab "near" WAshington DC.  They had good 
>dwp| equipment, looking at Mag field.  Over a period of weeks, they 
>dwp| eliminated one noise source after another.  Finally they
>dwp| thought they had it down to "real" signals.  But they were 
>dwp| supsicios of two: 25 Hz and another, i ferget.  May have been 
>dwp| 30.0 or 15.0.  I think the exactitude of it made them suspicious. 
>dwp| (there is no reason a globa resonance should be on an exact 
>dwp| frequency in human derived units....) They finally found that by 
>dwp| killing the air conditioning system it went away. Something about 
>dwp| the movement of the sheet metal in the air ducts.

>dwp| They were still puzzled by the 25H.0z.  So i told them to think 
>dwp| about the AMTRAK NEC which runs trains to Washington on 25Hz.  
>dwp| They seemed interested...

>Oh you are soo brilliant!
	Not at all.  I happen to know an odd bit of trivia about the
	area.  Knowing that the 25 KHz was a stray, they could look more
	effectively for the real data.  They seemed suspicious of that signal.
	i merely offered an opinion as to why they might be right to be

>Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher and William Van Bise were specifcally looking
>at the fundamental excitatory modes of the earth with the T-1050 
>field detector (Tecnic Research Laboratories, P.O. BOX 60788, RENO,
>NV, 89506). They were well aware of the abundance of man-made signals
>in the cavity. Their equipment was calibrated from .01 Hz to 300 Hz
>with a sensitivity 10^-10 gauss (Low pass system) and from 1.0 Hz to
>50 KHz at 10^-6 gauss sensitivity (High pass system), and they fully 
>expected to encounter significant man-made noise. Special filters
>were employed to screen the 60 and 50 cycle power grids. With their 
>equipment they were not only able to differentiate between man-made 
>signals (Russian "woodpecker" -at- 10 Hz, USA submarine communications 
>from Project ELF) and those of natural origins (lightning, earthquake 
>and volcanic), but they were able to make specific determinations 
>about the waveforms that were EFFICIENTLY resonating in the cavity, 
>both natural and man-made. The 28.25 Hz and 30 Hz peaks were surmised 
>to be side lobes from Project ELF. They presented specific data on the
>30 Hz signal; it was found in every data set (Seattle WA, Phoenix AZ, 
>Vancouver BC, New Orleans LA, to name a few), not just data from one 
>or two locations. The 30 Hz peak is man-made, it is also efficiently
>exciting a naturally resonate mode. 
	I was not attacking anyone's data.  Merely outlining the difficulties.

>One set of data, from one location, had strong peaks at 17 Hz and
>18.5 Hz, and these frequencies were determined to originate from 
>an air conditioner compressor. That particular set of data was 
>presented as being "typical", and the 17 Hz and 18.5 Hz peaks were 
>highly localized. 
	Whoops.  So much for memory.  Thank you.

>edited by Steven R. Elswick, 1988, published by the International
>Tesla Society, ISBN 0-9620394-2-X; Chapter 3, pp34-69: "Fundamental
>Excitatory Modes of the Earth and Earth-Ionosphere Resonate Cavity"
>by Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher and William Van Bise.

>I was there too. It is apparent that this presentation went right 
>over your head, or, that you specificaly choose to utilize a 
>selective memory to distort the excellent work that was presented 
>by Mr. Van Bise to the group in attendance.
	I was not attacking or distorting anything.  I did not say that resonace
	was not observed.  I did not say that the measurements were wrong.

>I find this especially disturbing in light of the fact that several other
>papers of significance were presented that included data that contradict your 
>oft repeated statements that are quoted above. These same papers 
>tend to support those statements of Tesla (repeated by Steve 
>Roys). In particular I would refer you to the following papers 
>that were presented at the same symposium: "Concerning Cavity Q" 
>by James F. Corum Ph.D., Kenneth L. Corum, and Craig Spaniol PhD 
>PE.; and "A Measurement of the Magnetic Earth-Ionosphere Cavity 
>Resonances in the 3-30 Hz. Range" by John F. Sutton and the
a>bove mentioned Dr. Spaniol. 
	I think the only thing i repeated as the fact that the earth was not
	perfectly conducting.  (assuming that the meaning of conduction is the
	usual one in electrical work.)  This is a fact.  Perfect coductivity is
	not a prereq to resonance, tho low loss	good thing.

>The bottom line here: I would tend to dismiss your interpertations 
>as being selectively accurate. Or would it be more polite to simply
>say that they are "opinions"? 
	They were facts.  They may or may not be a complete representation of
	all reality, or of all knowledge of that reality.  I have stated as
	_an_ _opinion_ that i consider earth current transfer of power to be
	unlikely to be usuful for commercial purposes.  I have stated (as an
	implicit) fact that i could be wrong.

	I did not do so in the post referenced here.
Lest there be some doubt, i find your posts to be knowldeable, and that in many
cases you have more knowledge than i.  I repect that and learn from it.  I
will continue, i trust, to do so.  I say this not becasue we have differed
here, somewhat strenuously, but because it is true.  We differ on some
technical details.  And, perhaps on assesment of the lieklyhood of some things.