The results were correct, as I have shown. You made false assumptions that prevented you from understanding/accepting it, and on that basis, you disagreed with the results.
What's more you told me to use a formula, which I did do. Your own formula gave you an answer you didn't like, so then you claimed that I was "playing a shell game with numbers to obfuscate the fact that TC FTL is a myth".
???
Science, eh?
What's more you told me to use a formula, which I did do. Your own formula gave you an answer you didn't like, so then you claimed that I was "playing a shell game with numbers to obfuscate the fact that TC FTL is a myth".
???
Science, eh?
It is possible that you made an error in your measurements and or methods?
Will you entertain such a thought?
Even Tesla was known to make a mistake or two in his calculations!
None of my coils has been close to FTL, no matter the geometry involved.
The pointing vector "short cicuit" distance doesn't hold water either. the TC is oscillating, so the energy shuttles back and forth between the inductor and capacitive elements. there are also still dielectrics involved.(media)
So far I have not found anything different than what has been put forth by well understood engineering principles. ( A radio engineering handbook by Terman ( I think) from the 40's will show just how far they went with it).
It sure takes a lot of the guess work out of "coiling".
There are lots of "anomalous results" out there that nobody can seem to replicate. case in point: the hendershot generator.
To me, it was evident that machine is doomed to fail, but there are those who have tried to replicate only to realize that they have been the victim of a hoax.
Why do people perpetrate these hoxes? I don't know, but in some cases it's to make money with kits and books or perhaps for others, the notoriety is enough...
Leave a comment: