The thorny way of truth - Free Energy Community

,- 259 --7 2legs) must be \1q = 4ttx10 N/A or some multiple (2, or 4) of \1q. Thus a PRECISE calculationMUST lead to such a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. This will be a v^ry interesting PHYSI-CAL result, as pq will obtain a firm and solid physical ground (as, for example, thatc is (eoyo)"^'^^' I clo not leave my efforts to calculate PRECISELY the pushing force onthe U-form Ampere bridge and I beg you to help me with your method with the current densities.And, please, answer, whether, according to you, the pushing force on the Ampere bridge,CALCULATED WITH THE HELP OF AMPERE FORMULA, wiT lead to a dependence on the FORM, SIZEand WIRE THICKNESS of the bridge. I am FIRMLY PERSUADED that for Grassmann formula suchdependences CANNOT EXIST.Then I beg you for the following: Take in your fig. 1 on p. 173 or SP.-T. PHYS. 87the lengths N and M equal to infinity. And calculate the force on the Ampere bridge,taking into account only the forces with which wire 2 acts on wire 5 and wire 10 actson wire 7, ACCORDING TO AMPERE. You have done such calculations obtaining formulas (8)and (10), but there you have such expressions as, ln2N which from a mathematical pointof view are nonsensical, as N has dimensions, and if I shall put N = °°, I shall obtainan infinity. The force on this INFINITELY LONG Ampere bridge MUST BE a simple figure.If you cannot obtain such a simple figure (calculating according to Ampere formula),this signifies that, surely, your calculations were wrong, or that Ampere formula iswrong. Thus I beg you once more, send me the calculated by you value, if you can makefor such a case a PRECISE calculation according to your method.And I have another question: If in your integral (9) on p. 174 I shall put R = 0,then the integral becomes improper and, surely, will be equal to infinity. Explain tome WHY you save your integral from infinity and I cannot save it for the case of myintegral (9) on p. 167 of TWT-VII. I speak here, meaning only the MATHEMATICAL aspectsof the problem. You have an integral with infinitely big integrand and I have an integralwith infinitely big integrand, but you obtain a finite number for the integral,and I cannot. WHY?Now to some other topics in your letter. I said in my letter of the 12 May that Pappashas NOT reported in his paper published in TWT-IV that when the end points of hisZ-shape antenna were NOT covered with scotch, then there WAS rotation, as prescribedby Grassmann formula. You wrote in your letter of the 15 May:You are also wrong in claiming Pappas fails to mention the corona discharge effecton his antennas; he does mention it.Please, note the page and the line where Pappas mentions the corona discharge!Then I cannot UNDERSTAND what you mean with the following phrase:... you are wrong in claiming the intimate details of the contact of the ends ofthe bridge are irrelevent. Everyone reports the difficulties!As I see from the end of your letter, you are a little bit boring to discuss with methings on a too elementary and primitive level. Unfortunately, I can discuss things ONLYon a primitive and elementary level. I lose myself in a complicated discussion and CANNOTrationalize. And my WHOLE theory and ALL MY EXPERIMENTS are done on an UNDERGRADUATELEVEL. As I consider THIS my statement AS VERY IMPORTANT, I decided to publish the aboveletter in TWT-VIII. Thus, also your valuable answer will be published. Hoping to re;ceive this answer soon. Yours, ^^/larinov's note . In chapter 6 of his future book which Prof. Wesley kindly sent to meon the 30.x. 90, the force F acting on the Ampere bridge, calculatedy Prof. Wesley with volume integrals, is given in the form (see fiq. 1 on p. 273 ofWesley's SPACE-TIME PHYSICS 1987), for w small,c2f/2i2 = - 1 + (1 + lW)^/^ - ln{l + (1 + lW)^/2}+ Ind + (1 + l^/{\A-li)^)^/^}Thus, for L/M ^ 0, L/(M-N) -^0, one obtains the ABSURD result F = 0. In my letter of the7. IX. 90 to Prof. Wesley I noted that such an ABSURD result (force on the Ampere bridge*qual to zero when its legs will be much longer than its shoulder) is a SUFFICIENT INDI-CATION that Wesley's calculations MUST BE WRONG.Vof. Wesley answers the above letter with his letter of the 14 June 1990.