The thorny way of truth - Free Energy Community

- 271-2 20 2 2f = 4tt/c = 4Tr/9xlO dyne/abampere (cm /sec ) in the CGS-system, what is a universalconstant.6. I see that you save your formulas where you have such terms as ln(2N), where N islength with dimensions "cm", but formulas must ALWAYS be written well. If some of yourundergraduate students will write InN, you, surely, will give him a bad note. Meanwhilein your final result (formula (15) on p. 178 of S.-T. Phys. 87) you have again a NASTYterm Ind, where d is length measured in millimeters.Nevertheless I have the feeling (not the conviction!) that your calculations are good.They are only difficult for understanding by people with undergraduate mentality andmathematical capabilities as me.7. The problem with the corona effect in Pappas Z-shape antenna experiment is not ofhow a corona effect can be detected (if you have read my paper on p. 8 of TWT-V and my•paper on p. 235 of TWT-VII, you could establish that in the last time I investigate thecorona effects experimentally very intensively). The problem is WHY when there is a coronaeffect the Z-shaped antenna of Pappas does rotate and why when there is no coronaeffect, it does does not rotate. You will say: At the availability of corona effect,there will be a back push on the antenna caused by the electrons leaving the antenna,as is the case when charging the antenna by static electricity. Meanwhile I shall say:When there is a corona effect the electrons in the alternating currents streaming tothe end points of the antenna are NOT stopped there and the unbalanced Grassmann's forceswhich remain to act alone set the antenna into rotation.8. Now I should like to give a general comments on the Weber-Wesley electrodynamics.I find your approach very interesting and the fact that you obtain so many importantresults is remarkable. I think, however, that the W.-W. electrodynamics is WRONG.I shall present a speculation on an undergraduate level as FUNDAMENTAL controversiescan be settled only on an undergraduate level. I beg you VERY MUCH to answer my criticismalso on an Undergraduate level.I shall refer to your paper EVIDENCE FOR WEBER-WESLEY ELECTRODYNAMICS AND LIMITATIONSOF MAXWELL THEORY which you kindly sent me with your last letter.You affirm (formula (10)) that according to your theory the magnetic potential originatedby a current element I'dr' at a space point distant r from it isA = I'dr'/cr. (A)In the text after your formula (7) you assert that the magnetic intensity is to becalculated from the magnetic potential according to the formulaB = rotA. (B)Thus the magnetic intensity originated by the above current element will beas rot(dr' ) = 0.B = rotA = (I/c)rot(drVr) = (I/c){(l/r)rot(dr') - drxgrad(l/r)} = I'dr'xr/cr^. (C)You assert (formula (73)) that the force acting on a charge q moving with a velocityv in a magnetic field B isWriting qv = Idr, we obtainf = (q/c)vxB = (q/c)vx(I'dr'xr/cr"^). (D)f = (H7c^r"^)drxdr'xr. (E)Thus for the interaction of two current elements you obtain GRASSMANN FORMULA. Meanwhileyou assert that the right formula must be Ampere's formula and that Grassmann's formulais WRONG.On p. 183 of TWT-VII I wrote: "If Pappas will write the magnetic potential A generatedby a current element Idr at a distance r along an arbitrary direction, so that by multiplyingin a certain manner this magnetic potential A by another current elementI'dr', he will obtain Ampere's formula, I shall pay him % 1000." --- Although Pappas isalways short with money, he could not win this sappy sum. y /l-f/yLi