The thorny way of truth - Free Energy Community

- 291 -STEFAN MARINOV Prof. p. T. PappasMorellenfeldgasse 16 26 July 1990 Marcopulioti 26A-8010 GRAZ — AUSTRIA GR-117 44 AthensDearP.,Thank you very much for your letter of the 7 July and for the paperAMPERE'S CARDINAL LAW IN EXPLAINING VIOLENT WATER ARC EXPLOSIONSVERSUS MAGNETIC POTENTIALWhich you submitted for TWT-VIII. The paper is accepted and the book will go to printat the beginning of September.If in the meantime you will have another paper for publication, be so kind to submitit. If the paper will come before the end of August, it might be included.Now I shall answer the different items which you raise in your letter.1. You blame me that I decline papers submitted to TWT, if I do not like them. Let usspeak about your papers, as you do not know whether I have declined papers of other contributors(I did!).I have never declined a paper submitted by YOU. If I have declined such paper,please mention its title and my letter with which I have declined it.I started to publish papers of other contributors in TWT beginning with the IVthvolume. You were presented: in TWT-IV with three papers, in TWT-V with one paper, entitledMARINOV AND HOLYWOOD PHYSICS which, as very colloquious was included in the correspondencesection, in TWT-VI with two papers, in TWT-VII with one paper, and in TWT-VIII withone paper. This summer I phoned you twice to urge you to submit a paper for TWT-VIII. Finallyyou submitted such a one on the 7 July.I have rejected publication only of some letters of you, as you have written themin haste where bad physics was mixed with low style vituperations which could be of nohelp for the readers of TWT and which would be only damaging to your scientific reputationwhich I cherish. However, I wrote you that for the page charge of $ 40 I shall printany typed sheet which you will submit. When my P'-'pers were not accepted by the journalsof the establishment, I paid % 1000 for a page in NATURE and % 3000 for a page in NEWSCIENTIST. You were not willing to sacrifice % 40 for one page of you.Yourpresent letter is also of this "vituperative class". This letter will only bedamaging to your scientific reputation. But its physics is more or less reasonable. ThusI shall publish it free of charge, so that you stop to call me a TYRANT.2. I always hear VERY ATTENTIVELY what you say to me. Ten years ago (July 1982) youRcame to the ICSTA-Conference in Genoa and told me about your experiment with the floatingAmpere bridge. I heard you attentively, although I did not realize at that time the GRAN-DIOSITY of the problem. I think that neither you have realized AT THAT TIME the grandiosityof the problem. However, in the following years YOU turned the attention of theworld to this problem and now it became one of the most discussed scientific controversiesin which many distinguished scientists take part and the rail guns have been classifiedin the American military institutes becoming an important item in the SDI program.I published the report on your Ampere-bridge experiment in the PROCEEDINGS OF ICSTA(1982) and in the recent years I carriecPinany experiments with this bridge, culminatingwith two masterpieces: the RAF-machine (Rotating Ampere Bridge coupled with a cementedFaraday disk) which was the FIRST rotating Ampere bridge constructed by human hands,and the RABDC-machine (Rotating Ampere Bridge with Displacement Current) which violatedthe angular momentum conservation law. In TWT-VIII you will read about an experimentconstructed by me which is based on the Ampere bridge.3. There is no reliable experimental evidence whether the force on the Ampere bridgedepends on the wire's cross-section. Your measurements (Table 1 in J. Appl . Phys., 59,19, 1986) say NOTHING to the topic, as the differences do not show any tendancy and areto be accepted only as measuring errors.My latest EXACT mathematical calculations of the force pushing the U-form Amperebridge (note that the U-form Ampere bridge is introduced by ME) show that for prettythick wire the force is lower because the currents filaments are farther one of another.However when the thickness of the wire tends to zero, the force converges to a PRECISELYDEFINED VALUE. For a U-form bridge with infinitely long legs this value is 0.5 pN/A^ .