View Single Post
Old 12-05-2016, 02:54 PM
Solarlab Solarlab is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 63
Dead End?

Ernst, you're kidding of course, right!

Koen van Vlaenderen (Institute for Basic Research, Palm Harbour, Florida), paper published/reviewed by "Universal Journal of Physics and Application."

First - the "Universal Journal of Physics and Application" are known/proven Science Spammers. They solicit (usually by email) review invitations (for money) and publish in dodgy journals/monographs. Some information at: entitled "Science Spammers." [see the bottom entry].

Second - Koen van Vlaenderen himself promotes, and attempts to mathematically prove, Longitudinal Waves; even though his math is simply flawed; he doesn't just simply add a missing component to Maxwell's equations as Meyl does, he screws the whole thing up!

A couple of the critical reviews of Koen van Vlaenderen, among the many:

"Summary: In my first review [2] of van Vlaenderen's article [1] I stated that his theory is not compatible with the Maxwell theory. Van Vlaenderen replied in [3] that he intended a modification of the Maxwell equations consciously. Therefore in the following this modification is checked. It turns out that van Vlaenderen modifies the inhomogenities of two Maxwell equations, the charge density ρ and the current density J. We obtain the following result: While ρ and J - as is well-known - fulfil the conservation law of charges, the same is not true for van Vlaenderen's modifications, which makes the physical relevance of van Vlaenderen's theory questionable.

"Summary: Recently Koen van Vlaenderen has introduced a "seventh field component" by generalizing the so-called Lorentz gauge condition with the aim of reviving Tesla's longitudinal electromagnetic waves. However, as we shall show below, that "seventh field component" is not appropriate for generating new solutions E, B of the Maxwell equations. It is completely superfluous. More, Van Vlaenderen's basic equations (1), (2), (3) contradict his equations (4), (5), (6) and (9) in general. Hence Van Vlaenderen's derived "Tesla"-results are not correct."

Your comment:
" I will not comment on all the other nonsense as it seems to fall outside of the scope of this thread. Instead, again I would like to stress that if you want to understand what Tesla was doing, READ HIS WORK and READ IT AGAIN."

Check your FACTS and SOURCES before attempting to inject your opinion as if your some kind of guru with "EXPERT KNOWLEDGE"...

You can let it go or keep digging, your choice, but this is certainly a waste of my time.
Reply With Quote