5 0 4 D O C U M E N T S 5 0 7 , 5 0 8 M A R C H 1 9 2 7 507. To Heinrich Zangger [Berlin,] 31 March 1927 Dear Zangger, I still haven’t managed to respond.[1] I feel terribly sorry for Grossmann. From the characteristic speech weaknesses, I feared paralysis. But, thank God, this ought not to be the case, because this business has lasted much too long already for that. Of course I don’t believe at all in the effect of bad air. That is downright naive.—[2] I cannot do anything about Escher Wyss because I have a contract with “Bamag.”[3] People are working so feverishly in this field that I don’t know whether we aren’t too late. Tete is here. From Monday on we shall be away on vacation for a little while in Reinsberg in der Mark.[4] Schrödinger’s quantum mechanics has great success, but this theory is hardly less puzzling than the facts it represents.[5] Warm regards, your A. Einstein 508. To Hans Albert Einstein [Berlin, 3 April 1927][1] Dear Albert, Your design is virtually the same as that of Maschke.[2] The main problem does not lie in the magnetism. It’s a matter [there] of direct-current excitation or perma- nent magnets. Solid material is selected. The main problem is the membrane and its behavior. One selects very light material that is adequately stiff. The membrane has very deep natural oscillation below the acoustical limit. In your derivation, you have made it unnecessarily difficult, in that you want to take into account the in- duced electromotive forces. That is unnecessary because—as you yourself say, the currents must be considered as a given due to the high tubular resistance. The air resistance or the resistance of the sound generation must be taken into account much more. For this reason, the sound process would have to be represented, which in itself is a significant little problem. Your fear that the eddy currents in the mag- nets could significantly come in question is unfounded. This could only cancel out
Previous Page Next Page