View Single Post
Old 03-21-2019, 11:02 AM
Ernst Ernst is online now
Silver Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 910
Question Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter - Recreating Tesla's dream.

The selling of my book has been going very well the last week. (thanks to Aaron! )

I am fully aware that its content is not the most simple thing to fully understand.
I have a very conventional education myself and was taught many things that do not match with Tesla’s view. Therefore to fully understand what Tesla wrote you need to be able to put all that you have learned aside for a moment and imagine what knowledge was available in his time.
It has been a process that took me many years of reading and re-reading his work and of course a lot of experimenting. Each time a quarter drops is a small step forward.
Most of these “quarters” are outlined in my book but they come in very rapid succession, and if you read this book in one day it is very likely that these quarters get stuck.
Yet I am 100% convinced that everything I wrote is accurate because I can see now how all the pieces of the puzzle come together and form one clear and consistent big picture.
Everything makes complete sense, yet it just does not always match with modern scientific views.

As a service to those who bought my book I would like to help them understand by giving them a chance to ask questions.
To be clear, I do not want to enter into endless debates on different points of view. If you think differently that is perfectly fine with me. I only want to clarify the parts that may not immediately be clear.

For starters I’ll post these questions that I got by mail.

On page 10 there is an indirect quote about a 100 HP plant. Tesla wrote in Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents:

"If I have a 10,000 horsepower plant, it would take only 100 horsepower to keep the earth vibrating so long as there is no energy taken out at any other place."
He does not mention the 10,000,000 HP output.
That is correct. There is much confusion about those numbers.
First, Tesla had many designs and two of which he frequently refers to: The one in Wardenclyffe (“but a plaything” with 10 million HP in wave energy) and the one he would like to build (1-10 billion HP in wave energy) See "The Transmission of Electrical Energy Without Wires as a Means for Furthering Peace" of Jan 7th, 1905 and "Interplanetary Communication" of Sep 24th, 1921.
Second, Wardenclyffe had a 200 KW (268 HP) generator to power the tower. He sometimes calls this a 10,000 HP plant and sometimes he mentions the 10,000,000 HP wave energy. As this wave’s frequency is 12 Hz, the power in the wave is 12 times the energy. But the factor of 1,000 is more difficult to explain. Perhaps the tower would provide 10,000 HP to the site? It is also possible that the tower puts 10,000 HP into the ground to maintain a 10,000,000 HP wave (10,000 HP x 12 Hz x 1/losses). With about 1% losses that would make sense. Then how do you get from 268 HP to 10,000 HP? That could be the “magnifying” part of the TMT.
(I also had a discussion with Gary Peterson on these numbers and what the mean)

On page 15 you say "but we haven't seen such a huge coil in Colorado Springs nor in Wardenclyffe", while on page 40 you say "Now imagine this huge coil in the Colorado Springs experimental station". So there was a big coil coil in Colorado Springs?
The coil in CS had a 15 m diameter. Big, but not nearly big enough to get a 12 Hz resonance frequency. That would require a wire length of 300,000,000 / 12 /4 = 6,250,000 meter! He says “a very large self-inductance” and a “comparatively small” capacity. The cupola of Wardenclyffe was a relatively large capacitance but compared to the inductance of the entire planet it was only very small. The coils in CS are in the order of 10-20 mH, in my opinion that is not particularly large.

On page 18 you wrote "the 'very large radii' refers to the secondary circuit which includes the earth itself". Weren’t the coils at CS larger than any coil Tesla made before? Isn’t it therefore possible that Tesla refers to the CS secondary coil?
First not the difference between secondary coil and secondary circuit. Next it is just a matter of scale. In his patent 1,119,732 he talks about “large radii”, now he says “very large radii”. It appears that he thinks about something larger. Also the mention of “a plant of but very moderate dimensions” seems to point in the direction that these radii do not fit inside the plant.

On page 35 you write “why call it a Magnifying Transmitter, if it is just a transmitter?” A search in the CSN on the word “magnify” shows that Tesla uses this referring to capacitor discharges and the extra coil. Examples:
"A condenser was used to magnify the effects transmitted through the ground."

"New induction coil (or apparatus) involving method of magnifying the effects by means of a condenser for the purpose of investigating the propagation of waves through the ground and telegraphy."
"The object of these arrangements is to produce especially in conjunction with an "extra coil", as before explained, disturbances in the most effective and economical manner. In such a coil the e.m.f. is raised to an extremely high value by the "magnifying ratio". [Lp / R]"
Based on Occam’s razor I’d say that Tesla called it a MT because traditional transmitters didn’t use an extra coil.
That is indeed the simplest explanation, but not necessarily the correct one. From a linguistic standpoint you could compare this to a “swimming person”.
A swimming person is first and foremost a person, whether he swims or not. The act of swimming does not make him more of a person. Now apart from being a person, he does something extra, namely he swims.
Transferring this to the term MT, then we are talking about something that is first and foremost a transmitter, whether it magnifies or not.
And this is where the Occam’s explanation fails because there the magnifying is essential for the transmission.
In my view the transmission is part of the regenerative feedback loop that causes magnification. I think this fits better.

On page 38 it says "recognizing this as a fact", but it is not really a hard fact, it is more your opinion as right before that you say "from this I conclude that they stand for the same thing"
Yes, I should probably have put that differently. What I mean is that it is a fact that Tesla often uses analogies as you can also see in his personal letters (to and from Robert U Johnson). This is a hard fact, not my opinion. In some articles it is self evident that he uses analogies in others it is not. There you can have different opinions. Now keeping in mind that Tesla does often talk in analogies you can re-read his article and it will create a different image in your mind.

You mention the “Tesla Code”, but if he wanted to keep his inventions secret why wouldn’t he then just don’t mention them?
Tesla hang out with the most influential people of his age and so he could see how business was done and how some ideas came to fruition and some would not. An interesting article in this respect is "Earth electricity to kill monopoly" from March 8th, 1896 almost exactly 1 year after his lab at Houston st. burned down and his way of communicating changed.
He had a good reason to team up with JPM for his Wardenclyffe project. The most influential and powerful financier in his time. That came with some risk but Tesla thought that the prospect of the profits that his project would generate would surely convince Morgan. That, we know now, went quite differently.
More than anything Tesla wanted to see his invention being adopted. That was his first motivation. He would try it himself first and for a moment it looked like he would succeed.
This project would cause some major shifts and while some would profit immensely others may not be so happy with the changes. Probably Tesla could not speak openly about it because of the commitments to his financier.
The “Tesla Code” was a safety net, in case Tesla could not complete his project. His plans should then be transferred to the right person. A technical capable man, less bothered with “earthly affairs” and more with technical fascination.

On page 66-67 you talk about "low pressure region at the beginning of a discharge" causing a cooling effect. Very interesting! I can not find the source right now, but I thought that the spark gap between C1 and C2 was to transform the oscillating currents from the extra coil into impulse currents.
True. But that is only part of it. Tesla had the unique talent to combine many features into one simple system. If you look at the secondary circuit, you will see that it is almost identical to the primary circuit; we have a capacitance, a inductance and a spark-gap. In other words a spark-gap oscillator. Read the “Rare Notes” and the Long Island Note of June 13th, 1901, to get a better picture of this. This is the signal that you send into the Earth. The start of the regenerative loop that ends in the secondary coil.

On page 69 the “free system” is described as cupola + ground connection, but in the CSN the extra coil is called “the freely oscillating system”. Also the ground connection of the secondary already puts a signal into the ground, thus eliminating the need for Lt?
Most of this question is already answered with my other answers. In CS Tesla was experimenting with different configurations. See CSN of 19 Aug, 26 Aug, 3 Sep, 5 Sep, 6 Sep, 11 Sep, 18 Sep, 19 Sep, 4 Oct, 5 Oct en 9 Oct.
And… the signal from Lt is much stronger due to the added charge.

Soooooo...... there you have it.

If you have read this book and you have one or more questions about it , please ask them here.


Ps. I had a talk with Eric Dollard about this and we thought it would be cool if we can get the community involved in verifying certain aspects of this system. This still requires some more back-and-forth between us which may take a while, but it is in the works and it would be fun.
Reply With Quote