Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tesla's Experiments, the Faraday Cage, and Don Smith

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bob Smith
    replied
    tswift,
    In other words, whatever is at work producing a charge on the capacitor's second inner terminal (separated from the first by dielectric within the cap's Faraday Cage casing) cannot be conventional electricity?
    Must be from the ambient/vacuum?
    Bob

    Leave a comment:


  • Solarlab
    replied
    General Overview Info plus Scalar Wave related...

    F.Y.I.

    Some topical information with good technical focus:

    Blue Science website - A Project Camelot Production, composed by John Maguire, et. al.

    Quote from this website - "About US: Blue Science is the scientific branch of Project Camelot. It has grown out of:
    1. the need of Project Camelot to evaluate the scientific and technical claims of witnesses and whistle blowers, and
    2. the need of the public to access and use the hidden sciences and technologies that have been kept from us."


    Includes a very good collection of Suggested Articles, Biographies, Videos/Links and Suggested Books focused on
    scientific and technical claims relating to "energy freedom" among other things:

    Blue Science | A Project Camelot Production
    Suggested Articles | Blue Science

    Also, notably:
    April 2005 - NASA/CR-2005-213749 "Advanced Energetics for Aeronautical Applications: Volume II" David S. Alexander,
    MSE Technology Applications, Inc., Butte, Montana.

    Of particular interest is Chapter 3. ADVANCED ELECTRIC CONCEPTS; starting on page 41 and Chapter 4. Breakthrough
    Energetics - Zero Point Energy.
    (Chapter 3 starts a bit slow but keep going, it's worth it!)

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...0050170447.pdf

    Also, a non-truncated copy (many links truncate this paper - including Blue Science above) of Konstantin Meyl's PIERS Proceeding paper
    "Self-consistant Electrodynamics" August 2012:

    https://piers.org/piersproceedings/d...AzMTkwNTU5MTE=

    FIN
    Last edited by Solarlab; 12-11-2016, 12:34 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Solarlab
    replied
    Tesla Coil - two seperate processes - interesting...

    F.Y.I.

    Vyacheslav Gorchilin's note entitled "The lumped and distributed resonances in the inductor" discloses an interesting phenomena with respect to the Tesla Coil. Here is an extract from the note:

    " If DL (long line or Tesla coil) put in parallel to the capacitor C1 (Fig. 1.2), it will begin to work one process, almost do not affect the wave. It is obvious that in this case we are dealing with an oscillatory circuit, the inductance which is the inductance of the line segment DL. I.e. a second, independent model, which can be easily calculated by the classic formula of Thompson (1).

    Now it is easy to imagine what happens if we turn this long line in a coil — slightly changes its own capacitance and inductance, and two of the process and will work almost independently from each other. By the way, in this case, the wave model is better to rely on more precise formula, presented in [1].

    Why are these processes, and thus their models, are independent? Look at figure 1.4, which shows their equivalent circuits. DL is in the standing wave, and since R1 is much less than the wave resistance, wave — almost no losses (right). On the wave process capacity C1 does not render almost any influence, but it forms with the inductance DL RLC circuit, which in turn also works independently (left figure). Changing C1 also has no effect on the wave process, but completely changes the picture of the LC resonance.
    According to the author, the independence of the processes due to their work in different reference systems. The assemblage point, or point of combining these two systems is the load R1.

    For skeptics who believe that in the coil (or in a long line) can't go two independent processes at the same time, a simplified model (Fig. 1.3), which added another DC power source E2. It is bridged by a capacitor C2 to a lower internal resistance at high frequency. As you can see on R1 we get the constant offset from E2, and independent of the antinode of the current standing wave from E1.
    " {Emphasis in green added.}

    Reference: The lumped and distributed resonances in the inductor

    Reference [1] from notes: Alan Payne "Self Resonance in Coils" at http://g3rbj.co.uk/wp-content/upload...e-in-Coils.pdf

    This may be enlightening since CST and HFSS can easily combine "separate processes." Collectively these processes are at odds when intertwined, so to speak, which increase the simulation time and complexity beyond reason (several weeks when using a complete, fine, tetrahedral mesh on two networked 4.2 GHz overclocked i7s).

    But separating the processes may solve two big problems at the same time! And prove to be of fundamental significance!

    FIN
    Last edited by Solarlab; 12-10-2016, 07:14 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ernst
    replied
    I do not think of experimental research as shooting in the dark.
    Most current theories have their flaws but to arrive at better theories you must try to collect as much as possible experimentally proven facts. Using these you can develop a new and better theory and with that you can create supporting math.
    That is, IMHO, how it should be done.

    But today people seem to be working the other way around.
    They develop their math first, based on existing material. They (often) skip the phase that would provide a theory about the underlying mechanism and then they try to set up experiments to find support for their mathematical models. This is obviously a very wrong method that could support the wrong models for a very long time. (as we frequently see).

    The Maxwell equations are an example of this. They contain a blatant error. But since almost our entire physical understanding is based on these equations no one wants to even consider replacing them.


    Ernst.

    Leave a comment:


  • tswift
    replied
    Originally posted by Solarlab View Post
    The devices work for the most part as required, but without a correct EM model, development has become nothing more than the old cut and try brass-board routine.
    This, in a nutshell, was the reason behind my original post. The haphazard development by numerous prior inventors and by all of us on here is one gigantic exercise in shooting in the dark. It's time-consuming, expensive, and frequently frustrating. If there were some theoretical or mathematical models that could be used to guide development it would sure help a great deal. Apparently numerous theories either extending or replacing classical electrodynamics have been advanced: does anyone know which, if any, have been experimentally verified, or even what kind of experiment could be used to verify and/or discriminate between the predictions of the various theories?

    Leave a comment:


  • Solarlab
    replied
    Hi Sputins,

    You don't happen to know the missing piece of Maxwell's equations, or anything else that might help in completing a correct simulation of the Ruslan/Akula/Smith or Meyl type devices using CST or HFSS by chance? A modified Traveling Wave Tube type model using CST comes pretty close but there appears to something a bit different - of course I'm aware of the physical and technical differences but the results do get (a yard!) close to at least the measured Ruslan device. One ray of hope lies in the SW analysis on the Ukrainian site I posted.

    The devices work for the most part as required, but without a correct EM model, development has become nothing more than the old cut and try brass-board routine. I've scanned many forums and only the Russian fellows seem to be even looking at the mathematics to any extent. Without a model its damn tough optimizing these devices.

    Regards
    Last edited by Solarlab; 12-08-2016, 07:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sputins
    replied
    Solarlab,

    Most of your links given have been discussed on this forum at some point, someplace.

    dR-Green, Ernst and a few others have had successful practical results with Tesla coil apparatus.

    I would advise not to go down the Meryl path, as they have advised.

    As a basic principal, the Earth terminal or the neutral wire of the coil is the output of the coil, not the terminal capacity at the top. Ė It is the reflection, the reflected wave. The rate of variation of the dielectric field gives rise to a displacement current. Ė This is the basic one wire principal.

    When youíve lit a 240V filament bulb with one wire, with your body as a counterpoise, then youíll begin to have a basic understanding on whatís going on and how it works..

    Sputins.

    BYW Iíve lost count of the number of times, but there is no such thing as a Scaler wave. If its scaler, itís constant all pervasive, it does not vary, so it cannot be a wave.

    A scalar flux, scalar potential or scalar field - okay, but not a scalar wave!

    Leave a comment:


  • Solarlab
    replied
    Curse of the Ever Curious Expanding Mind!

    So as not to leave this discussion dangling, I will leave you all with some (IMHO, higher level). what I will call, base information.

    It's probably good practice to consider many views, opinions and approaches to a subject or problem; with an open
    mind - often times there are many correct answers and solutions! However, as you all know, picking the best "one" for
    the task-at-hand can be a daunting challenge... Good luck and Happy Holidays!

    LONGITUDINAL - SCALAR WAVE briefings:

    What Are Scalar Waves? Horst Eckardt, 2012

    Abstract: There is a wide confusion on what are "scalar waves" in serious and less serious literature on electrical
    engineering. In this paper we explain that this type of waves are longitudinal waves of potentials. It is shown that a
    longitudinal wave is a combination of a vector potential with a scalar potential. There is a full analogue to acoustic
    waves. Transmitters and receivers for longitudinal electro-magnetic waves are discussed.

    Includes a good discussion on transmitters and receivers of longitudinal waves and suggestions relating to the
    Faraday Cage test. Also points out that the speed of propagation depends on the form of the waves, and; to
    quote "There are rumors that Eric P. Dollard found a propagation speed of longitudinal waves of pi/2 times c
    (where c is the speed of light) but there are no reliable experiments on this reported in the literature."

    http://www.atomicprecision.com/Topic...ntialWaves.pdf or
    http://www.novam-research.com/resour...t_Jan-2012.pdf

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE WAVES? (illustrated)
    What is the difference between longitudinal and transverse waves?

    Characteristics of Seismic Waves:
    What Is Seismology and What Are Seismic Waves?

    A brief Introduction to Scalar Physics, Thomas Minderle, Version 2, May 23, 2014
    The introduction, Basics, deals with Math and Physics Terms and Symbols. Chapter 6, "Wave Equations," discusses
    Transverse and Longitudinal waves, displacement current and the Nature of Charge. The text presents both (almost
    introductory level) descriptive narration along with the pertinent mathematical equations.
    http://scalarphysics.com/resources/t...ar_physics.pdf

    Tesla's Big Mistake? William Beaty, September 1999.
    http://amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html

    The real science of non-Hertzian waves, Paul Nicholson, 2002
    http://www.capturedlightning.com/fra...ian_Waves.html

    And so on and so forth... interesting suff, that is, if your into studying interesting stuff!
    Or, if you're just suffering from "the curse of the ever curious expanding mind!"

    Leave a comment:


  • Ernst
    replied
    Funny, you tell me to check my sources, but you do not check yours. Prof. Bruhn's response was to an early version of Koens theory while he was in the process of developping it. It was not a particular fair move of Bruhn to reply to Koens request to review his work in the way he did. The flaws that have been found have been corrected in the paper that I linked. This work IS mathematically correct while Meyls tragic attempts are not, as I have pointed out elsewhere on this forum. Besides his mathematica incompetence his practical work is also flawed, as dR-Green already pointed out. His two coils are connected by a "ground wire" and you can easily verify that a current is flowing through this wire between the coils. (which I have done)
    To say that it proves the existence of his magical rays is as ridiculous as saying that when I flip the light switch, magical rays will transfer energy to the light bulb. Rays that you can not detect. And all that while anyone can see there are wires running from the switch to the light bulb. That is what Andre Wasser is saying too. It is illogical and unreasonable to assume any other proces to take place as it can be explained completely with known physics.

    Solarlab, you funny guy, did you replicate Meyls experiments? Do you understand vector algebra? Did you ever build a working Tesla coil with a so called "extra coil"?
    Something tells me that the answer to all of these questions is "NO", and yet you feel you can come here and argue with people who can answer "YES" to these questions.
    And you talk about "science spammers"?
    Funny.
    I also like this one:
    Check your FACTS and SOURCES before attempting to inject your opinion as if your some kind of guru with "EXPERT KNOWLEDGE"...
    Something about pots and kettles comes to mind.

    If you can not find my (or dR-Greens) earlier comments on Meyls (is NOT Tesla) shoddy rubbish, here is a 3 minute video that I made about it a long time ago. I think I have spend more time on this man than he deserves. I am going to leave it here.

    Enjoy!

    Ernst.

    Leave a comment:


  • Solarlab
    replied
    73's

    Your link to the old Dollard stuff is of little value in relating Tesla Coil analysis to Electrodynamic Theory and Maxwell's Equations, but thanks anyway.

    The following papers I find far more instructive in advancing the Tesla <=> Maxwell integration.

    RF Coils, Helical Resonators and Voltage Magnification by Coherent Spatial Modes
    K.L. Corum and J.F. Corum, 2001

    Abstract – By modeling a wire-wound coil as an anisotropically conducting cylindrical boundary, one may start from Maxwell’s equations and deduce the structure’s resonant behavior. Not only can the propagation factor and characteristic impedance be determined for such a helically disposed surface waveguide, but also its resonances, “self-capacitance” (so-called), and its voltage magnification by standing waves. Further, the Tesla coil passes to a conventional lumped element inductor as the helix is electrically shortened.

    http://hamwaves.com/antennas/inductance/corum.pdf

    A Technical Analysis of the Extra Coil as a Slow Wave Helical Resonator
    K.L. Corum and J.F. Corum, 2014

    Abstract - In this paper, we present an analytical development of the Extra Coil as a top-loaded slow-wave helical resonator. Our treatment starts with a foreshortened coaxial resonator whose inner conductor is constructed of an end loaded spiral delay line. We develop formulas for the slow wave velocity factor and characteristic impedance of the equivalent transmission line which are valid as the outer walls of the resonator recede to infinity – leaving Tesla's ‘open coil’ resonator above ground.

    The Voltage Standing Wave Ratio (VSWR) is then analyzed, including losses, and the voltage step-up of any distributed Tesla Coil resonator is obtained. The resulting model not only predicts the resonant behavior of the Extra Coil, but readily permits its representation on a Smith Chart. Several examples of Extra Coil analyses are presented numerically, and displayed on Smith Charts. Specifically, the November 1, 1899 and January 2, 1900 Extra Coils of Tesla's Diary are discussed in detail and are shown to produce voltage step-ups on the order of 10 to 15 megavolts.

    The model also serves to explain how Tesla tuned the RF portion of the Colorado Springs apparatus and is shown to be consistent with specific Diary instructions by Tesla.

    http://www.padrak.com/vesperman/A_Technical_Analysis_of_Tesla's_Extra_Coil_6.24.14 .pdf

    With respect to Tesla Transformer/Coil design parameters there are a wealth of On-Line Tesla Coil related papers, articles, calculators and so forth, including even some Android Apps; so Eric's lumped element approach has become a bit redundant. For example:

    The Zeus Tesla Coil September 2011
    The Zeus Tesla Coil - Theory of operation | Hazardous Physics

    Deep Fried Neon - various on-line Tesla Coil related calculators
    DeepFriedNeon - Tesla Coils

    Tesla Coils 4 Christ
    List of Tesla Coil Formulas

    Tesla Coil Design, Construction and Operation Guide
    http://www.teslacoildesign.com/index.html

    The list of sites is long and diverse...

    My impression has quickly become you are more interested in defending some sort of position/belief, or simply posting for the sake of posting, and since I have no idea what it is; ===> I will just say 73's my friend...

    Last edited by Solarlab; 12-06-2016, 01:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dR-Green
    replied
    You don't need CERN. All you need is a piece of wire of known length, a function generator, and an oscilloscope or voltmeter or ammeter.

    Meyl is measuring one resonant frequency, assumes that propagation to equal the velocity of light (it's not. EM waves only travel at the velocity of light in a vacuum, not through the conductors of a coil), and then measures a second resonant frequency then concludes that the propagation is "faster than light" on that basis alone. I assume you've heard of harmonics. Also, longitudinal waves is not "scalar". The mathematics for that is given in Eric Dollard's quote above.

    When you know the length of a conductor, then you can calculate the propagation velocity of a wave travelling along it from the amount of time it takes to reach the other end.

    From http://www.energeticforum.com/eric-d...ompendium.html

    New Extra Coil #3:

    Diameter = 8.28cm
    Height = 8.28cm
    93.25 Turns
    Conductor Length = 24.256 Metres
    Luminal Wavelength = 97.024 metres
    Luminal Frequency = 3089.879 kc

    Free Space Frequency = 5778.074 kc

    Measured Frequency:
    Direct connection = 3676.7 kc
    10pF coupling = 3990.5 kc


    Free Space Propagation = 187%
    Measured Propagation (10pF coupling) = 129.14% velocity of light
    Measured Propagation (direct connection) = 118.99% velocity of light
    7) EXTRA COIL DIMENSIONS AND CONSTANTS
    Diameter: 8.4 feet
    Height: 8.0 feet
    Number of Turns: 100 numeric
    Mean Length of Turn: 8 meters
    Total Length of Turns: 800 meters
    Luminal Wavelength: 3200 meters
    Luminal Frequency: 94 Kc/sec
    Free Space Frequency: 176 Kc/sec
    Actual Frequency: 116 Kc/sec
    Free Space Propagation: 187%
    Actual Propagation: 123%
    There's no actual faster than light velocity involved. The propagation velocity of the coil is "faster than light" because the wave travels from one turn to the next rather than following the whole length of the conductor all the way around, giving the result of a higher resonant frequency than one would calculate from the wire length using the conventional frequency/wavelength/speed of light relationships. The propagation velocity is dependant on the geometry of the coil.

    Originally posted by Solarlab View Post
    Sorry, but I don't get what all the fuss and opposition is. Has Meyl cheated or harmed you in some way?
    He's teaching false information regarding Tesla.

    Leave a comment:


  • Solarlab
    replied
    Quote: "If you want to understand what Tesla was doing, read what Tesla said he was doing. Meyl is writing about what Meyl is doing." Profound indeed!

    So; Ampere wrote about what Ampere was doing; Volta wrote about what Volta was doing; Faraday wrote about what Faraday was doing; Weber wrote about what Weber was doing; Maxwell wrote about what Maxwell was doing... and that's it?

    Since Tesla left us with little theory and did not subscribe to conventional mathematics to any extent, Meyl and many others are merely trying to explain (codify) Tesla's genius so we might better understand and optimize his developments.

    If Maxwell's equations in their original form, or their Heavyside reduced form, or by additional modification such as Meyl, and others, are attempting to formulate can assist then I welcome the effort. Slightly flawed or not.

    Let's face it, Maxwell's equations do not correctly describe Capacitor functionality without the displacement current fudge nor the Dipole Antenna. However we still use them and his equations remain the accepted norm for electromagnetic understanding and design.

    Sorry, but I don't get what all the fuss and opposition is. Has Meyl cheated or harmed you in some way?

    Maybe you would be willing to explain, in detail (mathematically would be preferred) how all this Tesla stuff works. Heck I'm all ears...

    BTW, longitudinal (scalar) velocity may well (appear to) be beyond the speed of light - possibly instantaneous - hard to measure with our instruments or techniques but the fellows at CERN are working on it!
    Last edited by Solarlab; 12-05-2016, 09:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dR-Green
    replied
    The fact remains that Meyl is not doing what Tesla did.

    Meyl doesn't give any account of length or distance, so how do you propose to measure any propagation velocity? Velocity along what?

    A "spherical antenna" by its very geometry is a poor radiator of energy. That's precisely the reason that Tesla used it. That's precisely the reason why all radio transmitters employ a linear antenna sticking up in the air. It effectively radiates energy. Spheres do not.

    The Faraday cage becomes part of the transmission line. That is why "the old scientist" can receive the signal on his AM radio inside a metal tin. The metal tin is what makes the reception possible.

    Anyone who says that Meyl = Tesla obviously doesn't understand Tesla's work. And as I have already said, Meyl contradicts himself apparently without even noticing it. If you want to understand what Tesla was doing, read what Tesla said he was doing. Meyl is writing about what Meyl is doing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Solarlab
    replied
    {detailed analysis of K. Meyl's demonstration apparatus and postulation}

    The study of electromagnetic processes in the experiments of Tesla
    Sacco and Tomilin, RAI, Center for Research and Technological Innovation (Turin, Italy), National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University (Tomsk, Russian Federation):

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1210.0158v1.pdf

    Conclusions:
    "In conclusion, we can say that the miniature experimental model of Meyl, cannot reproduce the whole experimental conditions of the original Tesla experiment. Obviously, those processes that take place at high voltage (high frequency), including those involving high slew-rates, cannot be reproduced. However, the simplified, down-scaled Meyl set-up revealed some interesting and unusual aspects .

    Most of the phenomena reported by K. Meyl have been observed and confirmed by us. The only exception is the claim of superluminal propagation velocity of electroscalar waves. This hypothesis has not found theoretical nor experimental confirmation.

    We performed many additional experiments that revealed interesting new facts, namely:

    • the independence of attenuation of the distance between the transmitter and the receiver (at least at the main resonance in the experiment). This could open interesting perspectives for communication and power transmission;

    • the conditions under which a Faraday cage does not screen the electromagnetic waves emitted by a spherical antenna.

    The hypothesis that the signal is transmitted from the Faraday cage with the help of transverse electromagnetic waves (TM), which spread along the ground wire is not considered satisfactory, due to the lack of any observed TM mode impedance mismatch loss, through the Faraday cage.

    The electroscalar waves model is a good theoretical tool with which explains the observed phenomena. A theory based on the generalized electrodynamics equations, adequately explains the mechanism of propagation of electromagnetic radiation and scalar waves. The processes occurring in the Tesla transformer, is well explained on the basis of representations of the vortex and potential electromagnetic processes. In particular, it is worth to be emphasized the role of the scalar magnetic field in the Tesla helical coils. ...."

    Let me re-quote your quote: "again I would like to stress that if you want to understand what Tesla [Meyl] was doing, READ HIS WORK and READ IT AGAIN."

    Since you already have built this device you might want to replicate the experiments contained in the above mentioned paper and then re-think your conclusions regarding Meyl and, in your words, his "childish incompetence."
    Attached Files
    Last edited by Solarlab; 12-05-2016, 07:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Solarlab
    replied
    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: https://darrengoossens.wordpress.com/science-spammers/ 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:

    http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.d.../vV191005.html
    "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.

    http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.d...n-raccoon.html
    "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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X