Energetic Forum

Energetic Forum (http://www.energeticforum.com/)
-   Renewable Energy (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/)
-   -   Tesla's Experiments, the Faraday Cage, and Don Smith (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20648-teslas-experiments-faraday-cage-don-smith.html)

tswift 11-29-2016 05:00 PM

Tesla's Experiments, the Faraday Cage, and Don Smith
(apologies: long post)

In between time experimenting and all the other things in life that seem to occupy one's time, I am finally getting around to reading all of Thomas Martin's 1894 book, "The Inventions, Researches, and Writings of Nikola Tesla". I assume most here are familiar with it: if you aren't, it's old enough to be out of copyright and therefore available for free download although you can buy paper copies from various publishers. Here's a link to the digital version:


Some time ago I found a paragraph that stopped me in my tracks: Tesla describes a simple experiment whose result clearly contravenes conventional physics. Here it is, on page 136:

Another fact recognized, which is of some consequence, is, that in similar investigations the general considerations of static screening are not applicable when a gaseous medium is present. This is evident from the following experiment:-- A short and wide glass tube is taken and covered with a substantial coating of bronze powder, barely allowing the light to shine a little through. The tube is highly exhausted and suspended on a metallic clasp from the end of a wire. When the wire is connected with one of the terminals of the coil, the gas inside of the tube is lighted in spite of the metal coating. Here the metal evidently does not screen the gas inside as it ought to, even if it be very thin and poorly conducting. Yet in a condition of rest the metal coating, however thin, screens the inside perfectly.

Did you get that? A glass tube completely covered by metal is, by definition, a Faraday Cage; and yet, Tesla says that the residual gas inside such a tube will be excited into glowing by a high-frequency induction coil. In most of the experiments described in this part of the book, the induction coil described is being driven by a mechanical alternator with essentially sine-wave currents and no harmonics. When capacitor discharge is used (as in the now-familiar Tesla coil arrangement) many frequencies are excited simultaneously. At these low frequencies (a few kilohertz to a few tens of kilohertz) the electrical wavelength is so long that no appreciable difference in potential would be possible over the dimensions of a glass tube only a few inches or even a few feet in size.

There is actually a textbook exercise in most college freshman physics books to prove that the electrical field inside a conducting shell of any shape is zero. I could dig out one of my physics books to prove the point, but you get the idea. The shell doesn't even have to conduct very well: think about your microwave oven and the perforated screen. As long as the perforations are much smaller than a wavelength it just acts like metal of a lower conductivity but still screens quite well. And it certainly does at DC, in the static case. But as the frequency rises something unusual apparently happens. Even in a region with NO ELECTRIC FIELD, an electrical phenomenon is observed. So what isn't zero in this region? The scalar potential. This is also completely conventional physics, but a regular physicist will argue with you that the fields and the potentials are two different but equivalent ways to treat electrodynamics.

However, some of you might be familiar with the Aharonov-Bohm effect. This was demonstrated in 1959 and shows that even regions of space where a magnetic field is zero can still affect things (in the experiment, it was the quantum phase of electrons passing through a double slit apparatus). Excerpting from the Wikipedia article:

The Aharonov–Bohm effect shows that the local E and B fields do not contain full information about the electromagnetic field, and the electromagnetic four-potential, (Φ,A), must be used instead. By Stokes' theorem, the magnitude of the Aharonov–Bohm effect can be calculated using the electromagnetic fields alone, or using the four-potential alone. But when using just the electromagnetic fields, the effect depends on the field values in a region from which the test particle is excluded. In contrast, when using just the electromagnetic four-potential, the effect only depends on the potential in the region where the test particle is allowed. Therefore, one must either abandon the principle of locality, which most physicists are reluctant to do, or accept that the electromagnetic four-potential offers a more complete description of electromagnetism than the electric and magnetic fields can.

As it turns out, there is also an electric AB effect. Again quoting the Wikipedia article:

Just as the phase of the wave function depends upon the magnetic vector potential, it also depends upon the scalar electric potential. By constructing a situation in which the electrostatic potential varies for two paths of a particle, through regions of zero electric field, an observable Aharonov–Bohm interference phenomenon from the phase shift has been predicted; again, the absence of an electric field means that, classically, there would be no effect.

This effect was experimentally proved in 1998. So now we have a basis for understanding what's happening in Tesla's tube: I conjecture that it is due to the electric Aharonov-Bohm effect. Even though the electric field inside the tube is provably zero, this does not stop there from being some types of effects caused by the fluctuating scalar potential.

Now think about the metal cases of the capacitors in the Don Smith device. They aren't grounded, so the potential on the case will vary in accordance with the electric field around and outside of it. Inside the case it's much like a Faraday cage: a complete metal shell. Therefore no electric field right? Can you see where I'm going with this conjecture? Now with the electric A-B effect being known and accepted physics, even a university physicist would have to admit that there could be SOME unusual effect going on inside there. Think of it as regauging, or engineering the virtual photon vacuum flux as Bearden would call it. It will certainly change at least the phase of the quantum wave function of the electrons going into and out of the capacitor, we know this from the A-B effect. Could this be how Don was engineering overunity? I don't know either but I intend to keep attacking on both the theoretical and experimental fronts until we eventually get to the bottom of this mystery.

Solarlab 11-30-2016 07:37 PM

Professor Dr.-Ing. Konstantin Meyl, amongst others, has done some extensive investigation regarding this phenom and, in fact, has published numerous papers and articles on the subject.

He also developed a "kit" of sorts to demonstrate and experiment with what he terms "scalar waves or longitudinal waves."

Meyl - Scalarwave-Technology - The european website of www.k-meyl.de

Link to some of Meyl's papers: Meyl - Scalarwave-Technology - The european website of www.k-meyl.de

and his "kit": Meyl - Scalarwave-Technology - The european website of www.k-meyl.de

A very interesting research area indeed!

Ernst 12-04-2016 01:42 AM

No, forget Meyl and his childish incompetence.
I think you have to view Tesla's experiments in conjunction with his theories. Tesla found that electricity is caused by a gaseous medium pervading all space (like the ether, but not the same!). Inside his exhausted tube there is still some of this medium present which is no longer obstructed by air molecules. This makes it an even better conductor than the metal screen for high frequency currents. Imagine the tube being very large and you are standing near one wall and can not see the other walls. Then if an electric potential is suddenly applied to that wall, the medium surrounding the wall will respond to adjust to the new situation (different potential). This rearranging will expand through the gas and through the wall. In modern terms it is a change in static (phi) potential, in Tesla's terms it is a change in electron-gas-pressure. We know that high frequency electric currents are subject to the skin effect, meaning that only the outside will conduct. But standing near that wall and not being able to see the other walls, how do you know what the outside is. It could be a metal wall shielding the gas, or a gas surrounding the metal. You do not know until you have reached the other side, meaning that some electric effect will travel through the gas. Koen van Vlaenderen calls this a phi-wave (if you are interested I will find his latest article for you). The pressure of a gas (I am talking about electron-gas now) is determined by its quantity, volume and temperature. In this case the volume is constant, so we only need to consider quantity and temperature. As similar charges repel, excess charge will only show on the outside of a conductor, thus in the inside the electron-temperature determines the pressure. This is not the temperature that you feel, which is the result of the kinetic energy of the gas nuclei. This concerns the kinetic energy of the electrons, which constantly changes due to the HF potential and this constant changing causes gas molecules to ionize and recombine. The latter can be seen because of the light that is emitted.

I do not know how this relates to Don Smith and Bearden and frankly, I am not interested.


tswift 12-04-2016 02:29 AM


Thank you! I think I understand your explanation, it is very good. I had previously read your whole document and there was much that seemed difficult to understand for me at the time but I think I am gaining a better grasp on this electron gas temperature-pressure idea. I think I will go back and read the document again and maybe more will sink in this time. If you have any additional source material, I would also be very interested.

Solarlab 12-04-2016 05:15 AM

You may be right, we probably should forget Meyl, and many others like Maxwell, Faraday, Ampere, Volta, and so on. Heck, it's too much work studying their silly theories; and all their childish incompetence anyway...

Hey, the next time we sit down to design an advanced radar transponder or ultra-wideband secure radio all we really need to know is that electricity is a gaseous medium pervading all space. Besides, we've all read the Colorado notes, patents and newspaper articles and we're now experts who know everything there is to know; right?

But you know what! In reality, there's a whole hell of a lot more to it; then again, your likely not interested, and it probably doesn't relate anyway.

Have a nice day...

Ernst 12-04-2016 11:13 AM

Thanks, Solarlab,
and have a nice day, too.


dR-Green 12-04-2016 05:13 PM

Ernst is right. Just because someone is telling you what you want to hear, doesn't mean they are right. Anyone who can take two pieces of information and compare them can clearly see that Meyl is spreading false information. We don't need networks of people "spreading the word" to tell us that. Each person can figure it out for themselves on the basis that Meyl's message opposes Tesla's. At least, each one who is paying attention to the details.

Not to mention:


Originally Posted by Eric Dollard
Let us turn to the Heaviside Equation which is the most fundamental equation in all of Electrical Engineering:

(RG + XB) + j (XG – RB) = propagation constant squared


R resistance in Ohms
G conductance in Siemens
X reactance in Henrys per second
B susceptance in Farads per second


RG is the scalar or DC component that is NOT A WAVE,
XB is the longitudinal or AC component and is an alternating electric wave

XG is the transverse or OC component and is a forward moving oscillating electric wave. RB is the transverse or OC component and is a reverse moving oscillating electric wave

This equation allows for all electrical conditions in time and or space and combinations thereof. The example equation is the dimensions of time (see: Steinmetz Theory of Transient Electric Waves and Phenomenon and also my paper: Symbolic Representation of the Generalized Electric Wave.)


The air in the room; the room is filled with air and has atmospheric pressure of 2998 mB, your stereo is blasting away, the speakers are creating longitudinal waves having length and frequency and exert a oscillating force centered on 2998 mB (+ or – 10 mB)

RG is the air pressure, a scalar
XB is the sound of the stereo, a longitudinal wave

XG = RB, thus no transverse waves exist (XG – RB) = ZERO

Hence (RG + XB) is what is going on in the room, the disinformers have convinced you that this whole quantity (RB + XB) is scalar, RG is the only scalar component. It is DC and has NO FREQUENCY, no WAVELENGTH and thus NO WAVE! SCALAR = NO WAVE - GET IT???

Solarlab 12-04-2016 08:59 PM

my apologies..
My apologies for the earlier sarcasm, it was surely uncalled for; hope some of the following will help amend and forgive!

First, a short bit of insight into the early (and apparently, never ending) "battle of theory's!"
The Ampère Angular Force And the Newton Hoax by Laurence Hecht April 13, 2007:
The Ampère Angular Force and the Newton Hoax

Tesla's Magnifying Amplifier in terms of an EDQ model:
THE SECRET OF THE TESLA’S COILS Author Goran Marjanovic year of publication unknown:
TESLA METAMORPHOSIS , Tesla Healing Metamorphosis, Tesla Light Body Metamorphosis, Anya Petrovic, Nikola Tesla, free energy, Anja Petrovic, Tesla metamorfoza zdravlja, Tesla metamorfoza svetlosnog tela

... Dr.Meyl's theories and, more importantly, his "test device." See recent post links."

There are many so called "rebuttals" to Meyl's postulation; but under closer scrutiny most fall short of refuting his approach upon closer examination. These remind us of the proverbial claims of "this thing can't work, it doesn't follow convention nor orthodoxy, there's a hidden battery somewhere, I just know it." As we may soon see however, it is possible and it can be explained by conventional engineering practice and technique. For example:

Electric Scalar Waves - Review to MEYL’s Experiment André Waser June 28,2000:
http://my.ilstu.edu/~lmiones/Summer%20Research%20Academy/Waser%20-%20Electric%20Scalar%20Waves%20-%20Review%20to%20Meyl's%20Experiment%20%282000%29. pdf
Commentary on three almost identical articles by K. Meyl

An attempt to apply CAE (Ansoft HFSS) to a Tesla Tower simulation:
Examining the Working Principle of the Tesla Tower, S. Plekhanov and L. Plekhanov, 2012
Examining the Working Principle of Tesla Tower

Website containing some excellent "conventional" approaches and discussion regarding the design of Tesla Coils and related "over-unity" methods:
and Tesla Coil synthesis (as an example):

Extremely frustrating when experimental evidence is before your eyes and you are unable to optimize it, let alone successfully repeat it, due to the lack of theory and mathematics required for a full understanding...

It's been over a 150 years - what the hell is going on! :confused:

dR-Green 12-04-2016 09:27 PM

I know the thing works because I have built it myself. So has Ernst. I've seen no evidence of "over-unity" but that's not the part that's in question. It just doesn't work the way Meyl says it works. It works like Tesla says it works.

For instance: The transmission is through the earth, not the air. Then Meyl goes on to talk about shielding the receiver (as he put his hand near the capacitance terminal) and observes as the reception diminishes (since his hand is adjusting the capacitance thus the tuning) which he calls "shielding", while the same is connected via a wire thus is immune from "shielding". He claims that a Faraday cage (and his hand which wouldn't stop any radio transmission anyway) should stop the transmission, while failing to recognise that the power is going UNDER the Faraday cage via the wire that he has connecting the transmitter to the receiver. There's no logic to his false information.

Solarlab 12-04-2016 10:41 PM

Dead End?
I'm impressed - it's a great skill being able to speed read with comprehension! Well done.

In closing, let me also recommend "Theoldscientist" material, both on his web page and youtube:

TheOldScientist | Powered by Vortices Dynamics


in particular the Tesla Coil matching videos and the dual Tesla Coil stuff.

Also; try this scenario (let it run until stable). Although a mathematical simulation; it does provide evidence that a Tesla Coil (TT) can indeed have gain (or however you choose to define it):


Take care and have good week...

Ernst 12-05-2016 01:23 AM

It is sad to see the level of mathematical understanding today. If you read Meyls work and you can not identify the obvious errors he makes (as a Prof. Dr. Ing. !) then you will not be able to appreciate the work of Koen van Vlaenderen which is mathematically correct.
You can find his latest article here
Now, if you are looking for a correct and generalized version of the Maxwell equations you can find it here.

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.


Solarlab 12-05-2016 02:54 PM

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:

"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.

Solarlab 12-05-2016 06:59 PM

1 Attachment(s)
{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):


"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."

dR-Green 12-05-2016 08:13 PM

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.

Solarlab 12-05-2016 09:31 PM

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!

dR-Green 12-05-2016 10:31 PM

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


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 (Post 295686)
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.

Solarlab 12-06-2016 01:42 AM

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.


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

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...


Ernst 12-06-2016 01:56 AM

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"?
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.



Solarlab 12-08-2016 02:20 AM

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!


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

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.

Tesla's Big Mistake? William Beaty, September 1999.

The real science of non-Hertzian waves, Paul Nicholson, 2002

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!"


Sputins 12-08-2016 06:20 AM


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. – It is the reflection, the reflected wave. The rate of variation of the dielectric field gives rise to a displacement current. – This is the basic one wire principal.

When you’ve lit a 240V filament bulb with one wire, with your body as a counterpoise, then you’ll begin to have a basic understanding on what’s going on and how it works..


BYW I’ve lost count of the number of times, but there is no such thing as a Scaler wave. If its scaler, it’s 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!

Solarlab 12-08-2016 07:30 AM

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.


tswift 12-08-2016 02:52 PM


Originally Posted by Solarlab (Post 295770)
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?

Ernst 12-09-2016 05:12 AM

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.


Solarlab 12-10-2016 06:17 AM

Tesla Coil - two seperate processes - interesting...

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! :confused:


Solarlab 12-10-2016 09:24 PM

General Overview Info plus Scalar Wave related...

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!)


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:



Bob Smith 12-15-2016 05:46 PM

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?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved