This thread is a continuation of:

Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

Good to see your still around Garrett....Thought you had dropped of the edge of the earth. Even Tesla's understandings were constantly evolving with time, so it is only natural that yours and everyone else's would as well. Can't expect perfection right off the start. Advancing these understandings and pushing the limit on human knowledge is best done via a communal effort. It's important to be vulnerable and potentially be wrong, for that is courage and how progress is made. The material Eric Dollard has presented us puts us on the cutting edge of a new technological paradigm, arguably one that should have taken root a century ago.

Since a new thread is being started I thought I would post links to all of Eric Dollard's transmissions and posts I have collected and put on my website for easy reading. This way people can catch up and review material they have missed without trying to wade through 1,200+ posts of the previous thread.



Main Directory - Eric Dollard

Transmissions/Articles:

1. “Energy Defined” by E.P.Dollard (2011)
2. “The Theory of Anti-Relativity” by E.P.Dollard (2011)
3. “Metrical Dimensional Relations of the Aether” by E.P.Dollard (2011)
4. “Four Quadrant Energy Exchange in Magnetic & Dielectric Fields of Induction” by E.P.Dollard (2012)
5. “And in The Beginning, Versors” by E.P.Dollard (2012)

Individual Posts:

• First posts by Dollard, E. P. (N6KPH) (2010)
• Additional Posts by E.P.Dollard (2011)
• Additional Posts by E.P.Dollard (2012)
• Posts by Eric Dollard via jpolakow

Eric Dollard’s older work:

• VIDEO Links, Audio, Published Papers, Articles - DOWNLOAD Section

Garrett do not fret over 'paper' degrees, I know many engineers with a degree I wouldn't let engineer a paper bag! Ones cognitive abilities are not based on the paper on the wall, Erics been very clear about that!

Back to the crystal set, the new 4Mhz coil set lo and behold does receive a signal, I'm picking up a faint static and occasional 'blip'. reduced the primary coil winding spacing to increase the capacitance and that was the improvement. will be adjusting the top capacitance next. a bit suprised as the larger AM coil has been dead quiet so far, I'm just chalking it up to the primary coil not being wide enough.

Still working on the capacitance equations, not going to happen over night though, although I do 'sleep on it' as that's been a wonderful resource for me for as long as I can remember. Put a couple things together rough it out on the notepad I keep on the nightstand and in the morning I'll usually have some further insight that move it along, sometimes it'll take a couple days then BLAM! new insight.

I'm still fiddling with some equations and a theme keeps emerging in that capacitance is a dynamic function of the frequency and a yet assigned amplitude vector or phasor.

It's slow for sure, I need to get a few more pieces of equipment to further test some ideas.

Nope, not the source.
However if you want current to flow in a specific path their movement does create current.

I was very specific when I said "potential" in explaining reactance and that the per business is the 1/x reciprocal.

I do not see the significance or benefit of calculating it in the opposite quadrant and time always goes in one direction.

The point here is that I can qualify and quantify everything that has been done in per farads in the identical manner and get identical results without using the "per".

Maybe I just "dont get it"? But them my questions went unanswered.

So neither of those items (among other questions I have posed) have been sufficiently explained.

I feel I gave a pretty solid explaination as to why I think it is that Eric stresses considering resistance/conductance over low/high resistance in this post and received no feedback on where my understanding on the issue was lacking.

Here is another example; Eric says that the loses associated with the insulator are represented by G and are separate from the loses associated with the wires represented by R. The loses associated with G are related to the potential difference and the loses associated with R are related to the current, again the situation of polarity reveals itself. Yes we could say low resistance/high resistance but in one situation the loss is occuring in one type of material and in the other the loss is occuring in another type of material which is the polar opposite of the first material and I think Eric is trying to distinguish this.

You are correct that you can calculate these quantities as you are saying but I feel your missing the point that is trying to be made. Why was it that Steinmetz/Heaviside and the other brilliant people who gave us our equations used even bothered with conductance then if you could just call it a low resistance? You are correct that today the problem is considered as low resistance/high resistance but I'm pretty sure you'll agree that Eric is distancing himself from the modern interpretation of electrical theory and agrees with the interpretations of the turn of the century scientists/mathematicians and so speaks their lingo in the same way that you're speaking the lingo your teachers told you to use.

Eric would need to clarify that this is why he stresses conductance/resistance over low/high resistance because this is just my interpretation.

Its an "i"ther or "ee"ther argument.

granted if I want to find certain transistor or tube properties I use conductance as a matter of convention.

I do not see him as distancing himself simply by the use of different in expressions to say the same thing.

It all comes out the same and does nothing to pound a wood stake through Einsteins heart, or meyls for that matter so whats the point?

ok we'll do it your way;

So no, you have not expressed it earlier in a manner that an engineer would accept any more than you have expressed it above.

Granted I would agree that there is a lot of good things stomped on to maintain their monopoly on commercialism and that in and of itself is or should be criminal. I can write a several page list of all the atrocities of science, however that does not change the fact that physics and engineering has nonetheless established methods by which these matters are to be investigated and proven. Bypassing these well proven and understood methods regardless of how we feel about the way it is handled academically will in fact lead us into purely mysticism. Now I have never seen an instance of mysticism functionally replace physics.

there is a reason I posted all this.


a tank circuit is exactly like this:

Making standing waves

when you reach f0 the the reactances create a null and look to the circuit like a pure resistance you get the highest waves.

I pointed out in this and other threads that ther can be measured by either a real meter or a simple make shift VSWR meter by tapping into the circuit.

The old timers have done this since the invention of dirt.

more

Standing Waves

which takes up to wave phase:

Wave Phase

interference

Wave Interference - Wave Pulse

Electric Fields

Capacitors

Electric Currents - Magnetic Fields

Electric Currents - Magnetic Fields

this is what I explained that everyone forgets when talking about the "impulse". the relationship between V I and time
Transformers - Power Transmission

finally
RC Circuits

LR Circuits Theory Part 1

LC Circuit - YouTube

LC Circuit - YouTube

LC Circuits Theory Part 1

LC Circuits Example 1 Part 1

LC Circuits Example 1 Part 2

LC Circuits Example 1 Part 3

LC Circuits Example 1 Part 4 The End

AC Circuits Example 1 Part 1



How does anyone know what is right or wrong by judging only one side of the matter?

I posted this so that people who do not have an engineering background can get a quick overview on how its done in the einstein world so they can make an informed decision on the matter.

This is where the rubber meets the road and where most alternative inventors and researchers hit the brick wall, sorry to say. ~awol

So since Meyl has something I can actually put my hands on, I am still leaning more toward Meyl at this time and will continue to duck the stones until shown differently.

From my understanding and interpretation, this and other theories which essentially agree focus their mathematics around 1 (unit circle etc). Applied to high vs low resistance and conductance, you can see the dividing line falling at 1 ohm.

You could halve resistances for example 64,32,16,8,4,2,1 but at one we start toward the "ratios", 1/2,1/4,1/8th etc. This would be the other way around looking at it from the conductance end of the spectrum.


this is similar to the Reciprocal theory by Dewey B Larson.

Eric wrote:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_..._Coils_OCR.pdf

Why this h/d = 1?

Let's consider the extra coil to be a wave guide that conducts only in one direction, along the coil windings. The normal, transverse wave travels in circles around the coil. Since we want to suppress that one, the circumference should be n * 1/2 lambda transverse, with n = 1,3,5,....

So, we should choose our diameter D = (n * 1/2 lambda transverse) / pi.

The longitudinal waves travels along the length of the coil. Now the wavelength of the longitudinal wave for the same frequency is pi/2 times as long. So, for D calculated as above, we get a longitudinal wavelength along the length direction of the coil of pi/2 times ((n * 1/2 lambda transverse) / pi) = n * 1/4 lambda transverse.


So, for a give diameter D, when we have a n * 1/2 lambda transverse along the circumference, we have a corresponding n * 1/4 longitudinal wavelength across the length of the coil that equals D.

So, now you can design your extra coil for a certain frequency...

So, the extra coil does not HAVE to be h/d = 1. Only in the case you want a 1/4 lambda waveguide / coil, you take h/d = 1. If you want a 3/4 lambda, you take h/d = 3.

And you can also play with n, BTW.

What is most important is to calculate the diameter such that you suppress the transverse wave at the desired operation frequency.

Thanks Lamare, that's a good point to bring up for those trying to understand the ratios and reasons.

On a side note this relationship also highlights the leakage capacitance of the windings. Inductance and the inter-turn leakage capacitance are geometry dependent and a function of the frequency. I want to find a more accurate calculation as to whats fundamentally occurring here, there is a phasor or amplitude vector tied to the rate of change in theta that needs to be factored to move from a ratio to useable constant, similar to resistance and voltage.

I'm getting stuck with traditional notation and I think this is where I need to pull in the j operator of Steinmetz and Erics work with k. I wish this was faster.

Also does anyone know why LaTex format isn't possible to post here? it would be very helpful to be able to post equations as they should look, a picture is indeed worth a thousand words, and hosting the gifs to other sites is a bit of a pain. Is this a function of the BB format? with resources like latex online you don't need to have the program to edit and join in.

If the velocity through a "distributed shunt capacity" LC circuit with coils and capacitors on the bench is C (minus material considerations etc) how is it that in this arrangement of a coil with air spaced capacity it now becomes pi/2? My mind just went out on blink again.

Its really difficult for me to conceptualize what could be different between them that could cause this or create this effect?

in reference to the leakage capacity of pF per cm, the current equations I've calculated show that the d/h= 20% shows a ~.935pF per cm and the d/h of 1:1 on the extra is .547pF per cm. one thing to keep in mind though is the sigma ratio of wire dia to axial distance that affects this calculation, it also isn't even touching on frequency or the time based function as it should.

it looks like I am going to have to break down and make a spice model one of these days

(I) There seems to be considerable confusion regarding the Alexanderson Network as a high frequency antenna for radio communications. I constructed the first version of such a network at the “Camp David” Installation on 450 Overlook, Bolinas, CA. This was done from 1990 to 1994. This installation was obliterated by the County of Marin as a service to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Pictures of the Alexanderson network, or array, can be found in the “Barbera Boxer Report” by E.P. Dollard. Camp David, named after its owner David Franklin, was conceived as a civil defense facility for the Town of Bolinas. The Camp David antenna is a dual log-periodic Alexanderson network for high frequency radio communications. Hence forth it will be called the “Bolinas Antenna”. The Bolinas Antenna suited the needs of both Bolinas radio stations KPH and NMC. The “group” did not like this idea so the Bolinas antenna is no more. But the principles are not gone, they exist as mathematical certainties and established engineering formula. The Bolinas antenna is constructed upon two primary engineering considerations: The first is the use of counter-spatial, or reactive, elements, as found in the distributed networks of Tesla and the lumped networks of Alexanderson. The second is the use of a log-periodic sequence of elements as developed thru U.S. Air Force research contracts. The union of these two conditions give rise to a broad bandwidth structure along with “Non Maxwellian” transmission capability. Niether Tesla nor Alexanderson produced such a network, both were very much Single Frequency structures.

The primary objective in the development of the Bolinas Antenna was for telluric transmission and reception in the range of 80 to 40 meters, a one octave band. The Bolinas Antenna consisted of a pair of vertical networks in phase conjunction. The neutral connected directly into the San Andreas Fault line. The log-periodic construction allowed the Bolinas Antenna to also be utilized as an electro-magnetic radiator up to 30 megacycles per second. The compact size and the broadband characteristics make this antenna useful for confined shipboard installations. The theory and design as well as construction details will be developed here.

(II) The counter-spatial, or reactive, transmission network theory is already given in “System for the Transmission and reception of Telluric Electric Waves” by E.P. Dollard. This aspect will therefore not be repeated here. The log-periodic concept will however be developed in the following: Considerable detail on the log-periodic antenna can be found in “The Multi-Wave Oscillator Handbook”, by Tom Brown. A U.S. Psychotronics Assn. Video on the M.W.O. Also exists on “YouTube”. Here can be found the details of my U.H.F. M.W.O. Antenna. Its range was from 300 Mc/sec to 1000 Mc/sec. A “faster than light” speed was expected, but as usual it was time for the “rat to run” so the antenna project vanished to the winds. Be we can rest assured that someone profited from it.

The log-periodic antenna grew out of U.S. AirForce research contracts with the objective of developing a “frequency independent” antenna. The tactical H.F. Radio, and the U.H.F. Spread spectrum systems under development could not operate without such an antenna structure. Unexpectedly here electricity meets with Fibonacci. The log-periodic antennae were found to project themselves into a virtual antenna beyond the physical bounds of their apex. This is analogous to the “plant-archetype” of Rudolf Steiner.

Log-periodic theory states that an electrical structure becomes frequency independent when its constituent sub-structures each exist in a log-periodic sequence. This is to say each elemental network in a series of networks differs from its neighbor networks in a constant logarithmic proportion. Then the concatenated series of networks becomes frequency independent over a finite band, this depending on the total number of individual networks in the log-periodic progression, the more networks the greater the bandwidth.

This log-periodic geometry can be seen in a given rank of organ pipes. The musical scale is a log-periodic sequence in itself. The generalized log-periodic form is derived from the following mathematical expression

, numeric (1)

Theoretically, there is no beginning, nor is there any end to this sequence, and numerically it must equal infinity. One side continues to become smaller and smaller, while the other side continues to become larger and larger. Naturally, only a finite span of this log-periodic sequence can be utilized in any realizable structure. The pipe organ is a good example of a definite log-periodic span. The largest possible pipe is 32 feet. This is taken as the reference pipe. None can be made larger than this, it is the size of a utility pole. Let for the 32 foot pipe, in the “octave” sequence of a equals two, the total rank be given by;

Beginning,







Thus the entire scale of the pipe organ, in octaves of a equals two, is given as

, numeric (2)

This mathematical expression serves as a finite span, or scale, out of the infinite log-periodic series of octaves. This scales is symbolized by a log-periodic operator,

, numeric (3)

Expression (3) is both symbolic and also a definite numeric value,

(4)

Hereby, for the pipe organ scale, this operator takes the form,

(5)

And

numeric (6)

This eighth order operator hereby expresses the pipe organ in terms of the log periodic scale of octaves.

The generalized log-periodic series can be reduced to the following expression,

numeric (7)

Thus it is then derived

numeric (8)

The root log-periodic operator, and this may be regarded as a kind of “alter-versor”.

During the development of the log-periodic antenna it was discovered that the optimum scaling factor, , was approximately 60 percent, giving a log base of near 1.6. Let a given log-periodic base be given by the relation,

numeric (9)

This is a vector projection derived from the versor expression,

unit. (10)

This vector is known as the Golden Ratio. The derived log-periodic is the scaled utilized by Nature in organic formative forces. Numerically it is given as,

numeric.

This is very near the value of 1.6. Taking 5 elements out of the entire Golden Ratio log-periodic series gives the following numeric values; , beginning





And total,

numeric (11)

is the unit size upon which the scale develops. In this case is the length of the smallest antenna element. Denoting this unit length as l (feet, cm, etc) the log-periodic series is then

(12)

Hence the element lengths





Here given is the five sequential lengths in a five element log-periodic antenna with a scaling factor derived from the fifth root of positive one. Here derived is a Golden Ratio log-periodic antenna, Fig (1)







The total length of wire counter-spatially sub-divided into the log-periodic is given by the expression

(13)

Hence the basic relations of element length and total length,

length (14)

length (14)

Hereby the dimensions of any lineal wire log-periodic can be determined.

The individual element lengths are each half wave sections at their fundamental frequencies This determines the actual band of operating frequencies. Higher order expressions, (a wider spand of the infinite series) give wider bandwidths of operation. In this example the width is expressed as,

percent (15)

Within this range of frequencies the given log-periodic structure becomes a horizontally polarized electro-magnetic wave projector. This is commonly known as a broadside antenna array. In this band this log periodic structure is dimensionally a Spatial structure. Conversely, this log-periodic structure is dimensionally a counter-spatial structure when the total length, , is

length (16)



Where it is given

c = Luminal Velocity

= Frequency in C.P.S.

Hence this structure has both a “high broadband” T.E.M. Mode, and also a “Low Band” L.M.D. Mode with one specific operating frequency of .

Break

Kind of challenging to get all this straight.

I'll try to answer your questions from what I understand.

First of all, the magnification. As you can see from Dr. Stiffler's experiments and the Joule-thief stuff, it is possible to drain power from the aether. The way these systems, as well as Tesla's TMT, do this is by means of longitudinal resonance, a resonating current-less electric field or better: standing longitudinal dielectric wave. So, with these kinds of systems, you can get a power gain, BUT this power is in a shape that it contains no magnetic field. And since magnetic fields and currents as we know them go hand in hand, the essential problem with all these systems is how to convert the power we gained in the (di)electric field into usable power. As you can see with the Joulethief stuff, you can easily use the electric field to light a fluorescent, but it is much harder to run a motor on it. I still haven't reached the bottom on this, but my article on Peswiki with the part on Bearden's "don't kill the dipole" goes a long why in explaining why you can get a power gain with these kinds of systems:

Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

It comes down to this: when you create a longitudinal resonance in some system, you have to drive it one way or another from a normal power source. That costs you in terms of energy. However, when you have a higher order resonance in your system, you have multiple oscillating dipoles, of which (ideally) only one is driven from your power source. The other ones draw their energy from the aether itself and thus come for free.

And it appears that only longitudinal resonance modes are capable of effectively drawing energy from the aether. It appears that longitudinal waves do not easily radiate away into space and loose energy, while EM waves do radiate and leak any power gain that may be present straight out into space. That is why Tesla did not like "Herzian" waves at all...


Now the impedance. When you are using complex mathematics to calculate electric systems, you calculate with impedances. The nice thing about calculating with complex mathematics is that it makes calculations on harmonic systems much easier, because you can calculate with capacitors and inductors almost as if they are frequency dependent resistors.

Now the impedance of a capacitor Zc = 1 / (jw C) -> with j the square root of minus 1 and w the Greek letter omega, 2 times pi times the frequency. And the impedance of an inductor Zl = jw L.

So, if you want a high impedance, you need either a high inductance or a low capacitance.

Now note the word characteristic. That means we are not talking about the impedance of the coil as a whole, but about the distributed impedance. In other words: he is considering the coil in terms of a distributed transmission line.

All right. Now we are talking about the specific case of having a coil in a longitudinal resonance mode, whereby we design our coil such that transverse waves across it's circumference are suppressed.

Since the longitudinal wave travels along the length of the coil, it does not "see" the inductance of the windings. It propagates from one winding to the next by means of the tiny capacitors that exist between the coil wires.

Naudin illustrated this very nicely:
The L.M.D./T.E.M.Test


Now only in the specific case that the circumference of the coil equals an odd multiple of the transverse wavelength, you get no TEM wave. And THAT is what we need to accomplish with a Tesla coil, or better, the "extra" coil.

Now when you look very deeply into what magnetism is, it is a rotational movement of the aether, while dielectricity is a translation, a "straight" displacement, of the aether. So, anything magnetic HAS to have this rotational movement of the aether, while the propagation of dielectricity moves just straight ahead. In other words: magnetic stuff takes a detour of netto half a circle (pi*r) while the dielectric moves straight on (2*r). When you divide these, you get the factor pi/2.

So, when you are talking about longitudinal waves and/or dielectricity, you have to find a way to get rid of the magnetic component. And you can do that with a resonating coil with proper design...

And one of the first things you have to let go is the idea that the inductance or overall self capacitance of a coil is of any use. At frequencies above the self-resonance frequency of a coil, these are totally useless.

At sufficiently high frequencies, it does not even matter how many turns you make on your coil. Then, it appears you can get a long way by mainly considering the geometry of the coil and consider it more like an antenna/wave guide where you match circumference, etc. to the wavelengths you are working with.

It appears that all you need is a correction factor of 0.9 - 0.95 to account for the slower propagation speed of waves trough metal when compared to air / emtpy space.

Thanks T-Rex for this especially juicy post. My high school algebra... whats left of it is sufficient to comprehend most of what you are talking about here.

Oddly it was a couple of Stinson beach girls who short circuited my math mind when they introduced me to weed back in 67. That pretty much dates me.

Fortunately I can still read write and do enough arithmetic to survive.

Thanks for the transmissions.

Time doesn't go in any direction; Space does.

Well I don't get it. Meyl is unable to demonstrate properly the Tesla effects. The difference is clear both in observation and operation. A 30 second experiment can clearly show this. I advise you to start playing with things you can actually get your hands on because it seems that's what it will take to undo this Meyl madness, you will have to see it for yourself. That alone will answer vast amounts of questions as well as ones you haven't even thought to ask yet. The experiment speaks for itself - so do the experiment. Don't watch videos or read about it.

OK so let me get this straight, you are saying that the extra coil can now be
1:3 diameter to height ratio or a 1:1 ratio, then what about 1:5 or 1:7 ratio ?
Are you saying those are OK too ? And in fact Teals says in the 1,119,732
patent the extra coil can extend all the way up to the terminal. If we consider
that most of us know there needs to be an odd multiple of the 1/4
wavelength used then it kinda makes sense the extra coil could be 1/4, 3/4,
5/4 ect.

Patent US1119732 - ELECTRICAL ENERGY - Google Patents

Tesla also mentions in that patent on page 2 lines 93 to 97 that -

and on page 2 in lines 7 to 15 that -

So either it's OK to use 1:3 ratio extra coil or it isn't. Which is it ?
Tesla seems to say it is OK.

Oh and another thing is what kind of effects can we expect to see from the
terminal of one of these setups with about 100 watts input ? Like 20 to 40 mm
streamers into free space or 60 to 70 mm arcs to the grounded plate ? More -less ?

What kind of voltages should we be able to develop at the terminal with 100
watts input from a 5000 v AC supply ?

If we were to see on a scope the waveform produced by the top terminal
should it be a sine wave ?

We can see the effects produced by Eric, but he had a 10 kW HF power
supply I think. And if using 100 watts input what kind of bulb can we expect
to light between the ground connection and the secondary coil bottom
terminal ? Or how much current or whatever ?

One other thing is when the capacitive link is used between secondary and
extra coil does the 1/4 wavelength cover the extra coil and the secondary
separately like as in on 1/4 WL on each ? And when no capacitive link is used
does the 1/4 WL cover both secondary and extra coil or does 1/4 wavelength
cover each one separately ?

I am aware that the patent I am referring to is the system he "may" have
intended mainly for electrical energy transmission, not "signals" as such.
And when he refers to using a small capacitance to allow him a higher
frequency "I think" he means because the system is so large if he used to
large of a capacity the frequency would be way too much lower than the 35 Khz
or so he says is important to stay under, but he wants as high as possible up
to the maximum 35 Khz or so. ie. he didn't want only a few hundred Hz. Is the
way I understand it.


Cheers

time is additive, never subtractive.

It is a chronological sequence of intervals with an agreed base unit of a second.

time travel and the science fiction of going backwards in time is frankly laughable.

Imagine how many people would be running around from the future!

If they were not able to invent in the future it certainly does not exist now.


In so far as these experiments are concerned I occasionally mention things that would be conclusive or at least more conclusive and everyone gets pissed at me and snarks at me telling me to "build your own crap".

Now if you look above we have Dollard telling us to build a log periodic antenna as if that has anything what so ever to do with the TMT.

Of course it would have worked good for tv and receiving hertzian waves.

Yes, as far as I understand you can do all these. The key is to match the circumference such that you suppress the transverse wave at your desired frequency, which means it needs to be a multiple of 1/2 lambda, because then you have a closed loop with your magnetic wave out of phase on subsequent windings.

When you have done that, your diameter D equals 1/4 lambda for the desired longitudinal wave. So, by taking h=D you get a 1/4 lambda longitudinal resonating coil.

By taking h=3D, you get 3/4 lambda for that same frequency. And so on.

Of course, this only works for relatively tightly wound coils. If you wind it like a helix antenna ( Goetz's HRPT/HRI Antennas ) the spacing between the windings is much to big. And also the pitch (winding angle) is such that you can no longer consider the coil to be non-conducting in the length direction.

So, within certain limits, I think you can get a long way by looking at the geometry.

Experience is additive, never subtractive

The only time is now. Physicists can only define time relative to certain events happening in physical space, according to the amount of change they can measure. A "second" hand moves a certain distance on a clock according to a certain rhythm, and they call that time. It's all derived from the sun's observable position in the sky. If there was no change in physical space then the physicists would have no basis for their theory of time.

What is an interval? How big is it, can you say "there it is" and point out this interval? How is it that the passage of time can vary according to the perceiver? Does space speed up and slow down according to this change of perception? Time is not a physical object, so the idea of being defined according to things happening in physical space is utterly meaningless to begin with It's just a convenient thing to use under certain circumstances, like language for communicating with other people. Time travel within these circumstances is physically impossible, because all physical space has changed, that's how come you know it was in the past and now is now, the so-called relative future. If space hadn't changed then it would still be the so-called past, but it would also be "now". It's our idea of time that's incompatible with time travel. That's like playing a game that has certain rules, you can't do certain things as long as you intend to follow those rules. But that doesn't explain anything that happens outside the game. Time travel has no meaning if there is no such thing as time to begin with. If you want to experience the illusion of time travel then simply travel faster through space than the light leaving any particular event on the planet, and then you will have something nice and physical to look at. Now you are experiencing the so-called past. But you are still in the present, it's later than when you set out on your journey, but you're observing something that happened before it. Confusing isn't it, when you have to follow the rules

I've also posted "conclusive" evidence but I don't see anyone doing cartwheels in excitement over that either I get the feeling most people don't believe it because it's one of those things they'll have to do and see for themselves to be sure. Yet we have all accepted what we are trying to disprove as "the way it is" without doing our own investigation to prove it in the first place. Everyone else believed it without question so so did we. But why so hard to show it to be wrong even when we have evidence to back it up? I could post my own experiments that show things that go beyond Meyl, I think you've already seen some of them, and I don't even claim to understand all this stuff. I'm not claiming any miraculous results, just the configurations and the conditional results of those configurations. But Meyl prevails. The point of building your own crap is because you can do specific tests that other people don't show publicly that put Meyl into perspective. I could, for example, replicate Meyl's boat experiment, but take it a step further by (sort of) listening to Tesla and using a wire to energise the water, simplifying the experiment but still using a basically correct arrangement of things. Then it will work at a much greater distance from the transmitter than Meyl is capable of, because he's not doing it that way. The wire into water method would still be wireless because the medium would be the water, not wires, and there would be more energy available for use. This isn't how Meyl is doing it, and on the basis of these simple facts/obvious errors I don't consider him to be any kind of authority on the matter, which is why I always comment when he's mentioned.

If the ether or dielectric vacuum...(call it what you want) is the reason for the TMT,then a log periodic antenna in one form or another might be worthy of experimentation. One of my science teachers, Dr. Phil Callahan was all about log periodic antennas in field insect communication. He too was an old radio man and that helped inspire his work with insect communication. This field is still wide open. Who knows what will turn up.

well I do not want to write a thesis on time but I think time intervals of one second were taken from a metronome ticking.

So I expect that someone had a pendulum and everyone set theirs alike.

Anyway, I mention meyl because regardless he is doing it with under 10 volts sine wave what we cant seem to do with gigantic spark gaps and his is not a 3 coil system, but a 2 coil system.

I agree that his videos do not show farfield but he said in one of his lectures that he tried it in the farfield in the universities. so you tell me? Is he lying?

and dont forget the golden rule. Any antenna that can receive well also transmits well.

what is the point of daisy chaining a series of dipoles each having their own bandwidth to get greater bandwidth?

Sort of blows teslas "high Q" requirement right out the window now doesnt it?

Hell I can easily tune up (and did) to a picket fence, so why not build one of those next?

This thread is starting to sound more like willy wonkas tube drivein tpu

I thought that was the purpose for winding a coil.
if you have a rod that will transmit tem nicely, a coil does not

at some pont it will appear capacitive and just like at some point a 2 inch straight wire will appear inductive.

well there you are, nothing has been done conclusively on any of these matters. everyone stops short. I am guessing those are the experiemntors private findings that they dont want to share with us. Maybe for good reason

Ok so Kokomoj0 has profiled me and its probably true.... but just because my brain is a little on the soft side, I do have thoughts questions and possible ideas to float. Here is one I have not heard of yet but perhaps someone here has:

it seems like a great deal of time and energy is spent building things that pretty much do what all the other coil builders are doing, some better than others of course, but pretty much the same.

It seems to me that utilizing for instance single a high voltage power supply makes the whole process hit or miss. Why not utilize a regulated high voltage power supply off an old x-ray machine. That way the power can be tuned via the controls on the machine which typically controls the output as KV and MA. That way tuning can take place from the input as well as the output side. Anyone tried this?