Videos 1 thru 11 were posted one month ago , Titled as "Scalar Field Theory",
Videos are the
Power Engineering Scalar Field Theory - Faraday vs. Maxwell and Demonstration of Longitudinal Wave Transmission (Konstantin Meyl) (2003)

I had seen a small portion of this lecture before, but this seems to be then entire lecture.

The Source Link PowerPedia:Eric Dollard that lead me to find the above videos states this:
Video Transmission of Power Without Wires (Scalar Waves)
A demonstration of Nikola Tesla's theory of the transmission of power without the use of wires using EM 'Scalar Waves'. Demonstration by Professor Dr. Konstantin Meyl of Germany.

Directory:Konstantin Meyl - PESWiki

Enjoy, I suggest you download the videos.
Randy

How to download & view videos:
One method is to use Firefox & DownloadHelper add-on & VLC to view *.flv saved files.

He sells working educational models on his site but they are VERY expensive sadly.

Wow those prices are indeed astronomical. His lecture was mind blowing. The math really numbs your mind pretty fast.

A few questions arise though. It has been 6 years since that lecture and he seems to have made the breakthrough discovery in 1990? Why are these kits so very expensive? He mentioned many times hitting the cosmic resonant frequency for complete free energy. Hasn't he achieved this yet? And finally, why hasn't this had huge coverage? Instead we hear about the silly witricity "invention" from MIT.

I think they tried to fine him for EM "smog" when ever he fired up his apparatus This is how they silenced him form memory. I cant remember who on the board published this, but i remember it was some h thing along those lines


Ash

His kits don't look anywhere near worth the price he's offering them for.

Well, the math is quite ordinary for physicists, mostly theoretics. And what is more, our current mathematical models allows so called "scalar waves" even with Lorenz fixing, i.e., in closed EM systems.

Quote from wikipedia.org:
"[..]In this form it is clear that the components of the potential separately satisfy the Klein-Gordon equation, and hence that the Lorenz gauge condition allows transversely, longitudinally, and "time-like" polarized waves in the four-potential.[..]"
Gauge fixing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet, we say these (longitudinally and "time-like" polarized, can't remember witch of these two was scalar waves, most likely longitudinally polarized) are not observed in real life experiments, so we apply one more condition to eliminate them. Damn. All we have to do is to prove, that we really observed scalar waves.

So, think what you want to think.

Very valuable source, thanks for posting the link .

Ash would be cool if you could find the srouce of that.

Tehnoman, this is why I never liked college. Too much math too little intuition. The math might make more sense to others but it doesn't to me.

Tehnoman, Yes Meyl said scalar waves don't break any current "rules" (theory and laws)
they only require acknowledgment, exposure, use of discarded parts of equations to not be discarded and enhancement of the current "rules".

Meyl stated the 20% unknown noise, wasted power, found coming out of any antenna (I thought that's what he was saying) IS scalar waves.

He also said we, our bodies, transmit and receive scalar waves as well as
I think he stated, he believes, our body communicates internally via scalar waves.

A break-through? He spoke about those that have a KIT have fiddled
around with it because the power readings must be wrong. Their "reality" makes them think the equipment must be malfunctioning.
They do and are getting more power out of them than they put into them, it isn't a matter of achieving anything. It's a matter of accepting it is as a fact, that's the problem.
They are staring at the teeth and know not that it's the gift horse's mouth they are looking into.


Randy

Well, actually it is possible to understand this math with intuition. But that is pretty long road to ride. But finally after three courses in mathematical analysis I think I start to understand. Bear in mind, I'm not in mathematics, but in physics. Vector field theory is quite handy mathematical tool. But even to start to understand took me one and a half year studying math and physics side by side...

Of course, not everyone will understand it. And there is no need for it. But in very basic level there is intuitive explanation.

Yeah, I know. I didn't say, that he did. Thing I was talking about was why in the hell in general science the scalar waves are left out. And the bottom line was - we don't know why. There is no logic again. Sorry, I admit that maybe I was not very clear about what I am trying to say, but oh well - things like that happens.

Note that you pay for a unit that can prove MANY things like OU, overlight speed etc,etc. And you get access to all other experimenter´s results to speed up the development.

So 800-900 Euros after all is not massive for a complete OU MhZ pancake sender and receiver with a database of other people´s results. The guy was fined a lot of money for sending like 1 W of energy in the mobile frequency range, who do you think did that(power companies, Big Oil lobbyists in EU, trying to get rid of him, too late if you ask me, if some more people get the message good things will happen rather sooner than later)???!

The truth is these guys try to stalk Meyl and Dollard like crazy because those guys can and will inspire others to change the world, the question is when and it must happen now. I NEVER mind paying some extra money to people who do brilliant work. And who is important, a new president or a unique tech inventor that can save the environmental destruction and inspire billions of poor people into inventing new stuff? With Internet anyone has a chance.

Think about it and you will realize the cost is nothing compared to the progress.

Of what we've seen of his videos and diagrams, what exactly is it that is stopping us from replicating the transceiver, or should I say what more parts/specifications/etc. do we need to know to replicate wireless transfer that hasn't already been said in his patent?

Or his picture from the video?:

I've just posted Rick Andersen's article about various effects which are referred to as "Scalar".

He doesn't have a copywrite notice and as far as I know it's not available on the net.

Rick Andersens' "The 7 Scalars"

Dingus, me personally. I'm waiting for a bit better weather. So I can turn a spare room into a lab. All the info is there now. All everybody has to do is build it.

I hooked up my T Spark circuit, in preparation of some conductivity tests with my CSET, and my computer speaker started picking up the sound of the arc. (The computer was turned off.) Due to the angle of the speaker, with the arc, I was reminded of a conversation I had a few years ago with Harvey Norris. Harvey seems to think that he's the reincarnation of Tesla, and there is a remarkable resemblance in their pictures.

When I told him that I think that an L shaped spark can be used to produce Scalar energy, he said that he maintains that a single arc can be used as a Scalar emitter. He's developed an amazingly simple circuit he calls a Binary Resonant System, or BRS. The circuit consists of two parallel LC branches with a spark gap across the center. When the arc forms, it switches the series branch circuits into a parallel relationship. He said when this happens, the arc produces a Scalar signal.

Harvey used a bifilar coil as the pickup and produced opposing wave forms on his scope. Like the position of my speaker, he said the energy is orthogonal. This means that, if a light bulb were used as the receiver, the filament would be parallel to the arc, but the bulb would be positioned at a 45 degree angle. My tests, with a different set up, have shown that the bulb needs a jumper wire which is soldered from the base of the bulb directly to the side, where the filament wire is soldered to the screw part. Otherwise, if this filament wire has a sharp end sticking out of the solder, the point will arc to ground as the bulb lights up.

I'm going to reconstruct this light bulb reciever and test it with his circuit. Since there's an arc, excess energy might resonate from the background flux.

Attached Images

Work 010.jpg (410.5 KB, 35 views)

I keep thinking about how he said that our bodies transmit and receive scalar waves in in Scalar Field Theory - 11, and I keep wondering about it's potential uses (besides wireless electrocution. ) He said something about their use in hospitals, or something to that effect, but what kind of information, to achieve what, and how exactly is it modulated?

"At the First Nikola Tesla Energy Science Conference & Exposition 2003, in Washington D.C., Prof. Dr.-Ing Konstantin Meyl presented his "Power Engineering Scalar Field Theory - Faraday vs. Maxwell and Demonstration of Longitudinal Wave Transmission" lecture, in which he explains:

* How one can modify the basic equations of electromagnetic field to include longitudinal waves which result in a true revolution in electromagnetics.
* How to correctly expand the classical electromagnetic field theory to include longitudinal/Tesla waves.
* How Faraday's experiments were actually describing a much broader electromagnetics than was later derived by Maxwell and curtailed to an even more primitive state by others so that today's engineers are literally handicapped when using it.
* How the missing experimental pieces eventually came from the work of Tesla.
* How the forgotten ideas of Nikola Tesla are the missing pieces which prevent scientists from reaching the goal of a comprehensible unified field theory."

-- so uhh, many people talk about new wave theories, like t.j.j. see, walter russell and obviously the bearden-bedini-dollard-meyl group, and all of it, especially t.j.j. see seems to have a lot to do with adding longitudinal waves along with that transverse wave thing, and about the sound pressure in the ether being more acoustic gas than anything else, and the equations "just requiring some more longitudinal stuff" and then everything is fine, but where do we go from here? yeah, something seems to be addable especially through ed leedskalnin and others, into our current wave theories, but how could we measure these things that our devices arent built to measure?

Well, watched all of these videos. And gave some time to think about that and scratched some mathematical ideas and proofs.

Some conclusions, which I was able to make:
1) First and basic thing in math about Maxwell approximation is somehow misinterpreted - don't know, how he missed that. He said, if dB/dt=0, from Maxwell equation we conclude, that E=0. That is so wrong. From the fact dB/dt=0 we can only say, that rotE=0, and that is not the same as E=0, that only say E-field is potential field. Nothing more!
2) Second thing, when he did announce symmetry in E and B fields, he added some variables in equations and presented it as whole new idea. Wrong again. Equations he presented is known quite while and is no secret - Maxwell equations with magnetic monopoles (hypothetical). Can be found in wikipedia.
3) Don't remember if the same mathematical approach was in this presentation, but I used presented equations from "Meyl - Scalar Waves - Theory And Experiments (2001).pdf". And that also was some kind of strange stuff. For one inexperienced in math it could seem all right, yet it is complete nonsense - we take one equation, present some other identities and pop up with magical "plasma wave" equation. What is more, same equation stands in wikipedia as "inhomogeneous wave equation for E-potential". Nevertheless it was obtained from more than few simple identities, including Lorenz fixing.

These things really disappointed me, because I am kind of person, that is walking path reality-->math-->reality and understanding basic concepts of processes. And for that purpose, the math K.Meyl presented as his theory background was useless.

Ok, lets finish with the bad side.

From bright side, all these concepts he presented is quite interesting, and the rolling E-field balls looked quite nice (despite the fact, that math he presented didn't mach his intuitive explanations). And still I believe the scalar waves can be found and used.

The thing, that needs to be done, Is more careful mathematical description as from theoretical side. From practical - we need to build his experimental device and use E-field probes (used one, while doing experiments with microwaves in this semester - quite nice toy to play around) to understand and represent actual E-field configuration in this "scalar" wave between these two spheres. And it would prove, disprove or help to develop mathematical model.

From there, we must find a way to disconnect receiver and transmitter from any kind of reference line, because after all - who the hell will use mobile phones, If they will require ground connection???

That is some thoughts from my side. Hope that I wasn't too harsh, but the fact remains. Still much work needs to be done.

@Tehnoman,
You like to bite into the math, do ya?
Have you looked at Rodin's math?
It works, it's cool the way it flows, and I'm not a math person.

Watch his videos, he explains it The Number Matrix and Rodin Coil

Randy

Well, It is kind of funny, me and math.

As far as I am concerned, the most important thing is understanding how things work. Math is just another tool to accomplish it.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
/Albert Einstein/

But to successful use math as tool to understand nature, one must understand math too, at very basic ideas. And it happens that just now (this semester) I finished course of vector field theory and also electromagnetics. And combination of these two courses has lead me to pretty good understanding of vector operators and their usage in EM and wave equations.

I doubt that the same would stand true for matrix based math, like tensor analysis or something like that. Can't see connections to real world yet. But will give that video a try, when I will have enough time. I am curious my self, what knowledge I will be able to pull out from it.

There was an interesting disputal of Meyls theory at:

http://www.scientificexploration.org...15.2_bruhn.pdf

However, it's gone now, but it's still available at the internet archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/200701241...15.2_bruhn.pdf

This is pretty straightforward to read if you're familiar with the Maxwell equations. Bruhn makes the fundamental mistake trying do disprove Meyl:

"Thus, restricting ourselves to the normal case of absence of free charges,
where = 0 and j = 0, we obtain the homogeneous Maxwell equations"

According to Quantum Mechanics and the ZPE theory, there must be positron-electron pairs continuously popping in and out of existence, and therefore the vacuum is filled with free charges!

Eric Dollard shows in his videos that longitudinal waves *do* exist, so there must be free charge particles available in the vacuum. Now Quantum theory says that electron-positron pairs are constantly popping in and out of existence in the vacuum and that these pairs are "short-lived". See for example the following article by Apollo astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell:

Quantum Theory, The Quantum Hologram and Zero Point Energy

"The Heisenberg uncertainty principle unambiguously demands that
short-lived virtual photons pop in and out of existence (along with
positron-electron pairs). The inability of Helium to solidify even at
absolute zero temperature is attributed to zero-point energy. "

So, longitudinal waves *do* exist *and* most likely the the free charge particles those waves are being transmitted trough are positron-electron pairs popping in and out of existence.

I think this theory is crucial in explaining how the Gray tube works.
For more, see my posts on:
Workings of the gray tube

Regards,

-- Arend --

I have read that disputal. Well, yes, assumption, that divE and divB ir identically zero is wrong. But that is all, that can be questioned in that doc. Other stuff is quite true, including speed determination (Meyl didn't show any mathematical proof, that f1/f2 = v/c, so that is just speculation).

As for his math being wrong, that doesn't mean that the resonance frequency formula is wrong too does it? I'd like to know before I try making one.

Resonance formula, shown in picture before, is quite right.

What is about his suggested experiment - it is interesting and should be built to better understand things, that happens there. Yet, explanations could be different, than he provides... I plan to replicate that thing too, when I'll have time to do so.

Gave some more time to think about Meyl's theories.

After long and creative thinking and short discussion with our leading Electromagnetic professor, concluded one most important thing, that is, the basis of Meyl's theory:

Electric field can be induced even if dB/dt = 0, according to relation E = - v x B, in space without charge.

P.S. - E, B, v - vectors, v x B - vector cross product.

In presently known and recognized physics E-field can be induced in charge less space only if dB/dt is not 0! That is, formula E = - v x B arises from relativity, that is, in one frame of reference we can't see Magnetic field changing in time (dB/dt=0), so we explain situation with imagined field-motion E = - v x B! But in reality in finite systems there is magnetic field which changes in time, that is dB/dt is not zero.

So. If we can't find any experimental case in which there is induced electric field without magnetic field changing in time, then Meyl's theories is nothing more than misinterpreted relativity.

But - if we can find experimental case in which there is induced electric field without magnetic field changing in time, then we can talk further.

What is beauty of this conclusion - experiment is damn simple. But what is downside - it has been already done. And information about that is here:
Faraday paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And the conclusion is - rotating cylindrical Magnet does not produce Electric field. That is bad for K. Meyl's theory. In short - there is no term as "moving" B-field and so formulation of E = - v x B in general is wrong.

As for previous showed criticizing PDF, that was wrong in aspect of what assumptions is used in his theory.

But as far as I can see, K.Meyl scalar field theory is just misinterpretation of Faraday's experiment. Of course, one can see for himself if that is true - take metal disk or just wire, and rotate in near vicinity a cylindrical Magnet. But in God's sake - don't buy or try to replicate Meyl experiment...

@Tehnoman, what you write in your formulas is not understandable to me. If you make a time derivative on one side you must do it on the other side of the equation and then you can never conclude what you do, sorry but true. I believe you need to read what the other German maths professor attacks in Meyl´s theories, that is on a high level and it all boils down to whether we can accept a non time dependent solution to the electromagnetic field equation(scalar solution).

Anyway, what I do remember clearly from the book is that I concluded there never will be an E-field without a B-field, they are a cornerstone of his theory and makes sense. Take a look at where you are living... In a rotating magnetic field.. And you have the E-field well in place between ionosphere and ground. In an inductor, where do you have E-field? Between turns where B is zero since B-fields of parallell turns cancel eachother exactly between themselves. Double vortex counter rotating, E and B are the masters of our lives.

And about relativity what Meyl says is not that Einstein is wrong when you take a look out from our spherical capacitor mother earth. Only that if you go out of the spherical capacitor in space you can see things objectively and then Einstein falls down, our E/B-field twists our look and that is why he baptized his theory to teh "theory of objectivity". And Einstein embarrassingly stole his idea from Boscovic a jeusit priest..... Just like Tesla said.......

All in all his book demands a lot of prerequisites from the reader, multi competence like "Da Vinci" and takes years to grasp for most people even if well educated in maths/physics.

Most professors will fight about his book and theory for decades to come and I believe I will leave it to those skilled in that art.... Never mind, let´s build something first. Meyl is a great universal genius if you ask me.

Actually no, of course. And yet - there can be derivative on one side and on the other side can be zero. That means, function that we are deriving is independent in respect to variable, according in which we are deriving. Maybe my technical/mathematical English is not so good, but yet, can't find single error in equations I wrote.

There my math disagrees. Time independent solution can't be wave, no matter scalar or transverse. Of course that is if we treat time as we are used to do.

In nature there are many examples, also in scalar waves. For example, sound is air pressure scalar wave. Time dependent by all means (again, in tradition view of time).

That could be true. E/B duality is there, I don't say that it is not. Yet, about "objectivity" - if we look at picture from one point of view we have one frame of reference. That is kind of weird and yet - human sees relatively. We should need at least two points of view, to talk about objectivity. At least, that would be logical. But oh well, about this we could write books, and so people do.

Well yes. Our days there is no concepts that could be understood just by a few equations, without any grasp of imagination or knowledge beyond your specialization.

And yet - I just wanted to note one basic flaw in his theory, and by basic I mean - fundamental.

Take a look at his paper here:
http://www.k-meyl.de/go/60_Primaerli...ID_Eurasia.pdf
Fig. 5. at page 6. We clearly see rotating cylindrical Magnet that is producing E-field across stationary conductor.
Take a look here:
Faraday paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At "The procedure" section is described, that - if we rotate only Magnet, no E-field is produced.

I believe that in presentation video, which could be found on youtube.com, was the same picture. So the question arises - if there is such inconsistency in very beginning of "Maxwell's approximation" explanation, then how can we believe all that follows?

Just to make clear - I am not against scalar waves, that is why I devoted so much time to think about it in first place. And yet, If I see that basic explanation is in contradiction to very old and wide known paradox... Then I am quite confused.

Just wanted to point out:

In the borderland science video where Eric Dollard compared longitudinal and transverse waves.

In the transverse waves he calculated the resonant frequency by connecting a signal generator directly to one end of a wire and looking for a maximum voltage on the other end of the wire.

For the longitudinal waves, he calculated the resonant frequency in the same way except the frequency generator was capacitively coupled to one end of a wire of equal length.

He then measured the wave propagation velocity as resonant frequency * wavelength, which is resonant frequency * conductor length * 4. The factor of 4 is included because the input and reflected energy result in a maximum output when the conductor length is one-quarter of the electric wavelength.

Note: Eric Dollard explained this as the wave travels down to the end of the wire, flips up-side-down, then travels back, gets amplified by the 180 degree phase of the frequency generator, travels down again, flips back upright, and then returns once more to complete the phase and add again with the next cycle of the frequency generator. I however have always wondered about this explanation, why doesn't the wave flip again on the signal side?

Anyway: resonant frequency * conductor length * 4

The results were:
– transverse wave velocity = 2.44 x 108 m/s = 0.81 x c
– longitudinal wave velocity = 3.74 x 108 m/s = 1.25 x c.

I wanted to point out that the ratio between these is 1.25 / 0.81 = 1.54

So the longitudinal waves were 1.54 times the frequency of the transverse waves. However though it's generally thought that waves in a conductor travel at the speed of light, I think this calculation is more precise.

Now comparing that to what Meyl demonstrated, with the transmitter and receiver that were spaced approximately 20 ft apart.

The resonant frequencies were:
– transverse waves: 4.6 MHz
– scalar waves: 7.1 MHz.

How fast the transverse waves are actually traveling I think is debatable but I do want to point out that the ratio between 7.1 MHz and 4.6 MHz is: 7.1/4.6 = 1.54

So while he didn't actually compute the velocity of the wave, and just assumed that the transverse was the speed of light, it is very revealing to me that it's another data point that confirms that the longitudinal wave is approximately 1.54 times that of the transverse wave.

Let's not assume that longitudinal waves are 1.5 times the speed of light.

Well, as we know, light is nothing more than electromagnetic transverse wave, just with high enough frequency.

If we can prove, that longitudinal wave is x times faster than transverse, we can say x times faster than light. Different is if we want to say "faster than light in vacuum (or air - close enough)", in which case speed of light will be "c".

If we compare speed in medium other than air, speed of light (and so transverse EM wave) will be slower - v = c/sqrt(mi*eps), where mi - magnetic susceptibility, eps - dielectric permeability.

Other funny thing is that the medium, in which we compare longitudinal wave speed to light, could be nontransparent.

But I didn't want to discuss that speed issue. My thought attracted different aspect.

Yes, we could leave the discussion about it to theoretical physicists and yet - there is always simple explanation. And Meyl has given it to us about scalar waves. And I can't see why we are not speaking about proofs or inconsistency of that theory in basic level.

So - Faraday paradox vs Meyl ?

Why exactly shouldn't someone replicate the experiment? Isn't that basically the point of an experiment. I know that if I could make one, I would/will. In fact, I want to make three!

Maybe i'll replicate the Hutchison effect or something.