Announcement

**Ernst** · 01-28-2013, 01:19 AM

Your first 2 points are very good points!

The third asks for a little side note:
- in my experience a spark gap still is better than the best transistor. With a spark gap you can obtain sudden rises in voltage and current that are beyond anything else that I know of.
- I believe there are statements by Tesla that may be considered as hints at super conductivity, but nothing more. I have read all his patents (more than once) and I am certain he has not patented super conductivity. He does have a patent (685.012) on cooling a conductor to increase its conductivity.

The fourth point, I think, is based upon a misunderstanding of the phenomenon.
Let's first look at sound waves, as we know that these are longitudinal waves. It can be established very easily that sound waves deminish with distance slightly more than just because the energy gets spread over a greater surface. Sound suffers from resistance in air, which is a perfectly logical thing when you think about it.
I am not sure if there is experimental proof, but from a mathemetical and logical perspective I would say that electrical waves travel longitudinal through a conductor. We know that a conductor (other than a super conductor) offers some resistance to electrical impulses (waves) and thus it consumes energy.
Based on these facts I would say that LE does suffer from resistance when it passes through a medium. But of course in a very different way than transversal waves.

Ernst.

**Pedro73** · 01-30-2013, 03:10 PM

Hy Ernst :-)

Well, Tesla noticed that as soon as the gap jumps, the longitudinal effect dismisses to zero, and that's because it behaves as a shorcircuit. That's why Tesla investigated with different spark gaps (quenched, air, etc..) that I'm sure that you are completely familiar with, and he finally found the better solution to separate the longitudinal to the electromagnetic part of the electricity, using a carbon (so a dielectric) after the gap, which amplifies the longitudinal electricity, in order to pick up afterwards in a tube. That's what Lindemann states in The Secrets of Cold Electricity when he decoded Gray's patents, and it has sense, a lot of sense (at least for me). Deal with radiant energy is deal with this tiny spaces of time, in which the longitudinal takes over the electromagnetic term. So that's why I think that in the gap you could obtain this sudden raises in voltage and current, better than any transistor. and you will always for sure, no matter as fast as they made them. Vacuum is always better than matter.

About the cooling effect, I think that in the experiments with THC it could be nice to measure the temperature in the water, and see if the longitudinal electricity is greater than the common one, resulting in a final decrease in temperature (and unexplainable according to conventional theory)

About the four point, yes true what you say, but... in the laboratory, who knows? We don't lose nothing to prove, and put as much loads & bulbs and see what happens. Remember, first the bench, second the theoretical explanations, and finally the books. I said this because if you look at the Tesla patent you see loads and charges, and it's probably that you could extract as much energy as loads you put in using this method.

Thanks.

**Pedro73** · 01-30-2013, 07:13 PM

Hy from Spain again. :-)

Another thing (an EXTREMELY important apart of my horrible english :-) ) , I would like to know if someone has demonstrate what Dollard and Karl Paesness states, that as less wattage has the bulb, the more brilliant will shine. That's cause longitudinal electricity goes better with dielectric, and a low wattage bulb is more dielectric than a high one.

Thanks.

**Joit** · 01-30-2013, 11:19 PM

Serously Pedro,
I would not listen to this Guy Ernst, hes a Jerk like the others, what pops in from time to time here.
A mathematical Nerd with lousy Attempts, like you can find very often, to debunk Meyls Work where they can.
It seems like they pop up anywhere where Meyl is mentioned, to discredit him.

One Quote from there, this Debunkers conclude, that Meyl Device does not transfer Energy wireless. But the Circuit from Meyl Demo set only has one Ground connection, the other 'Connection' is wireless, because of the 2 Aluminium Balls.
To you see the Contradiction? They wanna state it is no wireless Connection as a big deal and because it fits them, but they ignore at the same time that -after her great physical Understanding- that it has not 2 Wires for a closed Circuit.
And a few other Points where they try to turn some things only to miscredit Meyl with such Nonsense.

They are not scientists, they are only 2nd Class scientists, first comes the Work, and then these mathematicians. But that is all what they can do, to proove something wrong with Formulas what they probatly once learned, but never can be sure, if they really match in any case. Also i dont see if they both mean the same when they talk about Scalarwaves. You know, our great Science or this self-proclaimed 'representatives' takes any Term, what like to twist, as it match it to them, that does not mean, that anyone talks about the same Things.
So Meyl is absolute right when he says, " If these Guys wanna calculate it like that, they should feel free to do so".
I for myself think too, that these guys never make enough Experiments by herself, to find out, what is really behind an Devide. They probatly prefer more, to buy the next newest scientific Book and a new Calculator to have a life.
They have prooven allread that they have no Clue how a Field from a magnetic Pole really looks like, and its not like they assume, probatly like a big ball anywhere in Space, easy to calculate complete, again, only because it fits them. And they are even more lost when it comes to calculate Noise.

Unfortunatly is there not a lot Information out from Meyl (where i am not surprised about with such "great open scientific Community" what he has there, and what seems like more to prefer to trow dirt then act normal), but there was a Screen about these Noise, what you mentioned, also, that someone else optimized the Demoset from Meyl and got 300% OU, but about this are this Debunkers for sure quiet about it.
Meyl probatly has found something, but you see, that these weisenheimers are allways not far away from it.

**Pedro73** · 02-01-2013, 10:57 AM

Dear Joit.

It's probably that you are right about Ernst Joit. I'm a beginner in this forum and I'm just a student of Tesla's Technology, but as far as It's allowed me to post in this forum, I will avoid the use of certain words that could sounds offensive. I feel that is unnecessary, this level of animosity.

By the way, all of this diatribe divert us from our main point, which is regarding the allegedly properties of scalar, longitudinal, radiant or whatever the name you want electricity. As far as I have seen, I would like to know if someone has FOUND on the bench, these properties, that will be stated summarised again as follows.

The implosion effect of a copper foil (min 21 of this Eric Dollard video)
The non affectation of a Faraday Case by a Bulb feed with longitudinal electricity.
The cooling effect of a bulb deep in water.
The amplification of the brightness in low wattage bulbs do to the increase of impedance.
The non deplete source effect, do to the absorption of "ethereal" energy, putting many bulbs in parallel and measuring the effects.

Other effects that ARE NOT a definitively prove of the existence of radiant energy cause they can be explain easily using conventional High Voltage and High Frequency electromagnetism are;

Simply deep the bulb in water.
Cero amps measure.

Everyone should be agree with me that if we could not see this effects, then the claim of radiant energy in my opinion is reckless and out of place. If someone could give me this proves, I certainly will start to think that what is in the textbooks is uncompleted.

Remember, bench always should be the tool to shout these unnecessary brawls and disputes.

**dR-Green** · 02-02-2013, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Pedro73 View Post

I would like to know if someone has FOUND on the bench, these properties, that will be stated summarised again as follows.

The implosion effect of a copper foil (min 21 of this Eric Dollard video)
The non affectation of a Faraday Case by a Bulb feed with longitudinal electricity.
The cooling effect of a bulb deep in water.
The amplification of the brightness in low wattage bulbs do to the increase of impedance.
The non deplete source effect, do to the absorption of "ethereal" energy, putting many bulbs in parallel and measuring the effects.

Other effects that ARE NOT a definitively prove of the existence of radiant energy cause they can be explain easily using conventional High Voltage and High Frequency electromagnetism are;

Simply deep the bulb in water.
Cero amps measure.

Everyone should be agree with me that if we could not see this effects, then the claim of radiant energy in my opinion is reckless and out of place. If someone could give me this proves, I certainly will start to think that what is in the textbooks is uncompleted.

Remember, bench always should be the tool to shout these unnecessary brawls and disputes.

Incandescent Bulb Attracting Aluminium Tape - YouTube

Incandescent Bulb Attracting Paper - YouTube

A Bulb In Hand(s) - YouTube

Real Magick Tesla Style - YouTube

Light, The Tesla Way-01 - TMT 72.4 Scale - YouTube

In these videos you will also find different bulbs tested. In relation to one of your questions, 2x 15 watt bulbs for example produce more light than 1x 40 watt bulb, but also the voltage rating is a factor. A 15W 240 volt bulb works better than a 5W 12V bulb, and so on. From a 1.5V "grain of rice" bulb I can get absolutely nothing. So these conventional numbers practically have no relation in the normal sense.

**Ernst** · 02-03-2013, 01:35 AM

As usual great video's dR-Green!
Let me tell you what I see.

Incandescent Bulb Attracting Aluminium Tape - YouTube
and
Incandescent Bulb Attracting Paper - YouTube
This is simply electrostatic attraction. The same would happen if you replace the bulb with any metallic conductor. If I remember correctly in Eric and Peters video on LE Eric shows that a conductor is attracted but an insulator is repelled. And it is this latter effect which makes it different from electrostatic effects.
A Bulb In Hand(s) - YouTube
You show that you can pass electricity through your body. And indeed because electricity through a conductor is always transmitted longitudinally, this also shows LE. But so does the light in your room.
Real Magick Tesla Style - YouTube
You show two effects; electric conductance and capacitive coupling. The glass jar filled with water (?) acts as a capacitor which at a suitable frequency can pass electric currents.
Light, The Tesla Way-01 - TMT 72.4 Scale - YouTube
It starts out the same as the last experiment so I did not watch it to the end, as I expect to see the same effects in a different set-up.

I have seen someone explain what LE is and why it can ONLY be created by very sudden high voltage changes. If you do the maths you will see the same. No extreme dV/dt ==> no LE.

@ Joit,
You can call me what you like, friend. But when it comes to proving facts, shouting and names calling will not help you. It is a sign of weakness, it proves that you have no better means to disprove what I say. Meyl is wrong and I have proven it beyond a shadow of doubt. If you think I am wrong, go through my provided evidence and point out where I am wrong. If you are not mathemetically inclined than go through my provided evidence that Meyls practical work is wrong. Come on, do it! Be a man! Show me what you are worth!
I have done his experiments and extended on them and I have absolute proof that he is wrong. You can see it in video's that I have posted on youtube.
If you don't understand them or need additional explanation, add your comment to the thread that I opened on Meyls work.
I may be a jerk and I am sure I annoy people sometimes but when it comes to finding scientific truths, your opinion about me is entirely irrelevant. Just look at the facts that I present and judge those instead!

Ernst.

**Ernst** · 02-03-2013, 04:04 AM

Just to make me even less popular in this place

Some thoughts and comments on the Eric Dollard video.
@ about 40 minutes Eric says "we leave this to the audience to explain", so I guess that means he is asking for it.

@ 22.55 you see an experiment that shows electrostatic attraction just as dR-green shows. Nothing special. A charged rubber balloon does the same thing.
A frew seconds later he tries to show that this effect is specific to a vacuum light bulb and is not caused by electric current. Indeed, an electric wire has a very low resistance and for this reason a very low voltage gradient. Therefor we see no electrostatic effects. In the light bulb the glass gets a static charge through all the electric comotion inside the bulb.
This fact is actually proven by his next experiment (@ 26 min) where he shows that you can charge a capacitor through HF HV. This is simply a result of the fact that negative charges move easier than positive. Also you do not need a vacuum tube to produce this effect as I show in this experiment which anyone can reproduce if you have access to HF HV and a HV capacitor.
The experiment starting @ 33 minutes is also very interesting but the wrong conclusions are being drawn. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that the meter drops to zero when Eric touches the table @ 33:40. It looks like it is showing a negative value but that is because Eric adjusted the meter @ 35:02. Proof that this negative value is actually zero is given @ 36:22 when the device is switched off and the meter returns to exactly the same 'negative' value. These facts show beyond a shadow of doubt that the table plays a crucial role in the transmission as shown in this video.

Now, you Eric groupies, you can do either of two things:
- start calling me names, try to insult me or hurt me or my image in whatever way you see appropriate. Or even better, ban me from this forum. Do as you please, it only proves my point.
- prove me wrong. This would me the more mature reaction of which I very much doubt your capability.

Good luck!

Ernst.

**dR-Green** · 02-03-2013, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Ernst View Post

As usual great video's dR-Green!
Let me tell you what I see.

Incandescent Bulb Attracting Aluminium Tape - YouTube
and
Incandescent Bulb Attracting Paper - YouTube
This is simply electrostatic attraction. The same would happen if you replace the bulb with any metallic conductor. If I remember correctly in Eric and Peters video on LE Eric shows that a conductor is attracted but an insulator is repelled. And it is this latter effect which makes it different from electrostatic effects.
A Bulb In Hand(s) - YouTube
You show that you can pass electricity through your body. And indeed because electricity through a conductor is always transmitted longitudinally, this also shows LE. But so does the light in your room.
Real Magick Tesla Style - YouTube
You show two effects; electric conductance and capacitive coupling. The glass jar filled with water (?) acts as a capacitor which at a suitable frequency can pass electric currents.
Light, The Tesla Way-01 - TMT 72.4 Scale - YouTube
It starts out the same as the last experiment so I did not watch it to the end, as I expect to see the same effects in a different set-up.

I have seen someone explain what LE is and why it can ONLY be created by very sudden high voltage changes. If you do the maths you will see the same. No extreme dV/dt ==> no LE.

Thanks Ernst. For the bulb attraction videos, the same doesn't happen with a metal conductor or running the wire near it like Eric shows, it has to do with the light. Also it's organic matter that's repelled according to the Borderland video. To expand on that, Tom Brown uses his hand to feel the repelling force - his hand is not an insulator, as can be seen in the other videos.

Yes the last video is basically the same but with different wattage bulbs. And yes the glass jar is filled with (pure) water but deliberately a few cm from the metal lid so there was no connection that way, it would be a capacitor of almost insignificant capacitance in the normal sense. In practical terms, the bigger the capacitance of your "medium", the more energy it receives or "absorbs" and so the brighter the bulb will get - in terms of physical space, water is a convenient medium. There's no "value" of capacitance or range within which it will work, only if there isn't enough mass to receive any energy then it won't work. You can never have "too much capacitance for the intended frequency", it will continue to work anyway. The bigger the better. Perhaps even more important than that is the capacitance of the object that's on the other side of the filament.

**dR-Green** · 02-03-2013, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by Ernst View Post

This fact is actually proven by his next experiment (@ 26 min) where he shows that you can charge a capacitor through HF HV.

Fig. 4

**Ernst** · 02-03-2013, 05:58 AM

For the bulb attraction videos, the same doesn't happen with a metal conductor

Well.... it actually does. Do I really need to post a video to proof this very basic fact???

or running the wire near it like Eric shows,

True, as I said, because in that case there is insufficient voltage gradient.

it has to do with the light.

Nope, it has not. Is a statically charged balloon giving off light? Well it does attract metallic objects (as well as others). Please save me from posting a video on trivial facts and try this yourself:
You have a tesla coil, I'm sure. It has a metallic top-load. Now suspend a small, light weight metallic object near this top-load. Switch your coil on and see that the metallic object is attracted to the top-load. This is very simple electrostatic action.

Also it's organic matter that's repelled according to the Borderland video.

You may be correct on this point, but in my scientific view, the words alone of Tom Brown (or anyone else for that matter) do not prove a fact. I want to see it with my own eyes. So if it is organic matter as you say, take a small peace of organic matter and suspend it near such a bulb AND repeat the experiment by suspending it near the top-load of a tesla coil. If there is a difference, THEN you have a point.
I will see if I can do this experiment today with a leaf from a tree (organic enough?) near a HV HF metallic source. I will post my findings.

... yes the glass jar is filled with (pure) water but deliberately a few cm from the metal lid so there was no connection that way, it would be a capacitor of almost insignificant capacitance in the normal sense. In practical terms, the bigger the capacitance of your "medium", the more energy it receives or "absorbs" and so the brighter the bulb will get - in terms of physical space, water is a convenient medium. There's no "value" of capacitance or range within which it will work, only if there isn't enough mass to receive any energy then it won't work. You can never have "too much capacitance for the intended frequency", it will continue to work anyway. The bigger the better. Perhaps even more important than that is the capacitance of the object that's on the other side of the filament.

Tell me this:
- would it also work if the jar was filled with mineral oil, and why?
- would it also work if the jar was suspended by insulating material (at least 20 cm), and why?
- would it also work if you glue a non conductive stick to the glass of the bulb and hold the bulb by this stick. I.e. not touching any conductive material of the bulb with your body.

I think there is considerable capacitance in the capacitor formed by the bottom of the jar; the earth being 1 conductor, the glass the dielectric, the water the second conductor.

Have you seen the picture in my last post here. There I charge a capacitor from the uninsulated end of a wire at a distance of 23 cm. No bulbs, no light, but the capacitor surely gets charged! Without metallic connection.

Ernst.

**dR-Green** · 02-03-2013, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Ernst View Post

Well.... it actually does. Do I really need to post a video to proof this very basic fact???

True, as I said, because in that case there is insufficient voltage gradient.

Nope, it has not. Is a statically charged balloon giving off light? Well it does attract metallic objects (as well as others). Please save me from posting a video on trivial facts and try this yourself:
You have a tesla coil, I'm sure. It has a metallic top-load. Now suspend a small, light weight metallic object near this top-load. Switch your coil on and see that the metallic object is attracted to the top-load. This is very simple electrostatic action.

Yes, that can't be denied. However, I'm not using the high voltage output (top, or middle) of the coil, I'm using the other end. Running the wire near the aluminium has no attraction effect, nor does the metal plate that the bulbs are connected to exhibit any attraction effect. Only the bulb attracts the tape.

Also, you don't need to post a trivial video, there's an MIT 8.02 lecture with this demonstration. Yes the static charge attracts the confetti, until the confetti becomes charged and then flies back off again.

The leaf experiment would be interesting. Also someone asked me before for a spectrogram, but I haven't used spark gaps since so haven't seen what it looks like.

would it also work if the jar was filled with mineral oil, and why?

I have no idea. But I sure can cheat an answer - It could do and it could not do depending on the circumstances. If the metal lid is energised to enough of an extent then the oil would be irrelevant, the water in effect acts as an extension of the soil - putting the water closer to the metal has the same effect as putting the metal closer to the soil.

would it also work if the jar was suspended by insulating material (at least 20 cm), and why?

Yes, this is shown in "Real Magick Tesla Style". Initially the jar is next to the energised bucket, both of which are on a wooden chair. The bulb lights upon contact with the metal lid, but to a lesser degree. As for 20cm specifically, not with the setup in the videos because there would not be enough power reaching it for all kinds of reasons. But yes it would work. In this case again the water acts as a "large" conducting mass, which is more convenient than the equivalent in metal.

would it also work if you glue a non conductive stick to the glass of the bulb and hold the bulb by this stick. I.e. not touching any conductive material of the bulb with your body.

Yes, all it needs is sufficient capacitance. Holding it in my hand is the most convenient method of getting a large enough capacitance, but the material makes no difference. It's also convenient to use a bucket of soil for this purpose. In the aluminium tape attraction video the other terminal of the bulb is only connected to the metal plate it's fixed to as a bulb holder, because more capacitance made it too bright to film it. It should also be noted that as the capacitance is increased and the bulb gets brighter, the attraction effect gets stronger, hence the lower brightness in my video also results in a smaller gap between bulb and tape. That had to be otherwise the camera was blinded. So here the attraction effect can be observed as getting stronger, but the applied voltage is exactly the same. There is a correlation however in the amount of light.

There's some real time capacitance changing in this, starting with a 40W bulb, with low capacitance is a plasma ball, with a 8W fluorescent tube capacitance becomes an incandescent plasma ball hybrid, and with more capacitance becomes full incandescent.

One Wire Light Bulbs With Mini Tesla Coil - YouTube

A closer look at a 15W bulb, first with minimal capacitance. Also note which I use as the bulb "input" and "output" terminals:

Now capacitance = equivalent bulb:

Add capacitance to second bulb:

4 watt fluorescent tube as capacitance:

Likewise:

Also if you intend to try it, for relative safety I always use the bucket on the coil output if I'm going to be a part of the circuit, to make sure the sparks stay on the right end of the coil.

Have you seen the picture in my last post here. There I charge a capacitor from the uninsulated end of a wire at a distance of 23 cm. No bulbs, no light, but the capacitor surely gets charged! Without metallic connection.

I saw it but I couldn't really tell what was going on in it. But now that you've explained, if it's like I think it is then I would dare say having it set up like that is cheating a bit

Does it still work without the wire, or if you turn the plate facing certain directions etc?

I think there is considerable capacitance in the capacitor formed by the bottom of the jar; the earth being 1 conductor, the glass the dielectric, the water the second conductor.

But still the metallic terminal (lid) is insulated from everything else, it's not making contact with any water, and there's a plastic seal inside, it's not even touching the glass. As I see it, any capacitive coupling here would be soil to water, then it would seem water to metal coupling, or effectively two series condensers, I would say regardless of their positioning since the mass of the water would have more capacitance than the metal so would automatically "bias" the whole thing. The water "extends" the range in effect, allowing pickup on the metal plate at a greater distance than the plate alone, since the distance between whatever it is that's energising the metal and the metal itself is decreased. That is to say, it's rather easy to energise the water to use as a transmission medium, with the output either being directly or capacitively coupled to the water. Hence it's equally possible to do away with the water altogether and use a bigger metal plate, or a smaller distance. Either way, when the jar is used I don't believe that's a simple single condenser situation.

**Ernst** · 02-03-2013, 09:42 AM

dR-green....

However, I'm not using the high voltage output (top, or middle) of the coil, I'm using the other end.

you are kidding me, aren't you?
If you are using the 'other end', that means that 'this other end' is not grounded.
Correct?
So your coil has one end with a top-load (=high capacitance) and one end (='the other end') with a low capacitance.
Correct?
Now, riddle me this:
"Which end would be the high voltage end?"
You are making the same mistake as Meyl does (so you are in good company).

Running the wire near the aluminium has no attraction effect,

This low current does not attract, just like I said. Of course it does not. (a high current actually will, through magnetic effects, but that is something entirely different)

The leaf experiment would be interesting.

I will do it shortly.

If the metal lid is energised to enough of an extent then the oil would be irrelevant, the water in effect acts as an extension of the soil - putting the water closer to the metal has the same effect as putting the metal closer to the soil.

I would say, the water is capacitively coupled to the earth and the lid to the water, thus forming two capacitors in series, conducting the electric HF current.

I will see the rest of your video later so I can form an opinion about what you say.
(meaning: you may have a point, but I am not convinced yet)

Turning to the pics you posted in your last post:
The first clearly shows something different from the annex diagram. Do you see the little purple spark at the end of the 'free wire'? This wire is grounded by means of this spark.
In the second pic, this ground connection is replaced by the capacitance of a second bulb and the clip.
The third is exactly as you describe.
Concerning the next two, I have done something similar and found that if you raise the tube (using plastic supports or nylon cord, wood is insufficiently insulating) you will see that the light dims. The tube is capacitively coupled to the ground.
Take the set-up in picture 4 and pick up the tube with 2 fingers about half-way.
You will see that only half of the tube is lit, the half between the power supply and your fingers.

I saw it but I couldn't really tell what was going on in it. But now that you've explained, if it's like I think it is then I would dare say having it set up like that is cheating a bit Does it still work without the wire, or if you turn the plate facing certain directions etc?

Not sure what you mean.
Without which wire?
About the position of the plate, I have done extensive experiments. It works best with the plate in a vertical position. Whatever way it faces does not change much. With the disk in a horizontal position it also works pretty good but somewhat less. In a 45 degree slant I get the least results, no matter what way it faces.
I am not trying to explain this. I have no good explanation. Just noticed this effect.

Someone calls, I have to go. Hope I can do the leaf experiment later this day.

Ernst.

**dR-Green** · 02-03-2013, 10:32 AM

If you want to get into that much detail then there's no point in me getting into it at all, there's too much to say. I can't explain all the intricate details of all experiments, you will have to do it yourself. I know the bulb is arcing into the table, there's also a closeup picture of the spark. The image is only one moment's snapshot in time, it doesn't show the whole experiment. The bulb lights just the same whether the spark is there or not, I deliberately left it there to take a picture of it and to show that it happens. I.E. the desk surface is plastic covering wood. It's made from a kitchen worktop, not metal. Very interesting stuff when you are seeing such things for the first time.

So your coil has one end with a top-load (=high capacitance) and one end (='the other end') with a low capacitance.
Correct?
Now, riddle me this:
"Which end would be the high voltage end?"
You are making the same mistake as Meyl does (so you are in good company).

It depends on the experiment. In the very early days this was the case, but then the bucket of soil and various metallic objects were adopted, since having no experience or a good source of information to go by due to the internet being swamped with useless spark making information I had to improvise the whole thing from what Eric shows in his video. I assure you that the high voltage and big sparks is at the opposite end of the coil than the end I am grabbing on to.

Concerning the next two, I have done something similar and found that if you raise the tube (using plastic supports or nylon cord, wood is insufficiently insulating) you will see that the light dims. The tube is capacitively coupled to the ground.

Everything is coupling to everything else

It's very difficult to isolate everything, plus these are some of the very first experiments I.E. learning of such effects. The fluoro is used for capacitance and to observe the curious effect (to mystics) that by getting more light out of the overall system with the fluoro, you also get more light out of the other bulbs too (free energy, magic!), plus it's a nonsense circuit by conventional thinking and yet it works, I'm not too interested in lighting fluorescent tubes since that's easy and doesn't really show much except exciting gas with a high potential field, I was more interested in lighting filaments. If I'm going to light fluorescent tubes then I like to do it properly

A Bulb In Hand-02 - YouTube

(Note the circuit diagram at the beginning of the video and the location of the bucket)

Not sure what you mean.
Without which wire?

It looks like there's a wire coming from the secondary pointing towards the plate.

Announcement

Tesla's Hairpin Circuit & the DEFINITIVES proves of the existance longitudinal electr

Tesla's Hairpin Circuit & the DEFINITIVES proves of the existance longitudinal electr

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment