Konstantin Meyl, Scalar - Faraday vs. Maxwell

[Dingus]

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?

[esaruoho]

"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?

[Tehnoman]

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.

[Vortex]

@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 http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ead.php?t=1434

Randy

[Tehnoman]

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.

[lamare]

The disputal of Meyls theory

There was an interesting disputal of Meyls theory at:

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

However, it's gone now, but it's still available at the internet archive:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070124131733/http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/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:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3610-workings-gray-tube.html

Regards,

-- Arend --

[Tehnoman]

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).

[Dingus]

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.

[Tehnoman]

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.

[Tehnoman]

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...

[Guest]

@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.

[Tehnoman]

@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.

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.

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).

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).

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.......

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.

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.

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_Primaerliteratur/Proc_RFID_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.

[johnb003]

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.

[Tehnoman]

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 ?

[Dingus]

But in God's sake - don't buy or try to replicate Meyl experiment...

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.