Eric P. Dollard

[t-rex]

Single Frequencya equals two, the total rank be given by;

Beginning,







Thus the entire scale of the pipe organ, in octaves of a

[t-rex]

The Camp David Antenna (2 of 3)

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)

[t-rex]

The Camp David Antenna (3 of 3)

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

[garrettm4]

Conductance Vs. Resistance

I don't plan on posting as often as I was, but I feel the discussion of "Conductance and Resistance" has gone off into the land of confusion.

Raui, Armagdn03 and Kokomoj0,

The way I have understood the concept of Resistance and Conductance is in the ORIENTATION of the element INSIDE A CIRCUIT. Conductances are in parallel (or shunt) Resistances are in series. While you can convert a conductance to a resistance (by using its reciprocal) it doesn't change the ORIENTATION of the element. The direction of "current flow" through each element (r or g) does not go in the same direction, they are orthogonal to one another (at right angles to one another).

I think there is a logical reason as to why the forefathers of electrical science came up with TWO coefficients, for "something", that don't store or return electrical energy, this "something" is that which guides and directs the flow of electrical energy (some would say reflects the electrical energy). If there are two possible directions in which the energy can be directed (series or parallel), it would follow that two terms are needed to give a clear picture, when discussing a circuits operation. This "something" can be characterized by resistance (r) OR conductance (g), depending upon the arbitrary orientation of the "something" (or the MULTIPLE flows of energy in and around the "something"). The "something" can be anything seen in a circuit, and while the "something" may have many different properties (L, C, M or K) that characterize its "effective" function, r & g denote the direction of the flow of the BULK or a PORTION of the electrical energy.

An example of a "something" is a capacitor. Its effective function is to store dielectric energy as an electrostatic potential (e, proportion) and return that energy as a displacement current (I, induction). BUT there is an unwanted conductance (g) internal to the capacitor. Here conductance is used because it is a parallel element as is capacity (C), the flow of "current" caused from g doesn't constitute the WHOLE current current by C the "effective" element, only a small portion of the "effective current" is caused by the internal conductance. Resistance CAN NOT be used as a replacement, this is because currents DO NOT ADD IN SERIES, currents ADD IN PARALLEL. So it can be seen that g and r have their respective places for a reason, which is from the DIRECTION OF FLOW of electrical energy.

If using critical thinking, the thought that a big conductance is a small resistance is NUMERICALLY correct but also wrong at the same time. The direction of the "current flow" has now been occluded by the conversion, which in most cases isn't all that important, BUT can lead to erroneous thoughts in more complex circuits. This is especially true for distributed element type circuits.

(If I am mistaken and the above is not accurate, feel free to correct me.)

Furthermore, it would seem Mr. Dollard has a more advanced view of this subject and we might need to re-examine the concept of Resistance & Conductance a little bit further. There may be more going on than just the ORIENTATION of the circuit element (or the flows of energy in or around the element):

Conductors; metal does not conduct electricity, this is a primary mind virus. When it is e, or i, the metal bounds the electricity, when it is E, or I, the metal translates the electricity. This is an extremely vast subject so wait. Resistance is NOT one over the conductance. No it is not! The ability of metal to "conduct" is in direct, not inverse, proportion to the square root of the resistance of the metal. Also the more the metal "conducts" in this manner the more the surrounding E.M. wave is slowed. Thus large deviations from the luminal velocity are found in transmission systems in which the physical mass of the conductors all take part in the flow of electrification.

Garrett M

[lamare]

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?

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.

[wyndbag]

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.

[dR-Green]

time always goes in one direction.

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

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.

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.

[Farmhand]

Eric wrote:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/Condensed_Intro_Tesla_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.

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 -

The lower end of the coil B --which if desired may extend up to
the terminal D - should be somewhat below the uppermost turn of coil A.

and on page 2 in lines 7 to 15 that -

The primary C may be exited by any desirable manner, from a suitable
source of currents G, which may be an alternator or condenser, the
important requirement being that the resonant condition be established, that
is to say that the terminal D is charged to the maximum pressure developed in
the circuit, as I have specified in my original patents before referred to.

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

[Kokomoj0]

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.

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.

[lamare]

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.

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.

[dR-Green]

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.

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.

[wyndbag]

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.

[Kokomoj0]

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.

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.

[Kokomoj0]

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.

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

[Kokomoj0]

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.

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