Eric P. Dollard

[madhatter]

Yes, plasma stuff is interesting, but the big question is:

Why go trough the trouble of creating a plasma so you can sustain non-faster-than-light longitudinal waves, when you can have FTL waves in the aether that already is right there all around us?

You don't create a stream of ionized gas as that is the EM field.

casimir effect, negative exotic material, FTL. This falls into quantum fluctuations, sound a bit similar to the aether?

The reason for suppression of the ionized gas is that is the boundary transition to EM waves and a loss of energy.

[garrettm4]

Understanding Plasma; The missing link?

I may very well be the worst person to give an opinion on this subject, but I believe Madhatter is on to something.

If we extrapolate the inferences in the references given by Madhatter or of the study of plasma in general, we start to see PHYSICAL evidence of what we are trying to replicate in the Tesla Transformer efforts, i.e. longitudinal waves that propagate at velocities faster than "light".

I STRONGLY feel there is a connection here, that could lead to the development of a system for the transmission of POWER, SIGNAL and whatever else we can come up with, WITHOUT the use of the EARTH as the ONE WIRE, plasma may very well be the GATEWAY to transmitting through the aether. Or at least, one method we could experiment with.

It should be pointed out THAT WE KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE AETHER, my earlier post on the subject was an attempt at pointing this out. Furthermore, Tesla, Mendeleev, Steinmetz, Maxwell and Heaviside ALL HAD THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION. Where do we start when we have a thousand different models of one concept?

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?" Oliver Heaviside

I don't feel we will get an empirical answer any time soon, as to the constitution of the inscrutable aether. BUT, as the above quote points out we don't need to know EXACTLY how the aether works to use it. With inferences and experiment we can get insight, with that we can derive conclusions based upon logic, from there we can attempt to develop technology that will help us use the aether for the needs of man.

Plasma research is on a parallel track into the aether and also into the work of Farnsworth and Tesla. While the concepts used in these modern studies are derived from "quantum physics", which I'm not a big fan of, there are certain principles that I find interesting, I don't think we should throw everything they say in the garbage can just yet.

I believe that if we integrate Mr. Dollard's work with SELECT concepts of the plasma research and a experimental model of the aether based upon counter space concepts and golden ratio geometry, we very well could start to develop a model that could give rise to the development of new devices in FTL communication and wireless power transfer that isn't limited by distance or the use of the earth or the ionosphere for transmission.

Garrett M

[Kokomoj0]

Kokomoj0,
The two time periods of this exchange, that is t1/t2, give us are power magnification ratio.

Raui

so what frequency will I get 1 million times "power" magnification?

I want my magnifier to output 1 million watts for every 1 watt input

It is suspicious that you claim to be qualified to debate the subjects in this thread but you don't even know what the difference is between ENERGY and POWER!

It has been defined for you multiple times and you claim to want a specific definition - um, what do you think the definition of POWER is? You obviously think that increasing power is the same as increasing total energy dissipated.

If you have x joules of potential in a cap and discharge it over 100 milliseconds, you will have so much power. But if you can discharge it over 1 millisecond, your power is magnified tremendously for that moment of time. The ENERGY is the same but the POWER could be in the megawatts for that shorter period of time.

This is so elementary, yet you point the finger at others as giving you 1/2 cocked explanations? Maybe you need to get real with yourself and realize that it is your comprehension that is lacking - not the explanations!

This really calls into question what your real motive is here because you are talking in circles.

Just dropped in to preserve this

Oh and it has nothing to do with the power or energy in and of itself, and everything to do with yours and many others use of the word "MAGNIFY" to describe it. If you believe you have a valid term by all means show me ANY engineering text that uses it in ANY formula. You can multiply, divide, add and subtract etc etc but not magnify, sorry.

That said again cite the engineering text that defines "Magnify" and its associated formula that you are defending here by trying to attach it to the power and energy formulas and I will concede that it is in fact a legitimate electrical term. Until then I hold that the USE OF THAT WORD "MAGNIFY" is nonsense, not the definitions for power and energy etc.

[OrionLightShip]

Let's just quote the Master on the fundamentals:
Tuks DrippingPedia : Tesla Prepared Statement80st Birthday

Since you posted this link here, I have to ask. How much of Tesla's work do we take too seriously? Did he embellish sometimes to attract investors? Did he sometimes simply draw wrong conclusions based on observation without knowing the required facts necessary to suss out the truth?

Here is an example quoted from that link>

There is one more discovery which I want to announce at this time, consisting of a new method and apparatus for the obtainment of vacua exceeding many times the highest heretofore realized. I think that as much as one-billionth of a micron can be attained.
What may be accomplished by means of such vacua is a matter of conjecture, but it is obvious that they will make possible the production of much more intense effects in electron tubes. My ideas regarding the electron are at variance with those generally entertained. I hold that it is a relatively large body carrying a surface charge and not an elementary unit. When such an electron leaves an electrode of extremely high potential and in very high vacuum, it carries an electrostatic charge many times greater than the normal. This may astonish some of those who think that the particle has the same charge in the tube and outside of it in the air. A beautiful and instructive experiment has been contrived by me showing that such is not the case, for as soon as the particle gets out into the atmosphere it becomes a blazing star owing to the escape of the excess charge. The great quantity of electricity stored on the particle is responsible for the difficulties encountered in the operation of certain tubes and the rapid deterioration of the same.

Dollard, if I understand correctly believes electons don't exist??? That it is simply a phenomena of "lines of force" which early researchers seemed also to believe. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Tesla is saying in a better vacuum more charge can be placed on the "large" surface of an electron which "leaks away" the excess charge when allowed (forced) into the atmosphere.

There have been many high vacuum electron beam devices made where electrons pass through a thin membrane or a plasma window. These electrons have been subjected to a large accelerating voltage and the only thing that occurs is the ionization of air which Tesla states is a "blazing star" All these many years later and no such surface charge has been evidenced by ES and Magnetic focusing and deflection. Clearly he was wrong. One of many times I believe.

Blasphemy! I think not.

[Raui]

Since you posted this link here, I have to ask. How much of Tesla's work do we take too seriously? Did he embellish sometimes to attract investors? Did he sometimes simply draw wrong conclusions based on observation without knowing the required facts necessary to suss out the truth?

Here is an example quoted from that link>

There is one more discovery which I want to announce at this time, consisting of a new method and apparatus for the obtainment of vacua exceeding many times the highest heretofore realized. I think that as much as one-billionth of a micron can be attained.
What may be accomplished by means of such vacua is a matter of conjecture, but it is obvious that they will make possible the production of much more intense effects in electron tubes. My ideas regarding the electron are at variance with those generally entertained. I hold that it is a relatively large body carrying a surface charge and not an elementary unit. When such an electron leaves an electrode of extremely high potential and in very high vacuum, it carries an electrostatic charge many times greater than the normal. This may astonish some of those who think that the particle has the same charge in the tube and outside of it in the air. A beautiful and instructive experiment has been contrived by me showing that such is not the case, for as soon as the particle gets out into the atmosphere it becomes a blazing star owing to the escape of the excess charge. The great quantity of electricity stored on the particle is responsible for the difficulties encountered in the operation of certain tubes and the rapid deterioration of the same.

Dollard, if I understand correctly believes electons don't exist??? That it is simply a phenomena of "lines of force" which early researchers seemed also to believe. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Tesla is saying in a better vacuum more charge can be placed on the "large" surface of an electron which "leaks away" the excess charge when allowed (forced) into the atmosphere.

There have been many high vacuum electron beam devices made where electrons pass through a thin membrane or a plasma window. These electrons have been subjected to a large accelerating voltage and the only thing that occurs is the ionization of air which Tesla states is a "blazing star" All these many years later and no such surface charge has been evidenced by ES and Magnetic focusing and deflection. Clearly he was wrong. One of many times I believe.

Blasphemy! I think not.

Hello Orion,
I don't think Tesla lied about the things he found. He may have streched the truth a little but there aren't many people who are trying to sell something to investors, who knows. As for whether or not he was wrong with some things I'd have to say that there is a good chance that Tesla got at least one thing wrong, he is only human. I think it's important to note that Tesla has said that any phenomena he talks about that is above his signature is derived from experimentation. He mentions this in a meeting with his legal counsel; Nikola Tesla on His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to ... - Nikola Tesla - Google Books

As for Dollard and electrons, it is my understanding that he doesn't go so far as to say they don't exist but that they aren't the carriers of electricity, the lines of force are. An electron moving in a wire is a by-product of the lines of force in movement. Think of an invisible man in the snow. As he walks no one can see him but can see the footprints he leaves. In this case the footprints would be the electrons and the invisible man the lines of force. Dollard uses this analogy in the SFTS lecture and so I feel that this is a good representation of how he sees it.

Raui

[garrettm4]

Tesla, a Man of Great Insight

Orion,

Well, I partly agree, but not in the exact sentiment that you hold.

It should be pointed out that certain parts of Tesla's work are over a 100 years old and obviously he made the best conclusions that a man could in the HIGHLY mysterious and for the most part unexplored fields that he endeavored in.

If you were to look into the decay of radioactive matter, which was a big study during the ~1890s, you would find that well respected scholars and men of science couldn't even remotely agree on anything, other than the materials were emitting particles and were changing into different elements. The rate of decay was an often debated subject.

Tesla came to some amazing, yet seemingly crazy, insights into the actions of radioactive matter, which only until recently have been given a creditable third party explanation that parallels what Tesla said on the subject 80 years ago:

"When radioactivity was discovered, it was thought to be an entirely new manifest-action of energy limited to a few substances. I obtained sufficient evidence to convince me that such actions were general and in nature the same as those exhibited by my tubes. In these, minute corpuscles, regarding which we are sill in doubt, are shot from a highly electrified terminal against a target where they generate Rontgen or other rays by impact. Now, according to my theory, a radioactive body is simply a target which is continuously bombarded by infinitesimal bullets projected from all parts of the universe, and if this, then unknown, cosmic radiation could be wholly intercepted, radioactivity would cease.

I made some progress in solving the mystery until in 1899 I obtained mathematical and experimental proofs that the sun and other heavenly bodies similarly conditioned emit rays of great energy which consist of inconceivably small particles animated by velocities vastly exceeding that of light. So great is the penetrative power of these rays that they can traverse thousands of miles of solid matter with but slight diminution of velocity..." Nikola Tesla, "Dr. Tesla Writes of Various Phases of His Discovery", 1932, New York Times

Neutrinos are a particle which, according to who you listen to, are either faster than the speed of light or oh-so-very close to the so called terminal velocity c. They were found in a study, the link to which is given below, to be linked to the rate of radioactive decay. I think this is a little too close to be a coincidence, but that may very well be what this is. Interestingly, Gustave Le Bon, came to VERY similar conclusions on this exact subject, BOTH Tesla and Le Bon did their pioneering studies on the subject of radioactivity around the same time, 1890s.

Reference:
The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements, Aug. 23, 2010 issue of Stanford Report

Some Food for Thought,

Garrett M

[Farmhand]

When I think of electrons and current I think of a speed boat and it's wake,
the boat being the current or flow of charge and the wake being the electron
jiggle or the result.

Maybe current we measure is like the wake of the boat, but the wake of the boat is
not the process by which the boat is moved, the wake of the boat is only the
consequence, however by measuring the wake, the "amount" of boat could be
determined. I think measured current is the same kinda thing, it is the result of
what happened not part of the process itself.

Even though the boat may be moving very fast the wake moves only a small
amount in progression. So it seems that maybe the electron movement is like
the wake of the boat.

Could it be that the measured current is only a result of the transfer of
charge and being easy to see and measure and fairly uniform in it's resulting
action we measure it as an indication of what happened ? Why not ?

Cheers

[OrionLightShip]

Orion,

Well, I partly agree, but not in the exact sentiment that you hold.

It should be pointed out that certain parts of Tesla's work are over a 100 years old and obviously he made the best conclusions that a man could in the HIGHLY mysterious and for the most part unexplored fields that he endeavored in.

I think our sentiment is exactly the same garret, you just put it into words better than I did. I think he did the best he could with the level of technology surrounding his world. I also believe Raui is correct, that he didn't exactly lie but did some embellishing, mostly in the form of a flourish of eloquent language.

Also, thank you Raui for clearing up my partly incorrect understanding of the Dollard interpretation. It does make sense on some level but given the double slit experimental results, I have to stick with the current electron theory and duality enigma.

ten letters

[OrionLightShip]

But, the thing that moves the boat to begin with is voltage differential. I have a lot more trouble visualizing the cause of voltage than I do understanding current. Don't tell anyone.

When I think of electrons and current I think of a speed boat and it's wake,
the boat being the current or flow of charge and the wake being the electron
jiggle or the result.

Maybe current we measure is like the wake of the boat, but the wake of the boat is
not the process by which the boat is moved, the wake of the boat is only the
consequence, however by measuring the wake, the "amount" of boat could be
determined. I think measured current is the same kinda thing, it is the result of
what happened not part of the process itself.

Even though the boat may be moving very fast the wake moves only a small
amount in progression. So it seems that maybe the electron movement is like
the wake of the boat.

Could it be that the measured current is only a result of the transfer of
charge and being easy to see and measure and fairly uniform in it's resulting
action we measure it as an indication of what happened ? Why not ?

Cheers

[jake]

Extra coil calculations were based on the modified expressions I posted there. This extra coil design is using RG316 coax. I dissected a small length and determined the outer diameter to be 0.098 inches, silvered sheath diameter to be 0.074 inches with a copper mass per length of 0.139 grams/inch.

With the test setups described by Eric, meter readings dip down to practically nothing (maybe 2 uA quiescent) with the function generator zeroed out, or adjusted off of the center frequency by several 100 kHz. No, and I do not think there is anything specifically broadcasting at 990 kHz in the area. I will look into these aspects more later on.

If you don't mind sharing how did you come up with the modified extra coil expressions?

[Nhopa]

Rg316, Rg316/u

According to data available on the internet, RG316 and RG316/U coaxial cables have for center conductor material "silver coated copper clad steel". Does this fact alters the intended operation of the coil?

The answers to my inquiry about the star radial grounding system indicates that perhaps non of you experimenters have built one yet. But according to Eric a good ground is a must. I am willing to be the first to try but need more support. Am I to understand that I must use copper rods? Although, I have not yet revealed my real name, but it is certainly not Rockefeller. Here in Eastern Europe the price of copper is getting pretty close to the price of gold. So are there any alternatives, for instance using galvanized steel? Also I need practical answers to my question about resistance reading. Thank you.

[jake]

According to data available on the internet, RG316 and RG316/U coaxial cables have for center conductor material "silver coated copper clad steel". Does this fact alters the intended operation of the coil?

The answers to my inquiry about the star radial grounding system indicates that perhaps non of you experimenters have built one yet. But according to Eric a good ground is a must. I am willing to be the first to try but need more support. Am I to understand that I must use copper rods? Although, I have not yet revealed my real name, but it is certainly not Rockefeller. Here in Eastern Europe the price of copper is getting pretty close to the price of gold. So are there any alternatives, for instance using galvanized steel? Also I need practical answers to my question about resistance reading. Thank you.

Copper tubing is a good alternative to rods if you have soil that will allow you to get these in without destroying them. I have had the same questions as well. The best I can make out is you need copper or better gold Large surface area is a must. But how much is good enough is anyones guess when working with experimental models. You might not need one at all or there may be an alternative. But since this is theoretical all bets are off.


It all depends on what is underneath you. If you live on top of a copper mine you might need 1 20' copper rod. If you live in west texas all the rods in the world will not help. Then you will need the 80 radials to one ground rod as far as I can tell.

I think I remember reading that Tesla used iron rods somewhere??? but he was working at a lower frequency so that may have worked for him.

[Nhopa]

Betonite

Hi Jake:
Thank you for the response. My internet search turned up something interesting, using copper wire encased in Betonite. I will attempt to attach this info. I ask others too to review and comment. It seems as a relatively cheap alternative to a full blown star radial system.

[Farmhand]

That bentonite stuff sounds good Nhopa, I'm using 6 foot galvanized steel
fencing pickets they are tri-star shaped, strong and have holes in them, one right
near the top. I drilled a hole in the ground with the tractor right over the septic
sump drain. I got down about 4 feet with the small post hole digger so then I
only had to drive the stake down 2 feet into the bottom of the hole. After I
drove the stake in I put some charcoal and ashes in the hole in a layer about 6
inches thick, then filled the hole mixing more charcoal and ashes with the dirt.

I've only done one so far to see how it would work, I measured the resistance to
the house ground as 520 ohms, but I think the house ground is not the best and
I measured it through an extension cord plugged into a socket. Still I will need
to put more stakes in because I live on a rocky hill. Even though there was a
gold and copper mine very close to here this hill has a lot of granite. I'm
hoping three to five stakes will get the resistance down.

Using copper pipe should be ok and if a hole is dug first maybe they'll go in.
The surface area of a steel fencing picket would be about three times that of
a 1/2 inch rod maybe. They're not cheap to buy though. Steel Posts and Steel Pickets By Rural Fencing Supplies

I guess I should measure the resistance between the house ground and the
water main, then between my ground and the water main, that'll tell me how
good it is.

Cheers

[OrionLightShip]

modulated radioactivity

@garretm4

RE: Radioactivity

I suppose it is human nature to observe something and draw conclusions and call them facts and laws when in reality, there always seems to be more information or data around the corner over the next hill.

We have supposed radioactivity to be a constant predictable event and placed an average half-life when we really have no idea what causes spontaneous emission. Spontaneous emission of light photons was just as mysterious but I think the cause is now obvious. Oops, now I am making the same mistakes and assumptions!

I do not have the references but it was found that the casimir effect or casimir shielding prevents spontaneous decay of a radioactive element. I believe that spontaneous emission of a light photon would behave the same way.

Since radioactivity is affected by solar flares, then isn't it obvious that solar flares affect the aether which in turn interacts with our physical world and spontaneous emissions? It seems likely, since spontaneous emission can be prevented from occurring with casimir shielding.

Spontaneous emission is not so spontaneous after all. It has a causative agent which can be altered.

So it would seem that we always have one foot in that other realm that brings us a diverse range of phenomena. Infinite possibilities in a majestic existence!

Just a theory.