Eric P. Dollard

[Kokomoj0]

The problem with this equation is that it does not take into account that whatever current flows trough the contour MUST flow in a closed loop, because the flowing substance of choice, either "charge" or aether, cannot be destroyed nor created.

And something flowing in a closed loop is by definition rotation.

And thus magnetic induction MUST be a rotational phenomenon.

Q.E.D.

do you have a reference to that rotation definition? a PID circuit then would be considered rotation if it is that general.


and then is it the ether that we sense on the antenna, or is the ether just the carrier of the magnetic wave or particles?

we know that magnetics will since we can use square wire and tight wind then fill fill all the gaps removing any ether

That and I posted that in reference to this idea that we can have moving (delta) [insert label here] without it being current and as soon as it is current it is tem.

Dollard and everyone else keeps talking about this longitudinal and if it exists it will need a new definition because for all intents and purposes it appears to me that we are talking about the same thing graphed in different ways.

I have seen no math for a longitudinal wave, what does this wave look like?

Dollards example of a garden hose makes no sense to me since the ether is not a rigid stick that if you push one end the other moves instantly.

The 1.57 difference is barely different than the speed of light, so how does this wave look?

3B20.35 Hand Crank Longitudinal Wave Machine

we certainly would not be able to measure it on a scope since it would have no amplitude, we would need a longitudinal microphone since what we really have then is the equivalent of a sound wave with compression and rarefraction.

Ondas Longitudinales y Transversales


Sound - Vibration, Frequency, Wavelength - YouTube

we know how to sense this in air, but how is it sensed in a power transmission? received?

see what we can gleen from this

Ruben's Tube

the cool thing about sound waves is that you can see how they act

visual sound waves - YouTube

[lamare]

Example showing two surfaces S1 and S2 that share the same bounding contour ∂S. However, S1 is pierced by conduction current, while S2 is pierced by displacement current.


Combining these results, the magnetic field is found using the integral form of Ampère's law with an arbitrary choice of contour provided the displacement current density term is added to the conduction current density (the Ampère-Maxwell equation):[5]





This equation says that the integral of the magnetic field B around a loop ∂S is equal to the integrated current J through any surface spanning the loop, plus the displacement current term ε0 ∂E / ∂t through the surface.

The problem with this equation is that it does not take into account that whatever current flows trough the contour MUST flow in a closed loop, because the flowing substance of choice, either "charge" or aether, cannot be destroyed nor created.

And something flowing in a closed loop is by definition rotation.

And thus magnetic induction MUST be a rotational phenomenon.

Q.E.D.

[Kokomoj0]

There is one problem though, in physics today string theory isn't even a theory as there is not only no consensus on it but there is absolutely no way to test it to prove it's falsifiability. Yet it is taught as such. Education is no longer about fact or empirical knowledge but the flow of money, he who controls the purse controls the research. To suggest otherwise is suicide.

If you haven't read it, I highly suggest reading Lee Smolins 'the trouble with Physics' it's written so that you don't need a deep understanding of quantum physics but it does help to understand the issue fully. Penroses' the Road to reality is another strange read as he's more a mathematician he's developed his own theory that is strange only because I think that they are trying to hard to hold onto relativity as gospel and that is where things go wrong.

Shadows Fall- Welcome To The Machine

[madhatter]

You know one of my professors was a real jerk wit and rather than patronizing him like noobs do out here to people with any kind of theory I had him sitting in the deans office. His teaching ability improved 100 fold after that.

Should we build a tree fort next? If you cant keep up why dont you find a thread you understand.

In the world of physics and engineering articulation and discussion is not negativity but part of the analytical process. This isnt religion, you either have empirically and substantial construction or not.

This is your 5th post I have not seen your contribution to this topic and can only surmise you have none.

There is one problem though, in physics today string theory isn't even a theory as there is not only no consensus on it but there is absolutely no way to test it to prove it's falsifiability. Yet it is taught as such. Education is no longer about fact or empirical knowledge but the flow of money, he who controls the purse controls the research. To suggest otherwise is suicide.

If you haven't read it, I highly suggest reading Lee Smolins 'the trouble with Physics' it's written so that you don't need a deep understanding of quantum physics but it does help to understand the issue fully. Penroses' the Road to reality is another strange read as he's more a mathematician he's developed his own theory that is strange only because I think that they are trying to hard to hold onto relativity as gospel and that is where things go wrong.

[Kokomoj0]

Kokomojo


This IS the classroom and we are here to learn ...if that means building a crystal radio set to further understanding through hands on experience ...whats so wrong with that?? What is the point of wasting your time here if you have nothing to learn here??
The negativity isn't helping any one understand a single thing.

what do I want from you?
what would make me happy?

Why don't you drop this class

You know one of my professors was a real jerk wit and rather than patronizing him like noobs do out here to people with any kind of theory I had him sitting in the deans office. His teaching ability improved 100 fold after that.

Should we build a tree fort next? If you cant keep up why dont you find a thread you understand.

In the world of physics and engineering articulation and discussion is not negativity but part of the analytical process. This isnt religion, you either have empirically and substantial construction or not.

This is your 5th post I have not seen your contribution to this topic and can only surmise you have none.

[nw7w7]

Happy?

Kokomojo


This IS the classroom and we are here to learn ...if that means building a crystal radio set to further understanding through hands on experience ...whats so wrong with that?? What is the point of wasting your time here if you have nothing to learn here??
The negativity isn't helping any one understand a single thing.

what do I want from you?
what would make me happy?

Why don't you drop this class

[jake]

Quote

"So with the above example and discussion given, lets examine the questions you gave pertaining to these four distinct inductions:

1) L, Leakage Inductance
Q - "The big magnetic fields that push our motors?"
A - My answer would be a resounding NO, leakage inductance can only store energy it CAN NOT TRANSFER ENERGY, thus it would only act as an IMPEDANCE and not as an ADMITTANCE required for the electrical to mechanical transfer of energy to create motion in a motor. The leakage inductance is the exact thing we try to get rid of when designing a motor, and is not something we usually want. There are times when a small leakage inductance can be helpful, this is only when there is a short circuit and the impedance of the leakage inductance prevents catastrophic failure by LIMITING the current of the short circuit.
.
[end quote]


By this dfinatiom does L change with the geometry of the wire!? Coil compared to a straight wire

Sorry to be beating you guys down with these simple questions but its these 4 terms that I need to get straight so when tuning my coil gets serious I will be able to effectively communicate with you.

I finally found some stout copper to make a primary out of. Holidays then time to learn how to cut copper.

Also Look up capillary tubing for secondary material. Lots of active copper.


Jake

[Kokomoj0]

Yes that works to transfer energy. The way I see it - If the coils are wound the
same way when the transmitter is positive the receiver is negative so if the
receiver is wound opposite like Meyl's when the transmitter is positive the
receiver is also positive. If they are close that makes a difference.

Then there is the "electrical length" between them. I think positioning the
receiver 1/4 WL (or an odd multiple of 1/4 WL) from the node at the base of
the transmitter will help when using identical/mirror transformers. I imagine
then if the terminal capacitances both have the same reference the effect
would be to force "activity" on the receiver. Even if they were on opposite
sides of the Earth. The effect of a stationary wave would be obvious I think.

What I don't understand is why the basic principal is not explained a bit better
so the common man can at least know what is trying to be done. And what it
is you are doing if you don't want to build anything. I've read you say that
you want to prove more power out than in, but where does Tesla say this.

You also say that Meyl claims more out than in. But more what ? What is the
value and the property of the claim of Meyl's more out than in claim ?

ie. Is it say 10 "watts" more out than in or is it 10 "volts" more at the receiver
than the transmitter has applied to it ? If you think that the more "power" out
than in situation is possible with a Meyl system then why not show us ?
Should be a piece of cake for you. That's practical science.

Meyl's system is not Earth connected at all as far as I can tell which seriously limits
the practicality of using very high voltages because of the connecting wire
insulation. With low voltage its fine and dandy but try it with a 50 Kv
transformer and see what happens, you'll need very good wire for the
connection between the coils or suspend it.

All in all I don't see any Laymans explanation of a theory of operation. I think
it would help to ensure people were thinking along the same lines and for the
purpose of visualizing it.

Cheers

PS. If a connecting wire is used that is longer than 1 x 1/4 wavelength then I
think if the insulation on the wire is not good enough it will break through at
the first maximum voltage "nodal" point on the wire after the transmitter.

Kokomo you could start a different thread for this Meyl stuff.

..

yeh that should work

I dont know. I presume since he teaches at fairly prestigious universities in germany and has developed the math to put together a unified theory that he at least understands the limitations and knows how to properly use meters.

[Kokomoj0]

Why is it so preposterous to imagine that there may be a component of our universe that can exceed the speed of light? ... Now there are many of you here that far exceed my understandings of these discussions and I have a lot of catching up to do .. However even the simplest of minds can grasp the idea that when something travels in a straight line (or much in a much straighter line) that it would out run anything traveling in curves, waves, zig zags. spirals, etc... I reflect back to my childhood when I watched the Never Ending Story ....Yeah I know laugh it up ... but that movie planted an interesting idea in my mind.... that has never left....they stated that the speed of Darkness (the Nothing) moved faster than light..... Well is that really so ridiculous??? Does darkness (absence of light) ...or the Nothing have to travel in waves???? As a kid it made sense ....then they tried to teach this CRaZy out of me..... Well here I am many years later scratching my head, reading forums that point to this possibility (and OOoo I guess all the scientist that have been breaking C...well that doesn't count for much either)
I have learned a great deal from this forum and its posters and Eric is offering his lifetime of pondering and studying this great subject.... so thanks ....
kokomojo....while your post have certainly have been a little ...Trollish .. Its always good to have both sides in a discussion .... You seem to have a deep grasp on many of the important issues ...Yet it appears you are happy and content with the science and math the way it exist .... I wonder what your really looking for in this forum....You could be an asset to helping out ... why not try that approach .... and if there is something so wrong with all this Theory and Thinking ... well then Why don't you disprove what you can ....either way you would be helping in the overall understanding.

what is helping out in your opinion?
?

there are plenty of you people around to do that

I already said that I am not convinced, I gave my reasons why, what do you want from me, what would make you happy?

[nw7w7]

Simple Logic or Simple Thinking

Why is it so preposterous to imagine that there may be a component of our universe that can exceed the speed of light? ... Now there are many of you here that far exceed my understandings of these discussions and I have a lot of catching up to do .. However even the simplest of minds can grasp the idea that when something travels in a straight line (or much in a much straighter line) that it would out run anything traveling in curves, waves, zig zags. spirals, etc... I reflect back to my childhood when I watched the Never Ending Story ....Yeah I know laugh it up ... but that movie planted an interesting idea in my mind.... that has never left....they stated that the speed of Darkness (the Nothing) moved faster than light..... Well is that really so ridiculous??? Does darkness (absence of light) ...or the Nothing have to travel in waves???? As a kid it made sense ....then they tried to teach this CRaZy out of me..... Well here I am many years later scratching my head, reading forums that point to this possibility (and OOoo I guess all the scientist that have been breaking C...well that doesn't count for much either)
I have learned a great deal from this forum and its posters and Eric is offering his lifetime of pondering and studying this great subject.... so thanks ....
kokomojo....while your post have certainly have been a little ...Trollish .. Its always good to have both sides in a discussion .... You seem to have a deep grasp on many of the important issues ...Yet it appears you are happy and content with the science and math the way it exist .... I wonder what your really looking for in this forum....You could be an asset to helping out ... why not try that approach .... and if there is something so wrong with all this Theory and Thinking ... well then Why don't you disprove what you can ....either way you would be helping in the overall understanding.

[Farmhand]

Meyl claims to have a split capacitor/coil internally impedance matched with one wire (the earth) between the coils and 2 spheres to conduct capacitively the distance between them being the dielectric completing the circuit. This makes perfect sense to me and I can conceptualize this working just fine.

Yes that works to transfer energy. The way I see it - If the coils are wound the
same way when the transmitter is positive the receiver is negative so if the
receiver is wound opposite like Meyl's when the transmitter is positive the
receiver is also positive. If they are close that makes a difference.

Then there is the "electrical length" between them. I think positioning the
receiver 1/4 WL (or an odd multiple of 1/4 WL) from the node at the base of
the transmitter will help when using identical/mirror transformers. I imagine
then if the terminal capacitances both have the same reference the effect
would be to force "activity" on the receiver. Even if they were on opposite
sides of the Earth. The effect of a stationary wave would be obvious I think.

What I don't understand is why the basic principal is not explained a bit better
so the common man can at least know what is trying to be done. And what it
is you are doing if you don't want to build anything. I've read you say that
you want to prove more power out than in, but where does Tesla say this.

You also say that Meyl claims more out than in. But more what ? What is the
value and the property of the claim of Meyl's more out than in claim ?

ie. Is it say 10 "watts" more out than in or is it 10 "volts" more at the receiver
than the transmitter has applied to it ? If you think that the more "power" out
than in situation is possible with a Meyl system then why not show us ?
Should be a piece of cake for you. That's practical science.

Meyl's system is not Earth connected at all as far as I can tell which seriously limits
the practicality of using very high voltages because of the connecting wire
insulation. With low voltage its fine and dandy but try it with a 50 Kv
transformer and see what happens, you'll need very good wire for the
connection between the coils or suspend it.

All in all I don't see any Laymans explanation of a theory of operation. I think
it would help to ensure people were thinking along the same lines and for the
purpose of visualizing it.

Cheers

PS. If a connecting wire is used that is longer than 1 x 1/4 wavelength then I
think if the insulation on the wire is not good enough it will break through at
the first maximum voltage "nodal" point on the wire after the transmitter.

Kokomo you could start a different thread for this Meyl stuff.

..

[Armagdn03]

here is why I laugh at the tpu tards.




They have no idea what that means or how it applies.

great find hatter

The superposition of two counter rotating signals within a circular waveguide? Even more interesting when the feed points are 1/4 wavelength appart, then you cancel all circulation in one direction, and double it in the other. You have a unidirectional propagation, a "one way" street.

[Kokomoj0]

here is why I laugh at the tpu tards.




They have no idea what that means or how it applies.

great find hatter

[Kokomoj0]

To boldly go where no man has gone before

To boldly go where ONE man has gone before

[lamare]

There's an interesting article by John Pendry on manipulation of the near field with meta-materials.

http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/OPNarticle.pdf