Eric Dollard

[David G Dawson]

Cosmic Ray Detector Test 1 & 2

Have completed Test # 2 for the CRD without problems:
Will present pictures for others who are getting themselves involved with this adventure of Erics we are travelling along with.
Have decided to part dedicate my Lab to Eric's work such that he has another resource to carry out the work that is remote from whatever occurs in the USA.
I am doing my own projects but will concentrate more on what Eric is offering in an attempt to assist in making his revelations become a reality.
Made this decision after listening to the Adam Bull audio as much more detail was obtained from that discussion than Eric had previously divulged.- Thanks Adam!

Test #2 Setup:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Caps and Test Bed:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Test Request:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Test #1 Results:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Test #2 Results:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Caps used can be seen in the background.
Oil-Filled gives a bonus but too large and cumbersome and could not get any lower than the 88 volt for this particular 0A4G and have anywhere from the 0.15uF to the 2uF with equal brilliance.
Noticed in some instances the gas fired late but was probably a borderline case.
The 0.047uF gave 90 volts on a second attempt.
On the 10,800pF, all I could see was an arc between starter and cathode but no gas fired.
Will put the second Test on Chart and Post later.
I do not make schematics for these tests but why I take the pics as a reminder.

Can someone pass this on to Eric please and we can get down to some serious business.
In the meantime I will get the CRD back up and running and refine whatever I can.
Think both Tests have shown that something in the 0.33uF area appears to be the best but that will be for Eric to decide.

Smokey

[dR-Green]

After your somewhat unfair castigation, now you want me to design an amp for you? How about an outline?

There are some basic considerations:
1)what frequency range
2) what power
3) input / output criteria, interface and impedance.
4) power supply type, ie: AC or DC input and voltage
5) budget
6) can this be created from materials on hand?

The square and sinusoidal power amp types are different animals with different design criteria. I would not recommend a "one size fits all approach"

Before you can answer any of the above, you must have an idea of what it is you are trying to do.

For instance,I just finished building a 1200 watt VHF power oscillator for a lab which used a 48V SMPS (120vac) as a power supply.
The oscillator had to be variable from 30 to 60 DBM .
There were a lot of other details, but there were specific requirements that had to be addressed for the project.

You asked where I got the discouragement campaign idea from, so I expressed what I see. I could have said things like "with all due respect, it's none of your business" to soften it up, but it's an universal fact that's not personal, and I included "who is anyone else to judge YOU..." because that also applies to everyone including you. I don't think it was unfair, if I was then it's only to get the point across. You have already been banned once, and the only place it's going to get you if you continue with that is banned again, so what's the point in that? If you are as experienced as you say you are then you could get far more productive things done, and if you really have an interest [in a specific thing] then there's only one way anything is ever going to get done in the way you want it done. But if you can help to get results faster then I for one will appreciate your assistance/cooperation.

1: <5 Mc. There isn't really a lower limit requirement, but I probably won't be needing lower than 500 kc let's say
2: 10W and 100-500W, although as it stands there are no strict requirements. 10W would be pretty nice to begin with
3: 50 ohm impedance. What do you mean by interface?
4: DC, +/-12V supply if possible. It may be a mobile unit, but beyond that there's no fixed/specific criteria. If the primary coil can be driven with only 12V then the results should be pretty good already. But it's all experimental, something needs to built and tested before being able to determine anything further
5: As little as possible. What would drive up the cost?
6: A lot of the materials may be at hand but it depends how specific things will need to get

Fair enough if the same amp can't do sine and square, that idea is mainly for convenience and not having to rearrange everything on the bench, but if it's more convenient to build two separate amps then that's fine. An [built-in] oscillator isn't entirely necessary for the initial steps until other important things have been established. I have a signal generator, a method of modulating the amplitude of the signal, but I need a method of amplifying the power, and variable gain would be nice. It will be for experimenting, testing the efficiency (of the coils and transmission) etc so the more versatile/controllable the better.

[cyborg]

Like I said the last time around, you just seem to be wanting to be a disruption and being more than happy to say what can be summed up as "what's the point?" to everything. What's the point of asking what's the point? Why do you collect old radios to LOOK at? Why not buy a shiny new radio to look at? Why does one person buy a red car when another person buys a blue car?



An EMP? What's the field like around the coils that these things are powering?



Indeed.



You can be appalled all you like, beyond that it's none of your business. Who is anyone else to judge you and take sides in your argument when they are not involved in it? I'm sure Eric was appalled when he saw the video too, seeing as he was filmed without his knowledge and only came to know about it through the said video appearing on youtube. What a nice thing to do to someone. How would you like it done to you? Why are you so offended on behalf of people you don't even know? You have overlooked the fact that the person/people involved would also not hesitate to press record during a personal disagreement that you are having, or a rant that you happen to be having (you do experience varying moods, do you?) and then edit it as they see fit to post over youtube in order to portray you in whatever way they wish. Careful of the company you keep.

All that is not productive and it's certainly no use or healthy being appalled at something but to deliberately keep coming back to constantly be reminded of it, unless you constantly want to be appalled, or are deliberately trying to sustain the argument with apparent undermining through the questioning of why a person chooses to do what they do, and dispensing "advice" (criticism) on how someone else should go about their personal business. That is a question for philosophers, and your audience has no interest in the negative propaganda. I'm not here to type myself into oblivion on a computer keyboard with opinions that are based on opinions so anything that's not experiment or work based is irrelevant.



How do you ever intend to find out if no one does any research? And who is supposed to do the research? You are free to take the information that Eric provided and make it work in your own way if you are confounded by the part that says to use vacuum tubes or you disagree with it. Make it work without them! That would be far more useful than questioning why other people choose to use vacuum tubes, and then you won't come across as an external disruption but someone who is actually working on the problem and trying to make it work. Make it work on the bench.





I would like an efficient power amplifier(s) of the mentioned power outputs, that will be suitable for both +/- sine waves as well as + square wave carriers. Preferably a class B type design, but not alternating for the square wave carrier. It's for experimental use so the more versatile and simple the better. I would appreciate this and it would make far more interesting (higher power) experiments.

Well Doc,

Not to belabor the point much further, but I don't think anyone wants to work with a person who has temper tantrums and insults them. I don't care who they are!
It's not about judgement, but a matter of being respectful. You reap what you sow in situations like that,yet he says he's a victim. 'nuf said...

After your somewhat unfair castigation, now you want me to design an amp for you? How about an outline?

There are some basic considerations:
1)what frequency range
2) what power
3) input / output criteria, interface and impedance.
4) power supply type, ie: AC or DC input and voltage
5) budget
6) can this be created from materials on hand?

The square and sinusoidal power amp types are different animals with different design criteria. I would not recommend a "one size fits all approach"

Before you can answer any of the above, you must have an idea of what it is you are trying to do.

For instance,I just finished building a 1200 watt VHF power oscillator for a lab which used a 48V SMPS (120vac) as a power supply.
The oscillator had to be variable from 30 to 60 DBM .
There were a lot of other details, but there were specific requirements that had to be addressed for the project.

[dR-Green]

Thank you very much for this insightful post. Much appreciated. I am trying to learn all of this material and read it with attention...how ever I stumble when there are abbreviations like A.T.T or similar...

Is it possible to post a legend with all such abbreviations. I know many of the readers have been following your posts from day one and probably know the meaning of all the abrivations.

Unfortunately I am new to your work. I would really appreciate it. Thanks again for your contribution.

CRI = Crystal Radio Initiative
CRD = Cosmic Ray Detector
CIG = Cosmic Induction Generator
TMT = Tesla Magnifying Transmitter (or Transformer)

I can't think of any others at the moment.

[dR-Green]

Doc Green your mistaken in the notion that a bulb in SERIES has different levels of brightness depending upon its placement in a group of bulbs. That logic is for a TWO-WIRE line with loads placed in parallel at different points along its length. Not a series circuit.

In a series circuit all points exhibit the same magnitude of electric current, unlike the parallel circuit discussed above. So from this logic any number of bulbs in series all share the same current and hence I^2*R heating. Making each, aside from manufacturing tolerances, demonstrate the same light output.

Not here to be a circuit nerd, just pointing out a basic err in logic. Although, it is pretty cool to see the bulbs light with out a physical return wire (displacement currents at work here?), RF magic at its best I suppose.

Yes you are right, thanks for pointing that out. Although I'm not sure what you mean by the parallel loads at different points along its length.

[dR-Green]

Doc,
Don't know where you get the "discouragement campaign" from. I am just questioning why all the focus on *very* old tube tech.

Like I said the last time around, you just seem to be wanting to be a disruption and being more than happy to say what can be summed up as "what's the point?" to everything. What's the point of asking what's the point? Why do you collect old radios to LOOK at? Why not buy a shiny new radio to look at? Why does one person buy a red car when another person buys a blue car?

Don't get me wrong, tubes are interesting and can probably survive an EMP better, but they are very primitive and bulky by today's standards.
I have old ham radios, some dating back to the 30's, but only for demo and display purposes but I don't build new projects with tubes.
I was wondering why anyone would want to.

An EMP? What's the field like around the coils that these things are powering?

It's funny how two people can witness an event and describe it differently.

Indeed.

All I can say is that I was appalled when I saw that video of Eric ranting and raving about a very minor thing, verbally abusing everyone who were only there to help. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THIS BEHAVIOR.

You can be appalled all you like, beyond that it's none of your business. Who is anyone else to judge you and take sides in your argument when they are not involved in it? I'm sure Eric was appalled when he saw the video too, seeing as he was filmed without his knowledge and only came to know about it through the said video appearing on youtube. What a nice thing to do to someone. How would you like it done to you? Why are you so offended on behalf of people you don't even know? You have overlooked the fact that the person/people involved would also not hesitate to press record during a personal disagreement that you are having, or a rant that you happen to be having (you do experience varying moods, do you?) and then edit it as they see fit to post over youtube in order to portray you in whatever way they wish. Careful of the company you keep.

All that is not productive and it's certainly no use or healthy being appalled at something but to deliberately keep coming back to constantly be reminded of it, unless you constantly want to be appalled, or are deliberately trying to sustain the argument with apparent undermining through the questioning of why a person chooses to do what they do, and dispensing "advice" (criticism) on how someone else should go about their personal business. That is a question for philosophers, and your audience has no interest in the negative propaganda. I'm not here to type myself into oblivion on a computer keyboard with opinions that are based on opinions so anything that's not experiment or work based is irrelevant.

I am truly interested if the "instantaneous transmission" is possible.

How do you ever intend to find out if no one does any research? And who is supposed to do the research? You are free to take the information that Eric provided and make it work in your own way if you are confounded by the part that says to use vacuum tubes or you disagree with it. Make it work without them! That would be far more useful than questioning why other people choose to use vacuum tubes, and then you won't come across as an external disruption but someone who is actually working on the problem and trying to make it work. Make it work on the bench.

So, Doc, what do you need to know? You never asked before...

Any designs you can share with us, say 10 and 100-500 watt?

I would like an efficient power amplifier(s) of the mentioned power outputs, that will be suitable for both +/- sine waves as well as + square wave carriers. Preferably a class B type design, but not alternating for the square wave carrier. It's for experimental use so the more versatile and simple the better. I would appreciate this and it would make far more interesting (higher power) experiments.

[upgradd]

Doc Green your mistaken in the notion that a bulb in SERIES has different levels of brightness depending upon its placement in a group of bulbs. That logic is for a TWO-WIRE line with loads placed in parallel at different points along its length. Not a series circuit.

In a series circuit all points exhibit the same magnitude of electric current, unlike the parallel circuit discussed above. So from this logic any number of bulbs in series all share the same current and hence I^2*R heating. Making each, aside from manufacturing tolerances, demonstrate the same light output.

Not here to be a circuit nerd, just pointing out a basic err in logic. Although, it is pretty cool to see the bulbs light with out a physical return wire (displacement currents at work here?), RF magic at its best I suppose.

[cyborg]

the reason I avoid the use of solid state is to keep a pure and clean plasma source as possible, I'm doing research work with plasma so naturally that's the draw.

Why are solid state drivers undesirable for plasma?
Are you referring to possible damage due to sudden impedance changes?

[madhatter]

Doc,
Don't know where you get the "discouragement campaign" from. I am just questioning why all the focus on *very* old tube tech. I'm surprised that you aren't trying to use the "double and triple digit" tubes from the 20's. Those are even closer to the "founders'" time.

I posted a little bit of info about the solid state stuff on the other forum, but found that there was very little interest in it. I answered the one question that I got.

Unlike some people, I do not claim to have "special secrets" that I may or may not share with the world,etc, just some modern era engineering using modern components which anyone can apply and it will work. If you think about it, tubes are also 'modern technology" when applied to TCs, so why not leap ahead another 60 years and use parts that are readily available?

So, Doc, what do you need to know? You never asked before...

I think the CRD initiative was an attempt to include what Eric calls "NGs" because he thinks he has to dumb things down to the extreme or even the absurd.

I am truly interested if the "instantaneous transmission" is possible. Note that instantaneous is different than FTL which is a velocity.
Tesla coils are not FTL, and Tesla never claimed that they were.

Logic and physics tells us that when light, electrons, rockets and meteorites will slow down when moving in anything but a straight line in a vaccuum . Electrons do not go faster in a coil!! Period!

I'm saying that some of the concepts espoused here have gone off the rails.
Sometimes this forum seems more about a cult of personality than any real scientific pursuit. Please! Prove me wrong!

the reason I avoid the use of solid state is to keep a pure and clean plasma source as possible, I'm doing research work with plasma so naturally that's the draw.

your right that the electrons don't travel faster in the coil, the limit is within our 3 dimensional universe. electrons are not particles or 'things' it's an energy probability collapse from what I'll call counter space. now if a coil arrangement can induce a potential field that is independent of the magnetic field then it can be observed in our reference frame to have exceeded the velocity of light.

[Aaron]

misinformation and deception

All I can say is that I was appalled when I saw that video of Eric ranting and raving about a very minor thing, verbally abusing everyone who were only there to help. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THIS BEHAVIOR.
Are you trying to say that it didn't happen?

This was insight into why he "lost" all of those labs.
Eric is an interesting guy, but he has to learn how to play well with others if he is ever to have an "organization" going forward.

That being said, does he intend to continue the lab? He was left with that option...

Am I saying that Eric didn't go off on someone? This is snake talk. You are attempting to manipulate anyone reading this by trying to distract the attention to something that has absolutely nothing to do with your previous false claims or the facts I pointed out that debunked your claims.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THIS BEHAVIOR it is completely disingenuous an inauthentic.

Eric going off on someone has nothing to do with your false claims that the lab was left to him to continue by himself because of his lack of cooperation, which is completely false. You are ignoring the facts of his multiple statements about needing funds to continue the work at the lab in his interviews, etc. When your false claims are clearly debunked based on facts, you don't concede to the reality of this, you attempt to direct the attention to something else of irrelevance that takes focus off the fact that you have been exposed as someone that is spreading misinformation.

Play well with others? I have been around Eric personally in multiple situations and meetings with his other associates that are involved with the non-profit and haven't witnessed any of that with these other people who have been around him for a LONG TIME - YEARS. This was insight into why he had a different relationship with some of the others that were there to "help". Hmmmm - geee I wonder why that is?

Here is another fact - those that claim to be wanting to help Eric ALREADY knew how he was - a feral human - the one that got away. It's common sense by looking at all his posts for the last 3 years here and his NFG's. Anyone that claims they didn't know is a liar.

If you go out to the desert and bring a coyote into your home and you get bit, you blame YOURSELF! It's common sense. Whether you find it unacceptable or not is irrelevant and it doesn't change the fact that those that were trying to "help" Eric were also imposing their will on him and trying to manage him instead of leaving him alone to do what he wants. They wanted him to do what they wanted instead of supporting Eric to do the work Eric wants to do. That is what was promised to Eric by the "benefactors" that he would have a place to do his thing, but in reality, it was so they could get him to do their thing.

Does he intend to continue the lab? Thank you - you have proven clearly that you are absolutely here to misinform and deceive people because of nefarious intents or because you simply are incapable of comprehending really simple English.

Please keep your lies out of this thread and out of this forum, your deceptions are not welcome. If you can't acknowledge what was ALREADY said like a decent human being, then don't post anymore.

[cyborg]

perception

That is nothing but pure misinformation. Whether intentional or simply because you are obviously unaware of the facts is unknown by me, but it is pure misinformation nonetheless.

1. Several people involved already had plans to boot Eric out of his own organization - this is a documented fact by someone that was a party to the conversations so the lab wasn't "left in the hands of" Eric. Wittekind even admits that was said but claims there was a misunderstanding in communication about it. Hmmm. Two of the trouble makers are gone and Wittekind will resign in January - was Wittekind really a trouble maker behind the scenes? I'd like to know. There are two other people that are on the board that have been there all along that almost nobody mentions. One is the Secretary now and one is the Director. Not getting cooperation? What was Eric supposed to build? After they sunk most of the money into the building, which increased the equity of EPD Laboratories, Inc. $0.00 since that equity is owned by the landlord, there were some parts, etc. but the building isn't even properly wired from the power line pole. In in almost every interview with Eric over the last several months, he has mentioned needing money to continue his work at the lab quite a few times. In EVERY promotion of Eric's books/videos it is very clear that proceeds are going to the non-profit to help pay for parts, operating expenses, etc. Mysteriously, you leave out the facts and make up your own.

2. Irrelevant.

3. It is self evident from the results of his work.

4. FALSE. It was Justin Miller "the cowboy" who had the idea to create an organization to develop the work that he and Eric were involved in and Eric has known him for years. Eric's organization was always him and his associates that actually did the real work. This was way before any "helpers" showed up and put the organization on paper. Yes, the organization is a valuable tool for Eric's work - there is no denying that. The organization isn't left up to Eric as you falsely claim. There are a team of people he is working with and two are official board members besides Wittekind. The organization is VERY important to Eric and is more important to him than the building - this is irrefutable. You don't know what he wants so please don't spread this ignorance here.

5. Pure condescending BS. Even in Eric's latest interview he was very clear that the recent money was put into making a successful CIG with John Polakowski, etc. You sound like a representative of the dark side. Eric is the most outspoken person out of them all that wants transparency on where the money went so people know it went to a good cause.

Don't have to get you wrong at all. I think it is fairly impossible for anyone with common sense to not be able to clearly see that you are completely full of BS willfully or just out of ignorance. Those are the only two obvious possibilities and it is disrespectful to someone that contributes more in one paper to this field that you probably have in your entire life combined. In other words, you have no room to talk.

You have no idea about the multiple TANGIBLE projects he is working on and you have just guaranteed that it will most likely stay that way for YOU.

It's funny how two people can witness an event and describe it differently.
Ok you have actual "face time" but I have some non public background info as well.

All I can say is that I was appalled when I saw that video of Eric ranting and raving about a very minor thing, verbally abusing everyone who were only there to help. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THIS BEHAVIOR.
Are you trying to say that it didn't happen?

This was insight into why he "lost" all of those labs.
Eric is an interesting guy, but he has to learn how to play well with others if he is ever to have an "organization" going forward.

That being said, does he intend to continue the lab? He was left with that option...

[7redorbs]

Things to Add about Faster than Light &amp; CRD

Evidently as it has been covered by Eric before many times in many different publications and presentations that Wheatstone himself invented an apparatus that involved a 4 mile long transmission line segmented so that a spark might pass between it's centre, and an accurate timing mechanism might trigger at point A start of the transmission line segment, simultaneously to a second identical timing mechanism at point B at the middle of the transmission line segment. Upon spark gap electrostatic discharge leaving point B and arcing to point C in the transmission line to traverse the other 2 miles an average velocity is obtainable in the simple high school equation velocity = distance / time. The velocity wheatstone found it to be with pi / 2 times greater than light, or approximately 1.57 or 157% greater than light.

Further, the point of a Cosmic Ray Detector as I have conceived the meaning of it's implement to be is to directly engage in the recreation of the apparatus of Nikola Tesla for firstly detecting what was referred to as a faster than light Cosmic Ray, such as the one detected by Tesla from Antarus at 50 times the speed of light by his apparatus. The apparatus that Eric Dollard has shared appears to be a full schematic for the device. What David Dawson has put together appears to be a functional CRD. So therefore with the addition of a second CRD and and with the considerations of identifying and tuning and individual Cosmic Ray source to each electrical apparatus, the same identical segmentation, differential and therefore distance and time of detection can be known, and provide a velocity. This would therefore prove once and for all if there was a faster than light possibility in the conception of the CRD. But then comes the inventive and inductive proofs of what the CRD is really detecting and other interference factors, and of course the ability to individualise or tune the Cosmic Ray Detector to the particular cosmic entity one wishes to observe.

I believe with two of the devices that david has one working already, that it may be able to obtain this theoretical velocity and thus forward the onward expansion of the discussion on travelling electrical waves as Eric puts it that 'dont have a velocity'. For many this may be familiar to the audacious and explosive claims that tesla made when he said he could transmit power and communications "regardless of distance". Regardless implying precisely the very same claim as illustrated and described by Eric. In my opinion I believe we are merely following the research of Nikola Tesla and at least attempting to create apparatus that show the transverse electromagnetic wave, or the ohmic or kircchoffian value of the faraday equation is NOT the whole story to the transformers electrical activity. For instance in power lines and large transformers of sufficient density and size considerations about the earth. I believe that the earth is inextricably connected with the transformer that I have worked with. Many of the things we cannot see about electricity could be revealed by this counterspace discharge, as it is now seen potentially arriving at a terminal BEFORE the switch has been closed, repeat arriving at terminal BEFORE the switch is closed, and it is a seriously interesting situation worthy of research. What we are now discussing is the possibility or at least concept of one being able to potentially turn a switch on which causes a boxing glove to punch you before you have switched the device. Enter the paradox. And so, the importance of following this road seems clear. It is only explained by "einsteins paradox", and here and now is the very real opportunity of detecting electrical waves travelling in forward and backwards time converging to create the friend we call the electromagnetic field. Is it not the enemy? Is not the real goal to separate the divided particles into their most primary form? Has this been done and is this understood? These are all important questions in my opinion that relate to this research and asking the question of "FTL" as it has been put.

Tesla suggests that the density of matter, and a wire plays a part in the brightness of a bulb, and the decay of dense or unstable radioactive matter. Such as radium. Tesla even suggests that radioactivity isn't caused by mass, but could be caused by an external source. Which in other words completely contradicts everything we know about nuclear physics today, the dense matter is supposed to decay on it's own, and it is supposed to be unstable because of it's atomic arrangement as determined by the theory of periodicity of elements. In the case that radioactivity could have an external cause as tesla suggests with radium "If completely shielded from cosmic rays ceases to be radioactive altogether" the very foundation of electrical and atomic sciences becomes to fall apart, as, many of them rely on a fixed form. But now considerations of the planet and the transformers on the planet must be considered, as well as planetary activity. Or in other words - an external force responsible for radio interference, which implies power, and even suggests the possibility that the motive electron has an external cause. For instance a chemical battery ceases to operate if it is cooled to much, for instance if the sun was absent no chemical batteries would work in my calculations and estimations. I think it is proof enough that motive transport, and the motion of the electrons responsible in the chemical periodic elements for chemical reactions could be based by an external cause in the same way as radium. And so that is another extremely important reason to pursue the CRD. As it will allow further research into nuclear physics to probe the claim that was indeed made by tesla many times, of faster than light and externally caused atomic and radioactive activity, determined by density. The highlight here in my opinion is that the sun, or our local star is a great influence on the valent activity of metals, and so already establishes what is well known as the "open system". IS this not just a reluctant way of saying that the state and activity, in atoms electrically is determined by an external thing? In the case of space weather and earth weather, it is all caused externally.

The Niagara falls keeps turning round and round, and the scientists and physicists tell you it is the force of water and gravity turning that turbine. When evidently and truthfully if you were to eradicate our sun altogether and remove it but for a day or two, the water would rapidly freeze on this earth, and the evaporation of our ocean and rivers into clouds would cease, and therefore there would be no rainfall anymore in the mountains to condense and fall by gravity to form a river down hill to then drive the turbine. As we can see the specific and inventive scientists can explain the force which drives the turbine admirably, but it is describing those secondary and tertiary things and it is ignoring the primary wireless force. So to say something like Niagara falls is caused by gravity is a hilarious thing, because if that was so all you would need to do is remove the sun, and then you would see there was no water for the gravity to take down the hill. We therefore must assume that the external influence of the sun and the ability for the changing atomic density represents the best and most interesting study of the formation of electricity in a generator. We can look at the electron or the unstable matter of radium, but if we are not properly identifying the primary force , the primary wireless force responsible for the secondary manifestations we see, then we are really continuing to believe a science based on mass, when it seems that mass is consisting of some unknown wave or dimensional attributes which are not mass, but converge in some way to form it. And the CRD, and CIG I believe are at the centre of that controversy and so represent in my opinion the best and most satisfying way to engage in this experimentation.

I have performed few experiments myself and am not trained in the same manner as many other people but as may be noted am not without my own opinions and researches, nonetheless, i defer to the more experienced people. I merely came to respond to the inquiry of faster than light waves and the reasoning as to the importance and meaning of producing a CRD apparatus,




Best Wishes,
A

[cyborg]

Cyborg = either Jimm or Kokomojo. He made this clear in his first post under the new alias to Smokey, I just can't be bothered to go back through the pages to find out which one of them it is. Assuming Jimm = not Kokomojo.

I'm still waiting for a solid state circuit design from him, I wasn't being sarcastic when I asked because I have uses for it. But he doesn't want to talk to me Instead he seems to be promoting a discouragement campaign in an effort to get people not to bother doing anything. But he's only wasting his own time with all that nonsense. Those who would believe it would be useless anyway, he's inadvertently doing the job of weeding them out. Nature's way.

Doc,
Don't know where you get the "discouragement campaign" from. I am just questioning why all the focus on *very* old tube tech. I'm surprised that you aren't trying to use the "double and triple digit" tubes from the 20's. Those are even closer to the "founders'" time.

I posted a little bit of info about the solid state stuff on the other forum, but found that there was very little interest in it. I answered the one question that I got.

Unlike some people, I do not claim to have "special secrets" that I may or may not share with the world,etc, just some modern era engineering using modern components which anyone can apply and it will work. If you think about it, tubes are also 'modern technology" when applied to TCs, so why not leap ahead another 60 years and use parts that are readily available?

So, Doc, what do you need to know? You never asked before...

I think the CRD initiative was an attempt to include what Eric calls "NGs" because he thinks he has to dumb things down to the extreme or even the absurd.

I am truly interested if the "instantaneous transmission" is possible. Note that instantaneous is different than FTL which is a velocity.
Tesla coils are not FTL, and Tesla never claimed that they were.

Logic and physics tells us that when light, electrons, rockets and meteorites will slow down when moving in anything but a straight line in a vaccuum . Electrons do not go faster in a coil!! Period!

I'm saying that some of the concepts espoused here have gone off the rails.
Sometimes this forum seems more about a cult of personality than any real scientific pursuit. Please! Prove me wrong!

[7redorbs]

Tesla claimed faster than light repeatedly (refs provided)

Thanks I am glad the interview was well received. Eric truly is a fascinating man and having spoken to him for 3 hours about the whole thing I remain completely convinced he has more than most could imagine! I am so glad that the interview is encouraging discussion about this important scientists work again!


I write in response to some mal informed person that suggested that Nikola Tesla never made the claim of FTL (faster than light). I believe this to be an erroneous statement not backed up by historical research data, publications and scientific treatises authored by the scientist in question. It remains a fact that Tesla repeatedly challenged relativity and the contention that nothing could travel faster than the velocity of light.

“All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light.” – Nikola Tesla, July 10, 1932

"He [Tesla] described relativity as a 'beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a king.' In support of his statement he cited a number of experiments he had conducted as far back as 1896 on the cosmic ray. He has measured cosmic-ray velocities from Antarus, he said, which he found to be fifty times greater than the speed of light, thus demolishing, he [tesla] contended, one of the basic pillars of relativity, according to which there can be no speed greater than that of light.”
-- New York Times, 7/11/35.



"[I have conceived] a means that will make it possible for man to transmit energy in large amounts, thousands of horsepower, from one planet to another, absolutely regardless of distance. I think that nothing can be more important than interplanetary communication. It will certainly come some day and the certitude that there are other human beings [at other locations] in the universe, working, suffering, struggling, like ourselves, will produce a magic effect on mankind and will form the foundation of a universal brotherhood that will last as long as humanity itself."
—Dr. Nikola Tesla,
―In Time magazine’s July 20, 1931 issue celebrating Tesla's 75th birthday


"Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. This idea is not novel. Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason; it has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new. We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic — and this we know it is, for certain — then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature." - Dr. Nikola Tesla



Best Wishes,
A

[Hexarmin]

Thank you very much for this insightful post. Much appreciated. I am trying to learn all of this material and read it with attention...how ever I stumble when there are abbreviations like A.T.T or similar...

Is it possible to post a legend with all such abbreviations. I know many of the readers have been following your posts from day one and probably know the meaning of all the abrivations.

Unfortunately I am new to your work. I would really appreciate it. Thanks again for your contribution.