OverUnity Research

Here is a link to the PDF of Lindemann's book on this subject:

http://fenopy.com/torrent/Peter+Lindemann+Free+Energy+Patents+Cold+War+Tech/MTA2ODM5

Download: The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity.pdf

This has an account of Tesla's discovery of RE written by Gerry Vassilatos.

All of you engineer-types please have a read and tell me what you think Tesla discovered.

Grumpy:

I can't commit to reading the chapters on Tesla, but I did give the material a 15-minute skim.

I don't know Tesla down to the nitty-gritty details, but I think his biggest achievement was the application of AC electricity as a means to distribute power.  He beat out Edison who was promoting DC.  Edison did not understand that AC was the way to go but he had lots of resources behind him to push his proposition forward.  I use the term "application" rather than "discovery" here in the sense that AC was "always there" and I consider it a stretch to say that anybody "discovered" or "invented" AC electricity.  The development of the power-plant at Niagara Falls was a major milestone in the history of the world.

All of the work he did with high-voltage and spark gaps and his tower was interesting, but entirely conventional.  I think that Tesla enthusiasts tend to forget that everything he was doing was written from a late 19th century and early 20th century perspective.  Therefore the way these observations were described was fantastical, simply because nobody had ever seen it before and those were the language tools available at the time.  I think that this is a key point that a lot Tesla enthusiasts don't pick up on.  Certainly a lot of these phenomena were first discovered by Tesla, but most of them had little practical application.

I believe (not sure) that he invented a lot of nuts and bolts hardware, like high-voltage switches (?) and transformers that he needed to do his experiments and a lot of that stuff that is still in use today in a more modern form.

Tesla is not even given a footnote in an electrical engineering curriculum.  The "fantastical" stuff is history, and whatever he was playing with is several generations old and of no practical use.  For example, Tesla may have figured out how to implement a remote control using radio waves, but Tesla would not have a clue what quaternary phase shift keying is.

To go back to your question, he both discovered lots of things and applied his discoveries.  70 years after his death, the one thing, in my mind at least, that sticks out is AC power generation and distribution.  It's a biggie, it's the backbone of our society!  But with respect to all the sparks and the aether and all that jazz, that's completely figured out and the science and engineering in that field has evolved way past what Tesla ever did.  So there are in fact no "Tesla secrets" or aether streams and there is no point pouring over his writings, diagrams, and patents in hope of researching free energy.  I am not even sure if Tesla was doing research into what we call "free energy."  I wonder if that was saddled onto him by the Tesla enthusiasts starting in the 1970s.

Tesla has also spawned a cottage industry, but that's another story!

MileHigh

MH,

Sometimes you have to go back and see what really happened, see what others missed, before you can move forward.

What we know now can not be the end of it all.  We still have too many unanswered questions.

I would really like to hear your explanation of the events experienced by Joseph Henry, Elihu Thomson, and Nikola Tesla which are in the first page of the article written be Gerry and included in Peter's book.   It appears as electrostatic induction but it is time-dependent.

In any event, perhaps other here have more interest.

Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.25, 03:25:25
Grumpy:

I can't commit to reading the chapters on Tesla, but I did give the material a 15-minute skim.

I don't know Tesla down to the nitty-gritty details, but I think his biggest achievement was the application of AC electricity as a means to distribute power.  He beat out Edison who was promoting DC.  Edison did not understand that AC was the way to go but he had lots of resources behind him to push his proposition forward.  I use the term "application" rather than "discovery" here in the sense that AC was "always there" and I consider it a stretch to say that anybody "discovered" or "invented" AC electricity.  The development of the power-plant at Niagara Falls was a major milestone in the history of the world.

MileHigh

the big tower tesla was building to so call .. give the world free energy.. i often wonder what was he going to power it with.. makes no sense to buy power from the power company .. seeing how he was getting broke..
do you guys ever think about that.. cause it would take alot of power to push that kind of voltage thru the air..
but this is just me thinking

robbie

Robbie:

Quotethe big tower tesla was building to so call .. give the world free energy.. i often wonder what was he going to power it with..

This is an excellent point and it is overlooked by almost all of the Tesla enthusiasts.  Wardenclyffe Tower was just supposed to be the transmitter.  If you are going to pump power into the atmosphere then you need to have a power source for the transmitter.  What do you do, build hundreds of coal and gas and oil power-plants in the area to feed power into the tower to power the world?

It's possible that Tesla was just doing research with the tower, nothing more, and he never intended to "power the world" with the tower.  I am just thinking out aloud here and I haven't read his writings.  However, to attract investment money he "embellished" the description of the project.  Again, perhaps some people aren't aware of this, but "getting creative with the truth" was completely ingrained in the culture of the 19th and early 20th centuries, in many ways much more than it is today.  If natives fought with settlers on the west coast and 10 people died, by the time that news made the newspapers on the east coast it had to do half a dozen "hops."  Each "hop" increased the number of reported deaths so that Easterners in New York and Boston would read that 500 people were "massacred" by the native Indian tribes.

Grumpy:

I will try to read that section that you mentioned.

MileHigh

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."

Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.25, 05:07:39
Grumpy:

I will try to read that section that you mentioned.

MileHigh

Starts on page 23 of 156 (top of PDF viewer, and is page 15 of the book)

"Chapter 2: The Rosetta Stone"

Experiences of Joseph Henry and Elihu Thomson are mentioned on page 27 pf 156.  I was able to find the articles referenced, and they are represented truly in this article.

Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.25, 05:07:39
Robbie:

This is an excellent point and it is overlooked by almost all of the Tesla enthusiasts.  Wardenclyffe Tower was just supposed to be the transmitter.  If you are going to pump power into the atmosphere then you need to have a power source for the transmitter.  What do you do, build hundreds of coal and gas and oil power-plants in the area to feed power into the tower to power the world?

Hi,

I did recently read all of that stuff and what most don't understand is that Tesla was NOT pumping power into the atmosphere. He was pumping power INTO the ground.
The power that he was pumping was coming from space. The wardencliff tower is a pump that resonates with the incoming waves from space and sends it into the ground at a specific frequency.
By having receiver stations around the globe (tuned to the sending frequency) it can be used wherever on the planet.

So what is this energy that he was pumping?
If you read the book you will see that tesla discovered that electricity consists of what he called it, two species. One is the electron flow and the other the radiant event.
He found a way to separate the two species by way of the spark gap. Leaving the electrons behind in the spark gap he found the radiant event/pulse charged other metallic objects around him.
This pulse penetrated everything and acted like an incompressible gas and at superluminal speeds.

Google Tesla Impulse power!

Later on in his research Tesla discovered that this same radiant energy was coming from space to earth. He found out that it has certain frequencies at which he could tune his apparatus. That way he was able to receive the very same power from space in huge quantities and distribute it through the earth for consumption.

This is the energy source that Tesla was using!

Well this is very briefly what Tesla really was doing and hardly anyone understands.

I will try and come up with a longer version that explains it better soon....

regards,

Dutchy

If this energy was coming in from space, why then the need for the tower and pumping it into the ground only to have to retrieve it again.  Why not just recieve it from space wherever it is needed and eliminate the tower?

Hi Dutchy,

I can see that you have been studying Tesla.  Your posting raises some interesting questions, perhaps you could answer them either from your own knowledge/experience or from what they say in the material you have been studying.  Honestly, they are tough questions:

What power from space?  I need specifics if you have them.
How do you send power into the ground?
What frequency is being pumped into the ground and how is that done?
How does the remote receiver station on the earth work?  What does it tune into?

A comment about the "two species" of electricity.  My feeling as I previously stated is that those are terms that were used by Tesla and others because they did not have any better ways of describing what they were seeing at the time.  In reality, it's all conventional and the phenomena can be easily explained.

Anyway I am not here to get into a big debate with you about this stuff.  I honestly only know a little bit about Tesla.  Perhaps my questions are more rhetorical and are there to make you think more.

If a massive amount of "new" power was coming from space we would know about it.  Sunlight is the biggie, from Wikipedia:

QuoteThe solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1.366 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²).[2][4][5]  The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m² in early January to 1.321 kW/m² in early July) due to the Earth's varying distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than one part per thousand from day to day. Thus, for the whole Earth (which has a cross section of 127,400,000 km²), the power is 1.740×10^17 W, plus or minus 3.5%. The solar constant does not remain constant over long periods of time (see Solar variation), but over a year varies much less than the variation of direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere arising from the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit. The approximate average value cited,[2] 1.366 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.96 calories per minute per square centimeter, or 1.96 langleys (Ly) per minute.

1.74 x 10^17 watts is a lot of power.  That's continuous power every single second of every day.  People worry about environmental disasters causing Nature to collapse are doomsayers.  As long as that power source is available to keep the machinery of Nature going, keeping the carbon cycle and a myriad or other processes going, life on earth should be around for a long time!

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.25, 18:12:48
If a massive amount of "new" power was coming from space we would know about it.  Sunlight is the biggie, from Wikipedia:

QuoteQuote
The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1.366 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²).[2][4][5]  The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m² in early January to 1.321 kW/m² in early July) due to the Earth's varying distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than one part per thousand from day to day. Thus, for the whole Earth (which has a cross section of 127,400,000 km²), the power is 1.740×10^17 W, plus or minus 3.5%. The solar constant does not remain constant over long periods of time (see Solar variation), but over a year varies much less than the variation of direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere arising from the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit. The approximate average value cited,[2] 1.366 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.96 calories per minute per square centimeter, or 1.96 langleys (Ly) per minute.

1.74 x 10^17 watts is a lot of power.  That's continuous power every single second of every day.  People worry about environmental disasters causing Nature to collapse are doomsayers.  As long as that power source is available to keep the machinery going, keeping the carbon cycle and a myriad or other processes going, life on earth should be around for a long time!

MileHigh

I suspect that there are high velocity electrically neutral particles - like tiny pieces of dielectric material.  While these particles may not be deviated by magnetic or electric fields, they can be polarized.  How would you attempt to detect a particle like this?

Grumpy:

QuoteI suspect that there are high velocity electrically neutral particles - like tiny pieces of dielectric material
How would you attempt to detect a particle like this?

Go into an unused nickel mine in Sudbury and fill a vast underground cavern with raspberry jello?  (okay bad joke!)

I can't answer that but can bounce a question back at you:

How can you extract energy from high-velocity neutral particles?

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.25, 19:01:19
How can you extract energy from high-velocity neutral particles?

MileHigh

kinetic energy

Also from depolarization if the particles can be polarized.

Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.25, 19:01:19
Grumpy:

Go into an unused nickel mine in Sudbury and fill a vast underground cavern with raspberry jello?  (okay bad joke!)

I can't answer that but can bounce a question back at you:

How can you extract energy from high-velocity neutral particles?

MileHigh

Raspberry jello is Kewl  ;D

You extract the energy by using the displacement they create.
Provided 'high-velocity' and 'neutral particles' are not a conundrum. 

Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.25, 19:20:43
kinetic energy

Also from depolarization if the particles can be polarized.

There might be a way to utilize their angular momentum.  Probably have to use a magnetic field to align them the same way and then rotate them.  Place a conductor in their path.  Everytime they would pass near electrons in the collector, some of their spin would be transferred.

EDIT:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:d0BTgxEywWgJ:www.physics.purdue.edu/research/features/giuliani.shtml+electron+spin+field+coupling&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

QuoteWhile in most situations "spin space" and "real space" are totally oblivious of each other, this interaction causes the two to become intermingled. The physical origin of this coupling lies in the fact that in its frame of reference a whirling electron does see as time varying the electric field generated by charges that are stationary in the lab frame. Since a time varying electric field begets a magnetic field, a magnetic coupling to the electron spin ensues. It is then clear how the magnitude of the effect depends on the local electric field, i.e. on how rapidly the potential energy seen by an electron during its orbital adventures is varying in space.

@milehigh

QuoteAll of the work he did with high-voltage and spark gaps and his tower was interesting, but entirely conventional.  I think that Tesla enthusiasts tend to forget that everything he was doing was written from a late 19th century and early 20th century perspective.  Therefore the way these observations were described was fantastical, simply because nobody had ever seen it before and those were the language tools available at the time.  I think that this is a key point that a lot Tesla enthusiasts don't pick up on.  Certainly a lot of these phenomena were first discovered by Tesla, but most of them had little practical application.

I think it is easy for many educated persons who have never accomplished anything to ridicule Tesla but I for one have found his work to be inspirational. Did you know that in the year 1999 the computer giant IBM tried to patent the logic gate? that is the basis for the operation of every computer known to man only to find Tesla invented it over 50 years prior, those poor self-righteous bastards at IBM must have been dumbfound,lol. Now tell me do you think the logic gate, the basis for "ALL", let me repeat that "ALL" computers, has little practical application as you suggest?.The same goes for AC power,florescent lighting, plasma arc lighting, robotics,conversion technologies and the list goes on and on. Now consider the relevance of these technologies on our lives today? You would have to be blind,deaf and mute to not understand the contributions Tesla has made. Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about but if you want to understand the true motivation of what Tesla was trying to do you only have to read one document and that is --- "The Problem of increasing human energy". Tesla's ultimate goal was to find a renewable non-polluting natural resource which was attainable anywhere on the planet--- period. The question which just begs to be asked here is who are you to judge anyone when you have not actually built anything to prove the matter for yourself.

QuoteI can't commit to reading the chapters on Tesla, but I did give the material a 15-minute skim.

Yes, the 15 minute skim that would probably describe the one thing you excel at.

QuoteIt's possible that Tesla was just doing research with the tower, nothing more, and he never intended to "power the world" with the tower.  I am just thinking out aloud here and I haven't read his writings.

You have not read his writings? So how exactly are you qualified to make a judgment on anything considering you have no facts and in fact no idea what you are talking about.

QuoteIf a massive amount of "new" power was coming from space we would know about it.  Sunlight is the biggie, from Wikipedia:

First off, it is not "new", second it is not power it is energy, third the energy from space is called radiation as it leaves a point source and travels to other places such as earth. Now lets assume we had a form of energy in the upper Terrahertz with wavelengths corresponding to the diameter of subatomic particles, how exactly would we measure these waves?. Well the first problem is that your detector is made of matter which emits identical wavelengths so you cannot measure anything, so tell me Einstein--- how would we go about this? I know the answer and it is simple and obvious and if you are half as smart as you think you are this should be easy for you.

Regards
AC

Quote from: Room3327 on 2010.08.25, 17:58:42
If this energy was coming in from space, why then the need for the tower and pumping it into the ground only to have to retrieve it again.  Why not just recieve it from space wherever it is needed and eliminate the tower?

Hi Room,

First of all you have to understand that Tesla was building an energy distribution system. To be specific, one without needing wiring.....

Why not eliminate the tower?
Well, actually that is exactly what Tesla did after his WardenClyffe tower had been destroyed. It is my assumption that the receiver in the Pierce Arrow did exactly that!

regards,

Dutchy

Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.25, 01:49:58

All of you engineer-types please have a read and tell me what you think Tesla discovered.

Hi Grumpy and all,

I do not really consider myself an engineer type but i will still have a stab at what I think he discovered.

At a first stage he discovered radiation coming from rapidly interrupted high voltage direct currents.
It was the same entity that killed workmen at high voltage DC switches.
This radiation penetrated his body and even the shields he had put up (glass, metal or whatever).
A stinging sensation was felt in his body when it happened.
If this radiation penetrated metal it would charge the metal.
Elihu Thomson also experienced the same effect while working on a Ruhmkorff coil.

Later on Tesla discovered how he could maximize and shape the effect by changing the impulse parameters.
After extensive study found the effect to be:
Unidirectional LONGITUDINAL stuttering shockwaves.

Next he discovered that a helical coil placed in the "shockzone" produced white discharges from the end of the coil.
In these coils he measured a ZERO current condition.
Under these conditions electrons are no longer the "working fluid"

He had created pure Aether streams.
This stream of radiant matter was virtually massless and incompressable. Pure energy!

This is what he discovered and abandoned all his previous work for and dedicated the rest of hist life to.

Well grumpy I hope this is a bit of what you are asking for.....

So now we know what Tesla discovered, what do we do with it?

regards,

Dutchy

n.b. For all that are not familiar with the above I second grumpy's advise to read Gerry Vassilatos' book "secrets of cold war technology" Chapter one.
@Milehigh: the above chapter will answer all the questions you asked me, please read it. It would take me forever to rephrase it all....

OK.

Now I'm interested. Is that book on-line or must I purchase it?

I want to see how factual it really is. There were plenty of toys. I would love to see MH play with a couple   ;)

I don't think you would be amused, MH.

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.08.26, 13:02:25
OK.

Now I'm interested. Is that book on-line or must I purchase it?

I want to see how factual it really is. There were plenty of toys. I would love to see MH play with a couple   ;)

I don't think you would be amused, MH.

I posted a link that has this book in the first post of this thread.  I would upload it but it is 8 meg.

Long story short, Tesla discovered how to manipulate the medium (so to speak).

EDIT: (Dirac's Sea)

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/186948

So, what do we know about this "sea"?  A dielectric that can be compressed and rarefacted?  What does that do the so-called constants: permeability and permittivity?

The Sea is a dielectric, based on what the trusty vacuum capacitor has to say about it.

Compression or rarefaction at the right location and time will cause it to move like a material gas.

Rotation perpendicular to a magnetic field will cause charge separation or induction through spin coupling (See the "Wilson Effect"), and that is what we "do with it".

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.08.26, 13:02:25
OK.

Now I'm interested. Is that book on-line or must I purchase it?

Be quick.....only for the first 10....

http://rapidshare.com/files/415269700/Gerry_Vassilatos_-_Secrets_of_Cold_War_Technology.pdf

regards

D.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.26, 13:44:36

So, what do we know about this "sea"?  A dielectric that can be compressed and rarefacted?  What does that do the so-called constants: permeability and permittivity?

Maxwell derived expressions for the dielectric constant and the magnetic permeability in terms of the transverse elasticity and the density of this elastic medium.

Changing the "density" of a region of space might be like creating a magnetic monopole.

AC:

You are doing some pretty serious bashing of me so I am going to have to defend myself.

You made perhaps half a dozen statements in the Bedini thread pertaining to certain claims and your research.  I asked you follow-up questions and I don't think you responded to any of them.  Talk is cheap, as they say.

QuoteI think it is easy for many educated persons who have never accomplished anything to ridicule Tesla

You have no idea if I never accomplished anything and I think your use of the term "ridicule" is too strong.  I openly admitted that I have never built a Bedini motor and never will.  I don't have a scope, and I have a cheap low-end multimeter.  I threw away all of my TTL and CMOS chips and my power supplies perhaps 10 years ago because I hadn't touched them for at least 10 years.  I have never done any kind of free energy research on the bench, ever.  On the other hand I have worked on an electronics bench for perhaps several thousand hours in my lifetime.  I didn't even know that there was a free energy cottage industry until, on a lark, I typed "free energy" into YouTube about three years ago.

There is a variation on the expression, "The pen is mightier than the sword."  I will take a stab at one, "The pen is mightier than the uninformed and uneducated experimenter."  It's not very catchy and there is probably a much better phrase out there somewhere, but that's good enough for now.  Nor am I saying that every free energy experimenter is uninformed and uneducated, but it is fair to say that among the people that build and play in this community, the vast majority of them are uninformed and uneducated.  Even some of the "leaders" in this virtual community have no real clue what they are doing.  People that talk endlessly about "coils and inductors" but they don't even understand how they work, after more than 10 years "in the game."  They don't even know how to operate oscilloscopes properly.

So "accomplishment" is a relative term.  There are people out there that have built more than 50 Bedini motors, but they still have no clue how they really work.  You have read my Bedini thread and you know that I am discussing things that are real.  I am offering up real tests to really understand how the motor works that far surpasses the typical stuff that you see the Bedini experimenters do.  I think you sense the truth in what I am saying on that thread.

As far as logic gates go, I know nothing about Tesla with respect to logic gates.  Whatever implementation Tesla did for a logic gate, so what?  There are thousands and thousands of ways of implementing logic gates.  Your point makes no sense.  As far as the theory behind logic gates goes, I think that probably dates back to a mathematician in the 16th or 17th century.  So the thrust of your whole argument makes no sense as far as I am concerned.  When you open up your car door and the dome light goes on, that's a logic gate in action.

QuoteYes, the 15 minute skim that would probably describe the one thing you excel at.

That's gratuitous bashing.

QuoteFirst off, it is not "new", second it is not power it is energy

I look at that quote and I am puzzled about you.  I also noted how flustered you got on the Bedini thread when the discussion of negative resistance came up.  (Talk about what a sleaze that Bearden was for exploiting that legitimate research that was done in the 1940s and pathetically trying to mystify and "MIB" it.  It's simply disgusting.)  The bottom line AC is that I have read you for a fair amount of time now and I don't believe for a second that you are an engineer like you claimed you are a few weeks ago on this forum.  I don't believe that you have studied engineering in a recognized  college or university.  I have no doubt that you work in power systems like you said, and you may have taken some technical courses, but you are no engineer in my opinion.  If you are not an engineer, then don't try to claim that you are one.  And I am fully aware that a sharp person who is not an engineer can "out engineer" some real engineers.  It doesn't matter.  If you are not an engineer then don't claim you are just because you work in power systems and believe that you "should be" able to state that.

QuoteNow lets assume we had a form of energy in the upper Terrahertz with wavelengths corresponding to the diameter of subatomic particles, how exactly would we measure these waves?. Well the first problem is that your detector is made of matter which emits identical wavelengths so you cannot measure anything, so tell me Einstein--- how would we go about this? I know the answer and it is simple and obvious and if you are half as smart as you think you are this should be easy for you.

Okay go for it AC.  I can't answer your question.  Several times on the Bedini thread I asked you to clarify and/or back up your sometimes very esoteric statements and all that I got from you was stony silence.  I look forward to your reply.

MileHigh

We called it "Stretching the Crest" or "SC". You know how the military loves acronyms  :D

Imagine what you have if you increase the wave cross-section without decreasing time or increase the time without decreasing the peaks  :o

What is the opposite function called when the function is the reverse result of a saturable inductor? Using one peak to spawn many cloned peaks in a TL...
Wave cloning is old-hat with lasers and exotic metals. Not so with a strip of metal with a coil wrapped around it.

All good stuff. I'm hoping to duplicate it soon.

AH! My phone had enough SD left. I have the download!

@milehigh

QuoteYou are doing some pretty serious bashing of me so I am going to have to defend myself.

And you my friend were doing some pretty serious bashing yourself concerning Tesla, all you have to do is consider the relavance in out lives of AC power and his other technologies to understand what a huge benefit he has made in our lives. Quite frankly I found your tone in this regard to be highly offensive as Tesla worked all his life for us, mankind, and I will not nor will I ever standby and let anyone slander his accomplishments. You can bash me as much as you like but if you intend to do this to others who cannot or will not defend themselves then you will have to deal with me as I will not tolerate it.

QuoteI don't believe that you have studied engineering in a recognized  college or university.  I have no doubt that you work in power systems like you said, and you may have taken some technical courses, but you are no engineer in my opinion.  If you are not an engineer, then don't try to claim that you are one.

If my being an engineer makes people think I may be more correct about anything then they are mistaken and misguided as we will always be individuals, we are not things nor titles we are people and individuals first. I was sorry for my action in telling anyone my title from the moment I did it as it should have no bearing on what others think, we should judge others by their actions and understanding not their titles.

QuoteQuote
"Now lets assume we had a form of energy in the upper Terrahertz with wavelengths corresponding to the diameter of subatomic particles, how exactly would we measure these waves?. Well the first problem is that your detector is made of matter which emits identical wavelengths so you cannot measure anything, so tell me Einstein--- how would we go about this? I know the answer and it is simple and obvious and if you are half as smart as you think you are this should be easy for you."

Okay go for it AC.  I can't answer your question.  Several times on the Bedini thread I asked you to clarify and/or back up your sometimes very esoteric statements and all that I got from you was stony silence.  I look forward to your reply.

I think you may be confused here, it was never my intent to give you an answer I was simply asking if you understood the problem.

Regards
AC

AC:

QuoteYou can bash me as much as you like but if you intend to do this to others who cannot or will not defend themselves then you will have to deal with me as I will not tolerate it.

You "live" in a strange place AC.  You can spin my comments about Tesla as "bashing" by taking the lead from me saying that you were bashing me.  I was expressing my opinion, and you were welcome to debate what I said, but not to bash me.

Let's take the "1970s" as an example.  All of the cars, radios, multimeters, computers, and just about any other type of technology or product that you can think of from that decade is obsolete and gone forever.  That's just the reality.  So are you going to beat me up for saying that?  That was the main point that I made about Tesla, but in his case you have to turn the clock way way back.  So far back that we didn't even have plastic in common everyday use.  I think that you, and many others in the "Cult of Tesla" attribute way more importance to him than he truly deserves.  Then you factor in the fact that Tesla is being used by hucksters today, just like Elvis, and has become a tool or brand that others use to make money.

I still don't believe that you are an engineer.

Quote> Well the first problem is that your detector is made of matter which emits identical wavelengths so you cannot measure anything, so tell me Einstein--- how would we go about this?

> I know the answer

I think you may be confused here, it was never my intent to give you an answer I was simply asking if you understood the problem.

I think you are the one that is confused.

MileHigh

Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.08.26, 06:54:52

Now lets assume we had a form of energy in the upper Terrahertz with wavelengths corresponding to the diameter of subatomic particles, how exactly would we measure these waves?. Well the first problem is that your detector is made of matter which emits identical wavelengths so you cannot measure anything, so tell me Einstein--- how would we go about this? I know the answer and it is simple and obvious and if you are half as smart as you think you are this should be easy for you.

Regards
AC

I think one might use a Bolometer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolometer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolometer)

@milehigh
Maybe we should simply agree to disagree then and keep this on a technical basis as it should be, I do not think we need to degrade or marginalize anyone or their work to make our point.

QuoteI think that you, and many others in the "Cult of Tesla" attribute way more importance to him than he truly deserves.

I attribute the same importance to Tesla as Faraday, Weber, Ampere, Hertz, Maxwell etc..., these were great men who laid the foundation for much of what we know today. I do not think we should trivialize any of their work even if some believe it is dated. Read the scientific journals concerning modern electrodynamics and you will find much of it in fact references their work by name. Do you find that odd? that much of modern technology would reference the work of persons 100 years ago --- such as the MIT wireless power transfer technology. The question one could ask here is if this wireless power transfer technology is in fact dated and obsolete then why was the MIT disclosure covered in almost every modern science journal or magazine? Why was it touted as the next big thing, a revolution in modern technology etc... when in fact it was disclosed and patented by Tesla a long long time ago?. What I also find odd here is that Tesla was lighting bulbs miles away while the best and brightest at MIT cannot even manage 10 feet, this should tell us a little something about who really understands the technology, as you say proof.
If we are going to go down this road then we may as say there is a "Cult of Maxwell" who's equations are now in question by modern science or a "Cult of Einstein" who's work being questioned as well. Most all of the scientific community grovelled at the feet of their grand insights and they were declared men of absolute genius yet most all in the field agree there work will not last the next 20 years before it is proven incorrect. If all that we know is continually proven wrong by new insights then one could ask what the hell do we really know? Who is to say someone must be right because they read something in a book when the book is rewritten all the time. We should be very careful when we judge, degrade or marginalize anything or anyone because things change, that is the one thing we do know for certain. I study the knowledge of the past to lay a solid foundation for the future, I cannot see how anyone can truly move forward until they know exactly where we have been.
Regards
AC

@Duff

QuoteI think one might use a Bolometer.

Good answer, I was thinking a little more conceptually though, let's say I am a bat and I can echo-locate things around me but can I sense the fluid I am immersed in, Air, with echo-location?. If there were a radiation of such small wavelength that it would sense no resistance then how can heat be generated, how can it be measured if there is no resistance to it's motion through anything? The act of measurement is in itself a form of interaction or resistance which is why there is a great deal of confusion in regards to observation and it's impact in physics.
Regards
AC

Quote from Allcanadian

QuoteWhat I also find odd here is that Tesla was lighting bulbs miles away while the best and brightest at MIT cannot even manage 10 feet, this should tell us a little something about who really understands the technology, as you say proof.

Not so odd really when you consider at the times of the Tesla tests (@1900) regarding the lighting of lightbulbs, there was no FCC regulating the transmitters with regard to frequency, spurious emissions, bandwidth and power. There were no TV,  radio stations, or aircraft guidance frequencies etc. that you had to be careful  to not interfere with.

Tesla was able to resonate circuits with hundreds or thousands of horsepower input, so yes he was able to light bulbs at a distance and no one complained of interference. Radio was just beginning to be born. The spark gaps he used to shock excite the tanks coils generated all kinds of spurious emissions.

The MIT boys certainly know how to transmit power, as do all good RF and microwave engineers. The problem is the constraints regarding interference and allowable limits of power input to the radiating sources.

Practical devices for charging cellphones and other small appliances operate at high frequencies, way above what Tesla was demonstrating. Who wants to be fried with thousands of watts in the gigahertz range? The problem is easy to see. It is 110 years later and regulations on radiated power abound, maybe rightfully so and for our own safety.

Ion:

You make some good points and let me try to add some colour commentary.  What follows is speculation on my part.  Let's assume that Tesla was fully aware that he was just doing a proof of concept of wireless energy transmission test when he lit up a light bulb a mile away.  He probably knew that he was radiating a massive amount of power in all directions to light up that light bulb.  So he knew that his efficiency was minuscule for that demonstration.  However, going back to the context of the times, and knowing that he was always looking for funding, and knowing that he knew that his audience was none the wiser, he probably simply never discussed this issue in public.  So Tesla was in "selling" mode, and I believe that he was almost always in that mode for his public demonstrations.

This is where the "Cult of Tesla" comes into play.  People quote examples like this without considering the issue of power transfer efficiency.  Then it simply takes on a life of its own and becomes legend.  They think that Tesla did something that was fantastic, and believe it, when chances are that Tesla himself knew that what he did was not fantastic.  At the same time, Tesla intentionally let people believe that he did something fantastic.  Tesla knew his audience.

By the same token, I doubt that Tesla had much more than a vague feeling for the energy spectrum that his spark-gap-based systems were radiating, nor did he have a concrete sense about how different wavelengths propagate through space relative to the size and impedance of the obstacles that were in their path.  From what I recall reading and watching documentaries about Tesla, he had a great mind for visualizing things like this in his head, but I don't think he put these visualizations on paper very often and then worked out the maths.

Time-warp forward to 1988.  You may have seen a Perter Lindemann video that is now floating around as a digital file.  He demonstrates "one-wire" energy transmission in a room with an assistant.  It's scary and noisy and you can hear that loud sizzling sound in the air as he lights up a 100-watt light bulb.  The tape last perhaps 30 minutes and then Peter signs off.  Peter never mentions anything about the efficiency of the single-wire energy transmission that covers a distance of 12 feet.  Nor does he discuss the fact that his spark gap cut across a huge swath of the spectrum and interfered with TV, radio, police, and other communications bands.  My impression was that Peter and his assistant were drawing kilowatts from the mains supply to light up that 100-watt light bulb.  When the tape ended I said to myself, "WTF?  Where are the numbers???"  So here Peter knew his audience also.  This was the videotape era, and people would gladly send in a $59.95 order and wait in anticipation for their videotape in the mail.

MileHigh

If Tesla were to light a bulb at precisely one location only and no other without wires, then I would have to admit he had accomplished something significant with his wireless power transmission.

But this is not the case and because the power could be tapped everywhere (by Tesla's own admission) implies that an enormous amount of power would have to be transmitted.

Tesla knew how much power would be required on the input side, but alluded to other things.

People like fireworks, and because Tesla made lots of big sparks at his demo's, investors,celebrities and laypersons were impressed and often opened their wallets.

I've been around a while, built my first Tesla coil back in the 50's. Since then I've seen Tesla morph from brilliant but eccentric inventor to New Age God, to Father of Free Energy.

The free energy never came yet people pour over his patents reading into them things they believe are secretly hidden clues, hoping to find the revelation that will make free energy happen.

The free energy engine is stoked by clowns and hucksters all too ready to pervert the mans legacy in order to sell a book or DVD......shameful.

@milehigh

QuoteThis is where the "Cult of Tesla" comes into play.  People quote examples like this without considering the issue of power transfer efficiency.  Then it simply takes on a life of its own and becomes legend.  They think that Tesla did something that was fantastic, and believe it, when chances are that Tesla himself knew that what he did was not fantastic.  At the same time, Tesla intentionally let people believe that he did something fantastic.  Tesla knew his audience.

I cannot speak for other people but Tesla stated in his patents and elsewhere that there were very few losses even over considerable distances in his wireless power system. As well Tesla almost 100 years ago stated his power converters with so-called primitive spark gaps had efficiencies in excess of 86%, now tell me what is the efficiency of the last ten modern power converters you have tested? I can tell you as a fact I have yet to test a retail off the shelf converter that has exceeded 60% tested conversion efficiency. So "YES" I do think Tesla was a fantastic electrical engineer and inventor, how could you think otherwise considering the technology he had to work with. While were on the subject how would you know anything of what Tesla did or what he was thinking when you have stated in your posts that you have read almost none of his work and know very little about him? If I didn't know better I would say you just made this up without any justification or facts of any kind. Your posts would seem to have a history of degrading and marginalizing others work without justification or facts, where are your numbers?
Regards
AC

I cand add to allcanadian comment also one thing : clearly from reading Tesla lectures he was fully aware of spark gap looses and that was the reason why he invented plenty of circuit controllers like rotating breakers and later vacuum tube.But even with spark gap he was able to eliminate most of looses so his spark was silent and almost invisible! Remember about it!

AC:

You can see in my posting where I state that I was speculating.  But at the same time I have my own general technical knowledge to draw from.

You stated, "Tesla stated in his patents and elsewhere that there were very few losses even over considerable distances in his wireless power system."

How do you think this was accomplished?  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but perhaps in your mind this would apply to the example of lighting the light bulb that was a mile or more away wirelessly?

Whatever the case may be, what are your thoughts on wireless power transmission over considerable distances?  How could this be accomplished with very few losses?  Alternatively, perhaps you recall what some of the patents stated?

Thanks,

MileHigh

QuoteI can tell you as a fact I have yet to test a retail off the shelf converter that has exceeded 60% tested conversion efficiency.

I'd be curious to know what converters you have been testing that were only in the range of 60% efficient.  Can you supply a few manufacturers part numbers so we can get a better idea? Retail consumer grade converters are at the low end of the spectrum, where cost is the main factor, but they are still greater than 60% unless they are linear converters.. Maybe you were testing cheap 12VDC to 120/240 VAC converters. You did say retail.

If this (60%) were the case, designers of mains operated equipment would probably have stayed with the simplicity of a linear supply rather than go switchmode which is more complex and failure prone.

But most designs today are switchmode for several reasons, the most important of which is efficiency, which means less heatsinking(cost) fans(cost) transformer iron(cost) and copper(cost)

I would have been fired on the spot if I designed a converter with an efficiency that low. Our instruments would not tolerate the 40% waste heat you claim. The switchmode converters I designed over 25 years ago ran cool with efficiencies greater than 85% and are still in production.

Todays switchmode converters range from 85% to 95%, but again it depends on the application. Generally the higher the input working voltage, the higher the efficiency as semiconductor drops become less of a factor but this is not a hard and fast rule. So 12VDC to 120/240 AC converters are at a disadvantage.

It is also more than a bit unfair to compare retail equipment with laboratory or high end industrial grade "cost no object" equipment. Tesla's converter designs were huge, with hundreds of pounds of copper in order to keep the resistance loss as low as possible and thus the "Q" as high as possible.

These were not retail products, they were not even products, just laboratory curiosities.

a-hem...

Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.26, 13:44:36
I posted a link that has this book in the first post of this thread.  I would upload it but it is 8 meg.

Long story short, Tesla discovered how to manipulate the medium (so to speak).

EDIT: (Dirac's Sea)

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/186948

So, what do we know about this "sea"?  A dielectric that can be compressed and rarefacted?  What does that do the so-called constants: permeability and permittivity?

The Sea is a dielectric, based on what the trusty vacuum capacitor has to say about it.

Compression or rarefaction at the right location and time will cause it to move like a material gas.

Rotation perpendicular to a magnetic field will cause charge separation or induction through spin coupling (See the "Wilson Effect"), and that is what we "do with it".

Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.26, 14:51:44
Maxwell derived expressions for the dielectric constant and the magnetic permeability in terms of the transverse elasticity and the density of this elastic medium.

Changing the "density" of a region of space might be like creating a magnetic monopole.

@milehigh

QuoteYou stated, "Tesla stated in his patents and elsewhere that there were very few losses even over considerable distances in his wireless power system."
How do you think this was accomplished?  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but perhaps in your mind this would apply to the example of lighting the light bulb that was a mile or more away wirelessly?
Whatever the case may be, what are your thoughts on wireless power transmission over considerable distances?  How could this be accomplished with very few losses?  Alternatively, perhaps you recall what some of the patents stated?

My thoughts are a little different than most I think as I tend to think simple, old school if you will, along the lines of Tesla, Ampere, Faraday and Webers work. Normally we would use an LC tank circuit and simply attach an antenna and ground, the changing potential in the tank produces a changing potential in the antenna wire and we radiate EM energy to a receiver. Now if we look at the work of Tesla and replications of this system by Konstantin Meyl we see the capacitor in the tank circuit has essentially been opened up, that is the capacitive component of the LC tank has now become the antenna in itself. Now let's ask a simple question, how effective can the antenna in a normal system be when the internal energy of the LC is divided between the open capacitance of the antenna and the internal capacitance of the LC?. Do you know the equation for series capacitance whereby the combined capacitance of two identical capacitors in series is just half the capacitance of either one. Now look at the setup of Konstantin Meyl here---http://www.scribd.com/doc/35933187/Wireless-Energy-Transfer, where is the series capacitance?. Look closely at the Mely setup and think clearly and simply, what do you see?

QuoteWhen inductors are connected in series, the total inductance is the sum of the individual inductors' inductances.
When capacitors are connected in series, the combined capacitance of two identical capacitors in series is just half the capacitance of either one.

I cannot speak for anyone else but I see no magic here, no fantastic claims or unexplainable phenomena ---- all I see is a singular LC circuit in which the capacitor is open and the inverse square law for series capacitance does not come into play. We should also be careful when considering resonance, many like to use the overly simplistic analogy of water sloshing back and forth in a closed system. The question we could ask here is what happens when pressure waves are produced which propagate through water which does not move persay?. Take a tube completely full of water and cover each end with flexible rubber, now push on one end and the other end is moved outward an equal amount, this is our standard conception of an electric current. Now push and release the rubber on one end and we see oscillations occur back and forth like an alternating current and we call this resonance, the inertia of the water displaces the rubber which acts as a capacitance because it stores pressure momentarily through displacement. Now what if we hit the rubber on the end of the tube so fast that the rubber diaphragm was set in oscillation but the water was not displaced? that is the rubber was compressed but not the water behind it. What if a condition was produced in which a pressure wave in the water was moving away from the rubber diaphragm due to it's inertia as the rubber diaphragm was moving backwards in the opposite direction in which case we could state the pressure wave has become truly independent of the source which produced it? This is not a standing wave as standing waves are intimately tied to the source, we are speaking of a single pressure wave completely independent of the source which produced it. You see simple analogies are great for understanding simple concepts but they have limitations and the moment you stop doing things in an ordinary way is the moment in which you stop getting ordinary results.
Regards
AC

AC:

I looked at that document, thanks.  I am not 100% sure but I think this statement quoted below is a "smoking gun" that destroys the credibility of the document:

QuoteIf I put the transmitter into the aluminium case and close the door, then nothing should arrive at the receiver. Expert laboratories for electromagnetic compatibility in this case indeed cannot detect anything and that, although in spite of that the receiver lamps glow!

I believe that this is a common misconception about a Faraday cage.  The cage can stop external EM waves from penetrating inside the cage, but if you have a source of EM waves inside the cage, the cage will not prevent their transmission to the outside world.  I would have to confirm this.

I am looking at his video demonstration right now on Peswiki for fun.

Your tube of water example with the rubber diaphragms at each end makes sense to me.  In this case you can say sound traveling through the water is like a longitudinal wave, or it could just as easily be a transverse wave.  Same thing for sound traveling through steel, plastic, etc.

For my questions, can I ask you to try to reply again?  As far as I am concerned you are not addressing the questions I posed.

Thanks,

MileHigh

Speaking of hucksters, I knew the name of Konstantin Meyl would come up eventually.

Anyone who seriously believes in this man's teachings should put their money on the table and purchase one of his high priced demo kits....you know.....to support the man and his teachings.

Meyl does a little trick with LED's on the primary of small Tesla coils and makes the audience go ooh aah.

But it is a little trick that anyone can do at home with a few coils and a little patience.

If you bought  the demo kit, once you discover how the trick is done you will ask for your money back, but you will not get it

You will be a little wiser regarding resonant circuits when you unmask the trick.

Best of luck in your research.....caveat emptor

@milehigh

QuoteYou stated, "Tesla stated in his patents and elsewhere that there were very few losses even over considerable distances in his wireless power system."

QuoteThat electrical energy can be economically transmitted without wires to any terrestrial distance, I have unmistakably established in numerous observations, experiments and measurements, qualitative and quantitative.  These have demonstrated that is practicable to distribute power from a central plant in unlimited amounts, with a loss not exceeding  a small fraction of one per cent, in the transmission, even to the greatest distance, twelve thousand miles—to the opposite end of the globe.

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1905-01-07.htm

QuoteHow do you think this was accomplished?  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but perhaps in your mind this would apply to the example of lighting the light bulb that was a mile or more away wirelessly?

I would suggest you read this first----http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1905-01-07.htm---- read it three times with a sufficient interval of time in between. How do I think it was accomplished? I know how it was not accomplished and that is through the radiation of energy which should be obvious but this is exactly what we always do isn't it. How can radiating large quantities of energy into space be efficient in any way when we lose almost everything? This is where many have made the mistake of assuming too much, of understanding Tesla's words from our perspective and not his. When Tesla speaks of resonance and standing waves is he referring to the radiation of EM energy into a space or is he speaking of EM energy in his coil setting something external into oscillation at resonance producing standing waves?

QuoteBut the fact that stationary waves are producible in the earth is of special and, in many ways, still greater significance in the intellectual development of humanity.  Popularly explained, such a wave is a phenomenon generically akin to an echo—a result of reflection.  It affords a positive and uncontrovertible experimental evidence that the electric current, after passing into the earth travels to the diametrically opposite region of the same and rebounding from there, returns to its point of departure with virtually undiminished force.

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1905-01-07.htm

Did I mention I performed an experiment whereby I could have 20 or more feet of wire which could be insulated or not and of any gauge and I would attach one end of the wire to the open gate of a mosfet. Now if I touched the other end of the wire with my finger(+charge) the mosfet closed the circuit including a 12v battery and a 12v light came on and if I grounded the wire or touched the single (-) terminal of a separate battery the mosfet opened the circuit and the light went out---- what does this tell you?. It tells me that by changing the surface charge on a wire of extended length I can turn the mosfet on or off with a very small amount of external energy. It is interesting that a person could charge this single wire and leave it for hours and still it would switch the mosfet gate. Now read the quote above again -- Is Tesla speaking of radiating EM energy into the atmosphere where nearly all is lost as many have assumed or is he speaking of the application of a resonant surface charge to the exterior of our planet which can be regarded as a capacitance?. There was a great man by the name of Victor Schauberger who once said--"Do the opposite of what we do today", I live by these words and the devices I design are nothing like what you know and that is why they work so well. They do not defy the laws of nature or science they simply work differently which isn't a bad thing.
Regards
AC

Quote from: ION on 2010.08.28, 22:32:58
Speaking of hucksters, I knew the name of Konstantin Meyl would come up eventually.

Anyone who seriously believes in this man's teachings should put thieir money on the table and purchase one of his high priced demo kits....you know.....to support the man and his teachings.

Meyl does a little trick with LED's on the primary of small Tesla coils and makes the audience go ooh aah.

But it is a little trick that anyone can do at home with a few coils and a little patience.

If you bought  the demo kit, once you discover how the trick is done you will ask for your money back, but you will not get iit

You will be a little wiser regarding resonant circuits when you unmask the trick.

Best of luck in your research.....caveat emptor

What is the trick?

What about Dr. Stiffler?

Hi G

Ok  Examine this drawing of the meylkit carefully. It shows two of the identical mini Tesla assemblies (separated by a dotted line) as supplied in his kit. Notice where the LED"s  can be connected.....across the primary of the coil.

The generator he uses is not shown in this schematic, but can be seen in the documentation for the kit.

Read the kit documentation keeping your eye on the location of the LED's

I'll not answer this right off, but give others a chance to figure it out and feel free to chime in.

Edit: can't upload the kit documentation...it is too large, I'll have to find a way to shrink it.
Edit: tried to split the document in two parts with Foxit pdf printer, now each half is over 2 meg.
Regrettably cannot post it yet.

AC:

I read the Tesla article.  He certainly was very forward looking for sure and you can see how he was speculating about the arrival of the Information Age and most of what he said came true.

With respect to the ability to transmit power to light up a light bulb one mile away with very high efficiency, I am assuming that you are basing this on Tesla's writings.  In other words, you are more or less basing your statements on the blind faith that Tesla was right.  You are offering no mechanism for explaining this process.

Sorry, for myself I don't think like that most of the time.

Wow, I got lucky and found the clip, have a look at this: "1975 NASA JPL Goldstone Demo of Wireless Power Transmission"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O44WM1Q9H8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O44WM1Q9H8)

That's the only way that I am aware of for doing high-efficiency point-to-point wireless power transmission.

The only way that you can transmit power point-to-point as per the Tesla example is with a line-of-sight system as shown in the clip.  This requires that your transmitting wavelength is 1/10th or less than the diameter of your dish.  As the wavelength gets longer you cannot direct the beam anymore and you end up broadcasting in all directions and your efficiency then drops to an abysmally low level.  The technology to do this simply did not exist around 110 years ago.  Since you claim that you are an engineer, that's what I was expecting you to say.

Going back to the last third of Tesla's article, I don't believe it.  Simple as that.  Tesla was either deluded or lying when he states that he could set up standing waves across the earth and that you could tap into that power with very high efficiency between the power source and the receiver.  The surface of the earth is a lossy reflector and the ionosphere is also a lossy reflector, and all of this is a function of frequency.  Your power is being spread across the entire surface of the earth such that your power density is extremely low.  It's simply ridiculous to suggest that you can set up standing waves across the entire earth and tap into them with high efficiency.

For the light bulb experiment, my best guess is that Tesla had a huge steam engine driving a huge high-voltage dynamo connected to a huge high-voltage capacitor and some sort of motor driven discharge mechanism that operated at a certain base frequency.  That resulted in the transmission of the fundamental frequency and all of the other unwanted harmonics associated with transmitting a square wave.  All the energy associated with the harmonic waves would be lost by definition.  He then created some sort of an antenna setup that was an LC tank circuit that was tuned to the fundamental frequency of the square wave and the light bulb was put across the nodes of the LC tank circuit.  He found that if he pumped something like 50 kilowatts into the spark-gap transmitter that he could make a 100-watt light bulb light up one mile away.

So no, I don't believe that Tesla had a magic "secret sauce" for high-efficiency point-to-point electrical power transmission that we need to rediscover.  The reality on the ground in the present day and age is that the most efficient way to transmit power over long distances is with high-tension power transmission lines.  To go back to one of my earlier themes, the concept of the wireless transmission of high power was superseded by high-tension  power transmission lines.  Perhaps Tesla has the last laugh here because he probably designed the high-tension transmission line system in the first place when he built the world's first power plant at Niagara Falls.

For your MOSFET example, it's what can be expected, nothing remarkable there.

MileHigh

Her's an initial statement early in the meylkit.pdf that is quite a claim. Now if this doesn't make people want to rush out and buy a kit what will?

The book for the demo kit is titled "Scalar Wave Technology"

One torrent attached has a load of FE books including the Meyl stuff.

Here is the claim and conclusion he reaches. Anybody see the problem?

Ion:

I will take a few stabs at your questions, but I my confidence here is quite low, I don't truly know the answer.

Firstly, I always cringe when I see people using LEDs as a means of indicating or measuring power.  They are non-linear diodes and it is almost impossible to measure the power dissipation through them.  Also, your human visual perception is severely handicapped when it comes to determining brightness of a flashing LED when it is above your threshold of seeing seeing the flashing, and then equating that to power.  You can't tell what the duty cycle is so two LEDs that have exactly the same apparent brightness could be dissipating different amounts of power. 

Secondly, I am suspicious of the single wire connection between the two devices.  That wire could actually be the "hot" wire and the physical plane or material underneath the whole setup could be acting as a capacitively-coupled transmission line ground plane.

Thirdly, and this is a long-shot, the source transmitter could possibly be in standing-wave resonance such that no current is flowing through the LEDs so they don't light up.

Finally, and this is a biggie:  Is this guy really supposed to be a professor of electrical engineering at a German university?  That's not the language of an electrical engineering professor that this guy is using, it is typical Tesla/free energy/"alternative" technology babble.  There is nothing remotely scientific with respect to this guy's choice of words.  It has no credibility whatsoever as far as I am concerned.

I doubt that I got the answer but perhaps I was warm?

MileHigh

Meyl has a few impressive credentials.

My first view of him was giving a lecture on this topic. He sounds much more intelligent when speaking his native tongue.

My impression is he is giving way to some important facts just to sway his comrades into listening. If he told it the way it is they would call the Bundespolizei.

My first alarm went off when he stated the operating frequency of the experiment on display. Resonance is different with scalar. Instead of cutting the wire for full wavelength by calculating the distance over time for a full cycle, the wire length would be cut for distance over time for rise and/or fall time.

Scalar waves don't require a return path. They do follow the inverse square law but normally suffer additional losses when one of the paths (spherical capacitor to spherical capacitor and/or common ground/Earthing) is impeded by additional induced currents in the Earth by the longitudinal E field. This E field should be parallel to the Earth's surface.

So, exponential loss of the signal with distance is normally a good indicator the waves are not transverse. No such loss would exist in transverse waves.

I don't know what is up with him except maybe he still hasn't acclimated to using Maxwell's 4th in the inverse or the fact that conductors aren't required by currently accepted laws.

The higher the education - the further off the deep end they can go  :D 

I am fairly familiar with the Tesla Transmitter and the Magnifier.  As far as I know, Tesla never stated that the device was capable of producing more power than inout to it.  He did state that all of the transmitted energy was recoverable and not lost like with a radiative antenna.

I feel anyone looking at either of Tesla's systems, the 2-coil Transformer or the Magnifier, should ignore any and all popular explanations of the devices, as well as the many fabulous unfounded claims.

The top terminal is the plate of a capacitor.  If you are familiar with Tesla's Colorado Springs Notes, he strove for the extreme voltages at the top terminal, and even considered that power transmission might be possible by meer capacitive coupling.  It is possible that the voltage achieved is higher than what can be readily explained.  This does not mean that extra energy has been added to the system.  I want to see a real test of the Magnifier, which shows gain at the recievers and this should not be hard to do with a small portable system. 

Being a capacitor plate, the terminal will seek to couple to anything conductive, but most will not form a complete circuit.  Energy is transferred between the top terminals via displacement current through the natural medium (space, vacuum, oatmeal...).  However, there is a limit to the voltage on the top terminal.  So, you may couple 1000 circuits to this terminal, but there is a still a limit.  There is also a limit to how far away you can be from the transmitter.  One Magnifier could not serve the entire planet.

Another important note is that the ground (earth) is a very good insulator.  This makes it an excellent conductor for displacement current.  So, with separated ground plates, you have another capacitive couple to complete the circuit.

(I'll add more in a minute...)

Tesla stated in an interview when he was in his 70's that the Magnifier was the method of power transmission at the time, and that this is not the method that he would use now.  (I like to think that he later discovered a new way to generate electricity at the point of use which negated the need for transmission.)

I am sure Tesla would have been able to tell if he was recieving more energy than he supplied to the system, and I do not think he would had hid this fact had he known.

@milehigh

QuoteFinally, and this is a biggie:  Is this guy really supposed to be a professor of electrical engineering at a German university?  That's not the language of an electrical engineering professor that this guy is using, it is typical Tesla/free energy/"alternative" technology babble.  There is nothing remotely scientific with respect to this guy's choice of words.  It has no credibility whatsoever as far as I am concerned.

LOL, that was priceless, so are you saying he has no credibility because he talks funny? Maybe we could just as well say he has no credibility because he dresses funny or because his hair is brown,lol. I have a couple friends I grew up with, one a math professor at a well know university who steer wrestles and wears a cowboys hat, drinks beer and curses, he never wrote a test in his life that scored below 95%, everyone calls him a genius. My other friend an engineer at the top 1% in his field wears bandanas, metallica t-shirts, rides a Harley, he talks and looks like a mechanic and he has aced almost every exam he ever wrote, I think he is brilliant as well. In fact I have found most of the people who talk and act like they know everything are the ones who know very little, I would be more careful how you judge people.
Thank god Im a redneck:)
Regards
AC

Attached is a diagram of the Tesla Transmitter to clarify my explanation.

Gain at the transmitter does not automatically equal gain at the receiver. 

If the Tesla Transmitter or Magnifier is able to accumulate energy through some means of building up the energy in the space around itself, then this may suggest that the system is capable of generating more energy than it takes to drive it.

AC:

We are going to have to agree to disagree.  Just like anyone that is fluent in English can usually tell when someone is using English as a second language in their written prose - within one or two paragraphs, sometimes one or two sentences you can tell that English is not their mother tongue.  The same thing applies to when someone is discussing something with respect to electronics or physics or energy.  Within two or three postings, sometimes a single posting, is is often possible to discern the knowledge level of a poster.  For example, some people when building Bedini motors say that their coil is not wound the right way.  So they unwind the coil and rewind it the opposite way.  That's telling you that the person does not possess the most basic concepts in electromagnetics.  Often experimenters joke about blowing transistors and they either replace them or try a different transistor.  That tells you that they know very little about electronics.  It may not be politically correct to say that but it's true.  So I stand by what I said about the person with the demo that you pointed to, he has no credibility.

Language is everything, and one more time you leave me puzzled.  Your arguments are often relying on citing examples that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.  We are discussing the credibility of this person's experiment and you say you know a professor that is a cowboy and an engineer that is a biker.  What does that have to do with anything?

MileHigh

Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.30, 14:54:25
Another important note is that the ground (earth) is a very good insulator.  This makes it an excellent conductor for displacement current.  So, with separated ground plates, you have another capacitive couple to complete the circuit.

I can say that I knew this. I'm glad you said it.

For some reason I haven't been applying that fact to some experiments. I'll have to figure out which ones should be redone.
The question popping up, due to your reminder, is 'does a scalar wave front actually induce eddies in the ground between two points or is that just another factoid burned into my head from years past?

High metal content?...yes, probably.
'Garden' variety earth?... not likely.

Sorry, airport layover time  :)

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.08.30, 23:01:46
I can say that I knew this. I'm glad you said it.

For some reason I haven't been applying that fact to some experiments. I'll have to figure out which ones should be redone.
The question popping up, due to your reminder, is 'does a scalar wave front actually induce eddies in the ground between two points or is that just another factoid burned into my head from years past?

High metal content?...yes, probably.
'Garden' variety earth?... not likely.

Sorry, airport layover time  :)

ALL currents have a magnetic field, but the ground points and aerial points are max pressure and I do not think they "change", but if they do then they would induce eddies.

Hmmm....

Nice paper  :)

I've read it twice tonight. After I think about it, maybe a third.

G,

I'm away from my bench but having second thoughts about there being no propagated magnetic field produced by a longitudinal electro-dielectric wave.

There is a good possibility that reported null measurements, of such a magnetic field, are null only because there are two opposing radial magnetic fields generated by such a wave. The leading edge of the wave would generate a field of one handedness and the trailing edge the reverse.
Conventional magnetic measurements would show null but current, as well as charge are induced in targets.

I've been looking back into old notes on my favorite toy(EMP). The highest voltage induced was on vertical conductors. The greatest remaining static charge was on horizontal conductors of large horizontal surface area.

I'm starting to think Tesla loved his bucking pancake coils because they produced a similar dual magnetic field.

There are things that I disagree with, but I thought it was an interesting take on the subject.

EM,

Interesting graphic.

So, either the artist thinks there are dipoles moving down the wire, like charges don't repel or they are just trying to depict compression waves in an acceptable fashion?
I think if they removed the imaginary field lines and showed all as density they would be correct.

I'm not up to date on my IEEE reports. I've been filing them for a few months now.

I'll be surprised if it isn't shot-down. The same findings were reported back in the 70's as 1-wire and 0-wire.

Ignatiev's experiments elegantly and conclusively demonstrated electric potential longitudinal waves - interesting but far from the end of the story...

There are configurations of "transmitting" antennas that generate substantial parallel E and B fields (oscillating and not static fields) -- and consequently a zero value S vector...  and also configurations that generate closed S vector loops. Classical theories are lacking in their ability to explain either the generation or propagation of these zero, and non propagating configurations... Much better chance of discovering new things if you leave the confines of known territory ;)

Quote from: marksnoswell on 2010.09.04, 13:23:20
Ignatiev's experiments elegantly and conclusively demonstrated electric potential longitudinal waves - interesting but far from the end of the story...

There are configurations of "transmitting" antennas that generate substantial parallel E and B fields (oscillating and not static fields) -- and consequently a zero value S vector...  and also configurations that generate closed S vector loops. Classical theories are lacking in their ability to explain either the generation or propagation of these zero, and non propagating configurations... Much better chance of discovering new things if you leave the confines of known territory ;)

Yes, but does it run with gain?

Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.25, 14:04:32
Starts on page 23 of 156 (top of PDF viewer, and is page 15 of the book)

"Chapter 2: The Rosetta Stone"

Experiences of Joseph Henry and Elihu Thomson are mentioned on page 27 pf 156.  I was able to find the articles referenced, and they are represented truly in this article.

Joseph Henry and Elihu Thomson used a Ruhmkorff coil when they encountered the shocking experience of charging all conductors in the room.

Output of a Ruhmkorff coil is attached - it is pulsed DC.

The same Edison found as "etheric force" in 1875, available for checking in his lab notes.
You can easily replicate with bigger car relay 12V or more that inductive kick is really a high frequency oscillation behaving like radio waves flowing on wire.
Any tiny wire will conduct the same energy and you can prepare a series of experiments with that, for example sparking from then end of with into big iron object , spark is barely visible in plain daily light but in case of darkness it is visible.Of course working with much higher voltage brings it to the completely new level.

@ grumpy and everyone else , tesla does state in his deposition that he achieved activites of 18 million horse power.  the westinghouse generator was only rated at 50 or so hp.  ask yourself's how was this possible?  he clearly exsplains this in that deposition.  in his colorado notes he states that there is 2 ways to produce this magnifying effect or magnifying factor.  he also covers it in his notes.  tesla states that he can generate 1500 amps in his primary coil with only 26 hp expenditure on june 21, 1899.  on july 7, 1899 he writes about the 2 ways to magnify energy.  1 is a high ratio of transformation and 2 is by resonant rise.  writings of july 8 1899 are very important.  on july 11, 1899 tesla writes about the extra coil and his thoughts on that.  july 31, 1899 tesla writes about generating 500K volts at 1000 amps in the primary circuit useing only 38hp or less.    Don

Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.30, 16:36:10
...
If the Tesla Transmitter or Magnifier is able to accumulate energy through some means of building up the energy in the space around itself, then this may suggest that the system is capable of generating more energy than it takes to drive it.

There is neither logical reason nor experimental evidence that an accumulation of energy should generate energy.

The energy building in space follows from the linear superposition of the field from the emitter and the field re-radiated from the receiver. They add each other in the channel between the two equipments and fade outside.

The capacitive or inductive coupling of resonant circuits thanks to the terminal capacity of LC open circuits or thanks to the coils, is a conventional technology perfectly explained without longitudinal waves.
http://www.wirelesspowerconsortium.com/technology/resonant-coupling.html

Quote from: dag57 on 2011.09.14, 04:06:45
@ grumpy and everyone else , tesla does state in his deposition that he achieved activites of 18 million horse power.  the westinghouse generator was only rated at 50 or so hp.  ask yourself's how was this possible?
...

Eternal confusion between power and energy. If you store 50hp during one hour and you release this energy in 1 second, you provide a power of 50*3600=180,000 hp. But during 1s only.
The question of power has no meaning if the time is not given and the time during which input energy is obtained is not the same as the time during which output energy is provided.
High Q circuits can store large amount of energy from a low power source, and release it quickly, providing a much bigger power and the same energy (minus the losses).

Of course Tesla said about power not energy. Energy accumulated in long period can be released in incomparable short time = increasing activity.
But here things are going to complicate a lot !  I don't pretend I understand it but think about such analogy:

you have a BIG (I mean HUGE) bell or kind of metal plate like some used in East like China or India (don't know the name of that). Now you can be perfectly sure then when you strike it with a finger gently it would not take much power to do it but result would be also poor. You have to strike it as hard as you can and that's when Tesla used with his "increasing activity" using capacitor disruptive discharge. Capacitor disruptive discharge produce a wave which is like mechanical wave in metal and because it is fast activity is enormous. Energy is quiete low but activity enormous. No OU still.
Now that energy strike the bell and what happen ? Bell strarts to ring very loudly and it continues to do it for a LONG TIME, fadding with sound gently.
Surprisingly if you summarize energy of all sound produced it will be much more then initial kick!
Here is the secret ! There is no bigger activity flowing in resonant (undamped) circuit as initial one - and it is diminishing in time also - but overall the long time of activity makes it OU.

Here is the big question : what and where is adding energy to produce longer activity then possible with law of conservation of energy ?
is that energy added already to compressed in time initial kick (increased activity = increased power but compressed time) ? or maybe it is sustaining oscillations in resonant (undamped circuit) which makes it possible ?

There is one issue which suggest the later is going on ... you tell me what it is

Another example : take elastic ball and fall it down the hard ground . Measure how high it go on each bouncing spike and summarize.Think how high it would go if that energy could be released  in one direction only not in a matter of ring down oscillation.

I ran across this on the Web.  It sure sounds amazing.

================================================================

Back in 1992 or 1991 Ron Brandt spent a few weeks with me and we ran his transistor switched circut using 4 batteries 6 transistors and a few other components.  we used a signal generator to adjust the switching freq for maximum output to the load. we used 4 car headlights for the load on the switching unit and 1 on each of the baseline batteries.  we had 2 extra batteries we used as baselines.  to start off we charged all batteries using an astron 50 amp powersupply. all batteries were new.

Ron told me that when he was running his electric car his neighbors car had a bad battery and he removed one from his electric car and gave it to them. the alternator on the neighbors car went up in smoke after an hour of driving.  it was more than likely running at full field trying to charge the battery.

We did not use a motor and i believe that is the secret to getting it to self charge. Ron told me he ran his car for months without charging the batteries.

He also told me a strange story that after running the car for a few hours when setting at a stop light the other cars around him all stopped running.  he called it some sort of energy field he thought it was creating. he also told me that his neighbor could not get out of her mobile home one day when he had the motor running and the car in idle for a few hours in is driveway, she yelled for help and when he went to help her it was like walking through air as thick as sand and it took almost all his energy to get to her.

After that he stopped the project to think about what was happening.

It will be interesting if anyone else will have the same battery non charging event happen to them.

Rhett


.

AllPhase,
Concerning your posted Reply #68:  I read one story, years ago, like you did.    So, here it is,  A free energy experimenter similar to Members of this blog site at OUR.com invented a system of coils, diodes, and capacitors that worked really well.  So well in fact, his system ran as intended, but "sucked" all the power from the local municipal powers mains grid and blacked out his neighborhood and surrounding ones for "several square miles."

The point is:  Members of the top Pentagon brass were extremely scared that a regular schmoe like him would be smart enough to do that on his own without them getting wise to it earlier.  They obviously took it away from him and probably told him quit experimenting electronically.     Or.  Else.

--Lee

Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.09.07, 21:54:08
Output of a Ruhmkorff coil is attached - it is pulsed DC.

Another reference:
http://chestofbooks.com/crafts/popular-mechanics/Amateur-Work-4/The-Ruhmkorff-Coil.html
(This one's pretty understandable, since it's in English.  Other references on the GOOGLE Images search engine pages tend to be in fluent written French and I would be hard pressed to self-translate the text on the 'Web.)

--Lee

Quote from: forest on 2011.09.14, 15:13:24
Of course Tesla said about power not energy. Energy accumulated in long period can be released in incomparable short time = increasing activity.
But here things are going to complicate a lot !  I don't pretend I understand it but think about such analogy:

you have a BIG (I mean HUGE) bell or kind of metal plate like some used in East like China or India (don't know the name of that). Now you can be perfectly sure then when you strike it with a finger gently it would not take much power to do it but result would be also poor. You have to strike it as hard as you can and that's when Tesla used with his "increasing activity" using capacitor disruptive discharge. Capacitor disruptive discharge produce a wave which is like mechanical wave in metal and because it is fast activity is enormous. Energy is quiete low but activity enormous. No OU still.
Now that energy strike the bell and what happen ? Bell strarts to ring very loudly and it continues to do it for a LONG TIME, fadding with sound gently.
Surprisingly if you summarize energy of all sound produced it will be much more then initial kick!
Here is the secret ! There is no bigger activity flowing in resonant (undamped) circuit as initial one - and it is diminishing in time also - but overall the long time of activity makes it OU.

Here is the big question : what and where is adding energy to produce longer activity then possible with law of conservation of energy ?
is that energy added already to compressed in time initial kick (increased activity = increased power but compressed time) ? or maybe it is sustaining oscillations in resonant (undamped circuit) which makes it possible ?

There is one issue which suggest the later is going on ... you tell me what it is

See the image at this post: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=562.msg9131#msg9131 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=562.msg9131#msg9131)
Now imagine the pulse propagating to the other side of the planet and reflecting back to the source and at the instant the reflection arrives at the source, the source fires another disruptive discharge through the quenched spark gap.

Quote from: Nikola TeslaCollier's Weekly ,Talking With Planets, February 9, 1901
In a section subtitled 'Signaling at 1,000,000 miles!' Dr. Tesla states: '...succeeded in producing a machine which, to explain its operation in plain language, resembled a pump in its action, drawing electricity from the earth and driving it back into the same at an enormous rate.'

In a section subtitled 'Experiments in Colorado' he states: 'The rates of electrical movement involved in strong induction apparatus had measured but a few hundred horse-power, and I produced electrical movements of rates of one hundred and ten thousand horsepower.'

Note that the horse-power units cited contain a time element so they are power, not just energy.

Quote from: Nikola TeslaU.S. PATENT 787,412
The most essential requirement is, however, that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain interval of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about four hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second.

So the riniging bell comparison is correct - the earth is the bell. The '...driving it back into the same at an enormous rate.' is the 'hitting it as hard as you can' with a disruptive discharge and the quenched spark gap is what enables the 'bell' to ring for a long time. Now imagine hitting the bell in an enclosed spherical room and the sound wave hits the wall of the sphere and at the instant that the reflected sound wave returns to the bell, hit it again as hard as you can. And again, and again...

No wonder Dr. Tesla was concerned about 'splitting the world in two'. Which would split first? The bell or the sphere?

The problem here is that his system requires the use of the whole planet as the bell. The whole planet is a component part of the mechanism that both supplies the power and performs the 'magnification' so it can't be used that way today. He had a planet unsullied by the last hundred years of infrastructure development.

So we take this model and apply it the Tesla earthquake machine and the TPU.

Quote from: thx1138 on 2012.10.12, 13:13:01
See the image at this post: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=562.msg9131#msg9131 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=562.msg9131#msg9131)
Now imagine the pulse propagating to the other side of the planet and reflecting back to the source and at the instant the reflection arrives at the source, the source fires another disruptive discharge through the quenched spark gap.

Note that the horse-power units cited contain a time element so they are power, not just energy.


So the riniging bell comparison is correct - the earth is the bell. The '...driving it back into the same at an enormous rate.' is the 'hitting it as hard as you can' with a disruptive discharge and the quenched spark gap is what enables the 'bell' to ring for a long time. Now imagine hitting the bell in an enclosed spherical room and the sound wave hits the wall of the sphere and at the instant that the reflected sound wave returns to the bell, hit it again as hard as you can. And again, and again...

No wonder Dr. Tesla was concerned about 'splitting the world in two'. Which would split first? The bell or the sphere?

The problem here is that his system requires the use of the whole planet as the bell. The whole planet is a component part of the mechanism that both supplies the power and performs the 'magnification' so it can't be used that way today. He had a planet unsullied by the last hundred years of infrastructure development.

Yes , except it works for any conductor, Earth has just some advantages over straight metalic  conductor. It has vry low resistance when computed by its size ,and it has the best insulator ever and it has the largest amount of electrons stored.

Why don't you just move "space" rather than the conductor and magnetic field?

Quote from: Grumpy on 2012.10.12, 17:58:20
Why don't you just move "space" rather than the conductor and magnetic field?

And that would be done with resonance.

Quote from: giantkiller on 2012.10.12, 18:27:18
And that would be done with resonance.

No, resonance is not required.

Quote from: forest on 2012.10.12, 16:59:49
...
it has the best insulator ever and it has the largest amount of electrons stored.

The earth is a small capacity (710 µF). Electrolytic capacities beat it. And this capacity needs another electrode to be used. We can't charge the earth from nowhere.
Every mole of metal contains 6.023 10²³ free electrons, and even more charges when we account for protons and linked electrons. The question of charges is irrelevant.
The relevant question is that of the separation of positive and negative charges and/or movement of charges which is the only way to get or provide work, i.e. energy. The only known force to move charges is the Lorentz force F=q*E + VxB (or a mechanical force upon the object where they are enclosed).

Edit: Wrong thread. Sorry. I didn't see a way to delete it.

Dr. Tesla file two patents using the title Art Of Transmitting Electrical Energy Through Natural Mediums. The first, U.S. Patent No. 787,412 applied for May 16, 1900, does not provide a lot of information. The second, Canadian Patent No. 142,352 applied for April 17, 1906, explains many of the things being discussed in this thread. I think the 1900 patent was to lay claim to the method without disclosing very much information. The 1906 patent was applied for near the end of the Wardenclyffe project when it was clear that it was not going to be completed. I think Dr. Tesla at this time wanted to protect the details. The fact that it was filed  in Canada would somewhat obscure it.

I put together the attached document that contains quotes from the 1906 patent and what I think they mean. You should however examine the entire patent before reading my writeup. Keep in mind he always said, and stressed over and over again, that his method delivered power via conductance, not inductance. You will probably find details I missed.

Quote from: forest on 2012.10.12, 16:59:49
Yes , except it works for any conductor, Earth has just some advantages over straight metalic  conductor. It has vry low resistance when computed by its size ,and it has the best insulator ever and it has the largest amount of electrons stored.

And it generates its own magnetic field and electrical currents. Google 'telluric currents'.

Not sure about creating own magnetic field. I think it is byproduct of electric INFLOW of energy . Earth core is solid iron and acts as dynamo, but theory that Earth can create own magnetic field not dependant on external energy flow is ridiculus if we compare it we the bow shock produced by constantly bombardment of Earth magnetosphere by cosmic dust particles and solar wind.
The same energy is responsible for creating gravitation, interacting with atoms.

Quote from: thx1138 on 2012.10.26, 11:25:13
Edit: Wrong thread. Sorry. I didn't see a way to delete it.

Dr. Tesla file two patents using the title Art Of Transmitting Electrical Energy Through Natural Mediums. The first, U.S. Patent No. 787,412 applied for May 16, 1900, does not provide a lot of information. The second, Canadian Patent No. 142,352 applied for April 17, 1906, explains many of the things being discussed in this thread. I think the 1900 patent was to lay claim to the method without disclosing very much information. The 1906 patent was applied for near the end of the Wardenclyffe project when it was clear that it was not going to be completed. I think Dr. Tesla at this time wanted to protect the details. The fact that it was filed  in Canada would somewhat obscure it.

I put together the attached document that contains quotes from the 1906 patent and what I think they mean. You should however examine the entire patent before reading my writeup. Keep in mind he always said, and stressed over and over again, that his method delivered power via conductance, not inductance. You will probably find details I missed.

I'm reading the Doc's and I think i see one assumption which I think is incorrect, so rather than to try to remember all the things I dissagree with I'll address them as I find them.

Quotehere are a number of points to be made from this quote. Dr. Tesla states that Hertzian waves must be minimized so we can dispense with the idea that he thought Hertzian waves do not exist. This also means that Hertzian radiation into the atmosphere must be minimized so we can say that he is not coupling with the Schumann resonance in the atmosphere. He also gives an idea of the rates of oscillation to be employed. And, interestingly, he states that the effect will increase with distance, which I take to be gain which I think would be accomplished by coupling to telluric currents in the crust.

I don't think he is describing a gain I think he is describing that with standing waves and a node at the base of the transmitter (zero volts) as the distance from the transmitter node is increased the difference in potential will increase. At the transmitter node the potential swing would be nothing but at the anti-pode the potential swing would be maximum.

QuoteI believe this is evidenced at the Wardenclyffe site by the underground radial tunnels shown in the Anderson drawings where it was said that pipes were driven laterally through the soil. I think these are actually the transmitting terminal and it works like this: The primary is driven by unidirectional disruptive discharges inducing current into the bottom of the loosely coupled secondary system where the energy is magnified thousands of times by the "secondary system" and stored in a capacitive "top load" created by the device at the top of the tower. The energy stored in the capacitive "top load" is then released at specific times and travels down a conductor through the center of the insulated secondary system support column to the radial spokes of the transmitting terminal comprised of pipes driven into the earth which creates a very sharp pulse of electrical density increase (longitudinal wave) that flows through the crust in concentric circles until it hits the "pole" opposite the transmission terminal where it reflects back toward the transmitter. Just as the reflected pulse reaches the transmitting terminal another pulse is created through the transmitting terminal which adds to the reflected pulse and the process repeats until the telluric currents in the earth are in resonance with the transmitter. The change in energy density creates stationary waves as the pulse travels through the crust and these stationary waves can be tapped to extract energy from the wave and transform it to usable power.

1. The primary can be driven by AC if desired.
2. The energy is not stored for longer than a half cycle.
3. The bottom of the secondary is connected to the ground plate and imparts alternating currents to the ground continuously to create the standing waves.

The currents through the earth can be tapped in two main ways,

1. Using two ground points placed at a suitable distance to secure a suitable difference in potential.
2. Using a receiver to magnify the currents by way of resonance and utilizing the "activity" with an output coil placed in an inductive relationship with the oscillating circuit. (Tesla crystal radio style) A transmitter in reverse.

Cheers

P.S. I've come to the conclusion that when Tesla refers to "longitudinal" waves he is referring to current waves, current doesn't flow in wavy lines it flows directly in straight lines (relatively) meaning that even though the voltage swings up and down, the current goes back and forth not up and down, when we describe a wave we plot the voltage over time around a reference point.

If we look at hertz waves we see the voltage plotted, the current still flows in straight lines longitudinally with varying intensity, it's the varying intensity that can be plotted "as a wave" or whatever other way it can be shown.

I think it can be made to be or seem much more complicated than it actually is. Current can be plotted as a transverse "looking" wave representation or other wise, likewise voltage variation can be plotted as a transverse "looking" wave or other wise.

Does voltage actually move in transverse a wave ? Does voltage even move ?
Does energy move in a transverse wave ? Or does it flow straight "longitudinally.

So we have a situation where the current is longitudinal, the energy is transferred in a straight line "longitudinally" ( at least as far as I can tell).
The only thing that is truly represented as a transverse wave is the voltage which does not move. SO far this is how I see it.

Is the current flowing in our grid wires in a wavy path or does it flow straight back and forth ?
Is the energy transferred in a wavy path or does it transfer in direct paths.

The way I see it the only thing that is wavy is the voltage plot and it goes up and down in value not side to side in space anyway.

 

Cheers


..

Quote from: forest on 2012.12.13, 15:09:24
Not sure about creating own magnetic field. I think it is byproduct of electric INFLOW of energy . Earth core is solid iron and acts as dynamo, but theory that Earth can create own magnetic field not dependant on external energy flow is ridiculus if we compare it we the bow shock produced by constantly bombardment of Earth magnetosphere by cosmic dust particles and solar wind.
The same energy is responsible for creating gravitation, interacting with atoms.

Since we have no way to send probes or sensors to the center of the planet this is all theory but theory developed by geologists infinitely more knowledgable than myself. The core is solid as you say but the geologists describe the core as having two parts: the inner core which is solid and made of iron and a liquid outer core containing iron and nickel. The Coriolis effect created by the planet rotating around its axis sets up whirls in the liquid outer core which create the magnetism and electricity. A few references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field#Earth.27s_core_and_the_geodynamo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field#Earth.27s_core_and_the_geodynamo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics)

There is no doubt that the particles of the solar wind and cosmic rays interact with the magnetosphere but I believe the magnetosphere and a large portion of the electrical energy are generated locally by the planet itself.

That said, there are other interesting theories about the interactions between the sun and earth that are now being tested with space probes. The sun itself has a magnetic field and produces electrical currents itself both of which extend far beyond the earth out to the farthest reaches of the solar system. The Voyager probes launched in the 1970's are just now reaching the boundary between the sun's influences and the interstellar medium.
http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/sun_magnetic_field.html (http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/sun_magnetic_field.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_spiral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_spiral)
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/alfven-triumphs-again-again/?article=4eefp0kj (http://www.holoscience.com/wp/alfven-triumphs-again-again/?article=4eefp0kj)

Along with all of this the earth is not only rotating on its axis but revolving around the sun while the sun revolves around the center of the galaxy, and the galaxy travels through space. As Dr. Tesla said, ""We are whirling through endless space, with an inconceivable speed, all around us everything is spinning, everything is moving, every where there is energy. There must be some way of availing ourselves of this energy more directly."

QuoteI don't think he is describing a gain I think he is describing that with standing waves and a node at the base of the transmitter (zero volts) as the distance from the transmitter node is increased the difference in potential will increase. At the transmitter node the potential swing would be nothing but at the anti-pode the potential swing would be maximum.

Good take. Thanks. That makes sense to me.

Quote1. The primary can be driven by AC if desired.
2. The energy is not stored for longer than a half cycle.
3. The bottom of the secondary is connected to the ground plate and imparts alternating currents to the ground continuously to create the standing waves.

The currents through the earth can be tapped in two main ways,

1. Using two ground points placed at a suitable distance to secure a suitable difference in potential.
2. Using a receiver to magnify the currents by way of resonance and utilizing the "activity" with an output coil placed in an inductive relationship with the oscillating circuit. (Tesla crystal radio style) A transmitter in reverse.

In light of the other item, above, that makes sense.

RE the "longitudinal waves": I think that is correct. I don't think that voltage travels. It isn't tied to a physical thing like current. It is a state measured between two points with different current densities. At least that's how my uneducated mind perceives it. I guess you could say that the voltage flows because the two points move as the wave of current moves but if you move the measuring device at the same same rate that the current is moving the voltage wouldn't fluctuate. In my thinking, with the voltage measuring device stationary, the voltage between the two point being measured is fluctuating with the movement of the current through those two points.

The following link graphically shows longitudinal and transverse waves but it is related to acoustics. I think, however, the longitudinal animation applies to current because current is tied to a physical thing, the conductor, like sound is tied to the air through which it travels.
http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html (http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html)

Assuming that to be true, then an electrical wave is a change in current density traveling through a conducting medium and voltage is a measurement between to points with different current densities. Dr. Tesla at one time described electricity as similar to sound although I can't find the exact quote right now.

I think where people get confused is that they think the sinusoidal wave on an oscilloscope is the wave itself rather than a measurement of  density, in the case of current, and the difference in current density between two points, in the case of voltage. Looking at the link above, imagine a sinusoidal wave form above the density in the animation varying vertically with that density. The peaks would be at the highest density regions while the valleys would be at the lowest density regions.

That is kind of simplistic but I think it is a good representation.

tx1138

This is all correct. Now , all this around is resonant circuit and any load will be part of it. In resonance we can use the same energy thousands times generating huge power and this is what Tesla imagined. Earth is polished ball isolated in cosmic space...

Quote from: thx1138 on 2012.12.18, 13:48:09
...
Assuming that to be true, then an electrical wave is a change in current density traveling through a conducting medium
...

Very interesting point that I discussed recently elsewhere. That's also what I thought and it seems I was wrong. Suppose you have an insulated long object and you charge it with static charges, differently at different places. Then you move it. From your position at rest, you will see a change in the current density due to more or less charged places of the object passing in front of you, nevertheless it's not a wave, nothing is radiating (longitudinally or transversally doesn't matter). A wave seems to come only from charge acceleration and so a change of the current density is a necessary condition but not sufficient.

It's not yet clear for me how it can be related to J in Maxwell's equation, because a variation of J can be either due to a constant number of electrons whose the speed changes, as well as to a change of the number of electrons per unit of time, passing at a constant speed, and so should imply the same effects. The problem lies perhaps in the way we chose the cross section to calculate the current density in the two cases. Taking the sum of the cross-section of the electrons instead of the cross-section of the conductor or of the electrons beam (case of a current in vacuum) could solve the inconsistency.

Quote from: Farmhand on 2012.12.15, 02:02:05
1. The primary can be driven by AC if desired.
2. The energy is not stored for longer than a half cycle.
3. The bottom of the secondary is connected to the ground plate and imparts alternating currents to the ground continuously to create the standing waves.

After thinking about this some more I've had some new thoughts.
3. The transmission system does not impart alternating currents. In his patents he clearly states that he uses impulses. Going back to his early demostrations of high voltage, high frequency lighting with a single wire, Dr. Tesla states that the method is unidirectional disruptive discharge of a condenser.  See "Experiments with Alternate Currents of Very High Frequency and Their Applications to Methods of Artificial Illumination" delivered before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers at Columbia College on May 20, 1891 and "On Light and Other High Frequency Phenomena" before The National Electric Light Association in St. Louis in March, 1893.

This agrees with his analogy of pumping the earth with electricity. Consider the action of a bicycle pump. On the upstroke you charge the pump (condenser) with out affecting the tire and on the downstroke you drive the air (electricity) into the tire  (earth) in a unidirectional manner.

Another analogy would be a lightning bolt striking the ground. In his patents he even mentions lightning. Look at his July 4, 1899 Colorado Springs notes.

1. While the device may be driven by AC, what it delivers is not AC but a unidirectional impulse with very fast rise and fall times. The fast rise and fall times are, apparently, essential to the process. I don't remember exactly which lecture it was but he makes mention of the fast rise and fall times, saying that rate of change is the important factor.

@exnihiloest
I'm not sure it relates to Maxwell's work although it probably does. But keep in mind the above. Dr. Tesla was working with unidirectional, high volatge impulses, not AC and not DC. Again from "Experiments with Alternate Currents of Very High Frequency and Their Applications to Methods of Artificial Illumination" delivered before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers at Columbia College on May 20, 1891

"When the terminals of a high tension induction coil [Fig. 31] are connected to a capacitor, and the capacitor is disruptively discharging into a circuit, we may look upon the arc playing between the spark gap as being a source of alternating, or generally speaking, undulating currents, and then we have to deal with the familiar system of a generator of such currents, a circuit connected to it, and a condenser bridging the circuit. The capacitor in such case is a veritable transformer, and since the frequency is excessive, almost any ratio in the strength of the currents in both branches may be obtained. In reality the analogy is not quite complete, for in the disruptive discharge we have most generally a fundamental instantaneous variation of comparatively low frequency, and a superimposed harmonic vibration, and the laws governing the flow of currents are not the same for both."

I think Maxwell called impulses "transients" so you might look at that part of his work.

Can someone help?

What is the definition of "cold electricity" ?

 thx1138

Thank You very much, you are 100% correct. I can only add that in 1891 he used disruptive discharge with two rotary opposite aluminium discs (which later was used by Marconi) and then he found excellent technics when he got  100 times more eficiency. I spotted disruptive discharge in 2005 by accident and cannot replicate it again. The air in my garage become electrified with kind of "electric sound wave" exactly like Tesla mentioned in one articla on Hertz oscillator. https://teslaresearch.jimdofree.com/articles-interviews/on-the-dissipation-of-the-electrical-energy-of-the-hertz-resonator-the-electrical-engineer-december-21-1892/

Then in 1900 he patented his method of obtaining energy from ambient background being in fact Earth magnetic field and it solely depends exactly on disruptive discharge and electrostatic induction. Sorry about my poor English,

Quote from: forest on 2025.01.26, 13:18:11
The air in my garage become electrified with kind of "electric sound wave"...

What was the frequency of this discharge ?

Quote from: verpies on 2025.01.30, 20:12:01
What was the frequency of this discharge ?

I was using car ignition coil and frequency was about 200Hz but circuit has some peculiar wrong connections compared to schematic and it used also transil to protect avalanche mosfet. Still I'm not sure how it was possible. I connected a  bulb with broken filanment and I'm not sure but it was the source of those waves