Tweet
I have found some serious flaws in Meyl's practical work of which I have informed him.
He did respond to a very small error in his theory, but he did not respond to the fatal error in his practical work. To make matters worse, he is still showing his invalid experimental 'proof' for example at the Keshe meeting on last 21st of September.
It did take me considerable time to work through his complete theories and to save you all time I shall post my findings here.
----- The Meyl Theory -----
Instead of starting out on an assumption (as Maxwell) we start out with the following:
E = v × B
H = -v × D
We then take the curl of both sides:
∇ × E = ∇ × (v × B)
∇ × H = -∇ × (v × D)
This can be written as:
∇ × E = B·∇v – v·∇B + v·∇·B - B·∇·v
∇ × H = -[D·∇v – v·∇D + v·∇·D - D·∇·v]
Then we come across a strange note in prof.dr.-ir. Meyl's work, namely that 2 of these terms are 0 for “a non-accelerated relative motion in the x-direction”. Although this is a common sentence found in many scientific works, it does most certainly not apply here. The whole of his theory is based on vortices; a circular motion. Such a motion is per definition constantly accelerating (centripetal force).
He mentions an x-direction? What is that? Up until this point we have not defined any system of reference. And in an attempt to help him out we should define spherical coordinates centered the center
of the rotation. Then, assuming a constant angular speed, we can eliminate all second time derivatives of location (meaning acceleration) from these equations.
∇·v = 0
∇v = ∂v/∂r = 0
Then we are again confronted with an unusual statement:
v·∇X = ∂X/∂r · dr/dt = dX/dt
In words: the change in field strength that I experience moving in the direction of v is only the change in field strength over time. This is obviously only true if the field is homogeneous over the trajectory of movement. Assuming that an EM wave consists of alternating magnetic fields that induce alternating electric fields and vice versa, then the 'electric current' will indeed run over a trajectory in which the magnetic field is homogeneous. So in this particular case it actually does apply, but it is certainly not trivial.
So assuming |v| = constant and the field is homogeneous over the trajectory of movement we can reduce this to:
∇ × E = – dB/dt + v·∇·B
∇ × H = dD/dt – v·∇·D
We then compare the latter to the macroscopic version of Ampère's law:
∇ × H = ∂D/∂t + Jf
Which leads Meyl to believe that – v·∇·D = Jf = -v·ρe= σeE = Dσe/ε
And the corresponding magnetic variant becomes: – v·∇·B= Jm = -v·ρm= σmH = Bσm/μ
In order to avoid one of his next mistakes, I do not use his τ-notation.
Thus we get:
∇ × E = – (dB/dt + Bσm/μ)
∇ × H = dD/dt + Dσe/ε
Having this we can derive the wave equation. Since in the vacuum there is no matter, the second term must be 0. So we continue with:
∇ × H = dD/dt
Because B = μH and D = εE it follows that (assuming μ and ε to be constant):
∇ × B = εμ dE/dt
By again applying the curl on both sides and replacing εμ by 1/c2,Meyl arrives at
c2 ·∇ × ∇ × B = d(∇ ×E)/dt
It should have said ∇×(dE/dt), the rotation of the time derivative is not usually equal to the time derivative of the rotation. But maybe some special condition applies ?
We substitute ∇ × E = – (dB/dt + Bσm/μ) in here to get:
– c2 ·∇ × ∇ × B = d(dB/dt + Bσm/μ)/dt = d2B/dt2 + σm/μ dB/dt
Then Meyl performs another remarkable trick. Did not he first state that we are in a vacuum in which no matter exists. That is why he could remove Dσe/ε from the equation. Shouldn't he, for exactly the same reason remove Bσm/μ from this equation? He does not, he rewrites it and arrives at:
– c2 ·∇ × ∇ × B = d2B/dt2 – v2·∇∇·B
or
v2·∇∇·B – c2 ·∇ × ∇ × B = d2B/dt2
Oh well, so much for his theory. He started out good, but he messes up completely.
Also note how he switches back and forth between full derivatives (d/dt) and partial derivatives (∂/∂t). I believe this is also a source of errors.
To do this right, it is considerably more complicated, and you will arrive at quite another result. This other result does in fact contain a scalar, a longitudinal and a transverse component (3 parts, not 2).
I thought it might be illuminating to do this trick in a 4 dimensional space (including time). Unfortunately this changes the nature of the vector fields to such an extend that these simple maths do no longer apply.
----- Turning to his practical work... -----
As I have done a very similar experiment myself I will present my findings.
The set up is as follows
(see Meyl1.jpg)
When L2 is at resonance the LED shines brightly.
To understand why, we consider the following.
Because L2 is at resonance, it does neither act as a inductive nor capacitive load. So when considering L1 we do not have to look at L2 and everything behind there.
This leaves us this:
(see Meyl2.jpg)
L1 creates a voltage difference. Having a higher capacitance at one end, this results in higher voltage (swings) at the other end. So what is intended as a ground line actually becomes a transmission line. And of course, shielding C1 or C2 has absolutely no effect!
(see Meyl3.jpg)
Removing the diodes means that much less current can flow in L4.
(see Meyl4.jpg)
This increases the inductance of L2 (see Colorado Springs Notes of Nov 9, 1899), giving a lower resonance frequency. This results in an inductive load on L1, disturbing its resonance as well. Not because the sending antenna 'feels' the receiving circuit.
By grounding the 'ground connection' a very different situation occurs with different readings.
(see Meyl5.jpg)
The current is transferred in a different manner now and unfortunately with the voltages that I have currently access to the readings become too small. I.e. the LED's do no longer shine...
In an interview held at 21 Sept, Meyl says he has some difficulties in obtaining resonance when applying his technology to cars. Of course he has, because then he has to use an actual ground instead of the 1-wire transmission line. Remember that obtaining resonance can NEVER be a problem as long as you can convey the right frequency to the receiver.
Nice try, no cigar!
Ernst.
He did respond to a very small error in his theory, but he did not respond to the fatal error in his practical work. To make matters worse, he is still showing his invalid experimental 'proof' for example at the Keshe meeting on last 21st of September.
It did take me considerable time to work through his complete theories and to save you all time I shall post my findings here.
----- The Meyl Theory -----
Instead of starting out on an assumption (as Maxwell) we start out with the following:
E = v × B
H = -v × D
We then take the curl of both sides:
∇ × E = ∇ × (v × B)
∇ × H = -∇ × (v × D)
This can be written as:
∇ × E = B·∇v – v·∇B + v·∇·B - B·∇·v
∇ × H = -[D·∇v – v·∇D + v·∇·D - D·∇·v]
Then we come across a strange note in prof.dr.-ir. Meyl's work, namely that 2 of these terms are 0 for “a non-accelerated relative motion in the x-direction”. Although this is a common sentence found in many scientific works, it does most certainly not apply here. The whole of his theory is based on vortices; a circular motion. Such a motion is per definition constantly accelerating (centripetal force).
He mentions an x-direction? What is that? Up until this point we have not defined any system of reference. And in an attempt to help him out we should define spherical coordinates centered the center
of the rotation. Then, assuming a constant angular speed, we can eliminate all second time derivatives of location (meaning acceleration) from these equations.
∇·v = 0
∇v = ∂v/∂r = 0
Then we are again confronted with an unusual statement:
v·∇X = ∂X/∂r · dr/dt = dX/dt
In words: the change in field strength that I experience moving in the direction of v is only the change in field strength over time. This is obviously only true if the field is homogeneous over the trajectory of movement. Assuming that an EM wave consists of alternating magnetic fields that induce alternating electric fields and vice versa, then the 'electric current' will indeed run over a trajectory in which the magnetic field is homogeneous. So in this particular case it actually does apply, but it is certainly not trivial.
So assuming |v| = constant and the field is homogeneous over the trajectory of movement we can reduce this to:
∇ × E = – dB/dt + v·∇·B
∇ × H = dD/dt – v·∇·D
We then compare the latter to the macroscopic version of Ampère's law:
∇ × H = ∂D/∂t + Jf
Which leads Meyl to believe that – v·∇·D = Jf = -v·ρe= σeE = Dσe/ε
And the corresponding magnetic variant becomes: – v·∇·B= Jm = -v·ρm= σmH = Bσm/μ
In order to avoid one of his next mistakes, I do not use his τ-notation.
Thus we get:
∇ × E = – (dB/dt + Bσm/μ)
∇ × H = dD/dt + Dσe/ε
Having this we can derive the wave equation. Since in the vacuum there is no matter, the second term must be 0. So we continue with:
∇ × H = dD/dt
Because B = μH and D = εE it follows that (assuming μ and ε to be constant):
∇ × B = εμ dE/dt
By again applying the curl on both sides and replacing εμ by 1/c2,Meyl arrives at
c2 ·∇ × ∇ × B = d(∇ ×E)/dt
It should have said ∇×(dE/dt), the rotation of the time derivative is not usually equal to the time derivative of the rotation. But maybe some special condition applies ?
We substitute ∇ × E = – (dB/dt + Bσm/μ) in here to get:
– c2 ·∇ × ∇ × B = d(dB/dt + Bσm/μ)/dt = d2B/dt2 + σm/μ dB/dt
Then Meyl performs another remarkable trick. Did not he first state that we are in a vacuum in which no matter exists. That is why he could remove Dσe/ε from the equation. Shouldn't he, for exactly the same reason remove Bσm/μ from this equation? He does not, he rewrites it and arrives at:
– c2 ·∇ × ∇ × B = d2B/dt2 – v2·∇∇·B
or
v2·∇∇·B – c2 ·∇ × ∇ × B = d2B/dt2
Oh well, so much for his theory. He started out good, but he messes up completely.
Also note how he switches back and forth between full derivatives (d/dt) and partial derivatives (∂/∂t). I believe this is also a source of errors.
To do this right, it is considerably more complicated, and you will arrive at quite another result. This other result does in fact contain a scalar, a longitudinal and a transverse component (3 parts, not 2).
I thought it might be illuminating to do this trick in a 4 dimensional space (including time). Unfortunately this changes the nature of the vector fields to such an extend that these simple maths do no longer apply.
----- Turning to his practical work... -----
As I have done a very similar experiment myself I will present my findings.
The set up is as follows
(see Meyl1.jpg)
When L2 is at resonance the LED shines brightly.
To understand why, we consider the following.
Because L2 is at resonance, it does neither act as a inductive nor capacitive load. So when considering L1 we do not have to look at L2 and everything behind there.
This leaves us this:
(see Meyl2.jpg)
L1 creates a voltage difference. Having a higher capacitance at one end, this results in higher voltage (swings) at the other end. So what is intended as a ground line actually becomes a transmission line. And of course, shielding C1 or C2 has absolutely no effect!
(see Meyl3.jpg)
Removing the diodes means that much less current can flow in L4.
(see Meyl4.jpg)
This increases the inductance of L2 (see Colorado Springs Notes of Nov 9, 1899), giving a lower resonance frequency. This results in an inductive load on L1, disturbing its resonance as well. Not because the sending antenna 'feels' the receiving circuit.
By grounding the 'ground connection' a very different situation occurs with different readings.
(see Meyl5.jpg)
The current is transferred in a different manner now and unfortunately with the voltages that I have currently access to the readings become too small. I.e. the LED's do no longer shine...
In an interview held at 21 Sept, Meyl says he has some difficulties in obtaining resonance when applying his technology to cars. Of course he has, because then he has to use an actual ground instead of the 1-wire transmission line. Remember that obtaining resonance can NEVER be a problem as long as you can convey the right frequency to the receiver.
Nice try, no cigar!
Ernst.
Comment