Konstantin Meyl, Scalar - Faraday vs. Maxwell

[Tehnoman]

Ok, I may have been a little bit harsh.

What I meant - If we can't understand the very basics of that theory, then we shouldn't spend much money on these kits, because that would be a waste.

Anyway, I sent question to K.Meyl, he was even kind enough to answer my question. Yet, the answer he provided didn't satisfy me.

Basically he just said that everything is written in his book, Faraday paradox is misinterpretation of laws of physics. And advertised to buy his kits. Heh, I guess now I understand why Meyl can't get mainstream science to recognize his work and why mainstream science doesn't bother to dig under these theories...

[boguslaw]

Maybe Faraday paradox is quantum state effect ? I mean - free electrons in rotating disc in magnetic field are moving due to centrifugal force.Thus effect is relative to free electrons like in particle accelerator , not to the disc surface.
That would explain why rotating disc with magnet attached to it still produce current.Of course rotating magnet while disc is not rotating is a completely different frame of reference and centrifugal force is acting on magnet , not on disc. That is the asymmetry we are searching for.
The electrons to freely move in or on disc surface that must be quantum effect - electrons are moving like a wave , not particles. That could be also related to secondary emission...

[Dingus]

What I meant - If we can't understand the very basics of that theory, then we shouldn't spend much money on these kits, because that would be a waste.

Now, that's what I like to hear. (I still want to make a few of them.)

[wpage]

Very interesting stuff...

What a cool thread!

Thought it neat that the bubble boat demo used a verticle beamed source to keep things clear...

Would have been nice though to see the sender for illustrative purposes

Looks like the suppressions of all the years is about to shake loose

[Guest]

Ok, this was too much for me right now.

I just checked his book about the E/B equations:

dE = v(dx/dt) *(scalar)dB. Which means that E and B have duality, change one and you change the other one.

And for the special cases where b or B is zero you find the answers in the book, it is all calculated there. But it takes alot of time absorbing this book unless you are a genius with the correct prerequisites. Therefore I leave it there and focus on my practical issues using the book when running into practical troubles. Anyone can look through 800 pages Meyl but few can absorb it into practical usefulness.
And his book leaves alot of speculation left for the reader on practical experiments. You can easily see that the Tesla key patents are the foundation, Meyer, Schauberger and Patterson are very interesting and also the Searl disk etc. The body´s nerve system 1-wire communication(node-antinode) and Wilhelm Reich... We have the answers in front of our eyes but it is so hard thinking first and doing later.

Self-control is strength, right thought is mastery and calmness is power.

Then the planetary evolution is interesting to say the least.... How about water supply? How about the planetary center and HHO/water as Schauberger predicted. Who can produce water from our existing non-oxyhydro elements? Many big questions and few answers..... Back to work.

[Tehnoman]

Maybe Faraday paradox is quantum state effect ? I mean - free electrons in rotating disc in magnetic field are moving due to centrifugal force.Thus effect is relative to free electrons like in particle accelerator , not to the disc surface.
[..]

Some part of it, yes. If we rotate conductor disc in no field what's so ever, we will measure voltage, we have calculated it in University. Yet it is so damn small, in range of micro-Volts. In comparison, same rotating speed in common neodymium magnet field would result in much higher voltage, that is somewhere between 1 to 10 Volts.

Here is one video of experiment.
Faraday's Law: A Paradox Experiment

Now, that's what I like to hear. (I still want to make a few of them.)

Yeah, that is true, I wanna build one for my self, yet the time is so little...

[..]
Then the planetary evolution is interesting to say the least.... How about water supply? How about the planetary center and HHO/water as Schauberger predicted. Who can produce water from our existing non-oxyhydro elements? Many big questions and few answers..... Back to work.

Well, I believe in time we will master the power of creating/transforming elements from one to other, If we will have enough energy. Because I'm quite sure these transitions will require waste amounts of energy.

What is about Meyl's book - I have looked into it and there is many interesting stuff indeed. But yet. He doesn't explain the very essence of Faraday's experiment misinterpretation - he just gives a form, generalizes it and then mathematically shows other interesting stuff.

I believe that is the reason of why general science doesn't accept it:
1) He's theory is based on assumption that there exists non-limited speed of traveling field, he shows example - Faraday experiment.
2) In general science is believed that traveling field does not exist - there is only field change in time, that in macroscopic level can be describing as "running field" - same field strength is induced in next space point, then next, next... And there is no known experiment, that shows otherwise (at least I don't know and I can't find). I someone knows - please show me, I want to see it.

The description of experiment, called Faraday experiment, which is given as example in Meyl book and papers, is quite simple. Bottom line is that formulation of B field velocity comes from fact, that actually there is a real matter, that travels with speed in that point. And when we consider, that speed comes from real matter traveling in space, we know, that it is limited with "c" (even next generation LHC could only accelerate protons to speed of 0.9999999999999*c), that is quite well proved fact.

Of course, there is another aspect - we will never measure speeds faster that "c" if we continue to observe world in transverse waves, which travel's with speed "c".

And yet. We see in Meyl's papers - if we turn magnet, we induce E-field. BUT in experiment video posted above, we clearly see - if we turn magnet, induced E-field is zero. Experiment is quite easy, and should be replicated by anyone interested in scalar waves. If Meyl would have explained that, It would be okay with me. But I can't find, where he directly says, why is that so. There could be explanations, like, if we observe as we do, we can't detect induced E-field because that can be doable only by measuring objectively. Don't know. But he doesn't. And that bothers me.

In the very same link I posted here is Richard Feynman comment on that situation, he is really good in explaining stuff. Reading Feynman's lectures is really valuable thing.
"The "flux rule" does not work in this case. It must be applied to circuits in which the material of the circuit remains the same. When the material of the circuit is changing, we must return to the basic laws. The correct physics is always given by the two basic laws
F = q(E+v x B)
curl E = - dB/dt"

The problem is - v is material particle traveling speed, not B-field.

So bottom of the bottom - still seeking for experiment, which would prove, that E/B field can travel with non-limited speed without induction, that is, change in time.

[Guest]

Normal science forgets that Tesla called Einstein the emperor without clothes and he even sent him a letter explaining he was a complete looser who did not even recognize aether and never understood was "fission" was about. His special theory of relativity is almost completely useless and irrelevant and the general one is deducted from inside an E-field which he did not realize, giving all those strange effects of light etc. "Double nature of light", Meyl must be laughing, they never understood the double vortex effects.

Einstein never built anything, how can you know how the world is functioning without ever building anything? You will guess alot but it is like a fantasy. This is where Meyl has his greatness, he has built many things and even offers something on the web. And it seems like it is working if you ask those who bought it.

Well the world surely is not optimal and you need to change it. Meyl will not be accepted in 10 years or 20 years. Maybe in 100 years if the world exists like we know it by then.

[Tehnoman]

Let's just forget about Einstein, I try to talk about logic.

Meyl states something in his book/papers/presentations, but experiment shows otherwise. Is Meyl true? Can Meyl's theory be accepted?

[boguslaw]

Some part of it, yes. If we rotate conductor disc in no field what's so ever, we will measure voltage, we have calculated it in University. Yet it is so damn small, in range of micro-Volts. In comparison, same rotating speed in common neodymium magnet field would result in much higher voltage, that is somewhere between 1 to 10 Volts.

Here is one video of experiment.
Faraday's Law: A Paradox Experiment
(...)

Unfortunately that only proves our instruments are able to measure current flow as a stream of particles :-(

Maybe solution is quite easy : free electrons in normal state are waves, but magnetic field cause a lot of new waves and/or a lot of reflections and interference.When this happens wave package occurs - particle.It can also obtain various other features like sustained vortex for example.Once we assume instantaneous transmission of quantum wave,reflection, interference and vortex - we will have new physics.

[Tehnoman]

So basically You say - we don't know how to measure E-field.

That I could accept, our ordinary multimeter measures low amperage current over very high resistance and from that current value determines E-field or potential difference.

Yet, that should be pointed out in description in Faraday's experiment. Ordinary E-field we can measure with our multimeter, of that I'm sure. So - where is the difference?

[Dingus]

It looks like some of his videos have been taken down from youtube due to "terms of use violation." The 2003 demonstration is still on Google Video at least.

Towards the end of the 2003 demonstration, he says something about modulating scalar waves to transmit information for use in hospitals. In the video he says that the waves transmitted are scalar waves at about 7.2Mhz. If it is frequency dependent, correct me if I'm wrong, then it's safe to assume that information is amplitude modulated ?

[boguslaw]

So basically You say - we don't know how to measure E-field.

That I could accept, our ordinary multimeter measures low amperage current over very high resistance and from that current value determines E-field or potential difference.

Yet, that should be pointed out in description in Faraday's experiment. Ordinary E-field we can measure with our multimeter, of that I'm sure. So - where is the difference?

Particles. Our instruments measure E-field based on particles called electrons, it doesn't measure electricity when electrons are straight quantum waves.
In other way - we are assuming that E-field is a force generated by particle, while particle is an effect of interference of force waves reflected by boundary.
Electron in wave form has energy but has no mass in my opinion.And no localization in space like particle.No resistance to movement so it is natural superconductor.

Radiant energy ?

[Tehnoman]

It looks like some of his videos have been taken down from youtube due to "terms of use violation." The 2003 demonstration is still on Google Video at least.

Towards the end of the 2003 demonstration, he says something about modulating scalar waves to transmit information for use in hospitals.[..]

Yeah, I see that. Good thing I downloaded these clips.

Particles. Our instruments measure E-field based on particles called electrons, it doesn't measure electricity when electrons are straight quantum waves.
In other way - we are assuming that E-field is a force generated by particle, while particle is an effect of interference of force waves reflected by boundary.
Electron in wave form has energy but has no mass in my opinion.And no localization in space like particle.No resistance to movement so it is natural superconductor.

Radiant energy ?

Well, we measure current only through current induced magnetic field (at least that is basic DC ammeter). I don't know experiment, where we would try to understand - treat current as particle flow or not. The theory is that current is charged particle flow indeed. So we think we measure particle flow. Actually we don't know. We just know, that if we induce Electric field, current occurs and current induces magnetic field. Also we know, E-field interacts with charged stationary objects, they feel force. So the conclusion - current is flow of stationary charged particles.

So, if rotating magnetic field induces E-field that doesn't act on charged particles, then it is a new kind of E field, never observed before. The question is - whether it's still Electric field if it doesn't interact with charged particles...

What are our options? Wave interferometry to measure induced field? Two rotating cylindrical magnets to measure induced E-field. Maybe that could be worth checking out.

Radiant energy? I have to say, from my point of view radiant energy is just name of paradox or phenomena we don't understand. Radiant electric field? That could be this another kind of E vector but I wouldn't yet conclude that.

[boguslaw]

Yeah, I see that. Good thing I downloaded these clips.



Well, we measure current only through current induced magnetic field (at least that is basic DC ammeter). I don't know experiment, where we would try to understand - treat current as particle flow or not. The theory is that current is charged particle flow indeed. So we think we measure particle flow. Actually we don't know. We just know, that if we induce Electric field, current occurs and current induces magnetic field. Also we know, E-field interacts with charged stationary objects, they feel force. So the conclusion - current is flow of stationary charged particles.

So, if rotating magnetic field induces E-field that doesn't act on charged particles, then it is a new kind of E field, never observed before. The question is - whether it's still Electric field if it doesn't interact with charged particles...

What are our options? Wave interferometry to measure induced field? Two rotating cylindrical magnets to measure induced E-field. Maybe that could be worth checking out.

Radiant energy? I have to say, from my point of view radiant energy is just name of paradox or phenomena we don't understand. Radiant electric field? That could be this another kind of E vector but I wouldn't yet conclude that.

We need an experiment which will show how looks current when electrons are quantum wave, not stream of particles.
I suspect that electrons flowing on conductor surface may be in some cases such waves.Because they do not meet boundary reflection waves - a source for interference. Instead of interference creating a wave packets (electrons) inside of conductor - let electrons create standing waves on surface.

[Dingus]

I'd really like to try to replicate this experiment, but first I'd need a signal generator of some kind. Preferably one that can get to to 7.2 Mhz at low power. The big problem is that I've got a fairly low budget of around $100. The best thing I could find was this: RSR 10 MHz Signal Generator the other problem is that im not sure I want to fork over that much money for something that potentially won't work.