Konstantin Meyl, Scalar - Faraday vs. Maxwell

[Tehnoman]

Well, you could try to build your own signal generator, internet is full of schematics for such devices. Would be cheaper, of that I'm sure, but on other hand - way complicated too...

[Tehnoman]

We need an experiment which will show how looks current when electrons are quantum wave, not stream of particles.

We need indeed. Question is - how to detect difference and is there any difference. More - to detect it, we should know that difference.

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.

Didn't catch the point. Particle flow, even if on surface, is still particle flow. Skin effect is quite well known. And about standing waves - they are direct product of interference, as far as I have been thought.

[Dingus]

Is there a way that i could use the serial, or parallel port of my computer as a signal generator? Is there a program that I can use that could do that?

[Tehnoman]

Well, You could try to use your sound card output. But then you will be limited to about 40 kHz, if your sound card is crappy, maybe even lower. And still you will need to use some kind of amplifier to do such thing.

About experimental side - there was one reason, why Meyl chose such high frequency. So that the wave we create isn't too long. Remember, Tesla used lower frequencies, in ten hertz range, but he wanted to cover all earth. We want to make localized experiment.

Serial/parallel ports - all digital, no wave generation here. You could try to use monitor output (analogue I mean), range there would be some kHz up to MHz. Still, have no idea, how to practically do that.

[broli]

Serial/parallel ports - all digital, no wave generation here. You could try to use monitor output (analogue I mean), range there would be some kHz up to MHz. Still, have no idea, how to practically do that.

If programmed right they can give you square waves.

Btw I have been doing the same kind of research this past month on the homopolar motor principle and it's far more subtle than your self justifying explanation.

I have been questioning myself the induction "law". Faraday just saw it as a quantitatively formulation of his experiments. Yet Maxwell made a nasty soup of it all that even led physicists up and down steep slopes with little conclusions. The vague formulation Maxwell made which seems to be the Lorentz force in disguise doesn't help either.

But there's a very easy way to get rid of the induction law entirely and solely use the Lorentz force law. We all know this law relates forces to moving charges in B fields. But how does this account for changing flux of a closed loop? Well it's quite simple.

If you consider that the magnetic field NEVER changes then just describe what happens with the loop when the B-field increases/decreases experimentally wise. When the B-field increases/decreases what you can say is that the loop is GROWING/SHRINKING. This growing/shrinking has a velocity component which leads you back to the Lorentz force which you can determine the E field very effectively with. Same counts for when the B-field gets weaker. And that's pretty much it.

This means that the induction law is just a case of the Lorentz force law. Which means there can always be an electrical field as long if you have charge is moving not linear to a B-field . Regardless whether that field changes or not. Faraday's homopolar motor/generator is a good example of this.

[Tehnoman]

If programmed right they can give you square waves.

Of course, I meant we can't get sinusoidal waves out of them, and thus can't repeat Meyl's experiment, because he used sinusoidal ones!

Btw I have been doing the same kind of research this past month on the homopolar motor principle and it's far more subtle than your self justifying explanation.

I have been questioning myself the induction "law". Faraday just saw it as a quantitatively formulation of his experiments. Yet Maxwell made a nasty soup of it all that even led physicists up and down steep slopes with little conclusions. The vague formulation Maxwell made which seems to be the Lorentz force in disguise doesn't help either.

But there's a very easy way to get rid of the induction law entirely and solely use the Lorentz force law. We all know this law relates forces to moving charges in B fields. But how does this account for changing flux of a closed loop? Well it's quite simple.

If you consider that the magnetic field NEVER changes then just describe what happens with the loop when the B-field increases/decreases experimentally wise. When the B-field increases/decreases what you can say is that the loop is GROWING/SHRINKING. This growing/shrinking has a velocity component which leads you back to the Lorentz force which you can determine the E field very effectively with. Same counts for when the B-field gets weaker. And that's pretty much it.

This means that the induction law is just a case of the Lorentz force law. Which means there can always be an electrical field as long if you have charge is moving not linear to a B-field . Regardless whether that field changes or not. Faraday's homopolar motor/generator is a good example of this.

Well, I have never doubted that explanation could be something more that I say. But also I have never doubted that explanation would be simple. Of course, there is this language difference, but I hope that is not the biggest issue.

About Lorentz force - yes, yes, yes. That is the basic law, not the induction law. And still - Lorentz force doesn't justify what Meyl did - invented moving B field and thus generalized expression E = v x B! The velocity "v", that comes from Lorentz force, is velocity of real particle, so limited with light speed and not arbitrary, like Meyl says. Why limited? We have built such huge particle accelerators, but there is no evidence that particle can be accelerated faster than speed of light.

Feynman in his lectures showed example for both cases - one, in which induction law doesn't work, one, in which Faraday's law E = v x B doesn't work. In both cases explanation could be found using basic Lorentz force law: F = q[E+ (v x B)]

The very basic question - is there such thing as moving B field? Mayl says - there is. Lorentz force - we don't know, but our speed is speed of particle!

[sucahyo]

Of course, I meant we can't get sinusoidal waves out of them, and thus can't repeat Meyl's experiment, because he used sinusoidal ones!

This seems to go along with rife experiment by Bedini:
My Work on Rife

I have repeated this test using a square wave into the AZ-58 transmitter. It is as I expected, the square wave does not have the correct fundamentals in this band to work with this transmitter. See it here http://icehouse.net/john34/square111.mpg. The Square wave has all odd harmonics as can be seen below. I have, however, found where the resonate frequency is of this piezo crystal is using a square wave. The square wave produces the same voltage level. For example, if the sine wave audio is at 36.99 kHz for this crystal, the square wave will be at 74.063kHz, and both waves will produce a 5 volt output level from the crystal. See http://icehouse.net/john34/square222.mpg. My conclusion is that either wave will work but you must be much higher in frequency with a square wave to get the same effect. The transmitter must accept a full audio spectrum from 10Hz to 150Khz. I have only done this with "tubes" so far.


10/30/05

The sine wave does something very different.

[lamare]

Thing I was talking about was why in the hell in general science the scalar waves are left out. And the bottom line was - we don't know why. There is no logic again.

You might want to read this then:

Site:LRP:The Deliberate Curtailment of Nikola Tesla's Primary Energy Source - PESWiki

"Tom Bearden and Leslie R. Pastor discuss how the present electrical engineering model (and practice) was severely curtailed to exclude overunity (COP>1.0) electrical power systems that take their excess electromagnetic energy directly from their interaction with the active medium (vacuum/spacetime). "

"The purpose of this paper is to reveal the iron suppression of Tesla and his dream of giving the world free electrical energy extracted directly from the active medium (the active vacuum/spacetime itself). The electrical engineering model taught and studied in all our universities, beginning in the 1890s, was also ruthlessly curtailed to cast out all asymmetric Maxwellian systems and to also discard Heaviside’s odd and nearly incredible giant curled EM energy flow component actually accompanying every far more feeble Poynting energy flow in every EM system or circuit. Following the decimation of Tesla around the turn of the century, similar tactics have continued against follow-on inventors who discovered overunity systems and attempted to complete them and bring them to market. The suppression continues to this day, as can be attested by several living overunity inventors and inventor groups. For more than a century there has indeed been a giant, unwritten conspiracy of some of the most powerful cartels on earth, to continue the curtailment of the electrical engineering model and practice, and to continue to suppress overunity inventions and inventors."

[Tehnoman]

Yes, I am familiar with all these conspiracy theories and quite many pro and contra arguments. All quite logical.

Yet, do You know, how quantum physics was born? The main reason for the event was so called UV (Ultra Violet) catastrophe, that is, in absolutely black body case radiation energy in UV wave length should be infinite from our known theories, but in experiments was proven otherwise. And so was founded quantum physics by Max Planck.

I believe that same stands true today for general science - If in experiment is observed behavior that can't be described with our present theories, then we should seek for a new one. As simple as that.

And the thing that bothers me, is that there is no known evidence of that behavior. Of course, that could be because of this secrecy and suppression. But - after all, I won't believe if I won't be able to found experimental proof. These "one man said that someone out there did" doesn't count.

As for this K.Meyl story. I have some update. And some conclusions.
1) From two field equations expressed as E = - v x B and H = v x D (bear in mind, that signs are swapped, otherwise result wouldn't be as we expect) Maxwell equations can be derived indeed.
2) Math, which is presented in Meyl's papers is total gibberish, sorry to say that, but it's true. The swapped signs is only beginning, it continues to wrong differential identities (don't know, how he got to them) and I don't want to think, what is coming next.
3) His given interpretation about scalar EM wave lacks some basics. I have figured it out down to circulating "zero-frequency" transverse wave, that travels in perpendicular to it's circulation plane, but the basic that lacks is connection to field velocity nature or in other words - why in the hell that wave should circulate?

There is one known case, when EM wave changes it's direction - presence of gravitational field. But oh well, I should look in to this problem more than I have done yet.

I am a little bit confused now, but I will continue to think about this matter. One is clear - Meyl theories is incomplete to say the least. There could be something, but there is very much to do.

To be clear - I verified my self all mathematical identities and vector field identities from the very definition. So I stand before my all three conclusions.

Ok, I haven't tried using complex vectors, but - neither does Meyl .

[Tehnoman]

By the way.

Someone in this thread mentioned earlier, that they would like to build Meyl's suggested experimental setup.

Quite a time has passed, so I am wondering - has anyone done it?

[broli]

Tehnoman, I believe no one did.

I re-watched and reread the meyl story and my understanding has slightly increased. The first time the vector calculus was above my head but now it's a bit better.

But besides that the most important part are the general claims. He says the reason why the near field of an antenna is noise only is because it's emitting longitudinal waves that have a changing velocity. And thus the frequency is changing as well and thus you have numerous frequencies which is noise.

Now this is confusing me a bit. When we consider the sound wave then indeed the air particles would move back and forward and their velcoity is constantly changing but the wave itself would have a forward constant speed. Applying this to an electrical field it would mean that the E-field would oscillate in magnitude along the speed of the wave. But the rate of oscillations should remain constant. Thus I don't see how this would give a changing frequency.

His longitudinal changing electrical field makes sense though if you assume the transmitter/receiver is an open capacitor which has field lines going from one terminal to the other. This is also what he shows. So then that would mean that the electro magnetic waves we know are just part of the equation which he also shows.

What he doesn't show is how to reduce the math to a more empirical and experimental form so that experiments in scalar waves could be compared to the math easily. Just like Ohm's law (U=R*I) or Faraday's law (U= BVL).

So I think what this all comes down to is. That we need to work in the near field! His experimental kit shows two special frequencies (f). Since both light up the leds he assumes that the wavelength (h) is equal. What this then means is that the propagation speed is not equal because v=f*h where h is contant. When calculating the speed from this assumption you will then notice the speed from the 2nd frequency is 1.54x faster than the first.
Since the first is easily shield able and the transmitter does not respond to the receiver this is assumed to be the well known hertzian wave. On the other hand the second frequency is hard to shield and the transmitter responds to the receiver and this is thus assumed to be the longitudinal wave.

It would be interesting if he could derive this from his Laplace equation, because I don't see how two frequencies can give the same wave length when he first assumes that the near field of any given frequency is the magic area.

[Tehnoman]

Tehnoman, I believe no one did.

Yeah, I'm starting to believe that too. That's a shame. But oh well, I have started to build my own version of it, so I hope I will do it eventually.

I re-watched and reread the meyl story and my understanding has slightly increased. The first time the vector calculus was above my head but now it's a bit better.

Well, I feel quite comfortable in vector field theory (tensor field theory is quite harder), and have spent more quality time with Meyl theory and his shown maths.

Know I can one hundred percent sure say, that his expressions E = - v x B and H = v x D is wrong. Using such identities, we can't acquire correct transformer description. Deriving these equations I got that alternating current with frequency "f" from primary winding induces alternating voltage in secondary winding with frequency two times higher "2 f". That is so wrong.

But besides that the most important part are the general claims. He says the reason why the near field of an antenna is noise only is because it's emitting longitudinal waves that have a changing velocity. And thus the frequency is changing as well and thus you have numerous frequencies which is noise.
[..]
What he doesn't show is how to reduce the math to a more empirical and experimental form so that experiments in scalar waves could be compared to the math easily. Just like Ohm's law (U=R*I) or Faraday's law (U= BVL).
[..]
So I think what this all comes down to is. That we need to work in the near field! His experimental kit shows two special frequencies (f). Since both light up the leds he assumes that the wavelength (h) is equal...
[..]

General ideas is ok. But nothing more. We can't do with his mathematical description absolutely nothing, it is just incorrect. And I believe that is also the cause of simple equation (except E = - v x B and H = v x D) absence.

Experiment is interesting, but I tend to question his explanations very carefully. Don't believe he has proved anything. So I am building my own version of his experiment, ball electrodes are finished. Now I just have to make two pancake coils and then it is all set.

[broli]

Good to see someone working on it. I'm sure you'll be able to replicate it as it seems very simple. I hope you can get the same effect but not necessarily same numbers. That is that you can get radio frequencies at a certain frequency and about 1.54x higher frequency you get the longitudinal waves that transmit energy nearly at 100% efficiency or higher due to other transmitters on this planet or the whole universe.

I think the distance will be directly proportional to the amplitude of voltage.

It's really a shame he's not promoting this tech better. The kit has an outrageous price compared to what the separate components cost.

When I have some money in the bank I hope to get an oscilloscope and either buy or build a signal generator to perform this experiment.

[Tehnoman]

Oh yes, the price he is asking is way too high.

Well, I intend to use equipment from my univeristy, so I won't have to spend enormous amounts of money for quality signal generator and oscilloscope.

And about replication - of course I am searching for effect not numbers. I'm studying physics, I know the meaning of "experiment".

[broli]

I'm studying physics, I know the meaning of "experiment".

A lot will disagree there . Modern physics doesn't embrace experimental proof anymore. You either stick to group mentality or you're a heretic. I just hope you perform these experiments with an open mind and don't quit on the first sight of failure.