High Voltage from Thin Air?

[lamare]

@lamare
I do like this, indeed. As you must know I must all of the time fight the battle of Near Field and Far Field. The silent ones have done the inspection and remain silent (whats new) and the vocal ones have not performed the measurements. Inspection of NF and FF one will see at once that the action can not be totally explained by either. Now your above statements, I could fight with that better than my opening a door to the lattice argument.

Yet your thoughts bring forth a question; If indeed we have a localized spatial resonance and it is caused by such a low power exciter, then there must exist a specific frequency at which the local frame can be excited and this frequency must be coming from the exciter. Of course it could be such an extreme thing as a secondary mixing of exciter output.

Also to oscillate such a large area as the exciters will do leads to a (snow ball effect)? A possible self excitation from stimulation (does that ring a bell?).

Let's theorize a bit further. Note that I'm basically thinking out loud, so I might be totally wrong, but that's what science is all about, right?

Ok. First of all, the question: Can a localized spatial resonance exist?

In order to answer that question, we need to look at the question wether or not the electric field, or charge, can exist without charge carriers. As you know, electrons can be considered as being EM waves, as can *all* matter. How on earth can *any* matter exist, if charge itself must be carried by a charge carrier consisting of matter, of mass?

Thomas Bearden says it like this:

New Tesla Electromagnetics & the Secrets of Electrical Free Energy (1984, Bearden)

"In present electromagnetics theory, charge and charged mass are
falsely made identical. Actually, on a charged particle, the "charge" is
the flux of virtual particles on the "bare particle" of observable mass.
The charged particle is thus a "system" of true massless charge
coupled to a bare chargeless mass. The observable "mass" is static,
three-dimensional, and totally spatial. "Charge" is dynamic, four-
dimensional or more, virtual and spatiotemporal. Further, the charge
and observable mass can be decoupled, contrary to present theory.
Decoupled charge -- that is, the absence of mass -- is simply what we
presently refer to as "vacuum." Vacuum, spacetime, and massless
charge are all identical. Rigorously, we should utilize any of these
three as an "ether," as suggested for vacuum by Einstein himself (see
Max Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Revised Edition, Dover
Publications, New York, 1965, p. 224). And all three of them are
identically anenergy -- not energy, but more fundamental components
of energy."

The most important part:

"Decoupled charge -- that is, the absence of mass -- is simply what we
presently refer to as "vacuum." Vacuum, spacetime, and massless
charge are all identical."

In other words: charge is something like a property of the vacuum itself and therefore pure electrical spational resonance can exist.

In the following article, Bearden states:
http://www.cheniere.org/articles/How...crisis1-1b.pdf

"Every joule of observable energy in the universe comes from the source charge (and its vacuum polarization) or a source dipole. In every EM system. It always has, and it always will. We live in the midst of an incredible number of "free EM energy emitters", called "charges and dipoles", that continually extract and outpour EM energy directly from the seething vacuum."

This matches quite nicely with what Prof. Claus Turtur writes in chapter "A circulation of energy of the electrostatic field":
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf

"If electrostatic fields propagate with the speed of light, they transport energy, because they have a certain energy density [Chu 99]. It should be possible to trace this transport of energy if is really existing. That this is really the case can be seen even with a simple example regarding a point charge, as will be done on the following pages. When we trace this energy we come to situation, which looks paradox at the very first glance, but the paradox can be dissolved, introducing a circulation of energy [e5].
[...]
The first aspect of the mentioned paradox regards the emission of energy at all1 [e16]. If a point charge (for instance an elementary charge) exists since a given moment in time, it emits electric field and field’s energy from the time of its birth without any alteration of its mass.
The volume of the space filled with this field increases permanently during time and with it the total energy of the field. But from where does this “new energy” originate ? For the charged particle does not alter its mass (and thus its energy), the “new energy” can not originate from the particle itself. This means: The charged particle has to be permanently supplied with energy from somewhere.
[...]
The energy within the spherical shell [..] can now be calculated as the Volume integral [...] Obviously, this energy is not zero. This means that the charge (which is the field source) indeed emits energy permanently. By the way, this is a mathematical reproduction of the first paradox."


Now that leads to a very interesting thought. If charge is a property of the vacuum itself, is present everywhere, and emits energy all of the time, which is unfortunately "static", or "non-diverging" as Bearden calls it, what would happen if we transmit pure voltage waves, making "it" dynamic and we apply good old Huygens principle?

It looks like we might indeed get "self excitation from stimulation" in the vacuum itself, which would explain the working principle of Tesla's "magnifying transmitter"...

Now back to the question "what's mass got to do with it?"

Apparantly, mass somehow couples the electric field and the magnetic field and can be considered as a vortex, according to Meyl.
So, by moving charged, spinning particles (mass) around, you create both electric and magnetic fields. The (momentarily) separation of charged particles creates an electric dipole, which creates an electric field, which can emit pure electric waves in the vacuum. The *movement* of spinning particles with a *mass* can create magnetic fields, while the two together can create an EM field.

Now if you drive an "open pipe" *outside* a coil using a current *inside* the coil, and you consider that the *outside* resonance frequency differs from the *inside* resonance frequency, you only excite the *outside* resonance, the electric wave, the scalar wave, while the movement of the electrons and thus the magnetic field component remains fairly small, because the *inside* particle-based current is *not* in resonance.

So, what's mass gotta do with it?
It probably kills your scalar wave if you let it move around in resonance...

[lamare]

It probably kills your scalar wave if you let it move around in resonance...

Hmm. Let me rephrase that:

It taps of energy from your scalar wave and converts it to electromagnetic energy if you let it resonate. That suggests that your reciever coils need to have a different inductance then your transmitter coils to make it optimal. You have to match the *inner* resonance frequency of your receiver coils to the *outside* resonance frequency of your transmitter coils...

Do watch out if you try this!
It might actually work and if it does, it might output a considerable amount of power.

[DrStiffler]

Hmm. Let me rephrase that:

It taps of energy from your scalar wave and converts it to electromagnetic energy if you let it resonate. That suggests that your reciever coils need to have a different inductance then your transmitter coils to make it optimal. You have to match the *inner* resonance frequency of your receiver coils to the *outside* resonance frequency of your transmitter coils...

Do watch out if you try this!
It might actually work and if it does, it might output a considerable amount of power.

@lamare

I was hoping as I read the last of your last post that you would reconsider the death of the scalar waves. As Dr. Meyl states, he feels the vortex rolls back up at the receiving antenna and if this is correct it is no longer scalar but would become EM within the mass of the antenna? So in short it does not die, it converts.

A simple test will confirm the effect and yes you do need a different coil at the receiver. I have a small unit running today that uses a 65uH coil on the Exciter and a 650uH on the receiver that is some 2m removed from the exciter. The antenna is similar to Meyl in that I use Al spheres.

So what I see here is that there is a possible downshift. But I still am not of the firm understanding that we can view this at the freq level.

[DrStiffler]

One Wire and a Ball

@All

Today was a good day. 12m single wire driven with small capacitor ball at 1W and driving 14 Super White LEDs on the end.

My challenge is, who can replicate?

http://67.76.235.52/images/swpb00.gif

http://67.76.235.52/images/swpb01.gif

[lamare]

@lamare

I was hoping as I read the last of your last post that you would reconsider the death of the scalar waves. As Dr. Meyl states, he feels the vortex rolls back up at the receiving antenna and if this is correct it is no longer scalar but would become EM within the mass of the antenna? So in short it does not die, it converts.

A simple test will confirm the effect and yes you do need a different coil at the receiver. I have a small unit running today that uses a 65uH coil on the Exciter and a 650uH on the receiver that is some 2m removed from the exciter. The antenna is similar to Meyl in that I use Al spheres.

So what I see here is that there is a possible downshift. But I still am not of the firm understanding that we can view this at the freq level.

Yes, I did reconsidered that, that was the purpose of my last post...
However, if you would be able to convert a large percentage of the scalar wave into an EM wave, I do guess you *could* get a considerable influence back from the generated EM wave, possibly even up to locally converting the scalar wave at the reciever into a full-blown EM wave.

And yes, I totally agree that you can convert a scalar wave into EM inside the mass of your antenna, or, to be more specific, by bringing the electrons inside your antenna or receiver coil into resonance.

Let me explain this the way I understand it now.

I have looked at the presentations by Meyl, where he shows two distinct resonance frequencies in his scalar energy transmission system, IIRC the "normal" EM resonance frequency was about 4.8 MHz while the "scalar" resonance frequency was about 7.2 MHz.

This is the factor 1.5 Meyl and Dollard attribute to the higher propagation speed of scalar waves, but which might also be caused by the open vs. one-side-closed pipe analogy idea. In the latter case, this factor might be variable, mostly dependent on the actual EM propagation speed within your specific coil arrangement.

The key difference between scalar waves and EM waves is the strength of the magnetic component in relation to the electric component. According to Bearden, in practical scalar waves the magnetic component is very weak, but never completely absent.

If we assume the distinct resonance frequencies can be attributed to a resonance of either the electrons inside the wires moving back and forth or the eather itself resonating outside the wires, it is clear that in the first case you have a significant magnetic component, caused by the oscillating electrons, while in the latter case, the electron movement is much weaker since they are not resonating themselves, and that is why you have a significantly smaller magnetic component and as a result you get a scalar dominant wave instead of an EM dominant wave.

In other words: if you want the electrons to move, you have to use the first, "normal" EM resonance frequency, if you want them to stay almost put, you use the second, "scalar" frequency.

Now to your case. You have a scalar resonance frequency of about 12 MHz. If this theory is correct, you should see an EM resonance frequency in your coils at about 8 MHz.

I found the following formula somewhere on the net, to calculate an aproximation of the self-resonance frequency of a coil:

--::--

                 (1/5)
    29.85 x (H/D)
F = -------------------
     N x D

(hope the ascii came out)
where
F= self resonant frequency in Mhz of an 'isolated' coil
H= coil height in meters
D= coil diameter in meters
N= total number of turns

--::--

If we look at your coil, about 63 turns with a diameter of 17 mm, wire thickness of about 0,51 mm and I assume 10% space between the windings to calculate the coil height, I get an EM self-resonance freqency of about 9,3 MHz using this formula. Multiply that with 1,5 and we get a scalar self resonance frequency of about 14 Mhz, pretty close to the actual 12 MHz, IIRC (I hope I do, cause if you're actually running at 9-10 MHz, my whole story can be moved to the trash can).

Now if you'd want your reciever coil to convert the 12 MHz scalar wave into EM energy, you'd want a coil with an *EM* self-resonance frequency of about 12 MHz. Since my calculation was a bit of, I have only varied the number of turns to see what number of turns would result in a theoretical self resonance frequency of 14 MHz, which I assume will be pretty close to 12 MHz in practice.

With the same parameters, I get a resonance frequency of about 14 MHz at 38 instead of 63 turns.

So, if you have a transmitter coil of 63 turns, 17 mm diameter, I suggest you try a reciever coil of the same diameter and other characteristics with 38 turns or so instead of 63.

The 63 turns should give you a 12 MHz scalar self-resonance frequency, while the 38 turns should give you a matching 12 MHz EM self-resonance frequency, which should be optimal for converting a 12 MHz scalar wave into an EM wave inside your coil.

[lamare]

Here is my excel sheet that I used to calculate the coils.

There is also an attempt to work with the wire-lengths, but these are way of what practice shows, even though you do see a factor of about 1.3. Probably I made a mistake somewhere, but I can't find it. Maybe someone else spots it....

You'll have to rename the .doc to .xls after download, since xls is not allowed as attachment.


The gif mentioned in one of the referred articles can be found at:
http://web.archive.org/web/200502192...uk/tmp/ph1.gif

[lamare]

Here is my excel sheet that I used to calculate the coils.

I found the error, now both theoretical approximations match. However, they don't match the measurements anymore


However, it might very well be that the theory turns out to be correct after all. The theoretical first scalar resonance frequency at 42 MHz is the 4th harmonic of 10,5 MHz, which comes pretty close to the oscillation frequency of the SEC, which might also explain why you get so much more output if you remove the 1M bias resistor. Anyway, it appears we need to confirm theory and practice by doing a frequency sweep of L2 with a signal generator and measure the actual resonance frequencies that are present. It would be interesting to see if there are any differences between driving the coil with one lead only (i.e. "open") and with a load (i.e. "closed"). In the latter case, I expect the scalar frequencies to be much weaker.

Another thing: with the corrected formulas, assuming we are actually working with the 4th harmonic, we get a matching pair with 63 turns at the transmitter and 42 at the reciever coil.

[DrStiffler]

I found the error, now both theoretical approximations match. However, they don't match the measurements anymore


However, it might very well be that the theory turns out to be correct after all. The theoretical first scalar resonance frequency at 42 MHz is the 4th harmonic of 10,5 MHz, which comes pretty close to the oscillation frequency of the SEC, which might also explain why you get so much more output if you remove the 1M bias resistor. Anyway, it appears we need to confirm theory and practice by doing a frequency sweep of L2 with a signal generator and measure the actual resonance frequencies that are present. It would be interesting to see if there are any differences between driving the coil with one lead only (i.e. "open") and with a load (i.e. "closed"). In the latter case, I expect the scalar frequencies to be much weaker.

@lamare
In the lab in a few hours and will (send) you all the coil data and actual freq. Excellent work. Until yo receive the info, its 10.6MHz best mode and another mode of 9.2MHz.

Your the first person.....

[lamare]

In the lab in a few hours and will (send) you all the coil data and actual freq.

While you're at it, it might be interesting to also keep an eye on the amount of power drawn at the different resonance peaks. The scalar peaks should draw considerable less power.

[DrStiffler]

Question for All

Lamare & @All

Inter-dimensional Signaling with Scalar Waves, now if that isn’t a subject.

If as Tesla, Meyl and Lamare state, Scalar Waves may travel at 1.5c we have a slight problem in that they would be required to travel inter-dimensionally, and along with a very weak EM component would be very hard to detect by any tuned circuit unless some mass in the circuit was doing the detection/conversion rather than the LC resonance of some coil capacitor circuit

If this is the case then the classical formula for determining resonance of a tuned circuit is useless. We would need a formula that uses mass and its resonant frequency as a detector prior to the conversion back into Transverse form.

So does that imply that we can shield our LC circuit from environmental EM in some conventional way and detect with the proper mass collector that will see scalar wave in the shield, the scalar wave and pass out of the shield the result.

Please let me know if we are going to far here in the thread. It appears that Lamare has a very good understanding and we could proceed down this line, although I wonder if it is to extreme for the thread???

[Tecstatic]

Lamare & @All

Inter-dimensional Signaling with Scalar Waves, now if that isn’t a subject.

If as Tesla, Meyl and Lamare state, Scalar Waves may travel at 1.5c we have a slight problem in that they would be required to travel inter-dimensionally, and along with a very weak EM component would be very hard to detect by any tuned circuit unless some mass in the circuit was doing the detection/conversion rather than the LC resonance of some coil capacitor circuit

If this is the case then the classical formula for determining resonance of a tuned circuit is useless. We would need a formula that uses mass and its resonant frequency as a detector prior to the conversion back into Transverse form.

So does that imply that we can shield our LC circuit from environmental EM in some conventional way and detect with the proper mass collector that will see scalar wave in the shield, the scalar wave and pass out of the shield the result.

Please let me know if we are going to far here in the thread. It appears that Lamare has a very good understanding and we could proceed down this line, although I wonder if it is to extreme for the thread???

For my part I'm here to learn. It will be nice though when the discussion is spiced with something to replicate.

lamare is IMHO a fresh breath of air for the thread, and I welcome you lamare.

The things discussed, I have skimmed previously, now it is time for me to go to second round and get some deeper understanding hopefully to approach the level of lamare and you Doc eventually.

Recently I have had other stuff to take care of, I hope to get a period of more peace and quiet for reading now.

If I remember right, around 18 months ago Meyl had a communication set for sale, but now I can not find the set.
I do not know the range, by it was meant for wire free data acquisition in factories.
It is a great advantage you can instrument the machines without all the cabling work.

The main station delivers power to the sub-stations. The communication can be full duplex as I understand it, and the modulation of the information is 2-dimensional.

------

Regarding my SEC I get slow progress. All coils are now spiral PCB coils, and right now I have 57 LEDs connected, very bright. I expect to be capable to connect more LEDS as it is now, I will make diagram, layout and PCB's for SEC, LEDs and coils within the next few days.

One thing is a bit sad. Several has participated and learned from this thread, reported their work, got results, reported results, but not how they got there.

I was maybe naively thinking this forum is about Open Source, but maybe not all look it this way. The reasons for the silence may be NDA, greed, fear, minimizing risk or something else I may have missed.

Anyway I'm not an easy quitter, I'm a newbie in RF, so I will continue to learn more about RF and the tips and tricks, that can not be a step in the wrong direction.

By the way the coil calculator link from a previous post is not accurate (link given by amigo). This calculator is better, note the references at the bottom of the page.

RF Inductance Calculator - HAMwaves.com

Eric

[DrStiffler]

For my part I'm here to learn. It will be nice though when the discussion is spiced with something to replicate.

lamare is IMHO a fresh breath of air for the thread, and I welcome you lamare.

The things discussed, I have skimmed previously, now it is time for me to go to second round and get some deeper understanding hopefully to approach the level of lamare and you Doc eventually.

Recently I have had other stuff to take care of, I hope to get a period of more peace and quiet for reading now.

If I remember right, around 18 months ago Meyl had a communication set for sale, but now I can not find the set.
I do not know the range, by it was meant for wire free data acquisition in factories.
It is a great advantage you can instrument the machines without all the cabling work.

The main station delivers power to the sub-stations. The communication can be full duplex as I understand it, and the modulation of the information is 2-dimensional.

------

Regarding my SEC I get slow progress. All coils are now spiral PCB coils, and right now I have 57 LEDs connected, very bright. I expect to be capable to connect more LEDS as it is now, I will make diagram, layout and PCB's for SEC, LEDs and coils within the next few days.

One thing is a bit sad. Several has participated and learned from this thread, reported their work, got results, reported results, but not how they got there.

I was maybe naively thinking this forum is about Open Source, but maybe not all look it this way. The reasons for the silence may be NDA, greed, fear, minimizing risk or something else I may have missed.

Anyway I'm not an easy quitter, I'm a newbie in RF, so I will continue to learn more about RF and the tips and tricks, that can not be a step in the wrong direction.

By the way the coil calculator link from a previous post is not accurate (link given by amigo). This calculator is better, note the references at the bottom of the page.

RF Inductance Calculator - HAMwaves.com

Eric

@Tecstatic
If you should be unhappy with anyone it should be me and not replicators. I started out and still continue to require individual thought and learning. Sometimes this method can contain faults. Think for a minute about mastering a task you work at with diligence and dedication until to have mastered the task. Now a friend wishes to do the same and as you explain it would you have a slight bend to, 'hey, its not so hard', just to this and that. Many times we suppress the effort we expended getting there and maybe we just don't want to discourage our friend from the pursuit.

I may upset many replicators, but I would guess that less than one in ten understand what they labored to build. Built very nice displays yet what its all about is still out there.

Lamare is one of the first people in over two years that came with valid information with the determination to help, rather than debunk or defame. He has a deeper knowledge of whats under the sheets so to speak. I have tried over the years to obtain replications without requiring anyone to worry about
the things that have been posted in the last number of posts.

Unless we are going to do a paper of need to build very large systems, this under the sheet knowledge is not required for replication and I am not sure if it should be continued in the thread, still thinking on that.

So if you want deeper info it may require direct contact with me.

[Tecstatic]

@All

My previous post was not meant to be rude, I would just like to see a little more interactive help between the participants as seen on other threads. If anyone felt insulted, please accept my excuse.

@Doc

My biggest problem is probably that I'm more often than not have success first attempt inside my competences. Being a newbie at RF, I have had to learn the tricks of RF and test my understanding during experiments. Compared to my normal activities, this has not been so easy as I could wish. I'm slowly getting into the game. I guess I have to be a little more patient, It's not that long ago I started working on the SEC, much to read, see and understand.

When I joined the EnergeticForum one of the first things I posted about was Meyl. I was very impressed by his videos and documents, and I have had the pleasure to try his boat set myself during a lecture.

I have cheated with your replication challenge, because of the coil with 12m wire is a bit tricky to to get to the right resonance.

As a start I instead took my home made spiral coil PCB with a alu foil covered Christmas tree ball (bought several sizes last Christmas).

It resonates nicely at 2.64MHz, 3.54V@2.8mA, approx 10mW fed one wire from my signal generator through a 1k resistor to the beginning of the inner fine spiral.
I have 8 10mm LEDs fed from the AV plug at approx 1/3 of full brightness. I can also light 32 LEDs but not as bright.

The loss is quite small with this PCB coil.

Maybe I will scale the coil to match the SEC, it could be worth a try.

And thank you for the offer.

Eric

[sucahyo]

Think about it, a way by adjusting the frequency of an L wave to selectively cut or heat treat specific section of a mass. The potential of having your own cooling and heating in such specific area's could lad to thousands of applications.

Agree, the center of mobius coil and sea shell coil can be used to cool down a cup of water.

[dave_cahoon]

luck?

Tecstatic,

I was only able to make a successful rep because I invested
in a digital LC meter. Its a must, you can only do so much with
the geometry. It does get you in the ballpark the rest is tuning.
But matching components is made much easier with the LC meter.
I can connect it to the circuit board and measure all the way to
transistor or cap socket which is always greater than the coil alone.

I don't have a power supply, I don't have a counter or a function
generator, My o-scope is all tubes and only good for 1us per
centimeter on screen. (good only that its all tubes and works)

And, deciphering the cryptic info that's available from the leaked
diagrams and what I could remember a year+ ago when the Doc
first posted on ou.com.

And lets not forget the videos tho the steps are larger there.

That's how i got here, the rest is time and a little bit of capital.

Its difficult for me to discuss theory, Voltages, frequency's and
such when I cant measure anything on the functioning circuit...

But I admit this topic has my full attention now

Dave