Tesla's ether theories and longitudinal waves explained in "Wardenclyffe"

[Ernst]

Actually, it was Lamare's post that prompted me to write this post about my new book "Wardenclyffe".
The title of Lamare's post describes quite well what I have also been working on and I have published my results in "The Science of Tesla's Magic". From the feedback I got from that book, I figured something more "entry-level" was needed. So I teamed up with Kyle dell'Aquila to do just that. I took bits and pieces of my earlier 4 books and combined those into this new book which Kyle then illustrated with over 300 illustrations.
I honestly think, this book came out as a piece of art and is an excellent entry into Tesla's work. I think the added illustrations help keep the reader on the right track as our modern-day education has become a serious obstacle to understanding Tesla's theories.
As I found that Lamare's conclusions differ significantly from mine, I didn't want to clutter up his thread with my view on the topic (and plug my latest book ).
The book "Wardenclyffe" doesn't go as deep as "The Science of Tesla's Magic" but for many, it will be easier to understand and once you understand these basics it is not hard to extend it and see why Quantum Mechanics, for example, is wrong but does predict the correct outcome of experiments. Or why light bends under the influence of gravity etc.
That said, what do I want to discuss in this thread?
- my new book and ways to promote it as both Kyle and I are no experts in the field of book promotion.
- my earlier books
- the structure of the ether (as explained in my work) and experiments to verify this.


Ernst.

[Ernst]

So let's start with Maxwell's model of the ether, from which he derived his famous equations that have propelled science (but not necessarily in the right direction).
We all know his equations but very few know how he arrived at these. According to his model, the ether consists of 4 components:
1 - there is a fluid medium upon which ...
2 - a force acts
These are the first two components and you can read in Tesla's work that he also believed in this part of the model.
Out of this interaction, 2 more components emerge:
3 - ether whirls
4 - tiny particles that move between these whirls.
These ether whirls behave like a solid. Their axes of rotation are what makes up magnetic field lines.
Although Tesla also mentions these whirls he does not say they behave like a solid, nor say anything that would relate them to magnetism.
Finally, there are these tiny particles that cause electric effects.
And this is where Tesla and Maxwell go in different directions.
According to Maxwell, these particles are electrically charged. That does not provide us with a description of what electricity is. It is explaining electricity with electricity which is indeed what modern science is also doing. This is a dead-end, this could never explain all electrical phenomena because you are just assuming that at a fundamental level electric charge suddenly appears.
Tesla's model is much more helpful in this respect. According to this, these particles form a gaseous medium that creates electric effects.
Notice the difference! These particles are not charged but they can create an electric charge in 'matter' (most likely referring to those ether whirls).
When I say 'electric effects' I refer to
- electric charge
which causes
- capacitive effects (attraction and repulsion)
and it can move creating an
- electric current
and its accompanying
- magnetic/inductive effects
As this is a gaseous medium it can ONLY support longitudinal waves. BUT you will immediately understand that these waves are very different from anything derived from Maxwell's model. Maxwell describes waves of electro-magnetic interaction, whereas these longitudinal waves are sound waves in the medium that causes electric effects.

More later.


Ernst.
(read about it in my beautifully illustrated new book "Wardenclyffe")

[lamare]

Do note that a gaseous or liquid medium does also support vortices and vortex rings. That would be your ether swirls.

That way, you can fully describe the ether as a gas/liquid, provided you remove the dB/dt and dE/dt terms from Maxwell's equations, which is what f***s the whole thing up and leads to both relativity as well as quantum magic.

Interestingly, the Helmholtz decomposition shows that there is a fundamental difference between longitudinal compression/decompression movements (Tesla's waves and the electric field) and rotational (vortex, gyroscopic) movements (Hertzian waves and the magnetic field).

Additionally, a charged particle such as an electron can be seen as a harmonic oscillator, emitting a longitudinal Tesla wave at a frequency given by it's charge/mass ratio. This way, a "charge" is simply a harmonic compression/decompression oscillator.

For the electron, this works out to about 170 GHz which corresponds to a black body tempetature of about 2.8 K. Both numbers from the back of my head.

These numbers are rather interesting when one takes a look at the observed Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), which has a peak at about 160 GHz. Red shift at play?

[Ernst]

Remove those terms and replace them with what?
We know that a changing magnetic field creates an electric field and vice versa. We use this principle in transformers. You cannot just throw that out of the equation.
Maxwell showed that he could derive the speed of light from the elasticity and density of the ether (the solid part). This has been "translated" into the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of "the vacuum". Being decoupled from the ether it had to be the same everywhere and for everyone and that led to Relativity and the other madness. Going back to Maxwell's original work, one would immediately understand that there is no reason to assume an equal density of the ether throughout the universe and that variations in this density can easily explain gravitational lensing among other observed phenomena.

I think we both are familiar with the work of Koen van Vlaenderen and how he derives two longitudinal wave equations from Maxwell's equations, one electromagnetic and one purely electric. Although I, and many more capable scientists have not been able to point out errors in Koen's work, it leads to things as magnetic potential and thus magnetic monopoles, things I am not willing to accept. The other thing is that he replaces the original Ampere's force law with Whittaker’s force law which is not based on the same ether model as the other equations.
Maxwell started out with a model of the ether and he shows that all his equations follow from this model, and thus form a consistent unit.

I remember having read about the electron as a harmonic oscillator but I didn't quite get it at that time. Can you link to some papers/videos/websites describing that idea?


Ernst.

[lamare]

Remove those terms and replace them with what?
We know that a changing magnetic field creates an electric field and vice versa. We use this principle in transformers. You cannot just throw that out of the equation.

This is a good point, but it's not actually true.

When you simply throw these terms out and don't replace them with anything else, you indeed loose the thight coupling between the time varying E and B fields. And it is said: "then you only have static fields", but the equations are exactly the same for fluid dynamics and the "static" Maxwell equations, so it's actually BS to state that these equations are static equations.

The idea that a magnetic field creates an electric field an vice versa is wrong. It comes from experiments with coils and slow varying currents. However, the actual relation between a magnetic field created by a coil and what happens at it's terminal is by *current*, not voltage. The induced voltage is a result of ohmic resistance of the coil wire and measuring equipment because a current flows. It is this explicit coupling in Maxwell's equations between the E and B field that causes only one resulting wave equation, even though there are three distinctly different wave phenomena:

1) the "near" field;
2) the "far" field;
3) longitudinal waves.

What happened is that Maxwell entangled Faraday's law with the medium model and that is the root of a lot of problems.

What you are really looking at with respect to the magnetic field created by a coil is an "irrotational vortex", strange as it may sound:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex...ional_vortices

And since Ampere's law without time dependent BS can be rewritten to:

[J] = curl [H],

We see that what we call "(spatial) current density" actually represents the vorticity ω, apart from a single constant e, the value for elemental charge. This way, all units of measurement make sense and match perfectly to the fluid dynamics domain, and we can actually understand what current IS and why Tesla's wave does NOT have "current".

However, within a(n irrotational) vortex, you need a force to get the fluid to move in circles. This force is caused by differences in pressure, a pressure gradient. This relates to the electric field by means of a gradient in the scalar potential Phi. So, an electric field is there as well, but it follows from the physics of the vortex and is NOT a fundamental relation whereby the E and B fields are always at a 90 degree angle as forced by the equation curl E = -dB/dt.

In other words: removing the time dependent terms from Maxwell leaves you with a fluid dynamics model for the medium, whereby the E/B relations associated with the presence of a magnetic field follow from vortex physics. This way, Tesla's longitudinal wave is simply the analogy of a sound wave, while the other two wave phenomena are also quite simple.

The "near" field is a "transverse" surface wave, which does not radiate itself and is akin to a "water" surface wave, involving both rotational movements as well as longitudinal ones, as shown in this picture:

WaterWaves.gif

Elmore has shown that this wave can be guided along a wire and can be used to make a very low loss, very wideband communication system:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Elmor...0Conductor.pdf



The "far" field consists of vortex rings, in the case of radio waves these are expanding vortex rings, which is not hard to see from this picture showing the radiation pattern of a Hertzian dipole:

ElectroMagneticRadiationFromOscillatingDipole.png



In the case of "particles" and "photons" these rings are stable and do not expand. A number of these vortex rings can be "sticked" together to form "particles", which finally solves that "wave particle duality" mystery:

dualtorus_big.gif

Maxwell showed that he could derive the speed of light from the elasticity and density of the ether (the solid part). This has been "translated" into the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of "the vacuum". Being decoupled from the ether it had to be the same everywhere and for everyone and that led to Relativity and the other madness. Going back to Maxwell's original work, one would immediately understand that there is no reason to assume an equal density of the ether throughout the universe and that variations in this density can easily explain gravitational lensing among other observed phenomena.

Permittivity can be equated to the mass density of the ether.
Permeability can be equated to the viscosity of the ether.

Both are not universal constants, hence no fixed speed of light.

I think we both are familiar with the work of Koen van Vlaenderen and how he derives two longitudinal wave equations from Maxwell's equations, one electromagnetic and one purely electric. Although I, and many more capable scientists have not been able to point out errors in Koen's work, it leads to things as magnetic potential and thus magnetic monopoles, things I am not willing to accept. The other thing is that he replaces the original Ampere's force law with Whittaker’s force law which is not based on the same ether model as the other equations.
Maxwell started out with a model of the ether and he shows that all his equations follow from this model, and thus form a consistent unit.

Yep, I know Koen's work. I was intrigued by the Helmholtz decomposition and noted that neither the scalar nor the magnetic potential have been uniquely defined. After quite some puzzling, I found that the Helmholtz decomposition is actually containted/hidden within the vector LaPlace operator, the second spatial derivative. All I did was take the definition for the vector LaPlace operator and labeled the terms in that equation, which is the fundamental theorem of vector calculus. Just as fundamental as Pythagoras' theorem. And from that fundamental theorem it follows that curl E = 0. So, that way one can mathematically prove that Maxwell is incorrect, because dB/dt is not the same as zero and therefore Maxwell's model is actually mathematically inconsistent. One cannot get away with violating fundamental mathematical theorems forever. This is like having Pythagoras:

a^2 + b^2 = c^2

and Maxwell writes:

a^2 + b^2 = c^2 + db/dt,

which is simply plain WRONG.

My work is based upon Paul Stowe's and we describe the ether as a fluid, which results in a model whereby all quantities are expressed in just three fundamental ones: mass, length and time.

I remember having read about the electron as a harmonic oscillator but I didn't quite get it at that time. Can you link to some papers/videos/websites describing that idea?

It is included in my paper, but the idea comes from Paul Stowe:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...39;s_Equations

In eq 16, I took Stowe's eq 25:

https://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0237v1.pdf

The important thing with this is that this way, the units of measurement around the Coulomb force map perfectly with those used within the fluid dynamics domain and it leads to an actual understanding of what charge IS. However, it does lead to a problem, namely that in our model charge is no longer polarized. There are no negative charges, which means that either our model is incorrect or that the attractive force measured with "static" charged objects is not actually caused by charge itself, but either the result of standing longitudinal waves (since all elektrons oscillate at the same frequency) or is the result of magnetic forces since electrons do have a magnetic field as well.

Note that the solution F=0 in my paper is incorrect, because if your force field is zero, your derivatives are also zero. I found the correct solution, but have not yet written that all down, partly because it may be patentable for application in simulation software. Have not decided yet whether I want to apply for a patent before publishing or not.


In a nutshell, our model starts with only two hypothesis to which we stick:

1) The ether behaves like a fluid and should therefore be described as such.
2) There is only one ether and therefore all forces of nature *must* propagate through that single medium.

[BroMikey]

This is the kind of read I enjoy. I feel that all these models in the text can be rearranged to find the perfect fit. This is the work of a lifetime. BTW this has been done on the inside of the secret projects, so keep at it as more sharing will be forced to the surface. When equations fill entire books for a single model you have a fraud. The true science of the nature of things has been deliberately clouded or hidden at key times in history.

There are enough models in the collective to get answers, you know the way.

[lamare]

This is the kind of read I enjoy. I feel that all these models in the text can be rearranged to find the perfect fit. This is the work of a lifetime. BTW this has been done on the inside of the secret projects, so keep at it as more sharing will be forced to the surface. When equations fill entire books for a single model you have a fraud. The true science of the nature of things has been deliberately clouded or hidden at key times in history.

There are enough models in the collective to get answers, you know the way.

Personally, I'm convinced that the discovery that the Helmholtz decomposition, the fundamental theorem of vector calculus, is hidden within the vector LaPlace operator will lead to a revolution in physics.

This find also has tremendous consequences for fluid dynamics and it is indisputable, since nothing but substituting the terms in the definition of the vector LaPlace operator, the second spatial derivative, with 4 symbols. Two potential fields and two fields of force.

Working it fully out is a work of a lifetime indeed and comes down to rewriting 150+ years of building upon a broken foundation.

[Ernst]

Yes, there is a lot of work that has been done here.
I'm a bit unsure how to proceed here because I want to focus on Tesla's theories and I see a number of points where your (Lamare) theory deviates from Tesla's.
You actually sum it up quite nicely in these two points:

1) The ether behaves like a fluid and should therefore be described as such.
2) There is only one ether and therefore all forces of nature *must* propagate through that single medium.

Both Maxwell and Tesla would have a problem with this. (and consequently, you have a problem with their theories).
This is also why I started a separate thread, so you can expand on your theory without being bothered with my comments which are based on my work trying to recover Tesla's theories.
I think I have been able to recover quite a bit of that, maybe 90%-ish, but there are still bits and pieces that I have not been able to reconstruct. For that reason, I am also looking at the work of others (such as Koen) and will look at your work as well. Hoping that looking at things from a different perspective will bring new insights.
That will take some time, for sure.
Some quick points though....
If you look at Maxwell's original work (1864, “A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field”) and only rewrite his 20 equations in a modern form, you'll get this:
1. J tot =J cond + ∂ D/∂t
2. ∇× A=μH
3. ∇×H =J tot
4. E=μv ×H−∂ A /∂t−∇ Φ
5. D=εE
6. E=R J cond
7. ∇⋅D= ρ
8. ∇⋅J +∂ ρ/∂t=0
You'll see your "[J] = curl [H]," as equation 3. I think the time variance that you refer to is introduced in eq. 1 as the displacement current?
You say:

the actual relation between a magnetic field created by a coil and what happens at it's terminal is by *current*, not voltage. The induced voltage is a result of ohmic resistance of the coil wire and measuring equipment because a current flows.

An easy experiment comes to mind: Replace the copper secondary of a transformer with zinc (higher resistance, non-magnetic) wire and you should get a higher voltage. Am I correct?

I have a different way to solve the wave/particle duality which at the same time stays very close to modern QM concepts and ... Tesla's work. I will get into that later.


Ernst.

[lamare]

Yes, there is a lot of work that has been done here.
I'm a bit unsure how to proceed here because I want to focus on Tesla's theories and I see a number of points where your (Lamare) theory deviates from Tesla's.

Let's take this discussion over to my thread, then. I'll reply to this in my thread.

[Ernst]

Thanks! I had come to the same conclusion. Allow me some time, though, to understand your theory.
I had a preliminary look at your response in your thread and noticed that we have come to the same conclusion regarding the M-M experiment, as well as on some other points.
(I think you would enjoy my latest book )
But discussing points where we have different views is obviously more interesting.
Yesterday I had a first look at your paper and many questions came to mind. Now I re-read your post above and found:

Note that the solution F=0 in my paper is incorrect,

That was definitely one of the points where you lost me. You also write that your theory cannot explain electric polarity. That is a real pity because that means that your theory is incomplete at best, AND that is the exact thing that I am most interested in.

Tesla says that electric charge is created in a particle through interaction with "the medium". By "the medium" he refers to a gaseous medium immersed in the fluid ether. But I have not been able to find what exactly that interaction would look like. So that is what I am currently after.
There are bits and pieces here and there but so far no clear description, and it is possible that Tesla didn't even have a clear picture of this neither.
This is the best I have found so far:

Now, precisely what the ether surrounding the molecules is, wherein it differs from ether in general, can only be conjectured. It cannot differ in density, ether being incompressible; it must, therefore, be under some strain or in motion, and the latter is the most probable.

This is from 1891, and the problem here is that this is just before he came to realize that electricity is a gaseous medium:

But he must remain in doubt as to whether the effects observed are due wholly to the molecules, or atoms, of the gas which chemical analysis discloses to us, or whether there enters into play another medium of a gaseous nature, comprising atoms, or molecules, immersed in a fluid pervading the space. Such a medium, surely must exist,...

Anyway, I will read your paper a few more times, let it sink in, read your posts here and on your thread a couple more times and then I will reply (in your thread).
I don't want to give some half-baked response.
I will continue here on Tesla's work!

Ernst.

[lamare]

Thanks! I had come to the same conclusion. Allow me some time, though, to understand your theory.
I had a preliminary look at your response in your thread and noticed that we have come to the same conclusion regarding the M-M experiment, as well as on some other points.
(I think you would enjoy my latest book )
But discussing points where we have different views is obviously more interesting.
Yesterday I had a first look at your paper and many questions came to mind. Now I re-read your post above and found:

"Note that the solution F=0 in my paper is incorrect,"

That was definitely one of the points where you lost me.

PM-ed you the solution I found. Still needs to be worked out, not of much use to a bigger audience now.

You also write that your theory cannot explain electric polarity. That is a real pity because that means that your theory is incomplete at best, AND that is the exact thing that I am most interested in.

Well, that is the big question. For most experiments c.q. applications the polarity of charge is irrelevant, because those are all about differentials in potentials (voltage), which goes for pretty much all electronics as well as Tesla technology and wave mechanics. So, for electrical engineering and radio applications, there is no problem at all as far as I can tell.

The idea that charge itself is polarized, comes from experiments with "statically charged" spheres, etc. However, if we are correct and the force/field emitted by electrons is indeed such a Tesla wave at a frequency of about 175 GHz for the electron, then in principle this can be validated by experiment. Problem for now is that we can't measure those Tesla waves, especially not at higher frequencies, but that may change. See my experiment with a short coil wound around a short piece of coaxial cable.

Also, we know that electrons, THE most important "charge carrier", also emit a magnetic field, so there is a) room for interpretation and b) a possibility for experimental verification one way or the other.

To me, the fact that the computed frequency of the electron seems to match observed cosmic microwave background, apart from red shift, suggests we may very well be correct, while current interpretation is wrong. But time will have to tell.

Tesla says that electric charge is created in a particle through interaction with "the medium". By "the medium" he refers to a gaseous medium immersed in the fluid ether. But I have not been able to find what exactly that interaction would look like. So that is what I am currently after.

I am working from the idea that "particles" consist of a number of vortex rings stitched together in various configurations, such as shown in the picture I shared. The most basic particle would be the electron and the working hypothesis at this moment is that an electron can be considered to be a single vortex ring aka toroidal ring:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroidal_ring_model

With a toroid, there's two axis of rotation, namely the big R and the small r:

RingVortex.png
And it is the combination of these two axis of rotation which give rise to two possible polarizations, which would thus be magnetic in nature and not electric. So, we do have polarization, but it's just in the other half of the Helmholtz decomposition. The rotational, incompressible magnetic half rather than the longitudinal, compressible (di)electric half.


Stowe wrote some on this, but it needs further thought and refinement:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Ma...AQ#StoweBasics

This term e, becomes ±2P/r in a torroidal topology (predominantly consisting of vortex rings {this is an assumption based on the spinor topology of superstring theories and consistent with the earlier atomic vortex theories}), A=4π2Rr and S=2π2Rr2 {R is the large toroidal radius and r the poloidal axis} and represents an intrinsic fluctuation of the quantized particulate momentum in the limiting volume element.

So, from my point of view, the "elemental" particle is the single vortex ring, whereby the mass "caught" by the vortex is equal to the mass of the particle and the intereaction between a particle and the medium can be fully described by the physics of the vortex. Now besides the rotational (magnetic) part, it seems that such a vortex ring also oscillates longitudinally, it rythmically contracts and expands and thus emits the analogy of a soundwave in the aether.

A further interesting detail with respect to a vortex ring is that it's direction of propagation is always perpendicular with respect to the large axis R. This can be seen in a rather interesting yet simple experiment in a swimming pool:

A steady state vortex ring is known to propagate at a constant speed along its axis of symmetry, which undoubtedly has implications with respect to the relation between the propagation direction and the E and B fields emitted by electrons and other particles:

https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/19...-0946444-X.pdf

There are bits and pieces here and there but so far no clear description, and it is possible that Tesla didn't even have a clear picture of this neither.
This is the best I have found so far:

"Now, precisely what the ether surrounding the molecules is, wherein it differs from ether in general, can only be conjectured. It cannot differ in density, ether being incompressible; it must, therefore, be under some strain or in motion, and the latter is the most probable."

This is from 1891, and the problem here is that this is just before he came to realize that electricity is a gaseous medium:

"But he must remain in doubt as to whether the effects observed are due wholly to the molecules, or atoms, of the gas which chemical analysis discloses to us, or whether there enters into play another medium of a gaseous nature, comprising atoms, or molecules, immersed in a fluid pervading the space. Such a medium, surely must exist,..."

With the idea that particles and molecules consist out of vortex rings, one comes to a layered model, whereby the model for the medium itself forms the basic medium.

It is possible to consider a secondary medium level on top of that, which could be equated to a "vortex sponge". Some of Stowe's calculated constants have to do with that idea (a/o Planck's constant, IIRC). He assumes that secondary layer to fill all space (as far as I understand), while I think that secondary layer is limited to spaces wherein "matter" or particles are present. So, in my view Maxwell's "vortex sponge" equates to "space filled with particles", but that's open for discussion.

[kyle_dellaquila]

Hello Everyone! I am the one who aided Ernst with visualizations in the "Wardenclyffe" book.
So in the spirit of this thread, I thought I would add some pictures to help facilitate the conversation:
62eR7jI.jpg

KjIu3Mx.jpg
bnK9MZx.jpg
m5JBh5B.jpg

YMnA57s.jpg
eOXuFP3.jpg

-Kyle Dell'Aquila

(EDIT: I was able to make the images external! Let me know if this method works for posting images)

[Ernst]

As Kyle is celebrating his birthday this weekend ! It may take a while before he sorts out the image-posting-trick.
So, where was I?
Oh, yes, electricity is a gaseous medium, consisting of electrically neutral particles, immersed in the fluid ether.
As it is a gaseous medium it can only support longitudinal waves and these are outside of the Maxwell domain of "Herzian waves" as Tesla calls them. These waves are entirely different from electromagnetic waves where electric and magnetic fields interact. In Tesla's waves there is no such interaction, these are simple "sound waves" in the medium (=electricity).
Yesterday I read about Aaron and Eric's new project: Cosmic Induction Generator 2020 and I am already very excited about it because it can, and most probably will verify many of my project's conclusions. (see "Wardenclyffe" )
As I stated in a post, 2 (?) years ago, there is a common theme in projects that claim "free energy", namely a saw-tooth (slow rise/sharp fall) AM-modulated on an RF high voltage signal.
Why would that be?
Because electricity, being a gaseous medium, will follow the ideal gas law. Notice that so-called electron gas does not follow this law because of the strong interactions of the constituting particles. But Tesla's medium is made up of neutral particles and therefore will follow this law. This medium is much closer to what modern science calls photon gas.
So if you compress this gas (electricity), it will get hot and when you expand it, it will cool down.
The trick is to slowly compress it, so it will not get hot and then suddenly expand it so it will cool down. That is what the saw-tooth AM-modulation does.
Now, why would you want to cool electricity?
Because then it will attract heat from the environment and thus gain energy. Also through the suddenness, it will create a sort of shock wave that will "condense" electricity into electrical charge.
(again, to see this process explained and beautifully illustrated, see "Wardenclyffe" )
I have done small scale/low power experiments with this and found that even a very small electrical streamer of only a few cm (maybe about 1 inch for the imperial inclined) will produce copious amounts of ozone in a very short time. Demonstrating a powerful electrical interaction with the environment, comparable with coils of a few KW.
This gain of energy and electrical charge can serve as a source of energy.
While Aaron and Eric are working on a high-power vacuum tube system that will be able to demonstrate this effect, I am working on a digital version to do the same.
While Eric is a vacuum tube master, I am much more familiar with digital circuits. If I can build a power stage to add to a digital circuit so I can manipulate a few KW, then I can put that into a Tesla coil and later build a microcontroller interface to make the coil do exactly what I want, whatever I want.
The idea is also, to later build a more powerful power stage, in the order of 50-100KW, to use with the coils in my lab.
Collecting energy from the environment is one thing, distributing that energy wireless worldwide is another, sending messages wirelessly worldwide is another again. All of that will be possible with the circuit that I am currently working on, and some of these will also be possible with the Cosmic Induction Generator 2020.
I will open-source my project here in this thread so anyone can join in with ideas and/or copy the project to build your own.
If we join forces, the next energy conference will rock the world! (or at least the electricity in it )


Ernst.

[lamare]

As I stated in a post, 2 (?) years ago, there is a common theme in projects that claim "free energy", namely a saw-tooth (slow rise/sharp fall) AM-modulated on an RF high voltage signal.
Why would that be?
Because electricity, being a gaseous medium, will follow the ideal gas law. Notice that so-called electron gas does not follow this law because of the strong interactions of the constituting particles. But Tesla's medium is made up of neutral particles and therefore will follow this law. This medium is much closer to what modern science calls photon gas.
So if you compress this gas (electricity), it will get hot and when you expand it, it will cool down.
The trick is to slowly compress it, so it will not get hot and then suddenly expand it so it will cool down. That is what the saw-tooth AM-modulation does.
Now, why would you want to cool electricity?
Because then it will attract heat from the environment and thus gain energy. Also through the suddenness, it will create a sort of shock wave that will "condense" electricity into electrical charge.
(again, to see this process explained and beautifully illustrated, see "Wardenclyffe" )
I have done small scale/low power experiments with this and found that even a very small electrical streamer of only a few cm (maybe about 1 inch for the imperial inclined) will produce copious amounts of ozone in a very short time. Demonstrating a powerful electrical interaction with the environment, comparable with coils of a few KW.
This gain of energy and electrical charge can serve as a source of energy.

This is a great find!

It seems to connect to the experiments of Ron Stiffler and others as well, like Bedini and Hackenberger (Gray) who also worked with characteristic BEMF spikes.


A couple of years ago, Dr. Ron Stiffler, performed quite a lot of experiments with his "SEC" exciter. I made a mirror of his website:

http://www.tuks.nl/Mirror/Dr_Stiffle...citer.htm.html

https://www.youtube.com/user/StifflerDr/videos

Here a short video by Ben Brandwood on this, also talking about cooling effects:

It seems LaserSaber's experiments were inspired by Ron:

https://www.youtube.com/user/lasersaber/videos

These two are particularly interesting:

It seems your idea also connects to those "disruptive discharges" Tesla talked about, the sudden discharge of a capacitor: working with impulses and Tesla's single wire transmission line. I've recently measured the waveforms one obtains by discharging a capacitor into two identical single wire transmission lines and found a propagation speed well over 1.5 times the speed of light:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Ma...ansmissionLine

So, it seems the impulses obtained by a sudden discharge of a capacitor involves that "sudden expansion" you are talking about, probably with associated cooling effects, as well. Note that the impulses I measured on the two lines are not symmetrical, contrary to what one would expect.


The "condensing" of electricity into electrical charge idea needs further thought, IMHO. From my point of view, "charge" is a property of certain particles, which appear to emit a Tesla wave at a specific, characteristic frequency. This is distinctly different from Maxwell's idea of displacement current and charges, spatial "charges". Charged particles are real entities, which cause a certain pressure to be present in the medium because of their oscillation and emission of a Tesla wave. By considering the wave itself to also involve oscillating "charge", you are conceptually mixing things up. Along Huygens' principle, it is not wrong to consider any point in the space a propagating Tesla wave propagates trough as being "charged", but it adds a certain complexity to the picture that is unecessary, as far as I can tell.

[lamare]

As Kyle is celebrating his birthday this weekend ! It may take a while before he sorts out the image-posting-trick.

Easiest is to host the images yourself on a webserver. Then you can simply link to them using the image button. I can spare some MBs on my server if you need hosting. Drop me a mail or PM and I can make an account for you.