Eric P. Dollard

[lamare]

While the greatly increased activity on this forum is very encouraging, La-Mare is drifting far off course, and this is compounding the confusion. The "T.M.T." and the Tesla Coil are not distinct modes. Also Meyl is a waste of time and I see a new trend coming to distort Tesla's real objectives. The "Tesla Coil"is not an antenna. Two modes do exist however, Telluric Excitation and the Earth-Ionosphere Condenser (Air). Excitation of the Earth-Ionosphere condenser runs the aeroplanes. La-Mare's biggest error is the insistance upon a transverse component, that physics poison from his university training. The L.M.D. is NOT, NOT, NOT, the T.E. or T.M. The L.M.D. wave has both Phi & Psi in the direction of propogation, there is NO transverse component. Also it would be helpful if La-Mare would stop using the term electric for dielectric. This can only hamper the Steinmetz view on electricity. I went thru great efforts to set the wording right and it would be nice if we could stick with it, or is it that the curse "College Education" causes permanent brain damage? Also La-Mare may find my M.W.O. Antenna (Which Lindemann profits from), may be his moon bounce antenna. I will credit this however, La-Mare's theory about the circumference and length Pi over two factor is getting me thinking, something lurks here of importance.

Above, I posted some pictures of what you can do with soundwaves in a fluid, etc. The foundation we have to base ourselves on is the existence of the aether, a medium with fluid like properties. As you can see in the pics, you can make all kinds of structures and wave forms in a fluid and thus create a blown up version of what happens in the aether.

Now in a fluid, you cannot have transverse waves. These can only occur at the boundary between two media with different densities. That is what you have at the surface of an antenna, a conductor. And thus you can have real transverse waves in a certain area around your antenna: the near field.

However, you cannot have "far field" real transverse or "Herzian" waves, because the aether is a fluid. And therefore, something else must enter the picture and that is the element of rotation. And that is what we call the magnetic field. With rotation you can have vortexes, which form contracting, rotating tubes of force. Hence the fibrous nature of magnetic lines of force. These ARE tiny vortexes in the ether, and I believe lightning is also such a vortex in the aether as is the "electron" when it is playing it's role of "binding" atom nuclei in a molecule or crystal structure.

La-Mare's biggest error is the insistance upon a transverse component, that physics poison from his university training. The L.M.D. is NOT, NOT, NOT, the T.E. or T.M. The L.M.D. wave has both Phi & Psi in the direction of propogation, there is NO transverse component.

The confusion comes down to this:

There is ONLY one longitudinal dielectric wave that propagates at a speed of pi/2 times c. That one has NO transverse component and NO magnetic component. And thus that one is NOT the L.M.D. wave, but the L.D. wave. NO M, no magnetic!!!

And because Tesla's L.D. waves have no transverse component, the bottomline of transmitting L.D. waves is that you need to suppress any transverse waves with a magnetic component on your coil. Otherwise, you get some kind of electro-magnetic wave and NOT Tesla's L.D. wave.

So, you have to get rid of the rotating magnetic component, because that is what gives rise to TEM waves in the far field. Meyl's picture gives a pretty good idea of how the transverse wave on the surface of your conductor, the near field, gives rise to vortexes in the far field, the TEM wave:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Mat...ransponder.pdf

However, the accompaning explanation sucks, because IMHO the far-field actually consists of vortices, "particles" with that mysterious wave-particle duality, so he may have to re-do some of his homework.

The L.M.D. wave has both Phi & Psi in the direction of propogation, there is NO transverse component.

And this is where the confusion sticks it's head out of the dirt... Let's turn to Stowe first:

Tuks DrippingPedia : Stowe Foundation Unification Physics

In classic kinetic theory, longitudinal (simple compression) wave speed is defined as:

c_l = sqrt(3q / rho) {eq. 4a}

where rho is the density of the medium and q is systemic pressure.

Transverse waves in an elastic medium are defined as:

c_t = sqrt(q / rho) {eq. 4b}

Note: The author recognizes that under classical kinetic theory, transverse waves are not carried in fluids. However, Lord Kelvin demonstrated (ref. 5 ,Volume 1, page 296), that only transverse waves would exist in a fluid predominantly consisting of vortex rings, a state which he called a vortex sponge. The reason for this, is due to the gyroscopic action of the fluid circulation around the large and small axis of the vortices.

IMHO, there are many, many signs that point to the magnetic induction, Phi, representing these gyroscopic, rotational movements of the aether. As soon as you bring Phi into the equation, you bring in this rotational nature of the magnetic induction.

However, longitudinal waves such as sound waves as well as the L.D. do NOT have this rotational component. And therefore the magnetic induction Phi is ZERO with the longitudinal dielectric wave, which should thus not be labeled L.M.D.

So, I'll try to use the name "dielectric" from now on, but I do expect you to use L.D. from now on in return.

1) Are we sure mutual inductance M is rotational. We know nothing about M, NOTHING.

I am 99,999% sure, but I cannot prove it.

2) The La-Mare/Thompson Longitudinal Dielectric force cannot be a wave if only one energy exists.

3) Here is the very critical question, does a displacement current in a dielectric really produce a magnetic field? I do not believe it does.

Indeed, that is the critical question, because the dielectric displacement current is that other energy you are looking for in the Longitudinal Dielectric.

And the relation between the dielectric displacement current and magnetic induction is that magnetic induction IS a dielectric displacement current flowing in a closed loop...

[Web000x]

The L.M.D. is NOT, NOT, NOT, the T.E. or T.M. The L.M.D. wave has both Phi & Psi in the direction of propogation, there is NO transverse component.

Yeh but we havent demonstrated any of those yet unfortunately.

Also it would be helpful if La-Mare would stop using the term electric for dielectric. This can only hamper the Steinmetz view on electricity. I went thru great efforts to set the wording right and it would be nice if we could stick with it, or is it that the curse "College Education" causes permanent brain damage?

Well see, with a college education you sit in class and listen to boring theory and lectures and then you get to go to the lab and see the theory demonstrated so you know it is real.

Why don't you build it and demonstrate it to be real or not?

[lamare]

The L.M.D. is NOT, NOT, NOT, the T.E. or T.M. The L.M.D. wave has both Phi & Psi in the direction of propogation, there is NO transverse component. Also it would be helpful if La-Mare would stop using the term electric for dielectric.

Now wait a minute!

You are saying Phi & Psi are both in the direction of propagation. AFAIK, the electric field and the magnetic field are always perpendicular towards one another:

Principles of radio : BASIC AC THEORY

With Oersted's accidental discovery of electromagnetism, it was realized that electricity and magnetism were related to each other. When an electric current was passed through a conductor, a magnetic field was generated perpendicular to the axis of flow. Likewise, if a conductor was exposed to a change in magnetic flux perpendicular to the conductor, a voltage was produced along the length of that conductor. So far, scientists knew that electricity and magnetism always seemed to affect each other at right angles. However, a major discovery lay hidden just beneath this seemingly simple concept of related perpendicularity, and its unveiling was one of the pivotal moments in modern science.

This breakthrough in physics is hard to overstate. The man responsible for this conceptual revolution was the Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), who “unified” the study of electricity and magnetism in four relatively tidy equations. In essence, what he discovered was that electric and magnetic fields were intrinsically related to one another, with or without the presence of a conductive path for electrons to flow. Stated more formally, Maxwell's discovery was this:

A changing electric field produces a perpendicular magnetic field, and

A changing magnetic field produces a perpendicular electric field.


All of this can take place in open space, the alternating electric and magnetic fields supporting each other as they travel through space at the speed of light. This dynamic structure of electric and magnetic fields propagating through space is better known as an electromagnetic wave.

We need to clear this up. We need to deal with the dielectric vs. electric issue once and for all. Eric quoted Steinmetz some time ago:

Tesla Technology: DIELECTRICITY AND CAPACITANCE

A nearly infinite variety of more complex structures can exhibit capacity, as long as a difference in electric potential exists between various areas of the structure. The oscillating coil represents one possibility as to a capacitor of more complex form, and will be presented here.

CAPACITANCE INADEQUATELY EXPLAINED
The perception of capacitance as used today is wholly inadequate for the proper understanding of this effect. Steinmetz mentions this in his introductory book Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses. To quote, "Unfortunately, to large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electrostatic charge (electron) on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and the dielectric, and makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated."

So, when we are considering the prehistoric conception that the electro-magnetic fields as well as magnetic fields are caused by charge carriers, we talk about the electric field which by the Maxwell equations is always perpendicular towards the magnetic field. And it is within this prehistoric conception that we cannot have longitudinal electrostatic () waves, because in the prehistoric conception there cannot be an electrostatic movement without an accompanying magnetic movement.

And when we are leaving this behind, we enter the world of the dielectric field, whereby we consider things differently.

IMHO, Steinmetz also made a misconception in his statement. Let me rephrase it:

Unfortunately, to a large extent in dealing with the dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electromagnetic field, the magnetic and the electric, and makes the consideration of electromagnetic fields unnecessarily complicated.

When we want to get this issue straightened out, we have to let go of the idea that the dielectric field is made up out of two components. It is not!

What is called the magnetic field and which expresses the properties associated with "inertia" ( Inertia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) in classical physics, is NOT the same thing as the "inertia" of the dielectric field.

The "inertia" of the dielectric field is associated with the dielectric displacement current, NOT with the prehistoric "charge carriers" current NOR it's associated magnetic field.

Now while both the magnetic field as well as the displacement current express some kind of "intertia" you can mathematically express this "inertia" using Phi. BUT, you introduce errors, both in your calculations as well as in your understanding.

The proper way to do it, is to start with the single assumption that the aether is a fluid and work your way trough all the equations you can find and put them in perspective. And when you do that, it is really amazing how all parts of the puzzle start to drop into place one by one:

Tuks DrippingPedia : Stowe Foundation Unification Physics
Tuks DrippingPedia : Stowe Nature Of Charge
Tuks DrippingPedia : Stowe Personal E Mail
Directory contents of /pdf/Reference_Material/Paul_Stowe/

[Kokomoj0]

Now wait a minute!

You are saying Phi & Psi are both in the direction of propagation. AFAIK, the electric field and the magnetic field are always perpendicular towards one another:

yes and someone earlier brought up the EH antenna which if I remember that theory correctly, attempts to re-phase and align them up which will result in increasing the radiation resistance to the point that 120meter antenna only need be a few short feet in length to get the same effect as these gargantuan metal rods or long lengths of wire.

this gig is all about impedance matching imho.

The TMT would need to go one step further and not only impedance match to couple the different elements to each other, but in addition [---------] <--(insert operation there), somehow eliminate or reduce the magnetic field.

Now as I stated earlier where ever their is delta t there is an associated magnetic field.

I do not see any special coil winding / spacing or phasing etc that can reasonably create a stationary dielectric potential in space. (counter or otherwise)

So once the device is impedance matched, the daunting challenge of eliminating the magnetic elements of a delta potential comes into this play and I do not see that as being possible.

So it would appear that there is some other property more weighty that we need to be looking at or we are simply barking up the wrong tree.

Meyl claims to have a split capacitor/coil internally impedance matched with one wire (the earth) between the coils and 2 spheres to conduct capacitively the distance between them being the dielectric completing the circuit. This makes perfect sense to me and I can conceptualize this working just fine.

Then again Erics version, how do we couple this "sail" that he wants to "slip" through space without impedance matching it?

Especially since the speed is presumed to be a mere 1.57 difference from C (very little impedance difference), and we are using elements and mechanicals and properties of C to presumably accomplish this.

Unless its speed is infinity and even at infinity there still has to be an impedance match for it to work at all, and in order for it to have an impedance match there has to be radiation resistance and the proof is that we use a "coil" which is a magnetic device operating on magnetic principles and current is moving!

If the speed is zero obviously we have no movement, no impedance, no current, and nothing happening. The switch is off.

Hence the circular reasoning on the sail approach.



so thats my opinion on the matter and the ultimate issues which need to be put to bed here. Eric has not sufficiently convinced me this is possible at this time.

Oh and that is not to go so far as to claim that the TMT does not work, only that I question if we are on the right track to get there.

Oh and just a passing thought with regard to the ether.

How can there be impedance at all or time delay without an ether?

How can some "thing" travel through no "thing".

There is no middle ground between something and nothing. Even the language does not philosophically support that premise that some of these physicists have taken.

[Kokomoj0]

Why don't you build it and demonstrate it to be real or not?

Im the student here

[Web000x]

Im the student here

Assuming that you went to school (hence the student mindset) and had to participate in a science class that had some sort of LABORATORY CLASS associated with it, what did you do when the teacher handed out the instructions for setting up the EXPERIMENTS used to DEMONSTRATE the principles learned in the lecture? Did you also argue with them and tell them that it wouldn't work before you even tried it?

P.S. If you're the student, how is it that you know everything already?

[madhatter]

Lamare, have you read thru this site?
Matter is made of waves

This is where my journey started to unravel my 'education' in the late 90's when I was doing some interesting contract work that put me in touch with some fascinating research work and physicist that when not in 'group' will have concerns with relativity, but we shall not bite the hand that feeds. The problem is going to be 'tearing' out the fine structure constant and figuring out the why of it. This also highlights the interpretation and use of scalar fields and symmetry rules.

I need to dig up an article on the measured radiation fields of interacloud lighting discharge as it was looking at the cloud to ground current flow and magnetic field vs intracloud phenomenon.

[Kokomoj0]

Assuming that you went to school (hence the student mindset) and had to participate in a science class that had some sort of LABORATORY CLASS associated with it, what did you do when the teacher handed out the instructions for setting up the EXPERIMENTS used to DEMONSTRATE the principles learned in the lecture? Did you also argue with them and tell them that it wouldn't work before you even tried it?

P.S. If you're the student, how is it that you know everything already?

Well in lab you are able to demonstrate the properties being taught in class.

So what class you got that has a working TMT arrangement again?

Sign me up.

[Kokomoj0]

Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment. English version - YouTube

[Kokomoj0]

Lamare, have you read thru this site?
Matter is made of waves

This is where my journey started to unravel my 'education' in the late 90's when I was doing some interesting contract work that put me in touch with some fascinating research work and physicist that when not in 'group' will have concerns with relativity, but we shall not bite the hand that feeds. The problem is going to be 'tearing' out the fine structure constant and figuring out the why of it. This also highlights the interpretation and use of scalar fields and symmetry rules.

I need to dig up an article on the measured radiation fields of interacloud lighting discharge as it was looking at the cloud to ground current flow and magnetic field vs intracloud phenomenon.

503 - Service Unavailable

[madhatter]

503 - Service Unavailable

well that sucks, it was working just fine till posted here..hopefully it's a bandwidth issue.

[lamare]

yes and someone earlier brought up the EH antenna which if I remember that theory correctly, attempts to re-phase and align them up which will result in increasing the radiation resistance to the point that 120meter antenna only need be a few short feet in length to get the same effect as these gargantuan metal rods or long lengths of wire.

I read some in that direction before:
Nikola Tesla Page, Tesla's power receiver

Here's something that has always bugged me: light waves are about 5000 Angstroms in wavelength, while atoms are more like 1 Angstrom across. Atoms are thousands of times smaller than light waves, yet atoms obviously interact very strongly with light. How can they do this? Perhaps they get around the problem by employing Quantum Mechanics (photon-physics rather than EM waves?) There must be some explanation. After all, when a metal dipole antenna is only one foot long, it certainly cannot absorb much 5000ft-wave radiation. I never encountered a good explanation for this during my physics education. I finally found a couple of physics papers that make things clear. And it's not QM that solves the problem. It turns out that the real explanation is both little-known and fascinating.

More musings on "energy sucking antennas"
Nearfield coupling and tuned circuits

[lamare]

well that sucks, it was working just fine till posted here..hopefully it's a bandwidth issue.

Archive.org to the rescue:

Matter is made of waves

Looks very interesting. Lots of pictures and animations. I like that, because an image often says more than 1000 words...

[garrettm4]

Mutual Magnetic Induction M

Note, this is a PERSONAL explanation and most likely is in error.

1) Are we sure mutual inductance M is rotational. We know nothing about M, NOTHING.

I recently had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Murray an EXPERT on rotating magnetic machines and other experimental devices. From this conversation and reading of Steinmetz explanation of a transformer, I came to some interesting PERSONAL conclusions, so I thought I would give some thoughts on the mutual induction of the magnetic field (M).

The mutual magnetic field has no "magnetism" as we know it. If you were to put iron fillings near a transformer that is unloaded the stray flux would attract the iron, whence loaded they would no longer attract, even though there is more CURRENT flowing loaded than unloaded.

I must first state that a properly designed transformer should have NO LEAKAGE INDUCTANCE L, NONE. Leakage Inductance acts as a "reactor" not as a "transformer". Inductance L CANNOT transfer energy. ONLY a mutual inductance M can transfer energy. The actions of each coil on one another IS LONGITUDINAL, this is the direct transfer of energy, this is not transverse or the storage of energy. (NOW this explanation only applies for lumped elements at low frequencies (big ugly LF transformers and motors), so don't take this as gospel for work in HF, radio and distributed networks. A lot of things change when you turn up the frequencies and the distributed nature of things takeover.)

In this situation we have a ZERO VECTOR of the overall MAGNETIC FIELD, when coupling energy across one coil to the other. If there is NO leakage inductance, there will be ABSOLUTELY NO MEASURABLE MAGNETIC FIELD, despite a current flowing! The two storage components CANCEL, there is no self inductance, only pure mutual inductance. NOW we have an admittance not an impedance and thus transfer of energy from one distinct coil to the other.

It can be seen that M is quite strange, the distinct individual magnetic fields, under ideal circumstances, are PUSHING ON ONE TO THE OTHER, this causes a negation of their respective actions on the surroundings. This can be seen like pushing on something from both sides, if the forces are equal there is NO change in the movement of the object. Thus the magnetic field interaction M may not have any EFFECTIVE "magnetism" as we know it.

BUT as with all things, we CANNOT build anything that is perfect. So there will always be a small magnetic field present (leakage inductance) relative to the efficiency of coupling between the coils.

Once again this is a PERSONAL conclusion which I have gained from my talk with a man whom I hold in high esteem (Mr. Murray) and from the works of Steinmetz, if there are any errors in the above they are my own and no one elses.

Garrett M

[lamare]

Also it would be helpful if La-Mare would stop using the term electric for dielectric. This can only hamper the Steinmetz view on electricity. I went thru great efforts to set the wording right and it would be nice if we could stick with it, or is it that the curse "College Education" causes permanent brain damage?

Well see, with a college education you sit in class and listen to boring theory and lectures and then you get to go to the lab and see the theory demonstrated so you know it is real.

What fun is that?

The Dielectric: The final frontier

These are the voyages of the Starship, Nikola

Its mission

Under Captain T-Rex

To explore strange new phenomena

To seek out new knowledge and new apparatus

To boldly go where no man has gone before