Who performs the first longitudinal Moon-Bounce in history?

[lamare]

For "Can" antennas if you want what is known as a Transverse Magnetic, TM waveguide mode. Here the dielectric is longitudinal along direction of propagation. See "Radio Engineer Handbook", Terman, and "Reference Data for Radio Engineers" I.T.T. published. Here your waveguide modes are presented. One in particular is very interesting as its lossed decrease with frequency but it is very hard to excite this mode. Check this out as it is directly regulated to your efforts in "moonbounce". Show modes on forum for others to see!

Also a "Tao" has his own great representation of the "Four Quadrant" "Eight Pole" representation on forum.

73 DE N6KPH SK

Will check if I can find those books. From what I was able to find out, all normally considered transverse waveguide modes require a diameter of 0.59 λ transverse or more, depending on the mode you want:

Yesterday, I studied some information on wave guides and I found out that the transverse wave propagation modes trough a hollow tube are only possible with a minimum diameter of 0.59 λ:

http://www.w1ghz.org/QEX/circular_wg.pdf

<snip>

As I wrote above, the minimal diameter for transverse use is about 0.59 λ. And since we don't want any transversal junk in our longitudinal antenna, it is clear that this limit is our maximum diameter! However, this is expressed in terms of the transverse wavelength, so in terms of longitudinal wavelenghts the diameter of the tube should be maximal 0.59/1.56 = 0.38 λ (note that in the drawing I took the "popular" 0.67/1.56 = 0.43 λ as maximum, which should be 0.59 λ transverse). For 1296 Mhz, this works out to a maximum diameter of about 12.5 cm.

So, any diameter smaller than that and NO TRANSVERSE WAVES!

By moving the feed 1/4 whip to the bottom of the waveguide and load it with a small dish, you excite it in the correct direction. It is just like driving an acousting 3/4 lambda open resonator pipe with a loudspeaker positioned at 1/4 lambda from the bottom.



The only thing I'm not too sure about is whether or not the "L + 0.6D" analogy with acoustics is valid here too. I'm not too sure you can see a thin metal as being very stiff in the LDM case, because it is much thinner than a wavelength. So, thinking about the "skin effect" suggests you can almost certainly not consider your walls to be stiff, which may turn out to ruin the party. OTOH: if that were true, that should also be the case in transverse waveguides, which appear to work very good regardless.



Update: got them:
Radio-Engineers-Handbook-1943-Terman.pdf - 4shared.com - document sharing - download
http://www.pmillett.com/tubebooks/Bo...R_ref_data.pdf

[lamare]

Eric can read the forum now so I'm sure he will see any reply from you

Good to read that you are using a computer now, Eric.


From what I understood so far, you have some principal objections against using a computer, having to do with what the big corporations are/have been trying to accomplish.

You are definately not the only one that has a problem with the policies that are/were being used by the powers that were that definately count as N.F.G.

However, they already lost the war, because free software (with free as in "free speech") has prevented the corporate take-over of the internet and our computers, because it is simply more efficient to work together on common goals as it is to compete with one another, and a whole crowd of open source engineers has actively engaged the big corporations by sharing their work for free and fighting against software patents, for example. I have personally been involved with that, btw:
Dutch Parliament Considers Revoking Support for Patent Directive
http://www.tuks.nl/docs/NoLobbyistsAsSuch.pdf

So, to make a long story short: there is an alternative to the corporate crap known as MS Windows: open source software, with several Linux distributions that are totally free, both in terms as in "free beer" as in "free speech".

So, may be you are ready to consider having a computer running software that is made by volunteers for everyone to use. One of the most simple Linux versions to use is Ubuntu, but that does include some non-free stuff in order to be able to display video's, etc. that use patented technology.

However, the totally community-built Debian distribution has the option of installing only software that is 100% free. See their social contract:
Debian Social Contract

"Social Contract" with the Free Software Community

Debian will remain 100% free

We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component.
We will give back to the free software community

When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream" authors of works included in our system.
We will not hide problems

We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become visible to others.
Our priorities are our users and free software

We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to charge a fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and other works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals, we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.
Works that do not meet our free software standards

We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing lists).

Of course, this is just a suggestion that may help, so you at least have the option of using a computer without having to feed the corporations that are out to take our freedoms away.

[exnihiloest]

>>>>As so-called longitudinal waves havenot even been demonstrated at some hundred meters distances, imho it is a waste of time to expect for moon-bounce signals and wishful thinking just for fun.<<<<<
...
While everyone is entitled to their opinion, and even if you are correct; most new technology has been dicovered while looking for something else.
...

Science is not a matter of "opinion" otherwise we would vote to elect the theory that would be true. But you are right, new technology has been dicovered while looking for something else. And "something else" is often observation of anomalous results that experimenters were not expecting for.
As Pasteur observed: “Chance favors the prepared mind”. A "prepared mind" is not only an open mind but also a skilled mind able to distinguish between "anomalous results" and "misinterpreted conventional results".

You can reply to this if you wish, but; I can assure you that it will be a "supreme waste of your time".

Orion

The question of "longitudinal waves" transmission to the moon, i.e. assuming a priori the existence of waves that have never been demonstrated even at short distance, or denying that they are the result of conventional phenomena, is clearly outside of any science and the result of a biased attitude.

My reply would be a "supreme waste of your time" if here there were no open minds able to hear alternative propositions. I can't believe it.

[lamare]

The question of "longitudinal waves" transmission to the moon, i.e. assuming a priori the existence of waves that have never been demonstrated even at short distance, or denying that they are the result of conventional phenomena, is clearly outside of any science and the result of a biased attitude.

In a way, you are right that I am assuming the existence of waves that have not been demonstrated, at least not publicly. However, there are 4 independent measurements of waves propagating at a speed of more than 1.5 times the speed of transverse waves trough the same medium:

1. Wheatstone ( Charles Wheatstone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
2. Nikola Tesla ( Tuks DrippingPedia : Tesla No High Speed Limit )
3. Dollard ( Transverse & Longitudinal Electric Waves - Eric Dollard And Thomas Joseph Brown on Vimeo )
4. Meyl ( http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...s-maxwell.html )

Further, I have found that cause and effect have been mixed up in the formulation of the Maxwell equations, which eventually lead to the erroneous Einstein relativity theory, as I have written here:
Tuks DrippingPedia : Ruins 96 Years Einstein Relativity

In my article you will find some very interesting references, which make clear that there are quite a lot of problems with Einsteins relativity theory that do not match with practical experiments. In general, the current theory is full of holes that have been filled up with all kinds of made up forces and particles like "strong and weak interactions", "dark matter" and "virtual photons", while with aether theory you can do without those postulates and come to a unified theory pretty straigtforward, as Paul Stowe has done:

Tuks DrippingPedia : Stowe Personal E Mail

I have determined that in my opinion all of physical processes can be defined in terms of the aether populational momenta (p). Such that,

Force (F) -> Grad p
Charge (q) -> Div p
Magnetism (B) -> Curl p

Gravity for example is Grad E where E is the electric potential at x. This resolves to Le Sagian type process as outlined in the Pushing Gravity models. The electric potential E in turn is created by charge which is Div p...

My model is a direct extension of Maxwell's vortex model of interacting rings (the smoke ring model). I have been able to define all fundamental constants in terms of basic parameters, including the gravitational constant G. Further, G is, within this system, seamlessly integrated to all others, fitting into a unified system.

So, based on quite a lot of research I have concluded that the aether theory is vastly superior to the current theories, because it can do without all that made-up rubbish to fill the holes.

And when your conclusion is that there is a real aether with fluid-like properties, then you also have to conclude that longitudinal dielectric waves do exist.

So, the aim of this project is to experimentally test the validity of the aether theory with regards to these phenomena.

So, if you call this a biased attitude, you are totally right. However, if you state that this is outside science, you are talking nonsense. I mean, what could be more scientific than to test the theory you believe to be correct by performing an experiment in order to validate it?

And the reason to do this by means of a moon-bounce is exactly because if the experiment succeeds and we can measure a return time 1.5 times faster than c, there is no way to explain that with any conventional phenomena and there is also no way to maintain that longitudinal waves cannot travel trough outer space.

[exnihiloest]

In a way, you are right that I am assuming the existence of waves that have not been demonstrated, at least not publicly. However, there are 4 independent measurements of waves propagating at a speed of more than 1.5 times the speed of transverse waves trough the same medium:

1. Wheatstone ( Charles Wheatstone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
2. Nikola Tesla ( Tuks DrippingPedia : Tesla No High Speed Limit )
3. Dollard ( Transverse & Longitudinal Electric Waves - Eric Dollard And Thomas Joseph Brown on Vimeo )
4. Meyl ( http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...s-maxwell.html )

I have not seen the paper from Meyl about a speed measurement but I can't trust him because he is not skilled: I studied Meyl's work, his LC coupled circuits are conventional, they work perfectly according to Maxwell equations, there is nothing new. He imagines a new theory for no new facts.

The vimeo link doesn't work, so I don't know about this measurement.

Tesla was a great inventor but not a physicist. He failed when he tried to transmit energy at a distance and this failure is the consequence of a theoretical misconception of the transversal waves. He was wrong against Maxwell.

I have myself experimented the "longitudinal" waves. I have transmitted a 2 Khz signal up to 50 meters, using a big LC circuit with a terminal capacitor powered by a 1 KV signal. What I have observed is nothing else than an electric field, not a wave. There are always confusions between "wave" and "varying field". Each time I read papers about "longitudinal waves" I see that each experiment is perfectly explainable by near field conditions. The only exception was Turtur's experiment at around 430 Mhz but he didn't seriously eliminate the case of classical EM waves which is the likely cause of his observations.

I was also interested in the speed of the near field (for me the near field is what you call "longitudinal wave"). I came across several papers from physicists of the academia, about observed speeds > c for signal transmissions in near field conditions, especially when they study tunnel effects and evanescent waves.
Nevertheless they have been dismissed. It is almost impossible to measure the wave speed in near field:
Firstly we can't know what is the front of the wave: we would have to modulate the wave by a pulse or a square signal, but in this case, the spectrum is spread, so we have no more the near field condition during the rise time of the wave, EM waves are radiated.
Secundly if we want measure the phase delay to deduce the wave speed, there are two sources of errors. The frequencies must be low to avoid EM waves, but when the frequency is low, the phase delay is so small in comparisson with the signal period that the slope of the signal is by many orders not enough rapidly rising to accurately trigger a clock. Another cause of error is to use a LC circuit at the position of the receiver. As it is coupled with the transmitter, it presents a reactive charge for the transmitter that shifts the phase.

All these problems are completely understandable from a more general and theoretical viewpoint. A wave is localised neither in space nor in time so for an accurate speed measurement we would need distances of many wave lengths (not possible in near field due to 1/r^3 fading) or time "tags" of the wave much shorter than its period (not possible otherwise the spectrum is spread, high frequencies are generated). That is why all the speed measurements > c that I saw until now are mistaken.

...
So, based on quite a lot of research I have concluded that the aether theory is vastly superior to the current theories, because it can do without all that made-up rubbish to fill the holes.

And when your conclusion is that there is a real aether with fluid-like properties, then you also have to conclude that longitudinal dielectric waves do exist.

So, the aim of this project is to experimentally test the validity of the aether theory with regards to these phenomena.

So, if you call this a biased attitude, you are totally right.
...

Sorry for the "biased attitude". If your attitude is to prove experimentally that your ideas are correct, I agree 100% with your method, it is the only one possible to demonstrate a new theory.

Imho a new theory is interesting if there are new observations to explain, or if it predicts new facts experimentally testable. Unfortunately I don't see what experimental results could be predicted by an aether theory differently from current theories, and I see only conventional observations or erroneous measurements in the experiments where the so-called "longitudinal waves" would be involved.
But I'm not opposed to an aether theory. I even think that the quantum vacuum could be considered as an aether allowing the EM waves to propagate.

[LetsReplicate]

Imho a new theory is interesting if there are new observations to explain, or if it predicts new facts experimentally testable. Unfortunately I don't see what experimental results could be predicted by an aether theory differently from current theories, and I see only conventional observations or erroneous measurements in the experiments where the so-called "longitudinal waves" would be involved.
But I'm not opposed to an aether theory. I even think that the quantum vacuum could be considered as an aether allowing the EM waves to propagate.

Aether does exist! The only reason it was removed from science was due to the Michelson-Morley experiment which was preformed in the wrong rotational plane: Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment. English version - YouTube. You were saying something about erroneous measurements?

From a mathematical perspective, we can either work "from the bottom up", or "from the top down" as long as we don't mix them. Quantum mechanics is "bottom up"; Aether is "top down". None of the math changes by accepting aether; and even though aether has been rejected as a concept doesn't mean quantum mechanics won't eventually arrive at the same result while calling it something different.

The aether concepts are used to describe things as waves (waves DO need a medium even if we're pretending it doesn't exist) while quantum mechanics calls them particles. Each system has it's advantages and disadvantages. Aether, for example, doesn't have messy "virtual particles" because you can have "suction" (different than the non-existent quantum vacuum). It also more cleanly explains dark matter, and dark energy because THEY ARE THE AETHER (some of the holes lamare hinted about). In fact, I read an interesting concept not too many years ago that explains an alternative to the Big Bang where red shift can be explained by the aether "draining out of the universe" via quarks (or a smaller particle perhaps). The idea all fits with the premise of relativity too while forming an explanation for "why gravity exists". It get's surprisingly hard to refute the idea because comes down to data interpretation.

The question regarding longitudinal waves is: is aether a "solid" (more like a gelatin), or a "liquid". A longitudinal wave can only move though a solid. If aether is purely a liquid then longitudinal waves don't exist. I'm highly interested in seeing replicateable experimental results on this subject because hard proof would completely redeem aether theory in science.

[boguslaw]

Longitudinal wave can move everywhere : in gas, liquid and solid. Transverse waves can only move in solids ,mostly on the surface or other barrier of those kinds of materials with different speed of propagation of waves. That's my opinion only, need to check it.

[lamare]

Imho a new theory is interesting if there are new observations to explain, or if it predicts new facts experimentally testable. Unfortunately I don't see what experimental results could be predicted by an aether theory differently from current theories, and I see only conventional observations or erroneous measurements in the experiments where the so-called "longitudinal waves" would be involved.
But I'm not opposed to an aether theory. I even think that the quantum vacuum could be considered as an aether allowing the EM waves to propagate.

Well, the root argument is about the Maxwell equations. In my article wherein I theoretically disprove Einstein's relativity theory, I essentially say that the electro-magnetic field is the cause for matter to exist and not the other way around, completely in line with Quantum Mechanics, which is incompatible with Einstein's theory, exactly because of the mix-up of cause and effect in the Maxwell equations:

Tuks DrippingPedia : Ruins 96 Years Einstein Relativity

With the correct Maxwell equations, along Meyls and Thornhill (even though I agree there's a lot to argue about with Meyls experiments, but that's not the point here), longitudinal dielectric waves are predicted, which count as "experimental results predicted by an aether theory differently from current theories".

And that is what this whole experiment is about. It has to go trough space, because otherwise critics will come up with all kinds of excuses. And the propagation speed difference has to be verified, because of the same reason.

So, if this experiment succeeds, we have undeniable proof that Einstein's theory is wrong and the aether theory predicts the correct results, which it also does in many, many other cases.

I have yet to see an experiment that really disproves the aether theory. The null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment does not disprove the existence of the aether, it merely disproves some secondary assumptions based on the aether theories of the time:

A Dissident View of Relativity Theory by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.

So far, we have at least two competing theories: a partially entrained aether and Einstein’s relativity. Both can explain the results of the Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale experiments, the Sagnac effect, (and the Häfele-Keating experiment). But we need a tie-breaking experiment for it is not good enough to merely come up with an alternative theory. We need a decisive blow.

And that's what I'm trying to do, performing a "decisive blow".

[lamare]

Prototype cantenna's

Hi all,

Today I finished my two prototype longitudinal cantenna's. Here's a photo of the 1/4 lambda adjustable whip:

And one of the interior of the two finished prototypes:

More pictures here:
Dropbox - Photos - Simplify your life

The next phase will be testing and tuning, which may take a couple of weeks, depending on the availability of the required equipment, the amount of adjustments needed, etc.

[OrionLightShip]

I know little of antenna design, except to watch the reflected power that can blow the finals, something you are already fully aware of, so I have nothing to add except; it looks absolutely great!!! With you 100%

Orion

[Kokomoj0]

Hi all,

Today I finished my two prototype longitudinal cantenna's. Here's a photo of the 1/4 lambda adjustable whip:

And one of the interior of the two finished prototypes:

More pictures here:
Dropbox - Photos - Simplify your life

The next phase will be testing and tuning, which may take a couple of weeks, depending on the availability of the required equipment, the amount of adjustments needed, etc.

so are you going to drive it with a transmitter into a self resonant coil?

What was the result of your conversations with Eric?

[lamare]

so are you going to drive it with a transmitter into a self resonant coil?

What was the result of your conversations with Eric?

The idea is to drive the antenna with an ordinary transmitter, while the antenna's are supposed to resonate like a self resonant coil. In essence, the whip is also a coil because of the self-inductance of the wire. Eric's input is posted here as well as on the other thread. He pointed a.o. at Helmholtz' equations and Steinmetz, which offer some guidelines and insight, but the specific design in the end is a matter of trial and error.

Anyway, we have tested the first prototypes and they were NFG. The basically did nothing even close to what was intended and I think the cause of that is that I should not have used a 1/4 lambda whip on top of a reflective ground plane, because the ground plane is located at a current hot spot, maximal movement of charge carriers, while actually no current can flow trough the reflective ground plane in the direction along the length of the whip.

So, as far as I can tell now, I have to adapt my probe (as it is called) from a 1/4 lambda whip into 1/2 lambda dipole, which is fed from the centre. I made a drawing of what I intend to do:

The idea is to use a radiating "sleeve" or "bazooka" balun, meanwhile preventing the coax mantle to radiate:

What about a balun?

>Why is it some antenna's have baluns and others have not?

The purpose of a balun is to prevent the coax cable from radiating. However, in order for the coax to radiate, there would need to be some radiative component along the axis of the coax to induce current in the coax. A symmetrical biquad doesn't have any such field component. Therefore, a balun is not needed.

However, things get a bit different when the balun is used to feed an offset dish. The field is no longer axially symmetrical, and the coax is in the reflected field from the dish. Therefore a balun is probably a good idea with a dish.

In general (with lots of exceptions), when the coax cable is in the antenna field, you need a balun. The real question is how much difference does it make? Most of the effect is in reducing VSWR, not increasing gain. With relatively low gain antennas (i.e. biquad with 10dBi gain), it probably might improve things perhaps a few tenths of a dB and is not worth the effort. However, with higher gain antennas, such as a dish, the lack of symmetry caused by a radiating feed could easily distort the pattern, create sidelobes, boresight errors, and VSWR.

Also, some antennas are best constructed with 200 ohm feed points (i.e. Franklin antenna).
Sector antenne voor Wifi ISM band (2,4GHz)
Adding a 4:1 balun solves the balance problem and the impedance transform problem at the same time. You may therefore see a balun on some symmetrical antennas that don't normally require one, but where the impedance transformer action makes one convenient.

Note that longitudinal waves are supposed to propagate along the axis of the whip and coax feed line....


Dipole antenna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At VHF frequencies, a sleeve balun can also be built to remove feeder radiation.

* Another narrow band design is to use a λ/4 length of metal pipe. The coaxial cable is placed inside the pipe; at one end the braid is wired to the pipe while at the other end no connection is made to the pipe. The balanced end of this balun is at the end where the pipe is wired to the braid. The λ/4 conductor acts as a transformer converting the infinite impedance at the unconnected end into a zero impedance at the end connected to the braid. Hence any current entering the balun through the connection, which goes to the braid at the end with the connection to the pipe, will flow into the pipe. This balun design is impractical for low frequencies because of the long length of pipe that will be needed.

Sleeve baluns

Depending on which layout is mechanically easier to build and if you want the sleeve to radiate, the sleeve can be connected like this or reversed. In the layout below the sleeve is non-radiating. In a collinear antenna we might want to reverse the sleeve so it forms half of a dipole element.

[...]


From the above, we observe the following characteristics in a sleeve balun:

1.) The highest possible choke sleeve impedance (largest ratio of balun sleeve diameter to outside of transmission line) is desired. We won’t have a good balun if the choking Zo (ratio of sleeve inner diameter to coaxial shield outer diameter) is small.

2.) The balun requires the lowest possible loss over the length of the sleeve. It forms a transmission line from the inside of the sleeve to the outside of the coax. The coax jacket is a dielectric, so we need to keep a lot of air inside of the choking sleeve or the coax jacket will increase loss and reduce impedance, both being very undesirable.

3.) The velocity factor of the sleeve, based on the dielectric between the sleeve and the shield of the coaxial cable we are trying to balance or choke, is very important to length of the sleeve.

The following construction guidelines apply:

The cable should have a good low-loss jacket or a very large air or low loss dielectric gap between the shield and the sleeve. Since energy is normally confined to the inside of a coaxial cable manufacturers are not concerned about jacket losses. They use outer materials with long life, not low RF loss. It is advisable to use a filler material with a high volume of air to maximize sleeve impedance and minimize sleeve losses.

It is also advisable to use the largest practical diameter sleeve with the smallest diameter coaxial cable inside to maximize choking impedance.

The sleeve length has to account for velocity factor of the sleeve, since the sleeve forms a coaxial transmission line with the outer conductor of the coaxial cable it is intended to choke or decouple.

http://web.archive.org/web/201007170...io/sleeve.html (copy here: sleeve1 )

The sleeve balun does not give any impedance transformation; it is a 1:1 balun. This is fairly easy to achieve at VHF. All that is required is a tube that is coupled to the outer of the coax at approximately 0.93 X l/4 from the antenna feed point.

The ratio D/d should be around 2.5 to 4. The open end of the tube facing the antenna element should be as close as possible. In effect this tube is a shorted l/4, at it open end the impedance looking back down the coax is high, thus preventing RF current developing on the outer of the coax.

I have made sleeve baluns using 15 mm copper water pipe and soldering a 'Free socket N' type connector onto it. The l/4 may be less than that of free space l/4, because of the close proximity of the outer tube to the coaxial cable. I found that 468 mm seems to work OK at 2 m, when using RG213 or URM 67.

What's this weird antenna called? - RC Groups

What people wanting DIY a sleeve balun should know, is the fact that the sleeve must be at some distance from the coax, and this empty space must be air, not a plastic insulator !

The RC-cam antenna done using the coax mesh to simulate sleeve balun is one of the most popular but flawed example of how to not make this, because the balun part is so close to coax, making it zero efficiency.

[...]

Not quite correct. The distance between the outer conductor and the inner conducter need not be air. It can be any dialectric or insulating material, it is just that the spacing has to be adjusted to accommodate the dielectric constant of that particular insulation material.

[...]

The thing weird revealed:

Note that the presence of a dielectric in between the outer conductor and inner conductor influences the propagation speed of the waves, which means the length of the sleeve must be adapted to that. And indeed, it is better to have some space between the inner and outer conductors, which is preferably air in our case, since we want the outer conductor to be part of our 1/2 wave dipole....

Also see:

Antenna Theory - Bazooka Baluns

So, another build & test phase...

For now:

Merry Christmas to all!

[t-rex]

Lamare Lunar Effort; Ideas

The longitudinal antennae ideas seem stuck in the mud. Seems everything is quasi E.M. "Electrical Soundwaves in the Aether", Tesla. Only two ways I see; a form of open ended circular waveguide. One mode, hard to excite, is longitudinal. Please post circular waveguide mode chart (Frederich Terman)!!
Another way is a tiny U.H.F. resonant coil, NOT A HELICAL RESONATOR. AN OPEN COIL NOT ENCLOSED IN A COAXIAL CYLINDER.

For the circular waveguide the pipe is closed on one end, open at the other end. Open end may require mode stabilizer. The proper mode of excitation is extremely important! (Terman, Radio Engineers Handbook)

For the resonant coil, a disk larger than coil diameter at current end, a disk smaller than coil diameter at voltage end. Ratio of disk diameters derived from coil impedance. Excite coil with small loop. As for the frequency; For the waveguide must be greater than 1000 Mc, for the coil must be less than 1000 Mc. These would be my first efforts to create electrical soundwaves in the aether. The longitudinal waves of my work involves Telluric Waves (submarines) and windings (transformers). Free space longitudinal waveforms may not have any relation to my (MK) waves

[t-rex]

From Radio Engineers Handbook:

[t-rex]