Proving ether existence and Tesla's view on electricity

[Ernst]

After understanding Wardenclyffe and Tesla's view on electricity, I thought that given the proper equipment it should be easy to proof the existence of ether, and actually make it visible.

I have come up with this experiment:
take a HV capacitor and submerge it in thin parafin oil
the leads of the cap have to be made accessible outside the oil
using a diode and any suitable HV source you charge the cap
and using a spark gap you discharge it when it is full

The idea is that inside the cap there is "charge without voltage" (to put it in a Tesla-for-dummies-manner). When the cap discharges, this charge gets out of the cap and finds that it does not have enough tension (in the same Tesla-for-dummies-words).
So this tension (ether stress) is attracted from the environment.
To make this visible we suspend a pointed conductor as close as possible to the oil surface, but not touching it. This conductor is not connected to anything its only purpose is to create a point on the oil surface where electric effects are more easily produced than anywhere else on this surface.
A much greater part of the attracted ether will now enter the oil near the point of the conductor and drag air along with it. The air pressing on the oil surface is clearly visible with voltages as low as 2000 Volts. But it is still difficult to get it on camera.
My attempts can be seen here and here

I figure that when someone has access to a better capacitor, say 20 KV or more, a much more convincing video could be made.
Of course the capacitor plates are also moving during a disruptive discharge so the leads also move a little. The video should make clear that there is an effect created through the suspended conductor.

Anyone care to give it a try?

Ernst.

[aaron5120]

Hi Ernst,
If I got you right, then I have an idea to magnify the effect observed in your YT clip. The idea is to have an avalanche setup of a series of large HV caps, that is , to connect several of your HV discharging circuits one after another.
Since every stage there is a little ether stress adding to the discharging energy, I wonder if you put one stage after another, say after 12 such circuits connected into series, you will have an appreciable output power, visibly greater than the input of the first stage?

aaron5120

[Ernst]

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for the reply, but I have some difficulty visualising what you say.
It could also very well be that my explanation is inadequate.
So let me first try to clarify my idea. I have added 1 images.
1 - a charged capacitor. Its positive charge is as close as it can get to the negative charge, and vice versa. This way there is a minimum 'stress', or a minimum tension (voltage).
2 - a discharging capacitor. The charges are on their way out, so they are more separated than in (1). When the charges are further separated, the tension is higher so there is more 'stress'. This means that whatever is causing this stress is added from the environment.
3 - shows the experiment set-up. As air is insulating and a conductor, obviously conducting, the conductor increases the area from which this "ether stress" can be drawn. Initially I was using thoriated tungsten welding rods. They are mildly radio-active (alpha emitter) and so they make the air in the immediate vicinity conducting, thus increasing the effect. But aluminium and platinum seem to do pretty well too. Insulators (plastic and glass) produce no effect. A pencil (graphite) produces a very small effect.
Using the welding rods, sometimes I thought I could see a minute white spark. But that may have been my imagination or a reflection from the spark gap.

Anyway....
If I understand what you are saying you propose to put a number of these in series. But the way I see it every cap will in that case do the same as this single cap. I can not see an increase per capacitor. If I misunderstand you, perhaps you could draw a sketch as you see it?

Ernst.

[bbem]

Mathematical prove of the ether

Hello fellow countryman Ernst W,

Saw at your youtube channel that you are good in mathematics.
What do you think about these maths:
EinsteinGravity.com

Do you think it is correct and does it fit on your work?

ps.
Have also a look at his youtube channel and specifically:
Mathematics about Electricity: Monumental Discovery re: Einstein, Electricity and Gravity. - YouTube
And Biggest Physics Breakthrough of this Century ! - YouTube

[Ernst]

Hi bbem,

So you too are now the proud subordinate of a king?
Now, all we need is some elves and a wizard and the war against the orcs (muslim?) can start. Funny thing is that these orcs aren't even orcs. They are all hobbits, like us. But Sauron, who still can not take physical form, tricks us into seeing things that are not really there.
Oh well, enough said about that.

The einstein-man... Some things he says contain very interesting truths, some things I have also considered. Yet although he pretends to have a complete picture, if you remove the errors there are still some pretty big holes to fill.
He tries to impress us by giving his results in many decimal places, but his numbers are not at all that correct.
example: lunar year=354 days (only 3 significant digits)
Earth orbital velocity: 30,689.1802374659 m/s (wiki says 29,780 m/s)
the size-of-a-mirror-image-of-the-moon-story feels a bit dodgy...
Then...
Anything that goes for Earth should also apply to the other planets. I can not see any reason why the Earth would follow different rules. Yet he writes:
Orbit velocity ^2 / Pi = Speed of Light
Then that would imply an equal velocity for every planet which is evidently not true.
Also when you pretend to be so very precise you should know that
- the planets move in elliptical orbits not circular.
- the orbital velocity varies, which according to him implies that the planet density also varies (Orbit Velocity x 2 x planet Density = Speed of Light)
- the Sun does not move in a path perpendicular to plane in which the planets orbit, and in fact no two planetary orbits lay in the same plane.

There are a number of additional mistakes and inaccuracies, but he is searching in the right direction, I think. If you read Tesla's statements on this subject you will find that he believes that mass creates some sort of rotation in the ether. This rotation causes stresses in the ether which are the prime cause for electrical effects (any ether stress is).
This rotation becomes visible for example in our solar system where the planets are being moved by the ether, which is set in motion by the mass of the Sun. So the planets are at rest with respect to the ether, they all are. And so is the moon and other planets' moons.
Modern science distinguishes between two forms of mass:
gravitational mass: F = G m1 m2 /d^2
inertial mass: F = m a
Experiments have shown that these two masses seem to be identical for as far as we can measure. Truth is... they are identical!
A mass moves to the centre of a rotation because of its inertia; it does not 'want' to move and so it moves to where there is least movement; the centre of rotation, which is where the mass is which causes that rotation. So it looks as if masses attract each other, while they are just being lazy.

Ernst.

[boguslaw]

Hmm...for example we consider friction as mechanical force during computation while everybody knows it is related to electrostatic attraction of atoms.