Are scalar waves BS?

[Farmhand]

@Void: its your lucky day today, I found it in the first try ;-)

Book: Scalar waves by Konstantin Meyl
Chapter 9.8 Measuring and switching technique of Nikola Tesla, pg.205
Chapter: 9.9 Energy technical usage, pg. 207

The description about collecting neutrinos starts at a bottom half. For the benefit of those who don't have a book, I'll do a short excerpt:

from pg.205

" ... The degree of effectiveness of today's distribution technology of current due to the having losses lies clearly beneath 100 per cent. Without the losses of the wiring it lies close to 100 per cent for the discussed one wire energy transmission. There the vortex rings are guided nicely one after another along the line like beads drawn over a string. This result eve is to be expected, as far as no vortex "jumps off" the wire or "falls apart". For the wireless version Tesla however to his own surprise had to find out that more energy could be received, than his transmitter produced. The measured degree of effectiveness lay above 100 per cent! He therefore called his transmitter a "Magnifying Transmitter" (fig. 9.10). The further transmitter and receiver were away of each other, the further the received energy increased. Tesla inferred from this, that there had to exist free energy and that he had caught that too."

form pg.207:

" ... If the neutrinos for instance are just positively charged when leaving the transmitter electrode, than an electromagnetic force of attraction takes place, if the receiver electrode at the same time is negatively charged. The required operation with the same frequency and opposite phase guarantees that also the next moment, if both, the neutrino and the receiver, have changed their polarity, the electromagnetic attraction is preserved.

It is obvious, that strange neutrinos which fly past and by chance oscillate synchronously are as well attracted. In that way the power collected in the receiver capacitor will increase further and degrees of effectiveness of over 100% are obtainable. Tesla discharges the receiver capacitor timed with the frequency of resonance (fig. 9.9) and point to the difficulty of an exact keeping of the condition of synchronization. ... "

There is no quote from Tesla there, the increasing power at increasing distance from the transmitter is easily explained by Tesla
as well in the book Nikola Tesla and his work on alternating currents. And it goes like this - because there is a
current node = 0 volts at the ground plate at the base of the transmitter and the receiver is at the 1/4 Wavelength then the
voltage and power at the transmitter base is very low almost zero however the further from the transmitter you go and the
closer you get to the 1/4 wavelength and the receiver the higher the voltage and as a result the higher will be the current it can
cause and the higher the power that can be received.

The radiant energy receiver is what collected free energy and Tesla mentioned that it collected more energy during the night than
the day, I think from memory.

So anyway I shielded my receiver terminal much more effectively than Meyl and still powered a larger load with a residual
resonant rise.

I showed with a lighting setup I was experimenting with how the current into the ground is much increased by tuning to near
resonance a grounded system with an elevated capacitance.

Truth is that if Meyl had in fact measured valid OU or demonstrated "Scalar Waves" he would be very famous, a household name.

The math is all good if it leads to something, but Meyl has no special experimental results to go with his math.

..

I think you'll find Tesla called his system a Magnifying Transmitter because it magnified the voltage and current and power but he
never claimed any magnification of energy and I challenge you or anyone to show words from Tesla where he claims a
magnification of energy from his Magnifying Transmitter.

Read the book - "Nikola Tesla On his work with alternating currents". It contains Tesla's own words.

It's all there.

I don't get why people read the work of people who disrespect Tesla's legacy, rather than read Tesla's own words on the matter.

..

[Farmhand]

Hi Farmhand. Nice experiment. It is a given that voltage magnification is not necessarily indicative of a power gain, let alone OU.
I haven't seen any video of Meyl's where he demonstrates measuring OU, so I can't really comment on that, but anyone can
potentially make measurement errors, even professors. I would have to know all the details about how they did
their measurements before I could draw any conclusion one way or the other about whether they really measured OU
or not. That is separate from Meyl's concept of scalar waves however. As I mentioned previously, I personally don't
know if there is such a thing as scalar waves or not, and I think a person would have to be quite good at advanced math
to be able to evaluate Meyl's mathematical analysis. I personally am not able to comment on his math.
All the best...

Thanks Void, but I think it only a demonstration and a rough one at that, but it shows Meyls hand waving "shielding the receiver terminal ruse" for what it is, showmanship !

I have a plethora of experiments and demonstrations with that pair of transformers and also some more with a smaller set.

I made my own circuit controllers ( DC choppers ) and constructed the coils so that many parts of the tuned circuits could be
tuned. I operated the transmitters and receivers close to or at resonance with sine waves shown at the terminals and the
receiver output coil.

I can achieve voltage - current and power magnification in the oscillating circuit due to resonance just as Tesla describes but on
a small scale.

I've run small motors, filament bulbs and such from the receiver and got output voltages up to several hundred volts on a
capacitor connected via a FWBR to the output coil with 12 volts input. All is expected and normal. I can use one small Tesla
transformer connected to a ground stake as a crystal radio with no external antenna except the ground stake and receive an
AM radio transmission from about 25 Klms away while inside the steel shed. I can excite two tuned receivers to power loads
from one Transmitter. All good fun and interesting.

Many of the demonstrated things Meyl points to as evidence of something special are easily explained as regular effects.

He needs demonstrated evidence to back up his math, math won't transmit energy it can only explain how or why if correct.

..

[Void]

Hi Farmhand. Good job on your tesla coil wireless power experiments. I've experimented with that
a bit as well, but not as much as you have. You have got some good results there. I have a little different
perspective than you in regards to people like Dr. Meyl, where they propose new ideas and new ways of looking at things.
It is easy for anyone to just dismiss such things out of hand and say they are definitely just mistaken or kooks or whatever,
but in the case where such a person does have a very solid and advanced educational background in a field related to
what they are talking about, it is not so easy to just quickly dismiss such a person as a complete kook, although many
people still do. Yes, Meyl could good be off the mark about certain things, but on the other hand, he could
be right about many things, or at least right about some of the things he is talking about.

As an example, I believe Meyl has talked about faster than light propagation of the 'scalar longitudinal waves', if I
remember correctly. It's been a while since I have gone through his stuff. Meyl's views about longitudinal waves
appear to be a new way of looking at and understanding 'near field' effects, if not more.  Meyl isn't the only academic/scientist who is
suggesting these sorts of things. Here is a link to and excerpt from a PDF file of a research paper from Orebro University
in Sweden. They have run experiments to analyze the speed of propagation of electric and magnetic fields around an antenna, at different
distances, as well as gravitational waves, and then analyzed the results. They came to the conclusion that within the near field
distance range they do propagate at superluminal speeds, but at distances greater than one wavelength they are propagating at
the speed of light. So Meyl may actually be on the right track about such things after all. It is easy to dismiss things out of hand, but
sometimes you might just be dismissing something of real value if a person is too quick to dismiss things... A single research paper
by itself is not proof of anything, but it does potentially add some support to some of the things Meyl has been saying.

"Near-field Analysis of Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields
William D. Walker
Örebro University, Department of Technology, Sweden

Abstract
A near-field analysis based on Maxwell's equations is presented which indicates that the fields
generated by both an electric and a magnetic dipole or quadrapole, and also the gravitational waves
generated by a quadrapole mass source propagate superluminally in the nearfield of the source and
reduce to the speed of light as the waves propagate into the farfield. Both the phase speed and the
group speed are shown to be superluminal in the nearfield of these systems. Although the information
speed is shown to differ from group speed in the nearfield of these systems, provided the noise of the
signal is small and the modulation method is known, the information can be extracted in a time period
much smaller than the wave propagation time, thereby making the information speed only slightly less
than the superluminal group speed. It is shown that relativity theory indicates that these superluminal
signals can be reflected off of a moving frame causing the information to arrive before the signal was
transmitted (i.e. backward in time). It is unknown if these signals can be used to change the past."
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0304/0304090.pdf

Sounds like crazy stuff, but this research came from people who presumably are highly qualified in their field of research.

All the best...

[DROBNJAK]

I have a little different perspective than you in regards to people like Dr. Meyl, where they propose new ideas and new ways of looking at things. It is easy for anyone to just dismiss such things out of hand and say they are definitely just mistaken or kooks or whatever,
but in the case where such a person does have a very solid and advanced educational background in a field related to
what they are talking about, it is not so easy to just quickly dismiss such a person as a complete kook, although many
people still do.

Yes, Meyl could good be off the mark about certain things, but on the other hand, he could
be right about many things, or at least right about some of the things he is talking about.

We are on the same page here. People like Dr. Meyl spend whole life doing one thing. They are even paid while to do it. So they are the hardest ones to dismiss.

Thanks for that link, I am going to check that out.

[dieter]

"...causing the information to arrive before the signal was transmitted..."


OMG. 


Indeed, I like the sound of it. Now pls excuse me, I've got to check the Lotto numbers... 


BR




BTW. I think this is a good example for two things:  first of all, titles and degrees don't mean anything, even worse, univercities are the places to conserve l the current political and social model, that is the capitalistic semi-subtile enslavement of mankind. Second, the speed of light has nothing to do with time, time is an abstract invention of men, Einstein was wrong about "space time" and the fact that honoured, established scientists are seriously trying to discover a "time particle" shows that their titles and degrees don't mean anything.


But I could be wrong , that's how much open-minded I am.