Longitudinal Magneto Dielectric Waves vs. ElectroMagnetic Waves

[ColoradoSpringsFilms]

This here is a replication of the not well understood, supposedly non-existent longitudinal magneto dielectric wave in comparison to that of the electromagnetic wave. Tests were done by sweeping frequencies to find a resonance point. By creating a quarter wave resonance in each of the examples the total wavelength in each test is multiplied by 4 to match requirements. This is a replication of an Eric Dollard experiment form Borderland Sciences which I decided to replicate since I have a signal generator and VTVM. The basic calculations for the transverse ELM wave is found over the internet and relies primarily on the unit variable of the speed of light. I was satisfied with the results as they thus showed that LMD waves propagate faster than that of ELM waves and even faster than the speed of light. As Eric Dollard would say, "Our first ticket from the relativity police." These results presented in the video demonstrate that a new set of equations or such will be required to find the resonant frequency on a free oscillating coil. If anyone has any other replications or thoughts they would be appreciated. I am very young and quite new to this, but my interest compels me to keep exploring these phenomena.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPeXaEKasnU

John

[TinselKoala]

You are to be commended on your exploratory attitude, but you should be aware of a few things.

Calculations are only as good as the data that goes into them. You  have made a calculation and a radical claim based on a frequency reading from a classic instrument that depends upon capacitors for timing. In addition you are calling a dial reading from this instrument "data". You have shown no calibration data: there is no assurance that your Signal Generator's dial is giving you an accurate frequency value, and unless you have recently replaced all its ancient capacitors and recalibrated the instrument to a known frequency standard, it is _certain_ to be off-frequency.

In fact, I would do it the other way around. Peaking the known coil will give you a more accurate frequency reading than your "line on a dial" method and could even be used to roughly calibrate your signal generator !

If, that is, your coil parameters are accurately known. How do you know you have 800 feet exactly, how is it coupled to the primary, etc etc.

I would like to see your resonant frequency calculated based on the usual Tesla coil parameters of diameter, winding height, wire gauge and coupling to primary, rather than the simplistic 1/4-wavelength by wire length calculation alone.
http://www.classictesla.com/java/javatc/javatc.html

And I would like to see some calibration check of your signal generator frequency reading (you have a "personal equation" to deal with too: when you see "261 kHz" someone else might see "262" or "260" kHz.)

In short, your research is interesting, but you really can't support your calculations and claims because your data is, at this point, unreliable, and you should repeat your observations with properly calibrated frequency counting instruments. Do you have access to an oscilloscope, or can you budget 200 dollars to obtain one? And you shouldn't set up straw men (the simplistic resonance calc) that don't consider all determining aspects of resonance in a coupled coil set.

(And I am afraid you go completely off the rails when you take the ratio of the calculated resonance to your "measured" values and come up with a velocity ratio.)

There is a difference in the resonant frequency of your two conditions. That is shown reliably by your uncalibrated instruments. Until you calculate the predicted resonance correctly in the two cases, which you haven't done, and until you get concurrently valid frequency readings for the two conditions of resonance, which you also haven't done, you can't possibly say whether your results are predicted by classic theory or not.

"Let's not worry about explanations, yet. Let's just make sure that we agree on the observations, first." -- S.Weir

--TK

[ColoradoSpringsFilms]

I agree Mr. TinselKoala. I merely replicated and explained as Mr. Dollard did. To be fair, I cannot convince anyone that this is an 800ft coil, as since I trusted a spindle off ebay. I do not have access to an oscilliscope, but when I have some more cash I should be able to obtain one. I understand that the results are not professionally adequate. This was just a demonstration of one way to calculate. I jumped the gun in my declarations as you mentioned and I thank you for the other recommendations. Appreciate your work on your own channel as well.

John

[Farmhand]

Seeing a propagation velocity that is greater then the speed of light across a coil is routine.
If we take the proposed resonance frequency for a given wire length provided by a calculator like this http://www.csgnetwork.com/freqwavelengthcalc.html

Then we take the wire and wind it into a coil depending on how it is done the frequency could be higher or lower than the frequency for the wire length.

In a well tuned Tesla coil a lot more wire is needed to get a resonant frequency the same as the calculator says.

This is because the energy does not necessarily follow the entire length of the wire, it takes a short cut across turns, and so the short cut means the propagation distance is less and that means the speed of light is not actually broken. Just that a short cut was taken. If two cars travel from point "A" to point "B" at the speed limit and car "A" travels in a curved path but car "B" travels straight from point to point, car "B" will arrive first without breaking the speed limit.

A similar thing happens in the Tesla coil. The energy takes a short cut in a steep spiral along the coil rather than follow all the turns all the way from one end of the wire to the other. This is well known and is predicted by this calculator here. http://www.extremeelectronics.co.uk/calcs/index.php?page=oltc_calc.php

Take a wire length and frequency from the first calculator and make a secondary coil in the second calculator so that the same wire is used then see the difference in the frequency for wire vs the coil. A coil can be wound to be net light speed, or apparently faster or slower propagation velocity than the wire itself.

My Tesla coil has a secondary and an extra coil, the secondary has apparent slower than light propagation while the extra coil has apparently faster than light propagation, together they come out as almost spot on light speed propagation velocity.

Eric admitted this to be the case and the speed of light is not actually broken. It just appears as though it is.

This is not Eric's discovery either. It has been well known for a long time. Tesla refers to it as the "electrical length" of the disturbance in the circuit, In this patent below.

Page 1, Lines 51 to 60.

Patent
http://www.google.com/patents?id=p5g_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Cheers

P.S. This is the coil tuned to light speed propagation. I could easily make it apparently faster than light speed propagation by adjusting the dimensions of the coils.

The coil has only about 40 secondary turns and about 165 extra coil turns give or take a few. So only effectively a 205 turn coil or so, the wire is 1 mm, not thin wire.
I figure a "Q" of over 8000 from memory. It can use a few hundred Watts but works with a lot less to produce multi 100 Kv terminal voltages. I can take the break rates up to over 1600 BPS. And with no break out point the energy can be contained except for radiations, the coil works in the 680 to 780 Khz range.

Throwing sparks with a break out point
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nkJtrKCdFg

Light output test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y1U1PSmAjQ

This one shows the induced coil arcing out towards the powered coil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rG_Rfqv6O0

..

[ColoradoSpringsFilms]

Thanks Farmhand.

I appreciate the links and info. I'll have a look. Very nice work you have there. Time to grasp my mind around all of this and pull out the books.

John