It's my own site, I pointed to....
Einstein's theory stands or falls with the speed of light being constant. Since that depends on the properties of the medium, apparantly these are pretty constant in the vicinity of the planet, which is why the theory gives you the correct numbers in 99 out of 100 cases. You'd expect anomalies further out in space, and that is exactly what you see. Take the Pioneer anomaly, for example. That also only gives slight deviations of what is supposed to happen now the probes are very far out in space.
However, the root of the error is very obvious. Either matter is some kind of EM wave, as QM theory and the wave-particle duality principle says, and is therefore the result of the EM fields, or matter (charge carriers) is the cause for the EM fields to exist. And you simple can't have it both ways at the same time. It's one or the other.
I did point to my article, where you can find the proof. It's just plain logic and common sense.
We'll see how it turns out. I just know I did my homework.
Very interesting. If the mass is low enough, we may see yet another "anomaly" shaking the main stream science community, who still believes in Einstein's relativity theory, which is so obviously wrong that it is almost beyond believe it has survived for more than 100 years.
I have sent this article to some professors and a guy who claims to have found the error in the Neurtrino anomality at CERN and so far no reply:
"Last week the newspapers were filled with the discovery of "impossible" particles traveling faster than the speed of light. A month ago an "impossible" star was discovered and earlier the Pioneer space probes also refused to adhere to the law. This way, the scientific establishment will slowly but surely be forced to return to reality, the reality of the existence of a real, physical ether with fluid-like properties. The inevitable result of that will be that Einstein's relativity theory will go down in the history books as one of the biggest fallacies ever brought forth by science. In the future they will look back to relativity with equal disbelief as to the "Earth is flat" concept. The relativity theory not only goes against common sense, as Tesla already said in 1932, a fundamental thinking error has been made by Maxwell in his equations. This eventually lead to the erroneous relativity theory, as is proven in this article. It is therefore no exaggeration to state that the scientific establishment is going to have a religious experience. "
Keeping my fingers crossed....
You do have a point that this paper does not explain everything in detail and lacks the math. You can find the math here:
Also there are some critical papers here:
Haven't read them yet, but they appear interesting.
The point is that *if* this thing works, it is not working by magnetic coupling, but by coupling via the electric field alone, by means of longitudinal electric waves. While I by no means want to claim that these exist beyond a shadow of a doubt, I do think Meyls story on the Maxwell equations has a lot going for it, even though I am not convinced at all these would travel at a speed greater than that of light.
And I am aware that there are a lot of ifs and buts, and I certainly do doubt this specific device works because it appears to be quite clumsy, but you cannot rule out the possibility that a device like that may be possible, if you are willing to accept the possibility that longitudinal waves may exist.
And if they do, that may have far stretching consequences. As Meyl puts it:
"This new and unified view of physics shall be summarized with the term theory of objectivity“. As we shall derive, it will be possible to deduce the theory of relativity as a partial aspect of it [1, chapter 6 and 28]."
That suggests that you would eventually have to ditch Einsteins relativity theory, as Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill talks about:
So, things may become very interesting if this device or something similar would really hit the market.
I didn't mean to be insulting, but the author does make some pretty bold statements and sounds like he knows it all, while obviously he does not.
For example, he speaks of a "SINGLE wireless power experiment that worked recently", while obviously there are at least two, the experiments by MIT and the experiments by Meyl: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1426638491693188239&q=meyl
And also the title of his post as well as "It will NEVER fill the pool though" suggests a certain arrogance, which IMHO justified a little critical note in my reply.
As far as I understand Meyls theories, it appears to be possible to couple two resonators capacitively and when this happens, you get a (near?) standing electric wave between the two "capacitor plates", which would consist of what you would normally consider to be the antennas.
According to Meyl, the electric field lines are then no longer radiated in all directions, but close in between the "capacitor plates".
If you take a look at this page for example: http://www.dannex.se/theory/1.html
you see a very common picture at the top, showing the electric field lines concentrating between two opposite charges, instead of radiating out in all directions.
When there is resonance between two capacitively coupled systems and the two systems are out of phase, it appears not that far fetched to assume that it is indeed possible that the field lines are concentrating between the two "capacitor plates" exactly the same way, especially if there is a (near) standing wave between the capacitor plates and that you could get a very tight coupling that way, with the ability to transfer more energy than with RF waves, exactly because of this concentration of the field lines. I guess you could say you automagically get a directed energy beam this way.
And yes, you are probably right that this [w/c]ould also make an effective WiFi jamming device. There's really no way to know.
This device, if it works, is anything *but* simple absorbtion, and with all respect, Tesla's magnifying transmitter is very relevant in understanding the possible working principle of this device, should it work. And this has (almost) nothing to do with a Tesla coil, which is indeed a step-up transformer.
"Tesla played with "harmonic" or "tuned" energy, eg take two tuning forks tuned to the same frequency, tap one to set it going, and hold it three inches away from the second one, the second one will start to vibrate, you just transferred energy."
Yes, but he did cover a bit more distance than just three inches:
"New problems will occur to the HF-specialist, when in my experiment the distance between the transmitter and the receiver is 10-times more than the near zone.
Students of the TU-Berlin have shown and proofed this. Tesla as well had demonstrated a power transmission over 30 miles, whereas his near field was less than half a mile. I have shown how vortices are forming and how they come off the dipole, that the fields in the near zone of a Hertzian dipole are longitudinal scalar wave fields. But the scalar waves of Tesla and of my experiment show even more."
So, maybe you should educate yourself a bit more, before questioning the education of others.
Not necessarily, *if* longitudinal electric waves are used instead of Herzian waves. See Nasa's "Advanced Energetics for Aeronautical Applications: Volume II":
"Meyl helps resolve the controversy between longitudinal and transverse waves by explaining that the high-voltage "spark" transmitters used in the early days of radio actually transmitted both longitudinal and transverse waves (Ref. 33, p. 459). The characterization of the type of radio technology employed was in the receiver, not the transmitter. Tesla's equipment would only receive longitudinal waves, whereas the equipment of Hertz and other pioneer radio inventors (such as Marconi) were designed to receive only transverse waves. Because both types of waves (longitudinal and transverse) were being transmitted, both viewpoints of how the technology functioned were correct."
If Prof. Meyl is right and any normal RF transmitter indeed transmits both kinds of waves, then you could design a receiver tuned for these longitudinal waves, which according to Meyl can give a very tight coupling between transmitter and reciever and thus a very high efficiency in terms of energy transmission. From the same document:
"Meyl points out the wastefulness of Hertzian wave technology for communicating point to point (Ref. 33, pp. 482-485). With conventional Hertzian waves, only a very small fraction of transmitted energy arrives at the intended point of reception. In contrast to this, scalar wave communication, where the energy couples to the receiver (at resonance), could (according to Meyl) allow one to "carry out a telephone call right through the Earth" with the power expenditure of only a few microwatts."
So, the key then seems to be that transmitter and receiver are in resonance, coupled by the electric field, *not* the magnetic field.
Meyl explicitly talks about distances greater than the near-field:
"In the near field of an antenna effects are measured, which on the one hand go as inexplicable, because they evade the normally used field theory, which on the other hand come the by me shown scalar wave effects very close. Everyone knows a practical application: e.g. at the entrance of department stores, where the customer has to go through in between of scalar wave detectors.
New problems will occur to the HF-specialist, when in my experiment the distance between the transmitter and the receiver is 10-times more than the near zone. Students of the TU-Berlin have shown and proofed this. Tesla as well had demonstrated a power transmission over 30 miles, whereas his near field was less
than half a mile. I have shown how vortices are forming and how they come off the dipole, that the fields in the near zone of a Hertzian dipole are longitudinal scalar wave fields. But the scalar waves of Tesla and of my experiment show even more."
According to Nasa's "Advanced Energetics for Aeronautical Applications: Volume II" Tesla did get it working:
"However, Tesla's claims were backed up with documented experimental demonstrations rather than mathematical equations. In the following quotation, Meyl describes one of Tesla's demonstrations and states that Hertz's technology could not have accomplished such a demonstration:
In Colorado Springs he had built a 10 kW transmitting installation and lighted
200 fluorescent lamps of 50 Watt each on a mountain in the Rocky Mountains in a
distance of 25 miles. With that he had completely transmitted the transmission
power of 10 kW, as can be inferred from the press reports at that time. With
Hertzian waves, which propagate spatially, this experiment even today, after over
100 years, wouldn't be realizable technologically. According to the law of the
square of the distance one isn't even able to let glow a tiny little lamp in such a
Meyl helps resolve the controversy between longitudinal and transverse waves by explaining that the high-voltage "spark" transmitters used in the early days of radio actually transmitted both longitudinal and transverse waves (Ref. 33, p. 459). The characterization of the type of radio technology employed was in the receiver, not the transmitter. Tesla's equipment would only receive longitudinal waves, whereas the equipment of Hertz and other pioneer radio inventors (such as Marconi) were designed to receive only transverse waves. Because both types of waves (longitudinal and transverse) were being transmitted, both viewpoints of how the technology functioned were correct."
Dr. Ron Stiffler has also done some interesting experiments with wireless transmission of energy:
"Just think, with VLSI we can have 100 ENIACS on a chip!" -- Alan Perlis