[Physics] Do longitudinal FTL "Tesla" waves exist and, if yes, how should they be modelled?

[Arend Lammertink]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 4:09 AM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > The way I see it, Maxwell's equations form a broken foundation that
> > needs to be fixed, no matter what. I'm afraid I've done my homework on
> > that one and I don't see any way how I could possibly be incorrect on
> > this particular issue, especially because the math is so obvious. The
> > consequence of this fix will be that there is no longer any gauge
> > freedom in the model, as should be if the aether really behaves like a
> > fluid.
> >
> > At the end of the day, either two conclusions are possible with
> > respect to Maxwell:
> >
> > 1) it is correct and there are no longitudinal FTL "Tesla" waves;
> >
> > 2) it is not correct and recourse must be taken to LaPlace / Helmholtz.
>
> The Maxwell equations have been well-tested already in the
> pre-relativistic pre-quantum times. There is simply no room for
> correcting there something.

Well, there's a lot more to the history of radio than meets the eye,
which has everything to do with the battle between Hertz/Marconi and
Tesla. Let me first share some of my notes on the existence of
longitudinal waves that propagate trough the Earth, basically Tesla's
Magnifying Transmitter:

-:-
I read in the work of the Erdmann brothers who claimed to have a
working FTL antenna for lower frequencies (like 27 MHz) and they claim
a normal antenna also emits a FTL wave from the tip of the antenna,
where there is high voltage:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/Erdmann%20-%20Experiments%20with%20Faster%20than%20Light%20Receiving%20Antenna.pdf

I've also taken a look again at Monstein and Wesley's experiment and
it actually beats me how this is supposed to work:

http://www.tuks.nl/img/spherical_antenna.gif

In their paper, they say:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/Monstein,%20Wesley%20-%20Observation%20of%20scalar%20longitudinal%20electrodynamic%20waves(2002).pdf

"The geometry of the spherical antenna is indicated in fig. 1.   A
433.59 MHz signal is fed into the inside of the metal sphere through a
coaxial cable, where the outside grounded conductor acts as a shield."

It seems to me that the result of a coaxial feed into a solid metal
object pretty much results in a short circuited transmission line,
which should thus not yield any result, other than that the shield of
the coax will act as antenna or waveguide.

I suspect the same problem also occurs with the Erdmann brothers
experiments, but it is rather interesting they report a delay in
signal reception from an AM broadcast station some 10 km away with a
normal antenna compared to their sphere antenna's, which are fed from
a high voltage resonant LC circuit. The station they received
transmits at 1270 kc, which has a wavelength of about 236 metres. When
they move their "faster than light"  antenna, they don't see any phase
shifts occuring, which suggests they actually receive a wave trough
the ground (connection), which is also what Eric Dollard says and what
he demonstrated with a Tesla coil system years ago:

https://vimeo.com/11917342

In this experiment, starting around 53:00 in the video, he shows there
are two distinct resonances in the (pancake) coils, one at 1.875 MHz
and one at 2.945 MHZ, which are a factor pi/2 apart, which is also
what Meyl showed with his experiments. Dollard uses the higher
frequency, which should have a wavelength of about 102 m. The signals
are picked up at about 900m, well beyond the near field. In his
Crystal Radio Initiative, he talks about this as well and says he did
experiments like this at Landers and he claims he actually measured
the signal delay between the two signals from an AM broadcast station
with an (analog) oscilloscope, just like the Erdman brothers, but he
has no data to support this claim.

Dollard says that an AM broadcast transmitter also transmits a
trough-the-ground wave from it's underground radials, the so-called
ground plane, and says good grounding is required in order for the
Tesla ground current system to work. In the video, he uses a sink for
grounding at the transmitter. I assume this means metal pipes going
into the ground. At the receiver, he uses a plate dropped into salt
water at the beach.

The problem with this demonstration is that a signal was also received
without the ground connection plate attached, so the two signals (if
existing) were not separated very well and therefore this is
inconclusive evidence.

I've also read Tesla's "The True Wireless", which makes clear that
Tesla's idea was all about ground currents and not radiation trough
the air:

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm

And there seem to be quite some early 20th century experimental
evidence such trough-the-ground signals are a reality, albeit at lower
frequencies, including at least the lower frequency short wave region
(as Tesla said):

https://borderlandsciences.org/journal/vol/53/n01/Vassilatos_on_Ground_Radio.html
http://www.teslacollection.com/tesla_articles/1919/electrical_experimenter/h_winfield_secor/america_s_greatest_war_invention_the_roger_s_underground_wireless

In the Vassilatos article, there are a number of advertisements for
under ground antennas, including one that simply hooks up to the water
pipes in a home and the Roger’s article contains an interesting letter
Roger sent to Tesla in response to Tesla's "The True Wireless"
article. It is pretty clear that Tesla did not believe in Herzian EM
radiation at all, which obviously was a mistake.

However, that in no way rules out his ideas about under-ground
currents, which are actually used today in VLF communications, a/o
with submarines, albeit (allegedly?) utilizing EM waves rather than
Tesla’s longitudinal wave, even though longitudinal waves appear to be
capable of penetrating much further into a material, like water, than
their EM counterparts.

Given Dollard, Meyl and the Erdmann brothers experiments and the
advertisements for short-wave underground antennas, though, it seems
that it is possible to get much better results from the under-ground
mode as is currently accepted by main stream theory and apparently
short wave radio stations with a good connection to ground (burried
radials) transmit both types of waves at the same time, so it appears
it is possible to receive both types of waves more or less separately,
depending a/o on the design of the reveiver, most notably its coils,
as well as the design of the burried antenna structure.

So, this is an interesting area of research, if only in order to gain
knowledge and understanding. Dollards description of the essentials
appears to be pretty good and also contains some history. I added some
notes in between []:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/General%20Theory%20of%20Telluric%20Electric%20Wave%20Transmission%20and%20Reception%20-%20N6KPH_Hertz_Tesla.pdf

"The first development in the wireless transmission of electric waves
was a telluric system [by Tesla] based upon the application of an
antenna sub-system known as the oscillation transformer.

[...]

In the operation of the oscillation transformer the winding is not a
simple reactance coil and magnetic field of induction. The
[irrotational, compressible] dielectric field of induction now plays
an important role, as energy now resides in the [compressible]
dielectric field in addition to energy residing in the [rotational]
magnetic field. In oscillation transformer operation the total energy
divides evenly between the [rotational] magnetic field and
[compressible] dielectric field of induction. The superposition [!] of
these two fields of induction give rise to complex electric waves. The
oscillation transformer winding, thus operates as a wave guide
structure, giving rise to electric waves through the exchange of
magnetic and dielectric energy.

Complex electric waves exist on the oscillation transformer winding
during its _resonant_ exchange of energy between the two fields.

[...]

Following the development of the oscillation transformer was its
application to the system of wireless trammission developed by
Guglielmo Marconi (1910). During its development by Nikola Tesla, the
wave guide and uni-polar [single-wire principle] properties of the
oscillation transformer were not fully understood. Tesla repeatedly
attempted to force the winding to operate as a simple magnetic
reactance coil. The importance of the dielectric field of the winding
and its complex relation to the magnetic field were to be missed by
Tesla and his contemporaries [because of Maxwell?]. This situation
would be further compounded by the efforts of Marconi.

The application of the oscillation transformer to the transmission and
reception of telluric waves was under patent protection by Nikola
Tesla. For Marconi to proceed with his wireless development,
significant alterations had to be made. In the telluric wave system of
Nikola Tesla the oscillation transformer alone served as the basic
system for the transmission or reception of electric waves. Marconi
would make important changes to the Tesla system in order to secure a
wireless patent of his own. The basic modification was the extreme
enlargement of the electro-static capacity of the free terminal of the
oscillation transformer winding. An aerial-ground structure known as
the Marconi "Flat Top", of considerable extent, was connected as a
basic condenser to the oscillation transformer winding. The
electro-static capacity of this aerial-ground structure greatly
exceeded that of the oscillation transformer winding. Hereby the
function of the oscillation transformer was reduced to that of a basic
magnetic reactance coil. Now unable to resonate with the winding
dielectric field, the winding lost the ability to operate as a phase
transformer. It now operates as a di-polar or two wire system."

Quite a lot of info to digest, but note how this story is closely
related to the way Maxwell's equations compare to the general case as
defined by Laplace / Helmholtz, which includes a fundamental
distinction between an irrotational, compressible field [E] and a
rotational, incompressible field [B].

The schematic on page 11, illustrating the difference between the
Tesla system and Marconi’s, suggests it may be possible to build a
receiver with a tapped coil quite easily, by simply grounding the tap
of the coil instead of the signal ground in this schematic:

http://www.circuitstoday.com/simple-am-radio

A rather interesting cicuit in this regard is the "Mystery" crystal radio:

http://hws.org.au/Crystalset%202000/mystery.html
https://www.qsl.net/kc4iwt/xtal/SWMystery.htm

The latter article has a very interesting detail:

“In the basic "mystery" circuit shown in Fig. 1, L1 is not used. The
tuned primary (L2) has two antenna connection points, A and B. A is
the least selective, but gives a louder signal. B is more selective,
but the sensitivity drops notably. While I show a ground connection, I
noticed that results vary. In most cases, I find that the set works
better in this configuration without a ground and is very sensitive.
Selectivity is enhanced with the ground connected, but some signals
drop out while others get louder. I’m not sure why this is and I’m
still experimenting.”

"some signals drop out while others get louder"

Could this be because of interference of the trough-the-air signal
with the FTL under-ground one?
-:-

Take this together with the evidence around superluminal anomalies
regarding both optical fibres as well as the microwave "near" field,
and one can seriously question the idea that the Maxwell equations
have been well-tested already.

Yes, the Hertzian wave predicted by Maxwell has been well-tested and
is well predicted, so that part matches and is pretty much OK.

The FTL longitudinal wave, however, not so much. This is not so
strange, given that Maxwell does not predict these, so one has almost
nothing to work with. As a result, virtually no (quality) research has
been done on this subject, so if one wants to do so, one finds himself
pretty much alone in the desert, without hardly any map nor guidance
to speak of, except for Dollard. He's about the only one that has a
clue about what Tesla's one-wire form of longitudinal electricity was
all about.

>
> Longitudinal waves can be easily added, as waves of the gauge degrees
> of freedom. In this case, they would simply fly around without
> interacting with usual matter.  The difference would be only
> metaphysical - mainstream gauge theory is essentially the attempt to
> get rid, even at the cost of essentially complicating the math, of
> those unobservable gauge degrees of freedom which don't interact with
> usual matter. If you use, instead, the gauge potentials as the
> fundamental fields, and use the most natural Lorenz gauge, they move
> with the usual speed of light.

What is the Lorentz gauge, really, in essence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_gauge_condition
"The Lorenz gauge hence contradicted Maxwell's original derivation of
the EM wave equation by introducing a retardation effect to the
Coulomb force and bringing it inside the EM wave equation alongside
the time varying electric field, which was introduced in Lorenz's
paper "On the identity of the vibrations of light with electrical
currents". Lorenz's work was the first symmetrizing shortening of
Maxwell's equations after Maxwell himself published his 1865 paper. In
1888, retarded potentials came into general use after Heinrich Rudolf
Hertz's experiments on electromagnetic waves."

Note the word "symmetrizing".

What does this really mean, "introducing a retardation effect to the
Coulomb force"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential
"In electrodynamics, the retarded potentials are the electromagnetic
potentials for the electromagnetic field generated by time-varying
electric current or charge distributions in the past. The fields
propagate at the speed of light c, so the delay of the fields
connecting cause and effect at earlier and later times is an important
factor: the signal takes a finite time to propagate from a point in
the charge or current distribution (the point of cause) to another
point in space (where the effect is measured)."


IMHO, what you are looking at is on the one hand an effort to explain
the propagation of the electric field trough time (since Coulomb
assumed an infinite speed) and on the other hand the "symmetrizing" of
a set of equations, Maxwell's, which are apparently not symmetric
already. When one compares the apparent lack of symmetry in Maxwell
with the symmetry found hidden in the Laplace operator, one starts
scratching one's head.

So, what happened is that the propagation speed of Herzian transverse
waves, c, has been taken as an absolute fact, and the electric field
has been artificially enforced to propagate at that speed also, even
though quite a lot of evidence supports the idea that this is not the
case and a FTL longitudinal wave aka "the electric field" exists. Just
like in any fluid-like medium, longitudinal waves propagate faster
than transverse surface waves, by a factor which depends a/o on the
Poisson ratio.


>
> > So, perhaps the question is: why is it so hard for you to accept option 2?
>
> I see clear errors in your justification.

Maybe the above helps clearing things up.

>
> > And why do you (apparently) see this as a rejection of you and/or your
> > work?
>
> I simply propose my own work.

Most of us do, no problem there.

>
> > To me, it's not a matter of "my model" vs "your model" but a matter of
> > finding common ground so we can eventually come to an "our model"
> > which makes clear to everybody that the mainstream emperor has no
> > clothes.
>
> I'm not that anti-mainstream.  I think the experimenters make their
> job, and the experimental clothes are quite fine. If not, I have no
> chance to correct them anyway.

I've become quite skeptical about the mainstream. In general, they
have a very arrogant attitude, while in reality they act pretty much
like a cult, worshipping the idols of relativity and quantum
weirdness, forcefully rejecting any attempt to even question these two
theories. To a rational thinker, the supposed "dark matter" saga shows
that in actual fact "a variety of astrophysical observations,
including gravitational effects cannot be explained by accepted
theories of gravity" aka GR and therefore something is seriously wrong
somewhere.

>
> Where the mainstream fails is metaphysics.  This is the part where
> they even refuse to discuss anything, based on positivist nonsense
> ideas that metaphysics are worthless and should not be discussed -
> which only protects the established metaphysics against criticism.

I have no opinion on metaphysics, don't know enough about the subject
to say anything sensible about it.

Best regards,

Arend.