Eric Dollard

[jpolakow]

By bypassing the variable mutual inductance, L107, the tube plates were driving the primary tank circuit directly. I was not able to change the coupling between the plate tank circuit and the primary tank circuit. I didn't realize how big of a deal this was until I saw the operation with and without this feature. (Obviously the designers of this transmitter knew what they were doing!) What the consequences are is that if the coupling isn’t variable, the primary coil tank circuit is tied to the output impedance of the tubes, and the tube tank circuit. Tubes generally have a high output impedance so this limited the amount of energy that was able to be imparted to the primary tank. With no variable coupling of the transmitter to the coils I was only able to get about 2.5 RF amps flowing in the primary tank. (About 75 % of the scale on the transmitter meter)

After fixing the transmitter, I ended up having to bypass the meter because so much current was flowing in the primary tank it was pegging the RF ammeter! First, a couple pictures.
Here's the variometer, L107, the variable mutual inductance:

coupling is varied by rotating the inner coil with respect to the outer coil.

Here's a reading on the RF ammeter, nearing full scale.


I didn't want to damage the meter, so I decided to bypass it with a piece of wire. I kept the wire as short and thick as possible to minimize its inductance, but it only reduced the reading on the meter by about half!
Here's some pictures of the meter being bypassed (yellow wire is the bypass wire):




Here's the meter bypassed, and still near full scale!


The only reason I mention all of this is that the reflected impedance from the plate tank circuit of the transmitter to the primary tank circuit of the coils clearly had a huge impact on the performance of the primary tank. This got me thinking- this should also hold true between the primary tank circuit and the secondary. The reflected impedance from the primary coils and its tank circuit probably limit the performance of the secondary to some extent if they are tightly coupled. There ended up being an optimum coupling of L107, but it borderlined on the smallest amount of coupling possible. I'll explain further as I get into the testing.

[jpolakow]

Updates

Hey guys I have some updates- I was finally able to catch some pictures of the dark spot in the fluorescent tube! That's just one thing though- it started this past weekend when I invited some friends over to my house for a demonstration...

I wanted to repeat some of the tests I did with Eric at the lab. Also I wanted to try to capture on film the dark spot on the fluorescent bulb. Also I have a higher voltage power supply at my house, and I wanted to turn up the power to the TCS a little bit. So I hooked up the TCS, coils, capacitor, and power supply like before. When I turned everything on I wasn’t getting any field detected in between the two coils. I started troubleshooting and realized the TCS wasn't putting out any RF. I was slightly embarrassed because I had invited these people over for a demonstration, so I started trying to figure out what was wrong with the TCS. (After all it had worked fine at the lab!)

Here's the schematic for the transmitter:


There's a keyer, and you have to hold a switch closed to trigger the rf output. I looked at the schematic and first wanted to make sure I was getting output at the plates of the tubes. When you close the switch for the keyer, a relay is triggered which simultaneously applies plate voltage AND connects the transmitter to the antenna output. I verified the relay was working and that I was getting output at the plates of the tubes. In between the plates of the tubes and the output of the transmitter is a band switch, variable mutual inductance coupling, a variable loading coil, a fixed capacitance, and RF ammeter, and the antenna relay. I was short on time so I just took some clip leads and connected the Tesla Coil primary tank to the primary of the mutual inductance, L107 in the schematic. This way I was able to get output to do a demo without having to troubleshoot the entire output circuit. It looks pretty simple but all those components are difficult to reach inside the transmitter. I was able to do a demo of the coils and resolved to troubleshoot the transmitter after the weekend.
Monday came and I started diving into the transmitter. I tested everything, the band switch, the capacitor, the RF ammeter, the switch for the fixed capacitance... trying to figure out why I wasn't getting any output. I finally figure out what was wrong- one of those super simple things I completely overlooked- dirty relay contacts. The keyer relay was working perfectly fine, the plate voltage was being applied, but some dirt or oxidation was preventing the RF from getting across the relay contacts. The only reason I bring all of this up is because it had a HUGE difference in the output of the transmitter. Once fixed, I tested to make sure I was getting output by using an incandescent bulb as a load:

[orgonaut314]

Hi Astronod,

A pig nose seems the right thing to try! Thanks. I suppose this info is in the radio amateur book that I still have to read

When using pulses however I can imagine that a high output impedance of the driver would cause less damping of the oscillations but I'm driving it at a steady sinus than I guess the impedance of the driver does not matter. Please correct if this is wrong.

As for the photo. I do have to work on the wires. Thans again for the practical tips! I am buying sheet coper right now to make my own capacitor to match the surface of the primary. I will try to use cd's (polycarbonate) as dielectric material. A screw through the hole in the middel. Hope it works

As for the tube power. I noticed that the healing effect is much musch stronger with the tubes than it was with the transistor frequency generator. I suspect Vasilatos is right if he says tubes and carbon make for aether current. This thing does really amazing thins for me right now. I don't know it is frequency related yet.

[AstroNod]

HF amp Transformer

hi orgonaut , here astronod .

the Z is high just 6000 ohms the transformer make from 6K -300 ohms
the amp see 6 K .

Almost all amplifiers RF have transformers . even tube audio amps ..

big tube stage rf might have pi matching .

i would go for the pig nose ar small core take you 10 min to make .

A of 5 is good i got 4 with just 6 turns sec at about 10MHz

i did look at your photo looks ok . the output cables from the amp can be better make 2 banana chassis also on the prim coil the cap tune prim need to be closer to the coil with strap copper to the tune cap .
make open feeder like 2 wires parallel with about 1 a 1/2 inch spacing for you 300 ohms coil sometimes i use thick cardboard to make spacers for my feed lines . just make little cards 2 x 1 inch or smaller and drill the holes for the wires with the right spacing , make one for every 15 a 20 cm . use wire about 2.5mm is fine copper . loudspeaker wire .

at the moment i make a extra prim. coil for the extra coil i made .
so thats a perfect teslacoil not what the normal telsa spark coils are with wrong spacing not 62% and no basic tmt calculations to get the extra coil dim. it will have telluric output to and groundplane reflector . the prim coil is 50mm wide strap and wil have 62% spacing to thats 31mm and it have 4 turns this size is due to the size in Aextra = Aprim

just a nice extra test to see how good the real tesla coils will do .

than i would make it so that it fit in the TMT i made . i know what to do to make it good in tune with the right ring caps after days of experimenting .

regards.

astronod

[orgonaut314]

I am thinking I am making all my calculations on the voltage amplification. Perhaps I should look at the power amplification? The input has a 4mA and the output has a 20mA so the current is amplified by 5. The power is also amplified by 5 x 3 = 15? Is this true?
But I see that if the voltage would be higher the current would stay the same so the power would be even bigger

Thanks for the balun idea! But it would change the output impedance to a low one and Eric said it should be high but I don't know why.

A lot to pounder

[AstroNod]

4:1 balun

hello orgonaut314,
you need a 4:1 balun trasnformer

very easy can be made of small a pig nose or small ring ferrite or ferrite rod.

turn ratio = square root (Zamp/Zprim) thats is in your case 4.47 or 4:1 ballun

ringbal
dutch ham site

4:1 balun design and operation
usa site .

lot can be found on how to make a 4:1 balun .

than A would be 15 a 20 .

regards,

PD7Z / Astronod

[orgonaut314]

Doing some more measurements I get Amplification=3. I have two 6sn7 next to each other now. This seems reasonable?

So with 3k internal resistance my Tesla impedance must be around 550 Ohm.

[orgonaut314]

Right now I'm doing a 20kHz AM frequency sweep on a 3.3MHz carrier on my Colorado springs model and that is not it's intended use

When measuring the impedance of the coil with a 10 Ohm resistor in series I measured the current with a scope and I measured the voltage with a scope over the coil. Now I get an impedance of Z-tesla=330 Ohm.

I peaked the coil by setting the variable cap on an angle and varying the frequency etc. I found my peak radiation measured with a nano amp meter and the beercan to be maximum at 3,04 MHz which is somewhat lower than what I measured before without the primary tank circuit.

Question is this low impedance what you guys are measuring too?

The problem is that with this low impedance the mu of my driver is going through a voltage divider with the internal resistance of 6k and an amplification of about A=20*330/6330=1,04 is the result

A=mu*Z-tesla/(Z-tesla+Zi)
mu=20 (tube amplification)
Z-tesla=330 Ohm
Zi=6k Ohm (internal resistance tube)
tube=6sn7

But when I'm calculating the power output I am reasonable sure not to disturb the neighbours because I'm radiating less than a phone and that is a positive thing.

[tgraca]

I do my best thinking in my sleep!

Experiment setup description can often time make clear what the scientist is doing and helps focus the specific terminology. For example this web page :

Inductor self-resonance experiments

The documentation defines the equipment and setup. The photographer did a good job of accurately describing and cooperating closely with the scientist. It is easy to follow.

That was great! Thanks mikrovolt! There are some very useful observations you demonstrated... I'll sleep on this... I do my best thinking in my sleep! -t

[mikrovolt]

Experiment setup description can often time make clear what the scientist is doing and helps focus the specific terminology. For example this web page :

Inductor self-resonance experiments

The documentation defines the equipment and setup. The photographer did a good job of accurately describing and cooperating closely with the scientist. It is easy to follow.

***

On the subject of receivers and vacuum tubes. I read where the 6DC6 was used on the front end of a 160 M receiver. The sensitivity was 0.1 uV. Out of different 6XX6 tubes tried the 6DC6 pulled out the weak signals better in noisy contest conditions.


***
On the subject of Telluric currents. During electrical atmospheric storms there are conditions with regard to natural telluric currents where significant amounts of power vanished from cables under the sea and subterranean. What are some explanations on this phenomena and what electrical artifacts where found to support this ? Is there a method to study this ?

[orgonaut314]

I was looking at this cosmic induction generator and it is clear that above a certain radiation level the radiation disappears. Now if one coil is making a clockwise vortex and the other is making a counter clockwise vortex than perhaps a particle is created having a plus and minus. I remember Faraday wrote that matter is counterspace and space is between the matter. Than matter is in fact a hole into counterspace.

This seems to me logical with the fact that in a hydrogen atom the electron is not radiating magnetic power. This power might also go into counterspace. And from counterspace the energy arises that somehow keeps the particles (vortexes) existing.

Anyway great implications that experiment once it is understood

[BroMikey]

Fair enough

If you watched the video you would know that all I did was quote Eric concerning his attack on Tom Beardon. I am just asking if this seems right that Eric should call people morons, idiots and whatever based on a differance of technical jargon.

Eric is a very smart man but he is a man so let us always remember that.

I am quoting Eric here and his attack on Tom B.. and I ask everyone what is going on there because I am a new comer not the smartest man whoever lived.

Everyone has got an opinion.

Good Day

Mike

[artoj]

Its about Eric not me

I will not be drawn into a debate about who I am and what I know, this thread is about Eric Dollards contributions to the understanding of electrical systems. this is not about me or my 10000 experiments, books, papers or machines that you know nothing about, this is about Eric Dollard and his understanding of practical electrical engineering. I find that the current generation of forum debates focus on attacking the posters personally rather than discuss the technical issues and share knowledge or expertise, in a fair and inviting exchange. I would rather pull my own teeth out with a pair of pliers than continue flapping my lips with trolls and misguided fools(if you take that personally then you have not understood my point). I could spend my time better by learning something new or creating a new piece of art than hitting keys in front of a computer, though teaching somebody by this activity could result in someone learning.

- I personally do not ascribe to a belief system of the Free Energy religion called Scientism. I would rather ascribe to Free the Cost of Energy Transmission, which Tesla promoted all his life. Harnessing Cosmic forces is still not Free Energy, the word harness is used to imply the action occurring is already due to a causation, that of the Universe in Action. What your beliefs in this are not my business to discuss.

- I never mentioned Bedini, and Bedini never mentions Beardon and yes Beardon does mention Bedini. There is no war that Bedini is fighting, if there is who are the two protagonists and over what? We all fight for the right to our own survival and sometimes our personal beliefs, if its over ideas then as E. D. Morel said in London, July 1916: "'Truth,' it has been said, 'is the first casualty of war.". The only war that I see is one over the Trolls version of Free Energy against the public good will of sharing life long experiences.

- Beardon does mention 3 people ad nauseum. Prigogine, Dirac and Whittaker. Each of these I have read extensively. Maybe you need to read about these people, so you can decide for yourself.

- Just to simplify, you can see everything that Beardon talks about is from theses 3 people, also Benini's work is based on the same 3 people. Monopoles- Dirac, Battery chemistry - Prigogine, Scalar Wave dynamics - Whittaker.

- Eric Dollard is an Electrical Engineer, someone who can Engineer and build physical machines that WORK, he has 45 years of practical experience, a rare breed who understands what he is doing. Because of circumstances beyond his control, his know-how is considered dangerous, mainly to those who twist practical knowledge into a quagmire of theoretical misunderstanding and lead the future engineers down the proverbial garden path.

- Erics theories came out of building things that work, those theories are practical devices to lever control of any analog electrical system that you can throw at it. I attest to practical work having repaired,designed and built, radios, amplifiers, motors and many contrivances that work according to the same knowledge. He explains his Engineering plainly and simply, very easy to understand and very useful for those who has done the hard yards by creating things from scratch without circuit diagrams or how to instructions. Best to spend 10 years of repairing and designing before entering into a discussion about things have not been figured out on your own.

- The only conventional terms Eric does not use are those that arose from Scientism. Eric does not need that sort of terminology, he speaks clearly by using Engineering terminology. Clear precise and build-able.

- Build the MEG and find out for yourself, I have. My conclusions are not here to be debated.

Here is a small exerts about the people I mentioned. Find their books and read, yours kindly Arto.

Ilya Prigogine is best known for his definition of dissipative structures and their role in thermodynamic systems far from equilibrium, a discovery that won him the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977. In summary, Ilya Prigogine discovered that importation and dissipation of energy into chemical systems could reverse the maximization of entropy rule imposed by the second law of thermodynamics. His work concentrated on the fundamental role of Indeterminism in nonlinear systems on both the classical and quantum level. Prigogine and coworkers proposed a Liouville space extension of quantum mechanics. A Liouville space is the vector space formed by the set of (self-adjoint) linear operators, equipped with an inner product, that act on a Hilbert space. There exists a mapping of each linear operator into Liouville space, yet not every self-adjoint operator of Liouville space has a counterpart in Hilbert space, and in this sense Liouville space has a richer structure than Hilbert space. The Liouville space extension proposal by Prigogine and co-workers aimed to solve the arrow of time problem of thermodynamics and the measurement problem of quantum mechanics.

Paul Dirac noticed an analogy between the Poisson brackets of classical mechanics and the recently proposed quantization rules in Werner Heisenberg's matrix formulation of quantum mechanics. This observation allowed Dirac to obtain the quantization rules in a novel and more illuminating manner. For this work, published in 1926, he received a PhD from Cambridge. Dirac's Principles of Quantum Mechanics, published in 1930, is a landmark in the history of science. It quickly became one of the standard textbooks on the subject and is still used today. In that book, Dirac incorporated the previous work of Werner Heisenberg on matrix mechanics and of Erwin Schrödinger on wave mechanics into a single mathematical formalism that associates measurable quantities to operators acting on the Hilbert space of vectors that describe the state of a physical system. The book also introduced the delta function. Following his 1939 article, he also included the braket notation in the third edition of his book, thereby contributing to its universal use nowadays. In 1933, following his 1931 paper on magnetic monopoles, Dirac showed that the existence of a single magnetic monopole in the universe would suffice to explain the observed quantization of electrical charge, but there is, to date, no direct evidence for their existence.Dirac's quantum electrodynamics (QED) made predictions that were – more often than not – infinite and therefore unacceptable. A workaround known as renormalisation was developed, but Dirac never accepted this.


Edmund Whittaker in the theory of partial differential equations, Whittaker developed a general solution of the Laplace equation in three dimensions and the solution of the wave equation. He developed the electrical potential field as a bi-directional flow of energy (sometimes referred to as alternating currents). Whittaker's pair of papers in 1903 and 1904 indicated that any potential can be analyzed by a Fourier-like series of waves, such as a planet's gravitational field point-charge. The superpositions of inward and outward wave pairs produce the "static" fields (or scalar potential). These were harmonically-related. By this conception, the structure of electric potential is created from two opposite, though balanced, parts. Whittaker suggested that gravity possessed a wavelike "undulatory" character. In 1910, Whittaker wrote "A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity", which gave a very detailed account of the aether theories from René Descartes to Hendrik Lorentz and Albert Einstein, including the contributions of Hermann Minkowski, and which made Whittaker a respected historian of science. In 1951 (Vol. 1) and 1953 (Vol. 2), he published an extended and revised edition of his book in two volumes. The second volume contains some interesting historical remarks. For example, it contains a chapter named "The Relativity Theory of Poincaré and Lorentz", where Whittaker credited Henri Poincaré and Lorentz for developing special relativity, and he attributed to Albert Einstein's relativity paper only little importance. He also attributed the formula E=mc^2 to Poincaré. In 1984 Clifford Truesdell wrote that Whittaker "aroused colossal antagonism by trying to set the record straight on the basis of print and record rather than recollection and folklore and professional propaganda

[BroMikey]

Free Energy Jargon

On Facebook someone asked what would Eric and Tom discuss in a locked room. My answer is simple, Eric would say "Pump those Scalar Waves Tom, don't kill the dipole", then as any good coyote(Eric) he would proceed to chew his head off.
I have been reading Toms long winded rhetoric for 30 years, clearly Tom Beardon has contributed "Zero" to understanding electrical phenomena, all he has done is promote a "Fee Energy" agenda that is impossible to engineer but by passes the critical thinking of a anyone that has been indoctrinated into the modern Scientism school of the Einstein religion.

Hi Art

I am new and saw Tom Beardon and John Bedini's video's. Tom says he is a retired military scientist and John Bedini follows his work and this is how free energy is appearing out of John's work.

Then Tom B says stuff like John's circuits all work backwards and thus John is like Tesla in some way. It is called "Energy from the Vacuum"

Next Tom B has a demonstration model of a tiny 9vdc battery powering this huge bike wheel motor and it is said to almost never run down.

Surely they have extra energy, don't they? Maybe each one is explaining things different, no one person is able to bring forward the real thing that others can replicate and prove so each one is doing his best to find more or extra energy?

I know this beyond any doubt. When I use my SG Osc catching the inductive collapse sending it to a capacitor discharge bank, batteries love it and get bigger.

So whatever the JARGON John Bedini has come up with some tools that really work and this stuff is all born out of the search for it.

People run their mouths and not their experiments. This is what I see.

I say show me what you have. Don't theorize endless hours presenting no validation through the experiment.

That is what I go for. John Bedini may have been influenced by many many inventors and genius friends but it didn't stop there with high sounding words.

I have his work here and no one else has come up with what he has discovered and applied to moving ions in a battery.

Like I said I am a newcomer and in 1 years time I have built 3 solid state inductive collapse energizer/ converters that change conventional energy into a form that I am not able to make any other way.

Then I have built 3 sizes of the capacitive discharging units.

I do not know John Bedini personally but I can tell you that his stuff works. John is an experimenter, a researcher, a teacher, an a gentlemen.

Eric is going around saying Beardon is a liar leading folks away from Tesla.

Jargon is a collection of terms associated with a certain field of study.

Both Eric and John have shown the world Tesla energy devices.

Evidently Beardon didn't stop the experiment.

Big talk has never impressed me. Show me the experimental evidence.

John B and Eric D. have both done that regardless of how each one wants to explain it with technical terms (JARGON)

Now look at Beardon's MEG, according to the MEG research Beardon has shown the world the evidence for free energy.

So where is our prove of concept device.

Like I said show me, don't just sit around on your hands and talk, these are my inter most feelings about invention as I watch people attack the discoverer.

I am talking to everybody not ART, here, but you are welcome to tell me what is on your mind ART.

Beardon's Meg, Bedini's Monopole, Eric's transformer all demonstrate some effect that is beyond the normal theory of the day.

Now look at the huge list of invention and discoverers in the last 500 years.

Now I will say one more thing that people forget and I hope this will sink into your being.

How can I say it without offending everyone.

Okay people tend to think that everyone is like they are.

Impossible. Does anyone know where I am going?

You are nothing like me, I am nothing like you, and each and every single person whoever lived is not like the next.

Comparing one another to each other is what we do and is pure foolishness.

I don't even know what I will do and why I do some things until I get there.

Eric is a thinker and many other things but should never be compared with any historical inventor or contemporary.

Eric has a special gift to explain things that is so far away from conventional terms that he sounds like a stammering blind man to us.

This is bad for sales and service or business because if no one understands you then it will be impossible to join in.

What I am saying is that we need everyone to do what is inside of them and we need to stop comparing them against each other in some kind of war.

Bedini is winning the war financially in some small way that gets his devices in use in the world today. This is the power of business and is a needed thing to going forward.

Book writing and Jargon is helpful for discovery as well and we need to work together.

Working together will mean we do not compare one another and forcing expectations upon one another that is not something that can be performed.

Enjoy the difference. The Governmental approach of forcing everyone and everything into demanding the same out of all. Do it this way or else, think this way or you are wrong.

Our problem is that we are all tinted by this indoctrination. So because of that we expect everyone to be the same as the next guy taking away from our personal identity.


Mike

[Aaron]

time check

The Supernatural Power Of Music w/ Eric Dollard

Tuesday, March 11, 2014
9:30am in CDT

Since we just went into daylight savings time, some are confused about the time of the show. 930am CDT is Central Daylight Savings Time, which would be 730am PDT Pacific Daylight Savings Time or 630am Pacific Time for places like Arizona that doesn't do daylight savings time. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.