Amazing simple experiment proving Dollard on dielectric capacitance

[TheoriaApophasis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-k8qe0o9SU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVVq_qatuUs


The second video is to prove I was not holding the rod and breaking its fall.

Dont be too harsh on this $20 part demonstration video.



From the point of Dollards below, Im using 3 magnets (ring magnets) on a delron (plastic) hollow rod.

magnets are 100% free floating on the rod, and passed thru a copper tube ONLY HOLDING THE PLASTIC ROD....., I get resistance coming and going from the plastic rod (dielectric capacitance)


Also proving Dollards position (as if it needed any proving) that "insulators are conductors and conductors are really insulators".


Fascinating! Promise the video (SEE LINKS ABOVE)


Im getting resistance off a PLASTIC ROD (insulator) thru a copper tube.

on the plastic rod are 100% free floating ring-magnets.



Investigating dielectric capacitance a bit further, consider an experiment of Ben Franklin, the father of the electro-static condenser. Here we will dispel the “electronics nerd” concept that a capacitor stores “electrons” in its plates. Taking the pair of copper plates as in the previous experiment, but now we have two pairs of plates, one pair of plates distant from the other pair of plates. Upon one pair of plates is imposed an electro-static potential between them. The cube of 10-C oil is inserted between this “charged” set of plates. This hereby establishes a dielectric field of induction within the unit cube of 10-C oil. Now we then remove this cube of oil, withdrawing it from the space bounded by the charged pair of copper plates, and taking this unit cube of oil, it is then inserted into the space bounded by the other un-charged pair of plates. Upon insertion it is found that the un-charged pair of plates have now in fact become charged also. It here can be seen that a cube of dielectric induction can be carried through space, from one set of plates to another set of plates. This induction is contained by the boundaries of the 10-C oil. Well golly-gee Mr. Wizard, what happened to all those electrons, Isn’t oil an insulator?

[TheoriaApophasis]

OK, videos posted above.

Sorry I should have had the camera aimed a bit higher.


So, 3 'rings' outside ring is copper, inside rings are the 3 magnets.....and inside the magnets is a rod/ring of teflon.


Any simple explanation other than Dollards about 2 dropping rings thru a "conductor" of copper?

one being the magnets, which we all know about .

but then also a "secondary eddy current" on the dielectric plastic rod inside that????

[Natusake]

Ugh... Both of those videos are terrible. They don't really prove anything since it's hard to see what you're talking about from the terrible camera angle combined with the terrible experimental procedure. Here is a much better video on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJyWaliROPo

This is a very well understood phenomena, and it doesn't prove "dielectric capacitance", this has nothing to do with capacitance. Obviously you don't understand what Eric is getting at when he is speaking of 'conductors confining electricity'. Dielectric capacitance is something completely different. The plastic rod isn't imparting any resistance, it would have been easy to find this out, just remove the magnets from the plastic rod and do the experiment again...

It is very easy to prove Eric's views on conductors and non-conductors, simply try to pass electromagnetism (some radio waves, for instance) through a conductor and a non-conductor. You will instantly notice that the conductor blocks the electromagnetic waves, while the non-conductor does not. This experiment is relatively easy to do.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Ugh... Both of those videos are terrible. They don't really prove anything since it's hard to see what you're talking about from the terrible camera angle combined with the terrible experimental procedure. Here is a much better video on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJyWaliROPo

This is a very well understood phenomena, and it doesn't prove "dielectric capacitance", this has nothing to do with capacitance. Obviously you don't understand what Eric is getting at when he is speaking of 'conductors confining electricity'. Dielectric capacitance is something completely different. The plastic rod isn't imparting any resistance, it would have been easy to find this out, just remove the magnets from the plastic rod and do the experiment again...

.

Youve LOST your mind, the video you posted is about Lenz law eddy currents in copper and magnets.


Ill confess to the videos I made being hastily made, but they werent even ABOUT eddy currents in the copper/ magnets.

They were about the dielectric capacitance/induction of the PLASTIC

From your comments you either didnt even watch the vids or you didnt even read the first post.


You said---The plastic rod isn't imparting any resistance


I never said it was, please scrape the cheese out from between your ears please.


I was showing the teflon rod was acting as a dielectric induction mass from the actions of the copper and magnets.


You not only missed the point, but the mark, and the entire premise.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Ugh... just remove the magnets from the plastic rod and do the experiment again....

Next time think for 2 seconds before you POST something.


Ive been playing with magnets and copper tubes (and aluminum) for almost 15 years now.

NEITHER video was about EITHER the magnets NOR the COPPER pipe.

Read the first post in this thread again, since you didnt read it the first time.

There is nobody here on this forum that hasnt played with magnets and copper tubes, and the videos sure as Hades had nothing to do with EITHER magnets nor the copper tubes

rather the conjunction of both AS acting upon the 'non-conductive' plastic rod in free fall in the middle of 1. the magnets and 2. the copper tube.

[Natusake]

Youve LOST your mind, the video you posted is about Lenz law eddy currents in copper and magnets.


Ill confess to the videos I made being hastily made, but they werent even ABOUT eddy currents in the copper/ magnets.

They were about the dielectric capacitance/induction of the PLASTIC

Then what's with the magnets? What's with the copper? Wouldn't it have been better to show the effects with only a plastic rod? Obviously its hard to understand what you are talking about since the terms your using aren't even close to standard fair, what I saw in the video was a copper tube, and a plastic rod with magnets around it. Usually one associates that with eddy currents.

[QUOTE]

You said---The plastic rod isn't imparting any resistance
I never said it was, please scrape the cheese out from between your ears please.

Okay, sorry, you said "I get resistance coming and going from the plastic rod" and "Im getting resistance off a PLASTIC ROD". Perhaps I made my statement wrong. I took it to mean that it fell slower and therefore it had resistance (to gravity). It's hard to glean much when the terms you are using are extremely vague.

NEITHER video was about EITHER the magnets NOR the COPPER pipe. [/B]

Read the first post in this thread again, since you didnt read it the first time.

There is a huge disconnected between what you say and the video. I read the thread already and watched the video and largely took what you were doing from the video, since you don't really have an understanding of how to English.

If the video was not about either the magnets nor the copper pipe, then why not remove them from your experiment, then drop the plastic rod...?

rather the conjunction of both AS acting upon the 'non-conductive' plastic rod in free fall in the middle of 1. the magnets and 2. the copper tube.

I beg to differ, since you seem to point out the very hard-to-see phenomena of the plastic rod falling -before- the magnets hit the top and slow it down. So it seems you are talking about the relation between a falling plastic rod and a still copper tube. Instead wouldn't it have been useful to remove the magnets altogether?

Really you don't understand how experimental process works and how to show your experimental work. Here is a much better way to show what you're trying to show so that silly people like me don't get confused:

First, get a better camera angle, put it so that the camera looks at the experiment from the side so we can see the rate at which the rod falls (and a piece of alternating black and white bar paper as a background would do wonders for this). Take a few different rods, a plastic rod, a plastic rod with magnets, a magnetic rod, and a rod that is neither dielectric nor magnetic. Drop these each multiple times and time how long it takes the rods to hit the floor. Compare the results. Also, don't hold the rod like you were doing in your first video, and don't catch the rod like you were doing in the second. You need to let the rod hit the ground to measure the time it takes to fall.

This would give us a much better understanding of what it going on then the that you showed which tells us virtually nothing.

Furthermore, it's hard to see what you are proving since it is ambiguous as to what you mean by "Eric's views on dielectric capacitance". This could mean anything from the dielectric field between a capacitor, to the dielectric field in electrostatics, to the dielectric field between the turns of a coil. A simple hypothesis 'if-then-because' statement would have been sufficient, although that is a bit over the top.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Then what's with the magnets? What's with the copper? Wouldn't it have been better to show the effects with only a plastic rod?

How dumb is that statement. Pure insanity. NEED the copper and magnets to induce a charge /field IN the PLASTIC.

So, was I supposed to rub the plastic rod on my ass and induce a electrostatic charge?

ROFL !! The POINT, since you missed it 100% again, was the plastic rod "should" freefall thru the center but DOESNT .

If the video was not about either the magnets nor the copper pipe, then why not remove them from your experiment, then drop the plastic rod...?

And what in Hades would that prove??? Look folks, Im dropping a plastic rod.

Surely you jest. either that was meant to be very funny or it was unintentionally a very very dumb statement

Really you don't understand how experimental process works and how to show your experimental work. Here is a much better way to show what you're trying to show so that silly people like me don't get confused.

Really you dont even understand what the experiment was meant to show.
Of course I could have made the video a lot better and a better angle.


Since you have cheese between your ears, lets be clear, the entire POINT is about the teflon rod having retardation in drop THRU the center of the magnets which is also dropping THRU the copper tube.

get that yet? Its about the plastic rod.



1. The video was only to make a POINT, not be classy or professional.

The POINT was "do the experiment yourself", not impress you with the video.

[Ernst]

Of course I could have made the video a lot better and a better angle.

Then why don't you? This video is way below your true capabilities, I'm sure.

1. The video was only to make a POINT, not be classy or professional.

But a video of this quality does not make a point.

The POINT was "do the experiment yourself", not impress you with the video.

Nor does it inspire anyone.

Now listen, you're retired (at what age again?), you have plenty of money and time, you know all about magnets and stuff like that, then why bother making a sh*tty video?
Video's like this are not only an entire waste of your precious time, they also bring you down, among us ordinary folks and maybe even below that level.
If you want to prove/show something, just put a tiny little bit more of your gigantic cunning in it.

Good luck!

Ernst.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Video's like this are not only an entire waste of your precious time, they also bring you down, among us ordinary folks and maybe even below that level.
If you want to prove/show something, just put a tiny little bit more of your gigantic cunning in it..

When you show something new and interesting, that IS the point. crummy video or not.


Im busy writing a partial Greek translation of Plotinus V.1 , and 100 other things.


I did prove and show something, you're only pissing about the video quality.

Suggest now that you know what is going on, you go test it yourself and make a "superior video" if you see fit.


There are those that do, and those that talk about those that do.



Id rather watch a crappy video in 240dpi making an interesting point than a 1080P video showing boring worthless garbage.


Speaking of HORRIBLE VIDEO / AUDIO, have you seen the 3 Main Eric P. Dollard videos on youtube?

Ive watched each video likely 10 times.

The videos and audio starring Eric P Dollard are HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE quality video and audio productions........

Doesnt bother me one bit.

But a video of this quality does not make a point.

Thats as insane as saying "if you write a discovery / important fact on the back of a bubble gum wrapper, then it has no value"


I point to the insanely AWFUL video-quality of all of Eric Dollards youtube videos.

They stand on their CONTENT, not their production values.


As Dollard would say "go experiment"

[Natusake]

How dumb is that statement. Pure insanity. NEED the copper and magnets to induce a charge /field IN the PLASTIC.

So, was I supposed to rub the plastic rod on my ass and induce a electrostatic charge?

ROFL !! The POINT, since you missed it 100% again, was the plastic rod "should" freefall thru the center but DOESNT .
And what in Hades would that prove??? Look folks, Im dropping a plastic rod.

Surely you jest. either that was meant to be very funny or it was unintentionally a very very dumb statement

Of course I was jesting, in response to your statements that the video was not about the magnets or the copper. My entire point by that ridiculous statement was to show that this is obviously not only about the plastic rod, but instead the plastic rod interacting between both the magnets and the copper.

Since you have cheese between your ears, lets be clear, the entire POINT is about the teflon rod having retardation in drop THRU the center of the magnets which is also dropping THRU the copper tube.

get that yet? Its about the plastic rod.

Once again, you don't seem to understand what you're saying. First you say its about the magnets, the copper, and the plastic rod interacting, now you say its about the plastic rod, you're not being consistent here. Once again, you can show what you are talking about using the experimental method I mentioned.

1. The video was only to make a POINT, not be classy or professional.

The POINT was "do the experiment yourself", not impress you with the video.

I'm not asking you to be professional or classy, I'm asking to to make a point in a way that you can actually make a point. I'd argue that one must be impressed by the video in order to do the experiment, otherwise they right it off as poppycock.

When you show something new and interesting, that IS the point. crummy video or not. Im busy writing a partial Greek translation of Plotinus V.1 , and 100 other things. I did prove and show something, you're only pissing about the video quality. Suggest now that you know what is going on, you go test it yourself and make a "superior video" if you see fit. There are those that do, and those that talk about those that do. Id rather watch a crappy video in 240dpi making an interesting point than a 1080P video showing boring worthless garbage. Speaking of HORRIBLE VIDEO / AUDIO, have you seen the 3 Main Eric P. Dollard videos on youtube? Ive watched each video likely 10 times. The videos and audio starring Eric P Dollard are HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE quality video and audio productions........Doesnt bother me one bit.

Thats as insane as saying "if you write a discovery / important fact on the back of a bubble gum wrapper, then it has no value" I point to the insanely AWFUL video-quality of all of Eric Dollards youtube videos. They stand on their CONTENT, not their production values. As Dollard would say "go experiment"

Oh don't even compare this video to Eric Dollard's videos. Eric's videos have arguable worse video fidelity than yours, but they actually DO make a point. If Eric's video was like yours it would be akin to showing the entire experiment with Eric between the camera and what he's showing.

The thing here, is that even though Eric's videos are terrible quality, I can forgive them since they still actually said something important, and showed the experiment correctly, and allowed you to reproduce it. Yours, on the other hand, doesn't even allow us to get a good look at the falling plastic rod.

This forum has loads of people making videos with terrible quality, but they still actually show us 'something', whereas yours shows us nothing.

If you wanted to show that one can acquire an electrostatic charge through the movement of dissimilar materials (dielectric and conductor), then it would have been a lot easier to rub the plastic rod on the copper then detect the electric field using an electroscope. Of course, such easy experimental methods are certainly beyond one of your stature.

If you wanted to, as you said "Induce a charge/field in the plastic rod", then just do the above... Or, HECK, just find a different video on youtube since you can't seem to show it well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh-CUEfdiic

Honestly you seem more like a spammer and a troll than someone who's actually interested here. Your extreme rudeness is a testament to this, but it really doesn't affect anyone since no one cares what you think about them.

[TheoriaApophasis]

This forum has loads of people making videos with terrible quality, but they still actually show us 'something', whereas yours shows us nothing.

. Or, HECK, just find a different video on youtube since you can't seem to show it well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh-CUEfdiic
.

You must be 10 years old, that video link you posted is:
Friction electrostatic generator


There is no friction on the plastic rod in freefall on my video.

Again, you have cheese tween' your ears.

There is no other video on youtube showing the freefall of a non-conductive plastic rod having retarded fall thru a set of magnets and the likewise copper tube.

I suspect you may have Asperger's Autism or likewise.


Now, run along little boy, and either do the experiment yourself or dont do it, or scrape cheese. I could care less.

then it would have been a lot easier to rub the plastic rod on the copper then detect the electric field using an electroscope.

Thats not what is being shown in the video, son.

The point is using a RING magnet and causing dielectric induction (or exchange of capacitance IN the teflon rod likewise reflected and interacting with the magnets and copper tube)


Once again, your back to rubbing plastic rods on things.

The point was a SPECIFIC setup, showing a freefall THRU that specific setup.

Let me introduce you to the definition of clueless, its in your bathroom mirror.


Stop talking about rubbing plastic ON things, son.

The Demo, poor video or not, is about a freefall THRU a specific set of magnetic and conductive rings by a 'non-conductive' plastic rod.


You are either extremely unintelligent,.... or purposefully being a Troll, plain and simple.

take your pick of the two.


Additionally as an expert philosopher, youre engaging in pedantic sophistry and nonlinear logomachy for sake of obfuscation.


No, go rub your rod. No interest in you and your things rubbing against things.

[Ernst]

When you show something new and interesting, that IS the point. crummy video or not.

Agree! 100%
But my point is that nothing new and interesting IS shown in your video.
I would point you to the same eddy current videos as Natusake did. Because THAT is what I see in your videos. Nothing else.

Im busy writing a partial Greek translation of Plotinus V.1 , and 100 other things.

I expected that much.

I did prove and show something, you're only pissing about the video quality.

You may have proved it to yourself, but your video does not show anything new and/or interesting.
When I mention video quality, I do not refer to number of pixels or colours or what have you.
I am talking about how your amazing experiment is shown.

You are the man of 1000+ capabilities, you are towering high above us. I understand that you have little time to convince us of your theories and experiments even if we could ever grasp what they are about.
I'm sure your experiment shows something of extreme importance that we little folk with our tiny minds (if you could call it a mind at all) fail to see. In making a video like you just did, your efforts are wasted and now you have to spend even more time answering silly questions about it. Where is the logic in that?
Tell some of your butlers to do the video in a way it really shows what you intended to show. That way you can save yourself a lot of time (for use on more important affairs) and at the same time it gives your household something to do.

Suggest now that you know what is going on, you go test it yourself and make a "superior video" if you see fit.

That is my whole point, and if I am correct, also Natusakes point. The video does not show anything that we did not already know. It is uninspiring, it has been a waste of your precious time.
Imagine this:
I make a video of myself washing my car and then I talk about electrostatic effects which you can not see in the video. And then I say, well, go ahead do the experiment yourself.
How many people, do you figure, will think "Oh wow, fascinating stuff, I am going to try that at once!"

Ernst

[TheoriaApophasis]

Agree! 100%
But my point is that nothing new and interesting IS shown in your video.
I would point you to the same eddy current videos as Natusake did. Because THAT is what I see in your videos. Nothing else.

New to youtube for certain. Unless you can find another demo (good or bad) about the retarded freefall of a plastic rod thru magnets which themselves are falling thru the copper.

have little time to convince us of your theories and experiments even if we could ever grasp what they are about..

Not trying to convince anyone of anything, rather say do it yourself. If you can find another video like it, show it to me.

that being freefall of a rod thru ring magnets and copper tube.

You CAN however show the frog and strawberry levitation from fields of course.

The video does not show anything that we did not already know.
I talk about electrostatic effects which you can not see in the video. And then I say, well, go ahead do the experiment yourself.
How many people, do you figure, will think "Oh wow, fascinating stuff, I am
Ernst

dielectric induction from a free falling object is NOT one Ive yet to see anywhere.

Please show me some. There might be one out there. Yet to see it.


How many people out there (not THIS board) even know that the premise of magnetism, or specifically instant action at a distance is a complete mystery.



The OP wasnt that there is anything NEW here, but a new way of looking at it.



Heres a quote from Dollard (see below).......something we ALL KNOW ALREADY......but he says it in such a different way, it makes people (well some) think differently about things we consider mundane.

It seems the spark of creative thought was drained outta you at some point.


What Tesla accomplished is…those transmission lines you see everywhere, that allows us to have a giant drive shaft that we can take rotary motion from a massive turbine plant and convey it thru an electromagnetic structure that operates with reflected waves and time frames etc. that works just like a drive shaft, bounces back and forth, twists, and rotates. But you can stand outside and look at those thick lines that go down any public street and in the space between those lines, the energy there is the energy of one railroad locomotive moving at 95% of the speed of light down the space between those wires, and there is NO evidence that anything at all is happening except the wires are slightly pushed apart and warm. So it’s a type of drive shaft that exists in another dimension. Then you put the synchronous machine on the other end (of that power line) and you couple out of that (electrical) drive shaft like a transmission and you have rotary force again. These things (rotary Tesla generators) are no more than stamped iron in patterns. By making this special arch form and its influences on the formative forces in the ether …Tesla’s invention is the most powerful arch form the human race has ever conceived.

- Eric Dollard

[Phat]

Free energy experiment!

Found this video on you tube searching random related topics to electricity.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VDjMbb0Z3JY
I am new to the vast world of E.M. but this seems shocking to me.
✴check it out ✴

[TheoriaApophasis]

Found this video on you tube searching random related topics to electricity.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VDjMbb0Z3JY
I am new to the vast world of E.M. but this seems shocking to me.
✴check it out ✴

Great video.


Ive had a superconducing Yttrium barium copper oxide set since i was a teenager.

It never made any sense how this was a "superconductor"


until Dollard said such things are really superinsulators.


Since I have 4 liquid nitrogen dewers, and still had some liquid nitrogen left over from 4 days ago, i put my Styrofoam superconductor set on a micro scale and poured in the LN2 and waited for the Yt-barium Copper oxide disk to boil down to L2 temps and levitate the magnet.


used my tweezers to push down on the magnet without touching and the "superconductor" moved the mini scale a bit.

makes perfect sense, as usual, thanks to Dollard.


I never before thought of seeing a cooled "superconductor" as a super-insulator before. All logical.