Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[Kokomoj0]

Thanks for the reply. In his paper on the oscillating transformer he mentions "ratio of wire diameter to coil pitch is 60%." page 21 or 31. My copy has two page numbers.


What I really what to know is what is the lesser of 2 evils.
-using 14 gauge and having spacing a 'bit' off.
or
-using 14 gauge and adjusting the hight to width to accommodate the 62% of 14 gauge spacing.
??????

coils are sort of like horseshoes, if you can get it close its usually good enough.

the reason is that in the end this whole thing will need to be tweaked. so you may have to snip wire off and basically adjust the final tuning to match the other coils.

either way if your changes are not radical it will only shift the inductance, capacitance, and fo a little in one direction or the other depending on which way you need to go with it.

generally you set a target for design and best try to hit the target and tweak to finalize from there.

that is why in these old transistor radios you will find lots of coils on th epcb that are bent in all sorts of odd shapes.

[jake]

62% or nothing

There have been questions in regards to Erics use of the 'spacing factor' in the coil designs. While I do not have a direct answer as to how it is derived I believe this is a result of experimentation and most likely can be derived from equations in regards to wire transmission. I have not been able yet to fully derive this but I'm working on it. It may be beneficial for further refinement.

I would also like to ask if anyone noticed that there is 2 different designs, a 30 turn and 20 turn coil.

Thanks for the reply. In his paper on the oscillating transformer he mentions "ratio of wire diameter to coil pitch is 60%." page 21 or 31. My copy has two page numbers.


What I really what to know is what is the lesser of 2 evils.
-using 14 gauge and having spacing a 'bit' off.
or
-using 14 gauge and adjusting the hight to width to accommodate the 62% of 14 gauge spacing.
??????

[dR-Green]

So, after laying all that out, am I reading/seeing correctly? I will dig out the dimensional calcs from the condensed intro and the wireless books by Eric, as I'm just using standard antenna calcs above (234/f in Mc for 1/4 wave). I'm mainly checking my understanding so far, to see if I'm going in the right direction.

Thanks!

Hi Skiv. Rather than answering all your questions directly I will give you my flat spiral coil specs to give you an idea, built before any of the crystal radio stuff came up so wasn't intended for any of this, using the method described a few pages back (starting with primary and matching copper weight for secondary).

4mm spacing between each groove that the wire sits in, 4mm space between primary and secondary.

Primary (approx): 59cm diameter, 2 turns, 2x parallel layers 1.5mm diameter wire = 116.8 grams

Approx 113g in winding (excluding lead-in and lead-out).

Secondary (approx): 114 grams = 51.65 metres 24 SWG 0.56mm diameter wire

51.65m with base dimensions = 34.5 turns secondary

I'm tuned to a station broadcasting at 882kHz.

In relation to Eric's equation for calculating secondary conductor length:

ls = 4.8 x 10*9 / 882000 = 54.421768707482993197278911564626 metres

[madhatter]

There have been questions in regards to Erics use of the 'spacing factor' in the coil designs. While I do not have a direct answer as to how it is derived I believe this is a result of experimentation and most likely can be derived from equations in regards to wire transmission. I have not been able yet to fully derive this but I'm working on it. It may be beneficial for further refinement.

I would also like to ask if anyone noticed that there is 2 different designs, a 30 turn and 20 turn coil.

[Pulsed]

With regard to the MIT physics demonstration on the dissectable capacitor linked in post 31 of this thread:

MIT Physics Demo -- Dissectible Capacitor - YouTube

In addition this quote by Mr Eric Dollard from post number 71 on this thread:

"Glass is a dielectric which can store electrical energy within its physical form. This should be common knowledge and not a surprise to anyone today…"

This page seems to attribute this as a 'special effect'. To quote the article here: Leyden jar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"It was initially believed that the charge was stored in the water in early Leyden jars. Franklin's investigations led him to conclude that the charge was stored in the glass, not in the water, as others had assumed. A popular experiment which seems to demonstrate this involves taking one apart after it has been charged and showing that the charge is stored on the dielectric, not the plates. The first documented instance of this demonstration is in a 1749 letter by Franklin.[4] Franklin designed a "dissectible" Leyden jar, which was widely used in demonstrations. The jar in the demonstration is constructed out of a glass cup nested between two fairly snugly fitting metal cups. When the jar is charged with a high voltage and carefully dismantled, it is discovered that all the parts may be freely handled without discharging the jar. If the pieces are re-assembled, a large spark may still be obtained.

This demonstration appears to suggest that capacitors store their charge inside their dielectric. This theory was taught throughout the 1800s. However, this phenomenon is a special effect caused by the high voltage on the Leyden jar.[5]In the dissectible Leyden jar, charge is transferred to the surface of the glass cup by corona discharge when the jar is disassembled; this is the source of the residual charge after the jar is reassembled. Handling the cup while disassembled does not provide enough contact to remove all the surface charge. Soda glass is hygroscopic and forms a partially conductive coating on its surface, which holds the charge.[5] Addenbrook (1922) found that in a dissectible jar made of paraffin wax, or glass baked to remove moisture, the charge remained on the metal plates.[6] Zeleny (1944) confirmed these results and observed the corona charge transfer.[7]In capacitors generally, the charge is not stored in the dielectric, but on the inside surfaces of the plates, as can be observed from capacitors that can function with a vacuum between their plates.[8]"

What would be your thoughts on the operation of a vacuum capacitor then Vacuum variable capacitor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?

Many thanks in advance.

[Skiv]

I've got some things running around in my head and would like a little help sorting them out. Specifically, I've been thinking about the flat coil design as used by Eric in the longitudinal video and in the Tesla Marconi Wireless video.

Bear with me while I lay out and then try to integrate some disparate threads that I've been reading.

I was also interested in the Alexanderson Array discussion. What I've read by Tesla -- and, to be sure, Steinmetz and Dollard -- says that the Tesla system can be used for communication and wireless transmission of power, but the texts imply to me to that the conditions under which either one of those aims can be accomplished differ.

In the 1989 video about the Tesla Marconi Wireless that recently resurfaced Eric discusses the Alexanderson Array at Bolinas with respect to the astronomical level of circulating energy in the array. He mentions that the array would "ring" under certain conditions, and that even 15 wpm morse signals would be "slurred" by the inability of the array to shed electromagnetic energy quickly enough.

As a ham operator with some professional wireless experience, I can say that 15 wpm morse Is. Like. Reading. A. Book. One. Word. At. A. Time. An op with a good fist can send 25-40 wpm steady all day, and copy it on a "mill" (typewriter) with ease. True pros usually ran faster than that, though in the maritime service one often had to contend with a sparky on a tramp freigther who was doing well to get his pants on right way front and send reliably at 15 wpm.

I use that example to substantiate what I've read of Tesla and others who talk about configuring the system for its intended use. If the circulating energy made communication difficult it still may have been excellent conditions for transmission of wireless power, which is what I'm getting out of Eric's use of that anecdote.

In the SBARC video, Eric relates using a flat-coil "antenna" on his ham station in the CW portion of the 40-metre band, around 7000 kc. A similar coil as shown in the longitudinal demonstration, the beach "broadcast," and in the Marconi video is described by Eric (in the Marconi video) as a "2.3 megacycle coil."

This implies to me that if he was using a similar coil on his 7000 kc station he was probably using one of two other choices: a coil intended for the 3500 kc or 80-metre ham band, running on the second harmonic; or one built for the 7000 kc or 40-metre band. Intuition tells me it ought to be the latter, because:

Tesla and others specify an odd-multiple of quarter-wavelength for the secondary. A secondary one-quarter-wavelength long at frequency X will be one half-wave (two quarters) long at frequency 2X.

The reason this specifically is interesting to me is that I'd like to build a flat coil like that and try it out at either 80 or 40 metres. From what I read, it seems to me that lower frequencies are better for telluric effects. Eric talks about using a ham transmitter to feed the system, which I have. I don't have a 160-metre rig, however, but my old rig has 80 and 40 on it.

I also want to try it out in a receiving arrangement, much like what Eric shows in the videos mentioned above. I get it that the coil itself is only a "virtual ground" while the ground itself is the active terminal. He demonstrates using his 2.3 mc coil as the virtual ground in a system to receive 10 mc signals, so evidently the specifics of the coil as they apply to receiving action are less critical than for transmitting. Is that essentially parallel to Electro-Magnetic practise, where any ol' chunk of metal in the air will receive but may not transmit effectively?

As I figure it, if I'm going to build a coil it ought to be as useful as possible to me. That, to me, implies building one for, say, 80 metres and then using it as well for other experiments in receiving at frequencies above and below its design frequency.

What seems to be necessary to put this in place are the following conditions:

1. Flat secondary coil of odd-multiple quarter-wavelength, wound with 14 ga. wire as suggested by Eric. At 3725 kc, quarter-wave is 62.8 feet. Making a sufficiently large coil form would allow for a three-quarter wavelength secondary needing 188.4 feet. Still doable and the primary would then be longer as well.

2. Flat primary coil, which at any frequency is not going to be even close to a quarter-wave (extrapolating from Tesla's CSN and from Eric's 2.3 mc coil), wound in one turn with flat copper strip. The coil as demonstrated by Eric seems to have two turns, is that correct? I know Tesla used both one and two turn primaries.

3. A good connection to ground. I live on a mountain of iron-bearing rock. We call the place "Stone Ground Farm" because that's the only bloody kind of ground we have. That means I'll need to lay out a star radial ground terminal system. Probably 16 x 75-foot runs of copper wire, tied to a central ground stake and to stakes at the end of each radial. In the vicinity where I want to put this, I have a buried shipping container used as a root cellar, so I have a large buried body of steel that I will likely tie into.

Looking at Tesla's patents, the centre of the secondary goes to the elevated capacitance, and the outside edge of the secondary goes to ground. The primary is connected across the signal generator. I'm not sure what that's gonna do to a set of solid state finals, even at minimum power.

So, after laying all that out, am I reading/seeing correctly? I will dig out the dimensional calcs from the condensed intro and the wireless books by Eric, as I'm just using standard antenna calcs above (234/f in Mc for 1/4 wave). I'm mainly checking my understanding so far, to see if I'm going in the right direction.

Thanks!

[pnajafi]

Pancake shape

Hey Guys,

I hope you are doing well.

Does anyone know why pancake coils generate more voltage than an standard coil between each turn?

This is explained by Tesla, but I am not sure how the shape of the coils were determined. Also, what are the parameters for a single wound and bifilar pancake, any formulas? I just want to see how someone understands and develop an intuition with these shapes.


www.Magnetricity.com ... Tesla's BIFILAR 'COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS' Patent # 512,340, dated January 9, 1894
Nikola Tesla explains that a standard coil of 1000 turns with a potential of 100 volts across it will have a difference of 0.1 volt between turns. A similar BIFILAR coil will have a potential of 50 volts between turns.
In that the stored energy is a function of the square of the voltages the energy in the BIFILAR will be ... 50 squared / .1 squared = 2500 / .01 = 250,000 times greater than the standard coil

[7imix]

Kokomoj0,

I think the issue might be that you are confused about what Tesla was claiming. Do you have a specific quote about the Magnifying Transmitter on which you base your assertion that there must be "extra" energy coming from somewhere?

The Magnification Factor has to do with the "bang for the buck." In "Tesla on his work with Alternating Currents," he draws an analogy between the rapid discharge of a capacitor and the firing of a gun or dynamite. If you want to blow up a rock, you use dynamite, not a campfire that consumes the same amount of energy over a much greater time.

Also in the same book, Tesla discusses at great length how the Magnifying Transmitter, by operating at lower frequencies around 20-200 khz, was a highly efficient transmitter because the energy being put into the earth by each impulse from the driver was not being dissipated through radiation resistance.

This is because the transfer is happening through the earth, which, having a cross-section to length ratio of 1, is a very low resistance conductor. If the transmitter was perfectly tuned to the earth, then the reflected impulses from the other side of the globe would perfectly match up with the impulses at the transmitter and all energy put into the system will be conserved, with minimal losses to ohmic resistance in the driver and earth.

Hook up the transmitter to Niagra Falls, and free energy for the whole earth. However, all the energy being taken out would still be being put in at some point by the driver.

Here's a quote from "Tesla on his work with Alternating Currents" p 130:

Counsel: Will you pardon me for interrupting again. You spoke some time ago about getting all of the energy from your transmitting into your receiving station by this method of yours. I do not understand how you can get all of it.

Tesla: Oh, that is hardly true; I am speaking as a matter of principle. You never can get all the energy, because there is no such thing as a perfect apparatus.

Counsel: I did not mean in that sense. I understand that there is, of course, always some loss, but my conception was that when you created the disturbance in the electrical condition of the earth at your transmitting station, that that extended out in all radial directions.

Tesla: Yes, it did.

Counsel: And therefore how, at any given station, can you get more than a very small fraction of that energy?

Tesla: Pardon me, you are mistaken.

Counsel: That is what I want you to explain. I must be mistaken, because my conception does not fit with your statements.

Tesla: All right, I will explain that.

In my first efforts, of course I simply contemplated to disturb effectively the earth, sufficiently to operate instruments. Well, you know you must first learn how to walk before you can fly. As I perfected my apparatus, I saw clearly that I can recover, of that energy which goes in all directions, a large amount, for the simple reason in the system I have devised, once that current got into the earth it had no chance of escaping, because my frequency was low; hence, the electro-magnetic radiation was low. The potential, the electric potential, is like temperature. We might as well call potential electric temperature. The earth is a vast body. The potential differences in the earth are small, radiation is very small. Therefore, if I pass my current into the earth, the energy of the current is stored there as electromagnetic momentum of the vibrations and is not consumed until I put a receiver at a distance, when it will begin to draw the energy and it will go to that point and nowhere else.

So when talking about the Magnifying Transmitter, it's clear that what comes out is what went in. However, suddenly there is no more need for the millions of miles of transmission lines and the huge amount of radiation they waste just moving the energy from one place to another.

Later in his life, Tesla was even more secretive, so who knows what he discovered then. But when it comes to the Magnifying Transmitter, we have a lot of Tesla's own words to learn from. It's for power distribution. It still needed to be hooked up to Niagra Falls.

[Kokomoj0]

LtBolo,
Kokomojo,

Using a capacitor to integrate the total energy doesn't directly relate to Magnification factor.

Never said it did. I used it to prove a different point with respect to power.

As Raui has pointed out, Energy is the ability to do work, Work is energy used, Power is the time rate of Work or time rate of Energy used. For the Impulse circuit the discharge and charge times can have different values, therefore power would obviously have to change based upon that, seeing as how "time" is involved.

No disagreement with that, in fact that is what I demonstrated in my example.

Energy on the other hand is just the base substance, so the capacitive integrator you were talking about only integrates energy not power

I never referred to it in the context of integrating "power".

(you can derive power with a known time period or a waveform, but not without time).

Yes that is what I said (time), please re-read my previous posts.

If you use the formulae for finding the amount of joules in the capacitor (by measuring the electrostatic potential and using a known value of capacity) from being "pulsed" then all you did was see how much energy was transferred this can be taken as Work but not Power, if time isn’t known.

Never claimed the capacitor stored power and I cant imagine how you derived that from my previous posts.

With what I have read of your comments, I don't think you will be understanding magnification factor as it relates to Power anytime soon.

Frankly no one else does either.

On a side note, the usage of Consumption is a correct word choice. While other words can be used to replace it I choose to use it in honor of CP Steinmetz and Mr. Dollard whom both use that "improper” word choice in their writings. And not only is it used in their writings, many books from the time period of 1880 to 1920, use it in similar context. Thus it has a well-established history of usage, therefore it is a technically correct choice, although a forgotten one at that.


Garrett M

Yeh I am done with that as I said to Raui, its a dead end.

On the other hand you have convinced me that this magnification notion has no foundation.

Simply said, Magnification is a two way road, you can either shrink unit time or add energy per each unit time ("compression" of energy or addition of energy per unit time), BOTH do the same thing, although under different circumstances. The unit of time is the whole span of time thus "charge" is a unit of time and subsequently "discharge" is also a unit of time. The RATIOS of these QUANTITIES of time dictates the MAGNIFICATION FACTOR. "Energy" moved in each time frame is equal, but the "power" is not! This is the whole basis of "magnification factor". (this being true if the charge and discharge of a single energy transient or Impulse wave is considered)

The CHARGE time was in the "past" and hence a "negative time frame", the DISCHARGE is taking place "now" and hence a "positive time frame", this is if only ONE "time frame" is present. IF TWO "time frames" are present in a "window of time" then negative time is that of energy storage or return and positive time is that of energy production or consumption. "Past Time" (forward time that already happened) and "Reverse Time" (time moving backwards) are two different quantities, but could both be represented with negative time (-t). I'll leave it to your imagination as to how you would like to deal with this confusing issue. (Mr Dollard has given us his versor operators to solve this issue but I doubt very many will use them, due to the seemingly intrinsic complexity of their use)

Power has AT LEAST TWO directions, Consumption & Production or Storage & Return. Production and Return oppose one another. Both are happening at the same time, thus power is trying to move in two directions, in this instance negative time is that of return whereas positive time is that of production. If both are equal then no dissipation can take place only a reactive oscillation. Thus a forward-traveling wave (production) and backward-traveling wave (return) exist, the interference pattern produced is that of a standing wave. A parallel LC circuit or open/shorted transmission line describes this situation quite well.

IMPULSES and ALTERNATING WAVES are distinct in their operation. The magnification factor of each is unique, they are NOT the SAME. The combination of one and the other adds to the confusion. The base time unit of an Alternating wave is that of the Radian NOT Cycles per Second 1/(sqrt(LC)) whereas an Impulse is in Tau rC & gL or other algebraically equal forms.

Something to note, is that magnification factor of an LC tank relates to its "Q" or quality factor and also to its "Selectivity", the sharper the Notch, if looked at from a spectrum analyzer, the higher the selectivity and greater the potential reactive voltage & current when driven at its natural frequency. Whereas with an Impulse, NOT a "Pulse", the time, with all things equal, is the only thing that changes the magnification factor.

The best way to look at whats going on in the Tesla Transformer Primary & Secondary is:

Primary -> IMPULSE WAVES (from 'Steinmetz coil' or capacitive discharge, via push-pull center tap on primary)
Secondary -> OSCILLATING CURRENT WAVES (LC & MK Quadra-Polar Resonance, in secondary and maybe between the extra coil/terminal capacity as well)

Thus the MAGNIFICATION Factor, in this special case, isn't in shrinking time, it is in adding energy per unit time to another circuit. Mr. Dollard says that the energy from the Primary is conserved, thus the secondary's TOTAL oscillatory ENERGY MUST BUILD UP IN MAGNITUDE from the IMPULSE energy of the Primary.

The loss factor that takes away from this oscillatory energy is caused from:

RADIATION RESISTANCE (emitted radio waves, length of wire per length of wave traveling alongst it)
SERIES RESISTANCE (emitted infrared radiation, electrons moving, causing photon emission)
PARASITIC MUTUAL CAPACITY & INDUCTANCE (stray coupling to surroundings, metallic or dielectric)
LEAKAGE INDUCTANCE (magnetic energy not coupled to mutual windings)
SHUNT CONDUCTANCE (of the air from corona or humidity, causing partial "shorting" of coil windings)
HYSTERESIS of DIELECTRIC & MAGNETIC media (losses from polarization not following the applied fields, even air has hysteresis)

All of these limit the maximum magnification factor.

In Mr. Dollards book Condensed Intro to Tesla Transformers [1986], he brings up the very special situation of a traveling wave increasing in energy as opposed to losing energy per unit length of a coil. This is on page 27 second paragraph and is continued to page 30. This situation, is what I believe Heavy side was referring to when the wire becomes a source rather than a sink. I believe this situation is what a well made Tesla Transformer performs when operating correctly.


The above is merely a shot in the dark at answering your question (I'm not the most knowledgeable person on this subject), I hope it helps,

Garrett M

The way you describe magnification above is the same as saying that magnification is determined by inequality of the source to load in its function.

Now at resonance it takes very little input to keep something going but thats not magnifying in terms of 100 horsepower in to 1million horsepower out.


well I just responded line by line to your post and the damn thing ate it so screw it.

anyway to sum it all up what ever power you draw off this resonant wave you will have to replace at the input to keep it going regardless of how much magnification you get. Otherwise this would go to infinity too!

See what you can glean from this, I think you will find it fascinating. I know I do.

Making standing waves

[Kokomoj0]

Kokomoj0,
I'm not saying your wrong, a high resistance is a low conductance and visa versa but I fear that is a reductionist way of looking at things. Eric has stressed since the start that what he is trying to convey is more along the ideas of Goethe than conventional science, which should be attributed to Newton, as is shown in the following quote;



and here;


So with that in mind let's look at our disagreement on using conductance and resistance interchangeably instead of low resistance/high resistance. It actually has striking similarity to the battle waged between Goethe and Newton as to a theory of colours. Goethe believed that colour was an interaction between two polar opposites, being light and dark. Newton refuted Goethe's arguments claiming that darkness was only the absence of light and so colours could not possibly be an interaction between light and dark. It is interesting that the Heaviside equation (Off the top of my head it is (RG+XB)+j(RB-XG)), which Eric states is the most fundamental equation in electrical engineering, can be reduced to ZY. This implies that electricity is the interaction of two polar opposite quantities being impedence and admittance in the same way that Goethe said colour arose from the interaction of Light and Dark.

So let's contrast this with our current discussion- Your saying that I am wrong/misinformed because conductance is just a lack of/low resistance, in the same way Newton argued that darkness is an absence of light. Since we are learning Eric's theory we shouldn't try and bring in Newtonian scientific concepts into a concept which has been stressed, repeatedly, that it is Goethean. I am not saying that the Newtonian concepts aren't without their worth but we are moving beyond Newton into a different way of doing science. I feel you might be trying to force the square to be a triangle. Another T-Rex quote. (Yes I know we aren't necessarily talking dimensions here but I feel he'd say a very similar thing to this in response to what we're currently discussing)



Now as for the consumption/production problem. Yes I am aware that to a scientist/engineer trained under conventional theory thinking of the 'consumption' of electricity is a misleading term but again we aren't learning conventional theory we are learning an entirely different theory based on an entirely foreign method of scientific investigation. When a physicist here's the term 'consumption of electricity' they think that one is talking about the consumption of moving electrons which IS a wrong concept, however Eric is moving away from an electron based electricity.

When I say consumption and production I am talking about field lines issuing from the metallic-dielectric confines which seem to just appear out of the geometry with no apparent source (production) and disappear in the same fashion (consumption), what other words should I use? It's interesting to note that to a conventional physicist field lines are just useful analogies to teach students but to the people Eric is references (Heaviside, Thompson, Steinmetz) field lines have a concrete reality. Would you be happier if I used the term 'convert' instead of produce and consume? To me there is no difference between saying convert and saying something consumes one quantity whilst simultaneously producing another quantity and I'd say the answer you prefer would be a matter of philosophy. The other major reason I use the two terms is that Eric uses consume and produce to illustrate these concepts and so I have used these terms as not to further confuse people on an already confusing subject.

If you've never heard of Goethe here is some reading;
Light and Electricity by Tom Brown
Man or Matter by Ernst Lehrs

Garret,
Thanks for your response It's given me some things to think about, I will form a reply a little later.

Raui

I do not have a word off the top of my head, I would have to give that some thought. I do not want to turn this thread into an argue fest, so we will agree to disagree.

[Raui]

Kokomoj0,
I'm not saying your wrong, a high resistance is a low conductance and visa versa but I fear that is a reductionist way of looking at things. Eric has stressed since the start that what he is trying to convey is more along the ideas of Goethe than conventional science, which should be attributed to Newton, as is shown in the following quote;

I maintain the pounds per square inch has absolutely no relation to capacitance whatsoever, in the world of electrical engineers. Hence it is absurd. To quote E.H. Armstrong, "They substitute words for reality, and then talk about the words." This is what physics has done. In Electricity, the ideas og Goethe and Wilhelm Reich are much more in accord with electricity, and the formative forces in general. Newton was a materialist and his physics represents an impediment to the understanding of electricity. For those married to "Little Ball Bearings", this is why we have the Planck. Here you can have your beloved E equals mc squared which is so dear to your heart. So use it, don't heap capacitance and inductance with lead weights.

The Aether does not relate to the inertial laws of Newton, but the formative forces laws of Goethe.

73 DE N6KPH

and here;

Energy in its most arch-typical form is embodied in the phenomenon of Electricity, but what is Electricity? Now our wheels even more stuck in the mud! But we have important clues, namely that of polarity, not plus or minus so much but more like male or female. This thought follows from Goethe to Tesla and Steinmetz. Thus Electricity, in order to manifest, a UNION must develop. This is the union of the “male”, or projective, and “multiplied by” the “female”, or receptive. Hereby, the male is the dielectric field in counterspace (of per centimeters), and the magnetic field or female in space (of centimeters squared). Space in c.m. squared is what you pay for in “real estate”, counterspace in per c.m. is the space between the lines on a ruler, or between molecules in a crystal.

73 DE K6KPH

So with that in mind let's look at our disagreement on using conductance and resistance interchangeably instead of low resistance/high resistance. It actually has striking similarity to the battle waged between Goethe and Newton as to a theory of colours. Goethe believed that colour was an interaction between two polar opposites, being light and dark. Newton refuted Goethe's arguments claiming that darkness was only the absence of light and so colours could not possibly be an interaction between light and dark. It is interesting that the Heaviside equation (Off the top of my head it is (RG+XB)+j(RB-XG)), which Eric states is the most fundamental equation in electrical engineering, can be reduced to ZY. This implies that electricity is the interaction of two polar opposite quantities being impedence and admittance in the same way that Goethe said colour arose from the interaction of Light and Dark.

So let's contrast this with our current discussion- Your saying that I am wrong/misinformed because conductance is just a lack of/low resistance, in the same way Newton argued that darkness is an absence of light. Since we are learning Eric's theory we shouldn't try and bring in Newtonian scientific concepts into a concept which has been stressed, repeatedly, that it is Goethean. I am not saying that the Newtonian concepts aren't without their worth but we are moving beyond Newton into a different way of doing science. I feel you might be trying to force the square to be a triangle. Another T-Rex quote. (Yes I know we aren't necessarily talking dimensions here but I feel he'd say a very similar thing to this in response to what we're currently discussing)

You have just taken all the work I have done in deriving new dimensions and tried to convert them back to physics dimensions. You want to go back to physics. I just got done going through 40 papers to get physics out of this! Heaviside and Steinmetz didn't go through all this trouble to turn it all back around again. Are you sure you know what dielectricity and magnetism are? Physicists have no business in dealing with this sh**. I derived a system of units that stand by themselves. Use the units I have derived NOT physics units. Physicists have no idea what electricity is- they don't even believe in the Ether!

Now as for the consumption/production problem. Yes I am aware that to a scientist/engineer trained under conventional theory thinking of the 'consumption' of electricity is a misleading term but again we aren't learning conventional theory we are learning an entirely different theory based on an entirely foreign method of scientific investigation. When a physicist here's the term 'consumption of electricity' they think that one is talking about the consumption of moving electrons which IS a wrong concept, however Eric is moving away from an electron based electricity.

When I say consumption and production I am talking about field lines issuing from the metallic-dielectric confines which seem to just appear out of the geometry with no apparent source (production) and disappear in the same fashion (consumption), what other words should I use? It's interesting to note that to a conventional physicist field lines are just useful analogies to teach students but to the people Eric is references (Heaviside, Thompson, Steinmetz) field lines have a concrete reality. Would you be happier if I used the term 'convert' instead of produce and consume? To me there is no difference between saying convert and saying something consumes one quantity whilst simultaneously producing another quantity and I'd say the answer you prefer would be a matter of philosophy. The other major reason I use the two terms is that Eric uses consume and produce to illustrate these concepts and so I have used these terms as not to further confuse people on an already confusing subject.

If you've never heard of Goethe here is some reading;
Light and Electricity by Tom Brown
Man or Matter by Ernst Lehrs

Garret,
Thanks for your response It's given me some things to think about, I will form a reply a little later.

Raui

[garrettm4]

Q&A

LtBolo,

I don't know if I quite grasp what you're asking, but here's a shot in the dark for a reply:

I interpret "charge density", to be lines of psi per unit surface-area or psi/l^2 where l is unit length (for the surface of a sphere the equation is a little bit different). Following the concept that lines of dielectric induction are stored in all non-metallic space and terminate on all surrounding conductors, we can then say that the "charge density" definitely affects things in the vicinity of the metallic sphere. If we introduce time into this situation and surface-area of metallic sphere is unable to change, then the amount of lines moving in time being the only way to change the overall "density". This would then create a changing displacement current in the AIR and subsequent conduction current in the metallic surfaces of the end points of the lines of dielectric induction. The storage of dielectric energy into the air, or whatever medium chosen, is Work. The subsequent return of that stored energy is also Work. Energy lost is from multiple things; Hysteresis (losses due to polarization not following the fields), Mutual Capacity (energy transferred that can’t be returned), and resistance of metallic surfaces or wires.

I believe three "waves" can propagate here, the first is the polarization wave of the dielectric, the second being from mutual capacity, and the third from radiation resistance, caused by distance between surface-areas and specific wavelength used (via rate of change in the charge density). The hysteresis of the dielectric and the finite velocity of the electromagnetic wave in and of themselves are losses according to CP Steinmetz.

See:
CP Steinmetz - Theory & Calculation of Transient Electric Phenomena & Oscillations 3rd Ed, 5th Imp [1920]
Capacity of a Sphere in space, page 418, Transient Phenomena, Sub Section E
also
High-Frequency Conductors, page 420, Chapter IX

An interesting thought is that of electrostatic discharge. Walking across some carpet you "charge" your person to a high potential. If we think in-terms of lines of induction, we become an end terminal of these lines and our self-capacity is very small so we have a high electrostatic potential associated with our body relative to our surroundings. The reason this appears to be a "one wire" discharge can be seen through the eyes of mutual capacity. The lines of induction produced by rubbing our shoes on the carpet induced a field of flux surrounding our body; this field is mutual to all of our surroundings. The subsequent discharge is that of self-capacity, although we are mutual to many metallic surfaces we discharge, via dielectric saturation of the air, to only one surface. If that specific surfaces capacity relative to our mutual capacity is very small we are still somewhat "charged" and can continue to shock more things we come close to.

I don't know if that came close to answering your question but was at least it was an attempt.


Raui,

One thing to point out, is that in Symbolic Representation of Alternating Electric Waves only “Alternating” waves are discussed. E & I are assumed counter-rotating vectors. I is a mysterious quantity for me, if there is no capacitance in the system, if inductance can be looked at as a capacitor in certain respects then this is more comprehensible. Here the Voltage Drop of resistance is Ir (series resistance) and Current Drop of conductance is Eg (shunt conductance). The reason IX and EB are imaginary and negative is much like a rubber-band. If we expand the rubber-band we store kinetic energy as potential energy, the subsequent release of energy is kinetic but in the opposite direction (it contracts), thus a negative quantity. So for e+Ir to equal jIX, X would have to be Capacitive Reactance or X(sub)C. Also, for i+Eg to equal jEB, B would have to be Inductive Suceptance B(sub)L. Unless I am mistaken, which may be the case. Consider that the EMF of an inductor per unit Time (E=phi/t) is the Induction or release of stored Proportion i (i=phi/L or phi=Li), so It would follow that you can't get i from psi/t unless they were equal, which may be the case in an alternating current circuit (I haven’t tried to calculate i or e in an AC circuit from E & I). A free oscillation requires both capacity and inductance to happen, this being a double energy transient, but for a forced alternation such as a generator, apparently this isn’t the case, you can use only inductance or capacitance to have an alternating waveform. In these instances the usage of e E i & I are a bit confusing but very enlightening once figured out. The case of a generator and transformer, both being inductive elements with very small capacity would have almost no psi/t or Capacity current and the electrostatic potential of the system e=psi/C is a negligible figure as well. If the EMF of the inductor and electrostatic potential of the capacitor are considered equal then e and i could be calculated from other values. I believe the phase angles of the voltages and currents warrants consideration, resonance being a prime example. During Parallel resonance, the voltage’s vector magnitudes sum to zero, that of the source and LC tank. While in series resonance, the voltage’s vector magnitudes also sum to zero, but now being only those of L & C. So if not in a resonant state (180 degree phase angle) the currents and voltages of each element are at some arbitrary phase angle with reference to themselves and the source. This leads to problems from what I can see right off. The fact that measured voltages and currents are vector sums of source and load means you can’t just hookup a volt or amp meter to any arbitrary point in the circuit and get accurate results. During a parallel resonance state, you will measure three different currents, that of the source, the inductance L & capacity C all having a different phase. During a series resonance, you will measure three different voltages that of the source, the inductance L & capacity C these also all having a different phase.

I don't know if any of that makes sense, but is what I currently understand about alternating current circuits.


Kokomojo,

Using a capacitor to integrate the total energy doesn't directly relate to Magnification factor. As Raui has pointed out, Energy is the ability to do work, Work is energy used, Power is the time rate of Work or time rate of Energy used. For the Impulse circuit the discharge and charge times can have different values, therefore power would obviously have to change based upon that, seeing as how "time" is involved. Energy on the other hand is just the base substance, so the capacitive integrator you were talking about only integrates energy not power (you can derive power with a known time period or a waveform, but not without time). If you use the formulae for finding the amount of joules in the capacitor (by measuring the electrostatic potential and using a known value of capacity) from being "pulsed" then all you did was see how much energy was transferred this can be taken as Work but not Power, if time isn’t known. With what I have read of your comments, I don't think you will be understanding magnification factor as it relates to Power anytime soon. On a side note, the usage of Consumption is a correct word choice. While other words can be used to replace it I choose to use it in honor of CP Steinmetz and Mr. Dollard whom both use that "improper” word choice in their writings. And not only is it used in their writings, many books from the time period of 1880 to 1920, use it in similar context. Thus it has a well-established history of usage, therefore it is a technically correct choice, although a forgotten one at that.


To jpolakow and Web000x,

I believe the displacement current is only in a dielectric material, i.e. only flows through insulators. If a capacitor discharges there is a reverse displacement current in the dielectric and subsequent conduction current in the wire (dielectric displacement is much like a mechanical spring). The lines of dielectric induction do not travel in the wire. They agitate the "magic" electron into motion in metallic materials. Here then comes the question, what produces the magnetic field? Is it the electron (an effect) or the lines of dielectric induction (a cause). The proverbial chicken / egg, cause and effect scenario has me perplexed, its possible that something else is taking place which I don't understand at the moment. Much like watching a puppet, you think its alive (electron), until you see the strings (lines of induction), and finally the person manipulating it (haven't been able to figure this one out yet). Unless I am confused that's how I have come to understand the phenomena.

"So are there magnetic lines of force in the capacitor(dielectric) as well?"

I think this is a trick question. I'll attempt to answer this to the best of my ability, magnetic energy HAS TO CIRCULATE to be stored, if you break the connection of a closed current path you release the magnetic energy as a large voltage E or phi/t where phi=Li. During the transient case of the initial "charging" of the capacitor C/t there would be a high conduction current in the metallic parts joining to the dielectric of the capacitor this being seen in the connecting wires and plates of the capacitor in the circuit. In the most simplistic view the amount of magnetic energy as loops would be temporally stored around those metallic parts, where L=((Permeability)(Length))/(Cross-section Area). This is only a temporary event, as the suceptance of the capacitor decreases, so does the current in the conductors, subsequently the magnetic energy however small or large fades away. This is called parasitic inductance.

So to answer, I don't think for a single energy transient, such as a battery charging a capacitor to the same voltage, would involve the plank as Mr. Dollard has described it. But, there would be for a small amount of time, both magnetic and dielectric lines of induction in/around or near the dielectric of the capacitor.

Garrett M

[Kokomoj0]

As best as I understand it that's correct. And yes, annulment or cancel would not be a technically correct term as it's a transform into counterspace as I understand it. Hence the need for further research.

they cancel in terms of appearing to the circuit to be inductively reactant or capacitvely reactant which occurs (off center to fo).

working together, their combination then appears to the circuit to be a pure or nonreactive resistance at fo absolute, (in ideal conditions).

as you say you are still left with the resistive elements

or if you prefer the low conductance side, it would be a nonreactive conductance.

[madhatter]

Madhatter,

One quick question to your response about L & C annulling in the Tesla Transformer. If the reactance of L & C sum to a zero magnitude vector or reactance X=0=XL-XC (saying they cancel isn't completely correct). Wouldn't that imply a RESONANT condition such as a series LC arrangement, this being in a very unfamiliar one wire (having no return wire) configuration? If so, this makes the "quadra-polar resonance" of LC & MK much more understandable for myself.

Garrett M

As best as I understand it that's correct. And yes, annulment or cancel would not be a technically correct term as it's a transform into counterspace as I understand it. Hence the need for further research.

[Web000x]

This is something that I was thinking about lately. We know for there to be electrical activity (and Planck's) there must be a dielectric and magnetic component. Then if we have a charging capacitor, we have a displacement current I. This consists of dielectric lines of force in the capacitor. However in order for there to be Planck's charging the capacitor there must be some magnetic component as well. So are there magnetic lines of force in the capacitor(dielectric) as well? Where is the magnetic component?

The dielectric lines of force, Psi, are dragging along the conductor as they fill in the dielectric of the capacitor. The dragging of Psi/second along the wires connected to the capacitor causes a displacement current which produces magnetism.

Dave