Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[lamare]

Longitudinal speed is NOT pi/2 times c....

Hi all,

As you know I'm working on a longitudinal moonbounce project and am currently calculating my antenna. I found out that the transverse surface wave across the sphere can be expressed with the theoretical formula for Schumann resonance:

Schumann resonances - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

f_n= c/(2*pi*r) * sqrt(n(n+1))

I calculated the diameter for a 1/2 lambda sphere using Dollard's formula that the speed of longitudinal waves is pi/2 times c, but then the corresponding Schuman resonance frequency turned out to be 1287 MHz, which should be 1296 MHz if Eric's formula is correct.

So, I compared the Schuman formula with the formula for resonance in a string, basically a 1/2 lambda resonance with closed ends:

f_n = (n * c_l)/ 2L

Since L = 2r, we can now calculate the theoretical speed c_l. When we take n=1 in the string formula and n=2 in the Schumann formula, we end up with matching resonance frequencies.

Since n(n +1) equals 6 for n=2, we get:

c_l / (4 * r) = c_t / (2 * pi * r) * sqrt(6)

This works out to:

c_l = 2/pi * sqrt(6) * c_t

This computes to 1,559393604, while pi/2 computes to 1,570796325, a difference of 0,7%.....

So, now we have a theoretical derivation for the longitudinal wave speed, which turns out to be just a tiny bit lower than Eric's pi/2...

[t-rex]

The Theory of Relativity, or Why One Over C Squared Cont.

A basic theory of Relativity was put forth by Charles Proteus Steinmetz, the “Wizard of Schenectady”. His Relativity was for use by the electrical engineer. Hereby results a great simplification when calculating transient waves on electro-magnetic transmission lines. This theory finds development in his “Theory and Calculation of Transient Electric Phenomena and Oscillation,” the section “Transients in Space and Time”. Steinmetz refers to this as “Velocity Measure”. See his “Impulses, Waves and Discharges”, page 91 to 93.

In complex transmission line calculation the exponential operators, as derived from the factors of the Heaviside Telegraph Equation, are expressed in both time dimensional and space dimensional relations, it is like apples and oranges, they are not additive thus cannot be combined directly into a single unified exponential operator. Analogous is the E.M.F., E, in Volts, a time derivative, and the dielectric gradient, d, in volts per centimeter, a space derivative. The two are not directly additive.

These complications render the general solution for the Telegraph very complex, if not impossible. In fact as of yet no general solution has been developed at all! In order to overcome this problem, Steinmetz utilized the condition that one over c square is an intrinsic property of electro-magnetic transmission lines. This is to say, the ratio of the space factors is a constant, the velocity of light. The metrical dimensions of space and time are unified thru this constant, c, and the exponential operators are now directly additive.

Steinmetz here transforms all space dimension relations of distance along the transmission line from centimeters to LIGHT – SECONDS. The Light – Year is an equivalent metrical relation. This is given as,

(9) Centimeters, or Centimeter – Second per Second,

Or, in the form of

(10) Velocity – Second, or Centimeter

Hence, the space dimension of distance, in centimeters, has been replaced by the product of Luminal Velocity, c, in centimeters per second, and the Time, t, in seconds, or light – seconds, ct, in a manner like Minkowski. Space factors and time factors are rendered additive thru velocity measure. This methodology allowed Steinmetz to discover previously unknown transient waves on transmission systems. Here given is the Steinmetz Theory of Relativity, a basic, easy to understand engineering tool. Late in his life C. P. Steinmetz wrote an entire book on his view of a General Theory of Relativity.

It should be noted that the Relativity of Steinmetz, and its velocity measure, is only useful in a Transverse Electro-magnetic situation. This is such in an E.M. transmission line as found in power and telephone work. Here all propagation is in terms of the factor one over c square. For situations involving transformer windings, or the networks utilized by the transmission systems of N. Tesla, E.F.W. Alexanderson, or even G. Marconi, this system of Relativity is not applicable. Propagation in these configurations cannot be represented by one over c square, nor any velocity at all. See the “Transmission and Reception of Telluric Electric Waves”, by E. P. Dollard.

The mathematical work of C. P. Steinmetz follows a basic engineer’s path as originated by Oliver Heaviside. It also is primarily directed into the dimension of time, little is given on the dimension of space, other than in a relation involving a propagation velocity, or for the determination of inductance and capacitance. Steinmetz methods fall short when propagation in transformer windings are involved. Here one must turn to the later efforts of L. V. Bewly, in “Traveling Waves on Transmission Systems”.

It is, in the transmission systems here discussed, the inductive fields of electricity are not involved in a motional metallic – dielectric geometry. That is to say, the inductors and the capacitors are stationary in space. However these have been given in a condition of relative motion internally, as with parameter variation. Here the inductive fields of induction are CLOSED within the metallic – dielectric geometry, which in its self is stationary in space.

The theory of relativity as expressed by Einstein involves a condition where the inductors and capacitors, along with their magnetic and dielectric fields respectively, are forcibly moved about in space. Here the electric induction is made to move at a velocity other than that of its natural velocity. The writings of J. J. Thompson deal extensively with this condition but Einstein makes no reference to this important work. With Einstein’s Relativity the electricity is forced into a motion beyond its own force of movement.

An example is a common bar magnet, engendering an extensive magnetic field of induction. When the magnet is at rest its magnetic lines of force exhibit only internal aetheric motions, outside this they are stationary. However, if this magnet is forced into motion, the magnetic lines of force react to this force of motion. This is a reactive force, much like the E.M.F. As with the E.M.F. or the brakes on a car, this reactive force only manifests during a change in velocity with respect to time.

(11) Velocity per Second, or Acceleration,

Or

(12) Centimeter per Second Square

If the velocity remains constant the reactive force is zero. This is to say, if the magnet is moving at a uniform velocity, as well as its inductive field, no forces are developed. However, the energy consumed by this motional accelerative force upon the magnet is partly given to the momentum of the mass of the magnet and partly to a stored energy in the magnetic field. Now a condition exists where a magnetic field has an apparent mechanical momentum, just as does the physical mass of the magnet. Hence the total momentum is greater than if the body of the magnet was not magnetized. One may wrongly infer the physical body gains mass in proportion to the energy of momentum. In actuality, it is stored by the magnetic field of induction. The Einsteinian concept is that the magnet gets “heavier”, as the magnet moves faster, ignoring the electrical momentum. This is faulty reasoning from the standpoint of the Faraday – Thomson understanding of electric induction. It is considered that this inertial, or reactive force, gains a considerable magnitude, as well as the quantity of stored energy, this when the velocity of the magnet nears luminal velocity. If the motional velocity is equal to the luminal velocity, the magnitude of the line of force, and the quantity of the stored energy is infinite. Here represented is the so called “limiting velocity of the speed of light, the axiom of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. The bar magnet is considered to “gain mass” in a certain proportion to the velocity of the magnet, becoming infinite at luminal velocity. Hence, nothing can go faster than light, or even as fast for that matter. Very simple idea, but founded upon a faulty inference when considered electrically.

Oliver Heaviside wrote quite extensively on the subject of the motional electric field, but this is ignored. He may as well have not even written it. No wonder he painted his fingernails pink! One fact unmentioned here with regard to the relativistic theory is the bar magnet carries with it a magnetic field of induction, where as, in general physical mass does not. Is it then a limiting velocity condition for “un-charged” matter? Or is it all matter carries some amount of electric induction, which gives rise to a limiting velocity? To consider the gross physical mass as an increase with its physical velocity, ignoring the momentum of the electric field, seems absurd. Here lay the lack of watertight integrity in the Titanic of Einstein’s Relativity. See page 22 to 24, “Electricity and Matter”, J. J. Thompson, and “Occult Aether Physics”, by W. Lyne.

Break, more to follow.

DE N6KPH

[t-rex]

The Theory of Relativity, or Why One Over C Squared

So, how are you going to explain to the cops that the light was green when it is in reality red? Will you tell them “its all relative”? They say “you were going too fast.” The light looks green because of the “Doppler Effect”. This is a situation where the wavelength of light shortens and the frequency increases, maintaining a constant velocity. The moving laser is traveling with a velocity 50 percent that of light, the wavelength shortens by the square root of 50 percent, the frequency increases by the square root of 50 percent. Hence red light is forced to become green light. The speed of this light is still luminal velocity, c.

The dimensional relation is given by

(1) Velocity, or Length – Frequency

This velocity is a constant or invariant. Any variation in condition is factored into, the length of the wave, and the cyclic rate of the frequency, each in a complimentary manner so as to maintain a constant velocity. Here given is,

(2) Space, or Length in Centimeters,

(3) Time, or Per Frequency, in Seconds,

(4) Velocity, or Space Per Time, in Centimeter Per Second.

Thus the Doppler Effect shortens the wave length, and also shortens the time period, as given by the frequency. Because luminal velocity is the ratio of length to time, and both length and time both shorten in exact proportion to each other, the change cancels and the velocity remains a constant. In other words if the transmitting laser is in motion at a percent velocity of light, being 100 at luminal velocity, it is the length contracts by the square root of this percentage of luminal velocity, and the time period contracts by the square root of this percentage of luminal velocity. And obviously the product of a pair of square roots is the square of the square root, or the percentage of luminal velocity.

The basic dimensional relation

(5) Length times Frequency Equals the constant

Lambda times F gives c. This is a most fundamental law of radio engineering, where the constant c is 300 mega-cycle – meters per second.

Relativity results from the following situation. Riding with the laser, it moving 50 percent luminal velocity, you see it as red. It has a red wavelength and a red frequency. The stationary observer sees it as green. It is a green wavelength and a green frequency. Relative to the stationary observer, you riding the moving laser see length as longer, (red vs. green), and time as slower, (red vs. green) Einstein’s Relativity tells us the stationary observer sees length as shorter, (green vs. red) and time as faster relative to the motional observer, (green vs. red). Experiment shows that the light beam changes in its dimensional relations, Einstein says the motional observer changes in it’s dimensional relations. What can we make of this discrepancy?

The velocity at which light propagates, the luminal velocity, c, is a property of the dielectric itself, be it aether, or 10-C oil. This velocity has no relation to the motion of the transmitter itself, nor are its transmitted waves material projections. Nothing is “shot” out of the moving laser. The electric field can only “soak into the medium” at the rate defined by that medium. Light can only travel at luminal velocity as defined by the dielectric medium and its dimensional relation of one over c square, a numeric constant. Light is not a material projection, it is an inductive process, a process of the aether.

Is it now Einstein is in basic conflict with the radio engineer? What would the F.C.C. say? Einstein is also in conflict with Ohms Law. It has been shown by Thornberg, a critic of relativity, in his paper, “Real, or Imaginary Space – Time” that electro-magnetic relations derived thru relativistic concepts are in conflict with Ohm’s Law. This is, dimensionally, canceling the per centimeter.

(6) Ampere, equals Ampere plus Volt

Apples plus oranges, ampere and volt are different dimensional relations, hence they are NOT additive. But anything seems possible with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. The proper form is

(7) Volt per Ampere, or Ohm

Thus referring to (6) it is

(8) Ampere equals Ampere plus Volt per Ohm

This is Ohm’s Law. What are we to make of this, have we been duped?

As seen thus far, the factor one over c squared looks as if it represents some kind of “Universal Virtue”, it finding a way into a multitude of dimensional relations. One over c square becomes a “Vestige of God,” transcendent from mortal scrutiny, except thru the prophet Einstein. It is a seed from which to spout a religion. Thru the effort of Albert Einstein luminal velocity and the “Theory of Relativity” has in a way engendered a spiritual foundation for “Today’s Society”. “Hey bro, its all relative, man, so*...”. To question Albert Einstein can even be considered “Anti-Semitic”, hence it will be enforced.

* Now the Lawyer is a Priest!

However, Einstein is a false prophet. The Theory of Relativity as the “Holy Scripture” is like a tele-evangelistic sales pitch. Nikola Tesla regarded Relativity as the greatest historical aberration of scientific thought. Relativity is no more than a philosophical standpoint, a virus to infect a “New Age”.

From the standpoint of the electrical engineer Einstein’s Relativity is “Bravo-Sierra”! However, it has sunk its roots into the basic consideration of Inductance and Capacitance. L and C represent co-efficients of aetheric processes, and as such represent the aether, not Relativity. Albert Einstein stands in the way of Michael Faraday, and Pharisees are now Physicists.

Continued in next post.

[wings]

related?

Microvert

[lessismore]

Raui,

Thanks for sharing your work.

Maybe EPD’s comment is referring to the missing d (distance between conductors) in the denominator of the equation as you have it in the pdf. You must have used d in your calculation because you can’t get 6 2/3 Newtons without it. By the way, as far as I can tell this is the correct value.

Oh, and I guess I have some “splainin” to do about that capacitance formula I put out.
I have since more carefully read the context in which it was presented and have found out that it is the capacitance of one conductor to neutral and not the capacitance of the two conductors taken together. In Peek, the neutral is a plane midway between the conductors and perpendicular to the plane in which the two conductors lie. The two conductors and their dielectric and magnetic fields are “mirrored” by this neutral plane.
How to get the capacitance of the two conductors from this single conductor capacitance? Consider that the two separate capacitances of each conductor to the neutral plane are in series. Series capacitances add as the inverse of the sum of the inverses. In our case the capacitance of the two conductors together is half the value of the single conductor capacitance. Also the “Discharge book” very helpfully explicitly states that the capacitance of the two conductor circuit will be half that of the single conductor to neutral. So the correct value is half what you have - my bad.

I don’t get EPD’s comment about length of line as you did include “l” in your capacitance formula. However when calculating the force, you used 1000V where as I believe the voltage we should have be using was 1000KV (1000000V).

Cheers

[madhatter]

In order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the dimensional relations of the magnetic inductance, and the electro-static capacitance it is necessary to turn again to the metrical dimension of space. It is, however, this dimension of space has become warped, as expressed in a N.F.G. It is in what follows found that the Faraday understanding is in direct conflict with the Einstein understanding, the latter extinguishing the former. Lines of induction have given way to relativistic concepts, fact has succumbed to phantasy. This condition has a direct influence upon the conceptual understanding of the conditions and dimensions that give rise to electrical inductivity as expressed by the co-efficients of magnetic and dielectric fields known as “the inductance” and “the capacitance”.

The concept of space, as given by Albert Einstein, constitutes a serious impediment to the understanding of this metrical dimension. The salient constituent of the Einstein “Theory of Relativity” is the Minkowski “Four-Space”. To quote Einstein “With out it the General Theory of Relativity, etc., would of perhaps got no farther than its long cloths,” “Relativity” by Albert Einstein, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey. Minkowski proposed a fourth co-ordinate be compounded upon the three co-ordinate (cubic) set of Descartes, “Cartesian” third order space. Einstein here accordingly represents this fourth order space in “Gaussian” rather that “Cartesian” co-ordinates.
....
This quadrature form implies four distinct time frames, however, Einstein ignores the versor positions, retaining only one, jct. Einstein – Minkowski represents this as an ill-conceived space versor.

Einstein remarks here “Time is robbed of its independence”. Now time is married to the velocity of light. Minkowski goes on to say, “Hence forth space by itself and time by itself are doomed”. All are relative to the velocity of light. This is “The Theory of Relativity.”
......
Finally, it has been disclosed by insiders within the space program, N.A.S.A., of a “certain complication”. It was found that when far outside the Earth’s field of influence the stars and sun are NOT VISIBLE! However, the Earth and the Moon are plainly visible. No direct light in outer space, only that made visible by gross physical matter. This gives rise to an important question, does the “light” from the sun propagate with a velocity at all, or is it simply a function of time. The “time delay” may be no more than a hysteresis of the luminiferous aether.

It should be noted it is only by the time delay that we can consider velocity in many situations. Otherwise also needed is the wavelength. Is it the primary luminal induction, say from the Sun, a hysteresis in order to engender visible light on Earth? Now we are dug in deep!

So, what meaning do we attribute to one over c square? It is a velocity, an index, a ratio, a proportionality factor, and even a constituent of the Farad. It is in everything, and now we hang Einstein’s Theory of Relativity on top of it all. Such is one over c square.

In order to make a determination on this matter of one over c square it is instructive to enter the One Wing Parrot itself. We will take the position of Dorthey, who must conquer the Wicked Witch of the West, (WWW). Now she must stand, with her poodle and some unlikely friends from Lone Pine, before the great Wizard of Oz. Dorthey simply wants to go back to Kansas, and so do we. Here we must meet face to face with Einstein and the Theory of Relativity. In order to become better acquainted with the development of Relativity refer to E. Whittaker, “History of the Theories of the Aether”. Here follows only the salient features of Relativity as expressed by Albert Einstein. The primary purpose here is how Relativity relates to Electrical Engineering thru the concepts of Inductance and Capacitance.

Einstein’s theory finds its seed in a certain speed of light dilemma and the related experiments of Fitzeau involving moving liquid dielectrics (10-C Oil). Consider a pair of red lasers in a setup like the cubic experiments given earlier. Two red lasers, side by side, distant from each other, again are utilized. Each individual beam is received by its own individual target. Here the measurements are made. One laser is stationary, the other laser is moving towards its target at 50 percent luminal velocity, c. It is of course found that the beam sent by the stationary laser arrives at its target with a lag in time (hysteresis) that co-responds to the delay involved in luminal propagation thru the span between the laser and its target. The moving laser beam also arrives at its target with a lag in time, but not that of 150 percent luminal velocity as given by the superposition of velocities. It arrives with the same delay as that due to luminal velocity thru the span between the laser and its target. Hence the law of superposition is now not applicable to luminal velocity, no matter what the velocity of the moving laser, the velocity of the beam is always c. This situation provides the cornerstone upon which lay the Einstein concept of Relativity.

It is however that Einstein may have left out a few details. The stationary laser puts a red spot on its target. It is a red laser, just like the moving laser. They are both red, big deal. But wait Mr. Wizard, Look! Look! The spot on the moving laser's target is GREEN!

Break, more to follow,

DE N6KPH

Highly informative post
This has been a complaint of mine within the quantum framework. This is was the launch point for QM and if one goes back to DeBroglie you'll find that Schrodingers equation needs an interpretation and this interpretation needs to correlate with experimentation. This has been the problem that experimental results are questioned as they don't fit the math and since relativity has to be correct, the results are tossed or errors are assumed to maintain a relativistic hold.

QM is a strange strange world and this is why there is so much confusion. take wave mechanics, Einstein and the rest used this classical form and then transformed it into a probability. the physical relationship is completely lost, there is no longer a physical model but a 'probability' model that has to instantly -zero time- collapse into a physical point. space and time are forced together and this causes all sorts of problems as Eric is pointing out. the entire framework of reference frames is based purely upon this.

I do know for a fact that there is grumblings in QM to where this paradigm shift of C being a constant needs to be changed, how it's going to be done will be interesting as over a century of work needs to be adjusted and the current regime is not going to do this. I suspect there will be a splintering as there are a number of physicists who are going back and starting over, myself included. there is at the moment work on some very interesting projects.

the circular reference of space time is why when one says that light isn't the limit it causes all kinds of problems. to remove the light speed limit we need to remove the bound space time notation placed in physics as well. this small but huge point is often missed. the concept of space time also hides gravity as well, another very large hole in physics.

[handyandy]

Doing a search on hysteresis of the aether there came up these 2 items:

dallyhorse's Channel - YouTube

Mr. Dollard will have to verify time and place of the recording

Journals + Newsletters - Journal of Borderland Research - Vol. 44, No. 01 | Borderland Sciences Research Catalog (Powered by CubeCart)

On the transmission line problem if one delved into Gauss' work one would find a longitudinal force between 2 wires related to distance and not distance squared. There seems to be something sacred about the distance squared thing in mathematics and physics.

Regards,
Andy

[Raui]

Thanks Eric and Dave for that transmission. I will give it some time before giving my thoughts, right now my mind is a bit clouded with uni work =/

Lessismore,
Great to see you contributing towards answering this question. I wish I could tell you if you were right or wrong. I can tell you the feedback he gave me on my answers and what my answers were.

"The magnetic force equation lacks a space coordinate that is the distance between the conductors.

The dielectric force equation has a problem in the other direction... there is no length of line, it is probably unit value such as 1 metre or etc. hence the equations don't really provide a proper answer but it look like you're heading in the right direction."

The problem is as far as I am aware I have taken into consideration these factors, check them out yourself and see what you think. Anyway here is the PDF I sent Eric with the solutions I'm talking about. Bare in mind Eric doesn't seem to think they are correct.

[lessismore]

DC Transmission Line II (4 of 4)

Balance?

That’s a net attractive force of 34oz.

“The D.C. power line is balanced plus or minus 500KV. One half of the area of the conductors is not valid. Stay with Centimeter, Gram, Second (CGS) units. All of my work, Tesla’s work and Steinmetz’s work is in CGS units. Use only the symbols that myself or Steinmetz present such as Psi, for dielectric induction, otherwise everything will be incomprehensible.”

Which I take to mean that the magnetic and dielectric forces should balance when the value of e is somewhere between 500KV and 1500KV for the same 1000A current. Let’s see if that is true:

Set the magnetic and dielectric forces equal to each other:


Simplifying…




Solve for e


645KV is in the range but that doesn’t necessarily confirm that any of this is correct.

[lessismore]

DC Transmission Line II (3 of 4)

Force due to potential – dielectric energy

Dielectric Energy – from page 17, Table I

The energy w in joules from capacitance C in farads and potential e in volts
My belief is that the force is the derivative of w with respect to s (in cm) However, to be consistent with e remaining constant while C changes, the source of e in the circuit must do work. So once again I wing it:


Find C in terms of s. Use the capacitance of circuit from above


Now take the derivative with respect to s


Substituting into the Force equation from above:



Convert Newton-meters (joules) per cm to Newtons and then Newtons to ounces

[lessismore]

DC Transmission Line II (2 of 4)

Force due to current - magnetic energy:

Magnetic Energy – from page 17, Table I

The energy w in joules from inductance L in henrys and current i in amperes
My belief is that the force is the derivative of w with respect to s (in cm). However, to be consistent with i remaining constant while L changes, the source of i in the circuit must do work. How much work must the source do? Here my guess based on a non-Steinmetz source:


Find L in terms of s. Use the inductance of circuit from above.


Now take the derivative with respect to s


Substituting into the Force equation from above:


Converting units from Newton-meters (joules) per cm to newtons and then to ounces of force.

[lessismore]

DC Transmission Line II (1 of 4)

While more important things are going on, I am still struggling with the transmission line problem. I want to use the inductance and capacitance of the transmission line to determine the forces. In KurtNalty’s 10/30 post, he used the “virtual energy” method with capacitance to determine the dielectric force. I will attempt to apply the “virtual energy” method to determine both the magnetic force due to current and the dielectric force due to potential. But I am unfamiliar with this method and I’m hoping someone more competent than I will be so kind as to critique my use of it - TIA.

I’ve included many steps mainly so I can catch my own errors (of which there have been plenty!) and not in any way to be condescending to the reader.

Also thanks to Raui for introducing me to the Online LaTeX Equation Editor!

Question

“I have a D.C. transmission line, the conductors are 2 inches in
diameter, spacing is 18 feet. How many ounces of force are developed
upon a 600 foot span of this line, for the following;
1. 1000 ampere line current.
2. For 1000 KV line potential?
I am waiting.”

Values

I1 = current1 = 1000A
I2 = current2 = -1000A
e = 1000KV
Length = 600 ft = 18288cm
Diameter = 2 in = 5.08cm
Radius, r = 1 in = 2.54 cm
Separation, s = 18 ft = 548.64cm
Permeability of air, μ = 1
Specific capacity of air, k = 1
Velocity of light, v = 3 x 1010 cm per second
3.5969 oz / Newton

Reference

Elementary Lectures on Electrical Discharges Waves and Impulses and Other Transients (1914) by Charles Proteus Steinmetz

Strategy

Determine force from the magnetic and dielectric energy for the given inductance and capacitance of the circuit. In Lecture XI Inductance and Capacity of Round Parallel Conductors, equations are developed for the inductance in henrys per cm and the capacitance in farads per cm of a single conductor relative to a return conductor:
(13) from page 132; Note µ = 1 for nonmagnetic conductor material

(37) from page 138

(s,r and v as defined in the values section above)
And from the bottom of page 139: “while in the case of overhead return, the inductance of the entire circuit of conductor and return conductor is twice, the capacity half, that of a single conductor”. Notice that the author is considering that the two single conductor inductances are equal and in series and also that the two single conductor capacitances are equal and in series. Multiplying by Length in cm gives the following for total inductance and capacitance:


What are these values for the transmission line?

[Web000x]

Here seems to be an abstract of the lecture which was written for the Journal of Borderlands some time ago. AOH :: New Age Science :: EPDHYSTE.TXT

Dave

[Web000x]

do you have a link to this thanx

I think this lecture was one of the few lectures that Eric was complaining about the International Tesla Society not releasing. He has given me a phone number to call about possibly acquiring a copy, but I haven't gotten a chance to call yet. I'll possibly do that tomorrow.

Dave

[Aether84]

link to it?

See The International Tesla Society lecture on the “Hysteresis of the Aether” by E. P. Dollard

Break, more to follow,

DE N6KPH

do you have a link to this thanx