Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[Raui]

Vacuum permittivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was my angle in trying to solve the 600ft transmission line question. I started by trying to figure out the density of the dielectric field. I didn't get far because it's too over my head. Seeing how you worked with free space permeability for the magnetic field, then maybe one works with free space permittivity for the dielectric field. As in the 2 are conjugates.

I'm not saying "I see a flaw" - just trying to participate.

Not sure if this will help you or not but refer to here: post

cm to the +1 power , distance
cm to the +2 power , area
cm to the +3 power , volume
and
cm to the -1 power , span
cm to the -2 power , density
cm to the -3 power , concentration

"cm to the -2 power, density" so therefore dielectric field multiplied by space to the -2 power gives the dielectric field density or if you divide dielectric field by the area (area is space to the second power and division implies a negative exponent) you should get the density of the dielectric field. Good luck

Raui

[Pinwheel]

Hence the resulting electric field of the union produces a resultant force upon the bounding conductors. This resultant force thus may be expansive, null, or contractive, depending upon the relative densities of the dielectric and the magnetic force fields respectively

Vacuum permittivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was my angle in trying to solve the 600ft transmission line question. I started by trying to figure out the density of the dielectric field. I didn't get far because it's too over my head. Seeing how you worked with free space permeability for the magnetic field, then maybe one works with free space permittivity for the dielectric field. As in the 2 are conjugates.

I'm not saying "I see a flaw" - just trying to participate.

[Raui]

I don't know that I'm on the right track with this but I'll give it a shot anyway. I've also tried to keep notation as close to what Eric is dealing with as possible. Also I am using metric units because that's what I'm used to so when you see me subbing in values for lengths that aren't the values Eric gave that's because I converted them all to meters.

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?

A1)The force per meter between two current carrying conductors is given by;
F=(u.i1.i2.l)/2*pi where
u is permeability of free space (4*pi*10^-7 Henries per Meter)
i1 is the current through one of the wires (1000 amps)
i2 is the current through the other wire (-1000 amps, since it is flowing the opposite direction to the first current)
l is the length of the wires which the fields interact (600ft)

So that gives us a force of -6.667 which indicates the conductors are going away from each other.

A2)Please note: My textbook didn't have any examples of forces generated on the wires due to dielectric forces so this is just my own logic of working out the force. I'm not sure I answered this correctly but I'll show you guys what/how I'm getting (Eric, a little help here maybe )
Our dielectric field is equal to;
d = volts per meter or newtons per coulomb
so,
d = 1000 divided by 5.4864 = 182.269 volts per meter

We can work out the force delivered by the wires if we knew the coulombs associated with the wires. The definition of capacitance is coulombs per volt so if we knew the capacitance between our wires we could work out the amount of coulombs we have by multiplying the capacitance by our voltage. Capacitance is proportional to the effective area of the conductors divided by the distance between the conductors. I got a value of 29.1904 as the total area of one wire (Making the assumption that it is a perfect cylinder since the wires only see half of each other the effective area is half of that.

So I worked my capacitance to be
C = e0*er*(14.5952/5.4864)
C= 2.3554*10^-11 Coulombs per volt.

Since,
C=Q/V
Q = CV
Q= 2.3554*10^-8 Coulombs

So now we can use the relationship V/M = N/C to determine the total force.
VC/M = N
N= (1000*2.3554*10^-8)/5.4864
N=4.293*10^-6 N

If anyone finds a flaw in my logic/numbers etc. please let me know but I am confident that I'm atleast on the right track. This would make magnetic forces roughly 1,550,000 times stronger than dielectric ones by our current standard of units.

PS: I would also like clarrification on e and i please, I seem to be getting most stuck at them. I notice you speak of complex versor quantities in symbolic representations of the general electric wave but don't really talk too much about them (in fact I can only see them mentioned in the definition of terms) are e and i these complex versor quantities?

Raui

[Web000x]

Eric,

I have a few questions for the sake of clarity.

First of all I understand what you are saying when you say:
Quote by Eric:

It should be noted that displacement currents flow thru the insulation (dielectric). It is NOT the familiar conduction current of the electronic ideologies.

But the definition of displacement and conduction currents (Coulomb/Second) seem to be the same. Is it a situation that needs to adopt the "Space Operator" like you have described in your book, "Theory of Wireless Power", to fully differentiate between the two?




Next Questions:
Quote by Eric:

For the Einsteinischen dimensions of the Planck are Energy – Time, but let us not think backwards – ass. Saying this in engineers lingo, the quantity of Electricity Q is given as Watt – Seconds – Seconds or Watt Seconds squared.

Can you elaborate on the Einstein definition of the Planck? Is Energy – Time not the same thing as Watts – Second – Second?




Another Question:
Quote by Eric:

Consider a certain hypothetical transmission system, the Integratron system of George Van Tassle. (not the Goddess temple “Integratron” of today) The Integratron effects transmission around space. Let us say one is on earth and another is on mars. If you enter the “in door” on the earth unit, you exit the “out door” on the mars unit.

All I could find on the internet was that the Integratron was some type of resonant chamber for cellular health. Can you explain your views on George Van Tassle’s Integretron?




More Questions:
Quote by Eric:

Conversely, electrical activities of E times I, as well as e times i suggest themselves

I must be missing the boat on this one. What exactly do these quantities suggest?





Picking Your Brain Even Further:
Quote by Eric:

The reactance E.M.F., E, via the dimension of time, T’, gives rise to an electro-static potential, e, across the dimension of space, l. In conjugate form the suceptance displacement, I, via the dimension of time, T”, gives rise to a M.M.E., i, across the dimension of space, l. It may be said that E & I are the cause, where e & i are the effect, chicken or egg.

How would you mathematically define e & i?




I promise you that your efforts here will be fruitful even though you feel that the world has beaten you down. Everything that you have written so far has helped me to vastly expand upon my understanding of your work.

I read those posts that you made on the Yahoo group today and am sorry to hear about all of the crap that you have been going through your entire life. Its easy to get down when you have experienced so much BS, but I assure you that your time will come. You have many eager experimenters to help spread the message of sustainability through real science that you have been harping about for years. I cannot express enough thanks to you for helping us all to understand the lost works of the true scientific pioneers. It is a new day coming and I feel that you, Mr. Dollard, will finally be treated with the respect that you truly deserve.

Dave

[Armagdn03]

Impedance and Admittance

At this point the next level of dimensional relations can be derived from the primary dimensional relations given thus far;

(I) The law of electro-magnetic induction, Faraday’s law, that is the electro-motive force E, in volts, is given by the proportionality (ratio) of the total quantity of magnetic induction Phi, to the time rate of the gain or loss of this quantity of magnetic induction, in per second. The voltage E is given by the rate of variation of magnetism. Change in magnetism is volts of E.M.F.
(II) The law of magneto-dielectric induction, Maxwell’s law. That is, the displacement current I, in amperes, is given by the proportionality (ratio) of the total quantity of dielectric induction Psi, to the time rate of the gain or loss of this quantity of dielectric induction, in per second. The current I is given by the time rate of variation of dielectricity. Change in dielectricity is Amperes of displacement.

In both cases “quickness” is the factor of direct proportionality. Example, 120 volts at 60 cycles per second applied to a transformer winding results in a greater rate of change in magnetism than 110 volts, 60 cycles applied to the same winding, despite both being 60 cycles. Why? The slope of 120VAC is greater than 110VAC. Try it on your oscilloscope and see.

E and I are not to be considered opposites of each other, but they exist in a COMPLIMENTARY-SYMMETRY form. The four pole archetype of electricity shows itself in that there is E and e or I and i. This leads to the answer for our second question, the null force condition, that is what ratio of E to I, and thus e to i give rise to a cancellation of “e pulls” and “i pushes.” Another ratio to be investigated.
Taking the ratio of the E.M.F. E, and the displacement I, that is E over I, we have evoked “Ohms law”: The dimensional relation of E.M.F., Phi over T; divided by the dimensional relation of displacement, Psi over T. This results in a new dimensional relation. This relation is known as the IMPEDANCE Z, in OHMS. E per I is Z. For a given product of E and I in Watts. We may have a large E and a small I, a high impedance, or we may have a small E and a large I, a low impedance. Hence, a unit of power (activity) in Watts may be in the form of a high impedance (12KV, 1 Amp) or a low impedance (1KV, 12 Amp), both the same power (12 KVA). Think of the transmission in your car. The engine is delivering 20 horsepower (activity) and this is delivered to the wheels. The engine is running 1800 R.P.M. (volts), but the drive shaft is running 180 R.P.M. (volts). The engine is a high impedance, the driveshaft a low impedance, but the power is 20 HP in both. We call this an IMPEDANCE TRANSFORMATION and this is effected by what is known as a TRANSFORMER, (the transmission, it has a RATIO of ten to one).

The dimensional relation of impedance, Z in Ohms, can be expressed in an alternate manner from the primary dimensions. E divided by I equals Z, Ohms law. But we have dimensionally that the E.M.F. E in volts is given by Faraday’s law

Webers per second

Likewise the displacement I in Amperes is given by Maxwell’s law

Coulombs per second

Taking the ratio of E over I and substituting, the impedance is given by

Weber-second per
Coulomb-second = Ohms

Here, dimensionally speaking, we have second per second which is thus dimensionless, or scalar, a TIME SCALAR. Hence the primary dimensional expression for impedance, Z in Ohms, is given

Weber per Coulomb
Equals Ohm.

Hereby the impedance of the electric field of induction is defined as the ratio of the total magnetic induction to the total dielectric induction, Phi over Psi gives Ohms Z. This is known as the characteristic impedance of the electric field of induction.

It must be remembered that the scalar term of seconds per seconds expresses the hysteresis angle between the time frame for E and the time frame for I, as the pair weave their dance thru the dimension of time (note, get that 2D or 3D out of your head, we are in the dimension of time!) The ratio Z, the impedance, is therefore a “directed quantity” in the dimension of time. This is to say the impedance has magnitude and a position in time. Listen to Bach organ music for further as this is too complex for now.

Since arriving at the concept of impedance it may be asked what results from its inverse I over E, the ratio of displacement current to electromotive force. This ratio is called the ADMITTANCE Y of the electrical system. Following the same path dimensionally as was done with impedance it is,

Coulomb – second
Per Weber – second

Hence the admittance Y is given dimensionally by,

Coulomb per Weber
Equals Siemens.

Admittance Y in Siemens is the ratio of Psi to Phi, the ratio of the dielectric field to the magnetic field of the electric field of induction. This is called the characteristic admittance of the electric field.

As for the scalar term of seconds per second the same situation exists as with the impedance Z in Ohms. It is however that there is also a time “angle” between the time frame of impedance Z in Ohms and admittance Y in Siemens, just as there is with Volts and Amperes. Hereby results that the impedance is NOT just the inverse of the admittance, that is, Z is NOT one over Y, they are MIRROR IMAGES. Look in the mirror. Your head is up, your feet are down, but your right is left and your left is right. This is much too complex.

In conclusion, the impedance and admittance serve as proportionality factors between the magnetic and the dielectric, or the dielectric and the magnetic, fields respectively.

73 DE N6KPH

Thank you again Eric. I have always practiced an ear for truth, and you have been a great inspiration.

I echo your words of need for solidarity in nature to absorb her message. I have moved into the hills of utah, sold most of my belongings (not the oscilloscope of course!) and have enjoyed quiet contemplation. Every now and again I venture back into civilization to read what you have posted, and enjoy every moment of it.

I hope one day to shake your hand in thanks. And I hope your chosen direction, brings you more peace in the future.

always a humble student,
Andrew Manrique.

[t-rex]

Impedance and Admittance

Impedance and Admittance

At this point the next level of dimensional relations can be derived from the primary dimensional relations given thus far;

(I) The law of electro-magnetic induction, Faraday’s law, that is the electro-motive force E, in volts, is given by the proportionality (ratio) of the total quantity of magnetic induction Phi, to the time rate of the gain or loss of this quantity of magnetic induction, in per second. The voltage E is given by the rate of variation of magnetism. Change in magnetism is volts of E.M.F.
(II) The law of magneto-dielectric induction, Maxwell’s law. That is, the displacement current I, in amperes, is given by the proportionality (ratio) of the total quantity of dielectric induction Psi, to the time rate of the gain or loss of this quantity of dielectric induction, in per second. The current I is given by the time rate of variation of dielectricity. Change in dielectricity is Amperes of displacement.

In both cases “quickness” is the factor of direct proportionality. Example, 120 volts at 60 cycles per second applied to a transformer winding results in a greater rate of change in magnetism than 110 volts, 60 cycles applied to the same winding, despite both being 60 cycles. Why? The slope of 120VAC is greater than 110VAC. Try it on your oscilloscope and see.

E and I are not to be considered opposites of each other, but they exist in a COMPLIMENTARY-SYMMETRY form. The four pole archetype of electricity shows itself in that there is E and e or I and i. This leads to the answer for our second question, the null force condition, that is what ratio of E to I, and thus e to i give rise to a cancellation of “e pulls” and “i pushes.” Another ratio to be investigated.
Taking the ratio of the E.M.F. E, and the displacement I, that is E over I, we have evoked “Ohms law”: The dimensional relation of E.M.F., Phi over T; divided by the dimensional relation of displacement, Psi over T. This results in a new dimensional relation. This relation is known as the IMPEDANCE Z, in OHMS. E per I is Z. For a given product of E and I in Watts. We may have a large E and a small I, a high impedance, or we may have a small E and a large I, a low impedance. Hence, a unit of power (activity) in Watts may be in the form of a high impedance (12KV, 1 Amp) or a low impedance (1KV, 12 Amp), both the same power (12 KVA). Think of the transmission in your car. The engine is delivering 20 horsepower (activity) and this is delivered to the wheels. The engine is running 1800 R.P.M. (volts), but the drive shaft is running 180 R.P.M. (volts). The engine is a high impedance, the driveshaft a low impedance, but the power is 20 HP in both. We call this an IMPEDANCE TRANSFORMATION and this is effected by what is known as a TRANSFORMER, (the transmission, it has a RATIO of ten to one).

The dimensional relation of impedance, Z in Ohms, can be expressed in an alternate manner from the primary dimensions. E divided by I equals Z, Ohms law. But we have dimensionally that the E.M.F. E in volts is given by Faraday’s law

Webers per second

Likewise the displacement I in Amperes is given by Maxwell’s law

Coulombs per second

Taking the ratio of E over I and substituting, the impedance is given by

Weber-second per
Coulomb-second = Ohms

Here, dimensionally speaking, we have second per second which is thus dimensionless, or scalar, a TIME SCALAR. Hence the primary dimensional expression for impedance, Z in Ohms, is given

Weber per Coulomb
Equals Ohm.

Hereby the impedance of the electric field of induction is defined as the ratio of the total magnetic induction to the total dielectric induction, Phi over Psi gives Ohms Z. This is known as the characteristic impedance of the electric field of induction.

It must be remembered that the scalar term of seconds per seconds expresses the hysteresis angle between the time frame for E and the time frame for I, as the pair weave their dance thru the dimension of time (note, get that 2D or 3D out of your head, we are in the dimension of time!) The ratio Z, the impedance, is therefore a “directed quantity” in the dimension of time. This is to say the impedance has magnitude and a position in time. Listen to Bach organ music for further as this is too complex for now.

Since arriving at the concept of impedance it may be asked what results from its inverse I over E, the ratio of displacement current to electromotive force. This ratio is called the ADMITTANCE Y of the electrical system. Following the same path dimensionally as was done with impedance it is,

Coulomb – second
Per Weber – second

Hence the admittance Y is given dimensionally by,

Coulomb per Weber
Equals Siemens.

Admittance Y in Siemens is the ratio of Psi to Phi, the ratio of the dielectric field to the magnetic field of the electric field of induction. This is called the characteristic admittance of the electric field.

As for the scalar term of seconds per second the same situation exists as with the impedance Z in Ohms. It is however that there is also a time “angle” between the time frame of impedance Z in Ohms and admittance Y in Siemens, just as there is with Volts and Amperes. Hereby results that the impedance is NOT just the inverse of the admittance, that is, Z is NOT one over Y, they are MIRROR IMAGES. Look in the mirror. Your head is up, your feet are down, but your right is left and your left is right. This is much too complex.

In conclusion, the impedance and admittance serve as proportionality factors between the magnetic and the dielectric, or the dielectric and the magnetic, fields respectively.

73 DE N6KPH

[jarvamundo]

In the 1987 Santa Barbara video, 45 min's into it shows a PM Faraday AC disk device. Here are some a snap shots:


- Diagram showing a metal Disk with N-S-N-S magnets.
- The 2 arrows are the typical carbon brush electical connections in a Faraday Disk on the outer edges of the disk.
- The 2 Red Dots brush locations on the rotor shaft (9 & 12 positions) shows one of the breakthroughs in this design.

Cheers Mike

ok, i was referring to the device trex mentions in his posts and made the calculations on 108% +-5%

[Pinwheel]

Perhaps when harmony can be said to be present, a standing wave will also be present. Like, you won't find one without the other.

[Pinwheel]

The patterns do seem to demonstrate harmony and octaves rather well.

I won't relent that they are as useful as, say, a decent understanding of music theory via the piano. I also think the patterns coinciding with lifeforms is a biased sample - there's no mention of the times that they don't resemble known things.

Visual occurrence of harmony and octaves, resonance, yes.

[purelyconstructive]

While I can only speak for myself, I think perhaps it is not so much a case of whether or not the Aether is acting upon the Chladni Plate (although that is a very valid point), but rather that the patterns produced by Cymatics are characteristic of waves in general, and thus archetypal in nature.

The dimensional relationships of Space and Time, Magnetism and Dielectricity, being expressed in terms of ratios I find quite musical. To quote Eric:

"This has a direct analogy in music where harmony is space-dimensional, rhythm is time-dimensional, and melody is extra-dimensional. You can basically use music as an analog for this type of situation, and it's of particular interest to note that the music developed by J.S. Bach I have found to serve as one of the most fundamental expressions of electricity, even beyond Steinmetz or any of the more modern researchers that attempt to use conventional mathematics and words. I intuited most of what I know about Tesla from the music of Bach."

[Pinwheel]

I'm actually surprised that nobody takes into account the motion/velocity of the earth relative to the aether when mesmerized by cymatics. I still think it's because nobody really thinks of the aether when considering cymatics - postulating that cymatics is somehow responsible for behavior of the aether (or some other vagueness like that) rather than the aether being responsible for the phenomenon observed in cymatics.

If the earth is travelling at ludicrous speed (Spaceballs) through the aether (the earth having it's own magnetic and electric and gravity fields), and you take a metal (notice they don't use wood or plastic) plate and oscillate the fk out of it with soundwaves, maybe all that extra (kinetic) energy added to the plate in tiny high energy oscillations causes it to interact with the aether differently then when at "rest" (ludicrous speed). The plate being manipulated in and out of a type of phase with the relative motion of the aether at high velocity (that velocity is still probably slower then the 'at rest' motion of the earth) receives energy from the aether at different rates causing it to form complex standing waves within it's own structure. Then we can detect those waves with a fluid medium, the plate or tub or whatever transferring some of it's energy to the fluid.

Not "sound waves create matter out of nothing" (and related vagueness-es), like in the introductory part of those videos that lamare posted. It's just another version of mystical bla bla bla same as any religious origin of life thesis. It's all the same thesis just different characters.

/edit: The idea being that the aether is naturally trying to re-impose upon the plate the 'at rest' momentum of the mass and matter, but the additional soundwaves don't allow it to. This results in complex looking standing waves that we can visually observe - due to the material being used to demonstrate the effect.

[vrand]

Thanks PureConst & TRex for the references. v-helpful.

Guys it's not the homopolar motor, look for the variable reluctance device... It'll be the one made from dielectric, with a whole heap of meters connected to it! Pay attention to the descriptions of the "load" side of the demonstration, it turns out the load >is< tuned. Repeat it is not the homopolar device, where these calculations are made. (although an interesting device in it'self.)

In the 1987 Santa Barbara video, 45 min's into it shows a PM Faraday AC disk device. Here are some a snap shots:


- Diagram showing a metal Disk with N-S-N-S magnets.
- The 2 arrows are the typical carbon brush electical connections in a Faraday Disk on the outer edges of the disk.
- The 2 Red Dots brush locations on the rotor shaft (9 & 12 positions) shows one of the breakthroughs in this design.



- Photos of PM Disk with DC motor on left and pillow block holding the 2 metal disks with PM between.
- The brush electrical connections are held by a C-clap for the outer disk edge and the other electrical location is on the rotor shaft.







- AC Waveform on Scope:



Carbon Brushes with torroidal Current Transformer used on the rotor shaft takeoff position, to measure the 100 amps AC output current:




Cheers Mike

[jarvamundo]

Thanks PureConst & TRex for the references. v-helpful.

Guys it's not the homopolar motor, look for the variable reluctance device... It'll be the one made from dielectric, with a whole heap of meters connected to it! Pay attention to the descriptions of the "load" side of the demonstration, it turns out the load >is< tuned. Repeat it is not the homopolar device, where these calculations are made. (although an interesting device in it'self.)

[purelyconstructive]

Hello everyone! While I have not read all the posts in this thread, and am still working on reading all the recommended books, I thought I would drop by and lend what help I can. Here are some references related to Eric's response at the Yahoo! Group:

Gustave LeBon – The Evolution of Forces

Gustave LeBon – The Evolution of Matter

William Crookes – On Radiant Matter

I feel that it must always be kept in mind that the meaning of words is very dependent upon the context in which they arise. For example, one might come across many different definitions of the word "Radiant Matter/Energy" in their studies, much the same way as with the term "Aether". Some of these may be a sort of "catch-all" (much like how Eric pointed out with the word "Energy"), while others are defined as having very particular properties.

In regards to the idea of the term "Scalar" being inappropriate for what is essentially a longitudinal wave, I am in agreement that the name is potentially misleading as it usually describes only a magnitude with no direction. However, at the same time, I think some (e.g.: Dewey Larson) use it as a general description for an omnidirectional motion (much like a spherical, longitudinal wave).

Anyway, to continue on the works of Crookes, I have found this quote in a section on Caroline Thompson's Phi Wave Aether Theory website that might be of interest:

In about 1875, Crookes (1832-1919) started, as a side issue from his studies of the element thallium that he had just discovered, investigating why hot bodies seemed to weigh light. This led on to research into what he at first thought was "radiation pressure", but which later experiments, using vacua orders of magnitude better than any achieved before, seemed to show was the pressure of molecular beams which, at these low densities, have mean free paths as long as the dimensions of the containing vessel.* When he started his work, it was not even clear that gases consisted of particles!* By the end (1898), with much feedback from others, many of whom had seen his fantastic demonstrations at the Royal Society, he was able to focus molecular beams using curved sources, make them glow or cause phosphorescence using electric currents (presumably ionising them, only the idea had not yet been invented!), or bend a beam using a magnet.* His experiments must have been the essential foundation that led to the discovery of the electron, the invention of the cathode ray tube (sometimes known as the Crookes tube), the analysis of chemicals by mass spectroscopy, yet today he is almost unknown.* Crookes tried not to theorise as he was still finding out the facts, though of course he did come up with the occasional hypothesis to direct his research.* Whatever apparatus was needed, he had only to ask his master-glass-blower assistant, Mr Gimingham!

Did he find out why hot bodies weigh light?* Well, it's not air currents, but since heat can either attract or repel once you start putting your object in a vacuum I doubt if you can generalise.* The "apparent lawlessness" of this response is what led to his other discoveries.* He found that his most delicate instruments were so sensitive that they were thrown out by the gravity of a person moving in the next room.* (He invented a "torsion balance" while investigating this.)* He found out that what people had been calling a vacuum was nowhere near one, and the effect of radiation varied dramatically as you reduced the pressure: his radiometers (usually made symmetrically, with flat vanes, black one side, white the other) could reverse direction.* He was under the impression that the force he was seeing reduced to zero at zero density but could not be sure.* He could not obtain rarefactions that would take him past the point at which a hydrogen vacuum produced increased response as you decreased the density.

...

What I want to know is the next part of the story: what happens at even lower densities?* Do we know what "radiation pressure" would be in a pure vacuum?* Can it even be defined unambiguously?* As Crookes was fond of saying, “Any theory will account for some facts; but only the true explanation will satisfy all the conditions of the problem …”.** I wonder if modern theory does take account of all the facts he discovered?* What made Nancy Cartwright, in her book, “How the Laws of Physics Lie” (Clarendon Press 1983), say that nobody yet knew just how the radiometer worked?

I have been wanting to know more about Crookes for quite some time; I will seek out more of his work, and share it here when I can...This section of the website above has some other interesting bits of "Forgotten History" that many here would probably want to peruse as well.

To continue on, here is an article by Mendeleev on the constitution of the Aether:

An Attempt Towards A Chemical Conception Of The Ether

From what I gather after a quick skim of it, the Aether is postulated to be an element coming before Hydrogen and with inert gas-like properties. I find this particularly fascinating for many reasons, but some include the consideration of other model's I've come across:

*Aethro-Kinematics by Steven Rado – This is essentially a model that treats the Aether as an ideal gas. Some of the topics seem particularly relevant, for example:

Chapter Twelve re-establishes Faraday's and Maxwell's initial aether concepts of lines, tubes and fields of forces in the ideal gas model of the Aether and introduces a kinematical understanding of electricity and magnetism without the action at a distance attraction and repulsion between elementary charges.

and

Chapter Fourteen uncovers the fundamental hidden ambiguity of the classical mechanical wave theory, which ultimately led to the theory of the uniquely transverse nature of electromagnetic waves. This condition of the transverse oscillation was imposed on the undulatory theory of light by the allegedly otherwise unexplainable phenomenon of polarization. In turn, the restoring force required for the transverse oscillation of light made all feasible mechanical model, including the ideal gas model of the Aether, physically impossible. After uncovering the misconceptions of the over-simplified mechanics of the transverse waves on a string that affected all subsequent wave theories, a new kinematical theory of wave-motion is presented. Based purely on the kinetic theory of periodical compression pulses, this hypothesis offers a kinematical solution for all optical phenomena, including double refraction and polarization without the imposed assumption of the uniquely transverse nature of electromagnetic radiation. With this, the seemingly impenetrable theoretical barrier, that has blocked the ideal gas model of the Aether for two centuries, has been removed.

*The work of Walter & Lao Russell – In their later work they state plainly that "'Space' is not empty – nor is it an 'ether'." (pg. 125, A New Concept of the Universe). However, I quickly hasten to add that it seems they do not use the term for a very particular reason, and I think that reason is because they felt humanity was already aware of something that embodied all the features of an "Aether". Immediately after the quote above they continue to describe how all of what we normally term "space" is actually the inverse of matter, and "filled" with electric fields centered by inert gases. The inert gases act as an "electrical recording system" of Nature out of which physical objects unfold like a tree from a seed, or to state it another way, are electrically projected from it like a hologram. All things are seen as being centered by an inert gas. For example, in their periodic table you can see the "Inert Gas Line" clearly running through all of the elements. Like Mendeleev above, they too have placed elements before Hydrogen (many of them!) that blend smoothly into this line (leading me to believe that maybe these elements also have inert gas-like qualities?). It is also stated that while these elements have not been seen (at the time of their writings) their existence can be inferred by harmonic patterns present within elemental spectra (which are "light records" of their history)...All elements are understood as unfolding from the ONE, with every successive element being that same ONE merely at a different pressures, or perhaps, different times...I will pause there for now...

Out of care, I feel the need to state that while it seems that the simple concept of resonance is the principle at the core of unlocking the potential of many devices (including the human body and the experience we manifest), be sure to exercise a healthy sense of caution. It is unwise to couple to "energies" one cannot handle and/or will act like a leech upon (to ill effect upon oneself and others).

Also, I feel that the use of Cymatics to elucidate patterns in regards to the Aether is not necessarily a logical fallacy, but a potentially useful analogy. Sound waves are also longitudinal. Further, I have no hesitancy whatsoever in saying that ALL things are Music.

Please forgive the length of my post.
May we know all Love and Wisdom.

[vrand]

So it sounds to me like Mr. Dollard likes poking the hornets nest. Great fun. I don't hear any actionable intel here though.

I guess I qualify as one the idiots Eric. I'm not terribly smart and most of the math goes over my head. However I am quite gifted at taking real technology and producing real products that solve real problems. Been doing that for about 20 years now and have built a very nice life for myself and my employees. When your theories have been distilled to actionable technologies, I'd love to have the discussion on how that can become a benefit to humankind and a poke in the eye to the establishment.

In the meantime, I wish you all great success in the lab. Back to lurking.

I hear your pain Bolo, I also have been there done that for +20 yrs.


Take a look at that unknown 1987 Borderlands video I posted above, as there are some real working devices that can not be explained away, that shows over unity energy output.


The one device that was super simple that caught my attention was the AC Faraday disk generator design that looked OU back then with low powered ferrite magnets. Just think what 4 or more Neodymium Magnet N50 2X2X1" magnets on that disk would generate in AC volts and amps.
N50*N52*N53 :: Neodymium*Magnets :: Industrial*Neodymium...
cPath_1_5 | Applied Magnets : Neodymium Block/Cube & Bar Magnets - discount wholesale prices.

Cheers Mike