Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[lamare]

Most are clueless about the importance of the Variation of Inductance and Capacitance with respect to time – and synchronous parameter variations. Read chapter 21 (XXI) titled REACTION MACHINES in Charles Proteus Steinmetz’s book titled “Alternating Current Phenomena”. There is also a Russian paper (brought to me by the Korean student as a gift) titled: “UBER DIE ERREGUNG VON ELETRISCHEN SCHWINGUNGEN DURCH PARAMETERAENDERUNG” von L. Mandelstam und N. Papalexi, published in 1934 in: J. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR (umlaut on the U - as should also be on the first U in the title of the paper) TECHNISCHE PHYSIK Band IV, Heft 1, that continues with what Steinmetz teaches in his books, and takes it all the way (Title translation: Concerning the Excitation of Electrical Waves Through Parameter Changes). In one picture in the paper, there appears to be a brightly glowing incandescent lamp connected to a network, with no apparent connection to a power source. It appears to be an Alexanderson type Mag. Amp. operating in a self oscillation mode. (Alexanderson Patent # 1,328,797 Jan. 20, 1920): Even though my copy of the paper is in Russian, the equations speak for themselves and echo the work of Steinmetz and Alexanderson. Ernst Alexanderson emigrated to America because of Steinmetz’s book, - he was determined to work with Steinmetz after studying it. Steinmetz was forced to reverse many of his equations in later books and was severely criticized by physicist Michael Pupin of Columbia University for not using Maxwell’s ideas and instead developing a methodology that was actually useful and practical for engineers. (Read, “Steinmetz, Engineer and Socialist” written by Ronald R. Kline.) Here it was said that General Electric gave Steinmetz permission to create Electricity form the square root of minus one…

I personally created so much Electricity form the square root of minus one out of the compressor plant’s synchronous machines at the Richmond Ship-yard that I was working in at the time (which also housed one of my laboratories) that it tripped the reverse power relays of the Richmond substation and shut off all power to the City of Richmond. For that to have happened, means that the City of Richmond was producing more power than it was consuming, hence the reverse power relays tripped and shut the city down. PG & E trucks were there almost immediately.

Hi Eric,

I have just been reading in your symbolic representation of alternating waves ( http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_...%20Dollard.pdf ). I read your statement above before and I wondered what you meant by that. As you can read in one of my posts just above, I do believe in conservation of energy. So, your statement of producing energy out of the square root of minus one did raise my eyebrows so to speak.

Now that I am reading your paper I see what you mean. However, IMHO you have to keep in mind what you are describing with your equations. As far as I understand now, you essentially describe propagating waves in two dimensions. When you go to a transmission line kind of model, one of them is the length of your transmission line, which is also the propagation direction of your wave(s). The other one is your complex wave model, which only describes part of reality, cause physical reality is in 3D, of course. So, what your model describes is a complex 2D surface projection of phenomena that actually occur in 3D space.

And therefore, what you call "reactive energy" which is "imaginary" and therefore "not real" is very real in 3D reality. It is not imaginary at all, it literally flows in dimensions that are not part of your 2D complex model. It flows in the 3D reality of which your model only describes a 2D projection!

Let's illustrate this with an example. When you throw a rock in a pond, you get 2D transverse waves on the surface of the pond. However, in 3D reality these are longitudinal waves underneath the surface as well as in the air above the surface. There are no transversal waves inside 3D reality fluid/gas media, they are at the boundary of two adjacent media, while most of the energy flows under the surface by means of longitudinal waves. So, when you only describe the transverse wave you totally ignore the energy contained in the longitudinal waves that are hidden under the surface (literally in this example), unless you include a "projection" of that 3D phenomenon in your 2D model using an "imaginary" component in your wave model.

And that is essentially what you do with complex math. It's in essence a trick to take two (mathematical) dimensions together into one equation.

So, it may seem that you can produce energy out of a non-existing imaginary energy field, that is just an illusion which is the result of the limitations of your 2D model. The energy you can "produce" that way does not come out of the square root of one. It comes out of the real 3D energy floating around in space, of which your model literally only scraps the surface.

Now please don't take this wrong, your model and work is really awesome and goes far beyond anything you can find in the University textbooks these days.


I just can't live with the idea of "producing" energy out of a non-existing "imaginary" component. I mean, just look at how Einsteinians managed to screw up with "virtual particles", "dark matter" and God knows what.

Really, you don't want to go there!!

[lamare]

There is also a Russian paper (brought to me by the Korean student as a gift) titled: “UBER DIE ERREGUNG VON ELETRISCHEN SCHWINGUNGEN DURCH PARAMETERAENDERUNG” von L. Mandelstam und N. Papalexi, published in 1934 in: J. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR (umlaut on the U - as should also be on the first U in the title of the paper) TECHNISCHE PHYSIK Band IV, Heft 1, that continues with what Steinmetz teaches in his books, and takes it all the way (Title translation: Concerning the Excitation of Electrical Waves Through Parameter Changes). In one picture in the paper, there appears to be a brightly glowing incandescent lamp connected to a network, with no apparent connection to a power source. It appears to be an Alexanderson type Mag. Amp. operating in a self oscillation mode. (Alexanderson Patent # 1,328,797 Jan. 20, 1920): Even though my copy of the paper is in Russian, the equations speak for themselves and echo the work of Steinmetz and Alexanderson. Ernst Alexanderson emigrated to America because of Steinmetz’s book, - he was determined to work with Steinmetz after studying it. Steinmetz was forced to reverse many of his equations in later books and was severely criticized by physicist Michael Pupin of Columbia University for not using Maxwell’s ideas and instead developing a methodology that was actually useful and practical for engineers. (Read, “Steinmetz, Engineer and Socialist” written by Ronald R. Kline.) Here it was said that General Electric gave Steinmetz permission to create Electricity form the square root of minus one…

Looks like we have an English version now too:

This is a translation of an article I found on the American Marconi Foundation website ( Home :: AMERICAN MARCONI FOUNDATION ). The site was basically set up to support Eric Dollard's (and others) research into Telluric waves for earthquake prediction. In the downloads section is the untranslated article as well as other interesting pieces. A mixture of curiosity and a desire to see information promulgated widely and freely caused me to have this translated. Here is the link

https://rapidshare.com/files/4282179...n_English_.doc

Here is the abstract

ON ELECTRIC OSCILLATION EXCITATION BY MEANS OF PARAMETRIC CHANGE
by L. Mandelstam and N. Papalexi

In this work the theory of electric oscillation excitation in oscillatory system by means of periodic parameter change with no applied electromotive forces is given. This theory, which is based on general methods of differential equation periodic solution stated by Henri Poincare, will be applied to the special cases of parameter change. These are the cases of oscillation excitation (excitation conditions, stationary amplitude, etc.) that can be observed both with a sinusoidal self-induction or capacity change in a nonlinear oscillatory loop (that contains an iron choke) or in a sinusoidal self-induction change in series-connected vacuum valves. The experimental part contains the description of the attempts to excite oscillations by means of periodic change in self-induction or capacity in accordance with the theory.

From what I can ascertain, they have succeeded in creating oscillating currents with "no applied electromotive forces" by periodic parametric change of either inductance or capacitance. The trick is however, the frequency parameter change has to be some sort of harmonic of the "proper frequency of the system". Outside these harmonic bands the effect disappears. The paper talks about parametric change causing the energy of the system to transform from electrostatic to magnetic and back again. This seems very similar to Eric Dollards work. You know its interesting, I did a search of the document, not one instance of the word "electron"

Matt

Made a pdf of this one. See atachments. Thanks, Matt!


Update: BTW, I copied all Eric's posts here over to my wiki and added some links, etc. : Tuks DrippingPedia : Energetic Form Posts -- easier to read then zifting trough the thread...

Update 2: Uploaded the pdf to my server also: http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Mat...ion%201934.pdf

Update 3: Also made a list of references with a.o. most of Eric's references, along with links to where to find them: Tuks DrippingPedia : Links And References

[lamare]

Hi Eric,

There's another thing I would love to hear your thoughts about, which is negative resistance and the idea that a coil energized with an AC wave on top of a DC offset is apparantly more effectively energized. I have posted this about that one, after studying Gray's circuit, I assume you're familiar with:

<snip>

After studying some of the writings of a.o. Tesla and Dollard, I took a fresh look at Gray's schematics:

It struck me that the "spark gap protection device 42" is not a protection device at all. IMHO, it is actually the main spark gap that forms a classic spark gap discharge circuit, very similar to what Tesla was using for primary of his Tesla coil. It's discharge path goes from HV cap 16 trough spark gap 42 (which has been drawn a bit strangely, to say the least), induction coil 36, cap 38 and battery 18.

With that in mind, we can find Gray's actual secret, the production of extreme pulses of magnetic foce using a negatice resistance device, in Eric Dollard's "Condensed Intro to Tesla Coils":

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_...Coils(OCR).pdf

The formation of the energy impulse involves the discharge of a capacitor with the highest practical stored energy into an impedance (inductive) of the lowest practical value, and the discharge path is coupled to an energy supply through a negative resistance device. This negative resistance is classically a spark discharge, but a superior plasma device needs to be developed to enhance efficiency. Under optimal conditions the exponent of oscillation amplitude will be positive over a sustained period of time.
The net result of this system is the production of an extreme impulse of M.M.F. (magnetic force).

What makes a negative resistance device so interesting for steering coils into resonance for applications in magnetic motors is that the current trough a practical negative resistance device, like a spark gap or lambda diode, is always positive! See for example the I-V curve of a typical lambda diode circuit:

Lambda diode

That means you can get a coil into a resonance mode where you have a superposition of a DC current and a complex AC wave going trough it, such that the magnetic field is directed into one direction. In other words: there are no areas in the coil where a reverse direction of the magentic field occurs. So, this DC offset is very important for the application of resonating coils in attracting/repelling motors. What happens is that besides the normal DC current going trough the coil, generating a magnetic field, you get additional wave-like impulses going trough the coil, which travel at a much greater speed than electrons (DC current), and therefore generate an extremely powerful magnetic field inside the coil, which you can harnass using magnetic attraction/repelling in a motor as well as by capturing the BEMF when allowing the magnetic field to collapse.

So far, so good.

Now of course the question is: what is the purpose of the CSET?

If you look at the older 1975 Gray patent, you won't find a CSET, nor do you find one in the "fuelless engine" documents circulating around the internet, which are basically a variation of Gray's earlier patent. Now the problem with spark-gaps is that this negative resistance effect is caused by the temperature variaton of the arc plasma due to the current going trough it, which is very sensitive and difficult to control. According to Mark McKay, in earlier versions Gray used "spark gaps placed around the periphery of the motor shaft and triggered by moving contacts that come into register. A novel speed control mechanism was provided that shuttled between different spark gap contacts to advance or retard the HV firing sequence." McKay also states that the first, even earlier, sixties prototypes only ran briefly. So, in earlier versions, Gray used very complex rotating spark gaps, which undoubtly gave him lots of (stability and scale-up) problems, given that Dollard already found a single spark device difficult to operate:

Due to the immense difficulties surrounding the spark device, a simple method and one of much greater control is shunt feed of the primary network by an A.M. radio transmitter of special design such as the unit at building number one.

Like Dollard, Gray's associates apparantly also went looking for a more simple and controllable spark gap device. How about using a fixed spark gap, not unlike a standard automotive spark plug, and somehow trigger that one at the right moment? Still very difficult to keep under control, but a walk in the park compared to controlling and operating rotating spark gaps around a rotating motor shaft in their very sensitive negative resistance mode of operation. IMHO, that's where the CSET comes in. It also has a spark gap, but this one only fires very shortly, cause it's immediately shut off. All it needs to do is to emit one single pulse, which is capacatively coupled from the main rod to the grids and then fed to the main spark gap, in order to fire the main spark gap. And that's all it does, it's a triggering device. If the main spark gap is normally kept in a state whereby it almost fires, it apparantly can be fired pretty easily using a single pulse from the CSET. Since the spark gap in the CSET only has to switch once, it does not have to be operated in it's negatice resistance region, so it is easily controlled.

It seems obvious that the principle of using a negative resistance device in order to energize a coil much more effectively can also be applied to Bedini's monopole motors, like the school-girl circuit.
<snip>

What puzzles me is that you wrote (if you still remember after such a long time ) about the production of an extreme impulse of EMF, which suggests basically one big explosion of force, while the negative resistance properties of a spark gap clearly suggest some kind of resonance is being induced in the coil, which suggests you get a more or less gradual buildup of some kind of standing wave in your coil.

So, it seems to me that the impulse you wrote about is not so much a one-time sudden phenomenon, but a standing wave consisting of multiple higher order harmonic oscillations in superposition, resulting in an impulse wave traveling back and forth along your coil (arrangement).

Any comment on this?

And what do you think about the idea that the DC offset provided by a practical negative-resistance component is a very important element in Gray's design, because the superposition of DC "current" and an AC wave applied to a coil results in a uni-directional magnetic field being built up in the coil, which apparantly is able to energize the core of the coil with an extreme amount of energy?

[lamare]

Chris Carson Built the Rotary Electrostatic Converter. His design was based entirely on my electrical theory and math. It was designed to demonstrate and validate the concept of Synchronous Parameter Variation and the Four Quadrant Theory of Electricity. The device worked well. It had to spin up to around 10,000 RPM. This unit took Chris months to complete; to get all of the parts together, and to get it perfectly balanced and operational. Chris determined that it was starting to exhibit the effects of synthesis of electrical energy from the electrostatic field. This is a result of the variation of capacitance (C in Farrads) with respect to time (T in seconds) which results in a negative conductance G (in Siemens). Hence the generation of electric energy. Then, disinformants, whom I refer to as the “Montauk Crowd” swooped in on him after he completed this device, and he was never the same again, - he died of Brain Cancer a year or two later…

There was also the Rotary Electromagnetic Converter, constructed by Michael Knots and Peter Lindemann with the help of Chris Carson. This unit exhibited the property of materializing and dematerializing electric energy without regard for the Law of Conservation of Energy. This is another example of synchronous parameter variation. In this case inductance (L in Henrys) time (T in seconds) gave rise to positive resistance (R in Ohms), hence the unaccounted for destruction of electric energy. It must be just as illegal to destroy energy as it is to create it – don’t you think? E is NOT equal to MC squared. There is no Matter to Energy equivalency – this is: The Great White Lie…

Hi Eric,

Since you're back, let's discuss this a bit further, because you suggest you believe you can actually destroy/generate energy. Peter Lindemann mailed me some time ago that he concluded that the First Law of Thermodynamics is 100% incorrect, that he does not believe that one form of energy can be or is converted into another and that he believes that energy routinely appears from and disappears back into an unseen dimension of reality.

I would be interested in your view on this, because I believe the First Law of Thermodynamics to be 100% correct, and that the energy that seems to be destroyed/created is just being converted to/from the zero-point field. And I also believe that once you start talking about an "unseen dimension of reality", you are on the same hopeless track as the Einstein followers, who literally make all kinds of "virtual" things up in order to hide their errors.

I wrote about conservation of energy in my never finished article:

Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

In essence energy (work) is an integration (summation) of a force enacted between two bodies - or particles or even the fundamental 'God' particles or whatever the ether/medium may be composed of - over the effect of the force, the movement of the body over a certain distance or a displacement in/of the ether/medium. In other words, energy is in essence a measurement of the effect of the interaction between two bodies/particles and/or the medium.

Fundamental point is that it is always a measurement of the effect of an interaction. And since action equals reaction, there can be no other way than that energy is always conserved. Because after all, as Tesla said, something cannot act upon nothing:

"Pioneer Radio Engineer Gives Views On Power"

It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

So, I hold that the law of energy conservation is correct, cause if you abandon that one, you're basically saying something can act upon nothing and like Tesla, I refuse to subscribe to such a view.

However, the electric as well as the magnetic fields emitted by what we know as particles can be seen as energy sources and they are powered by ZPE, as I summarized in my article:

Any charge continously emits an energy field, an electric field, spreading with the speed of light, which is the real energy source that makes our circuits run. This energy-field, generated by the charges in our wires, is not created out of thin-air. Since there is a continuous flow of energy out of every charge, there also is a continuous flow of energy going into every charge. And that is where the energy eventually comes from, right from the vacuum itself. For our purposes, it doesn't really matter how the energy that ends up in the electric field is being taken out of the vacuum. It may be ZPE, it may be a "virtual partical flux", it may be anything. It doesn't matter, because we don't need to know.

All we need to know is that somehow, some form of energy flows into each and every charge in the universe and this energy flow is continuously converted into an outflowing electric energy field by each and every charge in the universe, 27/7, 365 days a year, for free.

This is based on a.o. the work of the German Prof. Claus Turtur, which I'm sure you will find interesting:
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf

The juicy part:

If electrostatic fields propagate with the speed of light, they transport energy, because they have a certain energy density. It should be possible to trace this transport of energy if is really existing. That this is really the case can be seen even with a simple example regarding a point charge, as will be done on the following pages.
[...]

Important is the conclusion, which can be found with logical consequence:
On the one hand the vacuum (= the space) permanently supplies the charge with energy (first paradox aspect), which the charge (as the field source) converts into field energy and emits it in the shape of a field. On the other hand the vacuum (= the space) permanently takes energy away from the propagating field, this means, that space gets back its energy from field during the propagation of the field. This indicates that there should be some energy inside the “empty” space, which we now can understand as a part of the vacuum-energy.

The way I see it, is that particles are actually some kind of vortexes in the ether, which are at the same time what we know as transversal electro-magnetic waves. However, since these waves propagate trough a real, fluid-like medium and you cannot have transversal waves inside a fluid, so you cannot have classic transversal waves in the ether, as I wrote here:

Err, maybe you didn't notice, but I totally agree with Tesla on:
1. Maxwell is wrong in it's current form (as Meyl clearly shows),
2. exactly because their current form does not support longitudinal electric waves and because they are the basis for what Dollard calls "the Einsteinian Lie".
3. Classic Herzian, or transversal waves, do not exist in the ether, because it has fluid-like properties and transversal waves can only exist in a solid or at the border of two media with different densities, AFAIK.

What does exist in the ether, are particles, which are one and the same thing as what is called EM waves. However, these are not "simple" transversal waves, but some kind of standing wave in the shape of a vortex or swirl in the ether.

You may also want to check my argument about why Einstein's relativity theory is plain wrong:

I have come to the conclusion that Einstein's general relativity theory is plain wrong. It is essentially based on the erroneous assumption that the electric and magnetic fields are caused by matter (charge carrierrs), while we know from Quantum Mechanics that it's the other way around.

The root of the error can be found in the Maxwell equations in their currently accepted form. These equations are the foundation for our current understanding of the electro-magnetic fields. Maxwell, a mathematician, formulated his theory on electromagnetic phenomena based on the experimental results by Faraday. At some point, he postulated that the fields he was describing mathematically were being caused by so-called charge carriers, matter. The essential mistake with that is that this assumes that the electric and magnetic fields cannot exist without being caused by some kind of particle, while we now know for decades that is not the case, because from QM we know that particles and electro-magnetic waves are one and the same thing and are nothing more than alternating/vibrating electric and magnetic fields.

So, essentially the error is that the same fields that cause electromagnetic waves (and thus particles when alternating/vibrating in a certain way) supposedly cannot exist without being caused by some kind of electromagnetic waves (particles). Or, the Maxwell equations say electromagnetism and thus electromagnetic waves are caused by particles while at the same time QM says particles are nothing but electromagnetic waves.

And you simply cannot have it both ways at the same time. Either particles cause the electro-magnetic fields, or the electro-magnec fields cause the particles, but not both.

So, there we are. Maxwell incomplete, which lead to Einstein's theory by a mathematic freak known as the Lorentz transform, I thinks we agree on that. But what are your thoughts on conservation of energy?

Do you think energy can actually be created, or should we stick to the first law of thermodynamics?

[Pinwheel]

Also, it's totally easy to pretty much know that PESWiki is a front - but I bet you that's where I got my idea about the 4 currents and EPD's 4 quadrants from. Unless, there is some mistaken posts on here in the past year. I cant remember what my source is for thinking that the 4 currents are the same thing. I don't think it's presented like that in any of the old videos from the 80's.

But yeah, I don't trust PESWiki.

[Pinwheel]

You're right Web000x, it's about the 4 different aspects of alternating current (I'm over simplifying).

[madhatter]

I'll agree that either there are some typos or outright sensoring of Erics original text. I've read thru them and found some missing bits, the recent posts by Eric have actually cleared up some of those gaps.

I've been over the basics of the AC and DC waves and that's fairly straight forward with basic Trig and Algebra. The fascinating one to me is the 3 phase, with each phase being over 90* it diverts from a 2D trig into quaternion based eq. it gives rise to FTL wave forms. the only geometry that would support 3 right angles completing a full circle would be curved and hence the difficulty with std. trig and algebra.

Then again I may be off my nut - who knows? maybe Eric will further delve into that one, in the text he moves on to the quadratic 8 phase as the 3 phase needed further research, I think there is more to the 3 phase than it seems at first brush. from 90*-120* the function travels forward and backward at the same (time) bit of a headache trying to keep time linear when it's not possible in that case. I get k^0=1 - [1 1/3 - Pi/6]

[Pinwheel]

I think I get what you are saying.

I'm going to give another once over of "Symbolic Representation of Alternating Electric Waves" with the intention of spotting references to power factor like you described. Eventually, not right this minute lol. Tomorrow maybe - my brain no longer computes.

[Web000x]

After going through this thread last night until 5 in the morning, while making notes on E. Dollard's posts, I thought I had a good handle on what he was talking about. I thought I'd tackle the Heaviside equation.

I was stopped...



Firstly, I was stopped to investigate weather conductance and admittance were interchangeable. No. Seems like when it's a DC circuit with 0 phase angle then you can but that's it.

Next, are there some unintentional typo's in this Dollard quote?

Longitudinal? Not transverse?

I mean, I have no idea really. I'm not trying to correct somebody like I was wagging my finger. I'm just saying, I always thought AC was transverse sinusoidal waveforms?

Next,



So... again, I think it's just a typo. We have the same description for 2 different currents, with the exception of one being described as forward moving and one described as reverse moving. What I think was meant to be said was one of those components/currents is IC - Impulse Current. One is OC - Oscillating Current. One is forward, one is reverse. And I think... that one is transverse and one is longitudinal.



Or, perhaps, everything is totally right and it's wayyyy too early for me to start thinking about tranverse vs. longitudinal propagation - and that's why I don't get it.



After giving a go at "Eric Dollard Symbolic Representation of Alternating Electric Waves", in an attempt to get a feel for the properties of the 4 quadrants, I do have suspicions that I am right and there is unintentional typos in EPD's quote. What I think is XG, that is Reactance * Conductance, is the IC and Transverse in nature and forward moving. Whereas RB, Resistance * Susceptance, is the OC and Longitudinal in nature and reverse moving. The 2 currents are 90 degrees out of phase with each other.


Am I totally wrong here? What am I not understanding?

First of all (correct me if I am wrong Eric), the PESWiki website has mislabeled Eric's 4 quadrants of electricity. The description given on their article for the four quadrants is given as:

Tesla experimented with impulse current and oscillating current.
our electricity is direct current and alternating current.
The Four Quadrant Theory of Electricity is
IMPULSE CURRENT, OSCILLATING CURRENT, DIRECT CURRENT, ALTERNATING CURRENT

Those are the four different types of electric waves.

Eric's four quadrant theory has more to do with the power factor of electric waves. If we look at the power factor meters of today, you will see that there is only half of a circle on the meter. You have VI phase angles of 90 degrees for capacitive circuits, 0 degrees for real power dissipation circuits, and -90 degrees for inductive circuits. There is not much phase angle travel past the 90/-90 degree VI angle during conventional use. These power factors occur when there is no spatial variation of the circuit.

However, Eric speaks of the importance of parameter/spatial (Inductance/Capacitance) variation with respect to time for the synthesis of energy. The parameter variation would push the electric wave into the other two quadrants of electricity. Anything past the 90/-90 degree phase angle marks on the power factor meters would indicate negative voltage*amperage or real negative power. That means reverse power flow or more energy is being produced than consumed.

That is my understanding of Mr. Dollard's four quadrant theory and I think the PESWiki site description needs to be changed since it is misleading.

If you have the XB component in balance with the resistance/conductance of the circuit (XG - RB = 0), you get into Tesla phenomena. The inductance is storing the energy at the exact same time rate as the dielectric is storing the energy. There is no unnecessary energy loss taking place due to mismatched time constants of XB energy exchange. Oscillations may be maintained more easily in this fashion which allows for the longitudinal component or "rays" of electrical induction to continue to manifest more easily with minimum input from the power supply.

Dave

[Pinwheel]

I dunno, I'm still looking at this and XB does look like it would be longitudinal. Reactance and Susceptance ... henry's are inductive in nature and farads are capacitive in nature.

Meh, I'm rambling now.

[Pinwheel]

After going through this thread last night until 5 in the morning, while making notes on E. Dollard's posts, I thought I had a good handle on what he was talking about. I thought I'd tackle the Heaviside equation.

I was stopped...

Let us turn to the Heaviside Equation which is the most fundamental equations in all of Electrical Engineering:

(RG + XB) + j (XG – RB) = propagation constant squared

where:

R resistance in Ohms
G conductance in Siemens
X reactance in Henrys per second
B susceptance in Farads per second

Therefore:

RG is the scalar or DC component that is NOT A WAVE,
XB is the longitudinal or AC component and is an alternating electric wave

XG is the transverse or OC component and is a forward moving oscillating electric wave. RB is the transverse or OC component and is a reverse moving oscillating electric wave

Firstly, I was stopped to investigate weather conductance and admittance were interchangeable. No. Seems like when it's a DC circuit with 0 phase angle then you can but that's it.

Next, are there some unintentional typo's in this Dollard quote?

XB is the longitudinal or AC component and is an alternating electric wave

Longitudinal? Not transverse?

I mean, I have no idea really. I'm not trying to correct somebody like I was wagging my finger. I'm just saying, I always thought AC was transverse sinusoidal waveforms?

Next,

XG is the transverse or OC component and is a forward moving oscillating electric wave. RB is the transverse or OC component and is a reverse moving oscillating electric wave.

So... again, I think it's just a typo. We have the same description for 2 different currents, with the exception of one being described as forward moving and one described as reverse moving. What I think was meant to be said was one of those components/currents is IC - Impulse Current. One is OC - Oscillating Current. One is forward, one is reverse. And I think... that one is transverse and one is longitudinal.



Or, perhaps, everything is totally right and it's wayyyy too early for me to start thinking about tranverse vs. longitudinal propagation - and that's why I don't get it.



After giving a go at "Eric Dollard Symbolic Representation of Alternating Electric Waves", in an attempt to get a feel for the properties of the 4 quadrants, I do have suspicions that I am right and there is unintentional typos in EPD's quote. What I think is XG, that is Reactance * Conductance, is the IC and Transverse in nature and forward moving. Whereas RB, Resistance * Susceptance, is the OC and Longitudinal in nature and reverse moving. The 2 currents are 90 degrees out of phase with each other.


Am I totally wrong here? What am I not understanding?

[Pinwheel]

Yeah, I was looking at the aether as solid rather than gaseous.

[jarvamundo]

So back to the Planck, that quantity of electrical induction Q. So long as there is no variation of the electrification, that is so long as it is static, no other phenomenon manifests. Just as with the mass of your body and the velocity of its motion in space, so long as there’s no variation no sensation of force is experienced by your body. Completing the analogy the concept of energy is then entirely analogous to that force you felt when you hit the brakes. Hence they are both phantom like derivatives of things that you otherwise can perceive as real.


Okay, I haven't read ahead of this point really. What I'm trying to do here is to restate what I think I'm understanding so far in my own terms and see if people think I'm right. Remember, that this is a very dumbed down version. Here goes:

Energy (we call it Q or electricity) is in a constant state. What we in modern times think electricity is, is actually the deviation from this constant state. Meaning we apply work and get a (equal and opposite) reaction. But the work and the reaction aren't the energy - the energy is already there.

I'm actually comfortable that this is accurate - remember I'm not an engineer type or anything. I'm just a regular guy.

I see it slightly differently

Let us have an ether in constant state (although i do not declare it is).

Now let us say we can push this ether with the tip of our finger, the ether has moved. This is what i see as storage of electricity in the form of magnetism which we call magnetic induction. As Eric or Heaviside mentions (i can't remember) magnetic induction is ether in motion. Here the energy is a secondary representation of a more fundamental phenomena of ether moving, or having been displaced from where it longs to return.

Now the other way we could try and manipulate this ether is by stressing this ether by tentioning it, or hey compressing it. For arguments sake, lets stretch it like a rubber band, or pinch it between our finger and thumb. In this regard we have stressed the ether, and this is what i see as storage of electricity in the form of dielectric-ism? which we call dielectric induction. So dielectric induction is ether under stress.

It is the amount of moving which is the energy, or the amount of stressing or tentioning that is your unit of energy.

We can use lines if we wish.

In both examples electrical energy is described as second order event of the primordial substance. It is the amount of 'quants' you have moved or tensioned.

Now, as we can take from Steinmetz's writings on transients, both of these forms of storage if able readily chang from one, to the other. A bounded unit of this might be an oscilating water baloon, stressing, moving and tensioning.
The product of both of these forms being Q.

To me possibly phi and psi may just be looked as an expression of Q.

Now of course i may have ignored or ill described the dimensionality of both forms of storage induction with respect to each other. But hopefully the rough attempt at analogy can help bring to mind the 'second order' view of energy.

To me this view will help with approaching the ideas of hysteresis, and possibly any advantages from exploiting it.

But hey, Trex can have his way with this if i'm off track here with these possibly clumsy analogies

[Pinwheel]

So back to the Planck, that quantity of electrical induction Q. So long as there is no variation of the electrification, that is so long as it is static, no other phenomenon manifests. Just as with the mass of your body and the velocity of its motion in space, so long as there’s no variation no sensation of force is experienced by your body. Completing the analogy the concept of energy is then entirely analogous to that force you felt when you hit the brakes. Hence they are both phantom like derivatives of things that you otherwise can perceive as real.


Okay, I haven't read ahead of this point really. What I'm trying to do here is to restate what I think I'm understanding so far in my own terms and see if people think I'm right. Remember, that this is a very dumbed down version. Here goes:

Energy (we call it Q or electricity) is in a constant state. What we in modern times think electricity is, is actually the deviation from this constant state. Meaning we apply work and get a (equal and opposite) reaction. But the work and the reaction aren't the energy - the energy is already there.

I'm actually comfortable that this is accurate - remember I'm not an engineer type or anything. I'm just a regular guy.

[Kosh]

I think Mr. Dollard is teaching us based on those Borderland files he wrote.
They are full of good information and I suggest reading all of them, even if you don't understand the math involved.