Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[MJL]

Parallel's with Erics Work

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ranslated.html

Raui, I've started a thread for this recently translated article which Eric felt was important simply from analysis of the maths. Some of the explanations give wonderful insights if your familiar with Eric's work. Case in point, from the article, this might answer your previous question

"Let us briefly remind this argument for the case of self-induction change. Suppose there is current i in the oscillatory system having capacity C, ohmic resistance R and induction L at a period of time taken as the initial one. Let us change self-induction to the magnitude dL at this moment, which is equivalent to energy increase equal to 1/2 dL i(squared). Now we leave the system to itself. In a period of time equal to ¼ of the system proper oscillations period, the entire system energy will transform from magnetic into electrostatic. At this moment, when the current = zero, we return the self-induction to its initial magnitude, which obviously can be performed without an effort, and then leave the system to itself again. In the next ¼ of the proper oscillation period the electrostatic energy will entirely transform into the magnetic one again, and then we can start a new cycle of induction change."

Considering they are doing these experiments with "no obvious sources of electric or magnetic forces" they seem to be creating energy by periodic change of circuit parameters. The key they say, based on their mathematical analysis, is that the frequency of parameter change must be a harmonic of the "proper frequency of the system" . Outside these frequency bands, the oscillations cease. So we have an energy phenomenon that only manifests under precise conditions and seems to be the effect of parameter change. I would love to get my hands on some of the references in this article but I suppose their all in Russian. Translation is expensive

I can't see why a solid state device based on these principles can't be devised. This research was 1930's so something with transistors seems feasible. Ideas? This work reminds me somewhat of Teslas work with mechanical oscillators and a certain high rise building. I guess he considered mechanical and electrical systems as analogous in function as this article contends. That would seem discredit any notion of a single velocity of propagation of electric waves because like a mechanical system it all depends on system parameters and not some immutable dictum.

Very interesting article, hope you get something from it

Matt

[uusedman]

If I may propose the following suggestions. Many of Eric Dollards ideas are revolutionary and against the status quo mainstream idealogy. We need to start from the beginning. Perhaps some session on Paltalk or Skype. Since Eric is going through some financial trouble, we can pay him for these session weekly. Let's say 10 dollars a session or whatever is fair. We learn from an expertise about knowledge that is not found in books and in return we gave a man back his pride through earning his livelyhood through his expertise.

This should not be completed were we all going to start fighting of time and materials, let it be up to Eric to decide the best approach and the best time. Subsequently to these sessions or classes, a paper can be written with detail explanation of the class.

I am lost to many principals or ideas of electronics and need someone to explain. And, I can only belief that there is many more like me who want to learn.

Thanks

[7imix]

On a side note, I feel we need to stop looking at things as "numbers" but relationships between two quantities or geometries, because that's what your equations show, the relationship, or the somethings on the left are equal to the something on the right.

I think this is right on. Maybe this is why Eric stresses dimensional analysis so much? It's important to know what the relationships of one unit to another are in order to do practical analysis.

[Raui]

What I am attempting with these internet transmissions is to sequentially establish the correct semantics for terms that we flail with (like parrots) such as volt, watt, & etc. Oliver Heaviside did this over a century ago with his famous “Electromagnetic Induction” series of writings in England, which was eventually censured by the Royal Society (William Preece). On the other side of the coin, as far as the conspiracy against my efforts, all the necessary elements have been given and I leave it to you all to expose its fetid body to the atmosphere. This is very important work also. I will do my part in these definitive writings, but you must do your part in “cleaning the toilet bowl.” OK?

So far I think the concept of space and counterspace in its basic form is established. Counterspace, as that space between the lines on a ruler is an apt descriptive analog. A ruler divided in millimeters has less counterspace than a ruler divided in nanometers. This is obvious. (think in terms of capillary action) Also, the Planck is our undivided fundamental quantity of electricity and all else will be a development of the Planck.

What needs to be focused upon at this point in writing is the concept of VARIATION WITH RESPECT TO TIME, that is the dimension of per second. This also is known as the “Time Derivative”, delta X over delta T in the Newton – Liebnitz infintestimal calculus. Let us say the rate of change with respect to time.

Everyone’s intimate mechanical relationship with their automotive apparatus (today the metal maggot or horned exoskeleton) render it useful tool for analogy. Various phenomenon make their appearance, somewhat ghostlike, during the process of variation with respect to time. Let us take the dimensional relation of velocity, that is, the ratio of the dimension of length (space) to the dimension of time. This is the velocity V, let us say specifically miles per hour. Now we know that if the dimension of mass m is moving at a given velocity V, that is, the “weight” of your body in the auto, in CONSTANT motion at the speed limit let’s say, no forces or perceptible sensation is imparted to your body. In other words you feel sitting in the car seat the same as you feel in the seat in front of the television set (so the auto is like a rolling TV). So long as the velocity remains unchanged nothing is experienced or felt. Now a deer jumps in front of your auto, you slam on the brakes and miss it, now you are moving at 1/10th of the speed limit. During the interval in time in which the velocity varied with respect to time, that is miles per hour per second, or the ratio of the velocity V to the time interval t, from somewhere your physical body experienced a powerful force pushing you forward. The more quickly the auto changed speed the more this force impacted your body. So we can say that this force F is given as the ratio of velocity to time, for any unit mass of your body. That is, the force F equals your body’s mass times the ratio of the velocity to the time interval of the velocity’s variation with respect to time.

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.

So now we are getting a further “feel” that what we call energy is not really that primary phenomenon that the Einsteinishen would like us to believe, but in reality is only a secondary derivative of some more concrete phenomenon, or ghost associated with something physically tangible or real. Now the idea that energy can be “created” or made to go away can now be brought to mind.

73 DE N6KPH

Eric, is the series you talk about actually called "Electromagnetic induction and its propagation"? That is the only thing I could find along those lines or is it completely surpressed?

Would I be right in saying that when the fields surrounding the circuit change the circuit 'energies' so that energy isn't a primary phenomena but a secondary one? Kind of like thinking that the since the Earth produces people, the Earth 'peoples' or a tree 'apples' and so on. Is this the right way of thinking about it?

Raui

[t-rex]

Rates of Change

What I am attempting with these internet transmissions is to sequentially establish the correct semantics for terms that we flail with (like parrots) such as volt, watt, & etc. Oliver Heaviside did this over a century ago with his famous “Electromagnetic Induction” series of writings in England, which was eventually censured by the Royal Society (William Preece). On the other side of the coin, as far as the conspiracy against my efforts, all the necessary elements have been given and I leave it to you all to expose its fetid body to the atmosphere. This is very important work also. I will do my part in these definitive writings, but you must do your part in “cleaning the toilet bowl.” OK?

So far I think the concept of space and counterspace in its basic form is established. Counterspace, as that space between the lines on a ruler is an apt descriptive analog. A ruler divided in millimeters has less counterspace than a ruler divided in nanometers. This is obvious. (think in terms of capillary action) Also, the Planck is our undivided fundamental quantity of electricity and all else will be a development of the Planck.

What needs to be focused upon at this point in writing is the concept of VARIATION WITH RESPECT TO TIME, that is the dimension of per second. This also is known as the “Time Derivative”, delta X over delta T in the Newton – Liebnitz infintestimal calculus. Let us say the rate of change with respect to time.

Everyone’s intimate mechanical relationship with their automotive apparatus (today the metal maggot or horned exoskeleton) render it useful tool for analogy. Various phenomenon make their appearance, somewhat ghostlike, during the process of variation with respect to time. Let us take the dimensional relation of velocity, that is, the ratio of the dimension of length (space) to the dimension of time. This is the velocity V, let us say specifically miles per hour. Now we know that if the dimension of mass m is moving at a given velocity V, that is, the “weight” of your body in the auto, in CONSTANT motion at the speed limit let’s say, no forces or perceptible sensation is imparted to your body. In other words you feel sitting in the car seat the same as you feel in the seat in front of the television set (so the auto is like a rolling TV). So long as the velocity remains unchanged nothing is experienced or felt. Now a deer jumps in front of your auto, you slam on the brakes and miss it, now you are moving at 1/10th of the speed limit. During the interval in time in which the velocity varied with respect to time, that is miles per hour per second, or the ratio of the velocity V to the time interval t, from somewhere your physical body experienced a powerful force pushing you forward. The more quickly the auto changed speed the more this force impacted your body. So we can say that this force F is given as the ratio of velocity to time, for any unit mass of your body. That is, the force F equals your body’s mass times the ratio of the velocity to the time interval of the velocity’s variation with respect to time.

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.

So now we are getting a further “feel” that what we call energy is not really that primary phenomenon that the Einsteinishen would like us to believe, but in reality is only a secondary derivative of some more concrete phenomenon, or ghost associated with something physically tangible or real. Now the idea that energy can be “created” or made to go away can now be brought to mind.

73 DE N6KPH

[Web000x]

Hope that helps elaborate on what I wrote prior, granted I didn't really answer your question on how the above equation relates to the speed of light simply because I don't have an answer. Maybe you could tell me.

Well, that didn't really answer my question, but it was very thought provoking to read what you believe.

I have the mind of an engineer, but I've not spent a lot of my life studying to become "fluent" in the language of engineers/physicists. I simply didn't know that was where permeability & permittivity of free space came from so I typed your equation, "c = sqrt of 1/(e0/u0)", into a calculator and got nowhere near the speed of light.

I went onto wikipedia and found that the equation that you probably meant to write down was c = 1/sqrt(e0/u0). This quantity does come out to be equal the speed of light.

It was just a typo.

Keep up the provocative posts.



Dave

[garrettm4]

Do you mind elaborating on how you are seeing this quantity as equal/related to the speed of light?

Thanks,

Dave

That equation is one of the fundamental components of JC Maxwells Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field which connected magnetism, electricity, and light into the now fundamental electromagnetic wave theory.

So as to my interpretation of e0, u0 & c, they merely show a relationship whose values ,e0 & u0, are arbitrarily chosen so that they equal the speed of light, c, when placed in the above equation. That doesn't mean they don't have practical value, but, they, e0 & u0, aren't defined to show anything useful about space around us, such as the actual permittivity or permeability of vacuum. So that is why I say their values and interpretation are a bit ambiguous and misleading, and is why, if you read on Wikipedia, they chose to call them respectively, magnetic constant and electric constant because they are not values taken from experimental measurement but theoretical proportions with arbitrary values (u0=4pi/10^7 & e0=10^7/4pi*c^2 ) that the theory uses.

Personally I think it would be best if those "constants" described the actual phenomena of the concentration of lines of force per unit area in the aether or vacuum. But, the concept of aether along with lines of force has been relegated to blaspheme in eyes of modern science. This can be seen from the concept of "polarization" (or storage of lines of force) of the vacuum is not possible because there is "nothing" to polarize, or something to that effect.

Note that my views on polarization (alignment of magnetic/dielectric domains/dipoles) lines of flux, permittivity and permeability are far from orthodox. I copied some of my personal notes below, to give some insight into how I perceive these, distinct yet interconnected, phenomena:

Flux lines never cross each other; they can be bunched, crowded, or thinned out over a large area. When they are bunched or crowded, each flux line has a repelling effect upon its neighboring flux line. This tends to keep them separated from one another. A flux line has tension. It can be stretched or constricted along the direction of the lines of force. This tension is somewhat like a stretched rubber band, prone to become as short as possible.



The Dielectric Circuit:

The energy of an electric-field is in the space outside of the "charged body", such as conducting wires or plates of a capacitor. Considering that all lines of dielectric force terminate on the surfaces of bounding conductors, the space between two charged bodies as the only seat of energy, then the expression "charged body" is best replaced by "terminal surface" of the field. These lines of dielectric force are directed inwards into the bounded insulating space and cause a mechanical attraction of conductor terminal surfaces.

Permittivity is the concentration of dielectric flux lines a specific dielectric is capable of supporting per cross-section area. This spatial concentration of dielectric flux lines is caused by the density of dielectric dipoles, or capacity per unit area a specific dielectric material has for flux lines. The action of spatially concentrating flux lines can also be looked at as the measure of ease by which a dielectric material may permit flux lines to enter or travel through it and is an analog of conductivity in an electric circuit.

The Magnetic Circuit:

The energy of a magnetic-field is in the space outside of the current conducting medium, such as a wire or coil. The energy of this field is composed of magnetic lines of force that form closed loops upon themselves and expand outward, from their source, into space. A collective of magnetic lines forms a magnetic flux.

Permeability is the concentration of magnetic flux lines, per cross-section area, a specific material is capable of supporting. This spatial concentration of magnetic flux lines is directly proportional to the density of magnetic domains a material has and inversely to its polarization or alignment of magnetic domains. The density of magnetic domains can be looked at as the capacity per unit area, a specific magnetic material has for flux lines and the magnitude of polarization as the capacity used. The action of spatially concentrating flux lines can also be looked at as the measure of ease by which a magnetic material will permit flux lines to enter or travel through it and is an analog of conductivity in an electric circuit.

I Hope that helps elaborate on what I wrote prior, granted I didn't really answer your question on how the above equation relates to the speed of light simply because I don't have an answer. Maybe you could tell me.

Garrett M

[Web000x]

On a side note, I feel we need to stop look at things as "numbers" but relationships between two quantities or geometries, because that's what your equations show, the relationship, or the somethings on the left are equal to the something on the right. The interpretation of electrical phenomena and its relationships are quite hard for most to take in, myself included, and any one relationship can have multiple meanings taken from it. I feel that the SI values of permittivity of vacuum e0 and permeability of vacuum u0 are a bit ambiguous because they are not taken to be the amount of dielectric or magnetic lines per area that vacuum can hold but based on the relationship of (speed of light) c = sqrt of 1/(e0/u0). This could be interpreted as a ratio of the lengths of dielectric and magnetic lines and not a quantity per area, but I may be wrong. As to the exact meaning of these equations and their effects on the dynamics of electricity I have no idea, but, I felt compelled to post this information and I don't claim my interpretation is correct or even remotely so.

Garrett M

Do you mind elaborating on how you are seeing this quantity as equal/related to the speed of light?

Thanks,

Dave

[garrettm4]

I did some more thinking about this equation and it seems to me to show the "work" done by charging/discharging an equivalent capacitance into/from an equivalent inductance in an interesting way.

The first arrangement shows in my view the discharge of a (energy equivalent) capacitor into an (energy equivalent) inductor. To the left we have w0, or the result of production of magnetic lines from the consumption of dielectric and to the right, w1, if n is excluded from magnetomotive force, this work done can be seen as a reactive or imaginary resistance in ohms.



Now on to the second arrangement, is what I believe to be an inductor discharging into a capacitor. For the left side we have w2, or the result of production of dielectric lines from the consumption of magnetic lines. And if we disregard n, to the right side we have w3, which shows that this work can be seen as a reactive or imaginary conductance in mohs (or semens).



And finally, if we simplify for E & F in the two equations above we get four new ones, which when combined are shown below:





This essentially describes how reactive components are seen by a electric circuit and also how the "work" is translated from one form of storage to the other. If you were to look at E=phi/time & F=n*psi/time as the applied force or resultant force produced and e & u as the storage capacity of these lines, the equations above may describe how the lines of dielectric and magnetic force could be consumed say in a dc circuit by active resistance and active conductance. Or in other words conductance consumes dielectric lines of force and resitance consumes magnetic lines of force, but I might be wrong on that one.

any thoughts or criticism are welcome

Garrett M

[Raui]

Garret,
Welcome to the forum and thank you for your input, it is greatly appreciated! I should have realized that but what do you expect from a first year physics student You seem have a bit of nouse for mathematics so maybe you could help us out? I do agree that we should look at relations rather than numbers but we've been asked to find a ratio and a number is an easy way to represent this ratio is it not? Thanks again for your input!

Raui

[garrettm4]

Misinterpretation

Sorry I should have given a bit more explanation of the derivation and reasoning behind that number. First of all that number is a very rough number but should give one a rough idea of the ratio of strength if my reasoning is correct. Xenomorph is correct that I just did the ratio of permeability to permittivity. There is a possibility that it is not the number I gave before though. Heres a proof that argues against that number even if it's the most logical;

Imagine an inductor and a capacitor that are designed so that the electrostatic field in the capacitor contains the same energy as the energy surrounding the inductor in its magnetic field. That is to say mathematically;



Where;
L is inductance
i is circuit current
C is capacitance
v is circuit voltage

We can remove the factor of 1/2 out because it's on both sides of the equation. While we do we'll expand inductance and capacitance into their components. For simplicity we'll assume only 1 turn on the solenoid. Now we have;



Where;
u is vacuum permeability
Ai is inductor cross sectional area
l is conductor length
i is circuit current
e is vacuum permittivity
Ac is capacitor plate csa
d is capacitor plate separation.
v is circuit voltage

Now we must ensure that spatial relationships are irrelevant so we'll assume that Ai, l, Ac, d create an equal spatial relationship so we can rule out that the inductor or capacitor have more space/counterspace to work with than the other. Therefore these terms can be ignored;



Therefore the ratio between voltage and current in terms of their ability to represent energy is given by;



I do think that 142372 sounds more correct but here the math says otherwise unless I've missed something. Can anybody find a flaw in my logic anywhere?

Raui

I did the math and there is a fundamental flaw in the chosen terms of V & A (V, Volts & A, Amperes).

Note that both E=Phi/time & e=Psi/C equal Volts and both i=Phi/L & I=Psi/time equal Amperes. One set is that of PROPORTION the other is that of INDUCTION. E & I are of induction where magnitude is relative to TIME or lines per second. Whereas e & i are proportions where magnitude is relative to the storage capacity and amount of lines stored. So for the measure of the stored dielectric energy it is (Ce^2)/2 or (psi^2)/(2C) and for the stored magnetic energy it is (Li^2)/2 or (phi^2)/(2L), the use of V for voltage is a bit misleading and quite common. The vagaries associated with "volts" and "amps" leads to confusion when dealing with two types of field energy (dielectric or magnetic) and should be avoid at all costs.

If you do the work properly you will find that e/i=sq root of (L/C) which simplifies to Phi/Psi=sq root of (L/C) both are in the form of NATURAL IMPEDANCE, of the circuit, Z(sub)0.

If simplified further, by taking capacity as C=((Permittivity)(Surface Area))/(Length) and inductance as L=((Permeability)(Length))/(Cross-section Area), we now have Phi/Psi=sq root of (Permeability/Permittivity) or the NATURAL IMPEDANCE OF SPACE (aka vacuum).

The last equation states that the quotient of the applied forces (or lines of force, phi & psi) equals the square root of the quotient of the storage of lines of force. This interpreted with Ohms Law, is shown to be an impedance Z and is that of the impedance of free space.

Note that both sides of the equation Phi/Psi=sq root of (Permeability/Permittivity) are in the form of "work" from the movement of the lines of force from one field energy to the other, or Magnetic to Dielectric and vice versa. This movement is not a dissipation such as a resistance r or a conductance g but is more similar to a reactance X and a suceptance B where energy isn't dissipated but stored and returned in an alternating fashion.

If the SI units e0=(10^7)/(4pi*c^2), Permittivity of Vacuum or Electric Constant, and u0=(4pi)/(10^7), Permeability of Vacuum or Magnetic Constant are used in the above equation for Permittivity & Permeability and where Psi is in Coulombs and Phi is in Webers then:

Weber/Coulomb=376.7303134617707... or Natural Impedance of Free-Space in Ohms, also known as Characteristic Impedance of Free-Space and its reciprocal is the Natural Admittance of Free-Space.

On a side note, I feel we need to stop looking at things as "numbers" and instead, as relationships between two quantities or geometries, because that's what your equations show, the relationship, or the somethings on the left are equal to the something on the right. The interpretation of electrical phenomena and its relationships are quite hard for most to take in, myself included, and any one relationship can have multiple meanings taken from it. I feel that the SI values of permittivity of vacuum e0 and permeability of vacuum u0 are a bit ambiguous because they are not taken to be the amount of dielectric or magnetic lines per area that vacuum can hold but based on the relationship of (speed of light) c =1/sqrt(e0/u0), using arbitrary values to denote e0 and u0, not direct measured values. Which is an interesting topic of its own. As to the exact meaning and usage of these equations and their effects on the dynamics of electricity, I currently don't feel confident to argue over, but felt compelled to point out a few things.

Garrett M

[dharma-practitioner]

Magnetic convection current, page 135
Science, Volume 1 By American Association for the Advancement of Science

[dharma-practitioner]

Um, all and any...wow...inventing a new reality soon are you ?

No offense intended, just trying to make logical meaning. Psychological re-programming of memory patterns needs logical comprehension to root permanently. Nothing more.

Now, in one foot of lamp cord, bounded between the wires, I have say, one million Plancks of electric induction. The frequency is 60 cycles (377 radians) per second. Thusly the quantity of Plancks Q is being produced or consumed at a time rate of 377 radians per second, or in other words, Plancks per second, Q divided by t, the ratio of Q to t, etc. Hence the time rate of variation of the quantity of electric induction hereby gives; Watt seconds squared per second or dividing out, gives Watt seconds. But Watt seconds is the dimensions of energy. Well golly-gee Mr. Wizard, we have defined energy! And hereby energy is defined as the time rate of the production or consumption of the electric induction, or Q divided by t gives W.

It is that simple. So push the “Erase Button” on your head for two notions: Energy is the product of mass times the velocity of light squared, erased? Next, Electricity is the flow of electrons in wire, erased? Good!


73 DE K6KPH

Plank constant expressed im Ws = 1.956 × 10^9 J. For details, see:
Planck energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[dharma-practitioner]

Actually what I said was I guess it was set up that way. I am basing that on the fact the time seems to match GMT. I thought it was set up by Eric's friend in Ca. If you go to the calender page it will show you what the time is for the group. I don't really know anything about setting up a Yahoo group but I would think you could set up the time zone for your group when you set it up.

Carroll

I logged back onto Yahoo group n6kph and it’s no longer listed under Regional Country>UK & Ireland. May be someone else can dig up the registration history etc, User: revmactao had clarified registration from CA, USA. My intention was only to make aware of the Groups location, nothing more.

Maybe someone can help me here.

I am more confused with the quantity and dimension of electricity based on my understanding of conductor and dielectric and their properties. If a foot of 16-gauge lamp cord holds 1 million units of Plank constant, and one Planck constant unit is the equivalent of 1.956 × 109 J.
At what frequency and potential can we reproduce this effect?.
How can we demonstrate this and can you provide us with a practical replicable circuit?

Poincar’e describes this dielectricity wave or convection current with relation to Hertzian Wave. Science, Volume 1. By American Association for the Advancement of Science. Pg 135

[citfta]

Where is the group based?

Did anyone sign up for Yahoo group n6kph?

UK based group, Carroll said it was setup that way.

Actually what I said was I guess it was set up that way. I am basing that on the fact the time seems to match GMT. I thought it was set up by Eric's friend in Ca. If you go to the calender page it will show you what the time is for the group. I don't really know anything about setting up a Yahoo group but I would think you could set up the time zone for your group when you set it up.

Carroll