Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[Sputins]

Paypal

I tried a dozen times to find it without success. I sent some money with paypal and there again no acklegement as to success? but the PP did go through easily no catches... I am going to wait untill things get stabilized for Eric like wishfull thinking I hope they do anyway.

God Bless EPD

Zane

I sent a payment through paypal, it went through ok, so it seemed. I received a email notice from paypal too. - Where does it list the where the group is based? (UK) I don't see it..


I would encourage all Eric Dollard supporters and to join the group, donate a few $ if you can! - Seems the group is growing quickly..

I hope everyone can put in a few $'s to help Eric on his feet again (hopefully with no P.pal problems). Gee, we might raise enough to realy make a good difference for him. Good on you if you do..

Try this Zane:
n6kph : N6KPH

No more posts from me like this.. I'll keep mine technical here, on the E.F. from now on. (Otherwise on the n6kph group).

[h2ocommuter]

could not find it anywhere on my yahoo group listings

I tried a dozen times to find it without success. I sent some money with paypal and there again no acklegement as to success? but the PP did go through easily no catches... I am going to wait untill things get stabilized for Eric like wishfull thinking I hope they do anyway.

God Bless EPD

Zane

Did anyone sign up for Yahoo group n6kph?

Is everyone seeing this Group as UK based?.

just my pious curiosity. I am experiencing paypal problem after sending donation, I cannot use the payment function due to customer service issue, first experience for my paypal 5 year history.

Just wanted to see if others are experiencing this or is it only me!

[dharma-practitioner]

removed, non related calculation based on magnetism, after reading FUNCTIONAL THINKING: An Interview With Eric Dollard
by Tom Brown, I need to study dielectric wave.

[Raui]

Where do you find where the group is based? I have accessed it through the Australia, US and UK websites.

Raui

[dharma-practitioner]

abnormal yahoo group

Did anyone sign up for Yahoo group n6kph?

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

[dharma-practitioner]

got help from physic forum

dimensional analysis:

h = planck's constant
n = number of "plancks"

units(h/s) = Ws

n("plancks"/s)= 1 W/60 Hz

n = 1.67e-2 Ws^2/h

n = 2.5*10^31

1 Ws = 2.5*10^31n

[Web000x]

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

Raui,

I have tried to find a flaw in your method, and have found only one thing that I think might be of relevance.

Energy storage in capacitance/inductance is proportional to e^2 or i^2, respectively. However, force is not energy. The magnetizing force and the electrifying (dielectric) force are proportional to i and e, respectively. This can be seen here:

Magnetizing Force:

f= F/l = ni/l

where
F = Magnetomotive Force
l = length in cm
n = number of turns
i = Amperes

and

Electrifying Force:

G = e/l

where
e = Electromotive Force
l = length in cm

Eric posed the question:

Originally Posted by T-rex View Post
Second, what ratio of dielectric field density to magnetic field density results in the contractive force just balanced against the expansive force, thereby canceling any mechanical forces upon the bounding conductors? Who can solve these important questions?

So let us examine the equations for magnetic and dielectric field densities a little closer.

Magnetic Density:

B = u(.4*pi*(ni/l))

where
u = Permeability
n = number of turns
i = Amperes
l = Length in cm


Dielectric Density

D = k((e/l)/(4*pi*v^2)*(10^9))

where
k = Permittivity
e = Electromotive Force
l = length in cm
v = velocity of light in cm/sec

If we take Eric's statement quite literally and look at the equations for the dielectric/magnetic densities, we see that there is a direct proportionality between e and i.

However, I am not finding the answer that I think that I am looking for. Assuming that l is the same value in each formula and n = 1, I find this:

Magnetic Density = Dielectric Density

u((1.42122*10^12)*i) = k*e

going further

u/k(1.42122*10^12)*i = e

If we are using the permeability and permittivity of free space, we get:

141926*(1.42122*10^12)*i = e

So our ratio of volts/amps that describes the forces on the conductors would then become:

e/i = 2.0178*10^17

This seems excessive. Can somebody check my math?

Don't take my word for the equations. Look them up on page 17 here: Charles Steinmetz - Elementary Lectures on Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses.pdf

Thanks,

Dave

[Raui]

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

[nueview]

to Eric and all involved with this thread:
i am not surprized at what happened i pray you stay safe and that your materials are retrned to you.
it is a shame that anything so educational about energy and there fields is so suppressed but then that is usually the case.
best regards to all,
Martin

[Web000x]

He seems to just having put it into a mathematical expression.
Vacuum Permeability divided by permitivity.
1.2566370614...×10-6 / 8.854187817620... × 10-12

Okay, I just had a calculator syntax issue to work out.

Thanks,

Dave

[Xenomorph]

Raui,

Do you mind sharing how you came about that number?

I have a feeling it has something to do permeability and permittivity of free space because their ratios come about to be close to that value (numeric pattern), but I seem to not be hitting the same decimal place that you did.

I do recall Eric saying in one of his presentations that "100KV would be much more in balance with 1 Ampere" so I have a feeling you're number is right, but I'm just not seeing exactly how you got it.

Thanks,

Dave

He seems to just having put it into a mathematical expression.
Vacuum Permeability divided by permitivity.
1.2566370614...×10-6 / 8.854187817620... × 10-12

[minoly]

Raui,

Do you mind sharing how you came about that number?

I have a feeling it has something to do permeability and permittivity of free space because their ratios come about to be close to that value (numeric pattern), but I seem to not be hitting the same decimal place that you did.

I do recall Eric saying in one of his presentations that "100KV would be much more in balance with 1 Ampere" so I have a feeling you're number is right, but I'm just not seeing exactly how you got it.

Thanks,

Dave

interesting there is a user 142372 on youtube that shares the same (only two) subscribers as user 142857 on youtube which is a user here... although, user 142857 here did say that 142857 youtube account is not his/hers hmmm coincidence or did I just dig myself a hole :-)

[Web000x]

Okay it's good to know that this is Eric.



I'll have a stab and say that the ratio of dielectric to magnetic field density would be related to the ratio of permeability to permittivity so I'd say they'd be in balance when the voltage is roughly 142372 times the current. Is my thinking wrong?

Raui

Raui,

Do you mind sharing how you came about that number?

I have a feeling it has something to do permeability and permittivity of free space because their ratios come about to be close to that value (numeric pattern), but I seem to not be hitting the same decimal place that you did.

I do recall Eric saying in one of his presentations that "100KV would be much more in balance with 1 Ampere" so I have a feeling you're number is right, but I'm just not seeing exactly how you got it.

Thanks,

Dave

[Raui]

Okay it's good to know that this is Eric.

Second, what ratio of dielectric field density to magnetic field density results in the contractive force just balanced against the expansive force, thereby canceling any mechanical forces upon the bounding conductors? Who can solve these important questions?

I'll have a stab and say that the ratio of dielectric to magnetic field density would be related to the ratio of permeability to permittivity so I'd say they'd be in balance when the voltage is roughly 142372 times the current. Is my thinking wrong?

Raui

[Kempis]

Greetings

Hello All,

FYI My friend set me up with a PayPal account today, so you can use my email address: n6kph@lonepineradio.net.

We also created a yahoo group to help keep non-technical discussion off of the Forum. The group is:
n6kph@yahoogroups.com
As time goes on I will be adding photos and voice talks to the files section of the group.

At this time and location I have no control of the American-Marconi website. My friend here will soon put a sub-page on his website where I will have PayPal links for anyone who wants to help out.



Yes this really is Eric Dollard

73 DE N6KPH

Eric,
God bless you. I'm very happy to "see" you and to learn from you.
Regards

Luciano