Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[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]

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

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[dharma-practitioner]

In the metal maggot, we are shield of the secondary primary (G-force) and our false sense (brain) think (Mach speed) and feed like another neural episode (TV). We only see the Velocity but never sense the ghost F, M, delta X and Q. To be aware of totality of E, we need a horned beast that can deliver the experience, travel at the speed of light and braking at rapid intervals of space (disruptive discharge) to make expose the ghost. For such planetary rush, I’ll happy pay in Q planks.

Good news, the whole series is at Google book, now I need to find a Math tutor.

[7imix]

Eric and Raui, thank you so much for the images your two posts put in my mind! The image especially of moving in the car and hitting the brakes creating the illusion of force and how that relates to the circuit "energing"

Truly beautiful. This matches exactly with the intuitive understanding I have been putting together through experiment but was unable to put into words. Thank you.

[7imix]

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

This matches my intuition about what Tesla was saying about 1/4 wave resonance in many of his patents. The russian paper provides a nice description of what is happening. When the driver circuit discharges into the oscillator with duty cycle approaching zero and at the resonant frequency of the oscillator * 4 (quarter-wave resonance) the process of the magnetic energy being converted into dielectric is replenished at the same frequency. Since the dielectricity has nowhere else to go, it is pumped outwards in longitudinal shockwaves along all conductors connected to it, including the earth.

I think it is possible to reproduce the phenomena with solid-state components, but with much lower efficiency. Most solid state components will immediately be fried (I've fried tons) when switching an inductor with the change in voltage over time (dv/dt) required to produce the "opposite of dc" waveform, sharp impulses with a duty cycle as close to zero as practical. Components that are able to withstand the voltages required may not have the switching speeds needed to get close to the resonant frequency, much less the quarter wave. However components are continuing to improve and there may be a sweet spot of components -- a microcontroller, optocouplers or digital isolators, mosfet drivers and mosfets or IGBTs -- that will demonstrate the phenomena with less magnifying than the extremely high voltage spark gap setups.

[dharma-practitioner]

Eric and Raui, thank you so much for the images your two posts put in my mind! The image especially of moving in the car and hitting the brakes creating the illusion of force and how that relates to the circuit "energing"

Truly beautiful. This matches exactly with the intuitive understanding I have been putting together through experiment but was unable to put into words. Thank you.

Wonderful subjective thinking, so when I slam on brake, violent stopping from 60 mph to stillness at an interval of 3 seconds is false illusion?.

How do you explain the whiplash and the painful chest slap from the seat belt that caged me from flying out the windshield. They feel so real, heck they are painful.

So are you really saying that the counterspace force is an illusion.What you are really saying that only the primary force of Volt and Amp is real. Please explain yourself clearly.

[7imix]

Wonderful subjective thinking, so when I slam on brake, violent stopping from 60 mph to stillness at an interval of 3 seconds is false illusion?.

How do you explain the whiplash and the painful chest slap from the seat belt that caged me from flying out the windshield. They feel so real, heck they are painful.

So are you really saying that the counterspace force is an illusion.What you are really saying that only the primary force of Volt and Amp is real. Please explain yourself clearly.

Of course it feels real within the system of constraints we call physical reality. The point is that it is an epiphenomenon; it emerges as a result of change over time of other parameters within a certain system of constraints.