Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[Slovenia]

T-Rex Hello

Wow T-Rex/(Eric Dollard), great to hear from you again!!

[t-rex]

Thankyou for continuing the internet tranmissions from where you have previously left off.
Questions:
If total eletrification Q = Psi . Phi

Or the total eletrification Q = Total Dielectric induction, times the Total Magnetic induction.

The more dielectric induction (capacitance), the more Counterspace.

The more magnetic induction (inductance) the more Space.

So then of the four primary dimensions of Electrical induction Q, we have the two primary physical dimensions. One of Dielectricity (more Counterspace) and the other physical dimension of magnitism (more Space). But there is only one dimension of Space?

Of the other two primary metrical dimensions Space and Time, it follows then if there is space and counterspace, then is there then time and counter-time? But then there is only one dimension of time?

The more magnetic induction, the more Space, the more time? - (Makes sense to me, the bigger the inductance the lower the frequency).

The more dielectric induction, the more Counterspace, the more Countertime?


Thank you DE N6KPH for your electrical engineering, mustard seed planting, internet transmissions. Wonderful!

One dimension of space that is space raised to the positive exponent is simply called space (acre). Space raised to the negative exponent is called counter space (per sq. centimeter). One dimension of time that is time multiplied by positive one is called forward time and the dimension of time multiplied by negative 1 is called reverse time. Space is multiplicitive (exponential) and time is additive (linear). One dimension of time(second), one dimension of space (centimeter). System of base one numbers converts the dimension into forward, backward, counter, etc.

[Web000x]

Eric,

I appreciate everything that you have been doing lately on this forum.

I have been reading as much of the suggested reading material as I possibly can. It takes me time to digest it all as my brain goes into overload if I try to read too much technical based literature in one sitting. Thank you for all of the posts defining quantities so clearly. It makes it much easier on me when I get to the unfamiliar portions of the literature.

I just wanted to say thanks so go check your paypal account.

Dave

[t-rex]

The Time Tunnel

Oliver Heaviside one stated that “The law of continuity of energy” is maintained when the energy existant at one time disappears but reappears at another time. In H.G. Wells’ “Time Machine” The professor argues with the doctor saying that his time device (which just vanished) is still at the same spot in the room, but the doctor can’t see it because it is there, yes, but in another time. It moved through the dimension of time.

The motion of electricity in time has been the primary topic so far. Given is the three basic relations;
1. Plancks per second gives Joules.
2. Coulombs per second gives Amperes.
3. Webers per second gives Volts.
Joules, Amperes or Volts, are SECONDARY reactions in response to variation of our known PRIMARY dimensions, the total electrification in Plancks, the total dielectrification in Coulombs, the total magnetization in Webers.

In terms established by Oliver Heaviside, the Volts of E.M.F. are a MAGNETIC REACTANCE, and the Amperes of displacement are a DIELECTRIC SUSCEPTANCE. The degree to which the reactance and the susceptance manifest is proportional to the time rate of variation, that is, per second. Here the dimension of time is not seconds, it is PER SECONDS, one over T. Somewhat like counterspace, but this is NOT COUNTER TIME. One instance of a per time arrangement is cycles per second. This is known as the FREQUENCY F, in cycles per second. Here is a dimensional relation of per second, frequency F. This frequency F represents only a rotational (alternating) cycle, and thereby is only a partial frequency. Also existent is a cycle of geometric progression or regression. This “frequency” is given in decibels per second. Hence our general frequency is given as decibel-cycle per second, or for Newton-Liebnitz methodology, it is neper-radian per second, v. Hereby:
1. v Q equals W, Joule or Planck per second.
2. v PSI equals I, Ampere, or Coulomb per second.
3. v PHI equals E, Volt, or Weber per second.
The dimensional factor, v, in per second we will call the Heaviside “Time Operator” This time operator describes the variation with respect to time as a “versor operator”

E and I are NOT necessarily time coincident, but one may lag or lead another. Cause and effect become separated by what is known as HYSTERESIS. It can be said that E and I exist in different “time frames.” This subject rapidly accelerates into a Bach type reality and is much too complex for now.

73 DE N6KPH

[Turion]

Eric,
Not having any background in physics, electricity, or engineering, I have little to "unlearn" which is a plus, but it also makes understanding everything you are saying more difficult. I do appreciate the opportunity to read all that you have written, and it has led to several continuing conversations with my son, who is an engineer.

Trying to figure out how to apply everything you are showing us to the different builds I have is a step I hope to take in the future, but for now that will have to wait until I have a better grasp of these concepts and how to apply them. Right now it would be only wild guesses, and while that is fun, it can also be expensive and dangerous, so I will wait.

Again, thanks for sharing. I check in here a couple times a day to see if you have posted anything new. I sincerely look forward to it, and hope you will continue to share.

[boguslaw]

T-Rex

When I connect battery and bulb by wires bulb is shining. Apparently battery fixed relation between coulombs,webers and plancks and we have got effect (light).

What makes the power source ability to fix/connect all those different "time frames" together ? I can't do the same using two power sources : one for lots of amperes (and tiny bit of volts) and second for lots of volts (and very limited amperage) to obtain multiplication of plancks - or can I ? That would be the simplest way to multiplication of power and one of the most mysterious questions : why and due to what physical law power source generate electricity with fixed ratio of amps per volts WORKING TOGETHER ?

I hope these are not offtopic questions.

[Armagdn03]

E and I are NOT necessarily time coincident, but one may lag or lead another. Cause and effect become separated by what is known as HYSTERESIS.

Amen. Awesome progression. Thank you for your time Mr. Dollard.

[Turion]

Wow! I remember reading something (I believe it was Matt Jones posted) on one of the forums where that is exactly what he was doing... Combining two power sources- one for lots of amperes (and tiny bit of volts) and second for lots of volts (and very limited amperage) to obtain some interesting results. Don't remember when or where that was written, but I will check with Matt.
David Bowling

[boguslaw]

Amen. Awesome progression. Thank you for your time Mr. Dollard.

Yes, good progress, but what exactly is that HYSTERESIS which apparently fix relation of various relations per time when electricity is flowing out from power source ? It all looks to me like that : electricity flow out from power source like light from incandescent bulb and splits into various relations per time like light into various colors using prism.Does this analogy make sense ?

[Pinwheel]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I didn't know Eric has done up to 12 posts!!!!! It was 3 last time I looked!!!!!!!

All of a sudden today is like Christmas - I get to read and re-read a bunch of stuff I won't understand but enjoy reading anyway!

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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?