Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[purelyconstructive]

While I can only speak for myself, I think perhaps it is not so much a case of whether or not the Aether is acting upon the Chladni Plate (although that is a very valid point), but rather that the patterns produced by Cymatics are characteristic of waves in general, and thus archetypal in nature.

The dimensional relationships of Space and Time, Magnetism and Dielectricity, being expressed in terms of ratios I find quite musical. To quote Eric:

"This has a direct analogy in music where harmony is space-dimensional, rhythm is time-dimensional, and melody is extra-dimensional. You can basically use music as an analog for this type of situation, and it's of particular interest to note that the music developed by J.S. Bach I have found to serve as one of the most fundamental expressions of electricity, even beyond Steinmetz or any of the more modern researchers that attempt to use conventional mathematics and words. I intuited most of what I know about Tesla from the music of Bach."

[Pinwheel]

The patterns do seem to demonstrate harmony and octaves rather well.

I won't relent that they are as useful as, say, a decent understanding of music theory via the piano. I also think the patterns coinciding with lifeforms is a biased sample - there's no mention of the times that they don't resemble known things.

Visual occurrence of harmony and octaves, resonance, yes.

[Pinwheel]

Perhaps when harmony can be said to be present, a standing wave will also be present. Like, you won't find one without the other.

[jarvamundo]

In the 1987 Santa Barbara video, 45 min's into it shows a PM Faraday AC disk device. Here are some a snap shots:


- Diagram showing a metal Disk with N-S-N-S magnets.
- The 2 arrows are the typical carbon brush electical connections in a Faraday Disk on the outer edges of the disk.
- The 2 Red Dots brush locations on the rotor shaft (9 & 12 positions) shows one of the breakthroughs in this design.

Cheers Mike

ok, i was referring to the device trex mentions in his posts and made the calculations on 108% +-5%

[t-rex]

Impedance and Admittance

Impedance and Admittance

At this point the next level of dimensional relations can be derived from the primary dimensional relations given thus far;

(I) The law of electro-magnetic induction, Faraday’s law, that is the electro-motive force E, in volts, is given by the proportionality (ratio) of the total quantity of magnetic induction Phi, to the time rate of the gain or loss of this quantity of magnetic induction, in per second. The voltage E is given by the rate of variation of magnetism. Change in magnetism is volts of E.M.F.
(II) The law of magneto-dielectric induction, Maxwell’s law. That is, the displacement current I, in amperes, is given by the proportionality (ratio) of the total quantity of dielectric induction Psi, to the time rate of the gain or loss of this quantity of dielectric induction, in per second. The current I is given by the time rate of variation of dielectricity. Change in dielectricity is Amperes of displacement.

In both cases “quickness” is the factor of direct proportionality. Example, 120 volts at 60 cycles per second applied to a transformer winding results in a greater rate of change in magnetism than 110 volts, 60 cycles applied to the same winding, despite both being 60 cycles. Why? The slope of 120VAC is greater than 110VAC. Try it on your oscilloscope and see.

E and I are not to be considered opposites of each other, but they exist in a COMPLIMENTARY-SYMMETRY form. The four pole archetype of electricity shows itself in that there is E and e or I and i. This leads to the answer for our second question, the null force condition, that is what ratio of E to I, and thus e to i give rise to a cancellation of “e pulls” and “i pushes.” Another ratio to be investigated.
Taking the ratio of the E.M.F. E, and the displacement I, that is E over I, we have evoked “Ohms law”: The dimensional relation of E.M.F., Phi over T; divided by the dimensional relation of displacement, Psi over T. This results in a new dimensional relation. This relation is known as the IMPEDANCE Z, in OHMS. E per I is Z. For a given product of E and I in Watts. We may have a large E and a small I, a high impedance, or we may have a small E and a large I, a low impedance. Hence, a unit of power (activity) in Watts may be in the form of a high impedance (12KV, 1 Amp) or a low impedance (1KV, 12 Amp), both the same power (12 KVA). Think of the transmission in your car. The engine is delivering 20 horsepower (activity) and this is delivered to the wheels. The engine is running 1800 R.P.M. (volts), but the drive shaft is running 180 R.P.M. (volts). The engine is a high impedance, the driveshaft a low impedance, but the power is 20 HP in both. We call this an IMPEDANCE TRANSFORMATION and this is effected by what is known as a TRANSFORMER, (the transmission, it has a RATIO of ten to one).

The dimensional relation of impedance, Z in Ohms, can be expressed in an alternate manner from the primary dimensions. E divided by I equals Z, Ohms law. But we have dimensionally that the E.M.F. E in volts is given by Faraday’s law

Webers per second

Likewise the displacement I in Amperes is given by Maxwell’s law

Coulombs per second

Taking the ratio of E over I and substituting, the impedance is given by

Weber-second per
Coulomb-second = Ohms

Here, dimensionally speaking, we have second per second which is thus dimensionless, or scalar, a TIME SCALAR. Hence the primary dimensional expression for impedance, Z in Ohms, is given

Weber per Coulomb
Equals Ohm.

Hereby the impedance of the electric field of induction is defined as the ratio of the total magnetic induction to the total dielectric induction, Phi over Psi gives Ohms Z. This is known as the characteristic impedance of the electric field of induction.

It must be remembered that the scalar term of seconds per seconds expresses the hysteresis angle between the time frame for E and the time frame for I, as the pair weave their dance thru the dimension of time (note, get that 2D or 3D out of your head, we are in the dimension of time!) The ratio Z, the impedance, is therefore a “directed quantity” in the dimension of time. This is to say the impedance has magnitude and a position in time. Listen to Bach organ music for further as this is too complex for now.

Since arriving at the concept of impedance it may be asked what results from its inverse I over E, the ratio of displacement current to electromotive force. This ratio is called the ADMITTANCE Y of the electrical system. Following the same path dimensionally as was done with impedance it is,

Coulomb – second
Per Weber – second

Hence the admittance Y is given dimensionally by,

Coulomb per Weber
Equals Siemens.

Admittance Y in Siemens is the ratio of Psi to Phi, the ratio of the dielectric field to the magnetic field of the electric field of induction. This is called the characteristic admittance of the electric field.

As for the scalar term of seconds per second the same situation exists as with the impedance Z in Ohms. It is however that there is also a time “angle” between the time frame of impedance Z in Ohms and admittance Y in Siemens, just as there is with Volts and Amperes. Hereby results that the impedance is NOT just the inverse of the admittance, that is, Z is NOT one over Y, they are MIRROR IMAGES. Look in the mirror. Your head is up, your feet are down, but your right is left and your left is right. This is much too complex.

In conclusion, the impedance and admittance serve as proportionality factors between the magnetic and the dielectric, or the dielectric and the magnetic, fields respectively.

73 DE N6KPH

[Armagdn03]

Impedance and Admittance

At this point the next level of dimensional relations can be derived from the primary dimensional relations given thus far;

(I) The law of electro-magnetic induction, Faraday’s law, that is the electro-motive force E, in volts, is given by the proportionality (ratio) of the total quantity of magnetic induction Phi, to the time rate of the gain or loss of this quantity of magnetic induction, in per second. The voltage E is given by the rate of variation of magnetism. Change in magnetism is volts of E.M.F.
(II) The law of magneto-dielectric induction, Maxwell’s law. That is, the displacement current I, in amperes, is given by the proportionality (ratio) of the total quantity of dielectric induction Psi, to the time rate of the gain or loss of this quantity of dielectric induction, in per second. The current I is given by the time rate of variation of dielectricity. Change in dielectricity is Amperes of displacement.

In both cases “quickness” is the factor of direct proportionality. Example, 120 volts at 60 cycles per second applied to a transformer winding results in a greater rate of change in magnetism than 110 volts, 60 cycles applied to the same winding, despite both being 60 cycles. Why? The slope of 120VAC is greater than 110VAC. Try it on your oscilloscope and see.

E and I are not to be considered opposites of each other, but they exist in a COMPLIMENTARY-SYMMETRY form. The four pole archetype of electricity shows itself in that there is E and e or I and i. This leads to the answer for our second question, the null force condition, that is what ratio of E to I, and thus e to i give rise to a cancellation of “e pulls” and “i pushes.” Another ratio to be investigated.
Taking the ratio of the E.M.F. E, and the displacement I, that is E over I, we have evoked “Ohms law”: The dimensional relation of E.M.F., Phi over T; divided by the dimensional relation of displacement, Psi over T. This results in a new dimensional relation. This relation is known as the IMPEDANCE Z, in OHMS. E per I is Z. For a given product of E and I in Watts. We may have a large E and a small I, a high impedance, or we may have a small E and a large I, a low impedance. Hence, a unit of power (activity) in Watts may be in the form of a high impedance (12KV, 1 Amp) or a low impedance (1KV, 12 Amp), both the same power (12 KVA). Think of the transmission in your car. The engine is delivering 20 horsepower (activity) and this is delivered to the wheels. The engine is running 1800 R.P.M. (volts), but the drive shaft is running 180 R.P.M. (volts). The engine is a high impedance, the driveshaft a low impedance, but the power is 20 HP in both. We call this an IMPEDANCE TRANSFORMATION and this is effected by what is known as a TRANSFORMER, (the transmission, it has a RATIO of ten to one).

The dimensional relation of impedance, Z in Ohms, can be expressed in an alternate manner from the primary dimensions. E divided by I equals Z, Ohms law. But we have dimensionally that the E.M.F. E in volts is given by Faraday’s law

Webers per second

Likewise the displacement I in Amperes is given by Maxwell’s law

Coulombs per second

Taking the ratio of E over I and substituting, the impedance is given by

Weber-second per
Coulomb-second = Ohms

Here, dimensionally speaking, we have second per second which is thus dimensionless, or scalar, a TIME SCALAR. Hence the primary dimensional expression for impedance, Z in Ohms, is given

Weber per Coulomb
Equals Ohm.

Hereby the impedance of the electric field of induction is defined as the ratio of the total magnetic induction to the total dielectric induction, Phi over Psi gives Ohms Z. This is known as the characteristic impedance of the electric field of induction.

It must be remembered that the scalar term of seconds per seconds expresses the hysteresis angle between the time frame for E and the time frame for I, as the pair weave their dance thru the dimension of time (note, get that 2D or 3D out of your head, we are in the dimension of time!) The ratio Z, the impedance, is therefore a “directed quantity” in the dimension of time. This is to say the impedance has magnitude and a position in time. Listen to Bach organ music for further as this is too complex for now.

Since arriving at the concept of impedance it may be asked what results from its inverse I over E, the ratio of displacement current to electromotive force. This ratio is called the ADMITTANCE Y of the electrical system. Following the same path dimensionally as was done with impedance it is,

Coulomb – second
Per Weber – second

Hence the admittance Y is given dimensionally by,

Coulomb per Weber
Equals Siemens.

Admittance Y in Siemens is the ratio of Psi to Phi, the ratio of the dielectric field to the magnetic field of the electric field of induction. This is called the characteristic admittance of the electric field.

As for the scalar term of seconds per second the same situation exists as with the impedance Z in Ohms. It is however that there is also a time “angle” between the time frame of impedance Z in Ohms and admittance Y in Siemens, just as there is with Volts and Amperes. Hereby results that the impedance is NOT just the inverse of the admittance, that is, Z is NOT one over Y, they are MIRROR IMAGES. Look in the mirror. Your head is up, your feet are down, but your right is left and your left is right. This is much too complex.

In conclusion, the impedance and admittance serve as proportionality factors between the magnetic and the dielectric, or the dielectric and the magnetic, fields respectively.

73 DE N6KPH

Thank you again Eric. I have always practiced an ear for truth, and you have been a great inspiration.

I echo your words of need for solidarity in nature to absorb her message. I have moved into the hills of utah, sold most of my belongings (not the oscilloscope of course!) and have enjoyed quiet contemplation. Every now and again I venture back into civilization to read what you have posted, and enjoy every moment of it.

I hope one day to shake your hand in thanks. And I hope your chosen direction, brings you more peace in the future.

always a humble student,
Andrew Manrique.

[Web000x]

Eric,

I have a few questions for the sake of clarity.

First of all I understand what you are saying when you say:
Quote by Eric:

It should be noted that displacement currents flow thru the insulation (dielectric). It is NOT the familiar conduction current of the electronic ideologies.

But the definition of displacement and conduction currents (Coulomb/Second) seem to be the same. Is it a situation that needs to adopt the "Space Operator" like you have described in your book, "Theory of Wireless Power", to fully differentiate between the two?




Next Questions:
Quote by Eric:

For the Einsteinischen dimensions of the Planck are Energy – Time, but let us not think backwards – ass. Saying this in engineers lingo, the quantity of Electricity Q is given as Watt – Seconds – Seconds or Watt Seconds squared.

Can you elaborate on the Einstein definition of the Planck? Is Energy – Time not the same thing as Watts – Second – Second?




Another Question:
Quote by Eric:

Consider a certain hypothetical transmission system, the Integratron system of George Van Tassle. (not the Goddess temple “Integratron” of today) The Integratron effects transmission around space. Let us say one is on earth and another is on mars. If you enter the “in door” on the earth unit, you exit the “out door” on the mars unit.

All I could find on the internet was that the Integratron was some type of resonant chamber for cellular health. Can you explain your views on George Van Tassle’s Integretron?




More Questions:
Quote by Eric:

Conversely, electrical activities of E times I, as well as e times i suggest themselves

I must be missing the boat on this one. What exactly do these quantities suggest?





Picking Your Brain Even Further:
Quote by Eric:

The reactance E.M.F., E, via the dimension of time, T’, gives rise to an electro-static potential, e, across the dimension of space, l. In conjugate form the suceptance displacement, I, via the dimension of time, T”, gives rise to a M.M.E., i, across the dimension of space, l. It may be said that E & I are the cause, where e & i are the effect, chicken or egg.

How would you mathematically define e & i?




I promise you that your efforts here will be fruitful even though you feel that the world has beaten you down. Everything that you have written so far has helped me to vastly expand upon my understanding of your work.

I read those posts that you made on the Yahoo group today and am sorry to hear about all of the crap that you have been going through your entire life. Its easy to get down when you have experienced so much BS, but I assure you that your time will come. You have many eager experimenters to help spread the message of sustainability through real science that you have been harping about for years. I cannot express enough thanks to you for helping us all to understand the lost works of the true scientific pioneers. It is a new day coming and I feel that you, Mr. Dollard, will finally be treated with the respect that you truly deserve.

Dave

[Raui]

I don't know that I'm on the right track with this but I'll give it a shot anyway. I've also tried to keep notation as close to what Eric is dealing with as possible. Also I am using metric units because that's what I'm used to so when you see me subbing in values for lengths that aren't the values Eric gave that's because I converted them all to meters.

I have a D.C. transmission line, the conductors are 2 inches in
diameter, spacing is 18 feet. How many ounces of force are developed
upon a 600 foot span of this line, for the following;
1. 1000 ampere line current.
2. For 1000 KV line potential?

A1)The force per meter between two current carrying conductors is given by;
F=(u.i1.i2.l)/2*pi where
u is permeability of free space (4*pi*10^-7 Henries per Meter)
i1 is the current through one of the wires (1000 amps)
i2 is the current through the other wire (-1000 amps, since it is flowing the opposite direction to the first current)
l is the length of the wires which the fields interact (600ft)

So that gives us a force of -6.667 which indicates the conductors are going away from each other.

A2)Please note: My textbook didn't have any examples of forces generated on the wires due to dielectric forces so this is just my own logic of working out the force. I'm not sure I answered this correctly but I'll show you guys what/how I'm getting (Eric, a little help here maybe )
Our dielectric field is equal to;
d = volts per meter or newtons per coulomb
so,
d = 1000 divided by 5.4864 = 182.269 volts per meter

We can work out the force delivered by the wires if we knew the coulombs associated with the wires. The definition of capacitance is coulombs per volt so if we knew the capacitance between our wires we could work out the amount of coulombs we have by multiplying the capacitance by our voltage. Capacitance is proportional to the effective area of the conductors divided by the distance between the conductors. I got a value of 29.1904 as the total area of one wire (Making the assumption that it is a perfect cylinder since the wires only see half of each other the effective area is half of that.

So I worked my capacitance to be
C = e0*er*(14.5952/5.4864)
C= 2.3554*10^-11 Coulombs per volt.

Since,
C=Q/V
Q = CV
Q= 2.3554*10^-8 Coulombs

So now we can use the relationship V/M = N/C to determine the total force.
VC/M = N
N= (1000*2.3554*10^-8)/5.4864
N=4.293*10^-6 N

If anyone finds a flaw in my logic/numbers etc. please let me know but I am confident that I'm atleast on the right track. This would make magnetic forces roughly 1,550,000 times stronger than dielectric ones by our current standard of units.

PS: I would also like clarrification on e and i please, I seem to be getting most stuck at them. I notice you speak of complex versor quantities in symbolic representations of the general electric wave but don't really talk too much about them (in fact I can only see them mentioned in the definition of terms) are e and i these complex versor quantities?

Raui

[Pinwheel]

Hence the resulting electric field of the union produces a resultant force upon the bounding conductors. This resultant force thus may be expansive, null, or contractive, depending upon the relative densities of the dielectric and the magnetic force fields respectively

Vacuum permittivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was my angle in trying to solve the 600ft transmission line question. I started by trying to figure out the density of the dielectric field. I didn't get far because it's too over my head. Seeing how you worked with free space permeability for the magnetic field, then maybe one works with free space permittivity for the dielectric field. As in the 2 are conjugates.

I'm not saying "I see a flaw" - just trying to participate.

[Raui]

Vacuum permittivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was my angle in trying to solve the 600ft transmission line question. I started by trying to figure out the density of the dielectric field. I didn't get far because it's too over my head. Seeing how you worked with free space permeability for the magnetic field, then maybe one works with free space permittivity for the dielectric field. As in the 2 are conjugates.

I'm not saying "I see a flaw" - just trying to participate.

Not sure if this will help you or not but refer to here: post

cm to the +1 power , distance
cm to the +2 power , area
cm to the +3 power , volume
and
cm to the -1 power , span
cm to the -2 power , density
cm to the -3 power , concentration

"cm to the -2 power, density" so therefore dielectric field multiplied by space to the -2 power gives the dielectric field density or if you divide dielectric field by the area (area is space to the second power and division implies a negative exponent) you should get the density of the dielectric field. Good luck

Raui

[Raui]

The equation was looking me straight in the face. I can't believe I didn't work it out before. Using coulombs law;
F=(k*q1*q2)/r^2
Where k is coulombs constant ((Approximately 9*10^9 Newton.Meters.Meters per Coulomb
q1 = dielectric flux [Coulombs] on line 1
q2 = dielectric flux [Coulombs] on line 2
r = Distance between wires [meters]

Assuming the wires to be perfectly cylindrical and 1kV on line 1 and 0v on line 2.

The q on each line can be worked out using
q=C*v
Where
C is the Capacitance between wires
v is the potential difference between the wires.

The capacitance can be calculated by;
C=e0*er*A/d

Where
e0 is permittivity of free space (8.854*10^-12)
er is relative permittivity of medium (Basically 1 for air)
A is effective area between wires
d is the distance between the wires
Treating effective area as half the area of the curved part of the cylinder.


C = e0*er*(14.5952/5.4864)
C= 2.3554*10^-11 [Coulombs per volt].

Now back into q=Cv
q1 = 2.3554*10^-11 * 1000
= 2.3554*10^-8 Coulombs

Since the other line in a DC transmission line is the neutral the voltage relative to ground it will have induced in it an equal and opposite charge to the charge on q1 so.

q2 = -2.3554*10^-8 Coulombs

So now back to Coulombs law;
F=(k*q1*q2)/r^2
F = (9*10^9)(2.3554*10^-8*-2.3554*10^-8)/5.4864^2
= 1.6562799103328123*10^-7 [Newtons]

EDIT: This is not the right answer, I forgot to find the induced charge with Gauss' law which I'm not entirely used to using. If somebody could apply this law to get the charge on q2, I'll brush up on it when I get back home and see what I come up with.

Raui

[lessismore]

Hi Raui,

Got the same answer for #1: -6 2/3 N (repulsion)
used this site:
Forces between currents.

For #2 got something different.

Using:
V = 1000KV = 10E+6V
Radius = 1 in = 0.08333 ft
Seperation = 18 ft = 5.4864m
Length = 600 ft = 182.88m
e0 = 8.85E-12 F/m (permitivity of free space)
er = 1 (the dialectric constant for air)

Could not find an example either so I tried looking at it this way:

A. Determine the capacitance of the transmission line.
From page 23 in here: Dielectric phenomena in high voltage engineering : Peek, F. W. (Frank William), b. 1881 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
C = (2π x e0 x er x Length) / ln(Separation/Radius)
C = (5.5606E-11 F/m x 182.88m) / ln( 18 ft / 0.08333 ft)
C = 1.892E-9 F

B. Find a formula for the force on the plates of a parallel plate type capacitor in terms of voltage and capacitance. Hoping that it is a good enough fit for this transmission line.
Using the formula found here:
Force exerted by plates of parallel plate capacitor on each other Calculator - Eculator
F = (C x V x V) / (2 x Separation)
F = (1.892E-9 F x 10E+12VV) / (2 x 5.4864 m)
F = (1.892E+3 FVV / 10.9728 m = 172.4 N maybe :-)

[Raui]

Lessismore,
I was looking for a book like that in my collection but I didn't have it so thank you! I do like that method better than mine (far far less complicated). Hopefully Eric can come in again and help us work this out or let us know if that answer is correct.

Eric,
Again thanks for everything your posting. I get excited every time I see your posts and they never fail to deliver brain food

Raui

[Pinwheel]

I feel silly now because I didn't mention that I was checking into permittivity because of what I saw of Coulomb's Law.

I got this: Electric displacement field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia after a google search for "dielectric field density".

I assumed I was all wrong so I didn't pursue it further.

[lamare]

You guys may want to check out this paper by Eric:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_...20to%20JBR.pdf

It contains some very interesting articles on "The transmission of electric energy".

I am working on OCR'ing this one, but that is only partially finished:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_...ic_Dollard.pdf

A quote from that one:

Part I of "The Transmission Of Electricity" (Sept-Oct 1987 JBR) dealt with the nature of electric transmission along space bounded by a set of guiding wires. These wires were found not to be the conductors of electricity, but space itself is the electric conductor. In reality the so-called conductor material of which the wires are made are reflectors of electricity, analogous to the reflective metal coating on the back of glass (dielectric) mirrors.

Because the dimensions of the co-efficient of dielectric induction, or farads, is given by the inverse of the square of the velocity of light, the notion has occurred that these dimensions establish the propagation velocity of electric transmission, and thereby electricity and light are the same thing. This concept may have become the most significant obstacle to the understanding of electric transmission. In this part of the study of the transmission of electricity the conduction of electricity of space will be further examined through observation of the characteristics of radio transmission and reception in the medium frequency range, 300-3000 kilocycles pec second.
When the distance between the guiding wires of an electric system is significantly increased the electric field that is associated with these wires occupies a large volume of space which extends far beyond the vicinity of the guiding wires.
The expanded electric field of induction associated with the spaced apart guiding wires now cars combine with the electric fields of induction associated with more distant sets of guiding wires. This sharing of electric fields by two or more remote systems of wires is known as the mutual inductance of the systems. Through the process of mutual inductance electricity may be transmitted through space without the employment of a set of guiding wires to connect the transmitter to the distant receiver. Hence, the wireless" system of electric transmission through space.

The first article in the pdf, "FUNCTIONAL THINKING: An Interview With Eric Dollard" can also be found here:
Tuks DrippingPedia : Interview By Tom Brown

The last article in the pdf, "Introduction to DIELECTRICITY AND CAPACITANCE", can also be found here, without the illustrations:
Eric Dollard and Tesla


And finally, there is some good news. Eric gave me official permission to republish his material:

You have my official permission to publish whatever you want so long as you do not take credit for it, or do it for profit and exclude me from the returns.

What I intend to do is to release his work under more or less the creative commons non commercial license, but add a condition that allows Eric to get the returns of any work others may add to it. I have to think about this further, but the idea is that anyone is free to copy the material and improve on it freely for non-commercial purposes, but such that a printed version can be made that still includes those voluntary additions, while the returns do go to Eric.