Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[Web000x]

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

Thanks,

Dave

[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

[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

[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

[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

[dharma-practitioner]

abnormal yahoo group

Did anyone sign up for Yahoo group n6kph?

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

[Raui]

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

Raui

[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.

[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!

[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).

[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

[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

[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.

Planck energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[dharma-practitioner]

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

[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