Thread: Eric P. Dollard
View Single Post
Old 04-03-2012, 09:52 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,225
Originally Posted by garrettm4 View Post
Forewarning, what you are about to read is HIGHLY theoretical, full of personal bias, and is likely to contain numerous errors, read at your own risk.


I don’t wish to create an argument, but I thought I would give a few comments to the reply you gave to my recent post.
Don't worry about arguing about this stuff. It is only by exchanging our points of view that we can learn from one another and gain new insights. That is what scientific debate is supposed to be...

It is plain to for all to see that we both use different types of analysis and we also rely heavily on different systems of electrical engineering. I get the feeling that you are more of a “physicist”, deeply concerned with material and “immaterial” PARTICLES and “quantum madness”, rather than a “electro-mechanical engineer”, who is deeply concerned with electrical forces, fields & gradients along with mechanical forces and gradients. I would say you’re like a Richard Feynman type “quantum physicist”. I would like to say (if I may be so bold) that I am more of a (lesser) Steinmetz type of engineer. The two distinct logic systems used by both parties are usually not compatible, they overlap on many levels and appear on the “effective level” to be the same, BUT at the “fundamental level” they are vastly different.

Yes, I think i am more of a “physicist” than an engineer in that sense that I try to understand the fundamentals of what I see. I need a deep understanding of the fundamentals behind the stuff I work with in order to make sense of what is going on. I cannot take a mathematical equation and just stay with the logic expressed in the math. I need to visualize what the math means in order to understand it.

But I am definitely not a “quantum physicist”. I am an aether physicist.

In the standard “Maxwellian Electrodynamics” as used and taught today, which has been turned into Ensteinian dogma, the “electric field vector” is E (volts per meter), the “magnetic field vector” is H (amperes per meter) and the Poynting vector (electro-magnetic energy) is S (volt-amps per meter square). This is only a SMALL PART of what is going on, there is NO WAY THAT THESE ALONE CAN DESCRIBE PURE LONGITUDINAL ENERGY, (most transverse situations can be described by the above though). Let’s continue this topic further on, after we cover a few pertinent points.
I agree with that. And since the electromagnetic propagation modes that are described in the textbooks contain some longitudinal modes, whereby the other component is by definition transverse, you can describe these by the Maxwell equations.

Let’s look at the STEINMETZ POINT OF VIEW. Steinmetz came up with his OWN IDEA OF REALATIVITY and DISCARDED MAXWELL, quite interesting if you ask me.
I discard BOTH relativity AND the current Maxwell equations:

Tuks DrippingPedia : Ruins 96 Years Einstein Relativity

Steinmetz also incorporated large amounts of Heaviside’s work (which had many disagreements with maxwells theory) and developed a new type of engineering perspective of the Electric Circuit and Transmission Lines. Steinmetz had a more advanced (in my opinion) way of looking at things because he was an engineer that ACTUALLY MADE THINGS and ACTUALLY DELT WITH VERY LARGE POWER SYSTEMS (multi-megawatt). This is something we all take for granted, we each believe a book can teach us everything, well experience cannot be taught via paper, it is something that only blood, sweat, and tears with actual application can produce.
I also make things, most notably my attempt to perform a longitudinal moonbounce. And I also ran into significant problems that taught me a lot...

From the portions I have read of his various books, Steinmetz has built his own “sand box” a system of logic and mathematics separate from Maxwell (but does contain some Maxwellian concepts). In this system we have the Electric Field as POWER not Volts per Meter, using the Dollard symbolism it is denoted with Q (which is actually the “electric flux” of the field and does not necessarily denote any one specific vector), where the Poynting vector S denotes the TEM PORTION of the Electric Field. The Dielectric Field is denoted with G (that’s right CAPITAL G, lowercase g was for conductance). Dielectric energy isn’t necessarily VOLTS (e, proportion) it can also be AMPERES (I, induction) this is a fundamental point that separates it from the “electric field vector E” used today. Also Magnetic energy isn’t necessarily AMPERES (i, proportion) it can also be VOLTS (E, induction) once again this is different from “magnetic field vector H” used today. With these differences, we slowly develop the “QUADRA-POLAR” view of electricity starting with Steinmetz’s and carried further with Mr. Dollard with incorporation of the Bewelly transformer theory. This is also where the four distinct co-effients L, M, K & C come into play.

Now back to the first topic, the orthogonal E, H and S vectors as used today CANNOT describe the WHOLE SITUATION.
That is what I have been saying also....

And ALL theories trying to incorporate a union of the dielectric and magnetic fields CANNOT describe the WHOLE situation either, because magnetism is in essence the rotational form of the dielectric.

There are TWO counter ROATATING S vectors. Also, the orthogonal E & H vectors don’t directly represent the Dielectric and Magnetic fields. The USUAL understanding of these vectors ONLY GIVES THE TRANSVERSE portion of whats going on.

Yes, and that is because you in essence describe a union of one single phenomenon with a particular shape of this same phenomenon that happens to run around in circles, that rotates.

If the two counter rotating S vectors sum to a Zero-Vector what does it mean to modern “physics”? What does the NON-orthogonal alignment of the E and H vectors mean to modern physics? What does non transverse propagation mean to modern physics? To be honest I don’t know, but it would seem (to me) that we can’t use modern physics to describe these things.
It is essence simply defined away. Non transverse propagation is undefined and therefore cannot exist according to modern "physics".

The “Electric Field” as taught to day has little to do with anything Steinmetz or Mr. Dollard have written about, it mostly pertains to the MAXWELLIANS who insist on its use. Furthermore, THE ELECTRIC FIELD ISN’T JUST TRANSVERSE ENERGY it contains LONGITUDINAL ENERGY as well.
Exactly. And as soon as you insist on a union of the electric field with it's rotating shape, you loose the whole longitudinal part in your equations.

I am not saying I have an answer to the problem of the non-periodic solution of a “longitudinal dielectric wave” (or the significance of the Electric Field when in the pure Longitudinal Mode). What I am saying, is that just as with TEM waves (TE, TM & TEM), THERE IS MORE THAN ONE MODE OF PROPAGATION with longitudinal waves (LD, LM & LMD). The Magnetic Field is present in TWO of the longitudinal modes; only in ONE mode is the longitudinal dielectric field “free” or independent of the (transverse) magnetic field.
Exactly. And it is that ONE mode that is missing, because everyone insist on the union of the electric field with it's rotating shape, the magnetic field.

The magnetic field is just a special case of the electric field, because the electric field is nothing other than the pressure of the aether, a fluid-like medium, which can obviously rotate, which is what magnetism is.

If your focus is solely on the LD wave, what you say makes more sense, but REMEMBER it ISN’T the only Longitudinal mode of propagation. I wish you luck in your endeavors, and hopefully someone can tidy up the confusion around longitudinal waves WITHOUT involving “quantum madness”, “scalar insanity” or other absurd farces.
I was aware there was a distinction, but thanks to the discussion today, it has become much clearer to me today.

Thanks to the comments here, I realized that the Tesla transmitter most likely actually transforms the LMD mode in the secondary into a LD mode in the "extra" coil, while being driven from a TEM mode in the primary...

I hope to be able to have some simulations made of the pancake coil in the near future, because if that is operating in LD/LMD mode, one should be able to simulate it just fine with current software...