Eric Dollard

[dR-Green]

Thank you Eric, have a good journey back into the bushes and hope to see you back soon, with any luck with some experimental results on this. Time to get to work!

Take care.

[dR-Green]

I believe the reactance of the Colorado extra coil is 10411.7401 ohms if my calculations are correct. Susceptance = 254333288 Siemens. But I'm not sure if I've even calculated that right.

[edit] Either way, it's definitely not right because I calculated from pF instead of Farad! New result is 0.00024414 Siemens.

[dR-Green]

[thedude]

I'm heading back to the bushes and don't know when I'll be back on a computer again.

In the meantime, for entertainment purposes, see what the phony Eric Dollard is saying: https://www.facebook.com/TheAetherForce

Most importantly, keep building and experimenting! Try to get more people involved in showing their results and that makes me more interested.

QRT DE N6KPH SK

Crap! Just missed you Eric. Just wanted to say thanks for all your inspiration. I just purchased your Four Quadrant Representation of Electricity and watched it last night.

Your rotational model really illustrates the relationship between sine and cosine in their separate planes. Has me thinking a lot lately while reading Steinmetz's "Electric Discharges, Waves & Impulses" but still really looking forward to your book.

Stay safe in the bushes Eric! Hope your not too discouraged with the public at large and are back soon.



PS- Just had a look there at Ray's rendition of Eric on Facebook to discover that he is promoting a link to a torrent file with latest lecture there. I'd get on top of that Aaron if i were you. What a jackass that Ray is turning out to be.

[Aaron]

Eric Dollard

What a jackass that Ray is turning out to be.

Thanks - got your email!

I have something special saved up for the troublemaker and it will be revealed in the near future.

@All, Eric did another interview this morning with someone, will post a link after it is released.

[jwpotts]

Somethings Rotten In Denmark!!

Post removed by jwpotts to: Eric Dollard - False Allegations by Techzombie Ray Savant "Muhamed"

[Tenaus]

I have a question for Eric. I don't have the opportunity to go to those QA phone calls, so if someone could ask him this if they have the chance I would appreciate it.

Why are you calling the math "Versor" algebra? Versors are the algebraic form of quanternion math, which was the type originally used by Maxwell. Heaviside improved upon Maxwell's equations, but he did so using vectors. Steinmetz did develop this entire new system of mathematics, but they are not versors. They are called phasors by the contemporary engineering/physics community, and are used all the time. So, with the math being called phasors, why not call them phasors yourself? The term versor is a misnomer and it then allows people to assume that you don't know much of anything because they believe erroneously that you work on a form of math which is completely different than what you actually do work with.

And another question, which also bothers me:

Why the use of the term dielectric as what contemporary physics calls the electric? It makes sense to me, however, it is consensus from Maxwell, to Faraday, to Tesla and others to call the dielectric field the electric field, and the combined dielectric and magnetic fields, the electromagnetic. Only Steinmetez has insisted on calling the field "dielectric". So why do you, when almost all, save Steinmetz, call it the dielectric, when people know it as the electric? It only serves to confuse people and this results in them disbelieving in your work.

[Aaron]

recent false allegations

JWPotts & other new readers:

This thread is to focus on the word Eric Dollard has shared. We want to keep this thread positive with replication attempts, etc.

To look at the false allegations with documented facts, please look at this: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...t-muhamed.html all references are given.

You can post in there about those issues but this thread is to focus on Eric's work. That is a NEW thread and is different from the Ray Savant Techzombie exposed thread.

[jwpotts]

JWPotts & other new readers:

This thread is to focus on the word Eric Dollard has shared. We want to keep this thread positive with replication attempts, etc.

To look at the false allegations with documented facts, please look at this: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...t-muhamed.html all references are given.

You can post in there about those issues but this thread is to focus on Eric's work. That is a NEW thread and is different from the Ray Savant Techzombie exposed thread.

Thanks for the heads up Aaron, not an avid poster.....

[chazza]

Old posts reinstated?

I'm heading back to the bushes and don't know when I'll be back on a computer again. [edit]

QRT DE N6KPH SK

Good luck Mr Dollard

I also went away an hour or so later, and have come back to find that the above post, which was #1129 on page 38 has turned into # 1185 on page 40. Does anyone know what's been added, and where?

thanks, Chazza

[orgonaut314]

Primary coil

Guys I still have some questions on the primary coil.

Eric gave these instructions:

The primary coil is the same diameter as the secondary coil. The ratio of conductor width to coil diameter is 18%.

If I make a secondary coil 76 cm wide this means the primary is 0,18*76=14cm sheet copper.

Now my question is if I make two turns should I spiral them on top of each other with a thin insulator in between? So the total surface remains 14cm. Or should I wind them above each other like the secundary wire making the total surface 2*14=28cm? This seems a bit to much

Thanx!

[dR-Green]

spiral them on top of each other with a thin insulator in between? So the total surface remains 14cm.

Like that.

[orgonaut314]

Like that.

Thanks!

Is it also necessary to shift the primary with respect to the secondary to experiment with the coupling? I believe Tesla said something about loose coupling?

[dR-Green]

Thanks!

Is it also necessary to shift the primary with respect to the secondary to experiment with the coupling? I believe Tesla said something about loose coupling?

Yes, see ARRL Radio Amateur's Handbook section on coupled circuits. If the coupling is too tight then you won't get a resonant "peak" with high selectivity (magnification factor) but a diminished output at the resonant frequency, with peaks above and below the resonant frequency. At optimum coupling the selectivity is lower. But with higher selectivity the output is less etc. You will have to find what works best.

[thedude]

I have a question for Eric. I don't have the opportunity to go to those QA phone calls, so if someone could ask him this if they have the chance I would appreciate it.

Why are you calling the math "Versor" algebra? Versors are the algebraic form of quanternion math, which was the type originally used by Maxwell. Heaviside improved upon Maxwell's equations, but he did so using vectors. Steinmetz did develop this entire new system of mathematics, but they are not versors. They are called phasors by the contemporary engineering/physics community, and are used all the time. So, with the math being called phasors, why not call them phasors yourself? The term versor is a misnomer and it then allows people to assume that you don't know much of anything because they believe erroneously that you work on a form of math which is completely different than what you actually do work with.

And another question, which also bothers me:

Why the use of the term dielectric as what contemporary physics calls the electric? It makes sense to me, however, it is consensus from Maxwell, to Faraday, to Tesla and others to call the dielectric field the electric field, and the combined dielectric and magnetic fields, the electromagnetic. Only Steinmetez has insisted on calling the field "dielectric". So why do you, when almost all, save Steinmetz, call it the dielectric, when people know it as the electric? It only serves to confuse people and this results in them disbelieving in your work.

I don't know if Eric will be around to answer your question Tenaus. As far as Versors vs Phasors, I don't know what he would say there. However you can't really call the dielectric field the electromagnetic field as it absolutely is defined as only one part of the electromagnetic field and propagates in a completely different way than than its counter part, the magnetic field.

Why refer to electric field as dielectric field? I don't think anyone (especially a physicist) should confuse those two terms in the way your mentioning. Dielectric field is really referring to the electrostatic field lines that emanate from with in the conductor, with outside pressure, under longitudinal wave force(the most interesting part of the electrical phenomenon IMO!). The magnetic field is utilizing radial patterned operational lines of force, outside the conductor and moves under transverse propagation of energy (far more typical and understandable). The two together make up electromagnetic energy, not one or the other alone. So breaking down the distinction of the dielectric force within the electromagnetic field would be ignoring half of the equation in my opinion.

I think the fact that contemporary physicists simply wish to just refer to dielectric field AS the electric field altogether, might serve as an explanation for why so few discoveries are actually made within that contemporary realm as well as their inability to consider utilizing the BEMF component of electricity (generally speaking). I'm pretty sure if Eric is referring to the dielectric, he means the dielectric implicitly and not a pseudonym for electricity in general.