I added a couple more as they are "very" interesting!

Hi Eric,

First of all, thanks for your reply and input. I am quite busy at work at the moment, because I have only 4 days left before I have vacation and I have to finish some stuff now.

Anyway, I have been studying your "Symbolic Representation of the Generalized Electric Wave" recently and I am beginning to see what you are talking about with your dimensional relations, but I still can't get to the bottom of it.

You wrote:
You definately have a point here, but until I can paint a picture in my head about what is going on, I can't get this stuff straight.

I just looked at what a versor is. Never been thaught about that:
Versor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interestingly, this refers to Quaternions, which I have also never been taught about:
Quaternion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here we find an interesting detail:
This appears to be very similar to what you do in your "Symbolic Representation of the Generalized Electric Wave".

About the scalar part:

So, here we have a definition of "scalar" that differs from your definition:
Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?
So, in quaternion notation, the whole term "(RG + XB)" is called "scalar". Clearly, with such a definition, you can have "scalar quaternion waves" consisting of the longitudinal XB component.....

This quaternion 4 dimensional algebra appears to have some particular property along with real and complex numbers, which is that these are isomorphic:
Frobenius theorem (real division algebras) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since I had no idea what that is, I looked it up:
Isomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, this quaternion stuff seems to be well worth studying. It appears to be very similar to what you do in your "Symbolic Representation of the Generalized Electric Wave", while at the same time it appears to be even more general and may even be capable of being extended to the dimension of time, because this is a 4 dimensional algebra...


BTW, did you note that the Russian paper he referred to about parameter variation has recently been translated into English?
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Mat...ion%201934.pdf

Lamare, this was a point I brought up a couple pages ago and was soundly trounced for it. Eric has mentioned his concern over the loss of proper dimensions, I understand his concern and feel that quaternions hold the key. Hopefully you get a better response, I was chastised for the suggestion.

It has been repeatedly observed in the previous writings that any given dimensional relation, say Volt, Ampere, and etc always exist in a dual relation. This is known since it is e, in volts and E, in volts. The geometric archetype of the electric phenomena is four polar. This polar quadrantal form is well expressed in Native American art forms. These serve as their "Versor Diagrams" for the four polar seasons and lunar positions. These are important for those that "live outside". See "When Stars Look Down" for a good popular, not technical, description of this topic. The quadra-polar concept in the mind of Nikola Tesla resulted in the polyphase motors and generators of todays AC technology.

It is likewise, Inductance and Capacitance are a pair of co-efficients representing a pair of fields, and in turn each representative co-efficient in itself exists as a pair, hence giving the four co-efficients total.

Steinmetz first noticed this quadrature pair of inductances in his study of the AC power transformer. This inductance now exists as a pair of inductances: the Leakage Inductance, L, and the Mutual Inductance, M. The lines of induction for L are at right angles (Space Quadrature) to the lines of induction for M. So it is L and M do not "see each other". Alexanderson utilized this is his magnetic amplifier. Here the saturation flux must be in space quadrature with the power flux. It is then that the two are separated but in the same core. In a metallic-dielectric form it is given as a torroidal magnetic circuit, wound with a pair of metallic circuits, one in winding around the core cross sectional area, the other winding at right angles to the torroidal windings, this being circumferal around the core. (See Alexanderson Patents). Here derived is a "Quadrapolar Inductance Coil". This quadrapolar inductance, LM, serves as a first step towards understanding tesla type transformers. Needless to say P.E.E.E. Pupin rudely declared Steinmetz as un-Maxwell. So Here we go again.

With regard to parameter variation only the first step has been taken. For example:

Henry per 1, or Henry

Henry per 1 second

That is to say

Henry per second, or Ohm

But what about Henry per second square, or what?

Hueristic (see Guillimen) dimensional relations will be utilized as before.


To quote Maxwell "Electricity and Magnetism" volume 1, page 2;

"A knowledge of the dimensions of the units furnishes a test which ought to be applied to the equations resulting from any lengthened investigation. The dimensions of every term of such an equation, with respect to the three fundamental units must be the same. If not, the equation is absurd, and contains some error, as its interpretation would be different according to the arbitrary system of units which we adopt."

Here utilized are the "Three Fundamental Units":

1. Planck

2. Second

3. Centimeter

See "Theorie de Chaleur" by Fourier

Parametric oscillator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Application of power multiplication to electric power distribution

......Break more to follow .......

We have landed, and it is now possible to understand electricity with complete freedom from the shackles of Physics. We are now entering a New World and it is yet to be discovered what wonders may lay ahead.

We have broken the “Einstein Barrier”. He has been left behind on the Prison Planet, but Oliver has been taken with us. We are not done with him yet. No one will live long enough to exhaust the works of Heaviside, and in all probability, Human Society will not either.

The electrical “System of Units and Dimensions” that have been established and taught in the “Schools” of today is encapsulated in a thick coating of E equals mc square, intermingled with the likes of four pi and one over c square, and peppered with a multitude of arbitrary powers of ten. This system is really a complete, absolute, mess.

In order that we may continue to utilize the established size of the Ohm, Volt, Henry, and etc, and remain in accord with the new system of dimensions that has been presented in my series of writings, a mathematical “adapter” must be derived. This adapter will also make lucid the sheer extent of the mess. (See table at end)

Previously established in my writings has been a concrete dimensional system for the description of the “Electrical Phenomena”. These relations will serve as the screws, nuts, and bolts with which to construct a revised concept of electricity, this in accord with the efforts of J.J. Thomson, Oliver Heaviside, Nikola Tesla, and Carl Steinmetz. We no longer need to be involved in the convolutions of the Pendant, the Mystic, and the Dis-informer. They are back on the prison planet with Albert Einstein.

Three dimensions form the primary basis for subsequent relations:

(1) Q, Total Electrification, Planck,

This is our substantial dimension, the spaghetti, or the milk; and,

(2) t, Time, Second,

(3) l, Space, Centimeter.

These serve as our metrical dimensions, the forgotten past, or the throw-away package.

Subsequently established has been a series of dimensions and dimensional relationships, save yet Inductance, Capacitance, and the Electric Force. Two primary substantial dimensions were established by divorce from Q.

(1) Ψ, Total Dielectric Induction, Coulomb,

(2) Φ, Total Magnetic Induction, Weber.

Derived then are four secondary, or compound, dimensional relations:

(1) I, Displacement Current, Ampere,

(2) E, Electro-Motive Force, Volt,

The laws of induction; and,

(3) e, Electro-static Potential, Volt,

(4) i, Magneto-Motive Force, Ampere,

The laws of proportion.

Hereby it is we have two Volts and two Amperes:

Volt; Weber per second, E,

Volt; Coulomb per Farad, e,

And

Ampere; Coulomb per second, I,

Ampere; Weber per Henry, i.

These four dimensional relations serve the principle needs of Electrical Theory.

A pair of auxiliary dimensional relations are also important. These are given as,

(1) Energy; Joules, or Planck per Second

(2) Activity, or Power; Watt, or Planck per Second Square.

Here we have arrived at eight principle dimensional relations for the understanding of Electrical Theory and Practice. All other dimensional relations are developed from consideration of the Metallic-Dielectric Geometry and the Aether with which it is engaged.

In our effort to cleanse the system of units and dimensions, a foremost extraneous element is the “Bogo”, and its arbitrary powers of ten. The Bogo, bs, is entwined with most electrical units. Its function is to involve all electrical relations with “charge carriers” and E equals mc squared, the pathogens injected by Physics. With lawyer like skill the Bogo has been contrived in such a manner as to simply cancel itself out within most dimensional combinations, remaining itself occult. The Bogo however continues to lurk as a mischievous spirit.

Three primary dimensions make up the Bogo,

(1) Mass, m, Gram

(2) Charge, q, “Coulomb”

(3) Numeric, b, 4*pi*10^-9

A principle dimensional relation in the makeup of the Bogo is given as,

Gram per “Coulomb square”, s.

The “Coulomb” here has an adulterated meaning, it is “charge” rather that Total Dielectric Induction. Hence the quotation marks on Coulomb. This is what Steinmetz refers to as a “Prehistoric Concept”. This relation, s, is the significant pathogen so its removal is of primary importance. This factor s is the “Seed of Confusion”.

On the Magnetic side of electrical relations it is for example;

Henry, L, centimeter square

This in the pure form, and its “adapter” is given by,

s, Gram per “Coulomb” square,

Multiplied by,

b, 4*pi times ten to the negative ninth power

Hence the application is given by

L’ equals b*s*L, C.G.S. Henry.

On the dielectric side of the dimensional relations it is for example,

Farad, C, Numeric.

This is in pure form, this dimensionless numeric Farad is based upon the numerical value of one over the speed of light square as has been previously discussed. The “adapter” is given as the product of

Per (gram per “Coulomb” square),

Per (4*pi times ten to the negative ninth power),

And properly,

Per Velocity of Light Square,

Substituting the relation,

c, Second Square per Centimeter Square

Gives the complete dimensional expression as,

“Coulomb” Square – Second Square

Per

Gram – Centimeter Square

Hence the application of the “adapter” is given as

C’ = C/(b*s*c^2), C.G.S. Farad

In order to combine magnetic relations with dielectric relations in an Electro-Magnetic configuration all dielectric relations must be multiplied by one over c square. Magneto-Dielectric relations have not been considered.

Another most stunning pathogenic relation is what can be called the “Sheisenburg non-functionalability Principle”, Weber equals;

Coulomb – Gram – Centimeter Square

Per

“Coulomb” Square – Second

Yikes Mr. Wizard, don’t let the coyote eat it! This one is surely meant for Davy Jones’ Locker.

Weber equals,….Weber!

How simple, don’t you think? It is a wonder that today’s electrical units are of any use at all.

Next down the line is the removal of mass from the dimensional relations for Magnetic Force, and Dielectric Force.* (*Note: These are tentative relations) In addition the Magnetic force and the Dielectric force must be expressed by the same dimensional relation. Also, the Magnetic force and the Dielectric force are considered to be equal and opposite in magnitude when a certain condition exists. This is the condition when the actual, or forced ratio of magnetic induction, phi, to dielectric induction, psi, is equal to the natural, or characteristic, ratio of magnetic induction, phi, to dielectric induction, psi. Here relates to what is known as the Natural, or characteristic impedance of the Electro-Magnetic system,

Weber per Coulomb, or Ohm

This has yet to be proven, however by intuition it must be correct.

Magnetic force is the product of the following,

(1) Magnetic Permeability, Mu,

(2) Magneto-Motive Force, i,

(3) Displacement Current, I,

These are defined by the dimensional relations,

(1) Mu, Centimeter

(2) Ampere, i, Weber per Henry

(3) Ampere, I, Coulomb per Second

And also

(4) Henry, L, Centimeter Square

The magnetic force is thus expressed by,

Dyne, or Mu-Ampere Square

ƒ = μ*i*I, Dynes.

In dimensional expression this magnetic force is given as

Mu – Weber – Coulomb

Per

Henry – Second

Substituting the relation

Mu per Henry, or Per Centimeter

And also

Coulomb – Weber, or Planck

Gives the dimensional relation for Magnetic Force as,

Planck per Second – Centimeter

Substituting the relation

Planck per Second, or Joule

Gives the final form in dimensional representation for magnetic force as,

Joule per Centimeter, or Dyne.

Likewise for the Dielectric Force,

ƒ = ϵeE

Substituting

e, Coulomb per Farad

E, Weber per Second

And

ϵ, Second Square per Centimeter Cube,

Gives the complete dimensional expression as

Coulomb – Weber – Second Square

Per

Farad – Second

Substituting the relation

Epsilon per Farad, or per Centimeter

And the relation,

Coulomb – Weber, or Planck

Gives the Relation,

Planck per Second – Centimeter,

And substituting,

Planck per Second, or Joule.

Arrived at is the final dimensional expression for dielectric force,

Joules per Centimeter, or Dyne.

It is hereby shown that the magnetic force and the dielectric force are dimensionally equivalent since it is,

Mu per Henry,

Equals

Epsilon per Farad,

Or

Per Centimeter.

This is for the Electro-Magnetic configuration. The Magneto-Dielectric configuration is yet to be investigated. It can be seen that both the magnetic and the dielectric forces, in energy per distance, Joule per Centimeter, represent and “Energy Gradient”, much like “m” and “d”, as previously given.

Turning now to the dimensional relations for mechanical force,

ƒ = ma

Where it is,

ƒ, Force in Dynes

m, Mass in Grams

a, Acceleration in Centimeter per Second Square

Expanding gives,

ƒ = m*l*(t^-2)

The Electro-Magnetic Force is given by the relation

ƒ = Q* (l^-1)*(t^-1)

Taking the ratio of mechanical electrical force, it is,

ƒm/ƒe = n

or

(m/Q)*(l^2)*(t^-1)

Dimensionally it is given as,

Gram – Centimeter Square

Per

Planck – Second

And the relation for mass equivalency is given as,

Gram, m = Planck – Second per Centimeter Square

m = Q*t*(l^-2)

Likewise the quantity equivalence relation

Planck, Q, = Gram – Centimeter Square per Second

Q = m*(l^2)*(t^-1)

The dimensions of Physics and the dimensions of Electricity are hence shown in comparison.





73 DE N6KPH SK

I would like to ask some questions about the presentation "The Eagle Has Landed" because there are particularly critical points that need to be examined and I would like to fully understand what Eric is presenting. I think his ideas are important to properly understand electricity.

One point which is crucial to this is Fourier's principle of Homogenity, which simply states that the dimensions must match. This is so crucial that I mention that even James Clerk Maxwell's 1864 paper, or subsequent revisions as done by Heaviside and Gibbs and others suffer from this problem, but I don't wish to deter from the course of the present discussion.

Eric writes, quoting
--------------
Three dimensions form the primary basis for subsequent relations:
(1) Q, Total Electrification, Planck,
(2) t, Time, Second,
(3) l, Space, Centimeter.
----------------
end quote (abridged)

Let's assume this for the moment and keep homogenity intact. I feel it is important to point out that Q is of the dimensions energy-seconds, a quanta of energy * seconds. Now these are nit-picks, but can we divorce Q of the dependency upon seconds, and keep it pure energy? Also can we keep length as dimension 1, knowing that space is of dimension 3? I trust we can agree on a Cartesian 3d definition at the moment for space. (I am trying to stay mathematically precise here, not be critical of what is written, and I fear that my comments will be mistaken.

It is important to lay a foundation of definitions.

At this moment, I do not understand how Total Electrification applies to energy, but I set that aside.

Eric continues...
quoting
----------------------
Subsequently established has been a series of dimensions and dimensional relationships, save yet Inductance, Capacitance, and the Electric Force. Two primary substantial dimensions were established by divorce from Q.

(1) ?, Total Dielectric Induction, Coulomb,
(2) F, Total Magnetic Induction, Weber.

Derived then are four secondary, or compound, dimensional relations:

(1) I, Displacement Current, Ampere,
(2) E, Electro-Motive Force, Volt,

The laws of induction; and,
(3) e, Electro-static Potential, Volt,
(4) i, Magneto-Motive Force, Ampere,
------------
end quote

Okay, I admit that I am now confused. We have the Coulomb and Weber introduced, then the Ampere and Volt is introduced subsequently and in pairs. I do not have the actual dimension units of energy/time/length connected in anyway to these 4 or 6 terms. I would prefer to use 6 terms, not 4 to avoid the possible confusion later on.

First question:
Can we define the Coulomb and Weber and Ampere and Volt in terms of our 3 fundamental units?

Eric continues...
quoting
-----------------------------------------
The laws of proportion.

Hereby it is we have two Volts and two Amperes:

Volt; Weber per second, E,
Volt; Coulomb per Farad, e,

And

Ampere; Coulomb per second, I,
Ampere; Weber per Henry, i.
-----------------
end quote

Now two new terms are introduced, Farad and Henry.

Second question:

Can we get a formal definition of Farad and Henry?

Eric mentions that energy is Planks per second, but that means that the Plank unit has dimension of energy*seconds. I want to argue that we divorce energy from seconds, and keep it strictly energy units (following Fourier's homogenity principle)

It is mentioned that energy is Plank/second and Power is thought of energy expressed per second or Plank/second^2 so I agree with the definitions as they are dimensionally sound.

Eric mentions the need to cleanse the system of units and dimensions. Might I first introduce the SI base units, so we can make sure that we are not missing or omitting anything?

From NIST (webpage http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/index.html), we read

Table 1. SI base units
Base quantity Name Symbol
length meter m
mass kilogram kg
time second s
electric current ampere A
thermodynamic temperature kelvin K
amount of substance mole mol
luminous intensity candela cd

This is what is called MKS units. We can work with cgs, but for now, please let us stay with MKS units.

Please note that we are omitting discussion of mass (kg) units (presumably substituting energy units, joules, or Plank units, joule-seconds) and thermodynamic temperature K, and moles and luminosity as the last three are not germane to our discussion.

Eric complains about the "Bogo" unit.

Now I admit confusion. We will not work with mass, but energy. I am fine with that. But charge is actually a derived SI unit, and has dimension of ampere * seconds. As to what an ampere actually is, we HAVE to defer this at the present moment and I did ask for a definition of an ampere in question 1.

However I strongly agree with Eric that the subsequent properties such as impedence and admittance are contrived and adjusted to "balance the dimension units" and make things come out all right.

Eric particularly complains about the makeup of the Bogo being grams/Coulomb^2, if I read it correctly. Converting to MKS units, this is kg/(A*s)^2 or kilos/(Amps^2*sec^2)

Carefully looking through the SI derived units, we find two quantities that could apply

magnetic flux weber Wb V·s m^2·kg·s^-2·A^-1
magnetic flux density tesla T Wb/m2 kg·s^2-2·A^-1

Notice that even the NIST leaves the reader to fill in the blanks, you must discern that flux density must be of some examination of flux per unit area (m^2) Also NIST neglected to define V, so obviously it has dimensions of Weber/second or m^2·kg·s^-3·A^-1 if we assume dimensional homogenity.

Now I can begin to understand why Eric is complaining, we are expressing volts in something like meters squared * kilograms / seconds cubed / Amperes.. which is a very long definition indeed!

Even the NIST avoids all these dimensions and takes the easy way out -

electromotive force volt V W/A

As a mathematician, I shake my head and say let's be precise and stay with the dimensions or perhaps all those dimensions are hinting at something that we're missing at the moment.

Now some key statements are made

Quote
---------------
The “Coulomb” here has an adulterated meaning, it is “charge” rather that Total Dielectric Induction. Hence the quotation marks on Coulomb. This is what Steinmetz refers to as a “Prehistoric Concept”. This relation, s, is the significant pathogen so its removal is of primary importance. This factor s is the “Seed of Confusion”.

On the Magnetic side of electrical relations it is for example;

Henry, L, centimeter square

This in the pure form, and its “adapter” is given by,

s, Gram per “Coulomb” square,

Multiplied by,

b, 4*pi times ten to the negative ninth power

Hence the application is given by

L’ equals b*s*L, C.G.S. Henry.
-------------------
end quote

Okay, now I am confused. What is L'? Henry was Weber/ampere, then Weber is m^2·kg·s^-2·A^-1 so I can find an length^2 (area) term. But what about kilogram (energy) and time (seconds) ??

There is some information missing here on how L' = b*s*L

Question three:
Can the dimensions be specified for L' = b*s*L ? The negative 9th power is confusing also.

At the risk of sounding excessively pedantic, I continue with the next part.

Quote:
-------------------
On the dielectric side of the dimensional relations it is for example,

Farad, C, Numeric.

This is in pure form, this dimensionless numeric Farad is based upon the numerical value of one over the speed of light square as has been previously discussed.
------------------
end quote (abridged)

I missed where Farad was defined in terms of 1/c^2. The NIST has capacitance defined as C/V or charge/volt = m^-2·kg-1·s^4·A^2. I admit surprise at seeing time raised to a 4th power and Amperes (current) being squared.

I think Eric is on to something with versors and raising the versor operators to powers and how the operators express an algebra.

Jumping over the next points that Eric raises, I come to

Quote
---------
C’ = C/(b*s*c^2), C.G.S. Farad
---------
End quote

I believe that Eric is referencing some type of definition in the cgs units of electric/magnetic terms. Is it possible to find out what is being specifically referenced? I stayed strictly with the MKS units from the NIST web site, considered the standard today used by the physics community worldwide (note that I am NOT arguing that these units are necessarily correct)

Question four:
Can the source documentation for the presentation against cgs units in electromagnetics be supplied? Are they from cgs electrodynamics? or ? (see my final note below)

Eric makes a key point:

Quote
------------
In order to combine magnetic relations with dielectric relations in an Electro-Magnetic configuration all dielectric relations must be multiplied by one over c square. Magneto-Dielectric relations have not been considered.
------------
End quote

His point that we must carefully consider dielectric relationships is very important, I agree.

I also agree with Eric, but on slightly different principles than dimensional homogenity, that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is wrongfully applied, a type of quantum mechanics called "Pilot Wave" theory actually shows that trajectories can be successfully computed for quanta and that precise knowledge of position and momenta may not be exclusively mutual.

Eric continues on with definitions, but I am stuck with the above, before tackling the rest of his presentation and carefully checking the units out, as any good mathematician must.

I would ask forbearance from Eric and trust his goodwill and ask for patience from the readers. I realize that my posting can be considered too mathematically picky, but my own personal experience in the past shows that if the math is correct all else follows, but if the math is wrong, everything quickly falls apart.

It is my hope that Eric's presentation can be formalized, as I recognize that he is doing all of us an invaluable service, of getting those pesky dimensional units correct, and by dimensional analysis, showing us that something is fundamentally flawed in our present day understanding of electrodynamics.

And once again, not even James Clerk Maxwell got his units correct in his 1864 paper, and errors have continued to be propagated this very day, even with the NIST SI units. I believe this is what Eric wants all of us to understand.

If anyone can answer my questions, please feel free to respond. Please understand that I am trying to keep the presentation mathematically correct, as anyone in the world can scrutinize it and it will stand.

- Randall

Final note to this posting:

The chart "Table of Units/Symbols/Dimensions" at the end of "The Eagle has Landed" was not visible to me while creating my comments and questions, so this partially answers question #4 above. I just discovered this now in attempting to post my reply.

Randall, forgive me for assuming, but your reference to this last post by Mr. Dollard as "a" or "the" presentation gives me the impression that you are not aware of the rest of it. I, unfortunately, cannot answer your questions myself, and my experience with math only goes one imaginary layer deep, so I would just ask you whether you have read though the compilation here, and the references cited as "necessary."
Hopefully, we can all help each other to understand this work. I'm still waiting to see who gets the gold star for the Magnetic/Dielectric field ratio question.

Eric does not define Q in energy-seconds. Q (Planck) is weber-coulomb. The product of psi and phi.

Rewind to the post entitled "Energy Defined", wherein Eric discusses the difference between his Q and the "Einsteinischen dimensions of the Planck" (energy-time).

Rewind to "Continuing with Variation of a Dimension with Respect to Time".

pt

Eric:

I would like to forward to you a work that I believe you will recognize, so how can I do that?

Quarterpole:

Your point is well taken, the search engine brought me in around page 21 or so, so thanks for asking me to back up and reread. There are dozens of questions I could ask, but I had to start somewhere, and thought when Eric was laying a foundation that we could move forward from there.

Unfortunately as a mathematician, there has to be a consensus on terms, and so this is a difficulty that Eric will face, if he wishes to use his definition of Planck. I already referenced the conventional understanding, because I was trying to ferret out the problem with dimensional homogenuity which exists. If we are going to have a discussion with the conventional scientists in an attempt to get them to change their minds (and following the math will do it) then we do need to have the mathematical definitions nailed down.

Pault:

Thanks for causing me to back up to previous posts, the product is indeed Planks/cm^4 as Eric states. However there is something that I need to ask, if (quoting) "The total electrification Q in Plancks is a resultant of the union, of PRODUCT, of a pair of inductions, the total dielectric induction, Psi and the total magnetic induction, Phi", are we not assuming that the orientations are parallel? In examining the terms, we find flux is measured as some type of quantity per area element. If we take a direct product, are we not assuming that the two area elements are parallel? I would appreciate some clarification here on just what exactly union means. Once again, the math will provide the crucial distinctions.

I appreciate everyone's patience.

Not so unfortunate. If a thing is going to be useful, one is going to need an idea of how to use it.
These would be the lines of force. Magnetic and dielectric field lines.
So, I think, Psi, Phi, and Q are all just "numbers" that exist at right angles to each other. Maybe we can use Planck's constant and the existing definitions to work backward and see just how many lines are in a Coulomb?

I don't think you need to be apologizing. Nobody else seems to have stood up and said, "I totally understand!" So it can be nothing but helpful if people can ask the right questions.

Peace.

I failed to edit my post, so I just need to point out that "apologize" is not a appropriate word, in response to "I appreciate everyone's patience."

The appreciation is mutual.

The biggest problem that I have is while we have excellent mathematical information, being an old antenna builder myself, I still do not grasp what is going on with the tesla MT (antenna) to the point to be able to simply sit down and design one from scratch with any kind of confidence it will perform as expected.

There are 3 maybe 4 coils and I am sure that each one has a very specific function and relationship to one another to operate in a system to become a LMD transmitter.

So I know what we want to accomplish as the end result but I do not know how to obtain it without intimately understanding the exact purposes and how each element within the transmitter is supposed to operate because for me at least it is not obvious in the math. That is to say that I have the cement, sand, and rock, but do not know that I need to mix 1 of each to obtain the proper mix.

Eric has done a wonderful job in his videos explaining much of this that has helped tremendously its when I try to visualize the circuit, standing waves, resonance, impulse response and how that can occur from the physical picture of the tower design escapes me.

It seems it has to be done the pancake style and no tight wound coils and operate in a nonradiative mode?

Its not really obvious how to maximize for simultaneous maxim decibel and resonance tuning at the same time either to get this individualization tesla talked about. I am left with the impression that maximum impulse would be obtained by maximizing series capacitance.

It sounds like we are supposed to be winding coils that do not radiate, where the first coil is a broadband input that requires large surface area to maximize the transfer of the pulse, then the second coil to impedance match and contain the ring around finally the tall one to self oscillate or be near self oscillation to keep the whole system alive and act sort of like a self priming pump.

Its all guesses for me probably because I have been so well indoctrinated and brain washed by the stiner system. Then again maybe some important distinction(s) slipped past me. Um ok didnt see Erics last post, looks pretty intense BRB.

Hi guys. This is some great discussion going on, I'm glad to see others attempting to do the math and compare and contrast with "consensus reality" (which isn't so real)

I'd just like to point out that Eric is actually posting to the forum by writing hand-written letters and sending them by mail to someone who does transcriptions onto the computer. This is his preferred method of communication, being from a different generation than many of us. As such, he is not likely to reply directly to the forum. As Eric is proposing a consistent system of units and algebra for manipulating them, we will just have to keep following up on all the posts and reference material so that we may each come to our own intuitive understanding of what he is trying to say.

I am hoping that at some point in the near future we will get to designing actual experiments which we can perhaps calculate and measure using the new units being proposed. Basic, physical experiments which can be used to gain hands on experience with the behavior of the phenomena which are being described. Perhaps we will need new measurement tools as well, or at least we will need to use the "adapter" functions to convert from conventional units into Eric's form.

It appears that he may have been right all along. This fascinating paper on how nerves conducts signals seems to vindicate Heaviside as being correct, as using the conventional theory shows empirical failure.

See [math-ph/9807015v3] A Modified Equation for Neural Conductance and Resonance A Modified Equation for Neural Conductance and Resonance by Dr. M. Robert Showalter (University of Wisconsin, Madison)

Hi 7imix,
This was how the thread has been progressing so far- hand written letters that were mailed. However now I've been able to get Eric internet access so he can see your guys' responses in real time.

Just a few quick things that Eric would like to see you guys start doing(from Eric):
1. Stop using the notion of charge and Q. Use dielectric induction and the greek letter psi. Start using the units he derived. It makes him frustrated to have derived all the units- and then nobody uses them, reinforcing their misunderstanding. Forget everything you know and start over. Start using big E or little e for volts, depending on the context. Use the system of units he derived- there was a reason for him doing 40+ transmissions doing this.
2. Eric is very new to computers. He hates seeing links to things. So if you are going to reference other material, pictures, etc. try to post those things directly in the thread so people don't have to follow a link to see the material. When possible if the link referenced isn't too lengthy. If it's too lengthy try to take some kind of excerpt. It will be easier for him to see things that way, and you are more likely to get some kind of response from him. If there is a link to something you can pretty much assume Eric won't read it. For instance he is pleased with what Kokomojo did in post # 633

The following transmission will be broken into four parts due to a restriction in number of pictures per post.

Since we have established a concrete system of dimensional relations this now can be applied to the case of equal and opposite mechanical forces on a two wire T.E.M. transmission line. This will be derived by dimensional synthesis, a particular line of reasoning that has been developed by this series of writings. It must be remembered that both Oliver Heaviside and Ernst Guillimen considered mathematics an experimental science from which to forge engineering tools.

The dimensional relations for force can be arrived at two different ways. The one given in the past writing is the A.C. way, hence the planck. The other is the D.C. way, this follows

I, Magnetic Force:

(1) Weber – Ampere – (Mu per Henry)

Or

(2) Weber – Ampere per Centimeter

(1)

(2)

Where it is given Mu per Henry, or per Centimeter.


II, Dielectric Force:

(3) Coulomb – Volt – (Epsilon per Farad),

Or

(4) Coulomb – Volt per Centimeter

(3)

(4)


This pair of dimensional relations relates to the magnetic force and the dielectric force as dimensionally distinct from each other. This is to say that no interaction between the magnetic field and the dielectric field of induction, no Plancks. It is static, hence D.C.

In alternate expression is the A.C. force relationships.

Let I be the displacement current in Coulomb per Second, and E be the E.M.F. in Webers per Second. The relation for magnetic force is now given

(5) (Mu per Henry) Weber – Coulomb per Second.

Or

(6) (Mu per Henry) Planck per Second.

(5)

(6)

Equation 6 reduces to

(7) Joules per Centimeter,

Where the versor is in the direction of E.M. propagation, that is, centimeters down the line.

The dielectric force is given by,

(8) (Epsilon per Farad) - Coulomb – Weber per second,

Or

(9) (Epsilon per Farad) – Planck per second,

And

(10) (Joules per Centimeter)

And the same versor direction as the magnetic.

(8)

(8)

Hence

(9)

Or

(7)(10)

Equations (7) and (10) give the same dimensional relation for magnetic and dielectric force.

Consider the D.C condition for equal and opposite forces. It is dimensionally given by

(11) (Mu per Henry) – Ampere – Weber.

Equals

(12) (Epsilon per Farad) – Volt – Coulomb.

(11)

(12) , and

(13)

The dimensional relation we are seeking is

(13) Volt per Ampere,

That is how many Volts compared to how many Amperes results in force cancellation.

It is however,

(14) Volt per Ampere, or Ohm.

Hence our problem is based upon a relation of Impedance. In the D.C. case, it is

(15) Z = Ohm

And the A.C. case, it is

(16) Z = Henry per Second.

These factors considered it is that,

Volt per Ampere,

Is the product of three distinct dimensional ratios,

(17) Mu per Epsilon

(18) Farad per Henry

(19) Weber per Coulomb

(20) , Ohms

This is the natural impedance of the Aether in its unbounded form.

The ratio (18) is given as

(21)

This is the characteristic admittance of the metallic – dielectric geometry bounding the Aether, mu – epsilon.

And the ratio (19) is given as

(22)

This is the natural impedance of the proportion between the magnetic induction and the dielectric induction as determined by the metallic – dielectric geometry. In this case then given is,

(23) , Unit Numeric

Or

(24) , Siemens – Ohm

Hereby the product of facto (18) and (19) give

(25) , Siemens

The characteristic admittance of the metallic – dielectric geometry. The factor (17) is

(26) , Ohm square

Combining (25) and (26) gives the expression

(27) , Ohm

Hence for equal and opposite forces as by equations (17), (18) & (19) the product is hence

(28) , Ohm

Where it is

(29) , Numeric

a is the impedance operator.

For the E.M. condition it is known that the ratio of Mu to Epsilon is a constant

(30) , Ohm

As is the product a constant

(31) , Centimeter per Second

Calling this constant,

(32) R = 377, Ohm

The force cancellation is given by,

(33) , Ohm

For equal and opposite forces.

Next consider the A.C. relations for equal and opposite forces,

, or

(34) , or

(35) , or

(36) ,

It is then

(37) , Ohm.

(37a) , Ohm

Hence, as with the D.C. relations, it is given,

(38) , Ohm

(39) , Ohm

Where it is defined,

(40) , Siemens

And

(41) , Ohm – Siemens

And as with D.C. it is hereby,

(42) , Ohm

The condition for equal and opposite forces.

Finally since it is given that,

(43) , per Siemens, or Ohm

The ratio a follows

(44) .

Thus a is a distortion factor existing between the natural impedance of the Aether and the characteristic impedance of the magnetic geometry. Thru this line of reasoning it is not the natural Aether impedance, nor the characteristic geometry, that directly gives equal forces. It is however given by the natural impedance of the Aether as modified by the distortion factor a, that is

(45) Ohm

This is not the result expected which would be thought to be

(46) Ohm

What of this discrepancy? Is the previous line of reasoning invalid? Only concrete Physical Experiment can give the facts. Math can lead you down many paths, images of its own expression.

Returning to equation (34), and substituting the relation

Planck per Second, or Joule,

It is

(47)

And for

(48) ,

That is, the natural impedance of the Aether is equal to the characteristic impedance of the metallic – dielectric geometry. In this case the factor a is unity and thus

(49)

Or

Considering that the following relation exist

Henry, or Mu – Centimeter

And

Farad, or Epsilon – Centimeter

It is then, if



It is L & C themselves contain mu and epsilon which makes the factor a a versor operator, giving the final relation for equal and opposite forces to be simply given as

(50) , Ohm

Where Z is the characteristic impedance of the metallic – dielectric geometry, or here the two wire line, and then it is,

(51) , Ohm

Thusfar we have experimentally engaged in the determination of forces without invoking volumetric space differential, or integral equations. Here utilized was no more than school boy algebra and physics. This is the direct Heuristic approach to reasoning about electric forces. It can be seen that concrete solutions can be obtained by this reasoning. But none can replace experimental verifications. As a post-script the following would be very helpful. What is needed is the magnetic and dielectric field diagrams for the “D.C. lines example” for the following

Dielectric field for equal and opposite voltage plus or minus 500KV,

And for,

Equal voltage on both lines of plus 1000KV

Likewise, for the magnetic field

Equal and opposite current in both lines plus or minus 1000 amp.

And for

Equal current in both lines of plus 1000 amp.

If someone can do this, many important facts can be gained.

73 – DE N6KPH, SK

This post is in response to Kokomojo post #646

A good coil to use is the flat spiral shown on the "Tesla Longitudinal Electricity" video. It's on the 160 meter HAM band. Remember that you must have a government license to transmit R.F. energy.
The "primary" coil is the magnetizing coil. It connects with a constant potential, thus the few turns the better, one is best. Surface area is equal on all windings and also equal to the surface areaa on the condenser. Basically all component coilsand the condenser should be the same weight. Max magneto motive force (m.m.f.) is what we want here in the primary. The "extra" coil is the constant current, maximum potential is what we want here, on the sphere, sphere capacity small.
It is important to note these coils are no longer to be thought of as just reactance coils, now they are transmission lines, and operate by the laws of transmission lines.

Hence given is the constant potential primary, a lumped LC circuit of very large b to a ratio ( a is the power factor and b is the induction factor- see Heaviside equation) , also there is the constant current extra coil, a distributed transmission structure in the form of a coil. Copper weight is the same. Also note b/a is the magnification factor of the circuit.
Hereby, the "secondary coil" is a transmission structure connecting the constant current extra coil to the constant potential primary coil. Hence the "Secondary coil" has an impedance and is a quarter wave resonant so as to match the constant current coil to the constant potential coil. That is the radio engineers description of a Tesla Magnifying Transmitter. No new theories or mystical unknowns, a basic transmission line calculation only. Simple. But, you better have an A.M. braodcast station ground for this system to operate.

So let's use an A.M. station as an example. 1600 on your A.M. dial. It has a quarter wave tower, a star ground plane consisting of 120 radial wires each a quarter wave long. A matching unit connects this to a 5 kw transmitter, the "alternator" of 1.6 megacycles AC.

Now lets shorten the tower, a "loading coil" must now go in series and resonate with the shortened tower. The ground current has increased. We keep doing this, shorter tower, bigger coil. Finally no tower, giant coil, high ground current. The coil is now resonant to it's own internal electro-static capacity. The price to pay for the high ground current is an extreme potential, e, at the open end of the coil. This is why the "mushroom" hood, or just a sphere. This extreme potential energizes the Resla "Ray" Tube for atomic work, not radio work. The ground end of out "Loading Coil" is the output NOT the mushroom cap. No one gets this. So we have converted 1600 on your AM dial to a Tesla Telluric Broadcast. No hidden secrets, no profound mysteries, just simple A.C. Ohms Law and a HAM radio license. "Theory of Wireless Power" gives all the coil calculations for impedance and propagation time. but the "tables" have errors. The basic formula is ok. "Condensed Intro to Tesla Tesla Transformer" gives a more specific theoretical description of the Tesla Transmission structures, including impulse modes. This paper is more for the radio engineer. Tesla gives a complete description, with photos and calculations, of his system in "Colorado SpringsNotes." Also the unit at my RCA laboratory is on the cover of "Condensed Intro to Tesla Transformers." No shortage of experimentally confirmed information on this topic, even by Tesla himself.

Awesome, thank you!

If this is not redundant as I will need to give everything you said a good think through, (several times), I have another question, you may have answered it I am not sure at this point.

My main interest is in building the Magnifying transmitter and reciever and doing tests on it to confirm or deny the claim that it takes in extra energy. That is my main goal, however I may now have 2!

It would be great fun to be able to measure more power coming out than put in. I believe to do that one must ideally completely null the TEM side.

That said what I am really looking for in the final analysis is tips on how to remove all tem transmission completely from the system and only transmit LMD. Maybe you have given me enough information that I should have picked up on it already and fail to see it at this point, if so please simply ignore this.

T-Rex,
Tesla used litz wire in many instances. One reason is due to skin effect. Might not the other reason be that the multiple stranded dielectric insulated litz wire increases the inter-winding capacitance giving the ability to shorten the length to width ratio and create self-resonant conditions?

Orion

NOTE: In attempting to understand the new material presented, I backed up (as one person suggested) and read all the posts from the beginning of the thread and have carefully collated some equations as they are serially presented. There are important questions to be addressed, in attempting to satisfy Fourier's principle of dimensional homogenity for the equations and qualities presented.

Furthermore, I just now found out that new posts have arrived, before this post could be presented, I don't know what to do about that, as it is frustrating to establish a serial thread here.
------------------------------------------

Heaviside Equation:

(1) (R*G + X*B) + i*(X*G - R*B) = propagation constant^2

Note: This is a complex product of (R+iX)*(G-iB) or (X-iR)*(B+iG)

Physical Quality Dimensional Units
--------------------------------------------------
R = Resistance in Ohms ?
G = Conductance in Siemans 1/?
X = Reactances Henrys/second ?/sec
B = Susceptance Farads/second ?/sec

R*G is scalar or DC component (dimensional units in R and G are reciprocal)
X*B is longitudinal or AC component
X*G is transverse or OC component (forward moving)
R*B is transverse or OC component (backward moving)

A post says that male is dielectric field in counterspace (/cm) and female is magnetic field (cm^2)

(we have mismatch of units, one is /cm the other cm^2, so which is in error?)

(2) Dielectricity * Magnetism = Total Electricity Q

What is the product * mean here? dot product? cross product? complex product? as it is not yet well defined in the dimensions.

A post defines Q as Planck as watt*sec^2 not as NIST (conventional) joule-sec.

Energy is the usage of Q/second = watt*sec which is our standard understanding

(3) E = dQ/dt in conventional terms where Q is total electricity (not charge!)

1 Planck/sec = 1 watt-sec (answering the question of how many Plancks/sec are in a watt-sec)

The dielectric field density must equalize the magnetic field density to equalize forces.

But forces is a term introduced but not defined, nor is its relationship to either field density shown, just implied.

Is this a physical force? field force? measured by weight units? Ambiguous and undefined at the moment.

Important idea: Counterspace or Reciprocal Space (fractal space) 1/n

i.e. 1/cm is less counterspace than 1/nanometer per unit length

A post supplies a familiar analogy, stopping a car with F = m*a and it specifically says that a is dV/dt (which it is)

(4) F = m*a = m * dV/dt (where F is force, m is mass, and a is acceleration)

Then the analogy is presented that dQ/dt = W (energy)

(5) W = dQ/dt (but what happened to mass or space?, by analogy to (4) )

We appear to have something missing in (5) in regard to space being acted upon by the change in total electricity during a time interval. What is it?

A post criticizes the time integral of W dt = Q.

The neglecting of C (the constant of Integration) is problematic here, perhaps detrimentally so, because C might well be some amount of total electricity. Furthermore integration is totally unable to say anything about the original quantities to start with, so it appears valid to differentiate, not integrate, in order to not lose anything valuable under consideration.

A post states that it only takes 2 quantities to specify the volume of a cylinder: height and circumference.

Was diameter or radius meant here, not circumference?

Mathematicians note that the formula is

(6) Volume of a cylinder = height * area = height * Pi * radius^2

This has dimensions of length^3, since height is length and radius^2 = length^2, so we cannot escape 3 dimensions.

A post then states that:

(6) Psi (dielectric induction) * Phi (magnetic induction) = Q (Planck) watt-sec^2

(we still need to define * operator here, and formalize the units for Psi and Phi)

A post argues 4 basic units for Electrical Engineering:

1. Time t dimensions:1
2. Space s dimenions:3
3. Dielectricity Psi dimensions:? 1/length
4. Magnetism Phi dimensions:? length^2

We need to resolve ambiguity on 3. and 4. for length so they mutually cancel on their product (whatever that is)

(7a) d(Psi)/dt = I (amperes) displacement current flow (not conduction current)

(7b) d(Phi)/dt = V (volts) electromotive conduction volts (not electrostatic)

It is stated:

(8) Phi/Psi = Z (impedance) in Ohms (E/I = Z)

and Inversely

(9) Psi/Phi = Y (admittance) in Siemans (I/E = Y)

Two distinct I currents and two distinct V voltages are mentioned.

Important Question:

Define I displacement current and I conduction current?
Define V electrostatic field and V electromotive difference?

I believe that it is very important to properly define these two types of physical qualities. Can this be done at this time?

It is restated:

1 Psi * 1 Phi = 1 Q Plank watt-sec^2

What are the dimensional units for Psi and Phi ?? Do they have dimensionality of watt^(1/2)*second ?

And again, in regard to watts, that it is

W = dQ/dt (joule or energy)

We need relationship of watt to joule defined. Later on we find watts cannot be = joules as the dimensions do not match. NIST defines watt as joules/sec so watt-sec^2 = joules*seconds

Does Planck have dimensions of joules*seconds? There appears to be ambiguity in using the term joules and watt-sec^2. Can this be resolved for everyones' understanding?

A post defines:

Coulomb (charge) Psi = Q/Phi
Weber (induction) Phi = Q/Psi

What are our units here?

Can we mathematically say that

dQ/d(Phi) = Psi (instantaneously)
dQ/d(Psi) = Phi (instantaneously)

so that

E = d(Phi)/dt (as above) unit: volt
I = d(Psi)/dt (as above) unit: ampere

However the two types of voltage and current are still ideas, not formally defined.

A post resummarizes:

Group 1 (primary)
---------------------
Q Planck (watt-sec^2)
Psi Coulombs ( ?/sec )
Phi Webers ( ?/sec )
W joules (joules ?? watts? ) (This has to be watts, not joules)

Group 2 (derived)
---------------------------------
E Volts ( ??/sec ) or d(Phi)/dt
I Amperes ( ??/sec ) or d(Psi/)dt

What about the two types of E and the two types of I ?? Can we
define them properly?

(This seems to be hinting that we need complex numbers to adequately
describe what is going on)

joules/sec = watts (so there is a mistake equating joules = watts above)

It is pointed out that humans overlay space with dimensions. (usually 3)

Positive Space

length = cm^1
area = cm^2
volume = cm^3
hypervolume = cm^4
N-volume = cm^N

Reciprocal (Counter) Space

span = cm^(-1)
density = cm^(-2) (density is usually thought as volumetric)
concentration = cm^(-3)
diffusivity ? = cm^(-4)
N-diffusivity ? = cm^(-N)

A post gives:

l^3 * Q = Planck cm^3
l^2 * Psi = Coulomb / cm^2 (so l^2 cannot be right, it has to be l^(-2) )

I stopped at September 30, 2011 12:19 pm posting, as there are questions that I have above that need to be addressed, because of the confusion in dimensional homogenity. Can they be addressed?

Later on I suppose a discussion of mass (kg or grams) might be brought in, but it is okay to ignore mass for now, since none of the material above, except for implied force right after equation (3) above is mentioned.

NIST carries the base units (qualities):

1. length (m/cm)
2. mass (kg,gm)
3. time (sec)
4. electric current (Ampere)
5. temperature (K deg)
6. amount of substance (moles)
7. light intensity (candelas)

For now, I will leave discussion of mass aside, and we notice already that item 4. electric current is in trouble, because it avoids the discussion of what type of flow it is, displacement current, or conduction current, which are totally dissimilar.

We probably don't need to talk about temperature, nor Avogadro's constant, and light intensity is probably energy projected onto an area, so it probably is not as base unit and should be removed. After all, we do have materials absorbing energy in other frequency bands than light.

- Randall

Generally you do not want to create inter-winding capacitance, that lowers the impedance and lowers the voltage and in some cases lowers the magnification factor. In the extra coil you want the lowest capacity possible. That's why Tesla used coils of equal width and height. If anything litz wire decrease capacitance. It creates less flat plate area.

You have just taken all the work I have done in deriving new dimensions and tried to convert them back to physics dimensions. You want to go back to physics. I just got done going through 40 papers to get physics out of this! Heaviside and Steinmetz didn't go through all this trouble to turn it all back around again. Are you sure you know what dielectricity and magnetism are? Physicists have no business in dealing with this sh**. I derived a system of units that stand by themselves. Use the units I have derived NOT physics units. Physicists have no idea what electricity is- they don't even believe in the Ether!

Actually I was speaking about the secondary.

Orion

Please point me to the exact point in Eric's posts where this is "restated".

Thank you
pt

back in 8/22/11

I had to read that a couple times myself.

I think he is talking about each?


Can we think of that as similar to the flat wound amature transmitter coils?

does any of that sound right?

So do I read it correctly that we want Hi Z, Low inter-winding C, because that will result in higher magnification?

I am still plugging away on a couple things in his response to me too.








So I presume that fence is a huge primary magnetizing coil, the one he is siitting under is the secondary, and the center which is that same height as the secondary I presume is the extra "tesla" coil with the sphere on top?

@Eric
is the secondary wire spacing that gets wider toward the top because of poor insulation and high voltage or is that some kind of tuning? both? From what you are saying it sounds like we would want that secondary to be close wound and also the extra tesla coil with the sphere on top to be close wound? The primary I remember you mentioned using strap bronze for good impulse response.

Maybe I should be asking what we are all looking at in that pic That sphere almost looks out of place? and the center does not look like coil but a pipe. Like the center of a transmission line?
.