Eric P. Dollard

[t-rex]

Single Frequencya equals two, the total rank be given by;

Beginning,







Thus the entire scale of the pipe organ, in octaves of a

[Kokomoj0]

it looks like I am going to have to break down and make a spice model one of these days

[madhatter]

in reference to the leakage capacity of pF per cm, the current equations I've calculated show that the d/h= 20% shows a ~.935pF per cm and the d/h of 1:1 on the extra is .547pF per cm. one thing to keep in mind though is the sigma ratio of wire dia to axial distance that affects this calculation, it also isn't even touching on frequency or the time based function as it should.

[Kokomoj0]

Eric wrote:

Connected to this secondary coil is an additional coil, the Tesla coil. This is where the magnification properties are most pronounced.

What is this magnification (without all the raz ma taz) "exactly"? From previous discussion I was forced to conclude that it is merely the transformer ratio.


This line or coil is also lambda/4 long.

ok 1/4 wave.

However, it must possess the minimum possible self capacity,

Tight winding.

resulting in the highest possible characteristic impedance, thereby facilitating the greatest possible magnification of E.M.F. by the relation xxx

I had to correct what I said. that completely made no sense and my response made no sense either.

So the smallest possible hairline wire should be used?

and how does this high impedance (resistance) facilitate "magnification of emf?

The lowest self capacity would be square wire as used in speaker coils.

The self capacity of the coil is minimum when the diameter is equal to length, roughly 1pF per centimeter of diameter.

Has anyone done the math on this?

The velocity of propagation alone this coil is pi/2 times the velocity of light due to the distributed shunt capacity.

This results in pronounced capacity effects when the coil is operated higher in frequency than resonance.

The velocity has nothing to do with it because as frequency goes up capacitance of a device (coil) becomes more noticeable. Even with a piece of wire and then when it gets even higher then the inductance of a straight piece of wire becomes more pronounced.

What is most important is to calculate the diameter such that you suppress the transverse wave at the desired operation frequency.

If the velocity through a "distributed shunt capacity" LC circuit with coils and capacitors on the bench is C (minus material considerations etc) how is it that in this arrangement of a coil with air spaced capacity it now becomes pi/2? My mind just went out on blink again.

Its really difficult for me to conceptualize what could be different between them that could cause this or create this effect?

[madhatter]

Thanks Lamare, that's a good point to bring up for those trying to understand the ratios and reasons.

On a side note this relationship also highlights the leakage capacitance of the windings. Inductance and the inter-turn leakage capacitance are geometry dependent and a function of the frequency. I want to find a more accurate calculation as to whats fundamentally occurring here, there is a phasor or amplitude vector tied to the rate of change in theta that needs to be factored to move from a ratio to useable constant, similar to resistance and voltage.

I'm getting stuck with traditional notation and I think this is where I need to pull in the j operator of Steinmetz and Erics work with k. I wish this was faster.

Also does anyone know why LaTex format isn't possible to post here? it would be very helpful to be able to post equations as they should look, a picture is indeed worth a thousand words, and hosting the gifs to other sites is a bit of a pain. Is this a function of the BB format? with resources like latex online you don't need to have the program to edit and join in.

[lamare]

Some considerations on the dimentions of the extra coil

Eric wrote:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/Condensed_Intro_Tesla_Coils_OCR.pdf

Connected to this secondary coil is an additional coil, the Tesla coil. This is where the magnification properties are most pronounced. This line or coil is also lambda/4 long. However, it must possess the minimum possible self capacity, resulting in the highest possible characteristic impedance, thereby facilitating the greatest possible magnification of E.M.F. by the relation xxx

The self capacity of the coil is minimum when the diameter is equal to length, roughly 1pF per centimeter of diameter. The velocity of propagation alone this coil is pi/2 times the velocity of light due to the distributed shunt capacity. This results in pronounced capacity effects when the coil is operated higher in frequency than resonance.

Why this h/d = 1?

Let's consider the extra coil to be a wave guide that conducts only in one direction, along the coil windings. The normal, transverse wave travels in circles around the coil. Since we want to suppress that one, the circumference should be n * 1/2 lambda transverse, with n = 1,3,5,....

So, we should choose our diameter D = (n * 1/2 lambda transverse) / pi.

The longitudinal waves travels along the length of the coil. Now the wavelength of the longitudinal wave for the same frequency is pi/2 times as long. So, for D calculated as above, we get a longitudinal wavelength along the length direction of the coil of pi/2 times ((n * 1/2 lambda transverse) / pi) = n * 1/4 lambda transverse.


So, for a give diameter D, when we have a n * 1/2 lambda transverse along the circumference, we have a corresponding n * 1/4 longitudinal wavelength across the length of the coil that equals D.

So, now you can design your extra coil for a certain frequency...

So, the extra coil does not HAVE to be h/d = 1. Only in the case you want a 1/4 lambda waveguide / coil, you take h/d = 1. If you want a 3/4 lambda, you take h/d = 3.

And you can also play with n, BTW.

What is most important is to calculate the diameter such that you suppress the transverse wave at the desired operation frequency.

[Armagdn03]

I feel I gave a pretty solid explaination as to why I think it is that Eric stresses considering resistance/conductance over low/high resistance in this post and received no feedback on where my understanding on the issue was lacking.

Here is another example; Eric says that the loses associated with the insulator are represented by G and are separate from the loses associated with the wires represented by R. The loses associated with G are related to the potential difference and the loses associated with R are related to the current, again the situation of polarity reveals itself. Yes we could say low resistance/high resistance but in one situation the loss is occuring in one type of material and in the other the loss is occuring in another type of material which is the polar opposite of the first material and I think Eric is trying to distinguish this.

You are correct that you can calculate these quantities as you are saying but I feel your missing the point that is trying to be made. Why was it that Steinmetz/Heaviside and the other brilliant people who gave us our equations used even bothered with conductance then if you could just call it a low resistance? You are correct that today the problem is considered as low resistance/high resistance but I'm pretty sure you'll agree that Eric is distancing himself from the modern interpretation of electrical theory and agrees with the interpretations of the turn of the century scientists/mathematicians and so speaks their lingo in the same way that you're speaking the lingo your teachers told you to use.

Eric would need to clarify that this is why he stresses conductance/resistance over low/high resistance because this is just my interpretation.

From my understanding and interpretation, this and other theories which essentially agree focus their mathematics around 1 (unit circle etc). Applied to high vs low resistance and conductance, you can see the dividing line falling at 1 ohm.

You could halve resistances for example 64,32,16,8,4,2,1 but at one we start toward the "ratios", 1/2,1/4,1/8th etc. This would be the other way around looking at it from the conductance end of the spectrum.


this is similar to the Reciprocal theory by Dewey B Larson.

[Kokomoj0]

there is a reason I posted all this.


a tank circuit is exactly like this:

Making standing waves

when you reach f0 the the reactances create a null and look to the circuit like a pure resistance you get the highest waves.

I pointed out in this and other threads that ther can be measured by either a real meter or a simple make shift VSWR meter by tapping into the circuit.

The old timers have done this since the invention of dirt.

more

Standing Waves

which takes up to wave phase:

Wave Phase

interference

Wave Interference - Wave Pulse

Electric Fields

Capacitors

Electric Currents - Magnetic Fields

Electric Currents - Magnetic Fields

this is what I explained that everyone forgets when talking about the "impulse". the relationship between V I and time
Transformers - Power Transmission

finally
RC Circuits

LR Circuits Theory Part 1

LC Circuit - YouTube

LC Circuit - YouTube

LC Circuits Theory Part 1

LC Circuits Example 1 Part 1

LC Circuits Example 1 Part 2

LC Circuits Example 1 Part 3

LC Circuits Example 1 Part 4 The End

AC Circuits Example 1 Part 1



How does anyone know what is right or wrong by judging only one side of the matter?

I posted this so that people who do not have an engineering background can get a quick overview on how its done in the einstein world so they can make an informed decision on the matter.

This is where the rubber meets the road and where most alternative inventors and researchers hit the brick wall, sorry to say. ~awol

So since Meyl has something I can actually put my hands on, I am still leaning more toward Meyl at this time and will continue to duck the stones until shown differently.

[Kokomoj0]

ok we'll do it your way;

Kokomoj0,
I'm not saying your wrong, a high resistance is a low conductance and visa versa but I fear that is a reductionist way of looking at things. Eric has stressed since the start that what he is trying to convey is more along the ideas of Goethe than conventional science, which should be attributed to Newton, as is shown in the following quote;

I tried to simply agree to disagree but thats correct, in math and physics etc everything can be and needs to be reduced to its lowest common denominator to fully grasp what is going on in any system. I agree with that observation.

Do you disagree that is the way physics and understanding the nature of everything around us et al works?

The alternative is mysticism is it not?

Why would you fear a reductionist method considering the alternative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-rex
I maintain the pounds per square inch has absolutely no relation to capacitance whatsoever, in the world of electrical engineers. Hence it is absurd. To quote E.H. Armstrong, "They substitute words for reality, and then talk about the words."

That was very accurate and well said.

This is what physics has done.

That is what literally all language has done.

In Electricity, the ideas og Goethe and Wilhelm Reich are much more in accord with electricity, and the formative forces in general. Newton was a materialist and his physics represents an impediment to the understanding of electricity. For those married to "Little Ball Bearings", this is why we have the Planck. Here you can have your beloved E equals mc squared which is so dear to your heart. So use it, don't heap capacitance and inductance with lead weights.

I am not moved by throwing stones, its easy to throw stones and not so easy to back up those claims. You want to get down and boogie then lets be frank; nothing yet posted in any of those threads disproved Einstein, sorry.

The Aether does not relate to the inertial laws of Newton, but the formative forces laws of Goethe.

73 DE N6KPH

Ok so that is Erics opinion, where is the meat and how does whatever he envisions get us closer to a working TMT?

and here;

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-rex
Energy in its most arch-typical form is embodied in the phenomenon of Electricity, but what is Electricity? Now our wheels even more stuck in the mud! But we have important clues, namely that of polarity, not plus or minus so much but more like male or female. This thought follows from Goethe to Tesla and Steinmetz.

Here we go with counterspace again. What "precisely" is "counterspace"?

It is the opposite quadrant that states the same thing from what I can see. Hence what mathematical or physical understanding is to be gained?


So with that in mind let's look at our disagreement on using conductance and resistance interchangeably instead of low resistance/high resistance.

Disagreement? Aside from manner of expression you have not stated what the difference is yet?

It actually has striking similarity to the battle waged between Goethe and Newton as to a theory of colours. Goethe believed that colour was an interaction between two polar opposites, being light and dark. Newton refuted Goethe's arguments claiming that darkness was only the absence of light and so colours could not possibly be an interaction between light and dark.

In my reductionist version they are both wrong, where color is known to be the band of wavelength(s) being reflected.

It is interesting that the Heaviside equation (Off the top of my head it is (RG+XB)+j(RB-XG)), which Eric states is the most fundamental equation in electrical engineering, can be reduced to ZY. This implies that electricity is the interaction of two polar opposite quantities being impedence and admittance in the same way that Goethe said colour arose from the interaction of Light and Dark.

The problem is that "light" and "dark" are not physical properties.
Anything that has a direct polar opposite can be correctly simplified by using one or the other and it is always easiest to use the same units unless there is some necessity to use the "polar opposite".

So let's contrast this with our current discussion- Your saying that I am wrong/misinformed because conductance is just a lack of/low resistance,

No I am not saying that, I am saying that you are making something very simple in electrical engineering needlessly complicated.

in the same way Newton argued that darkness is an absence of light.

Since we are learning Eric's theory we shouldn't try and bring in Newtonian scientific concepts into a concept which has been stressed, repeatedly, that it is Goethean.

Is using the mathematically polar opposite a theory?

I am not saying that the Newtonian concepts aren't without their worth but we are moving beyond Newton into a different way of doing science. I feel you might be trying to force the square to be a triangle. Another T-Rex quote. (Yes I know we aren't necessarily talking dimensions here but I feel he'd say a very similar thing to this in response to what we're currently discussing)

Well as you can see i am neither newtonian or goethe-ian in my analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-rex
You have just taken all the work I have done in deriving new dimensions and tried to convert them back to physics dimensions.

Polar opposite is not "new dimensions", sorry.

They are the same dimensions expressed in its "polar opposite.

You want to go back to physics. I just got done going through 40 papers to get physics out of this!

physics (fzks)1. The scientific study of matter, energy, space, and time, and of the relations between them.


2. The behavior of a given physical system, especially as understood by a physical theory.

So looking at the accepted definition how has that been accomplished?

Is it mysticism that is the goal here?


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!

Now if that doesnt put a twistee in your undies nothing will.

Now as for the consumption/production problem. Yes I am aware that to a scientist/engineer trained under conventional theory thinking of the 'consumption' of electricity is a misleading term but again we aren't learning conventional theory we are learning an entirely different theory based on an entirely foreign method of scientific investigation. When a physicist here's the term 'consumption of electricity' they think that one is talking about the consumption of moving electrons which IS a wrong concept, (wheres the "EMPIRICAL" meat on this new theory?) however Eric is moving away from an electron based electricity.

Even Tesla firmly believed in entropy and enthalpy, so where are you trying to take this again?

When I say consumption and production I am talking about field lines issuing from the metallic-dielectric confines which seem to just appear out of the geometry with no apparent source (production) and disappear in the same fashion (consumption), what other words should I use? It's interesting to note that to a conventional physicist field lines are just useful analogies to teach students but to the people Eric is references (Heaviside, Thompson, Steinmetz) field lines have a concrete reality. Would you be happier if I used the term 'convert' instead of produce and consume? To me there is no difference between saying convert and saying something consumes one quantity whilst simultaneously producing another quantity and I'd say the answer you prefer would be a matter of philosophy. The other major reason I use the two terms is that Eric uses consume and produce to illustrate these concepts and so I have used these terms as not to further confuse people on an already confusing subject.

More semantics and using different terms to express what is already understood. This seems to split invisible hairs as if there is some new reality that never comes to fruition.

If you've never heard of Goethe here is some reading;
Light and Electricity by Tom Brown
Man or Matter by Ernst Lehrs

Garret,
Thanks for your response It's given me some things to think about, I will form a reply a little later.

Raui

So no, you have not expressed it earlier in a manner that an engineer would accept any more than you have expressed it above.

Granted I would agree that there is a lot of good things stomped on to maintain their monopoly on commercialism and that in and of itself is or should be criminal. I can write a several page list of all the atrocities of science, however that does not change the fact that physics and engineering has nonetheless established methods by which these matters are to be investigated and proven. Bypassing these well proven and understood methods regardless of how we feel about the way it is handled academically will in fact lead us into purely mysticism. Now I have never seen an instance of mysticism functionally replace physics.

[Kokomoj0]

I feel I gave a pretty solid explaination as to why I think it is that Eric stresses considering resistance/conductance over low/high resistance in this post and received no feedback on where my understanding on the issue was lacking.

Here is another example; Eric says that the loses associated with the insulator are represented by G and are separate from the loses associated with the wires represented by R. The loses associated with G are related to the potential difference and the loses associated with R are related to the current, again the situation of polarity reveals itself. Yes we could say low resistance/high resistance but in one situation the loss is occuring in one type of material and in the other the loss is occuring in another type of material which is the polar opposite of the first material and I think Eric is trying to distinguish this.

You are correct that you can calculate these quantities as you are saying but I feel your missing the point that is trying to be made. Why was it that Steinmetz/Heaviside and the other brilliant people who gave us our equations used even bothered with conductance then if you could just call it a low resistance? You are correct that today the problem is considered as low resistance/high resistance but I'm pretty sure you'll agree that Eric is distancing himself from the modern interpretation of electrical theory and agrees with the interpretations of the turn of the century scientists/mathematicians and so speaks their lingo in the same way that you're speaking the lingo your teachers told you to use.

Eric would need to clarify that this is why he stresses conductance/resistance over low/high resistance because this is just my interpretation.

Its an "i"ther or "ee"ther argument.

granted if I want to find certain transistor or tube properties I use conductance as a matter of convention.

I do not see him as distancing himself simply by the use of different in expressions to say the same thing.

It all comes out the same and does nothing to pound a wood stake through Einsteins heart, or meyls for that matter so whats the point?

[Raui]

I feel I gave a pretty solid explaination as to why I think it is that Eric stresses considering resistance/conductance over low/high resistance in this post and received no feedback on where my understanding on the issue was lacking.

Here is another example; Eric says that the loses associated with the insulator are represented by G and are separate from the loses associated with the wires represented by R. The loses associated with G are related to the potential difference and the loses associated with R are related to the current, again the situation of polarity reveals itself. Yes we could say low resistance/high resistance but in one situation the loss is occuring in one type of material and in the other the loss is occuring in another type of material which is the polar opposite of the first material and I think Eric is trying to distinguish this.

You are correct that you can calculate these quantities as you are saying but I feel your missing the point that is trying to be made. Why was it that Steinmetz/Heaviside and the other brilliant people who gave us our equations used even bothered with conductance then if you could just call it a low resistance? You are correct that today the problem is considered as low resistance/high resistance but I'm pretty sure you'll agree that Eric is distancing himself from the modern interpretation of electrical theory and agrees with the interpretations of the turn of the century scientists/mathematicians and so speaks their lingo in the same way that you're speaking the lingo your teachers told you to use.

Eric would need to clarify that this is why he stresses conductance/resistance over low/high resistance because this is just my interpretation.

[Kokomoj0]

Web000x
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 319

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0
Lots of great theory but sadly nothing that crashed any of my einstein education yet.

So you still think that the electrons are the source of electricity? Or do you believe there are lines of force, or aether, being the cause of electricity?

@Garrett,

It is a shame that you took down your posts. Eric said that it was a great help to have you around so that he had somebody else to answer questions because your understanding of his math is quite clear.

Dave

Nope, not the source.
However if you want current to flow in a specific path their movement does create current.

I was very specific when I said "potential" in explaining reactance and that the per business is the 1/x reciprocal.

I do not see the significance or benefit of calculating it in the opposite quadrant and time always goes in one direction.

The point here is that I can qualify and quantify everything that has been done in per farads in the identical manner and get identical results without using the "per".

Maybe I just "dont get it"? But them my questions went unanswered.

So neither of those items (among other questions I have posed) have been sufficiently explained.

[madhatter]

Garrett do not fret over 'paper' degrees, I know many engineers with a degree I wouldn't let engineer a paper bag! Ones cognitive abilities are not based on the paper on the wall, Erics been very clear about that!

Back to the crystal set, the new 4Mhz coil set lo and behold does receive a signal, I'm picking up a faint static and occasional 'blip'. reduced the primary coil winding spacing to increase the capacitance and that was the improvement. will be adjusting the top capacitance next. a bit suprised as the larger AM coil has been dead quiet so far, I'm just chalking it up to the primary coil not being wide enough.

Still working on the capacitance equations, not going to happen over night though, although I do 'sleep on it' as that's been a wonderful resource for me for as long as I can remember. Put a couple things together rough it out on the notepad I keep on the nightstand and in the morning I'll usually have some further insight that move it along, sometimes it'll take a couple days then BLAM! new insight.

I'm still fiddling with some equations and a theme keeps emerging in that capacitance is a dynamic function of the frequency and a yet assigned amplitude vector or phasor.

It's slow for sure, I need to get a few more pieces of equipment to further test some ideas.

[Gestalt]

Eric Dollard Resources

Good to see your still around Garrett....Thought you had dropped of the edge of the earth. Even Tesla's understandings were constantly evolving with time, so it is only natural that yours and everyone else's would as well. Can't expect perfection right off the start. Advancing these understandings and pushing the limit on human knowledge is best done via a communal effort. It's important to be vulnerable and potentially be wrong, for that is courage and how progress is made. The material Eric Dollard has presented us puts us on the cutting edge of a new technological paradigm, arguably one that should have taken root a century ago.

Since a new thread is being started I thought I would post links to all of Eric Dollard's transmissions and posts I have collected and put on my website for easy reading. This way people can catch up and review material they have missed without trying to wade through 1,200+ posts of the previous thread.



Main Directory - Eric Dollard

Transmissions/Articles:


Individual Posts:

• First posts by Dollard, E. P. (N6KPH) (2010)
• Additional Posts by E.P.Dollard (2011)
• Additional Posts by E.P.Dollard (2012)
• Posts by Eric Dollard via jpolakow

• VIDEO Links, Audio, Published Papers, Articles - DOWNLOAD Section

[garrettm4]