No announcement yet.

Eric Dollard

This is a sticky topic.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • lamare
    BTW, got my hands on another project. Re-publishing Patrick Kelly's work:

    Free-Energy Devices, zero-point energy, and water as fuel

    A DVD with all of his work is under way to my home and I will also get (some of his) domains. Since there are also translations and people need to be able to continue making translations, I need to set up a proper publishing system. I am thinking of setting up Overview — Sphinx 1.1.3 documentation , which means I have to convert all of Kelly's work into a new format.

    And I published a theory about how Meyer's "car on water" actually works:
    Theoretic foundation: the electret effect

    Leave a comment:

  • lamare
    Originally posted by garrettm4 View Post

    In reference to your post further up on this page, which seems to have little feedback from others sadly, you seem to regard EM waves as not consisting of particles or what?

    I ask this since I've just watched a TED video on a camera that takes a trillion frames per second where in both the wave and particle nature of light is manifested simultaneously.

    Ramesh Raskar: Imaging at a trillion frames per second | Video on

    So I find it hard regard EM energy solely as a wave as there is much evidence of its particle like interactions with material objects. Getting to my point, if you are working on a theory that disproves another, it should be able to ALSO make sense of the particle interactions, NOT just solely the wave functions.
    I see EM (note the M!) waves consisting out of two separate phenomena:

    1) Transverse waves, propagating at the boundary of two media with different density, such as on the surface of an antenna or the Cola bottle in the video, which is very interesting. Thank you for posting!

    2) "Particles", which are some kind of vortex structure.

    In the pictures of the rotating thorus, you see *a* particular shape of such a "particle wave".

    Characteristic of this mode is the contained vortex, the rotation(al component), which is what we refer to as the magnetic component or magnetic field.

    It appears that there is a hidden longitudinal phenomena associated with these structures. I posted a thread some time ago about Cymatics, whereby interesting structures are created using sound trough a fluid:

    One of the most interesting pictures taken that way is this one:

    When you accept the existence of longitudinal dielectric waves and consider these to be akin to sound waves trough the aether, then with this picture is is clear that longitudinal waves also play a role in the structure of molecules and atoms.

    It appears to me that the fibrous structures that come forth in the Cymatic experiment would be rotating vortexes at the nano level within molecules and would be responisible for "covalent binding" of atoms into molecules.

    So, we have a mixture of rotating vortex "particle" phenomena and longitudinal phenomena as well as transverse phenomena at the boundary of larger structures, such as an antenna or a polarizer in QM experiments.

    The longitudinal and transverse phenomena are "real" waves which can superimpose, while the self-contained vortex-based "particle" and "molecule" structures cannot easily super-impose (*), because the vortexes have a direction of rotation (polarization), which makes them either "snap" on to one another, or repel one another.

    Further, I find nothing wrong with superimposition, as it exists with electric and magnetic fields, so its not just exclusive to photons. When you think about it, at incredibly small scales things don't have to work the same as on our macro scale. As with all things, everything start to get weirder the closer you examine and the smaller the objects size. Paradoxes are merely our inability to accept reality for what it is, not something that cannot exist.
    (*) You bring forth an interesting point.

    I was saying that particles cannot super-impose, but I think you have a point. Apparently, it is not that simple that one can say: '"particles" cannot superimpose under any condition, while waves can'.

    It is pretty clear that (far field) EM waves do super-impose very nicely, as do light waves, while electrons would not *unless* when fired trough a (double) slit.

    So, whether or not the "particle" mode superimposes depends on the particular geometric structure of the "particle" or photon at hand. Let's consider the difference between these two geometric structures I posted above. In one of them, you have two opposing vortexes, while in the other you have only one vortex. It is the particluar geometric structure of the vortices in the "particle", "photon" or molecule structure which determine whether or not superimposition is possible.

    And beside that, you have differences in size. Free "electrons" can easily move trough the open space in between atoms in a metal, while in the case their internal vortex connects to vortices within the atom nucleus, like a lightning bolt, it changes in shape an can no longer move freely. Thus "superimposition" to some degree is possible with "electrons" and "atoms", in the circumstance that the "electron" is in a "free" state of motion.

    In other words, under certain conditions, superimposition of "particles" or "photons" is possible, under other conditions it is not.

    Finally, EPD thinks that the B-field, E-field and Poyntine vector are all aligned in a longitudinal wave. TE Bearden thinks that there are two counter longitudinal waves for every transverse (time-forward and time-reverse), he gives no clear description of a longitudinal wave however (lol). You and Madhatter seem to think that some part of an ES wave (Electrostatic Wave) is longitudinal. Can you even have an ES "wave"? Is that the movement of charge or what? Who's right? Who's model is wrong?
    I'm afraid I differ with Eric in opinion about this particular point.

    I think a longitudinal wave does not have a magnetic component, because magnetics == rotation == some kind of vortex. Stowe defines magnetism mathematically as rot or curl of his superfluid:

    Tuks Unsorted KieknWatTWordt Stuff : Stowe Personal E Mail

    I have determined that in my opinion all of physical processes can be defined in terms of the aether populational momenta (p). Such that,

    Force (F) -> Grad p
    Charge (q) -> Div p
    Magnetism (B) -> Curl p

    Gravity for example is Grad E where E is the electric potential at x. This resolves to Le Sagian type process as outlined in the Pushing Gravity models. The electric potential E in turn is created by charge which is Div p...
    Eric does not like Stowe's aether model, because of the dimensions he chose to model his super-fluid with, which lead to these dimensions (most notably mass [kg]) to stick their head out of the mudd all over the place.

    Either way, IMHO Stowe is at least right about considering magnetism to be a rotational movement in/of the aether and thus defining it mathematically as the Curl or Rot of "something". What that "something" is, is what we call the aether. And no matter how you describe/model the aether itself, you need to describe magnetism mathematically this way in order to come to a correct model. Stowe chose to model the aether as a superfluid using Newtonian dimensions. However, that is not a fundamental choice and could be replaced by some other fluid model.

    All right. Now for the possibility of propagating a wave, one needs two characteristics or dimensions in Eric's vocabulary:

    1) Compressibility / "spring-ability" / capacitance;

    2) momentum / intertia / inductance.

    Now within our current electrical engineering concept, momentum or inertia is represented by the magnetic field, the rotational component of the EM field. So, I understand perfectly well why Eric says that the B-field, E-field and Poyntine vector are all aligned in a longitudinal wave. After all, one *needs* some kind of inertia in order to be able to propagate a wave and the only kind of inertia in the aether we have a name for is magnetism.

    However, the aether itself does also have it's own intertia, which is modelled by Stowe as the "mass" of the aether "populational momenta" or "fictional particle like marbles" his aether is made up of.

    It is this fundamental intertia property of the aether itself which is missing in our understanding, because we only work with one particular manifestation of this phenomenon: it's rotational or magnetic shape.

    To put it simply: the aether is like a fluid and has inertia of itself. We don't account for this, but only "count" or "see" it when "it" rotates, when it moves in circles, sprirals or vortexes. That's when we "see" a magnetic field, but that is only a particular manifestation of a more fundamental phenomenon: the inertia of the aether itself, which behaves like a fluid / gas.

    And that is also how Tesla considered physical reality, when he wrote:

    Tuks Unsorted KieknWatTWordt Stuff : Tesla Prepared Statement80st Birthday

    According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible. But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are also all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.
    There is a real, physical aether which behaves like a fluid. When you describe it like a fluid, as Stowe does, you get the answers you are looking for by means of plain logic and common sense. It gives you all you need to counter relativity as well as Quantum Mechanics:

    Tuks Unsorted KieknWatTWordt Stuff : Ruins 96 Years Einstein Relativity
    Tuks Unsorted KieknWatTWordt Stuff : Questioning Quantum Mechanics

    While there are a lot of ideas/theories running around there's not enough experimenting in my opinion. [...] The tough part of this task is having the proper equipment for time measurement, generation, transmission and reception of RF signals... which is very costly and hard to get.
    Well, there is another experiment which people could perform, which would at least prove propagation faster than the speed of light. The single experiment to disprove Einstein has already been performed in 1834:

    Granted, one needs a dual channel scope, but these can be had at eBay for like $ 100 or so. The rest is just off the shelf components and a lot of wire...

    I hope I didn't come off as dismissive, I think your work is at least giving others a place to start and could very well end up working. At any rate keep up the good work.
    I welcome any reasonable exchange of ideas. Very often, the answers one seeks are found by asking the right questions. And there is nothing wrong with asking questions, to the contrary. More people should ask questions and think about things instead of just sitting on the couch.

    Last edited by lamare; 05-24-2013, 06:11 AM. Reason: typos and highlighting

    Leave a comment:

  • madhatter
    garrettm4, let put up a couple quick links for you, and later tonight I'll expand a bit more.

    Supraluminous Waves in Astrophysical Plasmas

    There is also a NASA paper but I'm unable to locate a link for it at the moment.

    Leave a comment:

  • garrettm4
    Originally posted by madhatter View Post
    It's funny how things tend to circle back. I talked about this over a 1yr ago here.

    Thanks for the informative replies!

    I feel there is a dearth of interest from the DIY experimenter in the practical side of Eric/Tesla/Steinmetz's radio work. Everyone seems to be after "free energy" loop holes and spark gap jammers, the fun stuff.

    I take it's as the saying goes "eyes to see and ears to hear", when it comes to complex subjects as this. I myself didn't quite realize the implications and practicality of this subject when you brought it up before. But now can see the usefulness and am quite interested in the overall subject.

    If its not too much trouble, could you post some reference material I could read up on to differentiate between ES and EM waves? As I find the term ES "wave" to be esoteric. If Electrostatic phenomena involves the intensity and distribution of electric charge, would not the rearrangement of its intensity (potential) or distribution (spacial location/density) cause a magnetic field to manifest? The movement of charge creates a magnetic field, or at least the charge carriers movement does, so does an ES wave not have a magnetic component?

    As much as I detest Wikipedia, they seem to have a somewhat useful chart showing the plasma wave classifications:

    What type of ES wave, if listed in the above, is the one we are after?

    Also, what is the "boundary condition" you reference. A difference in permittivity, conductivity, vacant vs. occupied space? It seems you're not ever referencing to ionized gases like in my prior post on plasma antenna. I take it there is another form of "plasma" in a vacuum tube related to thermionic emission, is this what your referring to?

    On a random note, I found a pretty interesting video on youtube when looking up lock in amplifiers, on the effects of photon interaction with NE2 bulbs and their I-V characteristic curves which reminded me of a patent talking about optically modulating plasma for an antenna system. After watching the video, I played around with this a little bit, I was able to turn a neon bulb on and off (biased at 67V) with a blue LED (at 5mA), which made me even more interested in plasma antenna. (I should have recorded the experiment, as It was pretty cool. I had the bulb hooked up to my HP4140B picoammeter / voltage source and a separate supply for the LED. Acording to the pA meter, the bulb current increased by 2-3 orders of magnitude when the LED was directed at it.)

    Finally, this question is open to anyone, what is the cause of the "ball plasma" when hit with a sharp dV/dt slew rate? Where would this fit into the Wikipedia chart given earlier? I'm curious to know.

    (Its quite hard to take pictures of these plasma ball formations, as they are so intensely bright that they make setting the correct exposure difficult plus they tend to physically move around and vibrate)
    Last edited by garrettm4; 05-17-2013, 09:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • madhatter
    Originally posted by garrettm4 View Post
    I'm not sure if this thread is dead or alive, probably somewhere in between, but I though to share an interesting find I came across today.

    While looking up some reference material for another subject I came across "plasma antennas" which seems to be a really interesting and relevant subject in modern radio.

    Since longitudinal ES "waves" are known to form in plasmas, why not try to use a plasma antenna in the longitudinal mode to transmit to a similar antenna? If this can be done, it would open up a new era in RF communications affecting everything from WiFi, Cell Phones & GPS to ham radio. Just a thought.


    Plasma Antennas

    Antenna having reconfigurable length - Markland Technologies, Inc.

    Patent US1309031
    It's funny how things tend to circle back. I talked about this over a 1yr ago here.

    look at Erics circuits and the one Smokey built, one could view it as a receiver for the ES wave. plasma waves are part and parcel to VT's (vacuum tubes) the boundary transistion layer will vary based on level of vacuum pressure. recall Erics work with the old Edison bulbof hard vacuum and filament, the transistion would occur near the filament and glass,the rest of the bulb would have been supporting superluminal ES waves. The effects visually seen would be akin to cherenkov radiation. the bulb was acting as a receptor for the excited and induced ES wave.

    Take the setup and modify the receiver bulb to a hard vacuum tube, the glass envelope could have an interlaced network of gold filament, think inverted nixie tube. a ES signal could be sent and detected by the bulb in the same way as TV is with the cathode tube. the need for a magnetic field to reproduce the signal would not be needed as the reproduction occurs upon impact of the boundary. many many new things here.

    I'll state this, one needs to tread careful in broadcasting in this arena as it's heavily tested and used by R&D within the military complex. it's also being explored for "signaling thru the noise" radio black out from the 'plasma' field always has a high 'pucker factor'. As long as the researchers hold fast to relativity the progress will be stunted. the drop to C at the boundary is the hard way to do it.

    Erics coil work expanded from Tesla and Steinmetz points to 'softer' transitions. I still haven't figured how to merge the two, however I feel that the answers may lie in Farnsworths work, the fusor patent is a good start. the equations and schematics say alot more then the text. I've slowly been going thru it. from my perspective it looked like he was trying to exploit the particle and wave function of the electron field by controlling the flow into the core where it could open a path between the ES and EM transition.

    It's hard to put into a post the sheer volume of background physics for high energy plasma. Even I don't have my studies complete, always something new to learn.

    Leave a comment: