Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[Kokomoj0]

this looks like a replication of the EPD pancake tesla coil.

has the flat strap for good impulse response and he tunes them in phase.

Not sure if this demonstrates DC but I did notice there were no arcs in the bulb, just a hot cathode from what I can tell.

This may turn out interesting.

Tesla Wireless Power Transmission, Part 2 - YouTube

he is going to tune it to the shulman resonance which I am not sure is proper tuning. I thought proper was when you could crank the fr up to pi/2*c and get another resonant point.

So it appears to be a replica but may not be performing as one????

[skaght]

Electrical Soliton wave?

So is a longitudinal EM wave a soliton? There are articles describing how to build soliton non-linear oscillators. Are these devices producing longitudinal waves or are solitons something altogether different?

see:

http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~donhee/so_ims.pdf

[madhatter]

here's an excellent article, it also may be useful to the moon bounce experiment. note though that results c+V for light experiments are known and suppressed actively.

http://users.navi.net/~rsc/physics/wallace/farce.txt

[t-rex]

[madhatter]

here's a good read:
A Dissident View of Relativity Theory by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.

[madhatter]

do you by any chance have any references we can study?

Not sure where to start as that post is mainly my unpolished theory. It's a result of many yrs of study in quantum physics and quantum electrodynamics. The bane of Eric's posts on electricity. I'm not sure what level of physics Eric has studied over the yrs. There are some use full things within the quantum framework as it's mostly an unknown and this provides some excellent contradictions to relativity. If one can keep their head straight and not fall into a hard set believe on what is in actuality an unproven theory, there is much to be taken from it to support the fact that Einsteins relativity isn't correct.

It would be very difficult to suggest reference material on a subject that is so confusing as the quantum scale that would be useful. The bulk of the material holds fast to an interpretation that supports relativity under transformation, when in reality there are many interpretations and it goes all the way back to Schrodinger and lectures by Louis De Broglie who has some of the various interpretations by physicists around the early 1900's.

I'll see if I can post up excerpts from the lectures in a bit.

because the math born out of relativity is very close to experimental results it is held as a true working theory, this also opens the debate over falsifiability of SR due to it's constraints. what needs not be forgotten is that the experimental results are predicated by the math, this means that results will always correlate to the theory unless the theory changes and is yet another debatable point. Within relativity you end up with circular logic and this will always result in a draw and a headache.

[Kokomoj0]

Eric, If I understand you correctly you're right that there is missing units and the equations are incomplete. the fields are constantly being reduced to an singularity of a line! this constant 'collapse' is so inaccurate it gives rise to the many body problem and the HUP principal.

What I can't find digging thru the works of Steinmetz, Heaviside, Maxwell, etc.. is a clear definition of an electron, it's currently a subunit of a field that is at best an nebulous unit.

The monopole is correct, how it gets transformed into a dipole upon moving from the electron to an electron cloud is beyond me. treated at the singular level it's a monopole with very interesting results, an up/down spin with a magnetic g factor that's twice the originally calculated results, well no wonder they're treating it as a point particle orbital with a collapse vs a uniform field.

How I see it so far....
Take a spherical electromagnetic field of n size and remove everything inside this space, we will treat it as a perfect vacuum. Inside this magnetic field is simply a lower bound energy level of the electrostatic field to the boundary layer of the magnetic field, ignoring edge sheath effects. taking this 'pure' electrostatic field of low potential of say a single electron can be still be of any size space as the electron is a field and not tangible particle. this space is now the electron field potential, so any n space is the electrostatic field potential. an electron is a monopole, in this space is a field of monopole energy, it's distribution may be uniform or of uneven potential. the propagation or velocity of a light wave thru this space will be dependent upon the potential in that electrostatic field space, thus there is no fixed velocity or limit of wave propagation as it is dependent upon the electrostatic field potential.

This is a simply overview and carries some complex features of what the electrostatic field potential is and it's wave functions. I'm still working out the time equation so it's not circular in reference. Energy to mass is also missing in this as mass is already an energy state bound by it's wave function and adding mass via an increase in velocity per relativity would change the very nature of the wave function and the mass itself violating the basic premiss of the electrostatic field. it's simply not possible.

This may be of no use to anyone here and not relevant directly to Eric's work, but it flies in the face of relativity as it is not holding to the constant C or energy matter conversion.

do you by any chance have any references we can study?

[madhatter]

Eric, If I understand you correctly you're right that there is missing units and the equations are incomplete. the fields are constantly being reduced to an singularity of a line! this constant 'collapse' is so inaccurate it gives rise to the many body problem and the HUP principal.

What I can't find digging thru the works of Steinmetz, Heaviside, Maxwell, etc.. is a clear definition of an electron, it's currently a subunit of a field that is at best an nebulous unit.

The monopole is correct, how it gets transformed into a dipole upon moving from the electron to an electron cloud is beyond me. treated at the singular level it's a monopole with very interesting results, an up/down spin with a magnetic g factor that's twice the originally calculated results, well no wonder they're treating it as a point particle orbital with a collapse vs a uniform field.

How I see it so far....
Take a spherical electromagnetic field of n size and remove everything inside this space, we will treat it as a perfect vacuum. Inside this magnetic field is simply a lower bound energy level of the electrostatic field to the boundary layer of the magnetic field, ignoring edge sheath effects. taking this 'pure' electrostatic field of low potential of say a single electron can be still be of any size space as the electron is a field and not tangible particle. this space is now the electron field potential, so any n space is the electrostatic field potential. an electron is a monopole, in this space is a field of monopole energy, it's distribution may be uniform or of uneven potential. the propagation or velocity of a light wave thru this space will be dependent upon the potential in that electrostatic field space, thus there is no fixed velocity or limit of wave propagation as it is dependent upon the electrostatic field potential.

This is a simply overview and carries some complex features of what the electrostatic field potential is and it's wave functions. I'm still working out the time equation so it's not circular in reference. Energy to mass is also missing in this as mass is already an energy state bound by it's wave function and adding mass via an increase in velocity per relativity would change the very nature of the wave function and the mass itself violating the basic premiss of the electrostatic field. it's simply not possible.

This may be of no use to anyone here and not relevant directly to Eric's work, but it flies in the face of relativity as it is not holding to the constant C or energy matter conversion.

[Kokomoj0]

I have questions but its going to take a bit of time for me to digest that post so I certainly hope you stick around for a while.

Meantime I do not understand how one can tune to both cycle-decibels and cycles per second at the same time to produce a second order of tuning in the same coil since each travel at different speeds/distances?

Also I understand that we have 3 circulating paths, or at least that is what I think I understand

I also took the liberty to go to the other site and hope no one objects to my posting the 160 meter posting you made here too as being an old antenna builder I have interests there as well. Either way any objections I will remove it.

Build your own - 160 Meter Ham Band Alexanderson Antenna In 1919 in Bolinas, CA the United States Navy commissioned Ernst Alexanderson of General Electric to adapt the existing Marconi antenna into a scalar transmission network for VLF communications. The operating frequency was 18.6 KC. A 100:1 scale model operates on 1860 KC, the 160 meter ham band. This Alexanderson model could be the first ham radio non-electromagnetic communication system. As of yet, this has not been built and tested. Possibly transmitting between a pair, resulting in space scalar communications, for the first time. Theoretically no time delay, and very little attenuation. Try it and see.

Downloads :: AMERICAN MARCONI FOUNDATION
Alexanderson Antenna System at a scale of 1 : 100 (Second item down on the page)

System for the Transmission and Reception of Telluric electric waves (5th item down on the page)

Later will come the 160 meter ham band Tesla magnifying transmitter.
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...ard&aq=f&aql=f

Theory of Wireless Power by E. P. Dollard.

73 DE N6KPH

[lessismore]

DC Transmission Line II (5-?)

Wow, the previous post sure puts my puny efforts in perspective.

Dec. 3 - Since no one has yet pointed out my lapses I will fix them here in italics.Where C is the capacitance in farads per cm and L1 is inductance external to the conductors in henrys per cmv is the velocity of light in cm per second. You can calculate L from C and C from L:



Starting from the dielectric and magnetic energy of the transmission line circuit. Length is the length of the line in cm.



The force is the change in energy with respect to changes in s. Note that s being measured in a direction parallel to the direction of the force. Set the sum of the forces to zero.



The Lengths cancel out. Next substitute L for C and apply chain rule. The derivatives of L will cancel out. Then substitute C for L.



Taking the square root of both sides:



which has just been shown to be the same ratio of e to i which causes the magnetic and dielectric forces to balance.

[t-rex]

very good

c = 2(pi)r Centimeters

is not vectorally complete, it is

c = 2(pi)kr Centimeters

Centimeter per Second,
Or Velocity, v

This represents the ratio of space, centimeter, to time, second.

In a conjugate form the propagation constant of a Longitudinal Magneto-Dielectric Wave is given by the dimensional relation,
This is the ratio of counterspace, per centimeter, to time, seconds.

In an alternate form of expression, the T.E.M. propagation constant is the square root of the product

Henry per Second, Mu

And,

Farad per Second, Epsilon.

And for the L.M.D. propagation constant, it is the square root of the product
And

e = (b/a)*jE

Where

e, the Electrostatic Potential in Volts

E, is the Electro-Motive Force in Volts

a, is the Power Factor

b, is the Induction Factor of the Oscillating Coil

Area equals

Width times k*Height

This is a cross product, k is the right angle operator, a versor of dimensionless form. Wave propagation is normal to the surface of this area of width cross height, on the axis of versor k. Heaviside calls this

Vwh = l

The transverse product of width and height is length. V is his vector product operator.

The situation is much different for the L.M.D. wave. Directivity here is co-linear, or axial. Dimensionally it is given as

Length times Length

Equals Length squared

subdivided

[lamare]

so have you tried it yet on a transmission line to see who is closer?

No, and that is not easy to measure with a transmission line. However, with a radio telescope performing a moon-bounce at about dec 21st, we get a return time of 1,54932687869881 seconds when using the pi/2 formula, while we get 1,56065598874604 seconds when using my formula, when calculating for a distance of 364799 km:
Moon distance for Lansing, U.S.A. - Michigan in year 2011

This gives a difference of about 11 milliseconds, which should be easily detectable. At the Dwingeloo site, they can measure within a fraction of a millisecond:

ASTRON JIVE Daily Image

[Kokomoj0]

Hi all,

As you know I'm working on a longitudinal moonbounce project and am currently calculating my antenna. I found out that the transverse surface wave across the sphere can be expressed with the theoretical formula for Schumann resonance:

Schumann resonances - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I calculated the diameter for a 1/2 lambda sphere using Dollard's formula that the speed of longitudinal waves is pi/2 times c, but then the corresponding Schuman resonance frequency turned out to be 1287 MHz, which should be 1296 MHz if Eric's formula is correct.

So, I compared the Schuman formula with the formula for resonance in a string, basically a 1/2 lambda resonance with closed ends:



Since L = 2r, we can now calculate the theoretical speed c_l. When we take n=1 in the string formula and n=2 in the Schumann formula, we end up with matching resonance frequencies.

Since n(n +1) equals 6 for n=2, we get:



This works out to:



This computes to 1,559393604, while pi/2 computes to 1,570796325, a difference of 0,7%.....

So, now we have a theoretical derivation for the longitudinal wave speed, which turns out to be just a tiny bit lower than Eric's pi/2...

so have you tried it yet on a transmission line to see who is closer?

[Ras]

For the record, EPD refusing to interact with modern technology in any way is just as absurd as having the worlds last highly qualified pre-natal neuro surgeon refusing to do a complicated surgery because he doesn't believe in the new "robo-scalpel".

In engineering, I am so far below most of the people here that I don't even plan to participate in the technical discussion in the near future, if ever. But, for me, it is sooo easy to understand Eric Dollard for being 'analog' and not 'digital'. The electrical science took the wrong turn in XX century. The whole technology we use today is a product of that bad decision, forced by economical and political reasons (to maintain slavery of the people). What would the world look like if it accepted Tesla's solutions? We cannot even imagine! Using modern 'digital' technology is the acceptance of the slavery, or could be understood that way.
Now, Eric may not understand things this way, but I do. And the fact that Eric refuses 'modern' technology only confirms (if you ask me) that he is a true scientist, genuine and honest. That, along the facts that he advocates 'live food' (raw vegan, I assume) and listening to Bach (for years, I have almost exclusively listened to Baroque) made him the most popular person on the planet for me .
One thing I think that Eric owes to the world is a book with title such as 'True Electricity' or something like that, with a thorough study of Teslian electricity vs. Einsteinian physics. This book would then, in an ideal world, be required in all high schools and universities in the world. All of them.

[t-rex]