Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[7imix]

I would suggest that it will take an American, to directly call them on the phone, call the Chairman or a committee member, someone in charge. Ask them for these lectures politely. Offer money. Physically go there and ask for them politely, bribe them with good old cash, if no success, hound them day and night relentlessly, until they finally break and supply us with those damn lectures!!

I have been planning on going down there in person to ask. I meant to go this month but it was on the 12th and I missed it.

[LtBolo]

Brilliant discussions of theory. Way over my head in most cases. I try to reduce things to the simplest thing that I can visualize or experiment with mechanical analogs and whatnot. Has served me pretty well, but has its limitations.

I do have a working theory and I would like comments from some of you more theoretically minded individuals.


Simple question: When the charge density of a conductor (like a capacitive top load) changes over time, resulting in a propagating wave in whatever medium that EM waves propagate in, is any energy consumed by the wave?

At first blush it would appear 'no', given that when I push charge into a sphere it stores energy as 0.5*C*V^2, where C is the effective capacity of the sphere and V=q/C, and when I discharge the sphere I get that energy back minus resistive losses.

Somebody please correct me...I keep arriving at the conclusion that the longitudinal wave emitted by the top load consumes no energy, even though it clearly possesses some.

[Nhopa]

Mechanical break

[QUOTE=Nhopa;179124]Hi all:
Reading the notes, the name of two items often come up , the "sensitive device" and the "mercury break" or "Thomas clockwork with wheel". The sensitive device looks very similar to a Reed switch, so the question is, can one use the Reed switch, inserted into a coil, in lieu of the sensitive device's glass tube with the two wires?
The question about the break is what kind of mechanical device, if any, can be used instead of the mercury break or the Thomas clockwork? Is there anything commercially available out there? If not, are there plans available to build one of these devices at home?

Hi all:

A few weeks-ago I have asked the above questions but got no response. If we are going to experiment I think it is important to know what equipment to use. Any suggestions?

[john_g]

[QUOTE=Nhopa;181206]

Hi all:
Reading the notes, the name of two items often come up , the "sensitive device" and the "mercury break" or "Thomas clockwork with wheel". The sensitive device looks very similar to a Reed switch, so the question is, can one use the Reed switch, inserted into a coil, in lieu of the sensitive device's glass tube with the two wires?


The question about the break is what kind of mechanical device, if any, can be used instead of the mercury break or the Thomas clockwork? Is there anything commercially available out there? If not, are there plans available to build one of these devices at home?

Hi all:

A few weeks-ago I have asked the above questions but got no response. If we are going to experiment I think it is important to know what equipment to use. Any suggestions?

Hi

I'm wondering if it was Seth Thomas, whom Tesla was rererring to; a well known clockmaker who also made clockwork electrical items, for switching stage lighting etc. There is a book by Tran Duy Ly, on S Thomas, but I haven't managed to find a web copy.

Regards

John

[jake]

TRT calculator

Anyone:

How was the 62% calculated? Does it only apply to round conductors? Does it come from the wind to wind capacitance?

Many Thanks,
jake

In an effort to make friends and get an answer to the question above. I put together an Excel calculator with the equations Eric posted. It works pretty well, except for the extra coil calculations end up with a negative number. Maybe one of you can figure out what I did wrong.

Now would someone please point me in the direction where I can find and answer to the question above. I know Eric said it was a requirement for but why 62%.

Just point me to a page in a document and I can do the rest.

Thanks,


p.s. I just noticed I cant post Excel files if you want it. I will send it to you just pm me.

[Raui]

Energy, Work, Power and Misc.

I thought I'd pop in and give my two cents on this whole energy, work and power debate, it's application to power magnification and to help clear up a few things which have been asked. This is just a summary of my current understanding which may or may not be able to help those concerned come to a further understanding of what Eric is trying to say.

First of all we'll go back to our fundamental dimensional relations of the difference between energy, work and power. Energy measured is measured in joules, or plancks per second where the Planck was defined by Eric as being of dimensions joule-seconds. Energy is an implied quantity which is only of interest when conditions in a system are changing. If something in our universe changes in any way energy must be equally exchanged between it's various forms (electromagnetic, kinetic, etc.) as to remain a constant quantity as per the Law of the Conservation of Energy or for the Mr Heaviside's out there - 'The Law of the Continuity of Energy'.

When something changes and energy is exchanged there are two more quantities we can talk about and they are work and power. Work is also measured in Joules and is the difference in the energy magnitude from before the system changed to after the system changed. It should be noted that here we have 2 quantities, being energy and work, which have the same dimesions of Joules but represent two slightly different things which is a theme which pops up in the work of Mr Dollard (E,e,I,i being an example).

Power is measured in Watts, Joules per second or Plancks per second per second as per Dollard's units. Power and work are very closely related in that power is measured as the work per second. So basically when the level of energy changes within a system the magnitude of the change is the work and the rapidity of the change is the power.

Okay now let's apply our now defined quantities into a practical situation - the charging and discharging of a capacitor. Let's say I have a 12v battery and I want to charge a 1 Farad capacitor and I am going to charge it through a 1k ohm resistor. The energy stored within a capacitor is given by;
1.

So, from the above equation, after we charge the capacitor we can conclude that we have 72 Joules of energy stored in the dielectric field of the capacitor. The work done in charging this capacitor is given by;
2.

Since we started off with a totally uncharged capacitor (v=0 so E=0) we have done 72-0=72 Joules of work. It should be noted that if the capacitor was charged to any non-zero voltage our values of work and energy wouldn't be equal and so here we have a case of two quantities with the same dimensions having two different meanings for if they had the same meaning they would be equivilent at all times.

So now we want to know how much power or activity we just caused from our charging. Our formula for power is given by;
3.

We already know our work (72 joules) but how much time elapsed in charging our capacitor? Luckily know that the time to charge/discharge a capacitor through a resistance r to just over 63% of it's final value is given by;
4.

I will not try to prove this as it can easily be googled by the time for it to be charged, practically that is since theoretically it is never exactly 12v, is given by 5 times our time constant and so the time taken to charge or discharge our capacitor is given by;
5.

Therefore combining equation 1,2,3 and 5 we get;
6.

So in charging our capacitor of 1 Farad through a 1k resistor to 12 volts we get 0.0144 Watts of electrical activity. Now let's disconnect but not discharge the capacitor and connect it to a separate circuit so that the capacitor discharges into a 10 ohm resistor. Plugging 10 ohms into equation 6 gives 1.44 Watts discharge. The energy stored in the capacitor on charging is the same amount of energy released by the capacitor on discharging, use the above equations to prove this for yourself if don't wish to take my word for it.

I do not have a full chart to prove what I am saying but how about we look at a simple circuit simulator. Here is an example of what I am saying. Notice the peak values for power measured across each resistor.

--

Now for another matter which has come up; 'I do not follow your conclusions at all. Low r or high 1/r (conductance) aids or creates a better condition for transfering energy et al. so I cant even imagine how you are applying the word consumes.' Your thinking in terms of energy when you should be thinking in terms of fields and their actions on the circuit.

Think of resistance as opening the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the resistor. As we add resistance the voltage delivered by a collapsing magnetic field (or discharging inductor) climbs. I believe you are aware of this as you mentioned it in an earlier post. Current is usually associated with a magnetic field and an inductor is a storehouse of the magnetic field. When we connect a large resistance (or open the circuit) the magnetic field is allowed to collapse and thus the inductor discharges which results in a high webers per second or voltage. The magnetic field is consumed by a resistance to produce a voltage, the lower the conductance the lower the voltage that will be developed. It can be shown here that a magnetic field is preserved by a conductance.

Now think of conductance as closing the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the conductance. As we add conductance the current delivered by a collapsing dielectric field (or discharging capacitor) increases. Voltage is usually associated with a dielectric field and as we know a capacitor is the storehouse for the dielectric field. When we connect a large conductance (or close the circuit) the dielectric field is allowed to collapse and thus the capacitor discharges which results in a high coulombs per second or current. The dielectric field is consumed by a conductance to produce a voltage, the lower the resistance the lower the current that will be developed. It can be shown here that a dielectric field is preserved by resistance.

I hope this helps.

NOTE: Voltage is not just a phenomena of one field of induction and nor is current. Total voltage and current contain elements of both dielectric and magnetic fields. Hence Eric's E,e,I,i.
Raui

[garrettm4]

Raui,

That was an excellent and very thoughtful comment on the subject of Energy Work & Power and how they are interrelated. You've done a great job of describing the subject better than I did. Thanks.

I fear my explanations are prolix and opaque to most readers, most of my vocabulary and implied connotations are taken from the 1880s to 1920s so I can see why reading my posts might be confusing for some. Also I am an avid user of e E i & I and angular frequency instead of cycles per second in my own work and ironically find it hard to read V & I now. Its like watching a movie halfway though with subtitles on and then taking them off, its harder to follow the movie now, even though the subtitles were annoying at first.


Kokomoj0,

It would seem we can only agree to disagree on most anything remotely theoretical, at any rate, good luck in your Tesla Transformer construction efforts. Maybe someone else can answer your questions in away that you see fit.


Sputins,

Thanks for the info, I think I am going to ask them (if I can get a hold of anyone first) for another persons lecture and then when I am talking to them ask for the Dollard lectures, I don't think they would see that coming.


Madhatter,

One quick question to your response about L & C annulling in the Tesla Transformer. If the reactance of L & C sum to a zero magnitude vector or reactance X=0=XL-XC (saying they cancel isn't completely correct). Wouldn't that imply a RESONANT condition such as a series LC arrangement, this being in a very unfamiliar one wire (having no return wire) configuration? If so, this makes the "quadra-polar resonance" of LC & MK much more understandable for myself.

Garrett M

[Raui]

Raui,

That was an excellent and very thoughtful comment on the subject of Energy Work & Power and how they are interrelated. I also like how you touched upon Electrical Activity as well. You've done a great job of describing the subject better than I did. Thanks.

I fear my explanations are prolix and opaque to most readers, most of my vocabulary and implied connotations are taken from the 1880s to 1920s so I can see why reading my posts might be confusing for some. Also I am an avid user of e E i & I and angular frequency instead of cycles per second in my own work and ironically find it hard to read V & I now. Its like watching a movie halfway though with subtitles on and then taking them off, its harder to follow the movie now, even though the subtitles were annoying at first.

Thank you for your very kind comments. I have been a little unsure if my understanding of E,e,I,i was concrete. I know I'm on the right track though. From Symbolic Representation of the Alternating Electric Wave Eric gives the Total Voltage as E = IR - jIX and total Current being I = EG + jEB. So I always took it as meaning that e = jIX and i = jEB. Does this conform to your ideas of E,e,I,i?

Raui

[Kokomoj0]

I thought I'd pop in and give my two cents on this whole energy, work and power debate, it's application to power magnification and to help clear up a few things which have been asked. This is just a summary of my current understanding which may or may not be able to help those concerned come to a further understanding of what Eric is trying to say.

First of all we'll go back to our fundamental dimensional relations of the difference between energy, work and power. Energy measured is measured in joules, or plancks per second where the Planck was defined by Eric as being of dimensions joule-seconds. Energy is an implied quantity which is only of interest when conditions in a system are changing. If something in our universe changes in any way energy must be equally exchanged between it's various forms (electromagnetic, kinetic, etc.) as to remain a constant quantity as per the Law of the Conservation of Energy or for the Mr Heaviside's out there - 'The Law of the Continuity of Energy'.

When something changes and energy is exchanged there are two more quantities we can talk about and they are work and power. Work is also measured in Joules and is the difference in the energy magnitude from before the system changed to after the system changed. It should be noted that here we have 2 quantities, being energy and work, which have the same dimesions of Joules but represent two slightly different things which is a theme which pops up in the work of Mr Dollard (E,e,I,i being an example).

Power is measured in Watts, Joules per second or Plancks per second per second as per Dollard's units. Power and work are very closely related in that power is measured as the work per second. So basically when the level of energy changes within a system the magnitude of the change is the work and the rapidity of the change is the power.

Okay now let's apply our now defined quantities into a practical situation - the charging and discharging of a capacitor. Let's say I have a 12v battery and I want to charge a 1 Farad capacitor and I am going to charge it through a 1k ohm resistor. The energy stored within a capacitor is given by;
1.

So, from the above equation, after we charge the capacitor we can conclude that we have 72 Joules of energy stored in the dielectric field of the capacitor. The work done in charging this capacitor is given by;
2.

Since we started off with a totally uncharged capacitor (v=0 so E=0) we have done 72-0=72 Joules of work. It should be noted that if the capacitor was charged to any non-zero voltage our values of work and energy wouldn't be equal and so here we have a case of two quantities with the same dimensions having two different meanings for if they had the same meaning they would be equivilent at all times.

So now we want to know how much power or activity we just caused from our charging. Our formula for power is given by;
3.

We already know our work (72 joules) but how much time elapsed in charging our capacitor? Luckily know that the time to charge/discharge a capacitor through a resistance r to just over 63% of it's final value is given by;
4.

I will not try to prove this as it can easily be googled by the time for it to be charged, practically that is since theoretically it is never exactly 12v, is given by 5 times our time constant and so the time taken to charge or discharge our capacitor is given by;
5.

Therefore combining equation 1,2,3 and 5 we get;
6.

So in charging our capacitor of 1 Farad through a 1k resistor to 12 volts we get 0.0144 Watts of electrical activity. Now let's disconnect but not discharge the capacitor and connect it to a separate circuit so that the capacitor discharges into a 10 ohm resistor. Plugging 10 ohms into equation 6 gives 1.44 Watts discharge. The energy stored in the capacitor on charging is the same amount of energy released by the capacitor on discharging, use the above equations to prove this for yourself if don't wish to take my word for it.

I do not have a full chart to prove what I am saying but how about we look at a simple circuit simulator. Here is an example of what I am saying. Notice the peak values for power measured across each resistor.

--

Now for another matter which has come up; 'I do not follow your conclusions at all. Low r or high 1/r (conductance) aids or creates a better condition for transfering energy et al. so I cant even imagine how you are applying the word consumes.' Your thinking in terms of energy when you should be thinking in terms of fields and their actions on the circuit.

Think of resistance as opening the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the resistor. As we add resistance the voltage delivered by a collapsing magnetic field (or discharging inductor) climbs. I believe you are aware of this as you mentioned it in an earlier post. Current is usually associated with a magnetic field and an inductor is a storehouse of the magnetic field. When we connect a large resistance (or open the circuit) the magnetic field is allowed to collapse and thus the inductor discharges which results in a high webers per second or voltage. The magnetic field is consumed by a resistance to produce a voltage, the lower the conductance the lower the voltage that will be developed. It can be shown here that a magnetic field is preserved by a conductance.

Now think of conductance as closing the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the conductance. As we add conductance the current delivered by a collapsing dielectric field (or discharging capacitor) increases. Voltage is usually associated with a dielectric field and as we know a capacitor is the storehouse for the dielectric field. When we connect a large conductance (or close the circuit) the dielectric field is allowed to collapse and thus the capacitor discharges which results in a high coulombs per second or current. The dielectric field is consumed by a conductance to produce a voltage, the lower the resistance the lower the current that will be developed. It can be shown here that a dielectric field is preserved by resistance.

I hope this helps.

NOTE: Voltage is not just a phenomena of one field of induction and nor is current. Total voltage and current contain elements of both dielectric and magnetic fields. Hence Eric's E,e,I,i.
Raui

you had my undivided attention until you got to where I highlighted.

It seems everyone is missing the point I was trying to convey that is that a cap integrates the pulse which can be computed in terms of power and presuming everyone understood this was in terms of a filter.

When in terms of transmission where we want the impulse to travel through the capacitor it exhibits the "appearance" of a series resistance in the form of reactance which has the highest "conductance" at fo, OR the lowest apparent "resistance" at fo. Just hit 1/x on your calculator to get one or the other, simple as that. Transmission line does not apply in the same sense as I used. (I better add here that it depends on what type of circuit you have, but I presume you all get my drift)

Just because you have higher voltages and shorter time frame pulses does not mean you have a magnification of "power".

Tesla used the term "power", so I use the term "power" and stayed in those units in my posts. It does not negate anything Eric said nor does anything that Eric said negate what I am saying.

I gave an example of how you could go to from 1 to a million volts in with narrower pulses and discharge roughly the same power in each case because it is time dependent. That was the point. Narrower pulses does not = magnification of power.



as I stated and you only need go as far as yahoo (ironicaly the first thing that popped up):

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

"Consumption of electricity" is a non-scientific expression often used to describe the conversion of electrical energy to mechanical work, heat or light.

The Joule is the unit of measurement used to blah blah blah......
Define Consumption of Electricity.? - Yahoo! Answers

4 years ago

Now I do not intend to be a language cop here but consume is completely the wrong word to use and gives the exact opposite implication and in some cases does not even apply in any respect to what is in reality "scientifically" or "electrically" <--(used generically in its most expansive term) is happening.

It is simply the wrong word especially when talking about conductance resulting in conflation of terms.


aside from that you repeated "mostly" what I said until you got to the consume part

I will put the translation of what I said in [ brackets ]
fine but splitting it up into 4 quadrants and 4 elemental forces does not change the fact that somewhere in there is a power measurement and in a manner of speaking for simplification your voltage and current is if you will humor me a balancing scale.

[meaning an energized coil has a "finite" amount of total energy in its field, therefore, upon the collapse of the field, the higher the "resistance" or reciprocally the lower the "conductance" the less current will flow and higher the voltage will rise, power remains the same]

In other words when that magnetic field collapses if there is no where for the current to flow the voltage will try to go toward infinity.

[people for whatever reason are now trying to force the application of conductance for everything rather than just state high resistance as high resistance and appears to be becoming more of a word-smithing exercise than that of science.]

On the other hand when there is somewhere for the current to go the voltage will be based on the source resistance of the coil in reference to the load.

[meaning higher conductance OR LOWER resistance, it goes without saying that the voltage will be not rise as high across a load as it would have with NO load OR near infinite resistance which IS THE SAME as near 0 conductance.]

That said, with voltage and current we can measure power which will be based on the strength and quantity of the magnetic field and the coil characteristics.

[Keeping in mind both the source internal resistance and the load resistance will effect the voltage and current response.]

Nothing said so far negates my claim you see.


basically you started and did say pretty much the same thing I did only reversed it into conductance and you all really should loose words like harvest and consume if we want to talk engineer to engineer rather than like the power company talking to the clueless who would not know the difference anyway.

[jpolakow]

Think of resistance as opening the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the resistor. As we add resistance the voltage delivered by a collapsing magnetic field (or discharging inductor) climbs. I believe you are aware of this as you mentioned it in an earlier post. Current is usually associated with a magnetic field and an inductor is a storehouse of the magnetic field. When we connect a large resistance (or open the circuit) the magnetic field is allowed to collapse and thus the inductor discharges which results in a high webers per second or voltage. The magnetic field is consumed by a resistance to produce a voltage, the lower the conductance the lower the voltage that will be developed. It can be shown here that a magnetic field is preserved by a conductance.

Now think of conductance as closing the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the conductance. As we add conductance the current delivered by a collapsing dielectric field (or discharging capacitor) increases. Voltage is usually associated with a dielectric field and as we know a capacitor is the storehouse for the dielectric field. When we connect a large conductance (or close the circuit) the dielectric field is allowed to collapse and thus the capacitor discharges which results in a high coulombs per second or current. The dielectric field is consumed by a conductance to produce a voltage, the lower the resistance the lower the current that will be developed. It can be shown here that a dielectric field is preserved by resistance.

I hope this helps.

NOTE: Voltage is not just a phenomena of one field of induction and nor is current. Total voltage and current contain elements of both dielectric and magnetic fields. Hence Eric's E,e,I,i.
Raui

This is something that I was thinking about lately. We know for there to be electrical activity (and Planck's) there must be a dielectric and magnetic component. Then if we have a charging capacitor, we have a displacement current I. This consists of dielectric lines of force in the capacitor. However in order for there to be Planck's charging the capacitor there must be some magnetic component as well. So are there magnetic lines of force in the capacitor(dielectric) as well? Where is the magnetic component?

[Web000x]

This is something that I was thinking about lately. We know for there to be electrical activity (and Planck's) there must be a dielectric and magnetic component. Then if we have a charging capacitor, we have a displacement current I. This consists of dielectric lines of force in the capacitor. However in order for there to be Planck's charging the capacitor there must be some magnetic component as well. So are there magnetic lines of force in the capacitor(dielectric) as well? Where is the magnetic component?

The dielectric lines of force, Psi, are dragging along the conductor as they fill in the dielectric of the capacitor. The dragging of Psi/second along the wires connected to the capacitor causes a displacement current which produces magnetism.

Dave

[madhatter]

Madhatter,

One quick question to your response about L & C annulling in the Tesla Transformer. If the reactance of L & C sum to a zero magnitude vector or reactance X=0=XL-XC (saying they cancel isn't completely correct). Wouldn't that imply a RESONANT condition such as a series LC arrangement, this being in a very unfamiliar one wire (having no return wire) configuration? If so, this makes the "quadra-polar resonance" of LC & MK much more understandable for myself.

Garrett M

As best as I understand it that's correct. And yes, annulment or cancel would not be a technically correct term as it's a transform into counterspace as I understand it. Hence the need for further research.

[Kokomoj0]

As best as I understand it that's correct. And yes, annulment or cancel would not be a technically correct term as it's a transform into counterspace as I understand it. Hence the need for further research.

they cancel in terms of appearing to the circuit to be inductively reactant or capacitvely reactant which occurs (off center to fo).

working together, their combination then appears to the circuit to be a pure or nonreactive resistance at fo absolute, (in ideal conditions).

as you say you are still left with the resistive elements

or if you prefer the low conductance side, it would be a nonreactive conductance.

[garrettm4]

CP Steinmetz - Theory & Calculation of Transient Electric Phenomena & Oscillations 3rd Ed, 5th Imp [1920]
Capacity of a Sphere in space, page 418, Transient Phenomena, Sub Section E
also
High-Frequency Conductors, page 420, Chapter IX

An interesting thought is that of electrostatic discharge. Walking across some carpet you "charge" your person to a high potential. If we think in-terms of lines of induction, we become an end terminal of these lines and our self-capacity is very small so we have a high electrostatic potential associated with our body relative to our surroundings. The reason this appears to be a "one wire" discharge can be seen through the eyes of mutual capacity. The lines of induction produced by rubbing our shoes on the carpet induced a field of flux surrounding our body; this field is mutual to all of our surroundings. The subsequent discharge is that of self-capacity, although we are mutual to many metallic surfaces we discharge, via dielectric saturation of the air, to only one surface. If that specific surfaces capacity relative to our mutual capacity is very small we are still somewhat "charged" and can continue to shock more things we come close to.

I don't know if that came close to answering your question but was at least it was an attempt.


Raui,

One thing to point out, is that in Symbolic Representation of Alternating Electric Waves

[Raui]

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 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." This is what physics 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.

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

73 DE N6KPH

and here;

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.

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

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, 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. 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)

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!

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, however Eric is moving away from an electron based electricity.

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.

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