Eric P. Dollard's "Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance" and "Lone Pine Writings"

Post new topic   Reply to topic

Go down

Eric P. Dollard's "Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance" and "Lone Pine Writings"

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:37 pm

.
My Ether friend, a fellow retired EE, showed me a copy of Eric P. Dollard’s The Lone Pine Writings A Common Language for Electrical Engineers. http://lonepinewritings.com/, http://ericpdollard.com/.

"The Electric Grid Is A Miracle Of Modern Technology. Or Is It? The Electricity Available Today Is Not The Same Electricity Developed By Nikola Tesla in 1888. Find Out Why Almost No One Alive Today Knows How The System Actually Works Anymore!"
REVEALED: Learn why electrical engineering "turned left" and abandoned its mathematical underpinnings. Find out "what electricity really is" and how it was correctly engineered at the dawn of the Electrical Era!

Unfortunately, my current financial status allows few such expenses - life's basic priorities come first, making the opportunity to read the text even more appreciated. I see the price is down to $12. Eric is a beloved shaman of free energy who lives in a car in the desert. I don’t want to watch his videos, how does he explain himself on paper? I see only one free paper available: Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance by Eric P. Dollard. 1990. http://ericpdollard.com/free-papers/, which lists http://ericpdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/dielectricity-and-capacitance-by-eric-dollard.pdf. This ex civil servant is humbled and embarrassed to ask Dollard to state and defend his theories and ideas in black and white and not behind a paywall.

The last time I gave Dollard a good look must have been over 10 years ago. I still vividly recall his description of electrifying an old lamp tube, and finding what appeared to be a spinning galaxy inside. I believed him and his story, but his theories made no sense to me and I went elsewhere.

My Ether friend wrote. He is far from standard physics, but standard physics is wrong and he is closer to being right then they are.
Airman. I agree. We both know standard physics is wrong.
 
In Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance, Dollard explains that dielectric field lines are real. They terminate on conductors. Magnetic field lines close on dielectric field lines, allowing energy to be stored within the space about dielectric lines. Space around magnets or capacitors is full of fibrous electric field lines that are like hydrostatic tubes of force first identified by Maxwell in order to explain the otherwise unresolved action at a distance problem. Space can be either dielectric or magnetic, in a dynamic equilibrium of electric and magnetic energy changing over time.

Dollard’s theory gives empty space physical properties in order to explain action at a distance. That's wrong. According to the charge field, the electric field is conveyed by the forward light speed motion of real photons. Those same photons are also spinning with a tangential velocity of light speed. Photon spins form the magnetic field.

Miles describes Maxwell’s hydrostatic force/toothpaste tube/rope/vortices/superstring precursor theory in his paper*, Maxwell's Equations are also Unified Field Equations. In it, Miles writes.
You should see that my spinning photons solve this problem immediately, since every “point” in the field can be inhabited by a real photon, and that real particle already has potential forces at right angles to one another. Maxwell's problem here never comes up for me. In my field, every point is already sub-magnetic and sub-electric, since every single photon already has the motions that cause both fields.

In The Lone Pine Writings, Dollard extends the same ideas of tangible space and counterspace. He introduces the minimum quantum energy unit, which he calls the “Planck”. The Planck is the product of both magnetic and dielectric spaces, sometimes manifesting as mass or energy. Dollard also introduces the notion that polarity is not plus or minus so much as male or female, the union of which is necessary to enable electric energy flows.

Anyone, Please feel free to discuss.

* http://milesmathis.com/index.html
14. Maxwell's Equations are Unified Field Equations.
http://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf. I show that the displacement field is really my charge field, and that Maxwell's equations are unified. 11pp.

15. Maxwell's Equations are Unified Field Equations, part 2.
http://milesmathis.com/disp2.pdf. I show how Maxwell's vortices fail, how to correct them, and how to calculate the charge field C from the Electrical Field E. 7pp.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 667
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Eric P. Dollard's "Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance" and "Lone Pine Writings"

Post by Nevyn on Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:57 pm

I've watched a lot of his videos when I was researching Tesla. I bought a few of his note books but it didn't really help that much. He has his way of seeing things and I have my own, it seems. I didn't take much time to try to reach some common ground though. Still, he has some interesting things to say and show. I was quite interested in the seismograph he was building a few years ago. Looked like it could detect earthquakes before they happened by listening to the earth. It is basically a Tesla Power Receiver.

He grew up around the old school engineers. Had a lot of the early attempts at radio (by Marconi, based on Tesla, but also many others) at his disposal. Huge coils and antennas, custom amplifiers and other circuits, etc. I believe most of it was destroyed by some vigilante mob. Aren't humans a great species! So much stuff lost because of ignorance and bigotry.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 870
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Eric P. Dollard's "Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance" and "Lone Pine Writings"

Post by Jared Magneson on Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:48 am

I find myself having a rough time with many of "these types", anymore. Especially in the years after Mathis's initial papers on the Charge Field. How can they not have bothered to do any research on electricity itself? How can they not know what electricity and magnetism are?

It's simple. They don't do any research, they just plod forward minus any new insight. It's pretty hard to take someone talking about electricity seriously when they don't know what it is at the foundational level. It's also pretty easy to see the holes in their theory.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 279
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Maxwell's Tubular Equations, and Dollard's Musical Seismograph

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:44 pm

.
Tubular equations.

You may have noticed Cr6 and I were on the subject of J.C. Maxwell in another thread, http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t418-matter-and-motion-j-c-maxwell-microfiche-of-original-book#3180. Just the other day, considering A Treatise on Electricity & Magnetism, https://archive.org/details/ATreatiseOnElectricityMagnetism, I felt there was little likelihood I could appreciate Maxwell’s original 20 (odd) equations since we are all taught Heaviside’s version - Maxwell’s four Equations. I said, “Is that story true or fake?”

Word search and review Maxwell’s frequent use of “tube”.

1. Example. In the (Table of) Contents. 293. Unit tubes of flow used as a complete method of determining the current.
2. Another example. pg 23, On Tubes and Lines of Flow.
If the space is so divided into tubes that the surface-integral for every tube is unity, the tubes are called Unit tubes, and the surface-integral over any finite surface 8 bounded by a closed curve L is equal to the number of such tubes which pass through 8 in the positive direction, or, what is the same thing, the number which pass through the closed curve L.

After some time you may observe tubes are the essential ingredient of Maxwell’s original equations. Please correct me if I’m wrong, Maxwell’s tubes are what Heaviside eliminated.

Jared, I’ve enjoyed a few aha moments just over the last day or so. Here’s how - interpret any theory with respect to the charge field. It gets easier and easier to compare and contrast or just demolish 'em.

Nevyn, yes, humans, like the mob and Dr. Frankenstein. I’ve always viewed Dollard as a mad solitary genius driven from “polite” society. So you were interested in the Earthquake detector eh, here’s the article.

ERIC DOLLARD’S MUSICAL SEISMOGRAPH
http://ericpdollard.com/2017/06/28/eric-dollards-musical-seismograph/
....
It uses a Tesla Converter to electrically (not electronically) amplify the low output of a seismic transducer (Earthquake detector) to an audible musical tone – tuned to the Pythagorean musical scale of course. The mechanical vibrations are one aspect of the Advanced Seismic Warning System, solar flux is another and the antenna structure that receives the telluric signals from above the Earth and from deep inside the Earth. When graphing these all out, it can predict Earthquakes 24-72 hours ahead of time. In this recent presentation, for the first time, we go into the mine and show the Tesla Converter creating an audible tone from the output of the seismic transducer.

There are actually a lot of aspects to this video including the revealing of an amplifier design that has never been seen before that can also be used as a musical stereo amplifier that just may give the highest quality output ever achieved. This is all revealed in this presentation.

Anything you’d care to add?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 667
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Eric P. Dollard's "Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance" and "Lone Pine Writings"

Post by Cr6 on Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:32 am

Dollard is interesting.  He reminds me of a modern Stubblefield as well with his Advanced Seismic Warning system. (How to explain it pre-Mathis/post-Mathis?)
Thanks for posting LTAM, I kind of forgot about his work after looking at a few things back in 2013-2014.
 
----------
The Stubblefield ground radio system was demonstrated for approximately one thousand Murray residents. Photographs of Stubblefield and his family, and a good crowd of witnesses from town, show the cell laying on the ground among all his assembled inventions; and a flower-pot sized coil of good volume. Other devices show motors and large capacitor stacks for aerial voice transmission experiments.

Stubblefield declares it to be an "energy receiver....a receptive cell for intercepting electrical ground waves". Its conductive ability somehow absorbs and directs the enormous volumes of earth energy.

Whether the current derived from this cell is electricity as we know it has been questioned. One indicator is not found when considering his use of the energy in lighting lamps. With this energy Nathan Stubblefield operated a score of arc lamps at full brightness for twenty-four hours a day. There was a definite trigger by which this energy was stimulated and maintained.

The induction coil which bears his name is equipped with three coils which are wrapped around and upon a heavy iron core. Bare iron wire and cotton-covered copper wire are wrapped side by side, comprising a primary coil body. Each layer of the primary coil  body is covered by a band of cotton insulation, bringing four wire leads to the coil terminus. Two leads of iron and two of copper are external to the coil. Commercial electrical power is obtained through these connective terminals.

In addition to this bimetallic winding, there is a third winding: the "secondary". This third coil is insulated from the primary bimetallic coil, serving as a trigger device. Presumably, a stimulating impulse shock was introduced into the tertiary coil, after which the upwelling electrical ground response brought forth powerful currents in both iron and copper coils.

Electrolytically (as a battery in acid or saltwater) the Stubblefield coil is disappointing, producing less then one volt according to those who have duplicated its construction. Stubblefield's bimetallic coil was a "plug": a receiver which intercepts the vast and free electrical reservoir of the ground itself. His patent and subsequent company brochures define the manner in which his earth battery was to be activated.

Technically, the Stubblefield device is a modified thermocouple (a bimetal in tight surface contact) but a thermocouple could not supply the degree of  power which he reported. While this arrangement could develop a few milliwatts of power in appropriately hot ground spots, the thermoelectric explanation of the device cannot explain the phenomenal output reported in the news reports of Stubblefield's demonstrations.

Furthermore, though the Stubblefield power receiver is wound like an induction coil, it produces a steady direct current output. This poses additional problems for the conventional engineer. Electrical induction only occurs with electrical alternations, oscillations, and impulses.

http://johnbedini.net/john34/stublefield1.html


-------
Link on making DIY Earth batteries.
http://www.thegoodsurvivalist.com/homemade-earth-battery-how-to-get-power-directly-from-mother-earth-to-power-your-clockswatchescalcsled-lights-and-more/

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 760
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Eric P. Dollard's "Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance" and "Lone Pine Writings"

Post by Nevyn on Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:59 pm

Jared, while I can appreciate your sentiment, and find myself thinking the same things often enough, I think it is helpful to realise that not everyone works at the low levels we like to discuss here. We, generally, are talking about the quantum world but people like Dollard, even Tesla himself, were more concerned with electricity and what they could do with it. Kind of like the EU people, they don't know what electricity and magnetism are, but they know what they can do and work from there. As Airman said, it is interesting to attempt a charge field version of there findings.

Although I will point out that Tesla was the closest to charge field theory than anyone before or after. Nothing he has said, that I know of, has contradicted the charge field. That is what building things does for you. You can't run away from reality when it is screaming at you.

Another person worth a look at, if you are interested in strange electrical things, is John Bedini. He also worked with stereo amplifiers that no-one thought should work, but did. Created a little charger that shouldn't charge, but did. I've built a prototype of one of these and managed to get 150V from a 12V power source. While there is very little current, the voltage is there, verified by looking at it on an oscilloscope. I had a Neon Lamp attached to the charging path and Neon Lamps won't light without at least 90V - 120V through them. That little sucker lit up so bright it scared the shit out of me. It did turn out that one of the potentiometers I had in the circuit to control it was arcing out internally but that only caused the super brightness, I could still get them to light after that, just not as bright, more of a normal glow for such lamps.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 870
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Eric P. Dollard's "Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance" and "Lone Pine Writings"

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:37 pm

I concur entirely. We wouldn't have anything at all without learning from all these people, even the ones who are wrong show us the right direction to go in most cases, with a critical eye.

I do find myself very humbled by Mathis and Tesla and many others, and often berate myself for not learning faster or being more critical. But it does get a LOT easier to spot logical flaws, bad math, and sloppy theory. Mathis's most recent paper on Lie-Go is a prime example - as I read it, I knew where he was going before he went there, for once. Mostly because I've debated that topic in FB groups a dozen times. And this week of course, plenty of rancorous discourse about Elon Musk and fake-ass SpaceX too. It's fun sometimes!

Jared Magneson

Posts : 279
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Eric P. Dollard's "Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance" and "Lone Pine Writings"

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:17 pm

.
The Charge Field. Photons. Everything we experience is due to photons. Photons are limited to forward and tangential spin motions at light speed velocity; photons may only interact through collisions.

Even though they are impossible to see, Miles has shown us the photons, through hundreds of individual or historic, cases, claims or events. At the same time demonstrating that the Charge Field is the true nature of the universe, or the closest we've come to understanding true nature so far. I’m convinced.

I’m also convinced that this is a unique moment in history – as Cr6 said, pre/post Mathis. Nobody but us knows it yet. We may be living in a post Mathis world, but we are still surrounded by pre Mathis ideas. People like Dollard may have great ideas that only need a photon perspective. Slowly, It helps my understanding, while I’m adding my voice, maybe help the world catch up.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 667
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Eric P. Dollard's "Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance" and "Lone Pine Writings"

Post by Jared Magneson on Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:56 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Even though they are impossible to see...

On the contrary - photons are all we can see!

Jared Magneson

Posts : 279
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

How does vision perception work

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:18 pm

.
LongtimeAirman wrote: Even though they are impossible to see...
Jared wrote: On the contrary - photons are all we can see!
Airman. True enough. We obviously don’t see individual photons, but that’s quibbling. A grace saving complete answer is called for, and how.
   
How does vision perception work? A good example on the subject of the pre/post Mathis divide. We must always reconsider our understanding in light of the charge field. Miles hasn’t addressed the subject directly (as far as I know), and so we must speculate; rudimentary physics only please, higher brain processing aspects are beyond me.

Look at that. Focus. The number of photons almost directly entering the eye in a given interval are very large. The brighter the object, the more photons enter the eye, our iris changes size to optimize the photon intensity levels received. Safe to say, photons entering the eye do strike the eye’s light detectors, the rods and cones. Our eyes are limited to the so-called visual spectrum. Miles has plenty of papers on light, beginning with Newton and Huygens.

It seems reasonable enough to assume there must be sufficient number of photons, of the necessary energy and size, in order for a rod or cone detection to take place. The rods and cones then activate for some tiny number of milliseconds, during which time many more photons have entered the eye.

I don't know. I see no evidence to believe we can detect individual photons. What do you think?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 667
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Eric P. Dollard's "Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance" and "Lone Pine Writings"

Post by Jared Magneson on Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:34 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:Airman.How does vision perception work?...

I don't know. I see no evidence to believe we can detect individual photons. What do you think?
.

I'm with you so far. Rods and cones are far, far larger than the photon. Perhaps it takes a sufficient amount of photons (intensity) to "trigger" a detection? So that our eyes are detecting, say, packets of photons or many millions per register?

I think Miles gets close to this topic in his papers on color, where he shows there are only two fundamental visible-light colors, and the rest are blends and blurs of groups of those two. So color perception might just be a matter of the type of cells in a given eye being able to resolve those blends and blurs? I don't think the ocular nerves are binary, "on-off" type transmitters, since it's chemical and not just electric. Perhaps the brain translates these packets or groups of photons into the colors as an evolutionary defense/survival mechanism?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 279
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Eric P. Dollard's "Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance" and "Lone Pine Writings"

Post by Jared Magneson on Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:03 am

So I spent some time researching light and organic (eye) receptors in creatures, including us humans, and of course the Mantis Shrimp is the most insightful of any such research. They have 12 types of receptors to our 3, and 4 filters to our 1 (which in humans shields against UV light, but the 4 in mantis shrimp filter between various wavelengths).

Now if we analyze this from a Mathisian standpoint, it gets more interesting. It turns out "they" have even studied "circular polarization" which is actually the magnetic component of all light. I even found a mainstream diagram showcasing this "circular polarization":



In any and all mainstream theory, there's absolutely no way I've seen to account for "circular polarization". What is polarizing the light, to give it such spin? From the Wiki:

In electrodynamics, circular polarization of an electromagnetic wave is a polarization state in which, at each point, the electric field of the wave has a constant magnitude but its direction rotates with time at a steady rate in a plane perpendicular to the direction of the wave.

So we can see there that they're trying to describe it but miss half the field. It's not just the electric field, or in this case it's not electrical at all, but magnetic. What else would have a constant magnitude rotating "perpendicular to the direction of the wave"?

They're conflating electricity and magnetism again, yet another area where Mathis has answers and they have only the vaguest of clues as to what's going on.

Also very interesting, they appear to be using a GPU-type parallelization technique as opposed to a CPU-type cerebral acceleration that humans use, in comparison:

Research also shows their visual experience of colours is not very different from humans'. The eyes are actually a mechanism that operates at the level of individual cones and makes the brain more efficient. This system allows visual information to be preprocessed by the eyes instead of the brain, which would otherwise have to be larger to deal with the stream of raw data and thus require more time and energy. While the eyes themselves are complex and not yet fully understood, the principle of the system appears to be simple.[34] It is similar in function to the human eye but works in the opposite manner. In the human brain, the inferior temporal cortex has a huge amount of colour-specific neurons which process visual impulses from the eyes to create colourful experiences. The mantis shrimp instead uses the different types of photoreceptors in its eyes to perform the same function as the human brain neurons, resulting in a hardwired and more efficient system for an animal that requires rapid colour identification. Humans have fewer types of photoreceptors, but more colour-tuned neurons, while mantis shrimps appears to have fewer colour neurons and more classes of photoreceptors.[35]

More to follow. New thread to stop hijacking this one, though. Smile

Jared Magneson

Posts : 279
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Circular Polarization

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:37 pm

.
Jared wrote. What else would have a constant magnitude rotating "perpendicular to the direction of the wave"?



Airman. Look at the AX spin shown. It is “moving” slowly toward the viewer. The true particle motion must be either to the right or left.

As in our recent discussions, we orient the top level spin axis in the forward direction. The not insignificant A particle is rotating perpendicular to the direction of the total, AX particle. The A rotation, perpendicular to the forward direction isn’t magnetic; it is strongly and circularly polarized.  
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 667
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Eric P. Dollard's "Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance" and "Lone Pine Writings"

Post by Jared Magneson on Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:43 pm

Good point, and thank you for the correction! You're right, though to call it circular polarization is kind of a misnomer - theirs, not ours.

And yes, since we're talking about visible photons here, not larger charge-channeling particles such as the electron or proton, the magnetic component isn't really to the point. These photons will however impart some spin, in collisions in our eyes, but again spin isn't necessarily magnetic.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 279
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Eric P. Dollard's "Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance" and "Lone Pine Writings"

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum