Jump to content


Photo

The Dollard "Four Quadrant Theory"


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 jimm

jimm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

Posted 31 July 2013 - 12:49 PM

I was wondering if anyone here has read,scanned, or studied the Four Quadrant Theory put forth by Mr. Dollard ?

If so, what do you think of it?

 

A copy can be found on the Gestaltreality website.

http://www.gestaltre...s-of-induction/


  • 0

#2 Robert

Robert

    Member

  • Translation team
  • PipPip

Posted 31 July 2013 - 01:48 PM

I think he's right that someone not already infected with the "mind virus" of the mainstream physics model will have an easier time of it, like the Korean student he mentions. Time and again, while reading, I find myself thinking of charge as electrons, and coulombs as charge. Aaaah! But the hint of becoming a "natural philosopher" is so alluring that I keep going.


  • 0

#3 G4ΓΓ3ττ

G4ΓΓ3ττ

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • Location"Ain't nobody got time for that!"

Posted 31 July 2013 - 04:05 PM

Robert,

 

In Dollard's system Coulombs are the units of electrostatic charge (or "dielectric induction" as Eric would prefer to say), he mainly just want's people to think outside the wire. Regardless of what electrons do (and they do exist), the Poyntine vector and thus energy flow is related to the electric and magnetic fields and not necessarily the charge carriers themselves. While the magnetic field does actually start from the inside of the wire (fields aren’t really "only on the outside"), the Poytine flux travels between the two parallel wires of a transmission line and drags slightly into the wire to provide energy to the resistive losses. Going to school doesn't destroy these understandings, it’s just that with chemistry, semiconductors and plasma, electrons play a dominate role in the movement of electrical energy. However, in a transformer, there is no galvanic coupling so the field energy is what passes from one winding to the other. Hence Eric's strong distinction between "electronic" and "electrical."

 

Jimm,

 

I've read it, though I don't think there is anything revolutionary in that one. Eric seems to be going over basic situations regarding AC circuits and covers the flow of power and Hevisides telegrapher equation. Although he brings in his "versor" operator near the end, its not enought to get a feel for what he's trying to convey. The next book to read after this one is Symbolic Representation of the Generalized Electric Wave this is where he gets more specific on what the "versor" math is all about. I think the major point in his books, is the thought that you can change in the induction factor to return more reactive power than taken, which according to Eric and Jim Murray can be done with an over excited synchronous motor. As well as the "synthesis" of certain line parameters such as a capacitive current from a magnetic device like the synchronous motor or the effects of time-variant reactances and how they act.


  • 0

#4 jimm

jimm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

Posted 01 August 2013 - 03:38 PM

Garrett,

 

I agree that the 4 quadrant theory is not one of his better presentations. Even at the end there is no conclusion he comes to other than to say that each quadrant has it's own 4 quadrants associated with it. That is  like a mirror reflection upon from another mirror, giving the "infinity effect" which leaves the reader wondering what he just read.  If his intent was to teach the uninitiated  basic tenants of engineering, he made it so abstruse, I/m sure a newbie would walk away from it. 

A versor is nothing more than than a rotational vector associated with Pythagoras and trig. It's vectors! why not use common terms that people have heard of ? Worse yet, the first statement out of the gate is wrong were he says that the sqrt(+1) has roots in -1, +1...not so!

First of all, it's not an equation to be "satisfied" and the first tenant of versor math is stated as r^2 = 1 , which DOES have roots in in (-1,+1).

 

It;s better that you guys are doing your own research from the progenitors of engineering on your own rather than depending solely on Dollard.

Of particular interest (for me) is how the old aether equations described it's behavior and how that squares with our inkling of longitudinal waves.

 

Aether was seen as being discredited in 1887 with the Michelson-morley experiment, but the premise was light media. None the less, the aether was discarded because nobody could prove it's existence with the instruments of the time.

 

I saw that old Borderland (20+ years old) video where they got 108% out of that "variable reluctance generator" . What ever happened to it?

You would think that these things would be in production by now...


  • 0

#5 Robert

Robert

    Member

  • Translation team
  • PipPip

Posted 01 August 2013 - 05:56 PM

Hi Jimm,

 

Anyone who has read your posts on energeticforum.com, which has to be a majority here, gets the idea.

 

Please post some details of what you are doing.


  • 0

#6 jimm

jimm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

Posted 01 August 2013 - 06:34 PM

Hi Jimm,

 

Anyone who has read your posts on energeticforum.com, which has to be a majority here, gets the idea.

 

Please post some details of what you are doing.

Are you sure you can handle it?  It might cure your "mind virus" and you may never be able to  drink  Koolaid again !  :) 

If you read my posts, it should be clear what my investigative focus is about. I did post a vid of an interesting phenomena. Did you look at at?

 

None the less, when I have the opportunity to take some pictures of my new TMT project I will post it.  The resonator (extra coil) form is built but I want to take a pic before I wind it.

How is your project coming?

What is YOUR take on the 4Q theory?  Did it help you in any way?


  • 0

#7 Robert

Robert

    Member

  • Translation team
  • PipPip

Posted 01 August 2013 - 07:30 PM

Go ahead and post it, don't worry about my ability to handle it.

 

I'm a beginner, still learning, and I'm not the one obsessively slagging anyone off (or at all), so I don't need to prove anything.


  • 0

#8 jimm

jimm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

Posted 01 August 2013 - 08:34 PM

Go ahead and post it, don't worry about my ability to handle it.

 

I'm a beginner, still learning, and I'm not the one obsessively slagging anyone off (or at all), so I don't need to prove anything.

 

I didn't obsessively slag anyone. Not even you!  You seem to have a preconceived notion about me that is incorrect.

I made some observations about a disturbing situation which is supported by the persons own words in videos and history.

Those posts came from an epiphany after watching and listening to the vids ( both sides) very carefully. I was was extremely disappointed when the reality became clear.

 

Also,I have been contact with some of the players, have you?

 

Homeless people are very familiar to me because I try to help them if I can.  The trick is to build a rapport  if possible so that they can ASK for help ( yes there is always an underlying cause) and accept the terms of the help. If that can't be done, the condition will continue.

 

Showing up with housing or money after listening to a sad tale won't help in he long run. Everything is short term with these folks as history has shown. Many run small cons like "my car ran out gas and my mother is dying in the hospital in **fill in remote city name here**  and I desperately need $20 so I can get there....bla...bla...bla...etc...etc.

Sometimes all I can do is feed them, but I take them to the eatery, buy the food and make sure they eat it. (some will try to sell it!!!!)

Get the picture ?

Now, please, lets argue about this stuff here . You have your opinion, I have mine. Lets agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Again, did the 4Q help you in any way or did you find it intimidating?


  • 0

#9 G4ΓΓ3ττ

G4ΓΓ3ττ

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • Location"Ain't nobody got time for that!"

Posted 01 August 2013 - 08:48 PM

Jimm,

 

Thank you for the information on versors! Do you have any references I could look up? As I attempted to look them up at one time and found nothing useful, except Hamilton’s prolix and opaque Quaternions. At the time of my study of Eric’s paper I just treated the k "versor" as a unit vector that rotated electrical quantities 90 degrees.

 

From all my reading, everyone uses unique language for electrical quantities and concepts. Steinmetz uses "Electric Field" for the Poyntine Vector or electrical power and "Dielectric Field" for the E-Field, which can be quite confusing at first read--I actually got into a couple of arguments over his definitions that conflicted with today's. Heaviside brings up a confusing "convection current" (and uses it in distinctly different context than conduction or displacement currents). I recently saw this same phrase used in a 2012 paper that made me even more confused on its meaning. There are many more examples but it’s safe to say that unique language is pretty common among the giants of electrical theory.

 

To Eric's defense, he takes Heaviside’s work as inspiration, both in his tone of speech (jokes and such) and his concept of mathematics: mathematics is an experimental science and can be made to serve new purposes decided by the "master"--paraphrasing of course. Heaviside's Operational Calculus comes to mind. Also, I think he uses the 4th power of k (k^4 = 1) (a unit vector?) to get those roots (+1, -1, j, -j) and goes on to use the 8th power of n (n^8 = 1) for his Generalized Electric Wave paper. I believe the idea is to extend the Steinmetz j operator to develop new possibilities for the examination of AC waves. Like the consumption and production of reactive power, and the consumption and production of real power. For instance, a parametric machine that can return more reactive energy than it took to run, real power remaining hypothetically constant. Which can only happen when you distort the wave-shape of the AC wave. Steinmetz covers this distortion and depicts a hysteresis loops showing what some would call the "synthesis" of electrical energy. Interestingly, the age old synchronous motor seems be the culprit here. This specific example appears to be Eric's, Murray's and Steinmetz favorite point of reference.


  • 0

#10 Robert

Robert

    Member

  • Translation team
  • PipPip

Posted 01 August 2013 - 09:45 PM

Jimm, you're lumping together all people who are or have been "homeless", including myself. Eric's theoretical work, as exemplified by the long technical posts to energeticforum.com, demonstrates a more than average time horizon, as opposed to your prejudiced caricature of not being able to see past the next meal. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

And if you want to discuss technical matters then I suggest you just discuss technical matters, something that maybe you actually know something about, rather than offering a cup of punch that happens to have a turd in it.


  • 0

#11 jimm

jimm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

Posted 01 August 2013 - 10:40 PM


 

To Eric's defense, he takes Heaviside’s work as inspiration, both in his tone of speech (jokes and such) and his concept of mathematics: mathematics is an experimental science and can be made to serve new purposes decided by the "master"--paraphrasing here. Heaviside's Operational Calculus comes to mind. Also, I think he uses the 4th power of k (k^4 = 1) (a unit vector?) to get those roots (+1, -1, j, -j) and goes on to use the 8th power of n (n^8 = 1) for his Generalized Electric Wave paper. I believe the idea is to extend the Steinmetz j operator to develop new possibilities for the examination of AC waves. Like the consumption and production of reactive power, and the consumption and production of real power. For instance, a parametric machine that can return more reactive energy than it took to run, real power remaining hypothetically constant. Which can only happen when you distort the wave-shape of the AC wave. Steinmetz covers this distortion and depicts hysteresis loops showing "synthesis" of electrical energy. The age old synchronous motor seems to do this? Over excited means it runs at a slightly faster rotation that the line frequency right? This example appears to be Eric's, Murray's and Steinmetz favorite reference.

 

 

First shot I found this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versor

Now, wasn't that more instructional?

 

I have been too busy to delve into the Steinmetz  and Heaviside stuff myself but K is a single variable, so unless there was a previous definition of it being an imaginary number, you would not come up with the j imaginary operator.

That's another gripe about the 4Q, he throws in variables without definitions. There is a finite number of letters in the alphabet, so that's why they resort to Greek characters  as well. However, the definitions are not set in stone, different disciplines use the letters for different meanings. The author has a duty to define the context unless he is just trying to confuse and bedazzle the reader.

Heck, K could be anything in engineering. one of the contexts might be the coupling coefficient of a transformer:

k= M/srt(L1*L2) where k is the coupling coefficient, M is the mutual inductance , L1 and L2 are the winding inductances .


  • 0

#12 jimm

jimm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

Posted 01 August 2013 - 11:32 PM

Jimm, you're lumping together all people who are or have been "homeless", including myself. Eric's theoretical work, as exemplified by the long technical posts to energeticforum.com, demonstrates a more than average time horizon, as opposed to your prejudiced caricature of not being able to see past the next meal. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

And if you want to discuss technical matters then I suggest you just discuss technical matters, something that maybe you actually know something about, rather than offering a cup of punch that happens to have a turd in it.

Robert,

No turd in the punch, just a healthy does of reality which sometimes happens to suck.

 

Just because You or Eric happen to be homeless does not mean that you are stupid or have no passions/abilities other than the next meal ( although that is a big part of the day). It does mean that you have difficulties with aspects of modern life, for whatever reason. The two biggies are mental illness and drugs and oftentimes, both. Chronically homeless people in my experience live day to day in a hand to mouth existence until SOME come to the realization that they need to get help or they will die.

Eric has been homeless for 24 years, how about you?  Surely that results in a different world view and how he sees and interacts with others ( watch the outtake vids!). Most folks who fall on hard times that result in homelessness are not homeless for more than a year.

I was homeless when I was 17 ... for three days.


  • 0

#13 G4ΓΓ3ττ

G4ΓΓ3ττ

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • Location"Ain't nobody got time for that!"

Posted 02 August 2013 - 12:41 AM

Guys,

 

I don't want to cause a fuss, but let’s keep discussions productive. You can argue all you want as to why a theory or apparatus does or doesn't work but I don't want to see people arguing over Eric's character or personal situation on this forum. Those types of comments serve to do no good here and can be posted on the energetic forum or be sent via personal messages if you feel the need to vent. Further, I don't see how talk about homeless people is relevant here; the thread is about Dollard's four-quadrant electrical theory so let’s stick to it.

 

Remember we're all here because of like interests, while the specifics may differ we all want to share and learn new information. With that in mind, let’s keep things friendly and avoid pointless patronizing, expletives and "observations" outside of the scope of this forum.

 

Thanks for your understanding,

Garrett

 

P.S. I'm going to move this thread to the Alternative Energy section, as it doesn't really pertain to radio.


  • 1

#14 jimm

jimm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

Posted 02 August 2013 - 01:52 AM

Garrett,

 

I came here to discuss the theory and application of  alternate ideas. Part of that is discussing various technical papers, or so I thought.

I hope that after getting those old documents they may reveal something interesting.

Please take note that I did not start the personal discussion, just the validity or worth ot the 4Q paper, which I feel is of dubious value.

 

Apparently , some are more prone to beliefs in people and  things that they don't understand than objectivity. If that is how it is going to be, then it's clear that I don't belong here.

I am not a Jim Jones or Eric Dollard cult person. Mr Dollard did many interesting things and gave many interesting presentations, 4Q just isn't one of them.

All I am suggesting is that other sources be used and not relay on a single conduit, lest you be led astray .

 

If saying this is a "banable" offense, so be it. I'm not going to drink the Koolaid!


  • 0

#15 G4ΓΓ3ττ

G4ΓΓ3ττ

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • Location"Ain't nobody got time for that!"

Posted 02 August 2013 - 03:03 AM

Jimm I never said I was going ban anyone, nor do I have the power to do so, just that things were getting off topic. Though I can see how my response could read differently. I should point out that no threats were made by myself, just a personal opinion, and to be honest I tend to agree with most of what you say--as hard as that may be to believe. I try to be as objective as a I can be. I don't subscribe to any one idea or person as being immutable or infallible. This forum isn't for inundating the weak of mind with sweet "Kool-Aid" dogma. The forum is intended to be a way to share projects, technical data and information with people who care to do the same. Personally, I'm always open to new ideas and people to research. I will admit that Eric has provided quite a few interesting ideas and references to read from, and that most here regard him highly, which can obviously cause conflict with those who don't see him in the same light. I can fully understand the frustration that is caused by that last fact--for both parties.

 

The point of my prior response was to remind everyone of the real intent of the new forum.

 

It would be nice if you stuck around; I think having someone with your experience in the field of radio would be helpful. I would like to hear what you have to say regarding the technical papers Router, Geo et al have dug up. Even your comments on Eric's four quadrant theory are welcome, at least by me. You do have to admit that your patronizing of Robert provoked him to quarrel with you. I'm not saying that either of you are wrong just that we can find a way to say what we want without causing a ruckus.


  • 1

#16 Raui

Raui

    Administrator

  • Administrators

Posted 02 August 2013 - 03:23 AM

Jimm,

Don't take Garrett's post as hostile and posting in the wrong area certainly isn't a "bannable" offence. The paper you have linked in your first post is by no means a good representation of Eric's 4 quadrant theory. You have to keep in mind that 4 poles or quadrants is a archetype of electricity and so 4 is going to appear a bit. In the paper you linked he is just talking about the energetic exchanges of magnetic and dielectric fields in a circuit and their effects on circuit power/energy. His actual 4 quadrant theory is much more mathematical. I am not entirely sure a versor IS a vector, although I will happily concur that it is useful to think of them as such. A versor is a symbolic operator in the same way the imaginary unit, j, is. Sure you can think of j as representing a vector pointing to <0,1> but that doesn't mean that j IS <0,1> it is merely a representation to help apply it visually.

 

For example:

2^{\frac{1}{12}}

is an example of a versor operator that is used in music to calculate the pitch of notes. This isn't a vector. You may be able to give an equivalent vector equation for this but I doubt it'd be as compact or easily understood as what it can be if you understand the notation properly, I will do a post on this if you would like. Can I suggest you take a good read of the works of Steinmetz, Heaviside, Macfarlane, Kennelly etc. I am now convinced that the electrical engineers around the turn of the century collectively were much better than the ones of today. You'll also find these names as those who have written electrical theory as it stands today and it is very intersting to see their ideas, the ones who originated this all, when juxtaposed with 'modern' ideas. It won't happen over night but eventually you can see a deeper level to this, at the very least it's stopped me thinking of electrical energy as being inside the wire which is something that a PhD physicist might recognise but they will teach their underlings differently. It should be their job to simplify the new ideas rather than avoid introducing them to you.

 

Like Garrett, I don't mind you saying you dislike 4 quadrant theory, this is the very point of this forum but I would like any discussions done without bickering (this is not singling you out here Jimm). Also like Garrett said I would love to see you stick around, it is very useful to have people like you here. We all know that there is another forum out there that people interested in bickering type discussion can frequent and look how that forum looks now. I'm just trying to keep this forum from looking like or being run like the other forum, the whole point of this forum's creation in the first place.


  • 0

#17 jimm

jimm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

Posted 02 August 2013 - 02:41 PM

Ok guys, I don't like the "attack site" site either. The only point that I was trying to make was the 4Q I read was not a good tutorial for beginners, nor was it of any use to better understand or engineer  more advanced concepts. Versors are an interesting mathematical construct, but are we going off into theoretical doo-doo land?  One of my favorite  analogies  for modern theoretical physics is video games. Both are driven by wonderful mathematical engines, but are the worlds they describe real?

 

As you say, those old engineers may have been better because they did all of that work by empiricism. They experimented with designs and materials, took notes, made charts and graphs that led to "equation fitting" to describe how it all worked.  Even Dollard said that physics lost it's way when they came up with theories first, then try to prove them in the real world. If you sit in an office or a car dreaming up scenarios, all you may have done is invent another "video game".  ( Dollard is contradicting himself by doing the very thing that he derides)

 

If you have more on versors, I would like to take a look.  I don't even mind a bit of complexity if it leads me me to the "promised land". Versors and linear algebra ( the mathematics of relativity) can make my head hurt. Worse yet, the notations used among the authors is not standardized. Ouch!

 

Like the engineers of old, I would rather look at a specific phenomena verify it, test it, then create the math for it. 

One of my new interests is investigate whether longitudinal waves can penetrate a Faraday cage as shown in the Youtube clip I posted. I am going to do the experiment in a more rigorous fashion though. I really want to know how that works!


  • 0

#18 G4ΓΓ3ττ

G4ΓΓ3ττ

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • Location"Ain't nobody got time for that!"

Posted 04 August 2013 - 05:37 PM

Jimm,

 

I liked the video game analogy! I plan on using that in some future arguments; thanks.

 

I agree with the observational method of experiment. I think pursuing a purely theoretical route leads one down a mental black hole much like the string theory madness in vogue right now.

 

I watched the video, and disagree with a lot of what the guy says ("scalar waves" and such), but the experiment speaks for its self. It would seem dampened waves have different properties than continuous waves. Tesla made many references to this fact throughout his various articles. It's interesting to note they have properties of both circular and exponential functions. I would like to see the Dollard experiment with the two different resonant frequencies of the coil and see if only one of those modes can penetrate through the nested Faraday shield. This would give credence to the thought that the coil acts as a transforming mechanism from EM to ES or transverse to longitudinal.

 

To Dollard’s credit, I think part of his "Four-Quadrant Theory" has merit. In the sense he makes large emphasis that Electric fields produce currents and voltages as do Magnetic fields and the effects of each voltage and current source is not exactly the same. Surprisingly, Wikipedia has a good read on this.

 

Wikipedia:

 

 

The basic reason a EM field changes in character with distance from its source, is that Maxwell's equations prescribe different behaviors for each of the two source-terms of electric fields and also the two source-terms for magnetic fields. Electric fields produced by changes in ''charge distribution'' have a different character than those produced by ''changing magnetic fields''. Similarly, Maxwell's equations show a differing behavior for the magnetic fields produced by changing ''electric currents'', versus magnetic fields produced by ''changing electric fields''. For these reasons, in the region very close to currents and charge-separations, the EM field is dominated by electric and magnetic components produced directly by currents and charge-separations, and these effects together produce the EM "near field." However, at distances far from charge-separations and currents, the EM field becomes dominated by the electric and magnetic fields indirectly produced by the ''change'' in the other type of field, and thus the EM field is no longer affected (or much affected) by the charges and currents at the EM source. This more distant part of the EM field is the "radiative" field or "far-field," and it is the familiar type of [[electromagnetic radiation]] seen in "free space," far from any EM field sources (origins).


  • 0

#19 Robert

Robert

    Member

  • Translation team
  • PipPip

Posted 04 August 2013 - 06:27 PM

"If you sit in an office or a car dreaming up scenarios, all you may have done is invent another "video game".  ( Dollard is contradicting himself by doing the very thing that he derides)"

 

Just the opposite: Decades ago, Eric did the builds demonstrated in the Borderlands videos, the earlier engineering work for the navy, as well as the more recent Landers seismic observations. By his own account, much of that work was done by studying what Tesla, Alexanderson and others had done and repeating their technology. He has subsequently come up with a mathematical theory that he considers to be a better explanation.


  • 0

#20 jimm

jimm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip

Posted 05 August 2013 - 01:09 AM

"If you sit in an office or a car dreaming up scenarios, all you may have done is invent another "video game".  ( Dollard is contradicting himself by doing the very thing that he derides)"

 

Just the opposite: Decades ago, Eric did the builds demonstrated in the Borderlands videos, the earlier engineering work for the navy, as well as the more recent Landers seismic observations. By his own account, much of that work was done by studying what Tesla, Alexanderson and others had done and repeating their technology. He has subsequently come up with a mathematical theory that he considers to be a better explanation.

Fine, If you understand it, please expalin it. Others would be interested too. I'm clueless as to what he was trying to say as a new theory.

 

Any good theory can predict the outcome of a experiment. I didn't see anything that would do that in what read on gestaltreality.

Did you read the book, bcause I didn't and to be competely fair I should but I'm not convinced it's worth the money yet. Maybe it comes together better there, I don't know.  I don't want to get conned either. As always I'm skeptical until shown convincing evidence of fact. I'll take a look at wikipedia entry, maybe that will help...

 

 

The recent blowout and the new partnership with likes of AM / Energetic forum kind of puts me off about any of it.

You know... a "birds of feather" kind of thing...

"just 'cause it's on the internet doesn't mean that it's true!" prove it!

 

Some of the guys over at AE are doing real interesting stuff but they are associated with people who worship swastikas , the "Benini motor", and the  Henershot free energy device , etc to name few, which diminishes what should otherwise be credible projects. They should come over here and make this site their home base.

Again, as always, just my opinion ( I have lots of them!), your idea on the matter may differ.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users