I've been digging up the source materials that Dollard refers to, Faraday, Maxwell, Heaviside, Steinmetz, JJ Thomson, etc., and going through the old books. I have to agree that they came up with some interesting stuff, and a different way of looking at the electric phenomenon. I also agree that circa 1920, most of that information regarding generative principles were blocked out of public knowledge by Morgan, Edison, GE and the others that wanted to cash in on poor-quality electricity that needed constant generation from external fuels. Like Dollard, I have read enough now to know that they probably had self-producing electrical energy back in the 1890s.
Thomson is probably the most readable of the bunch, as he isn't heavy into math (heavy math = Heaviside!) and prefers to rely on simple, mechanical analogies. I do like his concept of "Faraday tubes," rather than flux lines, as the tubes have volume, momentum and resistance, whereas a "line" does not. If you understand complex quantities, Steinmetz does a fair job with his math explanations, which are based on Heaviside's differentials.
I have noticed a pattern in the old material, which assumes an "ether" to explain the flux phenomenon. In the RS, the "ether" is just the cosmic side of things, invisible to the material side but able to influence them. So when you read the old books, just substitute Larson's "cosmic sector" for the ether references, and you can find some remarkable research... for example, I'm reading Thomson's
Electricity and Magnetism now, and he has identified the dielectric field as having units of space (uncharged electron), the "Faraday tube" has being a volume per time (the Farad = s
3/t), and even the distinction of primary mass and mass from charge (electric, magnetic and gravitational). In essence, Thomson published the concept of the "time region" all the way back in 1904! I'm actually learning quite a bit from his research, though I am concluding the same things Dollard did... what we are taught as "electronics" is a "mind virus" to keep us from seeing the real, electric system that these folks were trying to describe. The most difficult time I've had in reading these books, is getting rid of all the preconceptions that I learned when going for my EE degree.
I did piece together this little diagram, based on the Faraday model interpreted by Thomson, in which he asserts that the universe is composed of these Faraday tubes that can capture a quantity of ether: dielectric and magnetic tubes, that exist orthogonal to each other. From this relationship, Dollard's basic concept of "electric," as a combination of dielectric and magnetic flux, can be seen. I have added in Larson's space-time units, where psi = dielectric flux, Phi = magnetic flux and phi (lower case phi) = electricity. When these fluxes are altered with respect to time, the result is voltage, current and energy:
- FluxRelations.png (19.89 KiB) Viewed 32066 times
The resulting "electric" motion has the same units as Planck's constant, which is why Dollard uses the "Planck" as a unit.
It is interesting that the dielectric/time = magneto-motive force (current), and magnetic/time = electromotive force (voltage). One would expect that they would be the other way around, where MMF moved magnetism, and EMF moved dielectricity.
There is something else that I noticed and am still evaluating the concept... putting "rotations" on the motions, rather than just concepts.
Dielectricity has units of space, and the only "electric" rotation available with units of space is the uncharged electron, 0-0-(1). So we can associate dielectricity with uncharged electron rotation, perhaps with that angular velocity "rolled out" to a tangential velocity, as to produce a line of force.
Magnetism has units of momentum, which are a 2D, time region rotation (t
2) represented in equivalent space (s
2). A 2D, temporal rotation is one of Larson's "double rotations" or "magnetic rotations." The simplest expression, a unit double-rotation, would be 1-0-0, distributed over 2 dimensions as ½-½-0... Larson's "massless neutron," later identified as the muon neutrino.
If you place these rotations on the respective axes, then the "electric" motion is not electric at all, because the rotations add up to a well-known particle: 0-0-(1) + ½-½-0 = ½-½-(1) -- the electron neutrino. And if you look at that axis in motion, you have units of energy. Well, the electron neutrino is the only particle with ZERO net displacement, the magnetic and electric rotations cancel out. The only units that are applicable would be those of any
charge associated with the neutrino, and charge has units of t/s. This actually makes more sense to me than the charged electron, because an electron has units of space, and charge is t/s, so the charged electron should have units of s x t/s = t, units of time, which it does NOT have in the equations.
- FlucRotation.png (20.62 KiB) Viewed 32066 times
So I am proposing a new idea here, based on this structure: that there are two different kinds of vibratory motion, a birotation of the dielectric being the photon (as described in Nehru's papers), and a birotation based on the solid, magnetic rotation: EM radiation. In other words, two structures of the photon, the classic, planar one from dielectricity, and a "solid wave" from the magnetic rotation.
Just an idea at this point, but has some interesting possibilities, particularly when you consider that isotopic mass of atoms is created from electron neutrinos.