Glossary of electrical research

Under construction

What is electricity?

maxwell56
James Clerk Maxwell

I cannot lay claim, or credit myself in any way for any of the following. It’s been known about since around 1900 but is now quite hard to find. Despite the provable fact that all of our modern electrical technology is based upon it, it was debunked and discarded by science (physics) without a second thought. During the 1930s a consensus of scientific opinion agreed to the electron of J J Thomson and the theories of Albert Einstein. There was no place for it in a science that glorifies the charged particle and denies the aether, that was its very basis and its medium of propagation. All scientific research into the true nature of electricity was stopped in the years after 1900. I have since discovered through my own research that no electrical technology can be said to have originated as a direct result of Einstein or the electron. In addition anything electrical said to be thanks to quantum mechanics also turns-out to be old technology that had its beginning prior to or during the 1930s and introduced via the back door. As a result of this woeful destruction nothing is new because so few understand the true nature of electricity.
I would like to ask why today’s amateur researchers use the methods and terminology of those who destroyed the knowledge of the original pioneers?

Charlesproteussteinmetz
Charles P Steinmetz

The “electrical experimenters” are the 19th century geniuses who gave us electricity. They used empirical experimental evidence and their work is still with us, used in every single electrical device.

Modern science “Mainstream physicists” do not experiment with electricity, they debunk it. Have you ever asked why?



Glossary of experimental science versus modern science

The Aether Electrical experimenters
The Aether is an all pervading medium that fills the universe, harder than steel and yet so diffuse it has no effect on matter. The aether is the transmission medium for light and all electromagnetic propagation. It propagates vibration with great efficiency.

The Aether Mainstream physicists
einstein-sock“In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work on general relativity, Lorentz wrote a letter to him in which he speculated that within general relativity the aether was re-introduced. In his response Einstein wrote that one can actually speak about a “new aether”, but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
that aether refers to the aether of the electrical experimenters, the aether of our modern technology. It had to go because it was dangerous to oligarchs, marketeers, shareholders and financiers who would lose money and power. By the 1930s due to the death of its supporters and the re-education of physicists the aether was gone and with it all electrical research. It was gone because the pioneers were talking of free electricity, anti-gravity and much much more. The result was the inequality we have today. Einstein and Thomson were the sock puppets.

Dielectric-magnetic Propagation Electrical Experimenters
The dielectric-magnetic wave travels through space [or a vacuum, as in a cathode ray tube], through the aether medium in expansions and rarefactions. Nothing of the electricity exists except the vibrations in the medium. It is a frequency perturbation in a medium like sound waves in the air. Nothing is added or removed from the medium. Like a pebble tossed into a pool the waves radiate out on the surface but the water is unchanged. The light from a star, a candle or radio source emits a precise frequency staccato of compression and rarefaction of energetic waves. No particles.

Electromagnetic Radiation Mainstream physicists
The Di in eletromagnetic has gone. See below:
Wiki: In physics, electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) refers to the waves (or their quanta, photons) of the electromagnetic field, propagating (radiating) through space, carrying electromagnetic radiant energy.[1] It includes radio waves, microwaves, infrared, (visible) light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays…

…Electromagnetic waves are emitted by electrically charged particles undergoing acceleration,[4][5] and these waves can subsequently interact with other charged particles, exerting force on them. EM waves carry energy, momentum and angular momentum away from their source particle and can impart those quantities to matter with which they interact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

None of this is new, it’s simply a corruption of what the original experimenters gave us plus particles. The aether has not gone away because scientists say it’s not needed to support their theories.

In what do waves wave in space, and in what medium do they carry energy, momentum and angular momentum away from their source particle? Water waves wave in water. Sound waves in air, how do electromagnetic waves wave in a vacuum? You can’t wave in nothing.

electromagnetic.svg

Wiki caption to above: “A linearly polarized sinusoidal electromagnetic wave, propagating in the direction +z through a homogeneous, isotropic, dissipationless medium, such as vacuum. The electric field (blue arrows) oscillates in the ±x-direction, and the orthogonal magnetic field (red arrows) oscillates in phase with the electric field, but in the ±y-direction.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

What is oscillating in what?

A vacuum according to the above is “homogeneous, isotropic, dissipationless medium”. Lets look at these words? They say a vacuum is homogeneous which means of uniform structure or composition throughout.
A vacuum is the absence of matter and so it has no structure or composition.
A vacuum is the ultimate dissipater.

“A vacuum is isotropic exhibiting properties (such as velocity of light transmission) with the same values when measured along axes in all directions”.
A vacuum has no properties or it ceases to be a vacuum. How can a vacuum have properties?

A vacuum cannot be a “medium” just as a shadow cannot be a medium, a vacuum is the absence of matter just as a shadow is the absence of light:

Yet another Wiki contradiction: In astronomy, the interstellar medium (ISM) is the matter and radiation that exists in the space between the star systems in a galaxy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium

“the matter and radiation that exists in the space between the star systems” is not the vacuum of space it’s what’s in the vacuum of space. The vacuum is not defined as being part of the interstellar medium because a vacuum is nothingness.

dictionary.cambridge.org:
vacuum
noun (EMPTY SPACE)

a space from which most or all of the matter has been removed, or where there is little or no matter
a lack of something
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vacuum

Einstein took the experimenter’s attributes of aether and attributed them to the vacuum of space, something which is impossible and illogical. The ideas that became the theories of Einstein are sacrosanct, like a religion and could not be challenged even by those from whom he stole them. A religion needs no logic or common sense just mindless belief.

The speed of light Electrical Experimenters
The speed of light is the time taken for propagation of a dielectric-magnetic field through the aether medium.

The speed of light Mainstream physicists
Wiki: The speed at which light propagates through transparent materials, such as glass or air, is less than c; similarly, the speed of electromagnetic waves in wire cables is slower than c. The ratio between c and the speed v at which light travels in a material is called the refractive index n of the material (n = c / v). For example, for visible light the refractive index of glass is typically around 1.5, meaning that light in glass travels at c / 1.5 ≈ 200000 km/s (124000 mi/s); the refractive index of air for visible light is about 1.0003, so the speed of light in air is about 299700 km/s (186220 mi/s), which is about 90 km/s (56 mi/s) slower than c.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

It would be interesting to ask a physicist how light particles [photons] manage to speed-up after passing through a glass window in terms of the conservation of energy (below).

britannica.com: Conservation of energy, principle of physics according to which the energy of interacting bodies or particles in a closed system remains constant.
https://www.britannica.com/science/conservation-of-energy
The problem disappears if you lose the particles. Science sees the universe as a closed system.

The Electron Electrical Experimenters
The electron per se does not exist, it was originally perceived by J J Thomson as a terminal point for Faraday lines of force.

Nikola Tesla: “To account for its apparently small mass, science conceives the electron as a hollow sphere, a sort of bubble. Now, a bubble can exist in such a medium as a gas or liquid because its internal pressure is not altered by deformation. But if, as supposed, the internal pressure of an electron is due to the repulsion of electric masses, the slightest conceivable deformation must result in the destruction of the bubble!”

“Just to mention another improbability, the force tending to tear an electron apart is, in pounds per square inch, represented by the staggering figure of 256,899 followed by twenty-one zeros — and this is 513,798,000,000,000,000,000 times greater that the tension that tungsten wire can withstand! And yet it does not burst! Not even when it is hurled against an obstacle with a speed hundreds of thousands times greater than that of a bullet!”
https://drnikolatesla.tumblr.com/post/148028036083/nikola-tesla-does-not-believe-in-the-existence-of

The Electron Mainstream physicists
Wiki: In 1897, the British physicist J. J. Thomson, with his colleagues John S. Townsend and H. A. Wilson, performed experiments indicating that cathode rays really were unique particles, rather than waves, atoms or molecules as was believed earlier.[5] Thomson made good estimates of both the charge e and the mass m, finding that cathode ray particles, which he called “corpuscles,” had perhaps one thousandth of the mass of the least massive ion known: hydrogen.[5] He showed that their charge-to-mass ratio, e/m, was independent of cathode material. He further showed that the negatively charged particles produced by radioactive materials, by heated materials and by illuminated materials were universal.[5][35] The name electron was adopted for these particles by the scientific community, mainly due to the advocation by G. F. Fitzgerald, J. Larmor, and H. A. Lorenz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

J J Thomson did not personally believe the electron story and was more aligned with the work of the experimenters on this page.

Keeping it in the family
Wiki: Sir George Paget Thomson, (son of J J Thomson) FRS/; 3 May 1892 – 10 September 1975) was an English physicist and Nobel laureate in physics recognised for his discovery of the wave properties of the electron by electron diffraction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Paget_Thomson

Electric Current Electrical Experimenters
An electric current does not flow in a conductor but in a field in the space around the conductor. A conductor is not a conductor. There are no charged particles (electrons). An electric current can flow both ways at the same time through the same conductor making the charged repelling electron a logical impossibility. See here

Insulator or Dielectric Electrical Experimenters
An electrical storage medium as in a capacitor not a non-conductor.

Insulator Mainstream physicists
Wiki: An electrical insulator is a material in which the electron does not flow freely or the atom of the insulator have tightly bound electrons whose internal electric charges do not flow freely; very little electric current will flow through it under the influence of an electric field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulator_(electricity)

Dielectric Electrical Experimenters
The dielectric-magnetic field was originally used to describe an electric field or current. The di prefix meaning two, two distinct kinds of electricity that can be split.

Dielectric magnetic conduction and radiation Mainstream physicists
This has been completely changed, now a dielectric, having been a conductor is now a non-conductor or an insulator. What better way of hiding the truth. Physics really did a job on electricity.

michael-faraday
Michael Faraday

Dielectric: Michael Faraday
I found this hidden away in Wiki:
Wiki Dielectric Terminology :
Although the term insulator implies low electrical conduction, dielectric typically means materials with a high polarizability. The latter is expressed by a number called the relative permittivity. The term insulator is generally used to indicate electrical obstruction while the term dielectric is used to indicate the energy storing capacity of the material (by means of polarization). A common example of a dielectric is the electrically insulating material between the metallic plates of a capacitor. The polarization of the dielectric by the applied electric field increases the capacitor’s surface charge for the given electric field strength.[1] 
[High polarizability is a high tendency to polarise (plus or minus in today’s terms) due to an applied charge, the opposite to an insulator.]

The term dielectric was coined by William Whewell (from dia- + electric) in response to a request from Michael Faraday.[5][6] A perfect dielectric is a material with zero electrical conductivity (cf. perfect conductor infinite electrical conductivity),[7] thus exhibiting only a displacement current; therefore it stores and returns electrical energy as if it were an ideal capacitor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

It should be noted that a perfect dielectric would, at the time of Faraday, have been what is now known as a perfect conductor. It was then taken for granted that a conductor does not conduct, the electric ‘conducting’ field being on the outside of the conductor. It’s still there and well known but subordinate to the electron that is admitted by Wiki to be too slow moving to do anything.

Speed of electricity
Wiki, Speed of electricity: The speed at which energy or signals travel down a cable is actually the speed of the electromagnetic wave traveling along (guided by) the cable. i.e. a cable is a form of a waveguide…

Speed of Electrons
…Free electrons in a conductor follow a random path. Without the presence of an electric field, the electrons have no net velocity. When a DC voltage is applied, the electron drift velocity will increase in speed proportionally to the strength of the electric field. The drift velocity is on the order of millimeters per hour. AC voltages cause no net movement; the electrons oscillate back and forth in response to the alternating electric field (over a distance of a few micrometers…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity
Note the confusion here?

Polarity Electrical Experimenters
There is no negative electricity as there is no negative energy. Such things only exist in occult mathematics. Electricity flows from more to less, like filling or emptying a glass of water. There is no negative water.
Polarity only exists in as much as one side of a circuit has an excess of electricity. A battery or generator separate the excess from the deficiency, one way movement of current  like a diode rectifier in an AC circuit. In an AC circuit the excess is constantly reversed. The Plus + and Minus – signs are only useful in indicating the excess.

Polarity Mainstream physicists
Note the confusion
Craig Kaiser, BSE in EE Electrical Engineering, University of Michigan College of Engineering (1992)
Answered Jun 22 2017 · Author has 58 answers and 196.1k answer views

electrical-flow-directionBefore the existence of the real physical particles was known, Benjamin Franklin noted the two opposite charges in his experiments and happened to choose one as positive and the other as negative. It turned out that this convention required the charge of the actual physical electron to be negative.

The direction that current is considered to flow is a convention. In electrical engineering and most practical applications, the chosen convention is to consider the flow of positively-charged elements. This could be a positive ion, but it can also be a fictional particle called a hole. A hole is the absence of an electron, has an equal but opposite charge, and “flows” in the opposite direction in an electric field. [How can a hole have an opposite charge, how can it flow?]

The hole particle doesn’t actually exist but it is a convention that is mathematically convenient and consistent with reality in circuit theory. The benefit of this convention is that the equations we use don’t need a pesky negative sign in them.
https://www.quora.com/If-electrons-around-a-circuit-travel-in-the-opposite-direction-than-conventional-current-how-are-current-and-voltage-measured-conventionally

What is a field? Electrical Experimenters
A field is an aether perturbation.
A field consists of nothing but movement in the (aether) medium. It only becomes electricity when it encounters matter, a conductor. There is nothing there to attract or repel until it encounters matter. It is therefore possible for two fields to move in the same or opposite directions while parallel to one another.
Sound is movement in air that only becomes sound when it encounters a sound detector like an ear or a microphone.

Nancy J. Nersessian: Lines of force originated with Michael Faraday, whose theory holds that all of reality is made up of force itself. His theory predicts that electricity, light, and gravity have finite propagation delays. The theories and experimental data of later scientific figures such as Maxwell, Hertz, Einstein, and others are in agreement with the ramifications of Faraday’s theory. Nevertheless, Faraday’s theory remains distinct. Unlike Faraday, Maxwell and others (e.g., J.J. Thomson) thought that light and electricity must propagate through an ether. In Einstein’s relativity, there is no ether, yet the physical reality of force is much weaker than in the theories of Faraday.
Historian Nancy J. Nersessian in her paper “Faraday’s Field Concept” distinguishes between the ideas of Maxwell and Faraday

Field Mainstream physicists
There is no reification of a field in physics, they kinda describe what it does but not what it is. This is because they refuse to acknowledge the aether.

Wiki: Electric Field: An electric field (sometimes abbreviated as E-field[1]) surrounds an electric charge, and exerts force on other charges in the field, attracting or repelling them.[2][3] Electric fields are created by electric charges, or by time-varying magnetic fields. Electric fields and magnetic fields are both manifestations of the electromagnetic force, one of the four fundamental forces (or interactions) of nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field

Force
Wiki: In physics, a force is any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object. A force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate. Force can also be described intuitively as a push or a pull. A force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity. It is measured in the SI unit of newtons and represented by the symbol F.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

Mass
Wiki: Mass (in physics) is both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied. An object’s mass also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

[Mass is only measurable in terms of another mass like a ratio. A mass on the moon is not the same weight as a mass on Earth. A mass in water weighs less than a mass in air. A mass in orbit is weightless so how is it possible to determine the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies.]

Different kinds of electricity Electrical Experimenters
Static, telluric or Tesla’s radiant electricity.
It is possible to hybridise what has come to be called electricity into other forms of electrical energy. Many researchers call it splitting the positive or cold electricity. Cold electricity has some unusual properties, it cools when it should be heating and seems not to shock. What Tesla called radiant energy is confused with normal radio transmission. He called it static or telluric electricity and it appears to be separated from its magnetic field. The problem lies in terminology and identification. Science has known about telluric energy almost as long as it has known about electricity
Cold Electricity demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUUNdNLh9e8

Dollard. Eric P
SYSTEM FOR THE RECEPTION & TRANSMISSION OF TELLURIC ELECTRIC WAVES
This system is non electro-magnetic in its basic configuration. It is more an electro-static configuration. This results from the telluric waves having a non electro-magnetic character. The basic and compound telluric systems presented can be considered an advancement upon prior work of Nikola Tesla (1900) and Ernst Alexanderson (1919).Click for link

Capacitance
Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance by Eric P. Dollard
The phenomena of capacitance is a type of electrical energy storage in the form of a field in an enclosed space. This space is typically bounded by two parallel metallic plates or two metallic foils on an intervening insulator or dielectric. A nearly infinite variety of more complex structures can exhibit capacity, as long as a difference in electric potential exists between various areas of the structure. The oscillating coil represents one possibility as to a capacitor of more complex form, and will be presented here.
https://borderlandsciences.org/journal/vol/46/n02/Dollard_on_Dielectricity_Capacitance.html

Capacitance Inadequately Explained
The perception of capacitance as used today is wholly inadequate for the proper understanding of this effect. (C. P.) Steinmetz mentions this in his introductory book Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses. To quote, “Unfortunately, to large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electrostatic charge (electron) on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and the dielectric, and makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated.”

Steinmetz continues, “There is obviously no more sense in thinking of the capacity current ascurrent which charges the conductor with a quantity of electricity, than there is of speaking of the inductance voltage as charging the conductor with a quantity of magnetism. But the latter conception, together with the notion of a quantity of magnetism, etc., has vanished since Faraday’s representation of the magnetic field by lines of force.”
Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance by Eric P. Dollard

Different kinds of electricity Mainstream physicists
A complete state of denial, Telluric electricity is described as a nuisance. No research has been done for a hundred years plus.

Longitudinal Waves function with Pressure and Sound parameters, not light and heat parameters.

Gravity Electrical Experimenters
Gravity it seems is a strange kind of non-coherent hybrid of the dielectric-magnetic that terminates in counter-space. All recorded research into antigravity concentrates on capacitance as being the answer and this appears not to be the case. The only reliable non-capacitive sources I’ve found so far are those of Ken Wheeler and Wilbert B. Smith. Neither seem to have had any personal contact but both have the same theory.
http://www.treurniet.ca/Smith/ArchiveIndex.html

Video Ken Wheeler below [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gbng1wm62M]

Screenshot from 2020-05-30 13-27-34

Screenshot from 2020-05-30 13-30-14

It seems what is needed is a toroidal and hyperbolic field with a pinch like the one below. The hyperbola and the torus appear to be the basic pattern that determines all things in the material universe. The reader will note the simplicity of all of this.
Thanks to Ken Wheeler and Wilbert B. Smith

hyperbolide
Just a thought: Static or telluric has no magnetic field, does it have an attractive/repulsive field?

Gravity Mainstream physicists
Wiki: Gravity (from Latin gravitas, meaning ‘weight'[1]), or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass or energy—including planets, stars, galaxies, and even light[2]—are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another…
…Newton’s theory of gravitation
In 1687, English mathematician Sir Isaac Newton published Principia, which hypothesizes the inverse-square law of universal gravitation. In his own words, “I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
And that’s about it…

Occam’s razor
The reader will no doubt note the simplicity in the sections marked “Electrical Experimenters” as opposed to the confusion of those marked “Mainstream physicists”. This is in accord with with what we are told science is – but it’s not.

Wiki: Occam’s razor, Ockham’s razor, Ocham’s razor or law of parsimony is the problem-solving principle that “entities should not be multiplied without necessity.” The idea is attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), a scholastic philosopher and theologian who used a preference for simplicity to defend the idea of divine miracles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor


teslasane
Nikola Tesla

Above we have a brief outline of the definition of electricity and gravity as it existed at the time of the birth of our present-day electrical technology. It would be in defence of the indefensible to state, as has already been said, ‘that we have progressed beyond nineteenth century ideas’ because to do so would require proof and there is none. There is no timeline that continues to evolve from then until now. No history of experimentation that says what was, has been superceeded and what is, is proven right. What we have historically is a sharp deliberate educational decline in ideas electrical that starts sometime after 1900 and is completed by the 1930s.

Mother Nature reveals her secrets to those with open minds which is why particle obsessed physicists have not a clue about electricity’s true nature, in fact they avoid it like the plague. There is no quantum electronics, [not to be confused with quantum electrodynamics which is concerned with theoretical movements of particles]; there is no mention of particles by any of the pioneers in the list above. This is supported by the total lack of any genuine experimental study of the subject by science in the past hundred years. It also explains the dog’s dinner of confusion of both students and teachers found in our education system regarding this subject today.


I will add to this page as the information arrives. Anyone wishing to add to it or suggest improvements is more than welcome to do so, even constructive criticism is welcome. I am still learning.

diggingdog
The Digging Dog

4 thoughts on “Glossary of electrical research

  1. Hello cadxx,

    1- “The light from a star, a candle or radio source emits a precise frequency
    staccato of compression and rarefaction of energetic waves. No particles.”

    ==> I’ve noticed that decades ago, in the case of so-called “stars” each
    have their own specific staccato as if messaging something.
    IMO this has nothing to do with atmospheric instabilities.

    ——

    2- “An electric current does not flow in a conductor but in a field in the space
    around the conductor. A conductor is not a conductor.”

    ==> IMO we should redesign the aspect of circuits as conventionally depicted
    and this time as 3D FIELD FORMS. I’ve always been rebuffed by these
    2D contraptions.

    ——

    3- Ken Wheeler’s “Inertia plane disk”
    ==> ??

    ——-

    4- Gravity Electrical Experimenters: Ken Wheeler and Wilbert B. Smith.

    ==> There was and there still is a Russian who depicted essentially
    that same figure of the ‘Cosmic Field Geometry’ around the late 1990’s,
    I can’t remember his name. Would you have heard of him?

    Cheers

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.