↑ Return to Eric Dollard

Posts by Garrett M


There are NO inconsistency of terms with what Mr. Dollard has given or even the terms used today or 100 years ago. The problem isn’t the terms or definitions its personal comprehension of their significance.

Per Farad is the reciprocal of the Farad. If Farad implied an imaginary conductance per unit time then a Per Farad would be an imaginary resistance per unit time. Its that simple. It all comes down to understanding what a reciprocal means in the physical world we live in, not in the imaginary world of math. People should focus on CRITICAL THINKING and not DEEP THINKING.

Per Farad literally means 1/F and the same goes for Per Henry 1/H. Farad literally means F/1 and the same for Henry H/1. We usually don’t write things in this context but when doing dimensional analysis it becomes simpler to do it this way. The terms Henry and Farad are usually replaced with L and C for simplicity. Mr. Dollard uses the actual name to give a more meaningful conversation, but at the same time it is a language barrier for those who aren’t familiar.

All of this comes down to understanding the “NORMAL” circuit orientation of the arbitrary element in question. This is seen as SHUNT (or PARALLEL) and SERIES arrangements. Capacitors, enductors and conductances are shunt elements, inductors, elastors and resistors are series elements.

If we place a capacitor in a series arrangement it no longer acts as an imaginary conductance per unit time (capacitive-susceptance), it now is an imaginary resistance per unit time (capacitive-reactance). The same goes for an inductance, if we place it in shunt we now have an imaginary conductance per unit time (magnetic-susceptance), not the original imaginary resistance per unit time (magnetic-reactance).

The capacitive and inductive elements are conjugate to one another, their vector forces rotate in opposite directions, if the capacitor acts as a small imaginary resistance and then becomes a large imaginary resistance per unit time, then an inductor acts as a large imaginary resistance then becomes a small imaginary resistance per unit time.

Stated in another way inductive reactance starts out large and then goes small, capacitive reactance starts out small and then goes large. The same goes for the opposite of reactance, susceptance.

The reason the above explanations are meaningful and correct is from the fact that IMAGINARY RESISTANCES AND CONDUCTANCES STORE ENERGY (AND CAN RETURN THAT SAME ENERGY). Thus as a capacitor gets “full” it can’t allow anything to flow but at first it acted as a dead short, the opposite is true with an inductor at first it impedes the flow of current because it is building a magnetic field, as the field is built and expanded the current is then progressively less restricted in its flow and reaches its maximum when the field is fully expanded.

One problem I will admit that exists, is the fact that there are MULTIPLE self and mutual inductions of the dielectric and magnetic fields in any given circuit. The root of the problem comes from the fact that the naming of these various direction and situation dependent inductions sometimes overlap and cause a lot of confusion. I will give more details on this later.

I hope this hip-shot explanation (I’m strapped for time at the moment), can serve as a meaningful (albeit lacking) explanation to your question.

Garrett M


1) L, Leakage Inductance
Q – “The big magnetic fields that push our motors?”
A – My answer would be a resounding NO, leakage inductance can only store energy it CAN NOT TRANSFER ENERGY, thus it would only act as an IMPEDANCE and not as an ADMITTANCE required for the electrical to mechanical transfer of energy to create motion in a motor. The leakage inductance is the exact thing we try to get rid of when designing a motor, and is not something we usually want. There are times when a small leakage inductance can be helpful, this is only when there is a short circuit and the impedance of the leakage inductance prevents catastrophic failure by LIMITING the current of the short circuit.

2) M, Mutual Inductance
Q – “Energy stored in counterspace/innerspace?”
A – Magnetic energy as explained by Mr. Dollard is stored in Normal Space, not the “counter space” as explained by him. Mutual induction of the magnetic field is that which transfers energy in-between two separate coils, there is no storage of energy here, only the transfer of energy from one distinct coil to another. This topic can be found to yield many interesting and practical insights, but I will leave this subject for another time.

3) C, Leakage Capacitance
Q – “The field created by an electrostatic generator, or in a vacuum capacitor?”
A – Inside the vacuum capacitor there is NO LEAKAGE CAPACITANCE, this is normal SELF CAPACITANCE, although if at high frequency, when small capacities are physically meaningful, there is a leakage capacitance associated with the vacuum capacitors outer plate to ground (or any and all surroundings) (and on the topic of high frequencies, EVERYTHING has an associated leakage capacitance). Furthermore, only “quantum physicists” think a vacuum capacitor operates differently from any other capacitor type, at the end of the day there is little to NO difference, aside from the SPEED of DISCHARGE (which is due to permittivity affecting the manifest “velocity of light”). The electrostatic generator is a highly complex induction machine which converts mechanical energy (or seemingly this is the source) to electrostatic potential stored in a condenser. There may undoubtedly be a leakage capacitance associated with the electrostatic generators operation, but don’t try to fool yourself into thinking that (leakage capacity) is the only thing going on during operation.

4) K, Mutual Capacitance
Q – “Energy stored in counterspace/innerspace?”
A -ALL DIELECTRIC ENERGY IS CONSIDERED AS A COUNTER SPATIAL ENERGY. Thus, the storage of dielectric energy is greater when there is MORE counter space for the energy to occupy. This can be looked at as the RECIPROCAL of SPACE or a “large space” divided into the “unit” (1) is an equally large “counter space”. This is seen in the design of a capacitor, the closer the plates are the more “storage” or “capacity” the capacitor has, it’s that simple.

5) Bonus Question on Capacity of a Wire
Q – “On a 20 secondary with spaced windings does approaching the coil with your hand increase its mutual capacity K, or its self capacity C??? but before you answer think what would happen if you had a long straight wire and could measure it’s C. What would happen to the meter if you approached the wire?”
A – This is an interesting question and the answer is dependent upon perspective, how do you plan to measure the capacitance? This question answers your question but doesn’t really give an answer, so lets work our way through this. First, ALL METALLIC SURFACES HAVE A DEFINITE CAPACITY REGARDLESS OF BEING REFERENCED WITH ANOTHER METALLIC SURFACE. When we measure a capacity we usually place TWO metallic surfaces of interest as close together as possible, we unwittingly try to make lumped elements. When considering a distributed capacity we generally can no longer use the methods and understanding of lumped elements, here lies the problem of measurement, how do we measure only one surface? Well there are techniques to do this but are beyond the scope of your question and my answer. So more to the point, the measurement of capacity is a problem of reference and THERE ARE MULTIPLE CAPACITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE WIRE IN YOUR QUESTION and consequently multiple answers. An outstretched wire will have a greater “free-space capacity” while the coiled wire will have a greater self capacity to any-one object. Moving your hand closer increases C (leakage capacity) not K (mutual capacity). K is when there are multiple C’s that are mutually connected with one another, or MULTIPLE separate metallic surfaces linked via dielectric flux, this in the secondary is seen in-between turns.

Garrett M


I believe the secondary is made up of maximal inter-turn MUTUAL-capacity K not self-capacity C, hence why you get two resonant frequencies, LC and MK, when doing a frequency sweep of the coil. With special reference to Borderland Science – Transverse & Longitudinal Electric Waves [1988] (Specifically, about 7 minuets into the video)

I might be wrong but, you could look at the secondary coil’s individual loops as isolated metallic rings in which there is a mutual capacity K between all of them where the lines of dielectric induction are cut buy the individual “rings”(essentially a giant “elastor”) frequency is in “per radians” as opposed to radians, next all the winding can be looked at as a single wire and their lines of dielectric induction interacting with the “ground” as a capacitance C, frequency in radians.

Its EASY to CONFUSE the two because you can look at an elastor as a capacitor when viewed from coil end-to-end. The understanding of self-induction and mutual-induction is the guiding light that clears this up.

Now there is the self-inductance L which is distributed along the coil’s length, seen as a single long wire, next there is a mutual-inductance M between the individual windings, seen as a group of separate shorter windings. The magnetic induction of the self-inductance, L, is 90 degrees spatially out of phase of the magnetic induction of mutual-inductance, M. The LOOPS of magnetic induction for L are only along the wire’s surface the LINES of magnetic induction M cut, or terminate on, each separate loop, the frequency of L is in radians whereas M is in “per radians”. That takes winding a “coil” to the “next level”, quite interesting if you ask me.

M & K are aligned in the same axis of propagation, both cut, or terminate on, separate “repetitive metallic structures” of the coil (other loops), L & C are 90 degrees spatially out of phase with M & K, and being in the form of self-induction as opposed to mutual induction the whole length of the wire is considered in their calculation as opposed to the individual structures of the coil. Quite complex if you ask me.

A helpful reference to the above description is:
E. P. Dollard – Condensed Intro to Tesla Transformers [1986] (With specific reference to “Analysis”, Figures 6, 7 & 9 and pages 16-31)

Now we come to the quadra-polar view of “Voltage and Current” e & I and E & i. Note that Voltage is not the dielectric and current is not the magnetic. EACH TAKE BOTH FORM. The geometry of the space surrounding the ENERGY of DIELECTRIC or MAGNETIC determines whether they are seen as Volts or Amps. Confusing I know, possibly enlightening when fully digested.

Some more “food for thought” is looking at things as SERIES or PARALLEL (shunt) ENTITIES. Example; resistance, r, series element, inductance, L, series element, elastance, K, series element, conductance, g, parallel element, capacity, C, parallel element, enductance, M, parallel element. While you can “convert” a parallel element into a series element, such as an elastance into a capacitance, (by using its reciprocal) it doesn’t change how the lines of induction are propagated in the element so the conversions are “mental gymnastics” that confuse the mind into thinking they are equivalent. Numerically they are equivalent, Spatially, in terms of axis of propagation, they are not equivalent.

In conclusion, an MK wave is different from an LC wave and theoretically you can have MC & LK waves as well. This probably predicts why you can have Transverse-Magnetic TM waves (with Longitudinal-Dielectric LD wave byproduct), Transverse-Electric TE waves (with Longitudinal-Magneto LM wave byproduct) and pure Transverse-Electro-Magnetic TEM waves. As for pure Longitudinal-Magneto-Dielectric LMD propagation, pure MK, little is known and even less is openly available on this subject, aside from Mr. Dollards work.

Hope this wasn’t off the mark (I’m just a High School dropout so don’t take my word for it), hopefully Mr. Dollard will point out any errors in my understanding (or misunderstanding).

Garrett M


Gestalt, you gave an excellent response to Skaght’s question.

Here’s my 2¢ on the subject;

I think a lot of people confuse “Impulse” and “Pulse” when they brought up in conversation. IMPULSES are SINGLE ENERGY TRANSIENTS they have little to no relation to PULSES. An Impulse is the (sometimes explosive) release of energy from a dielectric (as a surge current psi/time) or magnetic (as a surge voltage phi/time) storage medium. Whereas Pulses are controlled signals, weather for use in digital or analogue circuits or even for power conversion in switch-mode power supplies.

NOTE, Impulses are almost NEVER used in engineering practice, although they do find use in RAIL-GUNS and other high energy experimental devices.

Interestingly, Impulses and Pulses do share one commonality, they LOOK like DC, or more specifically they don’t alternate between polarities (Negative and Positive) during their aperiodic period. Furthermore “DC” is not what people think it is, DC has NO FREQUENCY thus is TIME INVARIANT so ANYTHING that does something other than look like a horizontal “straight line” is not “DC”. The term CONTINUOUS CURRENT is more accurate a term than DIRECT CURRENT. If the current varies in time it is no longer DC, but now AC, OC or IC superimposed upon DC (or CC). Hence why you use AC filters on DC circuits to IMPROVE the DC “characteristics” or “cleanup the DC signal”.

The understanding of PULSES comes from that of SINE WAVES and NOT ASYMPTOTES. In a general sense, Pulses can be described by odd-order harmonic sines superimposed upon a fundamental sine. DC Pulses are “DC Offset” AC square waves. The “rise time” and “fall time” of a square wave relates to its “bandwidth” or how many (odd-order) harmonics are superimposed upon the fundamental signal. Capacitance and Inductance act as filters, which slopes the edges of a perfect square wave, thus there will never be an infinite rise time square wave, if any amount of inductance or capacitance is present. Generally in digital circuits too fast a rise time can cause issues so the slope of the wave is carefully chosen to “play” well with the logic elements used.

Impulses are an interesting subject but for the sake brevity and not belaboring the issue, I put up some excellent references to the subject and links to them via my Scribd account.

By the way I would like to give a HUGE thanks to Jpolakow and Information_synthesis for “modernizing” and uploading the Generalized Electric Wave and other books of Mr. Dollard. (They look like modern text books!)



General Equations of the Electric Circuit Pt1 [1908]
Outline of Theory of Impulse Currents [1916] (This is “Pt2”)
General Equations of the Electric Circuit Pt3 [1919]


Symbolic Representation of the Generalized Electric Wave [1985]

Garrett M


I would have to disagree somewhat with what you just wrote. In the secondary I believe you increase the diameter of the windings and decrease the number of windingss to proportionate the magnetic field to dielectric for a subsequent balanced ELECTRIC FIELD as per Mr. Dollard’s “Transmissions” have pointed out (less turns less magnetic energy, larger surface-area between turns more dielectric energy). I may be wrong but I believe that the two voltages e & E are designed to nullify one another in the secondary BUT the currents i & I DON’T. Thus creating a MONO-POLAR or longitudinal current for ONE WIRE transmission through the earth (with an appropriate receiver of course).