1 uncharged electron = 1.602062 x 10^-19 coulomb_q, with dimension = s (electrical quantity)

 1 charged electron     = 1.602062 x 10^-19 coulomb_Q, with dimensions = t/s (electrical charge)

 This distinction is of utmost importance in working with capacitors.  Capacitors are known to be electrically neutral.  Conventional physics says that capacitors store charge, with an equal number of negative and positive charges, so that the net charge is zero.  The Reciprocal System says, no, capacitors store uncharged electrons.

 The definition of capacitance in SI units is

             1 farad = 1 coulomb_Q / 1 volt

 The coulomb here is the coulomb of charge, coulomb_Q, because conventional physics says that electric charges are stored in capacitors.  In terms of Reciprocal System space-time dimensions, the above definition translates to

             s = (t/s) / (t/s²)

 So the SI definition is dimensionally consistent (capacitance is a length, s).  However, if no charges are physically present, then the definition is physically wrong.

 The conversion factor between farad (s) and coulomb_q (also s!) in the Reciprocal System is

             1 farad = 4.9412 coulomb_q

 (The derivation of this relation is left to the reader.  You should be able to do it after reading “Theory of the Capacitor” and “Theory of Dielectrics, Diamagnets, Paramagnets, and Ferromagnets, including the Calculation of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities.”)

 The coulomb here is the coulomb of quantity, coulomb_q, because the Reciprocal System says that no charges are involved, just uncharged electrons, which are rotating units of space, s.

 Rearranging the SI definition, we have

             1 farad x 1 volt = 1 coulomb_Q

 If the voltage across the capacitor is 4.9412 volts, then

             1 farad x 4.9412 volts = 4.9412 coulomb_Q

 At this voltage the numerical values of the number of coulombs (quantity and charge) are equal. 

 The conventional SI definition of time constant for a DC RC circuit is

             tau = R x C

 In Reciprocal System space-time dimensions, this is

             tau = (t²/s³) x s = t²/s²

 which is not correct. 

The Reciprocal System definition of time constant for a DC RC circuit is

             tau = R x C / (V/4.9412) = (t²/s³) x s / (t/s²) = t

 which is correct.

 When V = 4.9412 volts, the two time constants are equal. 

 The root of the error in conventional physics here is the assumption that the number of coulombs_Q will increase with voltage.  Once a capacitor is “fully charged”, additional voltage simply increases the energy of the electrons already present—no more electrons can be introduced because the limit of capacitance has already been reached.

The Reciprocal Sytem time constant decreases directly with 1/(V/4.9412).  This makes complete sense, because more energetic electrons will reach the capacitor faster and exchange energy with the electrons already there.  Once the voltage (energy/electron) of the DC source is reached, there will be no net current to or from the capacitor.

The conventional expression for the energy of a capacitor in SI units is

             E = ½ x C x V²   joules

But in terms of Reciprocal System space-time dimenstions, this expression is incorrect:

            t²/s³ = s x (t/s²)²

(that would be resistance).  In contrast, the Reciprocal System expression for the energy of a capacitor in SI units is

             E = ½ x C x 4.9412 x V   joules

Here the space-time dimensions are

           t/s = s x t/s²

This expression is correct.  The conversion constant, 4.9412, converts farads to coulomb_q.  The equation says that the number of electrons x the energy/electron = energy.  If V = 4.9412 volts, the conventional expression and the Reciprocal System expression will match, just as with the time constant.

 Because capacitors may be rated using the equations from conventional physics, it is necessary to determine the actual capacitance by using a DC RC circuit, with V = 4.9412 volts, and measuring the time constant (the time in seconds to reach .63212 of the final voltage, or 3.1234 volts).  Then C = tau/R, because V = 4.9412.  This value of C should then be used in subsequent experiments which have voltages ranging, say, from .001 volt to 1000 volts (assuming that this is below the dielectric strength!), to see just how the time constant varies with voltage.  Conventional physics says it should not vary with voltage; the Reciprocal System says it should vary inversely with voltage.

 We are currently awaiting experimental tests on these deductions from the Postulates of the Reciprocal System.

01/21/2012  minor edit

From a Washington State University faculty member:
Re: Is Dewey B. Larson for real?
Date: Wed Jul 28 12:12:18 1999
Posted By: Jeff Brown, Faculty, Astronomy, Washington State University
Area of science: Astronomy
ID: 933033011.As
——————————————————————————–
Message:

I’d never heard of Dewey Larson before your query. There are places which seem to indicate that the fellow did really exist (though he is now deceased) and published half a dozen books in the 1950′s through 1980′s, all of them based on what I will politely call nonstandard physical theories. I also hadn’t previously heard of “The International Society of Unified Science”, on whose WWW site his works seem to appear. I can’t find anything about either Larson or the Society which is not of their own authorship, except that amazon.com lists Larson’s books as out of print — which at least means that they did exist at one time.

[Larson's books are still in print. They are also available to be read on-line for free. Yes, the Reciprocal System is "non-standard"--that's because it is a new paradigm.]

I wouldn’t go so far as to label them a hoax at this point, but what I read on their sites about astronomy is sadly out of date and incompatible with observations now. What I read also leans heavily on vague double-talk, with a dearth of quantitative predictions concrete enough to be disproven. There are hand-waving comments, but very few predictive numbers, and a careful selection of comments from old scientific literature to convey an inaccurate impression of large-scale ignorance, confusion, and contention among the mainstream scientific community which they purport to settle. These are known, standard tactics for people trying to “sell” a fringe idea which is either questionable or outright wrong.

[The Reciprocal System is completely quantitative, right down to the basic quantities of space and time. Simply read the free papers on http://transpower.wordpress.com and see for yourself.]

I did find a couple of clearly and demonstrably incorrect claims despite the vagueness of most of their presentation. I limited myself to the work on stars, because I know that best. Example 1: in their view of stellar evolution stars begin as red dwarfs (low surface temperature, low luminosity) and as they grow older their density, temperature, and luminosity increase, culminating in an explosion. I’d want to see numerical predictions of the history of the Sun: how old it is, how its luminosity has changed with time, how fast it should be changing now, and so on. We know from the fossil record, however, that the surface temperature of the Earth hasn’t changed very much over the planet’s history, and since this temperature reflects at least partially the energy input from the Sun, the solar luminosity can’t have changed by very much either, maybe a factor of two. That sounds like a lot, but the red dwarfs which are the supposed early stage for the Sun are thousands of times less luminous than the Sun is now. This kind of luminosity is incompatible with the geologic record.

[The Reciprocal System says that stars increase in mass as they move up the Main Sequence. See the Table below--the observational data is in complete accord with the theory.]

Example 2: the prediction is made that hotter and brighter main sequence stars are denser than the cooler and fainter ones; this is directly contradicted by observations of stars. We can estimate masses and diameters of stars in some binary star systems in which the two stars happen to take turns blocking our view of each other — these are called eclipsing binaries. By taking repeated spectroscopic observations of the stars we can work out the the orbits of the stars around each other. This involves using the Doppler effect (see here, among many other places on the web, for something about it) to tell how fast the stars are moving — this same physical effect is used by radar “guns” to measure the speeds of stars, and then using three of Issac Newton’s inventions, calculus and the laws of motion and gravitation, to solve for the orbit. (There’s a nice description of binary star orbits here. Many of the properties of orbits were discovered by Kepler when analyzing observations of the planets; Newton developed the physics and mathematical tools for understanding why those are.) The orbit tells us how fast the stars are moving, so using that and timing how long the eclipses last tells us how big the stars are (that is, their diameters). The orbit also tells us how much mass there is in the system (the more mass, the more gravity, and the faster things move). Once we have both the mass and the diameter of the stars, then we know the density as quickly as we can do the geometry problem of computing the volume of a sphere when given its diameter; density is equal to mass divided by volume. Once you’ve done the measurements, the numbers indicate that among main sequence stars the hottest, most luminous stars have the lowest density, while the cool, low-luminosity dwarfs have the highest density.

[Again, see the Table below. The conventional astronomers have the sequence upside down.]

Example 3: In some of the stuff “worked out” about the structure of the Sun and the nature of sunspots, the implication is clearly made that the oblateness of the Sun (that is, how flattened the Sun’s disk appears to us) should change over the course of the 11-year sunspot cycle, in the sense that it should become more oblate as the cycle progresses and sunspots appear at lower solar latitudes. This also is directly contradicted by observations: the oblateness of the Sun is constant over time within the accuracy of our measurements.

[All that Larson says on this matter is "The origin of these spots is unknown, but no doubt they are initiated in some manner by the energy production process. Hence they may be giving us an indication of the variations in the output of that process that would be expected from the periodic changes." (Universe of Motion, p. 62).]

There are certainly other problems with their work. I picked out three items that I spotted quickly and could refute in a short amount of time.

[You haven't refuted anything.]

In my view, rather than merely a hoax, this is more likely to be the product of one or more sincere crackpots. There’s no shortage of these in the world (it’s rare for most astronomy departments to go a month without getting a letter or monograph from one), and it has to be admitted (as one of my favorite editors once observed) that some crackpots have highly methodical cracks in their pots. (There’s a great editorial in the October 1980 issue of Analog magazine about crackpots it you’re interested in seeing other aspects of them.) Sincerity of belief is all that separates the crackpot from the fraud, however, and history is full of examples of people adhering to ideas that turned out to be very wrong.

[No, we are real scientists and engineers. Mainstream science has been taken over by the fruits and nuts who have given us the nuclear theory of the atom, Quantum Mechanics, the Big Bang, neutron stars, quarks, black holes, and other assorted irrational nonsense. All of these theories involve singularities--but this contradicts the accepted philosophical principle that there can be no singularities in nature.]

[The Reciprocal System says that stars slowly progress up the Main Sequence, not down.]

                                                  Star Spectral Classes for the Main Sequence
Star Type             Color                 Approx. Surface Temperature                      Average Mass (The Sun = 1)
O                            Blue                                    25,000 K                                                                       60
B                             Blue                                    11,000 K                                                                        18
A                            Blue                                      7,500 K                                                                           3.2
F                             Blue to White                      6,000 K                                                                           1.7
G                            White to Yellow                  5,000 K                                                                           1.1
K                            Orange to Red                   3,500 K                                                                              .8
M                           Red                                   <3,500 K                                                                              .3

(Data from http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/stars/startypes.shtml.)

Update:  This professor is currently at Seattle University; he seems to change jobs quite often.  He seems to be sincere in his belief in the conventional paradigm, though misguided.  His list of papers shows that he’s mostly concerned with the chemical composition of stars, and so there’s probably little to find fault there.  On the other hand, he doesn’t realize he’s teaching his students all kinds of irrational, illogical theories and therefore miseducating them.  Pehaps he simply doesn’t have a sufficiently high enough IQ level to understand the Reciprocal System.

ISUS Project:  Let’s find out the name of this piece of Irish dreck and directly confront him or her.  No, it doesn’t mean doing anything illegal or unethical against him or her, it means “having the Talk” about “the facts of reality.”  This individual has aggressed against members of ISUS by taking down the biographical article on Larson and so we have every moral right to go after him or her.  After all, we do believe in tit for tat or reciprocity.  Our goals here are to get an apology and to get the article restored.

An introduction and summary of the Reciprocal System is given in The Unmysterious Universe (1971), by Dr. Ronald W. Satz. This work is also still in print and available from Amazon.com. Dr. Satz is currently working on a comprehensive database of Reciprocal System calculations. The philosopher Samuel Alexander asked the question “How far a science of order could be founded on this bare conception of ordered parts of Space-Time I do not know. …” but Larson was inspired to make it his life’s major work to attempt to find out. Larson’s Reciprocal System is the first truly unified theory and the first general theory.

 From just two general postulates, Larson has derived an all-embracing theoretical universe, answering simply and reasonably such questions as:

What is the fundamental component of the universe?

Why is the universe expanding?

Why does light behave sometimes as a particle and sometimes as a wave?

 How do electrons and positrons annihilate one another to produce photons?

What holds the “parts” of an atom together?

What is the origin and nature of gravitation?

 What is the origin of supernovae, white dwarfs, red giants, pulsars, and solar systems?

 What is the connection between exploding galaxies and quasars?

 What is the origin of the cosmic rays?

 Is the universe finite or infinite?

 Is the universe in a steady-state, or is it evolving?

 The Reciprocal System is in competition with the “standard particle model” of conventional theoretical physics and also with “string theory.” Larson also wrote on economic policy and theory.

In Davide Castelvechhi’s article “Half-Life (More or Less),” November 22, 2008, he quotes theoretical physicist Rabindra Mohapatra of the University of Maryland in College Park as saying, “There is no known theory that will predict something like this.”  That neutrinos are the source of the mass variation in isotopes and hence of radioactivity has long been known to the supporters of the Reciprocal System of physical theory created by the engineer-scientist Dewey B. Larson.  Here’s a quote from my 1971 book, The Unmysterious Universe, p. 50, which summarizes Larson’s theoretical deductions on this topic:

“…the neutrino, a neutral space-time entity, eludes capture, passing through space or matter easily.  Occasionally, though, on passing through matter, the neutrino acquires a magnetic charge, a space displacement, and becomes trapped.  Only by losing its charge can the neutrino escape; but such possibility becomes more remote as the concentration of neutrinos builds up with age, and so the build-up is irreversible.  The motion of the neutrino with respect to the atom is equivalent to an oppositely directed motion of the atom with respect to the neutrino.  Like thermal motion, these two oppositely directed motions must reach equilibrium.  The neutrinos, having a magnetic charge with space displacement, thus force the atoms to acquire magnetic charges with time displacement.  This motion merges with the atomic rotation, increasing the mass of the atom.  Each of these units, which Larson terms gravitational charges for convenience, is only half as effective as a unit of unidirectional rotation.  The mass due to this half unit of effective displacement is one unit of atomic weight, and each additional unit of gravitational charge increases the atomic weight –producing isotopes.”

So there is a known theory that predicts the neutrino influence on isotopes discovered by the experimentalists.

Ronald W. Satz, Ph.D., Trevose, Pennsylvania

Update:  The editor of Science News refused to publish the letter, so Dr. Satz cancelled his subscription!

The true fundamental component of the universe is Space-Time, not quarks, not strings.

To all scientists and engineers reading this notice:  Please ignore the Web sites and posts of Douglas Bundy, Bruce Peret, and Phil Porter.  They do NOT represent the work of Dewey B. Larson or the Reciprocal System.

Signed and Sealed,

Dr. Ronald W. Satz

Source:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080725152314.htm