View Single Post
Old 03-08-2012, 03:10 AM
garrettm4 garrettm4 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Orbiting Sol somewhere in the Milky Way
Posts: 178
JF Murray & Parameter Variation in Mechanaical Systems Pt1

Below are some interesting excerpts taken out of James F Murray's 1990 article New Concepts in Power Generation:

...Slowly I realized that in many cases Tesla was speaking about very rare or very different scientific phenomena with an attitude of complacency as if he felt that "surely everyone understands this basic material". But everyone did not understand. They were still struggling to digest Tesla's earlier concepts. Tesla did not trust most of his contemporaries. He never bothered to adjust his use of semantics to comply with accepted definitions. If he was misunderstood he was unconcerned. As a result, after many years this attitude eventually led to multiple interpretations of the meaning and intent of Tesla's work. His statements were considered enigmatic and eventually meaningful communication between himself and the scientific community ceased altogether. But Tesla continued expounding his discoveries as usual, unaware that the wisdom in his words fell upon deaf ears. Animated by the conviction that great knowledge had been lost, I set out to establish where Tesla had made his departure from recognized physics. Guiding myself by intuition, and by the implications hidden in various projects which he had proposed, I concluded the following:

A) There must be more than one kind of resonance and more than two kinds of induction supported by the laws of nature.
B) Tesla had discovered something very fundamental about the relationship between energy and power that still eludes the rest of the world.
C) Most of his later inventions, including the Magnifying Transmitter, probably made use of this "secret" knowledge, and therefore, still remain misunderstood by the scientific community as well as the general public.


Energy Resonance

I left Michigan not a moment too soon. My funds were gone, my hair was falling out, I had developed a bleeding ulcer, I was overweight and I couldn't sleep. I needed a complete overhaul. The company I was working for was good enough to transfer me to a small mining community in Eastern Pennsylvania. Once I had gotten established, I promptly joined the Y.M.C.A. where I began working out on a regular basis, and I found myself a lovely girlfriend. The last thing I wanted to do was to think about electricity! This attitude was short lived, however, for there were numerous electrical problems in the mind which I could not avoid and little by little I began thinking about my research again. The situation was completely different now though, because I had no shop and no equipment with which to experiment. Circumstances forced me to make my investigations mathematically. It seemed as if there were a million questions to answer and each would require rigorous mathematical analysis. With no models for generating data, my options were indeed limited. What I needed was to discover some underlying principle which could tie together all the loose ends and give direction to my research. But where do you look for something which no one else has found? Asking these questions seemed to prompt an answer “how about right under your nose”? True, the least obvious spot to hide something is right out in the open. Perhaps what I was looking for was so fundamental and so universal that no one suspected its existence. I began to ponder anew the most elementary of physical concepts: Force, Work, Velocity, Momentum, Newton's Laws and, of course, the Conservation of Energy. I was not interested in simply reviewing problems in physics, but rather in achieving a fresh point of view on principles which I had long ago taken for granted, and which I used almost daily through habit rather than by reason. To accomplish this end I began to apply differential and integral calculus to very basic equations in order better comprehend their origins and dimensionalities. I rambled through hundreds of calculations, and while I did greatly clarify many things in my own mind, I made no earth-shattering discoveries. However, eventually I came upon the basic relationship which links work to force and distance:


This I differentiated with respect to time in order to develop an expression for power:





Here I suddenly paused, when I realized that I was solving this derivative through habit and convenience. I had removed F from the parenthesis without thinking. How did I know that the force was constant? In many cases the force is actually a variable. So I started over:







This equation states that if F is allowed to vary in time, then the power must consist of two components, Fv, the force times the velocity, and S(dF⁄dt), the distance times the rate of change of the force with respect to time. In other words, not only must the agency supplying the power pay for moving the force through a minute distance, dS in some minute time dt, but it must also pick up the tab for the changing forced dF⁄dt over the total distance S. I stared at the new relationship P=Fv+S(dF⁄dt) fully aware that something was going to happen. I kept thinking about the transforming generator, about the increased torque necessary to turn it and about the low conversion efficiency. But another part of my mind was trying to tell me something else. Something about non-linear rates of change, something about logarithmic functions, something about an equation in the fourth quadrant, something about the derivative of decreasing functions! Yes, the derivative of a decreasing function is a negative quantity! This means that if F were decreasing in time, then dF⁄dt would be negative, in which case:

P=Fv+(-S(dF⁄dt)) or P=Fv-S(dF⁄dt)

So if F decreases fast enough, then theoretically, dF⁄dt could become a large enough negative quantity to effect the magnitude of the positive power component such that if

P_1 = Fv and P_2 = Fv -S(dF⁄dt), then P_1 > P_2,

In which case, if P_2 represents power entering a system and P_1 represents power leaving the system, then the system would demonstrate a net power gain. But how could such a thing happen if energy must be conserved? It required three more years of mathematical study before I managed to isolate and demonstrate a simple mechanical system in which such an effect is apparent. And I am both proud and relieved to say that conservation of energy is not only upheld, but utilized extensively in my proofs. What does develop in a totally new light, however, is conservation of work. It has always been assumed that the work done must equal the change in the available energy under all circumstances. However, this proves to be true only in traditional linear systems! In non-linear systems, two additional conditions can be demonstrated:

I. The work done is greater than the change in available Energy.
II. The work done is less than the change in available Energy.

Below is an interesting excerpt taken out of James F Murray's 1983 article Introduction to the Concepts of Energy Resonance:

Power: Dissipative and Conservative

A great deal of confusion seems to arise among professionals and laymen alike when mention is made of the high efficiencies associated with the constant power systems of the Parametric variety. In conventional Power Systems, the number of independent variables is kept to an absolute minimum. An example of this can be found in modern Electrical Transmission networks, in which the only effective variable is the current. In sharp contrast to this situation, there can be many related variables in a parametric power system, each of which is phase locked one to the other, and all of which are synchronized to a common time base.

The word "parametric" apparently has no impact on the average mind, for immediately vehement arguments are advanced supporting the dissipative nature of all power systems and their limitations in accordance with the well-established laws of entropy. Additionally, the traditional defender will almost always be pleased to inform any inquiring novice that all known power systems have long ago been developed to their highest permissible levels of efficiency, and any notable improvement would represent a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

In rebuttal to such rigid attitudes, it is most important to realize that two types of work systems are known to the physicist. There is the non-conservative, or the dissipative, work function, which is responsible for the evolution of heat or any other non-recoverable energy form. And there is the conservative, or recoverable work function, which makes itself known by effecting a useful change in some other form of energy, such as kinetic, gravitational potential, or chemical, to itemize only a few.

Accordingly, then, there are also two types of power to consider: the dissipative form and the conservative form. It is the second type of power to which we must ultimately address our attention if we wish to gain an insight into the complexities of Parametric Physics. However, for the sake of ensuring continuity in the development of this theme, the dissipative power system shall be explained first.

Imagine a mass sliding down an inclined plane. The slope of this plane, and the frictional coefficient of its surface are such that
the mass m shall descend with a constant velocity v

Under these conditions, the force of gravity, acting upon the descending mass, shall develop a constant power over the entire course of the mass movement. This power shall represent the time rate of work done by the force of friction over the surface of the incline traversed by m.

The question now arises, however, what work can the force of friction do? Unfortunately, it can only generate heat, and heat is a dissipative agent. Therefore, although this hypothetical system can indeed produce a constant power over a designated interval, the type of power delivered is non-recoverable, and therefore, can serve no further use.

What then of the other form of power? How can its meaning be approached? Of what use is it, and under what conditions is it constant?


To be continued in part 2

Garrett M

Last edited by garrettm4; 03-08-2012 at 04:36 AM.
Reply With Quote