03-27-2012, 09:31 PM
 madhatter Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 457
Quote:
 Originally Posted by jake Thats where I am having trouble. I need to study. So if all the adapting and math is down would it be able to calculate "values" for C,K,L,M and thier ratios at any point during the cycle of a TRT??? <---Please answer pretty please.. any one. What are the roadblocks?
parametric changes are nearly impossible to calculate as they would occur on the fly and you'd need to run a simulator to get close. there is no program in existence that can do that for these parameters. you can get a rough layout that would need 'tuning' with the math and knowledge available at the moment.

Hyperbolic geometry is closer to nature, the cantenary slope is a prime example. a rope hung between two points exhibits this form. what also needs to be added into the equation is counter-space, due to the time invariant 'dimension' of the dielectric.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jake That would help enormously in tuning the setup. It's almost impossible to tune three coils with 4 parameters that are changing without having either a solid math foundation or a natural ability to feel what you are doing. I'm working with the former at the moment. I'm not thinking about numbers; just C,K,M,L and what they are doing at every spot in the setup at every point in the cycle and and how I can add, reduce, and change their "rate". Am I talking jibberish? or just a few months behind. currently rewatching video 3 of the SFTS. Also regarding the surface area aspect... Don't give up on mass just yet. Tesla's use of the word "stout" appears in lots of primaries. My primary was calculated to 3m by 8.4cm by 0.1mm for a grand total of 26.4 cm^3.. Does that sound stout to you?
I'm still researching every day, it's an undeveloped field. the majority of mathematics of manifolds and abstract algebra all conform to relativity, that makes it that much harder to develop a working set of equations as one needs to filter out the conforming terms and relations. it's mighty pervasive, one of the reasons why the bulk of reference material is pre-1927.

around the turn of the century there was a divide on quaternions as well, Alexander Macfarlane also postulated with hyperbolic quaternions and that can be seen in his lectures on the mathematics of space.

so an abstract non relativistic conforming algebraic hyperbolic counter-space geometry needs to be developed it would seem. a simple thing really

I don't abide by the reductionist view of quantum physics or a static state. we exist in a dynamic interconnected manifold, one change effects all. any equations that try to handle this will have a type of 'Heisenberg' uncertainty to use it loosely, it's ever changing and a static 'snapshot' will not explain the dynamic relations. personally I think true advancement will occur when apparatus become 'living' not sentient but more organic. loose terms there, but think of a plant vs a solar panel, the solar panel is rigidly fixed in it's parameters where the plant can adapt and change as needed constantly.

I've diverged enough there. To make any real gains a framework needs to be developed to model the manifold of the dielectric and then develop the basics of each phenomen, i.e. the e,E,I,i k K,c etc...
__________________