View Single Post
Old 03-31-2012, 10:19 PM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by garrettm4 View Post

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.

yup and I said that many moons ago and was shunned for it LOL

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.

that is correct and that is not another way but the way for a steady state input. (DC) the rest starts sounding like gobblety gook.

Keep in mind that second semester electronics they teach you all about phase angle. The imaginary number system handles the addition and subtraction etc of different phase angles.

Reactance is always a vector sum at some phase angle other than zero. Hence it has a resistive "effect" and properties.

A pure resistor has zero phase angle

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

well not exactly.

a magnetic or dielectric field is essentially the same as a dc potential. When that magnetic field is collapased you get the energy, and likewise when the dielectric field is shorted or bridged. until it is in a condition to be kinetic is little different than a charged battery waiting for something to be connected.

I said many posts ago that all this per stuff is the same as 1/x and I did not see the value in calculating it in the opposite quadrant since it is a mirror image anyway.

Eric nor anyone else responded to that. So if there is a significance to it its is lost to me because that and several other points made have went unexplained that I asked about. Oh well....

Worse I started to listen to Erics audios and was forced to turn it off when he started about going backwards in time. So I have been very quiet waiting to see where this is ultimately going to go.

Now we can take that one step farther and again look at Meyl, regardless how many stones people wish to throw at his work its very hard to argue with success, at least you cant argue too much.

Meyl is in th e build stage not theory and has shown this to work real time. Now unless he is flat out lying about the measurements has claimed to get more at the receiver than he was transmitting.

No other working theory with that regard has been proposed or demonstrated that I can see at this point. Meyls has put out a theory as to why this happens and I have not seen any theory here refute Meyls functionally. So I am left shrugging my shoulders.

Maybe I expected too much, but I have to admit I expected to be looking the holy grail square in the face and have not had the pleasure of that expectation.

Lots of great theory but sadly nothing that crashed any of my einstein education yet.

But I have hope that maybe something is forth coming.

Last edited by Kokomoj0; 03-31-2012 at 10:40 PM.