Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > > >
   

Eric Dollard Official Forum This forum is dedicated to the work of Eric P. Dollard. His Official homepage is http://ericpdollard.com

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #241  
Old 04-16-2012, 08:21 PM
madhatter's Avatar
madhatter madhatter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by garrettm4 View Post
Madhatter,

As usual, you have ideas and information that are ACTUALLY USEFUL and provide meaningful discussion. I would like to thank you for posting that, it reminded me of a Tesla quote on the aether:

"The assumption of the Maxwellian ether was thought necessary to explain the propagation of light by transverse vibrations, which can only occur in a solid. So fascinating was this theory that even at present it has many supporters, despite the manifest impossibility of a medium, perfectly mobile and tenuous to a degree inconceivable, and yet extremely rigid, like steel. As a result some illusionary ideas have been formed and various phenomena erroneously interpreted. The so-called Hertz waves are still considered a reality proving that light is electrical in its nature, and also that the ether is capable of transmitting transverse vibrations of frequencies hover low. This view has become untenable since I showed that the universal medium is a gaseous body in which only longitudinal pulses can be propagated, involving alternating compressions and expansions similar to those produced by sound waves in the air." Nikola Tesla

Now I don't think anyone, not even Tesla, can empirically prove that the aether (or space as I see it) is a gas, BUT I think we can ALL agree that a PLASMA is an electrified gas. It would seem that LONGITUDINAL waves are the DOMINATE propagation in such a "gaseous medium" (plasma). At least that's what I got out of the references you listed, if I am mistaken then disregard this whole post.

I think the plasma experiments do corroborate longitudinal electrical propagation's (E & H vectors are in parallel as opposed to perpendicular to the "direction of propagation") as proposed by Tesla, and subsequently for which he was shunned by the whole world for not believing that transverse electrical vibrations were all that could exist.

Garrett M


either the MIB are having fun with me or it's the usual glitchy nature of firefox, I had a reply about done when it went 'poof' and firefox closed with all my links and notes gone with no history. ahh well.

Yes Garrett that's exactly the point and conclusion I going for. Last yr a Russian team announced this: Russian Physicists Solve Radio Black-Out Problem for Re-Entering Spacecraft* - Technology Review

Irving Langmuir is also one to look into and his work in plasma physics.

Plasma may be called the 4th state of matter however I tend to view it as the base state of matter and 'door' to the aether.

well off to dig up the lost info again....
__________________
 

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #242  
Old 04-16-2012, 08:29 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin_L View Post
Hi lamare, Eric, and others who may be tired of all the discussion and - from my perspective - differences in use of language to express certain facts.

I want to express my wish that you stay here on this forum - even if you decide to post less frequent - that would be o.k. for me.

When I got a faint idea who Eric Dollard might know from Tesla, Steinmetz and many others of the time window 19th to 20th century, it was lamare who alarmed me on his site Tuks DrippingPedia : Home Page that Eric would be around and even posting from time to time.
I will definitely stay on this forum. It's just that it may be better to have the discussions about some stuff, such as the fundamental nature of the aether, at other threads.

I deeply respect Eric for all that he has done and shared with us and I have definately learned a lot from him and still do, but it appears he thinks I am going too far off topic on this thread and apparantly he does not like my perspective on how and where the limitations on his theories are to be found. That is all fine with me, but why bother other people with posting stuff they do not like in their threads?

There's plenty of threads on this forum including ones I have started, like:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...e-history.html
Why Einstein's relativity theory is plain wrong
Great resource on ether theory
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...-theories.html
Using Cymatics to visualise electric phenomena?
The hack reality howto

Other threads that may be of interest:
Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter "Replications"
Walter Russell - Understanding and applying his work
Joulethief SEC exciter and variants
Use for the Tesla Switch
Gray Tube Replication
Tesla Magnifying Transmitter Questions
Radiant Energy theory
Secrets of the Aether -theories

I am subscribed to all of these threads (use thread tools at the top of the page), so there's plenty of threads to choose from and discuss various subjects.

Last edited by lamare; 04-16-2012 at 08:33 PM.
  #243  
Old 04-16-2012, 11:32 PM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 286
Just stopping in before I head out for the day, it seems that I have forgotten to upload my results of my power multiplication experiment so I've fixed that up now I'll do a video of it hopefully tonight. You will need an oscilloscope to do these measurements unless you use very large resistances (say 10-100M Ohm) and just measure it over time with a volt meter. Reason being is that the discharge will be way to quick to measure with eyes/voltmeter if your using anything under a mega ohm.

Raui
__________________
Scribd account; http://www.scribd.com/raui
  #244  
Old 04-17-2012, 01:37 AM
jake's Avatar
jake jake is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 169
Aint that the truth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisnoc View Post
Well, after watching this for some time, I thought it pertinent to share what came through my emails some time back. Annoyed at what it was, I deleted it, now, I wish I had it as an archival item.

It was a solicitation to "write" and to visit forums and 'contribute'. One could earn a high paying salary based on integration on particular "assigned" forums as well as pay increases for number of forums involved in. "Articles" would pay $3000 and up on top of regular pay based upon etc, etc, etc.

Further, there was available, a "professional staff" to "guide" and "assist" where extra "experience" was needed.
*************

One doesn't have to be Fellini to observe what has been taking place on this forum with the increased "inputs" by those who "receive" a "salary" for disruptive and misleading actions on this (and other) forum(s).

"You get more flak when over the target" applies here, as what Eric is showing is something that opens waaaaayyyyy too many windows in the mind to not have a bit of trolling attached-and those windows have an absolute and direct affect upon the "global cash register".

So, ignoring works, as the "pay grade" is based upon performance, and when the performance output (distraction) goes to nil, so does the operand's pay grade-forcing a different 'HUMINT' personage or at least a name change--easy to spot.

Ignore....

Shortly, one sees the changes...

Redisnoc


This is starting to sound like the truth every day that passes.

I came out of the closet because one of the few people who might actually understand what Tesla was doing gave explicit instructions on how to prove that it was real and in a way that anyone should be able to do it.

Quote:
Crystal Sets Gone Wild

For the diagram shown the coil dimensions are missing, number of turns, etc. A good ground is essential for these kinds of devices. 16 Ground rods in a 10 to 20 foot radius circle, connected to a single ground rod at the center(17th rod), this connection being 10 gauge wire. Dry sand or rock will not ground, so this requires 80, each 14 gauge wires in a 30 foot diameter circle in a star radial configuration, to a center terminal. Without these groundings a Tesla Transformer cannot properly operate, but some "HI-Z" sets may.

The objective here is to scale the "Crystal Set", a step at a time, into a Tesla Transformer for the reception of medium wave band, 300 - 3000 kilocycle A.M. broadcasts. No license is required for this and the broadcast station provides the power.

And this objective cooperates with the primary objective. That is; Who will be the first ham to disprove Einstein's theory? An International contest, but who will sponsor it, Iran maybe?

We have the good fortune in the "Crystal Set Initiative" that, in theory at least, a quarter wave A.M. broadcast tower, and its 120 quarter wave ground radials, must emit a pair of waves as shown by Tesla in his basic diagrams.


Hence it can be seen that a pair of waves are engendered by this transmission system. (Tower and Star Radials). One wave, Hertzian, is the over ground wave, the other wave, Telluric, is the under ground wave. These two waves arrive at the point of reception in their own distinct time frames, giving rise to a difference in phase. Hence, multiple rings of interference patterns are produced. Since the Hertzian portion, over ground, time frame is based upon the velocity of light, then the Telluric portion, under ground, time frame gives the Telluric velocity. Two crystal sets, one over ground, one under ground, and a basic oscilloscope , that simple. I have done this at Landers.

Concluding, a Tesla Magnification Transformer, properly proportioned can, in theory, actually draw power from a local 50 kW station. Several hundred watts of power reception is likely. This would prove Tesla once and for all. No antenna, just a good ground, and a nice and bright 100 watt light bulb.

This would overturn physics more than any billion dollar C.E.R.N. project. A ham radio operator overturns Einstein for 100 bucks. What a concept.
Read,
Tesla, "The True Wireless"
Tesla, "System of Concatenated Tuned Circuits"
Dollard, "System for the Transmission and Reception of Telluric Electric Waves"
A.R.R.L. "Radio Amatuers Handbook". Chapter "H.F. Transmitters, & Tank Circuits"
73 DE N6 KPH
__________________
If you consider these tranmissions helpful, please donate to Eric Dollard via PayPal at DollardDonations@gmail.com
End quote:



So the question remains who will be the first to disprove Einstein?

Also I have come to the conclusion that even though many of you are using the same words you are talking about totally different things. Thats my theory.

To all those who have helped me

I could not have gotten as far as I have without your help.

Peace, Love, and Good Happiness Stuff.

jake
__________________
 
  #245  
Old 04-17-2012, 09:26 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by jake View Post
Quote:
Crystal Sets Gone Wild

For the diagram shown the coil dimensions are missing, number of turns, etc. A good ground is essential for these kinds of devices. 16 Ground rods in a 10 to 20 foot radius circle, connected to a single ground rod at the center(17th rod), this connection being 10 gauge wire. Dry sand or rock will not ground, so this requires 80, each 14 gauge wires in a 30 foot diameter circle in a star radial configuration, to a center terminal. Without these groundings a Tesla Transformer cannot properly operate, but some "HI-Z" sets may.

The objective here is to scale the "Crystal Set", a step at a time, into a Tesla Transformer for the reception of medium wave band, 300 - 3000 kilocycle A.M. broadcasts. No license is required for this and the broadcast station provides the power.

And this objective cooperates with the primary objective. That is; Who will be the first ham to disprove Einstein's theory? An International contest, but who will sponsor it, Iran maybe?

We have the good fortune in the "Crystal Set Initiative" that, in theory at least, a quarter wave A.M. broadcast tower, and its 120 quarter wave ground radials, must emit a pair of waves as shown by Tesla in his basic diagrams.


Hence it can be seen that a pair of waves are engendered by this transmission system. (Tower and Star Radials). One wave, Hertzian, is the over ground wave, the other wave, Telluric, is the under ground wave. These two waves arrive at the point of reception in their own distinct time frames, giving rise to a difference in phase. Hence, multiple rings of interference patterns are produced. Since the Hertzian portion, over ground, time frame is based upon the velocity of light, then the Telluric portion, under ground, time frame gives the Telluric velocity. Two crystal sets, one over ground, one under ground, and a basic oscilloscope , that simple. I have done this at Landers.

Concluding, a Tesla Magnification Transformer, properly proportioned can, in theory, actually draw power from a local 50 kW station. Several hundred watts of power reception is likely. This would prove Tesla once and for all. No antenna, just a good ground, and a nice and bright 100 watt light bulb.

This would overturn physics more than any billion dollar C.E.R.N. project. A ham radio operator overturns Einstein for 100 bucks. What a concept.
Read,
Tesla, "The True Wireless"
Tesla, "System of Concatenated Tuned Circuits"
Dollard, "System for the Transmission and Reception of Telluric Electric Waves"
A.R.R.L. "Radio Amatuers Handbook". Chapter "H.F. Transmitters, & Tank Circuits"
73 DE N6 KPH
__________________
If you consider these tranmissions helpful, please donate to Eric Dollard via PayPal at DollardDonations@gmail.com
End quote:



So the question remains who will be the first to disprove Einstein?

Also I have come to the conclusion that even though many of you are using the same words you are talking about totally different things. Thats my theory.

Let me highlight a few portions:

Quote:
We have the good fortune in the "Crystal Set Initiative" that, in theory at least, a quarter wave A.M. broadcast tower, and its 120 quarter wave ground radials, must emit a pair of waves as shown by Tesla in his basic diagrams.


Hence it can be seen that a pair of waves are engendered by this transmission system. (Tower and Star Radials). One wave, Hertzian, is the over ground wave, the other wave, Telluric, is the under ground wave. These two waves arrive at the point of reception in their own distinct time frames, giving rise to a difference in phase. Hence, multiple rings of interference patterns are produced. Since the Hertzian portion, over ground, time frame is based upon the velocity of light, then the Telluric portion, under ground, time frame gives the Telluric velocity. Two crystal sets, one over ground, one under ground, and a basic oscilloscope , that simple. I have done this at Landers.

Concluding, a Tesla Magnification Transformer, properly proportioned can, in theory, actually draw power from a local 50 kW station. Several hundred watts of power reception is likely. This would prove Tesla once and for all. No antenna, just a good ground, and a nice and bright 100 watt light bulb.

This would overturn physics more than any billion dollar C.E.R.N. project. A ham radio operator overturns Einstein for 100 bucks. What a concept.

With this, the speculation I posted earlier is a lot less speculative than I was aware of at the time I posted this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
Quote:
Using only your understanding of RF, do you think it is possible to light a #327 bulb with a tuned antenna circuit tuned to an AM radio station 10kW 5mi away(actually more then 5mi but lets be conservitave)? Or would you say what I am trying to do is impossible, not gonna happen?

Jake

According to normal RF theory, the power density should rapidly decrease along the inverse-square law, at least in free space:

Radio propagation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
In free space, all electromagnetic waves (radio, light, X-rays, etc.) obey the inverse-square law which states that the power density of an electromagnetic wave is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance from a point source.
When you are talking 5 miles, that would be about 8000 meters. Then the power density at the receiver should be about 10.000/8000^2 = 0.16 mW.

So, according to normal propagation theory, lighting a light bulb by means of RF waves transmitted trough the air should be impossible.

BUT, the transmitter not only transmits directly trough the air. Part of the transmitted power is transmitted in the direction of the earth. And according to Tesla, the earth is capable of resonating at multiples of it's natural resonance frequency of something like 10 Hz or so. That means, that it could very well be possible that a part of the transmitted power is not radiated away into space, but is actually "captured" as a standing wave propagating trough the interior of the the Earth.

And if that is correct, you could pick up the energy of that standing wave at any point upon the surface of the Earth by means of a good ground connection and a resonating receiver apparatus. Now suppose only 1% of the transmitted energy of a 10 kW transmitter is not reflected by the Earth surface, but ends up in a standing wave trough the interior of the Earth, then that standing wave would have a total power of about 100 W. Now if you are the only one tapping into that resonating standing wave, then you should be able to just about light a 100W light bulb....

However, this of course is very speculative.

Eric says he has done it....

And I agree that this would be a feasible way to disprove Einsteins theory.

However, it is quite a some work to setup such a system and I personally don't have much time to experiment and also don't have much money to spend.

The problem I see with this approach is that it will be very hard to convince the nay-sayers with this experiment. I think the experiment will work out just fine, but you are talking about a time difference in the order of 10 - 50 usec over a distance in the order of 10-30 km. We know and understand the relevance of such a timing difference, but it will be very hard to convince the general public and journalists that this experiment really disproves Einstein.

That is why I have chosen to try to accomplish a moon-bounce with dielectric longitudinal waves. That should give a timing difference in the order of 0.9 seconds. You can easily convince a journalist and thus the general public that something strange is going on there.

And since my lab time is very limited for various reasons, I have chosen not to build such a crystal set. At least not now, even though I think it is a very interesting project to do, if only because it offers everyone the opportunity to get 'hands on' experience with 'real' Tesla coils.


Quote:
Also I have come to the conclusion that even though many of you are using the same words you are talking about totally different things. Thats my theory.
There's this classic picture that contains both an old and a young woman:



Eric's approach is to base himself on the level of describing the phenomena we are discussing in terms of capacitances and inductances. With that approach you can engineer these kinds of systems and get them to work.


My approach is to start from a deeper level, whereby I consider everything to be waves in the aether, a medium with fluid-like properties in terms of it's capabilities of propagating electro-magnetic and dielectric waves. I see this as complementary to Eric's work in that it offers a deeper level of understanding and thus identifies the limitations of the capacitance/inductance based approach.

It is my understanding that both capacitance and inductance are related phenomena, caused by flows in/of the aether, whereby capacitance has to do with aether-pressure and "steady-state" flows thereof, while inductance has to do with rotational movements of the aether.

However, both approaches describe the same phenomena, whereby with the capacitance/inductance approach you CAN engineer the system itself and get it working, but you CANNOT describe the actual longitudinal dielectric wave, because that propagates without magnetic fields and thus cannot be described using (distributed) capacitances and inductances. And as long as one sticks to the capacitance/inductance approach, one will never find an answer to the pi/2 propagation speed difference.

In order to do that, one needs to replace the magnetic inductance that has this rotational nature (essentially a dielectric displacement current flowing in closed loops), with some kind of dielectric inductance whereby you model/describe the dynamic nature of the dielectric displacement current itself and do NOT restrict your model to one particular shape of the displacement current as we currently to with our model of magnetic inductance.

So far, my attempts to just identify this issue have apparantly failed. And as long as one insists that we are looking at either a young woman OR an old woman so to speak, I can continue bringing this issue up until hell freezes over with the same result...

Last edited by lamare; 04-18-2012 at 09:17 AM. Reason: updated img
  #246  
Old 04-17-2012, 10:02 PM
SilverToGold's Avatar
SilverToGold SilverToGold is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 433
Hi Nhopa,

I just don't see Eric's love for the Navy as he apparently wants to get back in good graces with them but he then rails against the Babylon system - which he is correct on .... BUT the Navy is a large part of the Babylon system. Just pointing out something he may not be aware of because I know he's cut off from society.

Sorry to tell Eric this - he's very brilliant but the Navy doesn't need his work because they already have free energy machines and the ability to transmit totally secret messages to each other with no possibly of being intercepted. They have UFO's, high energy hand guns, weather weapons ... whatever you can imagine, they've got it. No need for any of the things posted here. They got ALL the Tesla papers back when he was murdered in 1942 so they know it all and have had it for over 70 years.

It's not 'politics' - this affects everything and you can't separate it out. Without an understanding of the truth as to how the world really works.... how are any of you going to make any fruit from any of your ideas or inventions? You can't.

As far as the aether.. I think William Lyne lays it out pretty good for the layman so I say read his books.

I have no comments on coils since I'm not actively researching that area for now and have not had time to read what you have referred to. So I have nothing to say about that.

Not really sure what you guys are trying to do here with these coils. What is the purpose of all these coils? If you guys really want to do something VERY interesting and of import, why not build the Tesla Flying Machine. That's a free energy machine with almost infinite energy gains and very practical. The energy gain is like 1:10^40. Lyne lays it out in his book with lots of instructions and details. If I were to build a coil, I'd build it along those lines and not just to transmit a little energy from here to there.... don't really see the point in that outside of purely scientific interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nhopa View Post
Hi SilverToGold:

Could you please skip the politics and concentrate on the experiments. How about answering my questions I posted last week, now that would be helpful. What is the status of your coil winding? What do you think of the recently started "Aether" discussion? If your reply will be negative, just send me a private response.
__________________
 
  #247  
Old 04-17-2012, 11:30 PM
OrionLightShip's Avatar
OrionLightShip OrionLightShip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 414
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverToGold View Post
BUT the Navy is a large part of the Babylon system.
Navy is bad mmmmmmkay, so don't do Navy.
__________________
 
  #248  
Old 04-17-2012, 11:49 PM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 286
Power Multiplication

As promised here is the video showing how you can demonstrate power magnification. Remember if you've not got an oscilloscope you can still do this experiment with a voltmeter but you must use high valued resistors/capacitor so you can more easily extract your results.

Now for a quick glance at my results;


The values I got for the peak power were approximately:

P1 = 1.52 Watts
P2 = 0.04225 Watts
P3 = 0.037639 Watts

If you take these ratios say P1/P2 and multiply by the resistance value corresponding to the top so in the case of P1 it is 111.1 Ohms you should get a value very close to the R2 value - In this case I got 3996.970 so I am only out by just over 3 ohms, not bad if you ask me and it is within experimental error ranges for my ohmeter.

Here is the video.

Raui
__________________
Scribd account; http://www.scribd.com/raui
  #249  
Old 04-18-2012, 01:28 AM
Farmhand Farmhand is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,387
Hi Raui, Because I'm not an engineer I feel qualified to ask. Over a period of
say 10 charge and discharges wouldn't the "total" power be the same ?

I don't think anyone is doubting that if the discharge time is shorter than the
charge time the peak power is increased in magnitude.

I think the question is (not my question) - Over a period of several discharges
is the total power the same or more.

I think the confusion is in some peoples definition of the word "magnification".

magnification - definition of magnification by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

I think this is the best definition for this situation.

Quote:
magnification - the act of expanding something in apparent size
Cheers
__________________
 
  #250  
Old 04-18-2012, 02:34 AM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 286
Farmhand,
Sorry but I'm not sure I completely understand what your saying when you say total power. Are you talking about the combination of real and reactive power (using pythagoras theorum since we are dealing with complex quantities) or are you saying that if we add all the values for power over the curve we get a constant or something entirely different?

If you're talking about the real + reactive then I have to admit that I don't know because I am unsure how to calculate the reactance in a circuit being excited by a waveform like that as there is no real frequency here. Maybe when I read more of Physics and Mathematics of Electrical Communications by Perrine I'll be able to help since I think that he deals with this in the book (don't quote me though).

If you are asking that if we add up all the individual values for power over the graph we get a constant then I would agree because adding all the little bits of power is performing what is known as integration of the power. The integral of power is energy and I am not claiming that the total energy is changing. If I haven't addressed the question I apologize, please try to put it differently.

I think the point you bring up is an important one about the word magnification, I'm only using the word because Eric does and I'd say he uses it because Tesla did. The idea that is trying to be put forward I think is that the power either grows or decays. Since energy is constant the time must change if the power changes.

Also thanks for the Walter Russell diagrams, I have a few of his books but I don't have a nice archive like that of all his diagrams. He truly was an enlightened man.

Edit: I found this on my daily hunt of the internet; Lightning directed by laser beams - tech - 30 March 2012 - New Scientist
The laser discharges 1 terra-Watts in 1 femto-second giving 1 milli-Joules of energy. Quite amazing that they are guiding lightning with as little as 0.001 Joules of energy all by discharging a small amount of energy in an infintestimal period of time, if this same amount of energy was discharged in say a millisecond you certainly wouldn't be able to make lightning. To me this is proof that this has a real effect on the world around us and is not just a mathematical trick.

Here is a quote from Tesla himself which will assist in discussion;
Quote:
Yes, but with another kind of circuit I could, of course. The advantage of this apparatus was the delivering of energy at short intervals whereby one could increase activity, and with this scheme I was able to perform all of those wonderful experiments which have been reprinted from time to time in the technical papers. I would take energy out of a circuit at rates of hundreds or thousands of horsepower. In Colorado, I reached 18 million horsepower activities, but that was always by this device: Energy stored in the condenser and discharged in an inconceivably small interval of time. You could not produce that activity with an undamped wave. The damped wave is of advantage because it gives you, with a generator of 1 kilowatt, an activity of 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 kilowatts; whereas, if you have a continuous or undamped wave, 1 kilowatt gives you only wave energy at the rate of 1 kilowatt and nothing more. That is the reason why the system with a quenched gap has become popular.
Taken from: Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents -- Chapter IV
I believe by undamped he is talking about a normal AC wave, which you cannot get a power magnification from. Damped/transient waves are what we saw in experiment demonstration and as we saw we can get different amount of power out.

Raui
__________________
Scribd account; http://www.scribd.com/raui

Last edited by Raui; 04-18-2012 at 03:56 AM.
  #251  
Old 04-18-2012, 02:22 PM
Farmhand Farmhand is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,387
Thanks Raui, Yeah I agree, it is definitely magnification. Thank you for the reply.
Every little bit helps.

Cheers
__________________
 
  #252  
Old 04-18-2012, 04:23 PM
Armagdn03's Avatar
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raui View Post
As promised here is the video showing how you can demonstrate power magnification. Remember if you've not got an oscilloscope you can still do this experiment with a voltmeter but you must use high valued resistors/capacitor so you can more easily extract your results.

Now for a quick glance at my results;


The values I got for the peak power were approximately:

P1 = 1.52 Watts
P2 = 0.04225 Watts
P3 = 0.037639 Watts

If you take these ratios say P1/P2 and multiply by the resistance value corresponding to the top so in the case of P1 it is 111.1 Ohms you should get a value very close to the R2 value - In this case I got 3996.970 so I am only out by just over 3 ohms, not bad if you ask me and it is within experimental error ranges for my ohmeter.

Here is the video.

Raui
Fantastic little experiment. This is especially important when we are considering high Q systems, where the work compressed into a shorter time equates to a higher possible peak to peak voltage.
__________________
 
  #253  
Old 04-18-2012, 05:40 PM
Geometric_Algebra's Avatar
Geometric_Algebra Geometric_Algebra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 82
Secondary/Extra Coil Measurements:

Secondary/Extra Coil Measurements:

Ground plate is roughly 24 in x 24 in x 0.5 in plywood, with Al. Foil wrapped, hold drilled in center for 5/16" bolt to clamp #4 welding cable with hammered ringlet terminations. Plate buried 14 inches into wet clay, volcanic soil. Several buckets of water were applied when back filling soil.

Instrumentation: Output monitoring provided with a RadioShack analog multimeter switched to the 50uA DCA scale with shunt diode across terminals, coupled to beer can (as depicted by Eric). Input function generator frequency/amplitude monitoring with a Tektronix TDS210 oscilloscope (60 MHz probe).

Secondary coil is designed for a center frequency of f=1000 k cycles/sec, and N=30 turns, with RG316 coax, resulting in a length of 1880 inches, a diameter of 20 in, and a height of 4 in. This provides (4 inch)/(30 turns)=0.133 inches/turn coax center spacing on form. Secondary coil measurements indicate 990 kHz. This is 1% error from calculated.

Using modified versions of Eric's extra coil design expressions, I designed an extra coil with length 1159.545 inches, diameter 8.0 in, N=46.25 turns, 0.172 turn/in conductor center spacing on form, with a spacing of 0.098 between conductors. Extra coil measurements indicate roughly 3.2 MHz using Eric's measurement technique. So, still more work in this area on my part.

Notes: With my test setup the can was not needed at all to get the uA meter to respond. Holding the lead several feet away or just clipping to a convenient location (support dowel) does the trick. One technique that works well for determining the center frequency is to quickly sweep the function generator until the uA meter responds (in my case the meter pegs full scale), adjusting the input signal amplitude until the uA meter responds half scale, repeating the frequency sweep until a new maxima is found, and so on. An AM stereo 25 feet away tuned to roughly 990 kHz responds quite well to input signals driving the primary loop (i.e. 10, 100, 1000 Hz square waves at various amplitudes).
Attached Images
File Type: jpg teststand.jpg (204.5 KB, 48 views)
File Type: jpg teststand2.jpg (152.0 KB, 46 views)
File Type: jpg secondary.jpg (193.2 KB, 55 views)
File Type: jpg extracoil.jpg (21.1 KB, 41 views)
File Type: jpg extracoil2.jpg (160.3 KB, 41 views)
File Type: jpg ground_plate.jpg (208.4 KB, 41 views)
__________________
 
  #254  
Old 04-18-2012, 07:05 PM
jake's Avatar
jake jake is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 169
Nice setup!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geometric_Algebra View Post
Secondary/Extra Coil Measurements:

Ground plate is roughly 24 in x 24 in x 0.5 in plywood, with Al. Foil wrapped, hold drilled in center for 5/16" bolt to clamp #4 welding cable with hammered ringlet terminations. Plate buried 14 inches into wet clay, volcanic soil. Several buckets of water were applied when back filling soil.

Instrumentation: Output monitoring provided with a RadioShack analog multimeter switched to the 50uA DCA scale with shunt diode across terminals, coupled to beer can (as depicted by Eric). Input function generator frequency/amplitude monitoring with a Tektronix TDS210 oscilloscope (60 MHz probe).

Secondary coil is designed for a center frequency of f=1000 k cycles/sec, and N=30 turns, with RG316 coax, resulting in a length of 1880 inches, a diameter of 20 in, and a height of 4 in. This provides (4 inch)/(30 turns)=0.133 inches/turn coax center spacing on form. Secondary coil measurements indicate 990 kHz. This is 1% error from calculated.

Using modified versions of Eric's extra coil design expressions, I designed an extra coil with length 1159.545 inches, diameter 8.0 in, N=46.25 turns, 0.172 turn/in conductor center spacing on form, with a spacing of 0.098 between conductors. Extra coil measurements indicate roughly 3.2 MHz using Eric's measurement technique. So, still more work in this area on my part.

Notes: With my test setup the can was not needed at all to get the uA meter to respond. Holding the lead several feet away or just clipping to a convenient location (support dowel) does the trick. One technique that works well for determining the center frequency is to quickly sweep the function generator until the uA meter responds (in my case the meter pegs full scale), adjusting the input signal amplitude until the uA meter responds half scale, repeating the frequency sweep until a new maxima is found, and so on. An AM stereo 25 feet away tuned to roughly 990 kHz responds quite well to input signals driving the primary loop (i.e. 10, 100, 1000 Hz square waves at various amplitudes).
Did you use the extra coil calculation posted on the yahoo group?
Do you get any uA readings without the function generator? From a local station?

Is the coax on the secondary and extra the same diameter?

Thanks.
__________________
 

Last edited by jake; 04-18-2012 at 08:10 PM. Reason: one more question
  #255  
Old 04-18-2012, 08:19 PM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raui View Post
Farmhand,
Sorry but I'm not sure I completely understand what your saying when you say total power. Are you talking about the combination of real and reactive power (using pythagoras theorum since we are dealing with complex quantities) or are you saying that if we add all the values for power over the curve we get a constant or something entirely different?

If you're talking about the real + reactive then I have to admit that I don't know because I am unsure how to calculate the reactance in a circuit being excited by a waveform like that as there is no real frequency here. Maybe when I read more of Physics and Mathematics of Electrical Communications by Perrine I'll be able to help since I think that he deals with this in the book (don't quote me though).

If you are asking that if we add up all the individual values for power over the graph we get a constant then I would agree because adding all the little bits of power is performing what is known as integration of the power. The integral of power is energy and I am not claiming that the total energy is changing. If I haven't addressed the question I apologize, please try to put it differently.

I think the point you bring up is an important one about the word magnification, I'm only using the word because Eric does and I'd say he uses it because Tesla did. The idea that is trying to be put forward I think is that the power either grows or decays. Since energy is constant the time must change if the power changes.

Also thanks for the Walter Russell diagrams, I have a few of his books but I don't have a nice archive like that of all his diagrams. He truly was an enlightened man.

Edit: I found this on my daily hunt of the internet; Lightning directed by laser beams - tech - 30 March 2012 - New Scientist
The laser discharges 1 terra-Watts in 1 femto-second giving 1 milli-Joules of energy. Quite amazing that they are guiding lightning with as little as 0.001 Joules of energy all by discharging a small amount of energy in an infintestimal period of time, if this same amount of energy was discharged in say a millisecond you certainly wouldn't be able to make lightning. To me this is proof that this has a real effect on the world around us and is not just a mathematical trick.

Here is a quote from Tesla himself which will assist in discussion;

Taken from: Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents -- Chapter IV
I believe by undamped he is talking about a normal AC wave, which you cannot get a power magnification from. Damped/transient waves are what we saw in experiment demonstration and as we saw we can get different amount of power out.

Raui

Sure there is.

You take your scope, start cranking the timebase till that pulse is at a manageable angle. like /\

Then measure the time from zero to the peak, or zero to zero and interpolate it to complete a full sine and compute the frequency from there.

Then for accurate understanding of the power it is the area under the curve that you need to convert to DC heating value.

I posted umteen times about this and even put up books and charts teaching how to do this and even went beyond the call of duty and drew up a circuit for it, and requested that the moderator put it up as a sticky for noobs to learn how to properly measure their circuits!!!!

Even after all that for some reason no one seems to get it.

That youtube video made no sense to me what so ever and your above charts have no axis labels.

This concept of magnification of power by shortening the pulse width makes no sense, at least in the way you all are presenting it.

The bottom line is the DC heating value, or the area under the curve (RMS) value.
__________________
 
  #256  
Old 04-18-2012, 08:43 PM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-rex View Post
Then further, to “throw poison into the soup” is the yammerings of Joe Blow from Kokomo.N6KPH
I wont argue that convention is the version you posted, I was talking substantially. Hence we are both correct.

In any case I am happy to see that you rephrased it to -t I presume referenced to t0, rather than "going backwards in time" since the time you decided to look backwards in time is in fact several intervals forward in time from point t0.

I am not sure how anyone has determined that you proved faster light longitudinal because if you did I must have missed it and so far I watched 3 videos you did with brown et al the bolinas, sbarc, and this 2007 video and seen nothing that I can credit to you on that matter, outside naked theory.

You did demonstrate the distinction however, at least as far as my knowledge base can tell between dimagnetic and dielectric.

In each video you made claims beyond that but as of yet I have not seen it demonstrated by you or anyone "building stuff".

The one that stopped me cold was how you came to believe current can flow without creating a magnetic field.

Now if you hit me up with TEM00 yeh ok I can buy that, but then we are still at the speed of light.

The next problem is how faster than the speed of light occurs because presumably [insert whatever label you want here] somehow jumps past the coil presumably via a capacitive manner and that it does so faster than any other capacitor. It simply does not compute and you have not offered anything as to how you came to that conclusion.

So we just need a few more things clarified with regard to your theories.

~fragment X
__________________
 
  #257  
Old 04-18-2012, 09:00 PM
Geometric_Algebra's Avatar
Geometric_Algebra Geometric_Algebra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by jake View Post
Did you use the extra coil calculation posted on the yahoo group?
Do you get any uA readings without the function generator? From a local station?

Is the coax on the secondary and extra the same diameter?

Thanks.
Extra coil calculations were based on the modified expressions I posted there. This extra coil design is using RG316 coax. I dissected a small length and determined the outer diameter to be 0.098 inches, silvered sheath diameter to be 0.074 inches with a copper mass per length of 0.139 grams/inch.

With the test setups described by Eric, meter readings dip down to practically nothing (maybe 2 uA quiescent) with the function generator zeroed out, or adjusted off of the center frequency by several 100 kHz. No, and I do not think there is anything specifically broadcasting at 990 kHz in the area. I will look into these aspects more later on.
__________________
 
  #258  
Old 04-18-2012, 09:40 PM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geometric_Algebra View Post
Extra coil calculations were based on the modified expressions I posted there. This extra coil design is using RG316 coax. I dissected a small length and determined the outer diameter to be 0.098 inches, silvered sheath diameter to be 0.074 inches with a copper mass per length of 0.139 grams/inch.

With the test setups described by Eric, meter readings dip down to practically nothing (maybe 2 uA quiescent) with the function generator zeroed out, or adjusted off of the center frequency by several 100 kHz. No, and I do not think there is anything specifically broadcasting at 990 kHz in the area. I will look into these aspects more later on.

if it were me, I would simply start shorting turns until it was close to 1000kc to get an idea how much needs to be trimmed.

Thats why coils and splitting hairs with the math is a contradiction in terms unless one can account for all variables and I have not seen anything come close at this point. Always best to design for a bit lower operating freq and trim than be to short and have to add.
__________________
 

Last edited by Kokomoj0; 04-18-2012 at 09:49 PM.
  #259  
Old 04-18-2012, 10:08 PM
madhatter's Avatar
madhatter madhatter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 457
You know I ended up on this site and thread as a result of research in plasma physics. The capacitor plays a role in the ES plasma wave, ES waves are superluminal and ultra superluminal however since that violates relativity a magic wand is waved and phase velocities and a landau damping drop assumed.

There are some interesting things in plasma, look at the work Farnsworth was doing. On one hand I can see where the trouble would arise from trying to understand RF waves exceeding C via simple windings and capacitance. However look into high energy plasma experiments and it will usually involve capacitors in a geometric arrangement. Ionization fronts will convert ES to EM waves in plasma fields. There is a troubling fact ignored and not talked about, RF waves are seemingly always transverse to the B field, however in the plasma field the longitudinal wave is the stable one and the transverse is a result of instabilities. They are both derived from Maxwell Eq's, so where is the RF longitudinal wave? is it a result of instabilities akin to the plasma field?

Tesla, and Eric both used ES plasma waves to pulse the coils, there is where the magic starts. I know Eric isn't too interested in that area but it plays a critical part of his experiments and the results he's seen.

I've pointed out a few times on where to look and research this phenomenon so others may draw their own conclusions and possibly help further the research.

I've built some of the coils only as a matter of checking the calculated paper results and to develop my own theories based on electrostatic optics.

I think that the study of physics and electric phenomenon is backwards, we start with the complex results then move to basic reason why and then further into high energy plasma where it's considered highly complex and advanced when that's where the start should be and then derive how to manipulate and create from there.
__________________
 
  #260  
Old 04-18-2012, 11:19 PM
Farmhand Farmhand is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
This concept of magnification of power by shortening the pulse width makes no sense, at least in the way you all are presenting it.

The bottom line is the DC heating value, or the area under the curve (RMS) value.
Is a magnifying glass not useful ? A magnifying glass does not make more light
than what entered it's lens, it just concentrates it to magnify the image so
things can be seen, in doing so it creates a "blind" area that cannot be seen.

Magnifying power means there will be time when there is less or even no
power so that the power can be concentrated in a shorter interval ( unit of time).

This is the same principal as sharpening a point on a spear, the power is
concentrated and thereby more effective. It's a very simple concept.

The tread on a tyre, the spikes on a sprinters running shoes. It's very common.

I don't understand why the concept is so difficult to grasp.

To use Tesla's example, "it's the mechanical analogue of a pile driver". Could you explain
how a pile driver could work without magnifying the power of the engine that
is doing the work ? Without the storing and sudden release of energy a pile
driver is not a pile driver. If the pile driver just placed the driver on the top of
the pylon nothing would happen unless it sat there a very very long time.

Cheers
__________________
 

Last edited by Farmhand; 04-19-2012 at 02:56 AM.
  #261  
Old 04-18-2012, 11:30 PM
garrettm4 garrettm4 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Orbiting Sol somewhere in the Milky Way
Posts: 178
Frequency of an Impulse

Kokomojo,

I haven't read your sticky about using an oscilloscope or what ever its on, BUT an impulse is not a SINE and yes you are correct about the DC heating value which consequently is (I^2)r. Obviously I, in the case of a capacitive impulse, is a logarithmic quantity related to Coulombs per Second (amperes). The discharge follows the natural logarithm or loge. WE DON'T NEED TO INTEGRATE ANYTHING, WE WANT TO KNOW THE DIFFERENTIATION VALUE NOT THE INTEGRATION VALUE. WHY? BECAUSE ITS THE INTENSITY OF HEAT PER INSTANTANEOUS MOMENT IN TIME THAT MATTERS, ((dPsi/dt)^2)r=dP or (dI^2)r=dP. If you have ever read a datasheet for a power resistor, they will explicitly tell you to not to exceed a "PULSE" value for power. This is because it will fail if a certain threshold is exceeded, EVEN IF IT IS FOR A VERY SMALL MOMENT IN TIME. Hence why the differential value is of more meaningful conversation than the integration value. But obviously, for limited conversations. It's the PEEK power that matters most in an impulse and not necessarily the DC equivalent, or average, where we take the integration value, of the differential plot, and place it over the whole period. Where (integrated power, or energy) / (Period, or elapsed time constants) = DC Equivalent or AVERAGE POWER, NOT peek power which is more important in some cases.

An impulse is ACYCLIC, or it starts and ends abruptly, A SINGLE ENERGY TRANSIENT. An impulse is measured in NEEPER-RADIANS. Where one (1) radian is the time constant rC, gL or equivalent, we say that there are 5 of them in practical work so we get 5 * (rC) = number of radians (number of arc lengths of time) comprising the period T. Now we can get an "equivalent cyclic frequency" by taking the RECIPROCAL of T to get f. SIMPLE. NO SINE WAVES INVOLVED.

However, it should be pointed out, that the RISE TIME of the impulse is directly related to "bandwidth" just like a "pulse". So, one could argue about the harmonic "sine wave" content of the disturbance. The parasitic inductance and capacity in the discharge path limit the rise time to reasonable values, i.e. the rise time will not be instantaneous, but have some finite value.

FOR A CYCLIC WAVE SUCH AS A SINE WAVE USE THIS:

NATURAL PERIOD


NATURAL CYCLIC FREQUENCY:


NATURAL ANGULAR FREQUENCY:


NOTE, dt should be read as sqrt(LC) (or sqrt(L/K) or sqrt(C/M) or sqrt(1/MK)

SIDE NOTE, for this whole topic, impulses are used in the CRAZY experiments where electricity is actually COOL (at least visually interesting) where things like RAIL-GUNS, LASERS, EXPLODING OF WIRES INTO VAPOR and EVEN WATER EXPLODING are the direct results of the compression of energy through the dimension of time to produce the INTENSITY, called power, need to manifest these BIZARRE phenomena, all done with a LIMITED amount of energy.

Garrett M
__________________
 

Last edited by garrettm4; 05-09-2012 at 04:54 PM.
  #262  
Old 04-18-2012, 11:53 PM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
Sure there is.

You take your scope, start cranking the timebase till that pulse is at a manageable angle. like /\

Then measure the time from zero to the peak, or zero to zero and interpolate it to complete a full sine and compute the frequency from there.
I am not sure that you can apply a sine wave here. I think the trouble is your trying to analyze these circuits from a steady state point of view while we are studying them from a transient perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
Then for accurate understanding of the power it is the area under the curve that you need to convert to DC heating value.
The area underneath the curve I have posted is energy since the curve is power. Finding the area under a curve and performing an integral are the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
I posted umteen times about this and even put up books and charts teaching how to do this and even went beyond the call of duty and drew up a circuit for it, and requested that the moderator put it up as a sticky for noobs to learn how to properly measure their circuits!!!!
I had a quick browse and couldn't find anything which doesn't agree with what I've done unless it's not applicable. Could you provide me with the link to the post which disputes what I am claiming in an exactness which is basically that power is conserved? I have posted several examples of where power isn't conserved using this same principal of discharging energy different to when it was charged, you have posted none disproving this.
You said
Quote:
this is what I explained that everyone forgets when talking about the "impulse". the relationship between V I and time
Transformers - Power Transmission - YouTube
This isn't a transformer, this video deals with normal AC conditions where transients don't exist. I will again post this quote from Tesla, whose work it is we're trying to understand by application of Eric's knowledge, the man himself states quite plainly how he achieved non-conservation of power/activity.
Quote:
The advantage of this apparatus was the delivering of energy at short intervals whereby one could increase activity, and with this scheme I was able to perform all of those wonderful experiments which have been reprinted from time to time in the technical papers. I would take energy out of a circuit at rates of hundreds or thousands of horsepower. In Colorado, I reached 18 million horsepower activities, but that was always by this device: Energy stored in the condenser and discharged in an inconceivably small interval of time. You could not produce that activity with an undamped wave. The damped wave is of advantage because it gives you, with a generator of 1 kilowatt, an activity of 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 kilowatts; whereas, if you have a continuous or undamped wave, 1 kilowatt gives you only wave energy at the rate of 1 kilowatt and nothing more. That is the reason why the system with a quenched gap has become popular.
I shall let the quote speak for itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
Even after all that for some reason no one seems to get it.
Tesla is stating clear as day what he was doing and I'm the one not getting it? I asked my physics lecturer about this situation because I wanted to make sure that I wasn't talking gibberish about a principal which is pretty elementary and something he should be able to understand easily. My physics lecturer had no problem in understanding what I was saying here and he didn't need to stop me once and get me to clarify anything. He said aslong as I'm not claiming excess energy from this setup then my analysis of what is going on is correct. There will be an increased amount of power applied in a time which is the reciprocal to the change in power achieved.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
That youtube video made no sense to me what so ever and your above charts have no axis labels.
Other people have seemed to understand it just fine, it is unfortunate since you were the intended audience. The power is the dependant variable, time is the independant variable. The power was calculated as V^2/R which is another way of saying I^2*R like was done in the video you posted a couple of times
RC Circuits - YouTube




Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
This concept of magnification of power by shortening the pulse width makes no sense, at least in the way you all are presenting it.

The bottom line is the DC heating value, or the area under the curve (RMS) value.
I am shortening the pulse width of energy and the magnitude of the energy stays constant so naturally the rate at which work, defined as the change in energy, is performed will be different which is power what is so hard about that? If all the energy in the capacitor is gone in a shorter amount of time that means that dE/dt is different, which is power. Tesla states it in very simple terms, please explain why it is that Tesla is describing the same thing I am, that is; discharging a condenser in an ideally infintestimal period of time and getting high amounts of activity from it.


Raui
__________________
Scribd account; http://www.scribd.com/raui

Last edited by Raui; 04-19-2012 at 12:11 AM.
  #263  
Old 04-19-2012, 12:34 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
ok but neither of you have defined magnify to anyones satisfaction but your own.

From your definitions I just see this mysterious pulse that everyone is trying to tell me cannot be reduced in the terms I am stating.

what is magnify?

The math does not show any magnification.

So what is magnify? What is "activities"?

How can we understand this if we do not know what it means?

So you hit it with this well damped yoctosecond square wave perfectly pulse, so what?

takes us right back to what is magnify and what are activities?

I do not have a problem with thinking in terms of magnification as being the same as a transformer, say a 1:3 ratio hence a 3x magnification is that what it means?

Activities is what power consumption?

Everyone runs off 1/2 cocked and does not even know or understand the terms used, trying to replicate a fairly precise science on guesses and maybes.

we need a specific definition for these words or we have nothing to work with.






Square waves make it easy and they are perfect pulses.

Each square represents 1 watt under the curve.

So whats different?

How is the power magnified?

If magnification is 3x like a transformer then why arent we using modern terms we can all relate to instead of everyone talking a foreign language to each other?
__________________
 

Last edited by Kokomoj0; 04-19-2012 at 01:41 AM.
  #264  
Old 04-19-2012, 01:59 AM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 286
Well I wouldn't know if other people know exactly what I'm talking about but neither would you since no one other than you has posted an objection to the words being used to describe what's going on. If anyone has trouble understanding then please post otherwise it's just a back and fourth battle between a select few on here about semantics, not very productive if you ask me I'd rather discuss more interesting things. Like I've said before, those using the word magnify do so because that's the word used by Eric and Tesla. Eric defined what he meant by magnification factor in his writings. If we start using different words to describe what Eric is describing then we are confusing people just starting to read the transmissions and make sense of them. This is the last thing we need.

Don't get me wrong, the words are important. However, aslong as the general audience understands what is being meant when we use the words then what's the problem. Again you're the only one whose made comment on the words out of all the people who are actively involved in this discussion and so I've assumed that everyone else has understood what I'm saying. If I am mistaken then somebody else, anybody else please let me know so we can all do our best to aid in learning.

Activity is the word used by the the people who actually wrote AC theory such as Steinmetz as a word they could use for electrical power, it's measured in Watts. If we just focus on putting those words into todays language that takes away ones ability to go back themselves and read and actually understand what Steinmetz/Heaviside/Tesla say/mean. I'd rather people read their works themselves than me tell them what I got out of the works.

Think of this thread as a university course and the prescribed texts being Steinmetz, Heaviside etc. You wouldn't start using different terms to what your lecturer/textbook uses when talking amungst the people using the same resources to learn. You would talk about phenomena in terms of the prescribed texts because that's what everyone is reading to get to the same understanding. I think the biggest problem here is that this thread is to teach people who don't know about electricity what it is, how it works etc. You've already been exposed to some of these things in your engineering degree which used slightly different terms and so there is no surprise that confusion is arising.

Okay well think of the ratios of the turns on a transformer as being similar to the ratios of the resistances. It magnifies in the same way except in the case of the resistances it's a transient case and a transformer is a somewhat steady state case. So yes, that is what is meant by magnify. In the case of the transformer which you talk about power is constant and so it's components (volts, amps) change with respect to one another to keep this constant relationship. In the case of the capacitor arrangement the energy is constant and so the components (watts, seconds) change to keep this relationship.

EDIT: Sorry didn't see the other bit of your post before I started typing my post. In your graph you've got those rectangles where the height represents one variable and the width represents another. If the area under this curve is the power then you are comparing a different situations because the area under the curve I posted would be energy since the time integral of power is energy. The reason it seems like we're talking in a foreign language to you is because we used different resources for our learning.

Raui
__________________
Scribd account; http://www.scribd.com/raui

Last edited by Raui; 04-19-2012 at 02:06 AM.
  #265  
Old 04-19-2012, 02:10 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raui View Post
Well I wouldn't know if other people know exactly what I'm talking about but neither would you since no one other than you has posted an objection to the words being used to describe what's going on. If anyone has trouble understanding then please post otherwise it's just a back and fourth battle between a select few on here about semantics, not very productive if you ask me I'd rather discuss more interesting things. Like I've said before, those using the word magnify do so because that's the word used by Eric and Tesla. Eric defined what he meant by magnification factor in his writings. If we start using different words to describe what Eric is describing then we are confusing people just starting to read the transmissions and make sense of them. This is the last thing we need.

and if you do then you will confuse the rest of the world who is not going to look for that needle in the haystack definition. maybe Eric should consider choosing a more appropriate word if his goal is to educate, or supply everyone with an index of words and phrases.


Don't get me wrong, the words are important. However, aslong as the general audience understands what is being meant when we use the words then what's the problem. Again you're the only one whose made comment on the words out of all the people who are actively involved in this discussion and so I've assumed that everyone else has understood what I'm saying. If I am mistaken then somebody else, anybody else please let me know so we can all do our best to aid in learning.

The general audience does not. only the few people who happen to hang on every word will get it, which is my gripe on the traveling backwards in time.


Activity is the word used by the the people who actually wrote AC theory such as Steinmetz as a word they could use for electrical power, it's measured in Watts. If we just focus on putting those words into todays language that takes away ones ability to go back themselves and read and actually understand what Steinmetz/Heaviside/Tesla say/mean. I'd rather people read their works themselves than me tell them what I got out of the works.

ok so activity = watts ok.

now who is going to remember all these nifty twists when all that need be said to properly communicate the point is "watts"?

Is understanding tesla been magnified into a wordsmithing game?

Think of this thread as a university course

Excuse me!


and the prescribed texts being Steinmetz, Heaviside etc. You wouldn't start using different terms to what your lecturer/textbook uses when talking amungst the people using the same resources to learn. You would talk about phenomena in terms of the prescribed texts because that's what everyone is reading to get to the same understanding. I think the biggest problem here is that this thread is to teach people who don't know about electricity what it is, how it works etc. You've already been exposed to some of these things in your engineering degree which used slightly different terms and so there is no surprise that confusion is arising.

well its being presented in equivalent of latin to an english speaking audience, instead of being translated prior to lecturing to english. whats up with that?


Okay well think of the ratios of the turns on a transformer as being similar to the ratios of the resistances. It magnifies in the same way except in the case of the resistances it's a transient case and a transformer is a somewhat steady state case. So yes, that is what is meant by magnify. In the case of the transformer which you talk about power is constant and so it's components (volts, amps) change with respect to one another to keep this constant relationship. You mean primary to secondary we presume? In the case of the capacitor arrangement the energy is constant and so the components (watts, seconds) change to keep this relationship.

EDIT: Sorry didn't see the other bit of your post before I started typing my post. In your graph you've got those rectangles where the height represents one variable and the width represents another. If the area under this curve is the power then you are comparing a different situations because the area under the curve I posted would be energy since the time integral of power is energy. The reason it seems like we're talking in a foreign language to you is because we used different resources for our learning.

Raui

I do not know what resources you use?

However I am still waiting for the "substantial" definition if it is "other" than the one I stated. Since you do not like my answer.




I get really burned out on magic words without substance.
__________________
 

Last edited by Kokomoj0; 04-19-2012 at 02:26 AM.
  #266  
Old 04-19-2012, 02:20 AM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
I do not know what resources you use?

However I am still waiting for the "substantial" definition if it is "other" than the one I stated. Since you do not like my answer.




I get really burned out on magic words without substance.
Steinmetz, Heaviside, Kennelly, Macfarlane, Bewley the list goes on and on. I've referenced to them in my posts many times as have many others in the group. I'm sorry where did you define magnification. I said it can be thought of in the same way as the transformer where you can magnify the voltage or current but where you magnify one quantity you shrink the other because in the case you case power is constant. In my case however energy is constant and so power and time will magnify/shrink accordingly. This is the same definition but in a transformer you have a magnification where power is constant but in my example power is not constant but energy is.

Raui
__________________
Scribd account; http://www.scribd.com/raui
  #267  
Old 04-19-2012, 02:43 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raui View Post
Steinmetz, Heaviside, Kennelly, Macfarlane, Bewley the list goes on and on. I've referenced to them in my posts many times as have many others in the group. I'm sorry where did you define magnification. I said it can be thought of in the same way as the transformer where you can magnify the voltage or current but where you magnify one quantity you shrink the other because in the case you case power is constant. In my case however energy is constant and so power and time will magnify/shrink accordingly. This is the same definition but in a transformer you have a magnification where power is constant but in my example power is not constant but energy is.

Raui
When you think of it in terms of a transformer you are very simply stepping up or down based on the turns ratio.

See how easy it is to be crystal clear so someone does not have to read 50,000 pages to get a grip on whats going on here?

So now you have the official way it was thought of back then in the jpg that I posted removing all doubt how the term was used.

So how is your definition of energy different than power?
__________________
 
  #268  
Old 04-19-2012, 02:48 AM
Geometric_Algebra's Avatar
Geometric_Algebra Geometric_Algebra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 82
Power Magnification?

Oh boy, here we go. Now I'm confused on this issue of power magnification. I was under the impression that power magnification dealt with a specific (linear algebraic) ratio between energy exchanges (two of them, P1 and P2) into and out of a system over distinct time frames (two of them, t1 and t2). Power dissipation into a resistor (unidirectional energy exchange, single time frame) doesn't quite fit within my conception of magnification. So, let's just clarify this term (maybe by defining it with simple algebra expression), and then move on to bloodier battles.
__________________
 
  #269  
Old 04-19-2012, 03:06 AM
Farmhand Farmhand is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
I do not know what resources you use?

However I am still waiting for the "substantial" definition if it is "other" than the one I stated. Since you do not like my answer.




I get really burned out on magic words without substance.
Just like a lot of words Magnify can have slightly different definitions.

A magnifying transmitter is a transformer !

The difference is that with a (regular) transformer the power is transformed with a
different ratio of volts and amps (to keep it simple), over the same period of
time, but with a capacitive discharge the power is magnified (concentrated)
into a shorter time period than the charge. So the voltage and the amperage
are both increased for a shorter period of time.

The way I see it the transformer and resonance increase the voltage and the
capacitor discharge increases the current.

The regular transformer does it for equal time, input - output, generally speaking. (EDIT, I should say there it depends how the transformer is used)

If it useful or not depends on the situation.

No need for magic.

If there is a word or a term we think could be used different ways we could
ask the user what definition they intend in that context. Wouldn't hurt.

Or the user could pre-empt that by defining words they think are contentious.

Cheers

Edited..
__________________
 

Last edited by Farmhand; 04-19-2012 at 03:24 AM.
  #270  
Old 04-19-2012, 03:40 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
well the power stays the same.

you either have high v primary and a low v secondary or a low v primary and a high v secondary and the current is proportional.

frequency is irrelevant for the most part irrelevant for this word.

magnification simply means step up/down and activity means watts according to raui and the activity I dont think I have a problem with except that the term watts should be used since we are not living in 1901.
__________________
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers