Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2019 ENERGY CONFERENCE - ONLY 150 118 99 71 63 12 SEATS AVAILABLE!

2019 Energy Science & Technology Conference
ONLY 150 118 99 71 63 12 SEATS AVAILABLE - LIMITED SEATING
Get your tickets 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
  #1021  
Old 02-21-2012, 05:19 AM
Web000x's Avatar
Web000x Web000x is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
I am not able to add that up.

-t/t?

I can relate to t - t, or charge - discharge, you cant discharge more than you charge, and you cannot have time less than zero, so I do not understand how we get a magnification factor out of that.

The charge and discharge times is just the same power in more or less time.

That and to be in resonance it seems to me the charge and discharge time would have to be nearly the same.

In your example above it seems you have the same amount of power, but at different intervals.
I'm really not seeing why you have a problem with the representation of forward and reverse time. Maybe your referring to another problem that I am just not seeing right off.

Be careful of your semantics, the charge and discharge times are just the same energy in more or less time. In my example above, I have the same amount of energy but at different intervals.
__________________
 

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

  #1022  
Old 02-21-2012, 07:01 AM
garrettm4 garrettm4 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Orbiting Sol somewhere in the Milky Way
Posts: 178
Magnification Factor, a resultant of Time & Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
I am not able to add that up.

-t/t?

I can relate to t - t, or charge - discharge, you cant discharge more than you charge, and you cannot have time less than zero, so I do not understand how we get a magnification factor out of that.

The charge and discharge times is just the same power in more or less time.

That and to be in resonance it seems to me the charge and discharge time would have to be nearly the same.

In your example above it seems you have the same amount of power, but at different intervals.

Simply said, Magnification is a two way road, you can either shrink unit time or add energy per each unit time ("compression" of energy or addition of energy per unit time), BOTH do the same thing, although under different circumstances. The unit of time is the whole span of time thus "charge" is a unit of time and subsequently "discharge" is also a unit of time. The RATIOS of these QUANTITIES of time dictates the MAGNIFICATION FACTOR. "Energy" moved in each time frame is equal, but the "power" is not! This is the whole basis of "magnification factor". (this being true if the charge and discharge of a single energy transient or Impulse wave is considered)

The CHARGE time was in the "past" and hence a "negative time frame", the DISCHARGE is taking place "now" and hence a "positive time frame", this is if only ONE "time frame" is present. IF TWO "time frames" are present in a "window of time" then negative time is that of energy storage or return and positive time is that of energy production or consumption. "Past Time" (forward time that already happened) and "Reverse Time" (time moving backwards) are two different quantities, but could both be represented with negative time (-t). I'll leave it to your imagination as to how you would like to deal with this confusing issue. (Mr Dollard has given us his versor operators to solve this issue but I doubt very many will use them, due to the seemingly intrinsic complexity of their use)

Power has AT LEAST TWO directions, Consumption & Production or Storage & Return. Production and Return oppose one another. Both are happening at the same time, thus power is trying to move in two directions, in this instance negative time is that of return whereas positive time is that of production. If both are equal then no dissipation can take place only a reactive oscillation. Thus a forward-traveling wave (production) and backward-traveling wave (return) exist, the interference pattern produced is that of a standing wave. A parallel LC circuit or open/shorted transmission line describes this situation quite well.

IMPULSES and ALTERNATING WAVES are distinct in their operation. The magnification factor of each is unique, they are NOT the SAME. The combination of one and the other adds to the confusion. The base time unit of an Alternating wave is that of the Radian NOT Cycles per Second 1/(sqrt(LC)) whereas an Impulse is in Tau rC & gL or other algebraically equal forms.

Something to note, is that magnification factor of an LC tank relates to its "Q" or quality factor and also to its "Selectivity", the sharper the Notch, if looked at from a spectrum analyzer, the higher the selectivity and greater the potential reactive voltage & current when driven at its natural frequency. Whereas with an Impulse, NOT a "Pulse", the time, with all things equal, is the only thing that changes the magnification factor.

The best way to look at whats going on in the Tesla Transformer Primary & Secondary is:

Primary -> IMPULSE WAVES (from 'Steinmetz coil' or capacitive discharge, via push-pull center tap on primary)
Secondary -> OSCILLATING CURRENT WAVES (LC & MK Quadra-Polar Resonance, in secondary and maybe between the extra coil/terminal capacity as well)

Thus the MAGNIFICATION Factor, in this special case, isn't in shrinking time, it is in adding energy per unit time to another circuit. Mr. Dollard says that the energy from the Primary is conserved, thus the secondary's TOTAL oscillatory ENERGY MUST BUILD UP IN MAGNITUDE from the IMPULSE energy of the Primary.

The loss factor that takes away from this oscillatory energy is caused from:

RADIATION RESISTANCE (emitted radio waves, length of wire per length of wave traveling alongst it)
SERIES RESISTANCE (emitted infrared radiation, electrons moving, causing photon emission)
PARASITIC MUTUAL CAPACITY & INDUCTANCE (stray coupling to surroundings, metallic or dielectric)
LEAKAGE INDUCTANCE (magnetic energy not coupled to mutual windings)
SHUNT CONDUCTANCE (of the air from corona or humidity, causing partial "shorting" of coil windings)
HYSTERESIS of DIELECTRIC & MAGNETIC media (losses from polarization not following the applied fields, even air has hysteresis)

All of these limit the maximum magnification factor.

In Mr. Dollards book Condensed Intro to Tesla Transformers [1986], he brings up the very special situation of a traveling wave increasing in energy as opposed to losing energy per unit length of a coil. This is on page 27 second paragraph and is continued to page 30. This situation, is what I believe Heavy side was referring to when the wire becomes a source rather than a sink. I believe this situation is what a well made Tesla Transformer performs when operating correctly.


The above is merely a shot in the dark at answering your question (I'm not the most knowledgeable person on this subject), I hope it helps,

Garrett M
__________________
 

Last edited by garrettm4; 02-24-2012 at 04:25 AM.
  #1023  
Old 02-21-2012, 04:06 PM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by garrettm4 View Post
The RATIOS of these QUANTITIES of time dictates the MAGNIFICATION FACTOR.

Garrett M

Time is simply a chronological sequence of a predetermined interval.

That said its a one way street.

So for the sake of completeness not to insult anyones intelligence;

Whenever you are dealing with a time domain, with regard to a repetitive event, such that you excite something, then remove the excitation, and the original condition returns, that sets up a time condition or frequency.

Now for something capacitive or inductive for instance, there is a specific time required to charge it to a certain level as well as discharge it back to its original condition.

The coil is charged by current and stored via the magnetic field and the cap via the electric field.

Looking back to the source, (a potential difference) the capacitor initially looks like a short, and the inductor looks like an infinite resistance. (to an impulse)

The cap (once charged) holds its charge because there is nothing forcing it to change back, like a short across the plates, whereas the coil, when current is removed, there is nothing to maintain the magnetic field so it collapses upon itself and the collapsing field upon the windings (minus intrinsic losses) comes back in the form of a reverse current in the case of a termination or very high voltage in the case of no or open termination.

In both cases the rate of charge and discharge cycle is a function of time and takes place in or can be represented in a forward sequence of chronological events and this determines the frequency.

That said, in terms of charge and discharge time, it is purely a function of the ability of the source to deliver a given amount of energy with respect to time, which is based on (and limited) by the capacity and internal resistance of the devices.

Energy is generally considered to be potential or the capacity to provide power and power is generally understood to be the actual work being done or the consumption of energy.

Voltage potential (energy), like a battery just sitting there, is doing no work therefore no power.

In order to have power consumption or work, you must have a potential difference (voltage) and a flow of current, both are required for power.

Power is a function of time, energy is not.

Power is commonly referenced to 1 second.

If you do 1 watt of work in 1 nano second or 1 watt of work in 1 second or 1/2 watt of work in 1/2 second you have the same power consumption when referenced to the standard of one second.

I do not see how the rate has anything to do with power when used in these terms.

Now if we think in terms of a dc bridge, as you go up in frequency you would under load have more average power delivered because it would be a smoother (less ripple) DC value on the load. So from that respect higher frequency would deliver more power to the load all else being equal.

So unless we have different definitions for the term magnification, energy and power in electrical terms I do not see any power increase with a change in time, only variation in operating frequency with respect to charge and discharge times.

Then converted to DC, you would get less ripple, but not magnification in terms of million to one out over in.

The point being in any tank you have for all intents and purposes a closed loop of events. In order to get more out than in would require something outside that closed loop to be drawn into the loop so to speak. That is why all these tpu's and wing ding circuits for the most part have been doomed to fail.

Teslas transmitter however works in conjunction with with nature and like a solar panel for instance, considering what he said, presuming it is true, then like the solar panel he would have to be pulling something external into the loop to get magnification in terms of more out than in. What I cannot find in this is the point where the extra energy or power is being brought in.
__________________
 

Last edited by Kokomoj0; 02-21-2012 at 04:41 PM.
  #1024  
Old 02-21-2012, 04:59 PM
madhatter's Avatar
madhatter madhatter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
Time is simply a chronological sequence of a predetermined interval.

That said its a one way street.

So for the sake of completeness not to insult anyones intelligence;

Whenever you are dealing with a time domain, with regard to a repetitive event, such that you excite something, then remove the excitation, and the original condition returns, that sets up a time condition or frequency.

Now for something capacitive or inductive for instance, there is a specific time required to charge it to a certain level as well as discharge it back to its original condition.

The coil is charged by current and stored via the magnetic field and the cap via the electric field.

Looking back to the source, (a potential difference) the capacitor initially looks like a short, and the inductor looks like an infinite resistance. (to an impulse)

The cap (once charged) holds its charge because there is nothing forcing it to change back, like a short across the plates, whereas the coil, when current is removed, there is nothing to maintain the magnetic field so it collapses upon itself and the collapsing field upon the windings (minus intrinsic losses) comes back in the form of a reverse current in the case of a termination or very high voltage in the case of no or open termination.

In both cases the rate of charge and discharge cycle is a function of time and takes place in or can be represented in a forward sequence of chronological events and this determines the frequency.

That said, in terms of charge and discharge time, it is purely a function of the ability of the source to deliver a given amount of energy with respect to time, which is based on (and limited) by the capacity and internal resistance of the devices.

Energy is generally considered to be potential or the capacity to provide power and power is generally understood to be the actual work being done or the consumption of energy.

Voltage potential (energy), like a battery just sitting there, is doing no work therefore no power.

In order to have power consumption or work, you must have a potential difference (voltage) and a flow of current, both are required for power.

Power is a function of time, energy is not.

Power is commonly referenced to 1 second.

If you do 1 watt of work in 1 nano second or 1 watt of work in 1 second or 1/2 watt of work in 1/2 second you did the same amount of work, hence the same power when referenced to the standard of one second.

I do not see how the rate has anything to do with power when used in these terms.

Now if we think in terms of a dc bridge, as you go up in frequency you would under load have more average power delivered because it would be a smoother (less ripple) DC value on the load. So from that respect higher frequency would deliver more power to the load all else being equal.

So unless we have different definitions for the term magnification, in electrical terms I do not see any power increase with a change in time, only variation in operating frequency.
Time although seemingly linear is not, it's accepted as a one way linear progress to keep things in order but it is not. by defining time as a value between events it gets messy unless a reference frame is used. Time is an arbitrary thing, it has only numerical notation assigned to it for ease of calculation, forward, reverse, up down etc.. is only a vector qty to keep a reference frame. which way does power move? in which direction did the ball roll? in order to answer those questions we need to define a coordinate system and then we can calculate them, but what of time? what coordinate system is used for time?

Due to SR and Einstein time has been assumed to have a universal coordinate system that keeps everything marching in step no matter where one is, the truth is it's no more defined then gravity.

Time really is an arbitrary fabrication to maintain a sense of order for our comprehension, the human mind has trouble with cause and effect being out of a preconceived order, the reality is that things do happen in what we'd call 'backwords' time events.

In the case of TMT, the magnification is due to the resonance of the circuit, as the resistance becomes infinite and L & C annul each other the charge will have an infinite resistance without regard to time. this sets up the special case of the circuit now becoming the source instead of the sink. Heaviside covered this possibility in volume 3 of his lectures. what Tesla and Eric have been able to do is find a way to make this occur, what needs to be done is refinement and further calculation to perfect the result.

Don't look at it from a standing wave perspective of inductance and capacitance, take the condition where both the capacitance and inductance vanish, now what's occurring? there's current, where is it? there's frequency but no L & C, why?
These are to me the fundamental questions that will shed light on what's happening, it points to counter time as I will call it.
__________________
 
  #1025  
Old 02-21-2012, 05:41 PM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhatter View Post
Time really is an arbitrary fabrication to maintain a sense of order for our comprehension, the human mind has trouble with cause and effect being out of a preconceived order, the reality is that things do happen in what we'd call 'backwords' time events.

In the case of TMT, the magnification is due to the resonance of the circuit, as the resistance becomes infinite and L & C annul each other the charge will have an infinite resistance without regard to time. this sets up the special case of the circuit now becoming the source instead of the sink. Heaviside covered this possibility in volume 3 of his lectures. what Tesla and Eric have been able to do is find a way to make this occur, what needs to be done is refinement and further calculation to perfect the result.

Don't look at it from a standing wave perspective of inductance and capacitance, take the condition where both the capacitance and inductance vanish, now what's occurring? there's current, where is it? there's frequency but no L & C, why?
These are to me the fundamental questions that will shed light on what's happening, it points to counter time as I will call it.

Like space time is an abstract construct, no argument on that point.

Time is only arbitrary however until you assign it, and once assigned it is whatever you assigned it.

You can do the log of time if you like and it is still time as assigned. Curved time of einstien is nothing more than a fudge factor.

Time in and of itself serves nothing more than a ruler, a means to measure something. You can go backward and forward on a ruler too, that is not the issue. The issue is how this all comes together to give you more out than in if magnify means more out than in in the first place.

Generally speaking in so far as the frequency goes, inductors and capacitors as a result of their time dependency, set up an internal impedance. When the internal impedance matches they resonate. Not into infinity, there is no such thing where some thing resonates without external influence to cause it to resonate that I am aware of.

In order to get a charge and discharge "cycle" current must flow and how that occurs and where it winds up frequency wise is based upon and will be in conformance to the impedance of the devices used. infinite Z does not happen in the real world with capacitors and inductors. If a circuit would exhibit infinite Z it would cease to operate because current would cease to flow. So I am no closer to resolving this.
__________________
 

Last edited by Kokomoj0; 02-21-2012 at 06:07 PM.
  #1026  
Old 02-21-2012, 06:41 PM
pnajafi pnajafi is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 15
Call for Proposals by CICP

Dear All,

Thanks for existing and contributing to the progress of humanity. I recently inquired about grants and funding opportunities from a Canadian Government innovation program and thought to share with you.

What is the feasibility of coming up with a proposal to help Mr. Dollard and the best on this thread to channel funding in a way that is most effective to development and impact on society?

Here is the only email I sent and today I receded a reply for:


Government Programs Message:

I would like to take this opportunity to provide some CICP information for your reference. The goal of CICP is to help bridge the pre-commercialization gap by purchasing innovations (through a Call for Proposals) with the Innovation Fund. The Program targets innovations in four priority areas: environment, health, safety & security, and enabling technologies.
The first Call for Proposals (CFP) resulted in 27 pre-qualified innovations. The second Call for Proposals resulted in a list of 37 pre-qualified proposals. For a list of all pre-qualified innovations, please visit:

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/initiatives...ed-innovations

Please watch for the third Call for Proposals. The document will be available for download through MERX (

www.merx.com).

The Buy and Sell website (

www.buyandsell.gc.ca/innovation) has a lot of valuable information about the CICP. If you have any questions about the CICP, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks for your consideration, please let me know what ya think.
__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Your best is good enough.
  #1027  
Old 02-21-2012, 07:58 PM
garrettm4 garrettm4 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Orbiting Sol somewhere in the Milky Way
Posts: 178
SFTS 2009 & 2010 Dollard Lectures

Quote:
Originally Posted by madhatter View Post

In the case of TMT, the magnification is due to the resonance of the circuit, as the resistance becomes infinite and L & C annul each other the charge will have an infinite resistance without regard to time. this sets up the special case of the circuit now becoming the source instead of the sink. Heaviside covered this possibility in volume 3 of his lectures. what Tesla and Eric have been able to do is find a way to make this occur, what needs to be done is refinement and further calculation to perfect the result.

Don't look at it from a standing wave perspective of inductance and capacitance, take the condition where both the capacitance and inductance vanish, now what's occurring? there's current, where is it? there's frequency but no L & C, why?
These are to me the fundamental questions that will shed light on what's happening, it points to counter time as I will call it.
Madhatter,

Thank you for your thoughtful discussion on Time and the Tesla Transformer. I find your posts to be excellent. On a side topic, could you reference the source for the counter space theory that you were talking about in past posts? I am very interested in reading up on that subject. Also, when you say capacity C and inductance L annul one another in the Tesla Transformer, do you imply that their reactances annul or something else? I would be interested to hear what you have to say on this. Furthermore does the "Quadra-Polar Resonance" condition cause the current to cease its motion? Is this the state that a wire becomes a Source rather than a Sink?


Kokomoj0,

I feel as If I may have insulted you in some way, if so I sincerely apologize. It appears we agree to disagree on the subject of Power and Time. The point I was trying to get across without undermining anyone's intelligence was that Impulse wave unit time and Alternating wave unit time are not the same thing. A merry-go-round is an excellent analog to this issue, the guy pushing or "pulsing" the bar of the merry-go-round inputs a small amount of energy, per unit time, after awhile the energy stored in the merry-go-round builds up in magnitude this being in speed of rotation. The energy imparted and the energy stored are two different quantities, they each have their own reference time frames, but energy is coupled from one to the other. If the impulses were more forceful but used less unit time then there is the same equivalent energy exchange but the energy maximum stored in the merry-go-round has now increased from the Magnification Factor of the Impulse energy. This analogy has some flaws but is a fairly direct mechanical analog to this issue. I must state, that I DO NOT intend to IMPLY that there is an EXCESS of energy, only that the oscillatory energy has increased, caused only from storage of the input energy and NOTHING ELSE. This can be seen with a parallel LC circuit driven by a source frequency that equals the LC natural frequency, an oscilloscope set to single trigger mode with the level set near to the final continuous value will capture this short lived event (the reason the oscillatory energy doesn't continue to rise to infinity is due to losses not because infinite impedance prevents it). Only in very special cases is there the possibility of excess energy, such as oscillating the Activity of the Electric Field (in planks), see James F Murray for more on this topic.


To everyone else,

Does anyone know where to get these two very recent lectures by Mr. Dollard? I remember Sputins talking about these awhile back, I don't remember anyone saying if they got the SFTS to release them.

Eric Dollard
"A History of the Marconi & RCA Station: Bolinas California"
Sunday, November 8, 2009 1:45 p.m. - 4 p.m. at the


Eric Dollard
"More on the Tesla/Alexanderson System of Wireless Transmission and It’s Application at Bolinas, CA"
Sunday, March 14, 2010 1:45 p.m. - 4 p.m. at the


I think these two lectures would go hand in hand with the Tesla-Marconi Wireless System video that Paul Park has so graciously uploaded for everyone. I'm going to contact them and see what they say about a possibility of obtaining the lectures.

Garrett M
__________________
 

Last edited by garrettm4; 02-22-2012 at 11:56 PM.
  #1028  
Old 02-21-2012, 09:15 PM
madhatter's Avatar
madhatter madhatter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by garrettm4 View Post
Madhatter,

Thank you for your thoughtful discussion on Time and the Tesla Transformer. I find your posts to be excellent. On a side topic, could you reference the source for the counter space theory that you were talking about in past posts? I am very interested in reading up on that subject. Also, when you say capacity C and inductance L annul one another in the Tesla Transformer, do you imply that their reactances annul or something else? I would be interested to hear what you have to say on this. Furthermore does the "Quadra-Polar Resonance" condition cause the current to cease its motion? Is this the state that a wire becomes a Source rather than a Sink?
Garrett M
Thanks, sometimes I wonder if I'm talking to myself Here's a link to some helpful and a decent start on an algebraic approach to counterspace. Algebraic

I'm also looking into an AIP paper "Mechanics in Space and Counterspace" The completely dual approach to Clifford algebra is used to enlarge the concept of the projective split and to develop a new geometric representation for the Pauli algebra (space and counterspace), for the momenta (planelike vectors), and for the phase space. The Pauli algebra appears in this context as the phase space extended by time (scalar) and energy (pseudoscalar). Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics are embedded into the dual framework of space and counterspace. Several examples illustrate the new techniques. The dual approach to mechanics provides a new possibility to interpret symplectic geometry. © 2000 American Institute of Physics.

Should be a good read and worth extracting some useful equations that may be possible to untangle from SR.

My only complaint is that I get fits and starts of time to work on this, I can burn thru a week and only get a fraction of research done. Still behind on sorting thru some other papers as is.

As for the L&C, yes when the reactances are equal they will annul each other. Now I think what is happening here is more related to the complementary or susceptance and conductance of the circuit, even though they may be a mixed circuit initially the annulment changes that. I still need to sort this out fully though and thus why conterspace algebra may be the way to go.

Borrowing from EE papers...
When resistive and reactive components are interconnected, their combined effects can no longer be analyzed with scalar quantities of resistance (R) and reactance (X). Likewise, figures of conductance (G) and susceptance (B) are most useful in circuits where the two types of opposition are not mixed, i.e. either a purely resistive (conductive) circuit, or a purely reactive (susceptive) circuit. In order to express and quantify the effects of mixed resistive and reactive components, we had to have a new term: impedance, measured in ohms and symbolized by the letter “Z”.

To be consistent, we need a complementary measure representing the reciprocal of impedance. The name for this measure is admittance. Admittance is measured in (guess what?) the unit of Siemens, and its symbol is “Y”. Like impedance, admittance is a complex quantity rather than scalar. Again, we see a certain logic to the naming of this new term: while impedance is a measure of how much alternating current is impeded in a circuit, admittance is a measure of how much current is admitted. "
__________________
 
  #1029  
Old 02-22-2012, 12:06 AM
Sputins's Avatar
Sputins Sputins is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 531
SFTS Lectures

Quote:
Originally Posted by garrettm4 View Post

Does anyone know where to get these two very recent lectures by Mr. Dollard? I remember Sputins talking about these awhile back, I don't remember anyone saying if they got the SFTS to release them.

Eric Dollard
"A History of the Marconi & RCA Station: Bolinas California"
Sunday, November 8, 2009 1:45 p.m. - 4 p.m. at the


Eric Dollard
"More on the Tesla/Alexanderson System of Wireless Transmission and It’s Application at Bolinas, CA"
Sunday, March 14, 2010 1:45 p.m. - 4 p.m. at the


I think these two lectures would go hand in hand with the Tesla-Marconi Wireless System video that Paul Park has so graciously uploaded for everyone. I'm going to contact them and see what they say about a possibility of obtaining the lectures.

Garrett M
Hi Garrett

I have sent various emails only, (a number of them to various SFTS persons). All of my email requests for these lectures by Eric have been ignored, not even a courteous reply. I believe Raui also sent an email request, he told me on the phone that he received no reply either. (Eric might be right about, SFTS being a L. Livermore front).

I would suggest that it will take an American, to directly call them on the phone, call the Chairman or a committee member, someone in charge. Ask them for these lectures politely. Offer money. Physically go there and ask for them politely, bribe them with good old cash, if no success, hound them day and night relentlessly, until they finally break and supply us with those damn lectures!!

As Eric stated that he must have really pi##ed them off with his “Theory of Anti-relativity”. Did Eric commit blasphemy against their precious Einstein? Heaven forbid!

So yes those lectures are of high importance, and will go a long way to compliment the teachings from Eric thus far.

Sputins.
__________________
 

Last edited by Sputins; 02-22-2012 at 01:41 AM. Reason: spelling
  #1030  
Old 02-22-2012, 12:15 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhatter View Post
Thanks, sometimes I wonder if I'm talking to myself Here's a link to some helpful and a decent start on an algebraic approach to counterspace. Algebraic

I'm also looking into an AIP paper "Mechanics in Space and Counterspace" The completely dual approach to Clifford algebra is used to enlarge the concept of the projective split and to develop a new geometric representation for the Pauli algebra (space and counterspace), for the momenta (planelike vectors), and for the phase space. The Pauli algebra appears in this context as the phase space extended by time (scalar) and energy (pseudoscalar). Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics are embedded into the dual framework of space and counterspace. Several examples illustrate the new techniques. The dual approach to mechanics provides a new possibility to interpret symplectic geometry. © 2000 American Institute of Physics.

Should be a good read and worth extracting some useful equations that may be possible to untangle from SR.

My only complaint is that I get fits and starts of time to work on this, I can burn thru a week and only get a fraction of research done. Still behind on sorting thru some other papers as is.

As for the L&C, yes when the reactances are equal they will annul each other. Now I think what is happening here is more related to the complementary or susceptance and conductance of the circuit, even though they may be a mixed circuit initially the annulment changes that. I still need to sort this out fully though and thus why conterspace algebra may be the way to go.

Borrowing from EE papers...
When resistive and reactive components are interconnected, their combined effects can no longer be analyzed with scalar quantities of resistance (R) and reactance (X). Likewise, figures of conductance (G) and susceptance (B) are most useful in circuits where the two types of opposition are not mixed, i.e. either a purely resistive (conductive) circuit, or a purely reactive (susceptive) circuit. In order to express and quantify the effects of mixed resistive and reactive components, we had to have a new term: impedance, measured in ohms and symbolized by the letter “Z”.

To be consistent, we need a complementary measure representing the reciprocal of impedance. The name for this measure is admittance. Admittance is measured in (guess what?) the unit of Siemens, and its symbol is “Y”. Like impedance, admittance is a complex quantity rather than scalar. Again, we see a certain logic to the naming of this new term: while impedance is a measure of how much alternating current is impeded in a circuit, admittance is a measure of how much current is admitted. "


yes the opposite of how hard it is for something to flow is how easy it flows and that is generally expressed by 1/something.

So now that we are on that subject I never seen the difference in designing for max conductance, admittance, acceptance, whatever or min resistance or impedance etc?

Which takes me right back to no resolution of the magnifying matter.
__________________
 
  #1031  
Old 02-22-2012, 12:41 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by garrettm4 View Post
Madhatter,

Kokomoj0,

I feel as If I may have insulted you in some way, if so I sincerely apologize. It appears we agree to disagree on the subject of Power and Time. The point I was trying to get across without undermining anyone's intelligence was that Impulse wave unit time and Alternating wave unit time are not the same thing. A merry-go-round is an excellent analog to this issue, the guy pushing or "pulsing" the bar of the merry-go-round inputs a small amount of energy, per unit time, after awhile the energy stored in the merry-go-round builds up in magnitude this being in speed of rotation. The energy imparted and the energy stored are two different quantities, they each have their own reference time frames, but energy is coupled from one to the other. If the impulses were more forceful but used less unit time then there is the same equivalent energy exchange but the energy maximum stored in the merry-go-round has now increased from the Magnification Factor of the Impulse energy. This analogy has some flaws but is a fairly direct mechanical analog to this issue. I must state, that I DO NOT intend to IMPLY that there is an EXCESS of energy, only that the oscillatory energy has increased, caused only from storage of the input energy and NOTHING ELSE. This can be seen with a parallel LC circuit driven by a source frequency that equals the LC natural frequency, an oscilloscope set to single trigger mode with the level set near to the final continuous value will capture this short lived event (the reason it doesn't continue to rise to infinity are due to losses not because infinite impedance prevents it). Only in very special cases is there the possibility of excess energy, such as oscillating the Activity of the Electric Field (in planks), see James F Murray for more on this topic.

Garrett M
I think a close examination of the difference between a pulse and a sign wave might be in order.

a pulse when stretched out is nothing more then a sign wave or the 1/2 cycle of a sign wave. Now it may not be pretty but it basically ramps up and then back down with a defined time frame.

It has a definite rise and fall time.

Granted a circuit will react somewhat differently as Eric pointed out than it would to a pure 1/2 cycle of sine wave near fr.

The fast rise/fall at umpteen times fr will tend to generate odd order harmonics whereas the pure sine even order.

For the pulse the medium will store it as the average (or pass it through which ever applies), where the standard units used for power is usually seconds, hours etc.

In order to get consistent and correct measurements we need to stay in the same units, so we cant use one time frame for charge and a different one for discharge cycle.

My point here and the way I understand this is being presented is:

If you have a 1 ohm resistor, and you apply a square 1 volt pulse for 1 second, that is the same "power" as 2 volts for 1/2 second, 4 volts for 1/4 second and so forth......1000 volts for 1/1000 second, the same power dissipates in each case.

If you hang a very large cap on it the cap will come up to the same voltage (storage) level in each case, the shortening of the pulse not with standing, you still wind up with the same power even at 1,000,000 volt pulse for 1/1,000,000 of a second.

by that I mean the V*I into a load for 1 pulse is equal to the V*I if one were to fully discharge an ideal cap used as storage for any one of those pulses. So I do not see an unqualified pulse width as magnification beyond a typical transformer action.
__________________
 

Last edited by Kokomoj0; 02-22-2012 at 01:05 AM.
  #1032  
Old 02-22-2012, 01:43 AM
Web000x's Avatar
Web000x Web000x is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
My point here and the way I understand this is being presented is:

If you have a 1 ohm resistor, and you apply a square 1 volt pulse for 1 second, that is the same "power" as 2 volts for 1/2 second, 4 volts for 1/4 second and so forth......1000 volts for 1/1000 second, the same power dissipates in each case.

If you hang a very large cap on it the cap will come up to the same voltage (storage) level in each case, the shortening of the pulse not with standing, you still wind up with the same power even at 1,000,000 volt pulse for 1/1,000,000 of a second.

by that I mean the V*I into a load for 1 pulse is equal to the V*I if one were to fully discharge an ideal cap used as storage for any one of those pulses. So I do not see an unqualified pulse width as magnification beyond a typical transformer action.

Your analogy would actually indicate an exponential rise in energy, but it isn't a good one since it doesn't tie in with reality for a finite amount of stored energy.

If you apply 1 volt for one second, you get 1 volt times 1 amp, or 1 watt of power for one second, thus 1 joule of energy.

If you apply 2 volts for 1/2 second, you get 2 volts times 2 amps, or 4 watts of power for 1/2 second, thus 2 joules of energy.

If you apply 4 volts for 1/4 second, you get 4 volts times 4 amps, or 16 watts of power for 1/4 second, thus 4 joules of energy.

If you apply 1000 volts for 1/1000 second, you get 1000 volts times 1000 amps, or 1,000,000 watts of power for 1/1000 second, thus 1000 joules of energy.

How are you getting the same power dissipation for each case? You should learn to use the term power correctly. I think there are many instances when you should have used energy instead of power. Eric wrote the series of posts so that we would start using terms correctly.

Clearly the power and energy are exponential functions in the previous example.

I don't think that the magnification factor refers to "free energy". I haven't had a chance to put it to practical use, but I am sure that Eric was NOT describing it as being an ability to do excess work.

Dave
__________________
 

Last edited by Web000x; 02-22-2012 at 01:48 AM.
  #1033  
Old 02-22-2012, 03:32 AM
garrettm4 garrettm4 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Orbiting Sol somewhere in the Milky Way
Posts: 178
Impulse Waves are NOT Square Waves

Kokomoj0,

I am not quite following your logic in any of your posts. Remember that an Impulse wave is not a Square wave (AKA rectangle or step wave). The impulse wave is described by the mathematical understanding of asymptotes NOT sine waves, Impulses are the result of SINGLE ENERGY TRANSIENTS. Square waves can be described by sine waves, all odd order harmonic sines super imposed upon a fundamental sine form the familiar Square wave. Rise Time of a square wave could be thought to relate to its bandwidth or how many odd order harmonic waves compose the square. Dampened Sine waves are the result of DOUBLE ENERGY TRANSIENTS. Note that a "DC" Square wave is a "DC offset" sine wave with its accompanying odd order harmonic companions, there is no difference between the two. I think that Mr. Dollard wouldn't approve of the indiscriminate use of V & I since he has given the concept of Quatra-Polar Electricity, e E i I are more descriptive than just V & I.

To illustrate a very practical example of an ASYMPTOTE WAVE (Impulse wave) apply a "DC square wave" current input into a 1:1 transformer with a variable DC source. Using a time generator control a relay or MOSFET to apply power to the input of the transformer. By controlling the DUTY CYCLE of the square wave and the applied voltage we can now control current into the transformer and thus input a controlled unit of energy. (With the above method no measurement of primary impedance is necessary, as it would change based upon frequency & Dtc.) Dependent upon the Load connected to the secondary of the transformer you will see some very interesting effects. The greater the Resistance R the HIGHER the EMF produced and subsequently the smaller the discharge time (don't leave windings open), the greater the Conductance G, the HIGHER the MMF produced and subsequently the greater the discharge time, both waveforms will have equal amounts of energy available (from input on primary) but discharge time changes corresponding to the load, thus affecting how much energy was consumed in "x" amount of time (the discharge time is when the above takes place, when primary input is off). This effect is called "regauging" and is a reason why impulse chargers work well with "unchargeable" batteries, we are not using winding ratios via transformer action. To further understand Magnification Factor, think about this; the energy stored into the magnetic field of induction, from the primary winding input, is the same unit available in the secondary. Thus if the same unit of energy, neglecting losses, is used in differing amounts of time, Power, which is work per unit time, would have to change corresponding to the relative time of energy consumption (work).

A synopsis of what I have written prior on this same subject:

"With the above exercise, I have come to the conclusion that the measure of an Impulse Discharge's "Power" is an ambiguous quantity! This can be seen by considering the following; the greater the resistance, r, the more "stretched out" time becomes, the greater the conductance, g, the more "compressed" time becomes. All with respect to a finite capacity C and thus a corresponding finite amount of Energy. This "dilation" of time causes the different results for the measured magnitude of power, despite the same amount of lines of dielectric induction used. More simply said, a limited amount of Energy can be "compressed" or "stretched" by the Time Constant of the circuit. This is clearly seen in the form of the Voltage and Current magnitudes with respect to time. Also, I have come to the conclusion that resistance r "preserves" lines of dielectric induction (increasing magnitude of resistance r consumes progressively less psi per time) and conductance g "consumes" lines of dielectric induction (increasing magnitude of conductance g consumes progressively more psi per time). Whereas for the magnetic circuit this is the exact opposite, or resistance r consumes lines of magnetic induction (increasing magnitude of resistance r consumes progressively more phi per time) and conductance g preserves lines of magnetic induction (increasing magnitude of conductance g consumes progressively less phi per time). This is exemplified in the the cases of infinite resistance r for the rC circuit and infinite conductance g for the gL circuit, both have an infinite discharge time despite the finite storage of C or L. This somewhat predicts an LC oscillation, whereby a capacity C appears to be a conductance C/t to an inductance L and an inductance L appears to be a resistance L/t to a capacity C. Here, the lines of induction are not consumed but transformed from one form to the other as a storage and return of energy, whereby the conductance g consumes the energy of the capacity C and the resistance r consumes the energy of the inductance L causing the oscillation to eventually stop."

Logarithms are used to Plot what is going on here. I wrote the below comment on a math website the other day and thought it might add to this conversation:

"I gave it some more thought and came to the conclusion that this idea is quite useful for finding the base of an unknown log and also for any arbitrary log that you need for a specific circumstance. My circumstances were in the understanding of an exponential rise (1-(e^-1)) or fall (e^-1) curves. (Within limits y=1max & x=5max, this region is the only section of the two plots used in my personal study)

This in a nut shell:

Plot of y=b^x is the arbitrary curve being studied, where b is any arbitrary base (other than zero or +-1), (x,0) is a linear length along the x axis and (0,y) is a nonlinear length along the y axis.

Therefore we get for our arbitrary plotted curve being studied:

y=b^x
b=(x root of(y)
x=logb(y)

From here you can find the base b of an unknown log (if a point y and its corresponding point x are known) or any point for y if x and b are known with the same being true for finding x.

This used in a “real life” example for the decay (exponential fall) of a capacitors stored energy into a resistance (single energy transient):

b=(e^-1)=(x root of(y) (the base used is that of exponential fall)
y=(e^-x) (y=magnitude, in percent)
x=loge^-1(y)=(-1)loge(y) (x=time constant “Tau”=(rC))

(where rC corresponds to seconds in time)

Plotting limits y=1max & x=5max (when practically considered, other wise x=infinity or some arbitrary number usually greater than 5)

To find the 50% magnitude or half the voltage of the capacitor:
y=0.5 (the 50% mark or half voltage)
x=loge(2)=(-1)loge(0.5)

This math stuff interpreted comes out to be 0.69314 * rC equals the point in time that the voltage is one half of its prior maximum.

Boring I know but this helped me out a bunch so I thought I would share this with a real life example as well.
"

A few good references on this subject:
E. P. Dollard - Introduction to Dielectric & Magnetic Discharges in Electrical Windings [1982]
E. P. Dollard - Introduction to Dielectricity and Capacitance [1990] Mar-Apr JBR pages 10-13
Borderland Science - Free-Energy Research [1987] (Specifically, minuets 7 to 16 of video)

And if your interested, Question On Plank, Q Continued

Garrett M
__________________
 

Last edited by garrettm4; 02-23-2012 at 04:43 AM.
  #1034  
Old 02-22-2012, 04:05 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web000x View Post
Your analogy would actually indicate an exponential rise in energy, but it isn't a good one since it doesn't tie in with reality for a finite amount of stored energy.

If you apply 1 volt for one second, you get 1 volt times 1 amp, or 1 watt of power for one second, thus 1 joule of energy.

If you apply 2 volts for 1/2 second, you get 2 volts times 2 amps, or 4 watts of power for 1/2 second, thus 2 joules of energy.

If you apply 4 volts for 1/4 second, you get 4 volts times 4 amps, or 16 watts of power for 1/4 second, thus 4 joules of energy.

If you apply 1000 volts for 1/1000 second, you get 1000 volts times 1000 amps, or 1,000,000 watts of power for 1/1000 second, thus 1000 joules of energy.

How are you getting the same power dissipation for each case? You should learn to use the term power correctly. I think there are many instances when you should have used energy instead of power. Eric wrote the series of posts so that we would start using terms correctly.

Clearly the power and energy are exponential functions in the previous example.

I don't think that the magnification factor refers to "free energy". I haven't had a chance to put it to practical use, but I am sure that Eric was NOT describing it as being an ability to do excess work.

Dave

that is why I said get a large cap so it charges very little not on the nearly straight up slope of the exponential.

power dissipation is through the 1 ohm resistor to a discharged large cap.

you overlooked the time, each one of those values should be to close to call if you measure the cap voltage after the pulse. I didnt calculate any of this and do not intend to because it can be proven by experiment.

If you use a very large cap the voltage each time should be very close demonstrating the point I am making.
__________________
 
  #1035  
Old 02-22-2012, 04:55 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by garrettm4 View Post
Kokomoj0,

I am not quite following your logic in any of your posts. Remember that an Impulse wave is not a Square wave. The impulse wave is described by the mathematical understanding of asymptotes NOT sine waves, Impulses are the result of SINGLE ENERGY TRANSIENTS. Square waves can be described by sine waves, all odd order harmonic sines super imposed upon a fundamental sine form the familiar Square wave. Rise Time of a square wave could be thought to relate to its bandwidth or how many odd order harmonic waves compose the square. Dampened Sine waves are the result of DOUBLE ENERGY TRANSIENTS. Note that a "DC" Square wave is a "DC offset" sine wave with its accompanying odd order harmonic companions, there is no difference between the two. I think that Mr. Dollard wouldn't approve of the indiscriminate use of V & I since he has given the concept of Quatra-Polar Electricity, e E i I are more descriptive than just V & I.

To illustrate a very practical example of an ASYMPTOTE WAVE (Impulse wave) apply a "DC square wave" current input into a 1:1 transformer with a variable DC source. Using a time generator control a relay or MOSFET to apply power to the input of the transformer. By controlling the DUTY CYCLE of the square wave and the applied voltage we can now control current into the transformer and thus input a controlled unit of energy. (With the above method no measurement of primary impedance is necessary, as it would change based upon frequency.) Dependent upon the Load connected to the secondary of the transformer you will see some very interesting effects. The greater the Resistance R the HIGHER the EMF produced and subsequently the smaller the discharge time (don't leave windings open), the greater the Conductance the HIGHER the MMF produced and subsequently the greater the discharge time, both waveforms will have equal amounts of energy (from input on primary) but time changes corresponding to the load (the discharge time is when the above takes place, when primary input is off). This effect is called "regauging" and is a reason why impulse chargers work well with "unchargeable" batteries, we are not using winding ratios via transformer action. To further understand Magnification Factor, think about this; the energy stored into the magnetic field of induction from the primary input is the same unit used in the secondary. Thus if the same unit of energy, neglecting losses, is used in a different amount of time, Power changes correspondingly.

fine but splitting it up into 4 quadrants and 4 elemental forces does not change the fact that somewhere in there is a power measurement and in a manner of speaking for simplification your voltage and current is if you will humor me a balancing scale.

In other words when that magnetic field collapses if there is no where for the current to flow the voltage will try to go toward infinity.

On the other hand when there is somewhere for the current to go the voltage will be based on the source resistance of the coil in reference to the load.

That said, with voltage and current we can measure power which will be based on the strength and quantity of the magnetic field and the coil characteristics.

Nothing said so far negates my claim you see.

I suppose Eric would not be happy but if he were to use the kiss factor from a standpoint of power I believe he would be forced to agree with me, or say the same thing in reciprocals, or 4 quadrant analysis, taking us to the same point regardless.



Logarithms are used to Plot what is going on here. I wrote the below on a math website the other day and thought it might add to the conversation:

"I gave it some more thought and came to the conclusion that this idea is quite useful for finding the base of an unknown log and also for any arbitrary log that you need for a specific circumstance. My circumstances were in the understanding of an exponential rise (1-(e^-1)) or fall (e^-1) curves. (Within limits y=1max & x=5max, this region is the only section of the two plots used in my personal study)

This in a nut shell:

Plot of y=b^x is the arbitrary curve being studied, where b is any arbitrary base (other than zero or +-1), (x,0) is a linear length along the x axis and (0,y) is a nonlinear length along the y axis.

Therefore we get for our arbitrary plotted curve being studied:

y=b^x
b=(x root of(y)
x=logb(y)

From here you can find the base b of an unknown log (if a point y and its corresponding point x are known) or any point for y if x and b are known with the same being true for finding x.

This used in a “real life” example for the decay (exponential fall) of a capacitors stored energy into a resistance (single energy transient):

b=(e^-1)=(x root of(y) (the base used is that of exponential fall)
y=(e^-x) (y=magnitude, in percent)
x=loge^-1(y)=(-1)loge(y) (x=time constant “Tau”=(rC))

(where rC corresponds to seconds in time)

Plotting limits y=1max & x=5max (when practically considered, other wise x=infinity or some arbitrary number usually greater than 5)

To find the 50% magnitude or half the voltage of the capacitor:
y=0.5 (the 50% mark or half voltage)
x=loge(2)=(-1)loge(0.5)

This math stuff interpreted comes out to be 0.69314 * rC equals the point in time that the voltage is one half of its prior maximum.

Boring I know but this helped me out a bunch so I thought I would share this with a real life use example as well.
"

A few good references on this subject:
E. P. Dollard - Introduction to Dielectric & Magnetic Discharges in Electrical Windings [1982]
E. P. Dollard - Introduction to Dielectricity and Capacitance [1990] Mar-Apr JBR pages 10-13
Borderland Science - Free-Energy Research [1987] (Specifically, minuets 7 to 16 of video)

And if your interested, Question On Plank, Q Continued

A synopsis of what I have written here on the forum on this subject (in the above link):

"With the above exercise, I have come to the conclusion that the measure of an Impulse Discharge's "Power" is an ambiguous quantity! This can be seen by considering the following; the greater the resistance, r, the more "stretched out" time becomes, the greater the conductance, g, the more "compressed" time becomes. All with respect to a finite capacity C and thus a corresponding finite Power. This "dilation" of time causes the different results for the measured magnitude of power, despite the same amount of lines of dielectric induction used. More simply said, a limited amount of Power can be "compressed" or "stretched" by the Time Constant of the circuit. This is clearly seen in the form of the Voltage and Current magnitudes with respect to time.

got any measured results and charts showing this phenomena, frankly I do not see that happening.


Also, I have come to the conclusion that resistance r "preserves" lines of dielectric induction (increasing magnitude of resistance r consumes progressively less psi per time) and conductance g "consumes" lines of dielectric induction (increasing magnitude of conductance g consumes progressively more psi per time).

Makes no sense to me, sorry


Whereas for the magnetic circuit this is the exact opposite, or resistance r consumes lines of magnetic induction (increasing magnitude of resistance r consumes progressively more phi per time) and conductance g preserves lines of magnetic induction (increasing magnitude of conductance g consumes progressively less phi per time).

consumes is not a technical word, I cannot make sense out of this.


This is exemplified in the the cases of infinite resistance r for the rC circuit and infinite conductance g for the gL circuit, both have an infinite discharge time despite the finite storage of C or L. This somewhat predicts an LC oscillation, whereby a capacity C appears to be a conductance C/t to an inductance L and an inductance L appears to be a resistance L/t to a capacity C. Here, the lines of induction are not consumed but transformed from one form to the other as a storage and return of energy, whereby the conductance g consumes the energy of the capacity C and the resistance r consumes the energy of the inductance L causing the oscillation to eventually stop.
"

Garrett M
I have never found a logical reason to mathematically dilate time except as a fudge factor to create a force fit situation. That kind of cyphering makes no sense and would twist my brain into a pretzel if I were to go there.

There is no such thing as an infinitesimally narrow pulse. Especially as you go up in power with big coils and they take time after the mag field collapse to transfer the [whatever] to [wherever].

If you have an area under the curve you have a measurable quantity regardless of the shape, so I do not get hung up on that. If you know the shape the height the varying width you can measure it, simple as that, and there is a point where splitting hair is exactly that just splitting hair.

I do not follow your conclusions at all. Low r or high 1/r (conductance) aids or creates a better condition for transfering energy et al. so I cant even imagine how you are applying the word consumes.

The first thing is do we understand what is going on with this device and at this point I do not. I understand many bits and pieces and I am sure could build a pretty hot unit. The problem I have and continue to have is no one yet has put up enough "stuff" math theory et al including everything I have seen of teslas work for me to make an educated guess on how tesla planned on 1million HP from 100 or whatever. My previously held beliefs based on Erics work went out the window with that bolina video that paul posted.
__________________
 

Last edited by Kokomoj0; 02-22-2012 at 05:36 AM.
  #1036  
Old 02-22-2012, 06:05 AM
7imix 7imix is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sputins View Post
I would suggest that it will take an American, to directly call them on the phone, call the Chairman or a committee member, someone in charge. Ask them for these lectures politely. Offer money. Physically go there and ask for them politely, bribe them with good old cash, if no success, hound them day and night relentlessly, until they finally break and supply us with those damn lectures!!
I have been planning on going down there in person to ask. I meant to go this month but it was on the 12th and I missed it.
__________________
 
  #1037  
Old 02-22-2012, 04:38 PM
LtBolo LtBolo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 87
Brilliant discussions of theory. Way over my head in most cases. I try to reduce things to the simplest thing that I can visualize or experiment with mechanical analogs and whatnot. Has served me pretty well, but has its limitations.

I do have a working theory and I would like comments from some of you more theoretically minded individuals.


Simple question: When the charge density of a conductor (like a capacitive top load) changes over time, resulting in a propagating wave in whatever medium that EM waves propagate in, is any energy consumed by the wave?

At first blush it would appear 'no', given that when I push charge into a sphere it stores energy as 0.5*C*V^2, where C is the effective capacity of the sphere and V=q/C, and when I discharge the sphere I get that energy back minus resistive losses.

Somebody please correct me...I keep arriving at the conclusion that the longitudinal wave emitted by the top load consumes no energy, even though it clearly possesses some.
__________________
 
  #1038  
Old 02-22-2012, 06:53 PM
Nhopa Nhopa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 134
Mechanical break

[QUOTE=Nhopa;179124]Hi all:
Reading the notes, the name of two items often come up , the "sensitive device" and the "mercury break" or "Thomas clockwork with wheel". The sensitive device looks very similar to a Reed switch, so the question is, can one use the Reed switch, inserted into a coil, in lieu of the sensitive device's glass tube with the two wires?
The question about the break is what kind of mechanical device, if any, can be used instead of the mercury break or the Thomas clockwork? Is there anything commercially available out there? If not, are there plans available to build one of these devices at home?

Hi all:

A few weeks-ago I have asked the above questions but got no response. If we are going to experiment I think it is important to know what equipment to use. Any suggestions?
__________________
 
  #1039  
Old 02-22-2012, 07:30 PM
john_g john_g is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 520
[QUOTE=Nhopa;181206]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nhopa View Post
Hi all:
Reading the notes, the name of two items often come up , the "sensitive device" and the "mercury break" or "Thomas clockwork with wheel". The sensitive device looks very similar to a Reed switch, so the question is, can one use the Reed switch, inserted into a coil, in lieu of the sensitive device's glass tube with the two wires?


The question about the break is what kind of mechanical device, if any, can be used instead of the mercury break or the Thomas clockwork? Is there anything commercially available out there? If not, are there plans available to build one of these devices at home?

Hi all:

A few weeks-ago I have asked the above questions but got no response. If we are going to experiment I think it is important to know what equipment to use. Any suggestions?
Hi

I'm wondering if it was Seth Thomas, whom Tesla was rererring to; a well known clockmaker who also made clockwork electrical items, for switching stage lighting etc. There is a book by Tran Duy Ly, on S Thomas, but I haven't managed to find a web copy.

Regards

John
__________________
 
  #1040  
Old 02-22-2012, 11:56 PM
jake's Avatar
jake jake is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 169
TRT calculator

Quote:
Originally Posted by jake View Post
Anyone:

How was the 62% calculated? Does it only apply to round conductors? Does it come from the wind to wind capacitance?

Many Thanks,
jake
In an effort to make friends and get an answer to the question above. I put together an Excel calculator with the equations Eric posted. It works pretty well, except for the extra coil calculations end up with a negative number. Maybe one of you can figure out what I did wrong.

Now would someone please point me in the direction where I can find and answer to the question above. I know Eric said it was a requirement for but why 62%.

Just point me to a page in a document and I can do the rest.

Thanks,


p.s. I just noticed I cant post Excel files if you want it. I will send it to you just pm me.
__________________
 
  #1041  
Old 02-23-2012, 01:57 AM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 286
Energy, Work, Power and Misc.

I thought I'd pop in and give my two cents on this whole energy, work and power debate, it's application to power magnification and to help clear up a few things which have been asked. This is just a summary of my current understanding which may or may not be able to help those concerned come to a further understanding of what Eric is trying to say.

First of all we'll go back to our fundamental dimensional relations of the difference between energy, work and power. Energy measured is measured in joules, or plancks per second where the Planck was defined by Eric as being of dimensions joule-seconds. Energy is an implied quantity which is only of interest when conditions in a system are changing. If something in our universe changes in any way energy must be equally exchanged between it's various forms (electromagnetic, kinetic, etc.) as to remain a constant quantity as per the Law of the Conservation of Energy or for the Mr Heaviside's out there - 'The Law of the Continuity of Energy'.

When something changes and energy is exchanged there are two more quantities we can talk about and they are work and power. Work is also measured in Joules and is the difference in the energy magnitude from before the system changed to after the system changed. It should be noted that here we have 2 quantities, being energy and work, which have the same dimesions of Joules but represent two slightly different things which is a theme which pops up in the work of Mr Dollard (E,e,I,i being an example).

Power is measured in Watts, Joules per second or Plancks per second per second as per Dollard's units. Power and work are very closely related in that power is measured as the work per second. So basically when the level of energy changes within a system the magnitude of the change is the work and the rapidity of the change is the power.

Okay now let's apply our now defined quantities into a practical situation - the charging and discharging of a capacitor. Let's say I have a 12v battery and I want to charge a 1 Farad capacitor and I am going to charge it through a 1k ohm resistor. The energy stored within a capacitor is given by;
1.

So, from the above equation, after we charge the capacitor we can conclude that we have 72 Joules of energy stored in the dielectric field of the capacitor. The work done in charging this capacitor is given by;
2.

Since we started off with a totally uncharged capacitor (v=0 so E=0) we have done 72-0=72 Joules of work. It should be noted that if the capacitor was charged to any non-zero voltage our values of work and energy wouldn't be equal and so here we have a case of two quantities with the same dimensions having two different meanings for if they had the same meaning they would be equivilent at all times.

So now we want to know how much power or activity we just caused from our charging. Our formula for power is given by;
3.

We already know our work (72 joules) but how much time elapsed in charging our capacitor? Luckily know that the time to charge/discharge a capacitor through a resistance r to just over 63% of it's final value is given by;
4.

I will not try to prove this as it can easily be googled by the time for it to be charged, practically that is since theoretically it is never exactly 12v, is given by 5 times our time constant and so the time taken to charge or discharge our capacitor is given by;
5.

Therefore combining equation 1,2,3 and 5 we get;
6.

So in charging our capacitor of 1 Farad through a 1k resistor to 12 volts we get 0.0144 Watts of electrical activity. Now let's disconnect but not discharge the capacitor and connect it to a separate circuit so that the capacitor discharges into a 10 ohm resistor. Plugging 10 ohms into equation 6 gives 1.44 Watts discharge. The energy stored in the capacitor on charging is the same amount of energy released by the capacitor on discharging, use the above equations to prove this for yourself if don't wish to take my word for it.

I do not have a full chart to prove what I am saying but how about we look at a simple circuit simulator. Here is an example of what I am saying. Notice the peak values for power measured across each resistor.

--

Now for another matter which has come up; 'I do not follow your conclusions at all. Low r or high 1/r (conductance) aids or creates a better condition for transfering energy et al. so I cant even imagine how you are applying the word consumes.' Your thinking in terms of energy when you should be thinking in terms of fields and their actions on the circuit.

Think of resistance as opening the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the resistor. As we add resistance the voltage delivered by a collapsing magnetic field (or discharging inductor) climbs. I believe you are aware of this as you mentioned it in an earlier post. Current is usually associated with a magnetic field and an inductor is a storehouse of the magnetic field. When we connect a large resistance (or open the circuit) the magnetic field is allowed to collapse and thus the inductor discharges which results in a high webers per second or voltage. The magnetic field is consumed by a resistance to produce a voltage, the lower the conductance the lower the voltage that will be developed. It can be shown here that a magnetic field is preserved by a conductance.

Now think of conductance as closing the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the conductance. As we add conductance the current delivered by a collapsing dielectric field (or discharging capacitor) increases. Voltage is usually associated with a dielectric field and as we know a capacitor is the storehouse for the dielectric field. When we connect a large conductance (or close the circuit) the dielectric field is allowed to collapse and thus the capacitor discharges which results in a high coulombs per second or current. The dielectric field is consumed by a conductance to produce a voltage, the lower the resistance the lower the current that will be developed. It can be shown here that a dielectric field is preserved by resistance.

I hope this helps.

NOTE: Voltage is not just a phenomena of one field of induction and nor is current. Total voltage and current contain elements of both dielectric and magnetic fields. Hence Eric's E,e,I,i.
Raui
__________________
Scribd account; http://www.scribd.com/raui
  #1042  
Old 02-23-2012, 02:53 AM
garrettm4 garrettm4 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Orbiting Sol somewhere in the Milky Way
Posts: 178
Raui,

That was an excellent and very thoughtful comment on the subject of Energy Work & Power and how they are interrelated. You've done a great job of describing the subject better than I did. Thanks.

I fear my explanations are prolix and opaque to most readers, most of my vocabulary and implied connotations are taken from the 1880s to 1920s so I can see why reading my posts might be confusing for some. Also I am an avid user of e E i & I and angular frequency instead of cycles per second in my own work and ironically find it hard to read V & I now. Its like watching a movie halfway though with subtitles on and then taking them off, its harder to follow the movie now, even though the subtitles were annoying at first.


Kokomoj0,

It would seem we can only agree to disagree on most anything remotely theoretical, at any rate, good luck in your Tesla Transformer construction efforts. Maybe someone else can answer your questions in away that you see fit.


Sputins,

Thanks for the info, I think I am going to ask them (if I can get a hold of anyone first) for another persons lecture and then when I am talking to them ask for the Dollard lectures, I don't think they would see that coming.


Madhatter,

One quick question to your response about L & C annulling in the Tesla Transformer. If the reactance of L & C sum to a zero magnitude vector or reactance X=0=XL-XC (saying they cancel isn't completely correct). Wouldn't that imply a RESONANT condition such as a series LC arrangement, this being in a very unfamiliar one wire (having no return wire) configuration? If so, this makes the "quadra-polar resonance" of LC & MK much more understandable for myself.

Garrett M
__________________
 

Last edited by garrettm4; 03-04-2012 at 02:05 AM.
  #1043  
Old 02-23-2012, 04:51 AM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by garrettm4 View Post
Raui,

That was an excellent and very thoughtful comment on the subject of Energy Work & Power and how they are interrelated. I also like how you touched upon Electrical Activity as well. You've done a great job of describing the subject better than I did. Thanks.

I fear my explanations are prolix and opaque to most readers, most of my vocabulary and implied connotations are taken from the 1880s to 1920s so I can see why reading my posts might be confusing for some. Also I am an avid user of e E i & I and angular frequency instead of cycles per second in my own work and ironically find it hard to read V & I now. Its like watching a movie halfway though with subtitles on and then taking them off, its harder to follow the movie now, even though the subtitles were annoying at first.
Thank you for your very kind comments. I have been a little unsure if my understanding of E,e,I,i was concrete. I know I'm on the right track though. From Symbolic Representation of the Alternating Electric Wave Eric gives the Total Voltage as E = IR - jIX and total Current being I = EG + jEB. So I always took it as meaning that e = jIX and i = jEB. Does this conform to your ideas of E,e,I,i?

Raui
__________________
Scribd account; http://www.scribd.com/raui
  #1044  
Old 02-23-2012, 07:00 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raui View Post
I thought I'd pop in and give my two cents on this whole energy, work and power debate, it's application to power magnification and to help clear up a few things which have been asked. This is just a summary of my current understanding which may or may not be able to help those concerned come to a further understanding of what Eric is trying to say.

First of all we'll go back to our fundamental dimensional relations of the difference between energy, work and power. Energy measured is measured in joules, or plancks per second where the Planck was defined by Eric as being of dimensions joule-seconds. Energy is an implied quantity which is only of interest when conditions in a system are changing. If something in our universe changes in any way energy must be equally exchanged between it's various forms (electromagnetic, kinetic, etc.) as to remain a constant quantity as per the Law of the Conservation of Energy or for the Mr Heaviside's out there - 'The Law of the Continuity of Energy'.

When something changes and energy is exchanged there are two more quantities we can talk about and they are work and power. Work is also measured in Joules and is the difference in the energy magnitude from before the system changed to after the system changed. It should be noted that here we have 2 quantities, being energy and work, which have the same dimesions of Joules but represent two slightly different things which is a theme which pops up in the work of Mr Dollard (E,e,I,i being an example).

Power is measured in Watts, Joules per second or Plancks per second per second as per Dollard's units. Power and work are very closely related in that power is measured as the work per second. So basically when the level of energy changes within a system the magnitude of the change is the work and the rapidity of the change is the power.

Okay now let's apply our now defined quantities into a practical situation - the charging and discharging of a capacitor. Let's say I have a 12v battery and I want to charge a 1 Farad capacitor and I am going to charge it through a 1k ohm resistor. The energy stored within a capacitor is given by;
1.

So, from the above equation, after we charge the capacitor we can conclude that we have 72 Joules of energy stored in the dielectric field of the capacitor. The work done in charging this capacitor is given by;
2.

Since we started off with a totally uncharged capacitor (v=0 so E=0) we have done 72-0=72 Joules of work. It should be noted that if the capacitor was charged to any non-zero voltage our values of work and energy wouldn't be equal and so here we have a case of two quantities with the same dimensions having two different meanings for if they had the same meaning they would be equivilent at all times.

So now we want to know how much power or activity we just caused from our charging. Our formula for power is given by;
3.

We already know our work (72 joules) but how much time elapsed in charging our capacitor? Luckily know that the time to charge/discharge a capacitor through a resistance r to just over 63% of it's final value is given by;
4.

I will not try to prove this as it can easily be googled by the time for it to be charged, practically that is since theoretically it is never exactly 12v, is given by 5 times our time constant and so the time taken to charge or discharge our capacitor is given by;
5.

Therefore combining equation 1,2,3 and 5 we get;
6.

So in charging our capacitor of 1 Farad through a 1k resistor to 12 volts we get 0.0144 Watts of electrical activity. Now let's disconnect but not discharge the capacitor and connect it to a separate circuit so that the capacitor discharges into a 10 ohm resistor. Plugging 10 ohms into equation 6 gives 1.44 Watts discharge. The energy stored in the capacitor on charging is the same amount of energy released by the capacitor on discharging, use the above equations to prove this for yourself if don't wish to take my word for it.

I do not have a full chart to prove what I am saying but how about we look at a simple circuit simulator. Here is an example of what I am saying. Notice the peak values for power measured across each resistor.

--

Now for another matter which has come up; 'I do not follow your conclusions at all. Low r or high 1/r (conductance) aids or creates a better condition for transfering energy et al. so I cant even imagine how you are applying the word consumes.' Your thinking in terms of energy when you should be thinking in terms of fields and their actions on the circuit.

Think of resistance as opening the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the resistor. As we add resistance the voltage delivered by a collapsing magnetic field (or discharging inductor) climbs. I believe you are aware of this as you mentioned it in an earlier post. Current is usually associated with a magnetic field and an inductor is a storehouse of the magnetic field. When we connect a large resistance (or open the circuit) the magnetic field is allowed to collapse and thus the inductor discharges which results in a high webers per second or voltage. The magnetic field is consumed by a resistance to produce a voltage, the lower the conductance the lower the voltage that will be developed. It can be shown here that a magnetic field is preserved by a conductance.

Now think of conductance as closing the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the conductance. As we add conductance the current delivered by a collapsing dielectric field (or discharging capacitor) increases. Voltage is usually associated with a dielectric field and as we know a capacitor is the storehouse for the dielectric field. When we connect a large conductance (or close the circuit) the dielectric field is allowed to collapse and thus the capacitor discharges which results in a high coulombs per second or current. The dielectric field is consumed by a conductance to produce a voltage, the lower the resistance the lower the current that will be developed. It can be shown here that a dielectric field is preserved by resistance.

I hope this helps.

NOTE: Voltage is not just a phenomena of one field of induction and nor is current. Total voltage and current contain elements of both dielectric and magnetic fields. Hence Eric's E,e,I,i.

Raui

you had my undivided attention until you got to where I highlighted.

It seems everyone is missing the point I was trying to convey that is that a cap integrates the pulse which can be computed in terms of power and presuming everyone understood this was in terms of a filter.

When in terms of transmission where we want the impulse to travel through the capacitor it exhibits the "appearance" of a series resistance in the form of reactance which has the highest "conductance" at fo, OR the lowest apparent "resistance" at fo. Just hit 1/x on your calculator to get one or the other, simple as that. Transmission line does not apply in the same sense as I used. (I better add here that it depends on what type of circuit you have, but I presume you all get my drift)

Just because you have higher voltages and shorter time frame pulses does not mean you have a magnification of "power".

Tesla used the term "power", so I use the term "power" and stayed in those units in my posts. It does not negate anything Eric said nor does anything that Eric said negate what I am saying.

I gave an example of how you could go to from 1 to a million volts in with narrower pulses and discharge roughly the same power in each case because it is time dependent. That was the point. Narrower pulses does not = magnification of power.



as I stated and you only need go as far as yahoo (ironicaly the first thing that popped up):
Quote:
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

"Consumption of electricity" is a non-scientific expression often used to describe the conversion of electrical energy to mechanical work, heat or light.

The Joule is the unit of measurement used to blah blah blah......
Define Consumption of Electricity.? - Yahoo! Answers

4 years ago
Now I do not intend to be a language cop here but consume is completely the wrong word to use and gives the exact opposite implication and in some cases does not even apply in any respect to what is in reality "scientifically" or "electrically" <--(used generically in its most expansive term) is happening.

It is simply the wrong word especially when talking about conductance resulting in conflation of terms.


aside from that you repeated "mostly" what I said until you got to the consume part

I will put the translation of what I said in [ brackets ]
fine but splitting it up into 4 quadrants and 4 elemental forces does not change the fact that somewhere in there is a power measurement and in a manner of speaking for simplification your voltage and current is if you will humor me a balancing scale.

[meaning an energized coil has a "finite" amount of total energy in its field, therefore, upon the collapse of the field, the higher the "resistance" or reciprocally the lower the "conductance" the less current will flow and higher the voltage will rise, power remains the same]

In other words when that magnetic field collapses if there is no where for the current to flow the voltage will try to go toward infinity.

[people for whatever reason are now trying to force the application of conductance for everything rather than just state high resistance as high resistance and appears to be becoming more of a word-smithing exercise than that of science.]

On the other hand when there is somewhere for the current to go the voltage will be based on the source resistance of the coil in reference to the load.

[meaning higher conductance OR LOWER resistance, it goes without saying that the voltage will be not rise as high across a load as it would have with NO load OR near infinite resistance which IS THE SAME as near 0 conductance.]

That said, with voltage and current we can measure power which will be based on the strength and quantity of the magnetic field and the coil characteristics.

[Keeping in mind both the source internal resistance and the load resistance will effect the voltage and current response.]

Nothing said so far negates my claim you see.



basically you started and did say pretty much the same thing I did only reversed it into conductance and you all really should loose words like harvest and consume if we want to talk engineer to engineer rather than like the power company talking to the clueless who would not know the difference anyway.
__________________
 

Last edited by Kokomoj0; 02-24-2012 at 03:31 AM.
  #1045  
Old 02-23-2012, 09:46 AM
jpolakow jpolakow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raui View Post
Think of resistance as opening the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the resistor. As we add resistance the voltage delivered by a collapsing magnetic field (or discharging inductor) climbs. I believe you are aware of this as you mentioned it in an earlier post. Current is usually associated with a magnetic field and an inductor is a storehouse of the magnetic field. When we connect a large resistance (or open the circuit) the magnetic field is allowed to collapse and thus the inductor discharges which results in a high webers per second or voltage. The magnetic field is consumed by a resistance to produce a voltage, the lower the conductance the lower the voltage that will be developed. It can be shown here that a magnetic field is preserved by a conductance.

Now think of conductance as closing the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the conductance. As we add conductance the current delivered by a collapsing dielectric field (or discharging capacitor) increases. Voltage is usually associated with a dielectric field and as we know a capacitor is the storehouse for the dielectric field. When we connect a large conductance (or close the circuit) the dielectric field is allowed to collapse and thus the capacitor discharges which results in a high coulombs per second or current. The dielectric field is consumed by a conductance to produce a voltage, the lower the resistance the lower the current that will be developed. It can be shown here that a dielectric field is preserved by resistance.

I hope this helps.

NOTE: Voltage is not just a phenomena of one field of induction and nor is current. Total voltage and current contain elements of both dielectric and magnetic fields. Hence Eric's E,e,I,i.
Raui
This is something that I was thinking about lately. We know for there to be electrical activity (and Planck's) there must be a dielectric and magnetic component. Then if we have a charging capacitor, we have a displacement current I. This consists of dielectric lines of force in the capacitor. However in order for there to be Planck's charging the capacitor there must be some magnetic component as well. So are there magnetic lines of force in the capacitor(dielectric) as well? Where is the magnetic component?
__________________
Please help support my indiegogo campaign: Cosmic Induction Generator
  #1046  
Old 02-23-2012, 03:45 PM
Web000x's Avatar
Web000x Web000x is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpolakow View Post
This is something that I was thinking about lately. We know for there to be electrical activity (and Planck's) there must be a dielectric and magnetic component. Then if we have a charging capacitor, we have a displacement current I. This consists of dielectric lines of force in the capacitor. However in order for there to be Planck's charging the capacitor there must be some magnetic component as well. So are there magnetic lines of force in the capacitor(dielectric) as well? Where is the magnetic component?
The dielectric lines of force, Psi, are dragging along the conductor as they fill in the dielectric of the capacitor. The dragging of Psi/second along the wires connected to the capacitor causes a displacement current which produces magnetism.

Dave
__________________
 

Last edited by Web000x; 02-23-2012 at 03:48 PM.
  #1047  
Old 02-23-2012, 06:36 PM
madhatter's Avatar
madhatter madhatter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by garrettm4 View Post
Madhatter,

One quick question to your response about L & C annulling in the Tesla Transformer. If the reactance of L & C sum to a zero magnitude vector or reactance X=0=XL-XC (saying they cancel isn't completely correct). Wouldn't that imply a RESONANT condition such as a series LC arrangement, this being in a very unfamiliar one wire (having no return wire) configuration? If so, this makes the "quadra-polar resonance" of LC & MK much more understandable for myself.

Garrett M
As best as I understand it that's correct. And yes, annulment or cancel would not be a technically correct term as it's a transform into counterspace as I understand it. Hence the need for further research.
__________________
 
  #1048  
Old 02-23-2012, 07:55 PM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhatter View Post
As best as I understand it that's correct. And yes, annulment or cancel would not be a technically correct term as it's a transform into counterspace as I understand it. Hence the need for further research.
they cancel in terms of appearing to the circuit to be inductively reactant or capacitvely reactant which occurs (off center to fo).

working together, their combination then appears to the circuit to be a pure or nonreactive resistance at fo absolute, (in ideal conditions).

as you say you are still left with the resistive elements

or if you prefer the low conductance side, it would be a nonreactive conductance.
__________________
 

Last edited by Kokomoj0; 02-23-2012 at 08:07 PM.
  #1049  
Old 02-23-2012, 10:17 PM
garrettm4 garrettm4 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Orbiting Sol somewhere in the Milky Way
Posts: 178
Q&A

LtBolo,

I don't know if I quite grasp what you're asking, but here's a shot in the dark for a reply:

I interpret "charge density", to be lines of psi per unit surface-area or psi/l^2 where l is unit length (for the surface of a sphere the equation is a little bit different). Following the concept that lines of dielectric induction are stored in all non-metallic space and terminate on all surrounding conductors, we can then say that the "charge density" definitely affects things in the vicinity of the metallic sphere. If we introduce time into this situation and surface-area of metallic sphere is unable to change, then the amount of lines moving in time being the only way to change the overall "density". This would then create a changing displacement current in the AIR and subsequent conduction current in the metallic surfaces of the end points of the lines of dielectric induction. The storage of dielectric energy into the air, or whatever medium chosen, is Work. The subsequent return of that stored energy is also Work. Energy lost is from multiple things; Hysteresis (losses due to polarization not following the fields), Mutual Capacity (energy transferred that can’t be returned), and resistance of metallic surfaces or wires.

I believe three "waves" can propagate here, the first is the polarization wave of the dielectric, the second being from mutual capacity, and the third from radiation resistance, caused by distance between surface-areas and specific wavelength used (via rate of change in the charge density). The hysteresis of the dielectric and the finite velocity of the electromagnetic wave in and of themselves are losses according to CP Steinmetz.

See:
CP Steinmetz - Theory & Calculation of Transient Electric Phenomena & Oscillations 3rd Ed, 5th Imp [1920]
Capacity of a Sphere in space, page 418, Transient Phenomena, Sub Section E
also
High-Frequency Conductors, page 420, Chapter IX

An interesting thought is that of electrostatic discharge. Walking across some carpet you "charge" your person to a high potential. If we think in-terms of lines of induction, we become an end terminal of these lines and our self-capacity is very small so we have a high electrostatic potential associated with our body relative to our surroundings. The reason this appears to be a "one wire" discharge can be seen through the eyes of mutual capacity. The lines of induction produced by rubbing our shoes on the carpet induced a field of flux surrounding our body; this field is mutual to all of our surroundings. The subsequent discharge is that of self-capacity, although we are mutual to many metallic surfaces we discharge, via dielectric saturation of the air, to only one surface. If that specific surfaces capacity relative to our mutual capacity is very small we are still somewhat "charged" and can continue to shock more things we come close to.

I don't know if that came close to answering your question but was at least it was an attempt.


Raui,

One thing to point out, is that in Symbolic Representation of Alternating Electric Waves only “Alternating” waves are discussed. E & I are assumed counter-rotating vectors. I is a mysterious quantity for me, if there is no capacitance in the system, if inductance can be looked at as a capacitor in certain respects then this is more comprehensible. Here the Voltage Drop of resistance is Ir (series resistance) and Current Drop of conductance is Eg (shunt conductance). The reason IX and EB are imaginary and negative is much like a rubber-band. If we expand the rubber-band we store kinetic energy as potential energy, the subsequent release of energy is kinetic but in the opposite direction (it contracts), thus a negative quantity. So for e+Ir to equal jIX, X would have to be Capacitive Reactance or X(sub)C. Also, for i+Eg to equal jEB, B would have to be Inductive Suceptance B(sub)L. Unless I am mistaken, which may be the case. Consider that the EMF of an inductor per unit Time (E=phi/t) is the Induction or release of stored Proportion i (i=phi/L or phi=Li), so It would follow that you can't get i from psi/t unless they were equal, which may be the case in an alternating current circuit (I haven’t tried to calculate i or e in an AC circuit from E & I). A free oscillation requires both capacity and inductance to happen, this being a double energy transient, but for a forced alternation such as a generator, apparently this isn’t the case, you can use only inductance or capacitance to have an alternating waveform. In these instances the usage of e E i & I are a bit confusing but very enlightening once figured out. The case of a generator and transformer, both being inductive elements with very small capacity would have almost no psi/t or Capacity current and the electrostatic potential of the system e=psi/C is a negligible figure as well. If the EMF of the inductor and electrostatic potential of the capacitor are considered equal then e and i could be calculated from other values. I believe the phase angles of the voltages and currents warrants consideration, resonance being a prime example. During Parallel resonance, the voltage’s vector magnitudes sum to zero, that of the source and LC tank. While in series resonance, the voltage’s vector magnitudes also sum to zero, but now being only those of L & C. So if not in a resonant state (180 degree phase angle) the currents and voltages of each element are at some arbitrary phase angle with reference to themselves and the source. This leads to problems from what I can see right off. The fact that measured voltages and currents are vector sums of source and load means you can’t just hookup a volt or amp meter to any arbitrary point in the circuit and get accurate results. During a parallel resonance state, you will measure three different currents, that of the source, the inductance L & capacity C all having a different phase. During a series resonance, you will measure three different voltages that of the source, the inductance L & capacity C these also all having a different phase.

I don't know if any of that makes sense, but is what I currently understand about alternating current circuits.


Kokomojo,

Using a capacitor to integrate the total energy doesn't directly relate to Magnification factor. As Raui has pointed out, Energy is the ability to do work, Work is energy used, Power is the time rate of Work or time rate of Energy used. For the Impulse circuit the discharge and charge times can have different values, therefore power would obviously have to change based upon that, seeing as how "time" is involved. Energy on the other hand is just the base substance, so the capacitive integrator you were talking about only integrates energy not power (you can derive power with a known time period or a waveform, but not without time). If you use the formulae for finding the amount of joules in the capacitor (by measuring the electrostatic potential and using a known value of capacity) from being "pulsed" then all you did was see how much energy was transferred this can be taken as Work but not Power, if time isn’t known. With what I have read of your comments, I don't think you will be understanding magnification factor as it relates to Power anytime soon. On a side note, the usage of Consumption is a correct word choice. While other words can be used to replace it I choose to use it in honor of CP Steinmetz and Mr. Dollard whom both use that "improper” word choice in their writings. And not only is it used in their writings, many books from the time period of 1880 to 1920, use it in similar context. Thus it has a well-established history of usage, therefore it is a technically correct choice, although a forgotten one at that.


To jpolakow and Web000x,

I believe the displacement current is only in a dielectric material, i.e. only flows through insulators. If a capacitor discharges there is a reverse displacement current in the dielectric and subsequent conduction current in the wire (dielectric displacement is much like a mechanical spring). The lines of dielectric induction do not travel in the wire. They agitate the "magic" electron into motion in metallic materials. Here then comes the question, what produces the magnetic field? Is it the electron (an effect) or the lines of dielectric induction (a cause). The proverbial chicken / egg, cause and effect scenario has me perplexed, its possible that something else is taking place which I don't understand at the moment. Much like watching a puppet, you think its alive (electron), until you see the strings (lines of induction), and finally the person manipulating it (haven't been able to figure this one out yet). Unless I am confused that's how I have come to understand the phenomena.

"So are there magnetic lines of force in the capacitor(dielectric) as well?"

I think this is a trick question. I'll attempt to answer this to the best of my ability, magnetic energy HAS TO CIRCULATE to be stored, if you break the connection of a closed current path you release the magnetic energy as a large voltage E or phi/t where phi=Li. During the transient case of the initial "charging" of the capacitor C/t there would be a high conduction current in the metallic parts joining to the dielectric of the capacitor this being seen in the connecting wires and plates of the capacitor in the circuit. In the most simplistic view the amount of magnetic energy as loops would be temporally stored around those metallic parts, where L=((Permeability)(Length))/(Cross-section Area). This is only a temporary event, as the suceptance of the capacitor decreases, so does the current in the conductors, subsequently the magnetic energy however small or large fades away. This is called parasitic inductance.

So to answer, I don't think for a single energy transient, such as a battery charging a capacitor to the same voltage, would involve the plank as Mr. Dollard has described it. But, there would be for a small amount of time, both magnetic and dielectric lines of induction in/around or near the dielectric of the capacitor.

Garrett M
__________________
 

Last edited by garrettm4; 03-08-2012 at 12:46 AM.
  #1050  
Old 02-24-2012, 03:24 AM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 286
Kokomoj0,
I'm not saying your wrong, a high resistance is a low conductance and visa versa but I fear that is a reductionist way of looking at things. Eric has stressed since the start that what he is trying to convey is more along the ideas of Goethe than conventional science, which should be attributed to Newton, as is shown in the following quote;

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-rex View Post
I maintain the pounds per square inch has absolutely no relation to capacitance whatsoever, in the world of electrical engineers. Hence it is absurd. To quote E.H. Armstrong, "They substitute words for reality, and then talk about the words." This is what physics has done. In Electricity, the ideas og Goethe and Wilhelm Reich are much more in accord with electricity, and the formative forces in general. Newton was a materialist and his physics represents an impediment to the understanding of electricity. For those married to "Little Ball Bearings", this is why we have the Planck. Here you can have your beloved E equals mc squared which is so dear to your heart. So use it, don't heap capacitance and inductance with lead weights.

The Aether does not relate to the inertial laws of Newton, but the formative forces laws of Goethe.

73 DE N6KPH
and here;
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-rex View Post
Energy in its most arch-typical form is embodied in the phenomenon of Electricity, but what is Electricity? Now our wheels even more stuck in the mud! But we have important clues, namely that of polarity, not plus or minus so much but more like male or female. This thought follows from Goethe to Tesla and Steinmetz. Thus Electricity, in order to manifest, a UNION must develop. This is the union of the “male”, or projective, and “multiplied by” the “female”, or receptive. Hereby, the male is the dielectric field in counterspace (of per centimeters), and the magnetic field or female in space (of centimeters squared). Space in c.m. squared is what you pay for in “real estate”, counterspace in per c.m. is the space between the lines on a ruler, or between molecules in a crystal.

73 DE K6KPH
So with that in mind let's look at our disagreement on using conductance and resistance interchangeably instead of low resistance/high resistance. It actually has striking similarity to the battle waged between Goethe and Newton as to a theory of colours. Goethe believed that colour was an interaction between two polar opposites, being light and dark. Newton refuted Goethe's arguments claiming that darkness was only the absence of light and so colours could not possibly be an interaction between light and dark. It is interesting that the Heaviside equation (Off the top of my head it is (RG+XB)+j(RB-XG)), which Eric states is the most fundamental equation in electrical engineering, can be reduced to ZY. This implies that electricity is the interaction of two polar opposite quantities being impedence and admittance in the same way that Goethe said colour arose from the interaction of Light and Dark.

So let's contrast this with our current discussion- Your saying that I am wrong/misinformed because conductance is just a lack of/low resistance, in the same way Newton argued that darkness is an absence of light. Since we are learning Eric's theory we shouldn't try and bring in Newtonian scientific concepts into a concept which has been stressed, repeatedly, that it is Goethean. I am not saying that the Newtonian concepts aren't without their worth but we are moving beyond Newton into a different way of doing science. I feel you might be trying to force the square to be a triangle. Another T-Rex quote. (Yes I know we aren't necessarily talking dimensions here but I feel he'd say a very similar thing to this in response to what we're currently discussing)

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-rex View Post
You have just taken all the work I have done in deriving new dimensions and tried to convert them back to physics dimensions. You want to go back to physics. I just got done going through 40 papers to get physics out of this! Heaviside and Steinmetz didn't go through all this trouble to turn it all back around again. Are you sure you know what dielectricity and magnetism are? Physicists have no business in dealing with this sh**. I derived a system of units that stand by themselves. Use the units I have derived NOT physics units. Physicists have no idea what electricity is- they don't even believe in the Ether!
Now as for the consumption/production problem. Yes I am aware that to a scientist/engineer trained under conventional theory thinking of the 'consumption' of electricity is a misleading term but again we aren't learning conventional theory we are learning an entirely different theory based on an entirely foreign method of scientific investigation. When a physicist here's the term 'consumption of electricity' they think that one is talking about the consumption of moving electrons which IS a wrong concept, however Eric is moving away from an electron based electricity.

When I say consumption and production I am talking about field lines issuing from the metallic-dielectric confines which seem to just appear out of the geometry with no apparent source (production) and disappear in the same fashion (consumption), what other words should I use? It's interesting to note that to a conventional physicist field lines are just useful analogies to teach students but to the people Eric is references (Heaviside, Thompson, Steinmetz) field lines have a concrete reality. Would you be happier if I used the term 'convert' instead of produce and consume? To me there is no difference between saying convert and saying something consumes one quantity whilst simultaneously producing another quantity and I'd say the answer you prefer would be a matter of philosophy. The other major reason I use the two terms is that Eric uses consume and produce to illustrate these concepts and so I have used these terms as not to further confuse people on an already confusing subject.

If you've never heard of Goethe here is some reading;
Light and Electricity by Tom Brown
Man or Matter by Ernst Lehrs

Garret,
Thanks for your response It's given me some things to think about, I will form a reply a little later.

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

Last edited by Raui; 02-24-2012 at 04:42 AM.
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 06:59 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