Hi Raui, Because I'm not an engineer I feel qualified to ask. Over a period of
say 10 charge and discharges wouldn't the "total" power be the same ?

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

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

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

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

I think this is the best definition for this situation.

Cheers

Farmhand,
Sorry but I'm not sure I completely understand what your saying when you say total power. Are you talking about the combination of real and reactive power (using pythagoras theorum since we are dealing with complex quantities) or are you saying that if we add all the values for power over the curve we get a constant or something entirely different?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raui

Thanks Raui, Yeah I agree, it is definitely magnification. Thank you for the reply.
Every little bit helps.

Cheers

Fantastic little experiment. This is especially important when we are considering high Q systems, where the work compressed into a shorter time equates to a higher possible peak to peak voltage.

Secondary/Extra Coil Measurements:

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

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

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

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

Notes: With my test setup the can was not needed at all to get the uA meter to respond. Holding the lead several feet away or just clipping to a convenient location (support dowel) does the trick. One technique that works well for determining the center frequency is to quickly sweep the function generator until the uA meter responds (in my case the meter pegs full scale), adjusting the input signal amplitude until the uA meter responds half scale, repeating the frequency sweep until a new maxima is found, and so on. An AM stereo 25 feet away tuned to roughly 990 kHz responds quite well to input signals driving the primary loop (i.e. 10, 100, 1000 Hz square waves at various amplitudes).

Attached Images

	teststand.jpg (204.5 KB, 39 views)
	teststand2.jpg (152.0 KB, 37 views)
	secondary.jpg (193.2 KB, 43 views)
	extracoil.jpg (21.1 KB, 34 views)
	extracoil2.jpg (160.3 KB, 35 views)
	ground_plate.jpg (208.4 KB, 35 views)

Did you use the extra coil calculation posted on the yahoo group?
Do you get any uA readings without the function generator? From a local station?

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

Thanks.

Sure there is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bottom line is the DC heating value, or the area under the curve (RMS) value.

I wont argue that convention is the version you posted, I was talking substantially. Hence we are both correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~fragment X

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

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

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

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

You know I ended up on this site and thread as a result of research in plasma physics. The capacitor plays a role in the ES plasma wave, ES waves are superluminal and ultra superluminal however since that violates relativity a magic wand is waved and phase velocities and a landau damping drop assumed.

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

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

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

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

I think that the study of physics and electric phenomenon is backwards, we start with the complex results then move to basic reason why and then further into high energy plasma where it's considered highly complex and advanced when that's where the start should be and then derive how to manipulate and create from there.

Is a magnifying glass not useful ? A magnifying glass does not make more light
than what entered it's lens, it just concentrates it to magnify the image so
things can be seen, in doing so it creates a "blind" area that cannot be seen.

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

I am not sure that you can apply a sine wave here. I think the trouble is your trying to analyze these circuits from a steady state point of view while we are studying them from a transient perspective.

The area underneath the curve I have posted is energy since the curve is power. Finding the area under a curve and performing an integral are the same thing.

I had a quick browse and couldn't find anything which doesn't agree with what I've done unless it's not applicable. Could you provide me with the link to the post which disputes what I am claiming in an exactness which is basically that power is conserved? I have posted several examples of where power isn't conserved using this same principal of discharging energy different to when it was charged, you have posted none disproving this.
You said This isn't a transformer, this video deals with normal AC conditions where transients don't exist. I will again post this quote from Tesla, whose work it is we're trying to understand by application of Eric's knowledge, the man himself states quite plainly how he achieved non-conservation of power/activity.
I shall let the quote speak for itself.

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


Other people have seemed to understand it just fine, it is unfortunate since you were the intended audience. The power is the dependant variable, time is the independant variable. The power was calculated as V^2/R which is another way of saying I^2*R like was done in the video you posted a couple of times
RC Circuits - YouTube




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


Raui

ok but neither of you have defined magnify to anyones satisfaction but your own.

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

what is magnify?

The math does not show any magnification.

So what is magnify? What is "activities"?

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

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

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

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

Activities is what power consumption?

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

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






Square waves make it easy and they are perfect pulses.

Each square represents 1 watt under the curve.

So whats different?

How is the power magnified?

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

Well I wouldn't know if other people know exactly what I'm talking about but neither would you since no one other than you has posted an objection to the words being used to describe what's going on. If anyone has trouble understanding then please post otherwise it's just a back and fourth battle between a select few on here about semantics, not very productive if you ask me I'd rather discuss more interesting things. Like I've said before, those using the word magnify do so because that's the word used by Eric and Tesla. Eric defined what he meant by magnification factor in his writings. If we start using different words to describe what Eric is describing then we are confusing people just starting to read the transmissions and make sense of them. This is the last thing we need.

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

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

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

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

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

Raui

I do not know what resources you use?

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




I get really burned out on magic words without substance.

Steinmetz, Heaviside, Kennelly, Macfarlane, Bewley the list goes on and on. I've referenced to them in my posts many times as have many others in the group. I'm sorry where did you define magnification. I said it can be thought of in the same way as the transformer where you can magnify the voltage or current but where you magnify one quantity you shrink the other because in the case you case power is constant. In my case however energy is constant and so power and time will magnify/shrink accordingly. This is the same definition but in a transformer you have a magnification where power is constant but in my example power is not constant but energy is.

Raui

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

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

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

So how is your definition of energy different than power?

Oh boy, here we go. Now I'm confused on this issue of power magnification. I was under the impression that power magnification dealt with a specific (linear algebraic) ratio between energy exchanges (two of them, P1 and P2) into and out of a system over distinct time frames (two of them, t1 and t2). Power dissipation into a resistor (unidirectional energy exchange, single time frame) doesn't quite fit within my conception of magnification. So, let's just clarify this term (maybe by defining it with simple algebra expression), and then move on to bloodier battles.

Just like a lot of words Magnify can have slightly different definitions.

A magnifying transmitter is a transformer !

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

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

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

If it useful or not depends on the situation.

No need for magic.

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

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

Cheers

Edited..

well the power stays the same.

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

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

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

glad I am not alone!

that is my complaint that these terms get tossed around and as you can see everyone has a completely different picture of what is being talked about because these are not being converted into the language that the electrical world of today understands.

Okay, I'll be satan's little helper for a second...

1. +W1 + -W2 = 0, (Assuming energy into and out of the system is conserved), right?
2. So, +P1*t1 + -P2*t2 = 0, (where (P1,t1) is your input power, over time frame one), (P2,t2) is your output power, over time frame two), right?
3. So, pick your favorite power parameter, mine just happens to be P2, and we get P2 = (t1/t2)*P1 (nothing magical here I hope), right?
4. So, define magnification as m=t1/t2, then P2=m*P1, right?

So, this definition of power magnification involves a ratio of two time frames; whereas the standard definition of a linear ac electrical transformer involves a ratio of the input and output parameters either V1/V2 or I1,I2 where (V1,I1) are the transformer inputs, and (V2,I2) are the transformer outputs.

Just tossing some suggestions out there (in the Bill Hicks advice to marketers sense of the phrase), and not setting out to deliberately distort anything here.

Kokomoj0,
I do not get what you mean by needle in a haystack definition as it seems we both understand what I mean when I say magnify or you wouldn't say that the voltage in a 1:2 transformer would be magnified and be double what appears on the primary. What's the problem? You are the one who seems to be on a word-smithing game. The word power was around in 1901 so they must have thought of electrical power as a different quantity to mechanical and thus labeled it as different in the same way that work and energy are different. The difference is only slight but it is real.

I am not actually saying this is a university course just giving an analogy as to why I choose to use the words that it was taught to me in. In the same way that if you were trying to explain something to someone you would use the same words you were taught in or the same words that the resources you are giving the student to study.

If you want to get your understanding of Tesla from the source then you need to understand what the source is saying. Secondary sources will often have a different take on the material to what is intended by the original author which is why I don't start changing words.

Like I've said that is the problem when modern science dawdles behind turn-of-the-century because when people want to go back they will always have to deal with changing ideas/words. I understand your beef with the words but it's really not THAT hard if you just read Eric's transmissions because I feel he defines the terms pretty well. In fact had you read Eric's transmissions you'd see that he clearly defined activity;
I personally don't use the word activity often and when I do it's usually tied in with the word power as to help teach people to interpret the writings themselves. Obviously you don't see this as important but I do.

Geometric_Algebra,
That is an interesting point you raise. I see two distinct time periods here though where you see one. Here I am taking the ratio of power measured across a resistor to charge a capacitor to power measured across a different resistor to which a capacitor was discharged. The whole point of my experiment was that the power consumed in charging the capacitor will remain the same and so if the power measured across the resistor changes for different values of R we have a difference in power which could be expressed as a ratio.

With the situation you are talking about are you talking about the ratio between the power in the dielectric field being discharged to the magnetic field being charged and visa versa?
Looking to Eric's posts Four Quadrant Energy Exchange in Magnetic & Dielectric Fields of Induction now look at figure 3 and 4.
From this quote you maybe able to see where I got my understanding of it from.

So when we charge the capacitor we have an energy transfer into a field of induction, this is one time period, t1, and when we discharge the capacitor we have an energy transfer out of this field of induction, the second time period, t2. The two time periods of this exchange, that is t1/t2, give us are power magnification ratio.
So now for some mathematics. Since energy is conserved if we have a changing power and time periods the following condition must be true;
Joules
So taking the ratio of the powers or time periods we get;


This is how I define power magnification, if anyone else has another definition go right ahead and explain it. It is important we get this issue sorted.

EDIT: Just seen your next post G_A and it seems our definitions of power magnification are the same but we disagree as to whether or not it can be applied to the situation I've presented, do you agree?

This is Tesla's power magnification setup notice that it just charges a capacitor and then the capacitor is discharged to the load through the spark gap.


More on this here; Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents -- Chapter IV

EDIT EDIT: I think I can see where the confusing stems from. I was assuming everyone knew that in my experiment the two time frames were dependant on the resistors and so I calculated the power magnification factor from the power and compared it to the resistors rather than the time because the time rates change with the resistance in my experiment.

Raui

Oh, we we were on the same page then (or pretty close) Raui, my thoughts just got derailed there for a bit (this one track mind went down a square power wave/resistor rail), but it helped to clarify things for me anyways. Okay, input energy storage into an RC network over a given period, and output energy dissipation over another period from the same network (l'll ride this track for a bit). I've been busy deeply ingesting solder fumes, which retards reading ability, don't you know?

Awesome, at least we know we're seeing the same sweet tune There must be worse things than solder fumes floating around this thread then as it seems your reasoning isn't as fogged up as some.

Garrett,
I will go further if I have to, I'm like a discharging inductor where my voltage will rise til it can discharge Also thank you, I didn't notice Armagdn03's post until you mentioned it. It seems this thread causes blind men to objectively hallucinate.

EDIT: Where did Garrett's post go?

Raui

I think magnifying also describes compressing or concentrating a fixed amount
into a shorter time frame.

This stuff from the link below shouldn't really be taken out of text, because he talks of lots of different stuff.

It's all in here.
Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents -- Chapter IV


Everyone should have read all this already.

Here's some more on superluminal electrodynamics. This is research work done in astrophysics but as can be seen applies across a wide range.

Warp speed

this is not really new info, many have over the yrs have been working on plasma generators. Having a better understanding of what Eric has found and seeing the correlation to plasma research may indeed help move progress forward.

http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/p...nankul2010.pdf

Follow through on madhatters lead on superluminals........

I sometimes wish Ida done those math problems.

They seem to argue that faster than light action is a type of Saltatory effect like hopping from rock to rock while crossing a stream.
Beats me, you do the math.

so what frequency will I get 1 million times "power" magnification?

I want my magnifier to output 1 million watts for every 1 watt input