Originally Posted by garrettm4

Jake,

1) L, Leakage Inductance
Q - "The big magnetic fields that push our motors?"
A - My answer would be a resounding NO, leakage inductance can only store energy it CAN NOT TRANSFER ENERGY, thus it would only act as an IMPEDANCE and not as an ADMITTANCE required for the electrical to mechanical transfer of energy to create motion in a motor. The leakage inductance is the exact thing we try to get rid of when designing a motor, and is not something we usually want. There are times when a small leakage inductance can be helpful, this is only when there is a short circuit and the impedance of the leakage inductance prevents catastrophic failure by LIMITING the current of the short circuit.

2) M, Mutual Inductance
Q - "Energy stored in counterspace/innerspace?"
A - Magnetic energy as explained by Mr. Dollard is stored in Normal Space, not the "counter space" as explained by him. Mutual induction of the magnetic field is that which transfers energy in-between two separate coils, there is no storage of energy here, only the transfer of energy from one distinct coil to another. This topic can be found to yield many interesting and practical insights, but I will leave this subject for another time.

3) C, Leakage Capacitance
Q - "The field created by an electrostatic generator, or in a vacuum capacitor?"
A - Inside the vacuum capacitor there is NO LEAKAGE CAPACITANCE, this is normal SELF CAPACITANCE, although if at high frequency, when small capacities are physically meaningful, there is a leakage capacitance associated with the vacuum capacitors outer plate to ground (or any and all surroundings) (and on the topic of high frequencies, EVERYTHING has an associated leakage capacitance). Furthermore, only "quantum physicists" think a vacuum capacitor operates differently from any other capacitor type, at the end of the day there is little to NO difference, aside from the SPEED of DISCHARGE (which is due to permittivity affecting the manifest "velocity of light"). The electrostatic generator is a highly complex induction machine which converts mechanical energy (or seemingly this is the source) to electrostatic potential stored in a condenser. There may undoubtedly be a leakage capacitance associated with the electrostatic generators operation, but don't try to fool yourself into thinking that (leakage capacity) is the only thing going on during operation.

4) K, Mutual Capacitance
Q - "Energy stored in counterspace/innerspace?"
A -ALL DIELECTRIC ENERGY IS CONSIDERED AS A COUNTER SPATIAL ENERGY. Thus, the storage of dielectric energy is greater when there is MORE counter space for the energy to occupy. This can be looked at as the RECIPROCAL of SPACE or a "large space" divided into the "unit" (1) is an equally large "counter space". This is seen in the design of a capacitor, the closer the plates are the more "storage" or "capacity" the capacitor has, it's that simple.

5) Bonus Question on Capacity of a Wire
Q - "On a 20 secondary with spaced windings does approaching the coil with your hand increase its mutual capacity K, or its self capacity C??? but before you answer think what would happen if you had a long straight wire and could measure it's C. What would happen to the meter if you approached the wire?"
A - This is an interesting question and the answer is dependent upon perspective, how do you plan to measure the capacitance? This question answers your question but doesn't really give an answer, so lets work our way through this. First, ALL METALLIC SURFACES HAVE A DEFINITE CAPACITY REGARDLESS OF BEING REFERENCED WITH ANOTHER METALLIC SURFACE. When we measure a capacity we usually place TWO metallic surfaces of interest as close together as possible, we unwittingly try to make lumped elements. When considering a distributed capacity we generally can no longer use the methods and understanding of lumped elements, here lies the problem of measurement, how do we measure only one surface? Well there are techniques to do this but are beyond the scope of your question and my answer. So more to the point, the measurement of capacity is a problem of reference and THERE ARE MULTIPLE CAPACITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE WIRE IN YOUR QUESTION and consequently multiple answers. An outstretched wire will have a greater "free-space capacity" while the coiled wire will have a greater self capacity to any-one object. Moving your hand closer increases C (leakage capacity) not K (mutual capacity). K is when there are multiple C's that are mutually connected with one another, or MULTIPLE separate metallic surfaces linked via dielectric flux, this in the secondary is seen in-between turns.

Garrett M

Originally Posted by garrettm4

Jake,

There are NO inconsistency of terms with what Mr. Dollard has given or even the terms used today or 100 years ago. The problem isn't the terms or definitions its personal comprehension of their significance.

Per Farad is the reciprocal of the Farad. If Farad implied an imaginary conductance per unit time then a Per Farad would be an imaginary resistance per unit time. Its that simple. It all comes down to understanding what a reciprocal means in the physical world we live in, not in the imaginary world of math. People should focus on CRITICAL THINKING and not DEEP THINKING.

Per Farad literally means 1/F and the same goes for Per Henry 1/H. Farad literally means F/1 and the same for Henry H/1. We usually don't write things in this context but when doing dimensional analysis it becomes simpler to do it this way. The terms Henry and Farad are usually replaced with L and C for simplicity. Mr. Dollard uses the actual name to give a more meaningful conversation, but at the same time it is a language barrier for those who aren't familiar.

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

All of this comes down to understanding the "NORMAL" circuit orientation of the arbitrary element in question. This is seen as SHUNT (or PARALLEL) and SERIES arrangements. Capacitors, enductors and conductances are shunt elements, inductors, elastors and resistors are series elements.

If we place a capacitor in a series arrangement it no longer acts as an imaginary conductance per unit time (capacitive-susceptance), it now is an imaginary resistance per unit time (capacitive-reactance). The same goes for an inductance, if we place it in shunt we now have an imaginary conductance per unit time (magnetic-susceptance), not the original imaginary resistance per unit time (magnetic-reactance).

The capacitive and inductive elements are conjugate to one another, their vector forces rotate in opposite directions, if the capacitor acts as a small imaginary resistance and then becomes a large imaginary resistance per unit time, then an inductor acts as a large imaginary resistance then becomes a small imaginary resistance per unit time.

Stated in another way inductive reactance starts out large and then goes small, capacitive reactance starts out small and then goes large. The same goes for the opposite of reactance, susceptance.

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

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

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

A pure resistor has zero phase angle



The reason the above explanations are meaningful and correct is from the fact that IMAGINARY RESISTANCES AND CONDUCTANCES STORE ENERGY (AND CAN RETURN THAT SAME ENERGY). Thus as a capacitor gets "full" it can't allow anything to flow but at first it acted as a dead short, the opposite is true with an inductor at first it impedes the flow of current because it is building a magnetic field, as the field is built and expanded the current is then progressively less restricted in its flow and reaches its maximum when the field is fully expanded.

One problem I will admit that exists, is the fact that there are MULTIPLE self and mutual inductions of the dielectric and magnetic fields in any given circuit. The root of the problem comes from the fact that the naming of these various direction and situation dependent inductions sometimes overlap and cause a lot of confusion. I will give more details on this later.

I hope this hip-shot explanation (I'm strapped for time at the moment), can serve as a meaningful (albeit lacking) explanation to your question.

Garrett M

Originally Posted by Kokomoj0

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

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

Originally Posted by dR-Green

?? I haven't seen Meyl demonstrate anything of significance. His description of the boats even sounds wrong. I'd like to see his boat working 10 metres or more away from the transmitter using his proposed method.

Originally Posted by Kokomoj0

didnt he say they were 60+ meters apart at glauscau when they tested?

Originally Posted by dR-Green

You mean the boat? There's no way he'd have the boat working at that distance using the configurations he shows. He has missed the fundamental part of the whole thing - the ground. In 7 mins of the 2nd video he explains:

Meyl - Scalarwave-Technology - The european website of www.k-meyl.de

"No battery, no earthing line, but only have water as the way back to the earth"

The 2nd image here is in direct conflict with the Tesla patent shown right above it:

SmartLINK

They are right outside the window with the transmitter right next to it. And where is the ground connection as shown in Tesla's patent?

Do you believe that his transmitter is having such an effect upon the earth that it will transfer through the ground, up through his puddle of water and power that motor? He's just using the puddle as a virtual ground, just like you can do with an Avramenko plug. The coil (metal) would make a nice antenna for an improved effect over more crude AV plugs, and the puddle of water would make a nice virtual ground. You can place whatever you like there, be the "ground" yourself if you want. But I don't believe for one second that his system is receiving the energy via the ground, or via the water.

And here the same again:

Transmission of Power Without Wires (Scalar Waves) - YouTube

My opinion on it is that this is SEC exciter territory, not Tesla's wireless transmission.

[edit] As far as energy through water is concerned, the sea is obviously a part of the earth and it's all connected. So Meyl seems to have simply cheated by making the water the virtual ground, and receiving the energy through the top terminal instead. According to the correct theory, he should be able to simply plug loads directly into the water and they will power up, things such as an incandescent bulb. But I don't think he will be able to do that.

Originally Posted by Kokomoj0

well tesla intended to power airplanes as well though

Originally Posted by Nhopa

It would help us a lot if you could make a sketch of your set-up to show how much does it deviate from the published circuit.

Originally Posted by Kokomoj0

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

Originally Posted by Web000x

So you still think that the electrons are the source of electricity? Or do you believe there are lines of force, or aether, being the cause of electricity?

Dave

Originally Posted by Raui

Hmm I'm not sure where Garrett's posts went however if you're quick google cache is your friend



You mean actually listen to and verify what Eric is saying Blasphemy!