Eric P. Dollard

[Kokomoj0]

Then further, to “throw poison into the soup” is the yammerings of Joe Blow from Kokomo.N6KPH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~fragment X

[Geometric_Algebra]

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

[Kokomoj0]

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.

[madhatter]

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.

[Farmhand]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

[garrettm4]

Frequency of an Impulse

Kokomojo,

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

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

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

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

NATURAL PERIOD


NATURAL CYCLIC FREQUENCY:


NATURAL ANGULAR FREQUENCY:


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

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

Garrett M

[Raui]

Sure there is.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

I had a quick browse and couldn't find anything which doesn't agree with what I've done unless it's not applicable. Could you provide me with the link to the post which disputes what I am claiming in an exactness which is basically that power is conserved? I have posted several examples of where power isn't conserved using this same principal of discharging energy different to when it was charged, you have posted none disproving this.
You said

this is what I explained that everyone forgets when talking about the "impulse". the relationship between V I and time
Transformers - Power Transmission - YouTube

This isn't a transformer, this video deals with normal AC conditions where transients don't exist. I will again post this quote from Tesla, whose work it is we're trying to understand by application of Eric's knowledge, the man himself states quite plainly how he achieved non-conservation of power/activity.

The advantage of this apparatus was the delivering of energy at short intervals whereby one could increase activity, and with this scheme I was able to perform all of those wonderful experiments which have been reprinted from time to time in the technical papers. I would take energy out of a circuit at rates of hundreds or thousands of horsepower. In Colorado, I reached 18 million horsepower activities, but that was always by this device: Energy stored in the condenser and discharged in an inconceivably small interval of time. You could not produce that activity with an undamped wave. The damped wave is of advantage because it gives you, with a generator of 1 kilowatt, an activity of 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 kilowatts; whereas, if you have a continuous or undamped wave, 1 kilowatt gives you only wave energy at the rate of 1 kilowatt and nothing more. That is the reason why the system with a quenched gap has become popular.

I shall let the quote speak for itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Raui

[Kokomoj0]

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?

[Raui]

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

[Kokomoj0]

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

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

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

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

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

ok so activity = watts ok.

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

Is understanding tesla been magnified into a wordsmithing game?

Think of this thread as a university course

Excuse me!

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

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

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

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

Raui

I do not know what resources you use?

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




I get really burned out on magic words without substance.

[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

[Kokomoj0]

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?

[Geometric_Algebra]

Power Magnification?

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

[Farmhand]

I do not know what resources you use?

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




I get really burned out on magic words without substance.

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

A magnifying transmitter is a transformer !

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

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

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

If it useful or not depends on the situation.

No need for magic.

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

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

Cheers

Edited..

[Kokomoj0]

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.