Eric P. Dollard

[Kokomoj0]

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.

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.

[Geometric_Algebra]

Power Magnification?... continued

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.

[Raui]

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;

Thus the dimensional resultant of the union of the pair of dimensional laws is PLANCKS per SECOND SQUARED. We will call this the electrical ACTIVITY, also known as the electrical power, P. Hence the dimensional relation

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.

Thru adjustment of the time rate of charge, and the time rate of discharge, involved in Energy Transfer into, or out of, a Field of Induction, any magnitude of Electrical Activity, P, can be developed from a given quantity of stored Energy, W, Fig 3, Fig 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

[Geometric_Algebra]

Power Magnification?... derailed

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?

[garrettm4]

The Land of the Blind

To all concerned with Power, Energy, Time and Magnification:

"In the Land of the Blind, the one eyed man is king."

Who is it that can actually see around here, Kokomojo? Hmmmm...

I feel that Armagdn03 gave a good response that was meaningful to the ACTUAL point of all this, the Tesla Transformer:

"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."

This is the POINT! We send impulses into a center tap primary loop. The Loop has a capacitor, it becomes oscillatory when we EXCITE IT BY sending impulses through it. WOW! If the impulses are made stronger we will get greater oscillatory activity. GEEWIZ! THIS IS SEEN IN THE E & I MAGNITUDES of the LC tank. Note that I use the term activity for Apparent Power where Watt (real) + VAR (imaginary) = Apparent Power (complex), this is not convention so it has now been stated to obviate any ambiguity that could ensue from my use of the term.

Also, Geometric_Algebra gave an excellent response as well:

"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."

I must say Geo is one of the few whom has a clear head around here.

I may be off in wonderland but I believe that:

The single energy TRANSIENT from the INPUT and the double energy OSCILLATION (Dampened Oscillation) of the Primary LC circuit are the two waveforms who's POWER MAGNITUDES we are dealing with. The "magnification" of the OSCILLATORY ACTIVITY of the primary LC circuit is related to the POWER INTENSITY of the impulse excitation from input. As Raui has kindly shown by posting a relevant Tesla quote, there is no stable continuous value for the power. The power magnitude is in a state of dampened oscillation or a state of continual decay and growth. The magnification would be seen as the ratio of OSCILLATING POWER OF PRIMARY TANK to the IMPULSE POWER OF INPUT. At least that's what I have been thinking, which may very well be wrong, I'm not the one with the Engineering Degree.

As Geo has astutely pointed out, resistance is a unidirectional energy exchange where energy leaves the circuit, so its of no useful consequence in what we want. Which is to keep all the energy circulating until it is transmitted through the ground longitudinally. We aren't looking to waste energy, instead we are trying to conserve energy and put in only whats needed to make up for losses and load requirements when transmitting.

I feel Raui has gone above and beyond to explain himself and provided some very interesting references and done his own experiment to confirm to himself what hes discussing, but it seems that its never in the format that Kokomojo wants to see presented.

I can confirm, with experiments that I have done, that if you have a finite storage of energy (in a C or L) the rapid release of that energy can be catastrophic and dangerous, notably a capacitive impulse is quite destructive, thin wires will vaporize ect.

Impulses are very interesting, but so are high energy oscillations, which I have performed up to about 5kva. The distortion of the current waveform was quite fascinating and the VIOLENT physical vibrations due to harmonic waves was interesting as well.


It very well could be that I'm just another blind man who can't see whats going on, if so disregard this whole post.

Garrett M

[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

[Farmhand]

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.

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

Counsel

This was then the machine that you used when working with West Point?

Tesla

I operated once or twice with it at that distance, but usually as I was investigating in the city. My work at that time was to prepare for the development of a commercial plant, and with me the question was not to transmit signals, but to see what intensity I could get to put me in position to calculate out my apparatus, the dimensions and the forms, before I began the undertaking. It was nothing but preparatory work for the construction of a commercial plant, and I demonstrated its practicability through my experiments, a plant which was to accomplish much more than all others.

Counsel

What was the horsepower activity in the oscillating circuits when you used this machine?

Tesla

Usually something like 50 horsepower, and I would get, I should say, approximately 30 horsepower in the antenna; that is, I would get 30 horsepower in the oscillating circuit.

Counsel

I understood a little while ago when you made the statement of using several thousand horsepower put into a condenser, you could take out of the condenser a million horsepower. I wondered if you got the same condition with this machine.

Tesla

Yes; I charged the condenser with 40,000 volts. When it was charged full, I discharged it suddenly, through a short circuit which gave me a very rapid rate of oscillation. Let us suppose that I had stored in the condenser 10 watts. Then, for such a wave there is a flux of energy of (4 x 104)2, and this is multiplied by the frequency of 100,000. You see, it may go into thousands or millions of horsepower.

Counsel

What I wanted to get at was, did that depend upon the suddenness of the discharge?

Tesla

Yes. It is merely the electrical analogue of a pile driver or a hammer. You accumulate energy through a long distance and then you deliver it with a tremendous suddenness. The distance through which the mass moves is small—the pressure immense.

Counsel

Did you find that that was the best condition for transmitting energy without the use of wire?

Tesla

No, I did not use that method when I was transmitting energy. I used it only in the production of those freaks for which I have been called a magician. If I had used merely undamped waves, I would have been an ordinary electrician like everybody else.

Counsel

You say the energy was 1,000 times greater. Do you mean that the voltage was increased, or the current, or both?

Tesla

Yes [both]. To be more explicit, I take a very large self-inductance and a comparatively small capacity, which I have constructed in a certain way so that the electricity cannot leak out. I thus obtain a low frequency; but, as you know, the electromagnetic radiation is proportionate to the square root of the capacity divided by the self-induction. I do not permit the energy to go out; I accumulate in that circuit a tremendous energy. When the high potential is attained, if I want to give off electromagnetic waves, I do so, but I prefer to reduce those waves in quantity and pass a current into the earth, because electromagnetic wave energy is not recoverable while that [earth] current is entirely recoverable, being the energy stored in an elastic system.

Everyone should have read all this already.

Counsel

Was the method you used there [in Colorado], a spark? -- an arc? -- or what was the method where you got continuous generation?

Tesla

The method was this: I had a 550-volt current with which I charged the condensers. These condensers I discharged through a primary in the form of an arc, sometimes I also introduced in this arc a mechanical break of several thousand per second. And I obtained a perfectly continuous train of waves as has been described in my patents. The reason why I show the condenser here [Fig. 83] is that that is synonymous with undamped waves. If I had shown the whole apparatus as arranged there, then I might still have damped waves; but whether I use an alternator or some other way of getting energy to that condenser, the condenser is usually there. For instance, if I use an alternator, I shunt its terminals with a condenser in order to magnify the current in the primary. I then tune this circuit to the alternator, and magnify the current in the primary in the ratio of the inductance to the resistance. Therefore, this condenser here stands for either method, and simply means that in this system, as is obvious from the description in the patent, the waves are undamped because high rises of potential would not be obtained otherwise. Whenever I wanted to obtain a high potential, I had to observe these rules in order to force the potential up to that value.

[madhatter]

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.

[wyndbag]

http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/publications/PIE_withayachumnankul2010.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.

[Kokomoj0]

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.

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.

Raui

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

[Armagdn03]

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

Reduce your time dimension by 1,000,000.

You are compressing a finite quantity into a smaller time, that is the "magnification". This means that if you were to take the peak magnitude it would be higher, which as I stated before is important for getting large resonant rise on a high Q system.

[Kokomoj0]

Reduce your time dimension by 1,000,000.

You are compressing a finite quantity into a smaller time, that is the "magnification". This means that if you were to take the peak magnitude it would be higher, which as I stated before is important for getting large resonant rise on a high Q system.

but raui said power stayed constant in the transformer.






Square waves make it easy since they are perfect easily mathematically dealt with pulses.

Each square represents 1 watt under the curve.

So whats different?

How has that obtained more power out than in? If you do not have more power out than in how did you magnify power?

[Kokomoj0]

Yes; I charged the condenser with 40,000 volts. When it was charged full, I discharged it suddenly, through a short circuit which gave me a very rapid rate of oscillation. Let us suppose that I had stored in the condenser 10 watts. Then, for such a wave there is a flux of energy of (4 x 104)2, and this is multiplied by the frequency of 100,000. You see, it may go into thousands or millions of horsepower.

that would be very easy to reproduce.

so we first charge a cap to a known voltage through a known value of r. record the power required to do it.

Disconnect it from the circuit.

Then close the other switch to discharge a cap into its own resonant tank using that high freq resonance to charge another cap via a bridge rectifier and discover that this is not possible due to entropy.

Experiment 2 can be a discharge into a self resonant coil using whatever method is preferred to quench the spark.

Then from the coil run that through a series resistor and dc bridge to charge cap 2 and like before measure the associated power that transferred.

Once again killer entropy will rear its ugly head.

[Aaron]

@Kokomoj0

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

It is suspicious that you claim to be qualified to debate the subjects in this thread but you don't even know what the difference is between ENERGY and POWER!

It has been defined for you multiple times and you claim to want a specific definition - um, what do you think the definition of POWER is? You obviously think that increasing power is the same as increasing total energy dissipated.

If you have x joules of potential in a cap and discharge it over 100 milliseconds, you will have so much power. But if you can discharge it over 1 millisecond, your power is magnified tremendously for that moment of time. The ENERGY is the same but the POWER could be in the megawatts for that shorter period of time.

This is so elementary, yet you point the finger at others as giving you 1/2 cocked explanations? Maybe you need to get real with yourself and realize that it is your comprehension that is lacking - not the explanations!

This really calls into question what your real motive is here because you are talking in circles.

[Armagdn03]

but raui said power stayed constant in the transformer.






Square waves make it easy since they are perfect easily mathematically dealt with pulses.

Each square represents 1 watt under the curve.

So whats different?

How has that obtained more power out than in? If you do not have more power out than in how did you magnify power?

You sir are one of a kind!

I just said...."This means that if you were to take the peak magnitude it would be higher"

JUST AS YOU HAVE SHOWN.

You are looking at this the wrong way, plain and simple, and it is not complicated.

You are looking at it from the point of view that the area under the curve represents your total power, we are looking to magnify peak power. Stop taking the integral, and start looking at magnitude at a point.


Now aside from this. I would suggest taking a less combative stance in your communication. I see you have very large concerns that people are being mislead however you are not our appointed savior. If we choose to be mislead, it too will be a learning opportunity on our part, this is our choice, and you need not interject with your own opinion. Those with large mouths, gather much foot.

Your tone is of a very negative bent. Our response is understandably negative. If we are developing an atmosphere conducive to learning, this is no way to go. Two options: (1) You adjust your tone. (2) Those listening choose to let you ramble on about your misgivings, and ignore. Either way, one persons negativity should not cast a shadow on the entire thread.