Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[Web000x]

I am not able to add that up.

-t/t?

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

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

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

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

I'm really not seeing why you have a problem with the representation of forward and reverse time. Maybe your referring to another problem that I am just not seeing right off.

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

[garrettm4]

Magnification Factor, a resultant of Time & Energy

I am not able to add that up.

-t/t?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of these limit the maximum magnification factor.

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


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

Garrett M

[Kokomoj0]

The RATIOS of these QUANTITIES of time dictates the MAGNIFICATION FACTOR.

Garrett M

Time is simply a chronological sequence of a predetermined interval.

That said its a one way street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power is a function of time, energy is not.

Power is commonly referenced to 1 second.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[madhatter]

Time is simply a chronological sequence of a predetermined interval.

That said its a one way street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power is a function of time, energy is not.

Power is commonly referenced to 1 second.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kokomoj0]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pnajafi]

Call for Proposals by CICP

Dear All,

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

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

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


Government Programs Message:

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

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/initiatives-and-programs/canadian-innovation-commercialization-program-cicp/pre-qualified-innovations

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

www.merx.com).

The Buy and Sell website (

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

Thanks for your consideration, please let me know what ya think.

[garrettm4]

SFTS 2009 & 2010 Dollard Lectures

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

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

Madhatter,

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


Kokomoj0,

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


To everyone else,

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

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

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

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

Garrett M

[madhatter]

Madhatter,

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

Thanks, sometimes I wonder if I'm talking to myself Here's a link to some helpful and a decent start on an algebraic approach to counterspace. Algebraic

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sputins]

SFTS Lectures

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

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

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

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

Garrett M

Hi Garrett

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

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

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

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

Sputins.

[Kokomoj0]

Thanks, sometimes I wonder if I'm talking to myself Here's a link to some helpful and a decent start on an algebraic approach to counterspace. Algebraic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which takes me right back to no resolution of the magnifying matter.

[Kokomoj0]

Madhatter,

Kokomoj0,

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

Garrett M

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

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

It has a definite rise and fall time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Web000x]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave

[garrettm4]

Impulse Waves are NOT Square Waves

Kokomoj0,

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

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

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

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

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

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

This in a nut shell:

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

Therefore we get for our arbitrary plotted curve being studied:

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

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

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

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

(where rC corresponds to seconds in time)

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

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

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

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

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

And if your interested, Question On Plank, Q Continued

Garrett M

[Kokomoj0]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave

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

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

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

If you use a very large cap the voltage each time should be very close demonstrating the point I am making.

[Kokomoj0]

Kokomoj0,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing said so far negates my claim you see.

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


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

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

This in a nut shell:

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

Therefore we get for our arbitrary plotted curve being studied:

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

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

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

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

(where rC corresponds to seconds in time)

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

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

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

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

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

And if your interested, Question On Plank, Q Continued

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

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

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

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

Makes no sense to me, sorry

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

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

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

Garrett M

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

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

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

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

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