OverUnity Research
  
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
+  OverUnity Research
|-+  Electrical / Electronic Devices
| |-+  Tesla
| | |-+  The magnificence of 3, 6, 9
Pages: [1]
Topic: The magnificence of 3, 6, 9  (Read 2026 times) Print
thx1138
Position: Jr. Member
**
Posts: 50
« on: 2013-01-28, 17:08:38 »
I've been looking into this but haven't yet located when and where Dr. Tesla made the statement about 3, 6, 9. A lot of web sites say he said it. I would just like to know the context. Does anyone know the article/interview/paper and/or the date he said it?
 IP: [ Logged ]
giantkiller

Position: Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1121

Frequency equals matter...

« Reply #1 on: 2013-01-28, 17:55:50 »
I've been looking into this but haven't yet located when and where Dr. Tesla made the statement about 3, 6, 9. A lot of web sites say he said it. I would just like to know the context. Does anyone know the article/interview/paper and/or the date he said it?

I read that too somewhere. I have too many reference piles to sort through physically. I do know that Keely talked about it extensively in the makeup up of atomic structures. When I saw the La Point video I placed it with what Rodin has taught. That is why I did the demo on the color monitor screen to show the pattern. Like Keely stated it goes infinitesimally smaller. As you get closer and closer to the Bloch wall the compression would show up then as 12, 15, 18, 21. But I do not have the testing device to show that small of granularity.

As @Ex has shown in his latest Barkhausen test that the core needs to saturated to start with but at a very minute level so as to be receptive to any external atomic harmonics and not dominate the space with a static over powering field. So this points to working at the flux density area of the 3rd triune, the weak field. The Barkhausen test attempts and succeeds at getting a 3rd triune flux density area as small as possible to have that compression level at the mass of the winding as best as possible.
  In regards to my current Keely-Hutchison build the closely coupled primaries would be incorrect in dealing with the weak field area of the secondary. These primaries are sitting in a high density area. The normal Tesla coils have the loosely coupled primary away from the secondary to work in the weaker field area. This explanation I have not found in the Tesla coil design documents. It is explained as capacitively coupled which is correct but that is where the explanation stops. The 3,6,9 field density area completes the design description. One can see my desgin goal for my current build being open to many changes pertaining to the ability to adjust many more parameters than just a limited number of things dealing with tuning to achieve an air discharge.
-------------------------------
 IP: [ Logged ] WWW
exnihiloest
Group: Read Only
*****
Posts: 1371
« Reply #2 on: 2013-01-28, 20:56:38 »
...
As @Ex has shown in his latest Barkhausen test that the core needs to saturated to start with but at a very minute level so as to be receptive to any external atomic harmonics and not dominate the space with a static over powering field. So this points to working at the flux density area of the 3rd triune, the weak field. The Barkhausen test attempts and succeeds at getting a 3rd triune flux density area as small as possible to have that compression level at the mass of the winding as best as possible.
...

The core doesn't need to be saturated. I could get the Barhausen noise by swinging my neodynium magnet 25cm away from the iron wire.
When saturated there is less noise (for this test, I saturated the wire with a magnet while I moved another magnet farther).

 IP: [ Logged ]
thx1138
Position: Jr. Member
**
Posts: 50
« Reply #3 on: 2013-02-18, 23:37:59 »
The normal Tesla coils have the loosely coupled primary away from the secondary to work in the weaker field area. This explanation I have not found in the Tesla coil design documents. It is explained as capacitively coupled which is correct but that is where the explanation stops.
See Canadian Patent No: 142,352, applied for 1906-04-17, granted 1912-08-13. There is a lot more information in that one than in the one he filed in the U.S five years earlier. Also note the application date in 1906. That was near the end of the Wardencliffe project and at a time when it was pretty clear that it would not be completed. I think he wanted to get the information out there but putting it in the Canadian patent would have made it somewhat more obscure because at that time the documents would have to be physically obtained to be reviewed.
-------------------------------
 IP: [ Logged ]
thx1138
Position: Jr. Member
**
Posts: 50
« Reply #4 on: 2013-02-19, 04:33:52 »
In regards to my current Keely-Hutchison build...
Could you post a link to your Keely-Hutchison build? I haven't seen it yet.

Keely is who actually got me thinking about this. Look at his drawing not as the physical structure but as categorizations of the components of matter.

Keely


Modern dealing only with normal matter - no antimatter. The electrons source the interatomic forces which are the intra molecular forces.


A layer lower and you get Gluons.

Scaling upward to the macro one gets molecule->planet->solar system->galaxy->universe
 IP: [ Logged ]
« previous next »
Print
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Forum and Banner by OUR Team