PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-12-05, 20:18:13
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10
Author Topic: Bi-toroid  (Read 129479 times)
Group: Guest
Grumpy:

Current and force are equivalent because they are the "through" variables.  Current travels through an inductor while force travels through a spring.

Voltage and velocity are equivalent because they are the "across" variables.  Voltage is measured across the inductor, and velocity is also measured across the two end points of the spring.

Power is the product of the through and across variables.

In Nature there are different types of through and across variable pairs.  We know that energy can be transformed from one form to another.  Different forms of energy have different through and across variable pairs associated with them.

If you understand this way of looking at the world and seeing how Nature works, then you can understand where inductors fit into the scheme of things.

A long pipe filled with water has the same properties of an inductor or a spring and the waveforms are the same.  What do you think the through and across variables are in this case?

MileHigh
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Grumpy:

Current and force are equivalent because they are the "through" variables.  Current travels through an inductor while force travels through a spring.

Voltage and velocity are equivalent because they are the "across" variables.  Voltage is measured across the inductor, and velocity is also measured across the two end points of the spring.

Power is the product of the through and across variables.

In Nature there are different types of through and across variable pairs.  We know that energy can be transformed from one form to another.  Different forms of energy have different through and across variable pairs associated with them.

If you understand this way of looking at the world and seeing how Nature works, then you can understand where inductors fit into the scheme of things.

A long pipe filled with water has the same properties of an inductor or a spring and the waveforms are the same.  What do you think the through and across variables are in this case?

MileHigh

Voltage is defined as a force (EMF) and current is defined as charge crossing a measured point per unit time.

You say that voltage is a velocity and current is the force. 

Then why are the units different?

Looks like current is the "across" and voltage is the "through".
   
Group: Guest
Quote
Then why are the units different?

The units are different because you are looking at different physical systems.  The truth is you can turn things around if you want to and swap the interpretations of the variables but that will make things too confusing.

Quote
current is defined as charge crossing a measured point per unit time

That sounds like a through variable, correct?

Quote
Voltage is defined as a force (EMF)

I know, but it also measures the difference in potential across two distinct and separate points, and that is what you need to focus on.

MileHigh
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
The units are different because you are looking at different physical systems.  The truth is you can turn things around if you want to and swap the interpretations of the variables but that will make things too confusing.

I think that has already been accomplished.

   
Group: Guest
I think that has already been accomplished.

Sorry for that but I am giving you the straight goods!  You should contemplate this a lot and you may have a eureka moment.

In a water pipe the flow of water is the through variable and the difference in pressure from one end of the pipe to the other end is the across variable.  If the water flowed without any friction in the pipe, then for a constant flow rate the pressure difference between the two ends of the pipe would be zero.  This is identical to how an electrical inductor works.  The total weight of the water moving in the pipe is proportional to the hydraulic inductance of the pipe system.  So indeed, water moving through a pipe looks almost exactly like and behaves like an energized inductor.

It's a way to see how energy systems really work and this can be applied to any project that is worked on around here.

MileHigh
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Sorry for that but I am giving you the straight goods!  You should contemplate this a lot and you may have a eureka moment.

In a water pipe the flow of water is the through variable and the difference in pressure from one end of the pipe to the other end is the across variable.  If the water flowed without any friction in the pipe, then for a constant flow rate the pressure difference between the two ends of the pipe would be zero.  This is identical to how an electrical inductor works.  The total weight of the water moving in the pipe is proportional to the hydraulic inductance of the pipe system.  So indeed, water moving through a pipe looks almost exactly like and behaves like an energized inductor.

It's a way to see how energy systems really work and this can be applied to any project that is worked on around here.

MileHigh

I have a book that shows you how to model mechanical systems with electrical components.  You can do this because the math works out.  The analogy between the two works for most cases and is quite useful. 

A mechanical model can not predict an unknown effect in an electrical model if the effect does not have a mechanical counterpart.
   
Group: Guest
I have a book that shows you how to model mechanical systems with electrical components.  You can do this because the math works out.  The analogy between the two works for most cases and is quite useful.  

A mechanical model can not predict an unknown effect in an electrical model if the effect does not have a mechanical counterpart.

I agree with you.  I think the point I am trying to make is that when you look at mechanical and electrical systems on their own, in most cases the there is 100% coverage in one system modeling the other system and vice-versa.

You talk about a coil distorting space or cutting through ether (just paraphrasing) and I talk about a dead doornail coil with voltage, current, and the differential equations that govern it's behaviour.

Then you do an experiment with some coils.  So, are the coils just dead doornail electrical springs going through the motions?  Or, are some unknown effects happening?  The big variable here is the person doing the experiment.  Is this person educated and trained enough to recognize that he or she is looking at dead doornail electrical springs or not?  Perhaps more interestingly, is this person educated and trained enough to recognize that he or she is looking an an unknown effect or not?

Thane is playing with dead doornail electrical springs and related things and nothing out of the ordinary is happening.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2055
@milehigh
Quote
The importance of the spring analogy is to demystify inductors and what they are and how they work.  Inductors are just electrical springs.  They are as dead as a doornail just like springs are as dead as a doornail.  That relates back to the eternal quest to find the "right" or "magic" inductor/capacitor/whatever combination for your experiment that will produce free energy.  If some people can get over the intellectual hump, they will realize that sometimes it's a fruitless quest to try different combinations of components because you can see a "generic solution" for your experiment.  You don't have to try changing coil sizes because you realize that any size coil will not change anything.

I understand your analogy perfectly well, you are simply speaking of the basic ratios in regards to tangible Force,Velocity and Inertia and little more. However here are a few specific examples where your analogy completely falls apart ;)
1) We take a ten turn coil and apply a HV/HF AC source tuned to the 1/2 wavelength not of the total length of the wire in the coil as a whole but to the length of one single turn. In this case one coil turn must have an electrical potential opposite of the one next to it thus a great potential difference is present and the evolution of an electrical force. This electrical force per turn does in fact produce "oscillations" in the coil as a whole and is also the reason why lumped sum capacitance and inductance calculations are completely meaningless as they do not apply nor does Kirchhoff's laws as charge density could have any value almost anywhere.

2) Next we will take the ten turn coil mentioned above which we know has been set in oscillation due to interwinding electrical forces(capacitive)which are obviously independent of the coil as a whole because if the ends of the coil are fixed in place this has no effect on the oscillations occurring per turn. We can then consider the following ratios, the natural resonant frequency of the coil as a whole in regards to the resonant frequency per turn, the capacitance or electrical energy stored per turn in relation to the coil turn spacing as a function of force and inductance or to be more specific "self-inductance" on a per turn basis. It should be perfectly obvious that in fact a coil can be compressed and set in oscillation in a mechanical sense not by something as simple as an applied external force but independent forces which may evolve from "within". We could then ask the simple question, we know external forces are always opposed but does this rule apply to forces which evolve from within, the answer is no not in every case.


Quote
You don't have to try changing coil sizes because you realize that any size coil will not change anything
I hope you can now see that in fact everything matters, I do not design circuits based on springs and shopping carts I design circuits based on properties extending to the quantum level. It should be obvious that things such as the work function of the material, the texture of the materials as a function of surface area or capacitance, the geometry as wire diameter and spacing and the coil length per turn as well as coil total length all matter more than most could possibly imagine. Basic analogies and generalizations are fine for beginners who want to learn the basics but the level of understanding required to do what many consider impossible is another matter entirely which is why so few have found success. You have to think in three dimensions not two and regard all interactions of every kind from the atomic scales up, Im sorry springs and shopping carts just do not cut it, not even close.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Basic analogies and generalizations are fine for beginners who want to learn the basics but the level of understanding required to do what many consider impossible is another matter entirely which is why so few have found success.
Regards
AC

I think that could be extended beyond "beginners" to cover 99.99% of the engineering that goes on in the world today.

I know of no publicly-accountable organization that is doing research on technology that is generally regarded as "impossible". As I see it, the nuts and bolts research going on in most forums by FE enthusiasts is covered under that 99.99% umbrella, although many of those researchers would argue that their research isn't.

No doubt esoteric research exists, but very few get to that level. I commend you AC if you have achieved this level, but I'll also state that imho, most of the claims being made in this community we love to hang around in are erroneous and can be explained by conventional theory, even though several observations may in fact be the result of some complex interactions, as in the Rosemary Ainslie circuit and tests.

.99
   
Group: Guest
AC:

Quote
I understand your analogy perfectly well, you are simply speaking of the basic ratios in regards to tangible Force,Velocity and Inertia and little more. However here are a few specific examples where your analogy completely falls apart

1) We take a ten turn coil and apply a HV/HF AC source tuned to the 1/2 wavelength not of the total length of the wire in the coil as a whole but to the length of one single turn. In this case one coil turn must have an electrical potential opposite of the one next to it thus a great potential difference is present and the evolution of an electrical force. This electrical force per turn does in fact produce "oscillations" in the coil as a whole and is also the reason why lumped sum capacitance and inductance calculations are completely meaningless as they do not apply nor does Kirchhoff's laws as charge density could have any value almost anywhere.

You are discussing very high frequency excitation of the coil into areas where microwave type analysis applies.  I am not talking about that, they are two separate issues.  So my analogy does not "fall completely apart," you are discussing a different thing altogether.  It's the same thing where you tried to make the argument about capacitors and inductors on a nano scale.  So you are making some interesting points but at least understand the context that I am discussing.  If you want to change contexts that's fine make it clear that you are doing so.  It would be even better if you tried starting a completely new thread.  Please try to avoid changing the context and then trying to imply that there is a connection between the two different contexts when in fact there is no real connection.  This type of argument from you can go on ad infinitum and does not add to the discussion.  We are clearly not discussing exciting coils at microwave frequencies no more than we were discussing nano capacitors and nano inductors the other day.

Quote
I hope you can now see that in fact everything matters, I do not design circuits based on springs and shopping carts I design circuits based on properties extending to the quantum level. It should be obvious that things such as the work function of the material, the texture of the materials as a function of surface area or capacitance, the geometry as wire diameter and spacing and the coil length per turn as well as coil total length all matter more than most could possibly imagine. Basic analogies and generalizations are fine for beginners who want to learn the basics but the level of understanding required to do what many consider impossible is another matter entirely which is why so few have found success. You have to think in three dimensions not two and regard all interactions of every kind from the atomic scales up, Im sorry springs and shopping carts just do not cut it, not even close.

If you want to work with microwave frequencies or with nano technology then more power to you.  But saying this, "Im sorry springs and shopping carts just do not cut it, not even close." is out of context.  Whatever work you do exciting coils at very very high frequencies is still all 100% conventional "classical" technology that's well understood and all of the mathematical modeling still applies, except it is now at the microwave scale.

I think all of us would appreciate it if you tried to refrain from the "context switch" to "disprove" statements made by other people.  If you have some interesting subjects to raise then the best thing would be to start a new thread or threads.

MileHigh
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
What about the last 0.01% ?

I see entirely too much discussion on these forums about how things cannot work.   Most of this is valid and necessary, but that last 0.01% remains open.

Rather than present diatribes on how we can not collect excess energy from the wheel work of nature, how about discussing how we "might"?
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Getting back to inductors and springs:

A spring is not inductive.


   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2055
@milehigh
Quote
Then you do an experiment with some coils.  So, are the coils just dead doornail electrical springs going through the motions?  Or, are some unknown effects happening?  
Maybe I misunderstood your posts, I thought you were stating that a coil is just a "dead doornail electrical spring" and I stated reasons why this is simply not the case. I can just as easily send a single DC impulse into a coil and make it "ring" as if it were excited at very high frequencies so what does this tell us. It should be perfectly clear that it is not and never was what many call "high frequency" that excited the interwinding capacitance of the coil it was the rate of change specifically. To be more precise, a single impulse having a slope or rate of change equal to the slope of an equivalent high frequency has exactly the same effect. So now you know, it is not and never was high frequency that produces these effects as you suggest it can also be a single DC impulse.
If your going to state a coil is just a simple electrical spring then state the context, this is "ONLY" the case with uninterrupted low voltage Direct Current or uninterrupted low frequency low voltage AC and in any other case this spring analogy will have severe limitations and in some cases fail completely. I should also mention that I didn't learn this from a school or a textbook I learned this from research and experiments to prove the matter for myself which is the hard way to do things but sometimes it is the best way.
Regards
AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
 I was under the impression that a DC impulse was comprised (or could be constructed of) a summation of frequencies the range of which are influenced by the rise time, hold time and fall time of the impulse. For repetitive pulses, the pulse repetition rate and duty cycle is a contributor to the overall harmonic content.

In other words a DC step or impulse excitation contains high frequency components.



---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2055
@Ion
Quote
I was under the impression that a DC impulse was comprised (or could be constructed of) a summation of frequencies the range of which are influenced by the rise time, hold time and fall time of the impulse. For repetitive pulses, the pulse repetition rate and duty cycle is a contributor to the overall harmonic content.

In other words a DC step or impulse excitation contains high frequency components.

Let's think simple, how do we ring a bell? Some might say just hit the damn thing but that is not my interest my interest is the best or most efficient way. If we repeatedly hit the bell then what of the harmonics? there are very few because we keep hitting the bell and the driving force overrides all other forces as a function of magnitude. If we want to "ring" a bell correctly we must strike it and move back with a rate of change of position which is greater than the natural resonant motion of the bell itself. To be more precise, the striker material and mass must be tuned to the bell material and mass, the striker must deflect or displace the material of the bell but not the bell itself and rebound off it at a rate of change greater than the resonant action of the bell itself. In fact most of the work to ring a bell in a normal way is completely wasted, it takes a great deal of work to set the mass of a bell in motion but this back and forth motion has literally nothing to do with the production of sound --- the ringing. This is what we do, lol, we push the damn bell back and forth in all our devices and this requires a great deal of work and involves a great deal of losses but very seldom do we actually ring the bell efficiently to produce the proper quality of oscillations. If we did things correctly then the bell itself would never actually move it would only vibrate in itself and produce oscillations at its natural resonant frequency.
I have found that like the bell analogy an impulsive force will produce high frequency components but these high frequencies are not a component of the impulse itself but a reaction to it. The trick is to build instrumentation which can show us the difference between action and reaction otherwise we would never know the difference. What are we actually seeing on our oscilloscopes? An oscilloscope is little more than like using a stick in a pond of water to measure the apparent motion of a few of the waves. It is a crude instrument at best, in our real three dimensional world where fields reign supreme it amounts to little more than groping in the dark but their fun to play with.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
Grumpy:

Quote
A spring is not inductive.

You are referring to inductive coupling between coils and indeed a mechanical spring has no such trait.  If you talk about an electrical transformer for example, some mechanical equivalents could be a set of meshed gears or a simple lever with a fulcrum.

AC:

Quote
Maybe I misunderstood your posts, I thought you were stating that a coil is just a "dead doornail electrical spring" and I stated reasons why this is simply not the case. I can just as easily send a single DC impulse into a coil and make it "ring" as if it were excited at very high frequencies so what does this tell us. It should be perfectly clear that it is not and never was what many call "high frequency" that excited the interwinding capacitance of the coil it was the rate of change specifically. To be more precise, a single impulse having a slope or rate of change equal to the slope of an equivalent high frequency has exactly the same effect. So now you know, it is not and never was high frequency that produces these effects as you suggest it can also be a single DC impulse.

Like I said your reasons for stating a coil is not an electrical spring are are completely out of context.  Ion said, "I was under the impression that a DC impulse was comprised (or could be constructed of) a summation of frequencies the range of which are influenced by the rise time, hold time and fall time of the impulse."  He is absolutely correct.  You on the other hand state, "It should be perfectly clear that it is not and never was what many call "high frequency" that excited the interwinding capacitance of the coil it was the rate of change specifically."  You are apparently unaware that a single pulse or a pulse train can be viewed in the frequency domain by the use of a Fourier transform and this explains the coil ringing.

Quote
So now you know, it is not and never was high frequency that produces these effects as you suggest it can also be a single DC impulse

Unfortunately your statement is totally wrong because you apparently are not aware that that a DC impulse contains high frequency components.  This material would be covered in any engineering school curriculum.

Quote
If your going to state a coil is just a simple electrical spring then state the context, this is "ONLY" the case with uninterrupted low voltage Direct Current or uninterrupted low frequency low voltage AC and in any other case this spring analogy will have severe limitations and in some cases fail completely.

Sorry, you are parroting me and trying to turn the tables back on me because of my statements about your context switching but it's not going to fly.  The context is the typical experimenter fair we see on the forums.  We are all looking to have a reasonable debate without unnecessary distractions.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-11-16, 09:09:42 by MileHigh »
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
An impulse, being composed of so many harmonics (see Dirac's Delta Function) could resonably excite just about any coil imaginable.

Which brings up a curious statement made by Nikola Tesla:

Quote
Yes, but with another kind of circuit I could, of course.  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 have refined this so that I have been able to take energy out of engines by drawing on their momentum.  For instance, if the engine is of 200 horsepower, I take the energy out for a minute interval of time, at a rate of 5,000 or 6,000 horsepower, then I store [it] in a condenser and discharge the same at the rate of several millions of horsepower.  That is how these wonderful effects are produced.  The condenser is the most wonderful instrument, as I have stated in my writings, because it enables us to attain greater activities than are practical with explosives.  There is no limit to the energy which you can develop with a condenser.  There is a limit to the energy which you can develop with an explosive.


It sounds like Tesla is stating that with impulse excitation, you get a gain of 2000 or more.

Anyone care to elaborate on this?
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2055
@milehigh
You can change the context and "insinuate" whatever you like, the fact remains the present science journals are absolutely littered with research into what you imply is no more difficult to understand that a spring or a shopping cart. Now if the best and the brightest researchers, much smarter than anyone here I can assure you, believe there is much more to learn about a supposedly simple inductance and are investing billions to study it then I am much more inclined to believe them than anyone here.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
An impulse, being composed of so many harmonics (see Dirac's Delta Function) could resonably excite just about any coil imaginable.

Which brings up a curious statement made by Nikola Tesla:

Quote
Yes, but with another kind of circuit I could, of course.  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 have refined this so that I have been able to take energy out of engines by drawing on their momentum.  For instance, if the engine is of 200 horsepower, I take the energy out for a minute interval of time, at a rate of 5,000 or 6,000 horsepower, then I store [it] in a condenser and discharge the same at the rate of several millions of horsepower.  That is how these wonderful effects are produced.  The condenser is the most wonderful instrument, as I have stated in my writings, because it enables us to attain greater activities than are practical with explosives.  There is no limit to the energy which you can develop with a condenser.  There is a limit to the energy which you can develop with an explosive.



It sounds like Tesla is stating that with impulse excitation, you get a gain of 2000 or more.

Anyone care to elaborate on this?


I am thinking in the back of my mind that this is like an impact wrench or rivet hammer, where several sharp blows does what one large blow can't do because of the way that the enrgy is delivered and absorbed.  With the sharp blows the energy is localized to a small area and not wasted, the effect is an accumulation of energy delivered by the sharp blows.
   
Group: Guest
AC:

Why don't you go ahead and start a thread about what researchers are doing with inductance?  Just understanding the standard electrical spring properties of an inductor is enough of a challenge for experimenters on the forums.

Grumpy:

I think Tesla is just talking about the very high power levels that you can get with capacitor discharges and things along those lines.  If a diesel engine is driving a generator you can extract very high power levels from the diesel engine for short amounts of time simply by drawing on the rotational inertia of the running engine.  He might be charging a big high voltage cap when he is doing this.  The higher the cap voltage the harder it is to charge hence he has to draw energy from the rotational inertia of his motor itself to push the cap to very high voltages.  Then he can discharge that big high voltage cap at super-high power levels, millions of horsepower.

MileHigh
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Grumpy:

I think Tesla is just talking about the very high power levels that you can get with capacitor discharges and things along those lines.  If a diesel engine is driving a generator you can extract very high power levels from the diesel engine for short amounts of time simply by drawing on the rotational inertia of the running engine.  He might be charging a big high voltage cap when he is doing this.  The higher the cap voltage the harder it is to charge hence he has to draw energy from the rotational inertia of his motor itself to push the cap to very high voltages.  Then he can discharge that big high voltage cap at super-high power levels, millions of horsepower.

MileHigh

the rotational inertia of the engine...

What is the equivalent of rotational inertia in an electrical circuit?
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 556
@Milehigh,
It's been my understanding that the water flowing in a pipe analogy is not a good one. It may come close but is not exactly the same thing as current in a wire.  For one thing I do not know of any water flowing through a pipe situation where a field, of any kind, is built up around the water pipe by water flowing inside. Current in a wire builds a magnetic field around it, what field is created by water flowing through a pipe?


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
the rotational inertia of the engine...

What is the equivalent of rotational inertia in an electrical circuit?

Tesla, in response to a similar question by his Consel:

http://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art07.html  (near the bottom)

Quote
This coil, which I have subsequently shown in my patents Nos. 645,576 and 649,621, in the form of a spiral, was, as you see, [earlier] in the form of a cone. The idea was to put the coil, with reference to the primary, in an inductive connection which was not close -- we call it now a loose coupling -- but free to permit a great resonant rise. That was the first single step, as I say, toward the evolution of an invention which I have called my "magnifying transmitter." That means, a circuit connected to ground and to the antenna, of a tremendous electromagnetic momentum and small damping factor, with all the conditions so determined that an immense accumulation of electrical energy can take place.

It was along this line that I finally arrived at the results described in my article in the Century Magazine of June 1900. [Fig. 43] shows an alternator; not the alternator that was furnished for my laboratory on Houston Street -- that was another one, [but] at 35 South Fifth Avenue [and] operated on the same principle. Here [lower left] are the condensers, primary, and all the rest. The discharge there was 5 or 6 feet, comparatively small to what I subsequently obtained. I have produced discharges of 100 feet, and could produce some of 1,000 feet if necessary, with the greatest facility.

Counsel

Mr. Tesla, at that point, what did you mean by electro-magnetic momentum?

Tesla

I mean that you have to have in the circuit, inertia. You have to have a large self-inductance in order that you may accomplish two things: First, a comparatively low frequency, which will reduce the radiation of the electromagnetic waves to a comparatively small value, and second, a great resonant effect. That is not possible in an antenna, for instance, of large capacity and small self-inductance. A large capacity and small self-inductance is the poorest kind of circuit which can be constructed; it gives a very small resonant effect. That was the reason why in my experiments in Colorado the energies were 1,000 times greater than in the present antennae.

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.

Counsel

What elastic system do you refer to?

Tesla

I mean this: If you pass a current into a circuit with large self-induction, and no radiation takes place, and you have a low resistance, there is no possibility of this energy getting out into space; therefore, the impressed impulses accumulate.

Counsel

Let's see if I understand this correctly. If you have radiation or electromagnetic waves going from your system, the energy is wasted?

Tesla

Absolutely wasted. From my circuit you can get either electromagnetic waves, 90 percent of electromagnetic waves if you like, and 10 percent in the current energy that passes through the earth. Or, you can reverse the process and get 10 percent of the energy in electromagnetic waves and 90 percent in energy of the current that passes through the earth.

It sounds like Tesla used the self-inductance to magnify the energy in the magnfier coil.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2055
@milehigh
Quote
The context is the typical experimenter fair we see on the forums.  We are all looking to have a reasonable debate without unnecessary distractions.
Do you think a reasonable debate includes one person stating an inductance can only be the equivalent to an electrical spring and little more? does this sound reasonable considering that this is a "FREE ENERGY" forum? I would submit it is anything but reasonable and is misleading people into believing free energy is impossible by casting doubt through representing opinions as facts.
Here is a little fact for you, I have read literally hundreds of free energy patents in regards to pure magnetic motors, magnetic field amplifiers, power amplifiers, energy amplifiers which state energy is gained-- period. Now these patents are not granted to some backwater inventor as you might theorize they are granted to corporations such as GE, Sanyo, Mitsubichi, Toyota, Hitachi, etc... ---- that is some of the biggest corporations on the planet. Now why would every single one of these very intelligent and very large corporations be actively researching something you say is impossible? Do you believe you must know something these industrial giants do not know? Why would they hire the best and the brightest and spend billions on something you tell everyone here is impossible? I will not even answer this question because everyone seems to know the answer but you. When you stop misrepresenting opinion as fact is when I will no longer need to correct you.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
Room3327:

Quote
For one thing I do not know of any water flowing through a pipe situation where a field, of any kind, is built up around the water pipe by water flowing inside.

A mechanical spring doesn't have a field around it either.  You have to look at the pipe in terms of how the two variables react and how it stores energy, that's what counts.  You can look at an inductor the same way and just look at the current flow and the voltage.  In that sense an inductor and a water pipe look the same.

AC:

Quote
When you stop misrepresenting opinion as fact is when I will no longer need to correct you.

The energy dynamics for an inductor and a spring being identical are not opinion, they are fact.  That's leading people, not misleading people.  Like I said, if you want to discuss esoterica about inductors and capacitors and advanced research, start a new thread and put up some links.

MileHigh
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-12-05, 20:18:13