PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-04-19, 06:34:44
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21
Author Topic: Some "New" Observations  (Read 290358 times)
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2625
Hey Mark
Quote
look beyond harmonic oscillations. By first principals if there is an energy imbalance/flow then you have a non-linear system... look into multi-component nonlinear systems -- the concept of resonance is one of a stale solution -- in non-linear and semi-chaotic systems the stable solutions are most often called other things. research how multi component systems can mode lock. Research how the maximum energy can be loaded into a system - its not resonance.

I have found many people like to throw around terms like resonance, harmonic oscillations, reactive current and so forth but I have found very few people can actually explain these terms in a meaningful way. It's like saying I understand my car but know nothing about how an engine works let alone how to fix one.

Since you have thrown out a bone in the spirit of giving so will I. The universe is a very simple place once we learn the fundamentals of the basic building blocks... Energy, Fields and Particles. Energy is change and as Faraday said it does not matter how the change occurs only that it does. Fields are a product of an internal change interacting with a external change producing an interference pattern we call a field.

I like your thoughts on non-linear systems and generally the first thing I do is lose all the absurd terminology, the hocus pocus and concentrate on the facts. The facts tell us Energy is conserved and if energy is conserved then the energy put into a system is equal to the energy dissipated within the system...Sum zero. However by the law of equal and opposite action/reaction the alter ego must be that energy dissipated within an open system must cause an influx of energy to once again hold the status quo...Sum zero. You see the law of the conservation of energy does not act for or against us, it is what it is and anything more or less is a man made artifact bearing little resemblance to reality.

We think we may create only to destroy however the concept in itself always has an alter ego latent beneath the surface. When we destroy our past preconceived notions the void must be filled with new idea's because nature abhors a vacuum. Destruction creates just as creation destroys and the construct on non-linear is a way of saying nature will decide as it always has. Nature is what it is and so are we however how we interact with nature... our ingenuity, our creativity, our knowledge and understanding will decide our fate. I find comfort in this because we are not equals... we are individuals.

Merry Christmas and a meaningful new year to all.
AC


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

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
A.C.,That was a good read, I enjoyed that and it made sense to me. Thanks for posting that, I kind of feel the same way. However we do know that we can utilize energy either very cheaply or "free" with old tech like wind turbines and such. It's just one of those things where when the source of the energy is defined there is no O.U.. Nature is simple but also very complex, depending on how we evaluate things. My jackpot would simply be a novel way to utilize energy from some source cheaply without creating other problems. Also greater efficiency in some things is always good too.

Cheers
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2993
AC wrote,
Quote
Since you have thrown out a bone in the spirit of giving so will I. The universe is a very simple place once we learn the fundamentals of the basic building blocks... Energy, Fields and Particles. Energy is change and as Faraday said it does not matter how the change occurs only that it does. Fields are a product of an internal change interacting with a external change producing an interference pattern we call a field.

  A bit obtuse for me - but I freely admit I do not fully understand Fields.  For example, what carries the electric field, and the gravitational field?  When a field interacts with a particle, how is momentum (P) conserved (PC)? 

Let me pose a couple of examples I've been thinking about along these lines, throwing in the important concept of "delay" due to finite speeds of changes in fields.

Consider the earth going around the sun, attracted by gravity.  The earth is eight light-minutes distant from the sun - pls keep that in mind.  Thus, as the earth goes around the sun, and both attract each other with equal-strength forces, the sun responds to the earths pull according to where the earth WAS eight minutes prior (and vice versa).

Gotta run - any disagreement with that statement, "Thus, as the earth goes around the sun, and both attract each other with equal-strength forces, the sun responds to the earths pull according to where the earth WAS eight minutes prior (and vice versa)"
?
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 765
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
May I ask a question here?  How do we know the sun responds to where the earth was 8 minutes ago?  I wasn't aware anyone had been able to measure the speed of gravity.  If that is known, how did they arrive at the speed value?  I am most definitely not trying to be argumentative here.  I am just trying to learn something I am ignorant about.



---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2993
  Good question - actually, we're theorizing that a change in gravity (as for example from the earth moving) travels at the speed of light.

   Another example, a high-energy (say 1.1 MeV) gamma ray traveling near a nucleus can produce an electron and its anti-particle, a positron.  Suddenly mass appears on the scene.

 How soon before the gravity from the "new" particles can be felt at a distance of 1 foot?  Answer, 1 nanosecond (light travels 0.98 feet in one ns).  We'll use 1 foot per ns, rounding up a little.

Each of these is charged - how soon before the electrical field from the electron can be detected, one foot away?  A:  1 ns.  Yes, this is an assumption - that the newly-formed E-field travels at the speed of light (I doubt this has actually been measured).

   Another example, a positron encounters an electron and they annihilate (to form two photons, back to back).  Now mass disappears from the seen. How soon can this loss of mass -and charge- be detected one foot away?  A:  1 ns.

 
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
Consider the earth going around the sun, attracted by gravity.  The earth is eight light-minutes distant from the sun - pls keep that in mind.  Thus, as the earth goes around the sun, and both attract each other with equal-strength forces, the sun responds to the earths pull according to where the earth WAS eight minutes prior (and vice versa).

Gotta run - any disagreement with that statement, "Thus, as the earth goes around the sun, and both attract each other with equal-strength forces, the sun responds to the earths pull according to where the earth WAS eight minutes prior (and vice versa)"?

@PhysicsProf

I think your question can be better asked this way.

If you could make the sun disappear with the flick of a finger, so from one second it's there and the next second it's gone without leaving the slightest trace, what happens to the planets? Will they all veer off their orbits immediately and hence show that there is something much faster then light? I personally say yes the planets and everything else in the solar system would stray of their orbits and get lost in space.

wattsup


---------------------------
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1855
  Good question - actually, we're theorizing that a change in gravity (as for example from the earth moving) travels at the speed of light.

   Another example, a high-energy (say 1.1 MeV) gamma ray traveling near a nucleus can produce an electron and its anti-particle, a positron.  Suddenly mass appears on the scene.

 How soon before the gravity from the "new" particles can be felt at a distance of 1 foot?  Answer, 1 nanosecond (light travels 0.98 feet in one ns).  We'll use 1 foot per ns, rounding up a little.

Each of these is charged - how soon before the electrical field from the electron can be detected, one foot away?  A:  1 ns.  Yes, this is an assumption - that the newly-formed E-field travels at the speed of light (I doubt this has actually been measured).

   Another example, a positron encounters an electron and they annihilate (to form two photons, back to back).  Now mass disappears from the seen. How soon can this loss of mass -and charge- be detected one foot away?  A:  1 ns.

 

In my professional career I had the use of a time domain spectrometer that had a resolution better than 50pS.  So I could measure effects over small distances (like a few cm).  Although designed for finding discontinuities in 50 ohm transmission lines, it could also be used for measuring magnetic and electric field propagation speeds.  I can verify that magnetic and electric near-fields do travel at the speed of light (that is the fields themselves, not necessarily the transport of power which travels slower in near-field coupling situations.  I guess modern TDR's have an even better resolution, my TDR was 1964 vintage!  So the sudden presence of electrons on the plate of a capacitor create an influence that travels at the speed of light (or less in a dielectric).  Does that answer the question concerning the sudden appearance of an electron?

One of the novel uses of this TDR was to "look" into a small void to establish the conditions inside that void.  The void in question was an electrical switch operated by acceleration that was part of a weapon safety system, where a spring loaded mass could move under acceleration to then close some contacts.  The TDR was connected to the contacts and the scope picture then related to the placement of the internal components.  In effect a tiny electric field radar looking into the void.

Another unofficial use was for demonstrating the principles of radar to Air Cadets where I was for a short time a civilian instructor.  I used coaxial cable placed across a table and transmitted a surface wave along the outside of the cable.  A small aeroplane model made of aluminum could be placed on the coax whereupon its position showed up on the scope just as in a radar A trace.

Smudge
   
Group: Guest
I watched a show last night called " The Search for Gravitational Waves", at least as much as I could watch of it, and I was appalled, it was mostly drivel. The so called scientists cannot and will not address the issue of where everything came from to begin with. They just say "at such and such point after the moment of creation". Does that mean they believe that the Universe was just created out of nothing ? Which is of course impossible ! Or does it mean they believe a god or something created everything including itself at the beginning of the Universe ? They talk about the Big Bang as if it was just after the "creation" of the Universe.

I don't get why they get paid. They just theorize absolute rubbish. There is only one Logical way to look at the Universe and that is that everything that exists now has always existed in some form or another. And quite probably the Universe goes through cycles as with most other natural things. It expands then contracts to a point repeatedly over an extremely long time. Or as we have no way of knowing how much of the Universe we are actually aware of it could expand in one part while it contracts in another part.

Some talk of dual opposing Universes or Multi-verses but the reality for me is that The actual Universe is everything that exists everywhere at any given point in our existence and that The Known Universe is all that we are aware of so far.

I could not continue to watch the show the speakers were highly trained people, but they were talking like a bunch of kids making stuff up. One of them came up with "inflationary theory" and all he could say was that at some point the Universe was very small, even smaller than the smallest particle, then through inflation it doubled in size every trillionth of a second or something until it eventually slowed down to a more sedate expansion. But no desire to make logic of how the first bit came into existence to begin with. I see those people as not just a waste of time and money but my thinking tells me they are actively convoluting the issue.

The things they were saying were nonsensical and illogical. I was shocked and appalled at the same time. They said that if a Gravity wave passed through the Earth the room would be distorted in dimensions one way then the other and other such drivel.

..
   
Group: Guest
@PhysicsProf

I think your question can be better asked this way.

If you could make the sun disappear with the flick of a finger, so from one second it's there and the next second it's gone without leaving the slightest trace, what happens to the planets? Will they all veer off their orbits immediately and hence show that there is something much faster then light? I personally say yes the planets and everything else in the solar system would stray of their orbits and get lost in space.

wattsup

Well considering that the Planets and the Sun "orbit" the Galactic center I would say that the planets would continue to orbit the Galactic center just that they would not be influenced by the Sun and would find a new "path" as chaotic as it may be.

..
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 69
Don't assume that a field that can move flowing charge is a magnetic field - and don't assume that moving charges are electrons.

Novel charge carriers may produce electrostatic (capacitive) and magnetic (inductive) effects but they will not behave in any rational manner across a semiconductor junction... in fact you are likely to cause inexplicable failures in digital equipment even at a distance you think is safe- I know this from first hand experience.

Novel charge carriers will produce novel fields in addition to classical fields when they move. Novel fields may extend into other dimensions -- study the mapping of dimensions.

Our experience with valves is good -- deflecting charges around a vacuum is more reliable than using mosfets and you can still get low ns HV pulses if you want.

Not sure why I am offering this ...holiday madness I suppose... and my account got trashed and all the history has been lost :(

While I'm posting -- did anyone else ever work out the mathematical foundation for the ratios of frequencies SM quoted? ... and realize the implications? .. if you did then please contact me privately.

Very interesting information's. The tubes are the best for this kind of experiments (where HV , inductors,and high frequency used), that's sure.

What caught my eye, you asked about " the ratios of frequencies ", not the ratio between the circumference and the frequencies.

I think the 35705hz input frequency is accelerated in the output coil part of the system, maybe in each 1/4 wave cycle to a higher frequency, which is phi times the first.


---------------------------
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Iron catastrophe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_catastrophe

The iron catastrophe was a postulated major event early in the history of Earth. The original accretion of the Earth's material into a spherical mass is thought to have resulted in a relatively uniform composition. While residual heat from the collision of the material that formed the Earth was significant, heating from radioactive materials in this mass gradually increased the temperature until a critical condition was reached. As material became molten enough to allow movement, the denser iron and nickel, evenly distributed throughout the mass, began to migrate to the center of the planet to form the core. The gravitational potential energy released by the sinking of the dense NiFe globules, along with any cooler denser solid material is thought to have been a runaway process, increasing the temperature of the protoplanet above the melting point of most components, resulting in the rapid formation of a molten iron core covered by a deep global silicate magma. This event, an important process of planetary differentiation, occurred at about 500 million years into the formation of the planet.[1]

Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field


http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/

At the heart of our planet lies a solid iron ball, about as hot as the surface of the sun. Researchers call it "the inner core." It's really a world within a world. The inner core is 70% as wide as the moon. It spins at its own rate, as much as 0.2° of longitude per year faster than the Earth above it, and it has its own ocean: a very deep layer of liquid iron known as "the outer core."

see captionRight: a schematic diagram of Earth's interior. The outer core is the source of the geomagnetic field.

Earth's magnetic field comes from this ocean of iron, which is an electrically conducting fluid in constant motion. Sitting atop the hot inner core, the liquid outer core seethes and roils like water in a pan on a hot stove. The outer core also has "hurricanes"--whirlpools powered by the Coriolis forces of Earth's rotation. These complex motions generate our planet's magnetism through a process called the dynamo effect.

Using the equations of magnetohydrodynamics, a branch of physics dealing with conducting fluids and magnetic fields, Glatzmaier and colleague Paul Roberts have created a supercomputer model of Earth's interior. Their software heats the inner core, stirs the metallic ocean above it, then calculates the resulting magnetic field. They run their code for hundreds of thousands of simulated years and watch what happens.

What they see mimics the real Earth: The magnetic field waxes and wanes, poles drift and, occasionally, flip. Change is normal, they've learned. And no wonder. The source of the field, the outer core, is itself seething, swirling, turbulent. "It's chaotic down there," notes Glatzmaier. The changes we detect on our planet's surface are a sign of that inner chaos.

They've also learned what happens during a magnetic flip. Reversals take a few thousand years to complete, and during that time--contrary to popular belief--the magnetic field does not vanish. "It just gets more complicated," says Glatzmaier. Magnetic lines of force near Earth's surface become twisted and tangled, and magnetic poles pop up in unaccustomed places. A south magnetic pole might emerge over Africa, for instance, or a north pole over Tahiti. Weird. But it's still a planetary magnetic field, and it still protects us from space radiation and solar storms.

Finally, a Solid Look at Earth's Core

http://www.livescience.com/6980-finally-solid-earth-core.html

Scientists have long thought Earth's core is solid. Now they have some solid evidence.

The core is thought to be a two-part construction. The inner core is solid iron, and that's surrounding by a molten core, theory holds. Around the core is the mantle, and near the planet's surface is a thin crust -- the part that breaks now and then and creates earthquakes.

The core was discovered in 1936 by monitoring the internal rumbles of earthquakes, which send seismic waves rippling through the planet. The waves, which are much like sound waves, are bent when they pass through layers of differing densities, just as light is bent as it enters water. By noting a wave's travel time, much can be inferred about the Earth's insides.

Yet for more than 60 years, the solidity of the core has remained in the realm of theory.

A study announced today involved complex monitoring of seismic waves passing through the planet. The technique is not new, but this is the first time it's been employed so effectively to probe the heart of our world.

First, some jargon:

    P is what scientists call the wave
    K stands for the outer core
    J is the inner core


Path of a PKJKP wave.
? Science

So a wave that rolls through it all is called PKJKP.

An earthquake sends seismic waves in all directions. The surface waves are sometimes frighteningly obvious. Seismic waves passing through the mantle and traversing much of the planet's interior are routinely studied when they reach another continent. But no PKJKP wave has ever been reliably detected until now.

Aimin Cao of the University of California-Berkeley and colleagues studied archived data from about 20 large earthquakes, all monitored by an array of German seismic detectors back in the 1980s and '90s.

The trick to detecting a PKJKP wave is in noting the changes it goes through as it rattles from one side of the planet to the other. What starts out as a compression wave changes to what scientists call a shear wave (explanations and animations of these are here).

"A PKJKP traverses the inner core as a shear wave, so this is the direct evidence that the inner core is solid," Cao told LiveScience, "because only in the solid material the shear wave can exist. In the liquid material, say water, only the compressional wave can travel through."

The arrival time and slowness of the waves agree with theoretical predictions of PKJKP waves, which indicates a solid core. The results were published today online by the journal Science.

Clausius–Clapeyron relation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation

"Clapeyron equation" and "Clapeyron's equation" redirect here. For a state equation, see ideal gas law.

The Clausius–Clapeyron relation, named after Rudolf Clausius[1] and Benoît Paul Émile Clapeyron,[2] is a way of characterizing a discontinuous phase transition between two phases of matter of a single constituent. On a pressure–temperature (P–T) diagram, the line separating the two phases is known as the coexistence curve. The Clausius–Clapeyron relation gives the slope of the tangents to this curve. Mathematically,

    \frac{\mathrm{d}P}{\mathrm{d}T} = \frac{L}{T\,\Delta v}=\frac{\Delta s}{\Delta v},

where \mathrm{d}P/\mathrm{d}T is the slope of the tangent to the coexistence curve at any point, L is the specific latent heat, T is the temperature, \Delta v is the specific volume change of the phase transition, and \Delta s is the specific entropy change of the phase transition.

Newton's law of universal gravitation


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that any two bodies in the Universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[note 1] This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called induction.[1] It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton's work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("the Principia"), first published on 5 July 1687. (When Newton's book was presented in 1686 to the Royal Society, Robert Hooke made a claim that Newton had obtained the inverse square law from him; see the History section below.)

In modern language, the law states: Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[2] The first test of Newton's theory of gravitation between masses in the laboratory was the Cavendish experiment conducted by the British scientist Henry Cavendish in 1798.[3] It took place 111 years after the publication of Newton's Principia and 71 years after his death.

Newton's law of gravitation resembles Coulomb's law of electrical forces, which is used to calculate the magnitude of electrical force arising between two charged bodies. Both are inverse-square laws, where force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. Coulomb's law has the product of two charges in place of the product of the masses, and the electrostatic constant in place of the gravitational constant.

Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at very close distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the sun).


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Group: Guest
So the very central part of the Iron core of the Earth is the hottest but it is solid while the cooler outer part is molten ? How is it so ? The hotter inner part should be more molten than the cooler outer part. Unless the sheer "pressure" can cause Iron to be solid at higher temperatures at the inner core, while the outer core remains molten at lower temperatures. If that is the theory then I could see some logic in that even though I am not a physicist.

Regardless of how complicated things may be, they still need to make some sense when looked at in a simplistic, holistic and logical way. 
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Quite so..

Look at the top right corner of the diagram (supercritical fluid); we have a pseudo gas, a pseudo liquid or a pseudo solid.. all of which are plasma matter based and property dependent on pressure temperature boundary delta  O0

http://www.livescience.com/6980-finally-solid-earth-core.html

The core was discovered in 1936 by monitoring the internal rumbles of earthquakes, which send seismic waves rippling through the planet. The waves, which are much like sound waves, are bent when they pass through layers of differing densities, just as light is bent as it enters water. By noting a wave's travel time, much can be inferred about the Earth's insides.

Define the boundary plane(s), specifically.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2993
@PhysicsProf

I think your question can be better asked this way.

If you could make the sun disappear with the flick of a finger, so from one second it's there and the next second it's gone without leaving the slightest trace, what happens to the planets? Will they all veer off their orbits immediately and hence show that there is something much faster then light? I personally say yes the planets and everything else in the solar system would stray of their orbits and get lost in space.

wattsup

The key point is whether the planets would veer off their orbits IMMEDIATELY, or after a delay -- 8 minutes delay for the earth ( the time required for the fastest possible signal (assuming light-speed is maximum for anything) -- to reach the earth.

I think the G-field from the sun would still be there at the earth the MOMENT the sun disappeared (a cleaver thought experiment - thanks) - but 8 minutes later, the absence of the G-field from the ABSENT sun would indeed be felt, and THEN the earth would veer off its elliptical orbit. 

At that same 8-minute mark, the sun's light would appear on the earth to be GONE, at the same instant as the G-field from the sun disappeared.  (imo)

   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2993
In my professional career I had the use of a time domain spectrometer that had a resolution better than 50pS.  So I could measure effects over small distances (like a few cm).  Although designed for finding discontinuities in 50 ohm transmission lines, it could also be used for measuring magnetic and electric field propagation speeds.  I can verify that magnetic and electric near-fields do travel at the speed of light (that is the fields themselves, not necessarily the transport of power which travels slower in near-field coupling situations.  I guess modern TDR's have an even better resolution, my TDR was 1964 vintage!  So the sudden presence of electrons on the plate of a capacitor create an influence that travels at the speed of light (or less in a dielectric).  Does that answer the question concerning the sudden appearance of an electron?

...
Smudge

Yes it does!  as expected, electric fields (or at least, near-fields) do travel at the speed of light.  Thanks!

Now, I would very much like to learn more about the "time domain spectrometer that had a resolution better than 50pS" -- and  HOW it could be "  used for measuring magnetic and electric field propagation speeds."  Is there anything written up on this?  I'd love to learn more...
Thanks again.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1855
Yes it does!  as expected, electric fields (or at least, near-fields) do travel at the speed of light.  Thanks!

Now, I would very much like to learn more about the "time domain spectrometer that had a resolution better than 50pS" -- and  HOW it could be "  used for measuring magnetic and electric field propagation speeds."  Is there anything written up on this?  I'd love to learn more...
Thanks again.

HP still make TDR's and this link gives you the background to TDR measurements.
http://materias.fi.uba.ar/6209/download/HP-AN1304.pdf

The TDR is simply a step generator plus a sampling scope.  If the output connection (that would normally be to the transmission line under test) connects simply to a pair of electrodes, the waveform you get is easily deduced from first principles since you just have a 50 ohm source connected to a capacitor.  Now place a conductive object near those electrodes and the capacity takes on a slightly different value.  The TDR system can't see that changed value until the electric wavefront has reached the object and been reflected back, so the otherwise exponential curve on the scope now has a kink in it.  The position of that kink tells you the distance to the object (classical radar ranging) and the shape of the waveform after the kink gives you some indication of the shape and extent of the object.  I am sure that in this digital age someone could write a clever algorithm that analyses the shape of the curve to give more information than that perceived by the eyeball.

The same goes for a magnetic field, the TDR output is connected to a single turn coil.  A ferrous or conductive object placed near the coil creates the waveform kink.   Clearly the field propagation and reflection characteristics are different from normal far-field radar, so interpreting the seen reflection is more complex, but it is there and readily observable.  If you have access to a pulse generator with a sub nS rise time and a sampling scope you can easily perform your own experiments.

Of course this system has limitations.  The field drops off rapidly with range (which the clever algorithm would take account of) so it only has limited range capability before the signal gets down to noise.  And the waveform you get depends very much on the coil size or electrode configuration.

With my old TDR you could remove the T that connected step generator and oscilloscope to the transmission line under test, and then have separate transmit and receive "antenna" (coil or electrodes).  Ideal for just measuring propagation delay between separated antenna.

Transmitting a surface wave along the outside of a length of coax was achieved by having the center conductor connected to a conical electrode that folded back over the coax.  This sent the step wavefront as an EM wave back along the outside surface that effectively formed the inner conductor of a coax line with its outer at infinity.  The TDR saw this as a line of different impedance to 50 ohms which is simply a flat trace at a different vertical deflection.  Any discontinuity on that line showed up in the usual way.

Smudge
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
Looks like Steven D. Mark now works for NASA, unless it is a different person, but the references to the Journal of Acoustical Society is correct, and association with David Doleshal.

Maybe they are different persons that the stupid Microsoft database thought was the same person.


http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/55153239/steven-d-mark


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
Looks like Steven D. Mark now works for NASA, unless it is a different person, but the references to the Journal of Acoustical Society is correct, and association with David Doleshal.

Maybe they are different persons that the stupid Microsoft database thought was the same person.


http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/55153239/steven-d-mark

Don't trust the DB associations being automatically made by that system. According to the same system, of my publications in the journals "Metaphilosophy" and "Philosophy of Science" I have been cited only once. I assure you that I've been cited more than once.

BTW... What is Metaphilosophy?   

Never mind. If it is on the web and generated by a M$ product it must be true.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
Don't trust the DB associations being automatically made by that system. According to the same system, of my publications in the journals "Metaphilosophy" and "Philosophy of Science" I have been cited only once. I assure you that I've been cited more than once.

BTW... What is Metaphilosophy?   

Never mind. If it is on the web and generated by a M$ product it must be true.

I agree it is a different person
.
I do have a paperweight ton of back issues of the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America in my garage, will have to dig out SM's contribution to that journal and see if it is different than the patents......just for fun.


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

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
There is a patent posted by user PIX at OU.com that seems to be a very good fit for the TPU.

http://overunity.com/17172/a-simple-question-about-tpu-replication-attempts/msg502032/#msg502032



When I first skimmed the patent, I thought well, close, but no cigar, SM did not use gas tubes.

 On a more thorough read, I can see that this is a very good find and good fit for the TPU as it shows that the travelling wave can effect (drag) the electrons in a solid metallic conductor or semiconductor (the collector) so a gas tube is not necessarily needed.

It can even drag electrons in free air see figure 7

There are many other statements in the patent that make it a very good TPU fit if it works as claimed.

Thanks to user "PIX"

Patent also attached here. Give it a good read.

Comments appreciated

Regards
ION


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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1855
There is a patent posted by user PIX at OU.com that seems to be a very good fit for the TPU.

http://overunity.com/17172/a-simple-question-about-tpu-replication-attempts/msg502032/#msg502032

Interesting.  I think you are right to say that gas tubes are not necessary, ferromagnetic conductors can have their conduction electrons pumped in this way to create DC.  I think the Russian Sergy Alexeew device does exactly that.  He covers his toroidal coil with Al foil to get the distributed capacitance and that is mentioned in the patent.  Here is my paper on that device.  Also another one that does a similar thing.

Smudge 
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2815


Buy me a beer
There is a patent posted by user PIX at OU.com that seems to be a very good fit for the TPU.

http://overunity.com/17172/a-simple-question-about-tpu-replication-attempts/msg502032/#msg502032



When I first skimmed the patent, I thought well, close, but no cigar, SM did not use gas tubes.

 On a more thorough read, I can see that this is a very good find and good fit for the TPU as it shows that the travelling wave can effect (drag) the electrons in a solid metallic conductor or semiconductor (the collector) so a gas tube is not necessarily needed.

It can even drag electrons in free air see figure 7

There are many other statements in the patent that make it a very good TPU fit if it works as claimed.

Thanks to user "PIX"

Patent also attached here. Give it a good read.

Comments appreciated

Regards
ION

That reminds me of the Meyer system where the gas is hydrogen and oxygen, HHO. I have seen this first hand  along with all the rest, more than one if I recall, did have some pictures that I took.

Regards

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
Attached is an additional related patent that was referenced in the citations.

It is a good read full of interesting ideas and applications.



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

Posts: 462
What if explanation is simpler the we think ? What if the rotation of Earth is caused by external electric current flowing into the Earth core and melting iron core ? Basically what if Earth is just a metallic ball and electro-magnet with iron core = Faraday dynamo ?
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
What if explanation is simpler the we think ? What if the rotation of Earth is caused by external electric current flowing into the Earth core and melting iron core ? Basically what if Earth is just a metallic ball and electro-magnet with iron core = Faraday dynamo ?

Forest.

I have no idea, but have always wondered about the consistent spin of the earth over the last two hundred years losing only a few milliseconds.

See here: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1097.0

Could you somehow tie this idea into how it applies to building a working TPU. How could a person standing on the surface of  the dynamo you have proposed utilize it to produce electrical current in a portable device?

How would you test the idea as proof of principle?


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-04-19, 06:34:44