ground placed into reality, the reporting of such gets even further

backlogged, by this reporter, anyways...

This is so that convenient theories can be invented in the meantime

to explain the results to the public.

Now it is known that impedance is explained with a two dimensional

graph with reactance vs resistance. The resistance doesnt exactly

have a negative coordinate, but the reactances do. It is the

cancelling of reactances that make resonance, when the only

coordinate vector left is the R value , and ohms law can then dictate

the ohms conduction. thats how the ideal electrical laws work using

the ideal components, but actually dont come very close in real world

action using real world components with large L or C values.

The loss factors involved are not scientifically sufficiently

explained whatsover, but what things come down to are comparisons of

two rates of conduction. One conduction of high q inductive reactance

established by 60 henry, 1000 ohm coil of 23 gauge wire @ 60 hz

resonance may only yeild a acting Q voltage rise of 15 fold, where

the q factor of X(L)/R by theory is 20.

Let us back calculate things here also to verify the truth. The

apparent problem grasped by those of us subscribring to phase angle

laws then becomes a flaw of understanding resonance. Normally the

conduction established by meter establishes whether an inductor has

gone into the fullest amount of conduction enabled by resonance. By

the standard laws the amperage conduction thru elements recorded on

meter can establish the phase angle. However this is only true when

the real components match the ideal.

So at 60 hz, for a 20,000 wind coil of 23 gauge on a 5 inch diameter

air core employing 9 miles of wire,yeilding 60 henry the real

conduction at resonance is only 3/4 the actual real value at DC.

The ordinary electrical engineer has casually told me that since I

was getting 75 ma conduction from such a 1000 ohm coil instead of the

expected 100 ma that resonance should deliver, that actually the

deviance from phase angle was greater than 1/4 of the quadrant, and

actually the true phase angle was far less!

This was from Karl Uhlricht even, who has installed a skeptical angle

of reasoning even further beyond the original.

However when things were combined in space, it seems the

amplification of the concept of mutual inductances comes into order.

Mutual inductances mean the sharing of magnetic field pathways,

however the concept of flux capacitors means those coils can still

have a form of mutual inductance provided for by wire connection only.

When both methods are used the resonance outside of spatial

interaction zone is different from that inside the interaction zone.

This is typically re-presented in 90 degree attempts of phasing

resonances with 120 degree phased inputs.

In any case what it implies is quite a complication. Initially all

resistance to input is accounted for by impedance. The portion that

is reactance can be found and cancelled. For a simple inductance that

can be measured impedance wise the two dimensional model poses no

problem. By equation you find both X(L) and X(C) to match.

In fact what seems to be observed is that by spatially the E cross B

vessel you get extra impedance, and al la einsteinian relativity you

easily explain that less capacity does the job, than the former one

did.

Of course then you get to mention how the Z coordinate comes into

play. Because of the fact that NET reactance for resonance is made by

solution of vectors, the three dimensional coordinate brought upon by

reacting quantities in 3 dimensions is brought into play.

Then it becomes concievable that actions of producing the greater

than possible current nodes after junction a real possibility.

With ordinary current nodes 12 go in and 24 go out. Now at least 25

can go out. Put one inside the other and see what you get!

HDN, as usual.