Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [jlnlabs] Chernetsky Plasma Generator - off topic Comments on Resonance

Expand Messages
  • Harvey Norris
    ... To reduce it to its simplest ... This reply is a bit off topic, but we need to look at arguments that confound the conventional point of view. We are
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Tim Ventura <tventura6@...> wrote:
      > Video Online at:
      > http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/chernetsky.htm
      >
      > The Chernetsky Plasma Generator
      To reduce it to its simplest
      > characterization, the error seemed
      > to be along lines similar to power factor error
      > often encountered in energy
      > device evaluation by those not knowledgeable about
      > this type of problem.
      This reply is a bit off topic, but we need to look at
      arguments that confound the conventional point of
      view.
      We are taught that the power loss by I^2R heating
      losses on the resistive components DOES represent the
      true power input to a device. We are also taught that
      the "reactive" power input to a device, which is
      simply the input voltage times the amperage, or VI,:
      this quantity DOES NOT represent the true power input.
      Then we are told the reasoning behind this, it has to
      do with phase angles ect... The VI calculation as the
      input ALSO includes the borrowed and returned energies
      expressed as oscillation between electric and magnetic
      fields, and since the energy is merely borrowed and
      then returned a half cycle later, that input is
      essentially created for free, since it is not
      considered to be a "real" portion of the power input.
      Thus generally VI will alway be greater then I^2R for
      a reactive load, and if we need to know the true power
      being inputed, we simply look at the amount of heat
      being created by that quantity I^2R. The REASON for
      this again is made by the phase angle argument, which
      states that because V and I are out of phase with each
      other, we cannot simply multiply V by I to obtain the
      wattage input. Now if we DO make the conditions so
      that V and I are in phase, or in other words we bring
      the reactance up to series resonance, then V IS in
      phase with I, and VI becomes an accurate measurement
      of the true power input, because now these things are
      closely in phase, and in those situations, VI should
      equal I^2R. We have brought up the phase angle
      difference that can be near to a 90 degree phase angle
      difference from what exists in the reactive state, up
      to a situation where that angle is now near zero
      degrees, and V and I act simultaneously according to
      Ohms law, if we are lucky enough to have a perfectly
      acting resonance. Here is where we come to a crucial
      crossing point with the self generated assumptions. If
      we ASSUME that the VI quantity is always greater then
      the I^2R quantity, because of the phase angle
      difference of electrical actions that dictates a
      certain portion of input is not real because of this
      phase angle difference that allows for the existence
      of borrowed and returned reactive energies, when we
      decrease that phase angle difference to zero degrees
      as occurs in series resonance so that VI now becomes
      identical to I^2R, this might imply that we have also
      eliminated that fictitious entity known as borrowed
      and returned energy, because NOW VI does equal I^2R.
      IN FACT THE EXACT OPPOSITE ACTION OCCURS; THE BORROWED
      AND RETURNED ENERGIES HAVE NOT BEEN ELIMINATED, THEY
      HAVE BEEN ENHANCED Q TIMES THE AMOUNT FOUND IN THE
      FORMER REACTIVE STATE OF THE LOAD. This is what makes
      those energy oscillations literally free extra energy
      expressions, because now the source is not paying for
      them! VI has ceased to be a larger value then I^2R.

      Now all of this literally has little or nothing
      to do with the point I am trying to make here, but it
      is supplied as background info for the understanding
      of resonant effects, where it has been brought out
      that the apparent energy input is always greater then
      the actual energy input, because VI > I^2R. What
      becomes questionable and problematic with this
      thinking, that the I^2R amount is ALWAYS the true
      energy input, is the situation that is encountered
      when VI becomes LESS then I^2R. In the effects I have
      made with an alternator line coupled air core
      transformer configured with a third element as the
      magnifier of the initial energy transfer from primary
      to secondary, the ending element will contain more
      amperage initially obtained by magnetic fields moving
      through space obtained through the air as the
      conveying medium, then the amount of amperage that
      would be obtained if we instead gave that element a
      direct line connection to the source of voltage! Talk
      about efficiency of delivery! And all of this is made
      possible by the fact that in resonance those magnetic
      fields are obtained as a "byproduct" of the energy
      input, where as I have noted, those magnetic field
      expressions of movement are literally obtained for
      free, with respect to the source itself as that
      provider. How can this be possible? Well in
      ferromagnetic transformers we understand that when we
      step up the voltage, the VI primary input should be
      slightly greater then the VI secondary output, for the
      ferromagnetic transformer that is slightly under 100%
      efficiency. But for this particular example, which
      could be called a "power factor corrected" air core
      transformer, the input VI quantity arranged as two
      primary coils configured in a figure 8 tank circuit,
      where on the secondary side two high induction coils
      then produce another VI quantity, and of course the
      fact that the voltage has been stepped up means a
      concomitant redution of the amperage on that
      secondary, all this is true. But when we take that
      second VI quantity, that is so far obeying these ratio
      rules, (actually in this example the amp turns on
      secondaries exceed the amp turns of the primaries
      which can be a permissable aspect of resonant
      transformers): as I was saying there IS a reduction of
      amperage when the voltage is stepped up, if we simply
      stopped there. However we can take this same resonant
      secondary voltage rise, and then give it a third
      component of the (figure 8 tank) magnifier itself as
      the actual ending load, and then compare VI of the
      primary, to VI of the magnifier tank and what we then
      find is that the VI of the magnifier exceeds the VI of
      the primary. Essentially the voltage has been stepped
      up, but no amperage loss has taken place on the ending
      component, even though it contains 10 times more
      resistance then found on the actual primaries
      themselves,(because of the resonant amperage rise that
      occurs on tank circuits) from the source of the feeble
      secondary high induction coil currents being stepped
      up voltage input currents that has initially been
      reduced from the currents found on the primaries, and
      then again expanded on the ending circuit so that VI
      (out) exceeds VI (in) on this triple resonant pathway
      that has its first transformation made through air. A
      comparison of the actual resistances of the input
      primary vs the load are 10/1. So this certainly DOES
      sound like a vibration that has been expanded BEYOND
      the original vibration, and it sure does sound like
      overunity....

      BUT because we are sticking to the original argument
      that the true power input must ALWAYS be classified as
      the I^2R heating effect, what hasnt been taken into
      effect is the resonant amperage rise on the primary
      itself, since we have instead used the VI definition
      as the power input. The amperage issuing through the
      primaries is also greater than that being inputed,
      just as in the second transformation to the ending
      magnifier load. When we use that definition as the
      true power input to the primary, the total
      configuration no longer appears as overunity. But is
      this a correct way to view things? Or essentially is
      the reactive power input the true power input for a
      tank circuit, since for that unique circumstance VI
      can be less then I^2R and not greater, which is the
      norm for apparent power arguments. Something to think
      about. And to further these arguments, certain
      experiments can show that apparently the currents in a
      tank circuit are not merely close to 90 degrees out of
      phase with the impressed voltage, as occurs with a
      simple reactance, but rather they are close to 180
      degrees out of phase with the source voltage. That in
      itself might confound the usual phase angle arguments
      in how we determine what is the actual real power
      input vs the reactive one. It is quite possible I have
      made some faulty assumptions in all of the above, but
      if people can follow the argument, which may be
      doubtful, I would like to know where my faulty
      assumptions have began in the first place, so that
      this situation can be better understood in the correct
      light of day.

      Sincerely HDN

      PS Unfortunately when these triple resonant
      transformations were investigated, I later found that
      one of the high induction coils appeared to be
      damaged, in that it had a far higher impedance then
      what I assumed it to be, so everything made in this
      category of investigation needs to be repeated, as one
      of the secondaries could not possibly have been tuned
      in the correct manner, but yet phenomenal results were
      still obtained. I have no idea how this may have
      occured, but in one instance I exceeded the voltages
      that should be applied to the coil, causing a very
      loud crackling noise to come from somewhere. This
      occured in the runaway resonance that developed when
      the parametric alternator output was recycled back to
      the field, in efforts to obtain a self energized field
      for an alternator.

      =====
      Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.