> Video Online at:

To reduce it to its simplest

> http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/chernetsky.htm

>

> The Chernetsky Plasma Generator

> characterization, the error seemed

This reply is a bit off topic, but we need to look at

> to be along lines similar to power factor error

> often encountered in energy

> device evaluation by those not knowledgeable about

> this type of problem.

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/