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

RCB3/ Three Retunings on 4Spiral Alternator Resonance.

Expand Messages
  • harvich
    ... Exactly. However I did jump the gun concerning thinking the circuit was actually in resonance, and should have further investigated the circuit by shorting
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 23, 2001
      From before again; <tesla@...> wrote:
      > Original poster: "Paul Nicholson by way of Terry
      > Fritz <twftesla@...>"
      > <paul@...>
      > Harvey,
      > If I follow your post correctly, you've got 2.28mH
      > resonating with 48uF, you're driving the two in
      > series
      > with an alternator at 480Hz, and you're getting a
      > poor
      > resonance?
      Exactly. However I did jump the gun concerning thinking the circuit
      was actually in resonance, and should have further investigated the
      circuit by shorting each element, and measuring the reactance
      consumptions. The 48 uf was selected by resonance formula using 480
      hz where the 2.28 mh was obtained by LCR meter of 4 spirals in
      series. That X(L) value for 2.28 mh should be 6.87 ohms.

      The reactance consumption tests made by shorting out one element of a
      resonance seem reliable, as taking the shorted element completely out
      of the circuit delivers the same results. In order to make the tests
      with everything running to save time, they are made with no field
      input, where the stator still delivers between 1 or 2 volts output.
      This is somewhat mysterious way of producing electricity, where I
      have been told that it is probably the effect of the stator becoming
      a varying reluctance generator,also called parametric oscillator
      because merely introducing a changing parameter of inductance in a
      coil will also generate current where in the alternator this occurs
      as the pole faces of the field move in relation to the stationary
      stator coils. Slowly moving the field rotor while LCR meter records
      inductance shows a variance between .22 and .26 mh, thus this
      variance of inductance made by a rotating field rotor would be
      estimated percentage wise with Delta L being .04 mh, where the
      variation of inductance would then be .04/.26, about a 15 % variation
      in stator inductive values. At 480 hz a shorted stator voltage output
      will yeild 1.5 amps. Thus we have a sort of current limited supply
      for testing of q series and parallel factors of resonant circuits,
      but that supply emf doesnt exactly model a real one because the
      voltage made at the stator will drop in accordance with the load
      quite a bit. By placing a resonant LC circuit that SHOULD consume all
      of that 1.5 amps does not seem to occur (in these no field
      measurements). The mentioned circuit on turn on with no field input
      shows only a 1.38 volt stator, with 5.4 volts across one of the
      resonant elements. This would be a q voltage rise of 3.9,(based on
      no field reading)

      Considering your excellent suggestion of also regarding the stator
      resistance and L component there is in the stator, not considering
      the possible problems of measuring across the solitary phase with a
      LCR meter to be a correct assesment of the actual inductance,
      nevertheless it reads~ .23 mh, about 10% of the actual L value being
      resonated. The resistance appears to be about 1/3 ohm. The capacity
      to resonate with the stator at would be a very high value of 500 uf.
      > Have you taken into account the internal resistance
      > of
      > the alternator? The Q is 6.283 * 480 * L / R, which
      > comes out at around Q=7 if you take as R the 1 ohm
      > resistance of the coil. But really you have to add
      > the
      > alternator's internal resistance to get the total R,
      > and if thats just a few ohms it will completely
      > dampen your resonance. Have you measured the output
      > impedance of your alternator at 480Hz, and are you
      > including that in the total circuit resistance when
      > you predict the performance?
      I am unsure how I could measure that relationship, but I am assuming
      it be a ratio of resistance or impedance of components vs established
      currents shown on short. I have therefore made more studious
      measurements to try and determine this factor, which in the
      establishment of low resistance tank circuits made to resonate from
      the alternators AC frequency becomes essential for the analysis as
      you have indicated.
      > Cheers,
      > --
      > Paul Nicholson
      > Manchester, UK
      > --
      No I havent and again thanks for pointing it out. I have since
      retuned the coils for what should be a higher voltage gain, but there
      is still not the correct value tried for series resonance. Since the
      resistance of the source emf is 1/3 of the load, perhaps it is
      correct to think one volt will not produce one amp on a 1 ohm
      resonant circuit, but rather the total resistance being possibly 4/3
      rds higher, the source must be current limited to to 3/4 of the
      previously calculated ohms law value of conduction that should be
      available at series resonance, for this 3 fold ratio example for ri
      (int) vs r (load)or thats how I seem to be interpreting things here.
      The stator resistance reading seems to fluctating quite a bit, and
      perhaps the 50% lack of conduction might be better explained by
      actually taking into account the added supposed impedance of the
      source stator phase, itself measured .23 mh, and since Int(L) of the
      source emf is about 10% of theLoad(L), perhaps the C value being
      tried for resonance should actually be a different value!

      Actually then the FIRST retuning that does take place, DOES probably
      start to account for the internal impedance addition of the stator
      itself. There were actually 3 retunings that took place made as hasty
      tests without accounting for the extraneous matters here noted, So
      these are noted here again in retesting. This is retested because the
      1.38 stator voltage in no field observations seemed low, and the no
      field stator voltages were used to determine the reactance of the
      coil individually to base the retuning on. The NO FIELD stator
      voltage was used to determine the ACTUAL impedance of the spirals
      appearing to be 27% higher than formula of inductive reactance would
      indicate. Shorting the caps showed the stator voltage to increase to
      1.74 volts and .2A to develope across the spiral, where the first
      retuning to take place simply involved making a short across the
      inductor instead, and recording the amperage across the capacity to
      be .29A, whereby reducing the capacity to 35 uf from 48 then enabled
      the .2A identical reactance to occur.

      This became a new test for voltage rise and conduction using the
      nameplate caps at 35 uf, where in series with the thought 2.28 mh of
      spirals, a resonance should be established since they individually
      recorded equal amperages with the no field readings. And indeed the
      performance increased for the no field scenario, where initially a
      1.38 stator voltage enabled a conduction of .8A, with an internal
      voltage rise measured at 5.8 volts, for a q of 4.2. To show how
      invariant the no field readings can be the same test today showed
      between 1.25-1.29 volts across the 48 uf circuit, where with an
      internal voltage rise of 5.3 volts this still also gave approximately
      the same Q for no field conditions at 4.17. Using the new combination
      of 35 uf yeilded a paradoxical increase of that stator no field
      voltage to 2.4 volts, with an internal voltage rise of 8.5 volts
      enabling .88A increase of conduction from the former .8A, but the q
      voltage rise from source to internal is then only measured as 3.5.
      With a 14.75 stator voltage in real operating conditions, 57.5 volts
      appears enabling a conduction of 6.25 amps, where the voltage rise is
      only 3.89 times the source voltage.

      It is obvious that by Q equals X(L)/R that the voltage rise must be
      at least equal to the value of X(L) since R ~ equals 1,( measured at
      1.05 ohms) the inductive reactance of a 2.28 mh inductor at 480 hz is
      by X(L)=2pi(f)(L)= 6.28*480*.00228= 6.87, so if the voltage rise Q
      were not this quantity, the ohms law conduction will not be
      developing. Hence the first recording where equal reactive inputs did
      not take into account the ACTUAL STATOR VOLTAGE RISE, that
      accompanied the accomplishment of equal amperage when the equal
      conductions of capacitive reactance, to the same quantities made for
      comparison of currents were made. Now evidently that simple reactive
      current test means that just because equal amperages were made with
      the respective L and C quantities, this DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE EQUAL
      REACTANCES, without also factoring in the respective voltage
      application by (no field)stator for each case. It is seen in retests
      of the first circuit that for a no field readings of the series
      circuit using 48 uf and 2.28 uf 1.29 stator volts is increased to
      1.74 volts to enable .2A for the inductive reactance measurement.
      Notes indicate that the exiting 48 uf alone yeilding .29 Amps were
      also accompanied by 2.34 volts from the stator enabling the
      conduction to occur and the replacement value of 35 uf enabling the
      identical consumption of .2 A changed the stator voltage to 2.24
      volts Thus actually this being 28.7 % higher voltage to accomplish
      equal conduction, the actual reactance needed for resonance must be
      too high for this be accurate for actual equal reactances to be
      existing. Thus we already have measured the X(L) quantity as a
      conduction of .2A with a 1.74 volt no field stator, which is then by
      Z=V/I or 1.74/.2= 8.7 ohms Finding the equal capacitive reactance of
      8.7 ohms at 480 hz to be about 38 uf, the second retuning becomes
      trying that value. This however yeildes a better conduction of 8 amps
      with a 15 volt stator, with approximately 68 volts, for a better q
      voltage rise of 4.5 times the voltage input. The no field readings
      are 2 volts enabling 8.05 internal volts to accomplish .9A
      conduction, just over 10% the conduction enabled with energized field
      yeilding the 15 volts stator value, where using the former 35 uf, it
      yeided only 6.25 A instead of 8.

      Now the logical need for even a third retuning might easily be
      understood by actually comparing the ACTUAL reactance with energized
      field vs no field, where as I have indicated in the past, the
      parametric source emf's do NOT ALWAYS MODEL what happens with the
      field in actual energized state producing the real currents. In fact
      in the above case the Q for the no field case is around 4, but around
      4.5 for the energized field producing ~ 15 volts at the stator. In
      15 VOLT STATOR, which is why I retested the circuit for that mode
      today. Thus we should never base assumptions from what is recorded
      from the no energized field condtion, as to what will occur with the
      real condtions with higher volumes of current conduction. But it is
      useful to compare in every instance identical condtions for both
      scenarios, so when the differences are noted, this is so because
      they can be observed only by making many comparisons. Usually the no
      field readings will give a higher q factor, not a lower one. The
      above procedure for dermining the correct resonance for no field
      considerations should be correct except for the additional mistake of
      estimating the inductive reactance to be the same as the impedance Z,
      where this can be done with higher resiatnce components, but not the
      low resistance ones here. How the 1.05 ohms of resistance might
      change things are also included in the 3rd retuning. Now the Quote"
      internal resistance and impedance of the stator windings" ARE
      factored into that equation but provide little change for the chosen
      C value because of the following facts.

      First we are given an inductance that should allow a conduction
      determined by its inductive reactance, where it has been carelessly
      estimated as the actual impedance measured by Z=V/I. However the
      inclusion of that ohmic figure in the equation would only make the
      impedance less and not greater, and it can be shown that the error in
      necessary reactance adjustment for this factor is only 1%, even
      through the ratios of X(L) and R are at ~ 7/1 ratio. Now an actual
      energized field reading of the impedance Z of the 1.05 ohm spirals
      showed the for 14 volts stator, 1.8 amps conduction resulted. This
      gives a new Z value of 7.77 ohms, which for the no field measurements
      was 8.75 ohms. The correct procedure then would be to deduce the
      actual X(L) quantity. Since Z=sq rt{X(L)^2+R^2}, we can square Z to
      make it 60.5 ohms which will the be equal to {X(L)^2+R^2} Now R
      squared with 1.05 value is 1.1 ohms. For purposes later shown we can
      estimate the stator resistance as .2 ohms where 1.25 ohms squared
      added to the considerations becomes 1.56 ohms. Subracting first the
      1.1 from the 60.5 yeilds 59.4, where X(L) would then be sq rt{59.4}
      =7.70 ohms, about a 1 % deviation from 7.77 ohms where X(L) was
      eastimated as Z. Adding the internal stator resistance to that
      equation would make it instead sq rt {58.94}= 7.67 ohms. Thus the
      capacitor having a reactance near this value would be 43.3 uf having
      a reactance of 7.66 ohms at 480 hz.

      Thus it seems far more accurate to report that X(L) of the spirals
      can be estimated as a 27% increase to 8.75 ohms for no field
      conditions, compared to a lesser increase of 7.77 ohms vs the initial
      estimation established by X(L)~= Z even for 1 vs 7 ohms of resistance
      vs reactance: where using the correct predictions of what X(L) should
      be as 6.87 for an ideal acting component., and what it actually
      appears as the higher reactance of 1.8 amps enabled by a 14 volt
      stator shows that Z= 7.77 ohms,only a 12.8% higher reactance where in
      the case with conventionally derived currents from the midrange
      stator voltages available, this then seems to be a more realistic
      approach for the inclusion of the stator impedances themselves as Z
      (internal) being principally responsible for the rise in that
      reactance value that was previously denounced as a real vs ideal
      scenario, when in fact it may be explainanable by Z (int) of the
      stator. Having mentioned this to be meter recorded at between .22
      and .26 mh, and the testing coil at 2.28 mh, that is 10% extra
      impedance to be added, thus 1.1*6.87 ohms =7.55 ohms, well within
      experimental agreement since much wider voltage fluctuations seem to
      ocurr with these lower resistance loadings, and by the time one looks
      at a second meter, the second one is providing a different reading.
      where only camera shots become more reliable estimations of what is
      happening simultaneously with the readings. Sony Camera soon will be
      enabled for these needs.

      Now a test at 43.4 uf in series with the spirals as the closest match
      convenient for the needed capacity showed not much improvement. For
      the no field readings the q voltage rise increased to a 1.61 volt
      stator enabling 7.38 volts internal for a no field Q of 4.58. The
      voltage regualtion from the variac that normally establishes 14-16
      volts at the stator was then enabling only ~ 11.7 stator volts, with
      internal voltage rise recorded as 55.9 volts enabling 7.3 amps.This
      is also a better real current q of 4.77, although now input field
      energy problems may be occuring. By adding another LC set on another
      phase we should expect 1.7 times this voltage rise between the
      midpoints, or about 8.1 times the stator voltage made by the
      interphasal application. thus making 30 stator volts available, a 240
      volt reading should be obtainable. This will drop considerably when
      the impedance of the pole pig primary is added as the interphasal
      impedance load.

      To finish here a series oif useful experiments was also made to try
      and determine the actual impedance or componenets of said R(int) of
      stator winds, which prooved to be totally irrational. One can only
      conclude that no impedance exists when the stator windings are
      shorted, and only a miniscule ~ .2 ohms of resistance appears to be
      acting, both in no field and real field tests.

      To breifly describe this, the practice of observing the voltage
      applied divided by the resultant amperage is used to derive the
      impedance Z , or Z=V/I. As mentioned a single shorted stator winding
      will produce 1.5 amps in no field conditions. To be more precise here
      first the no field stator was measured at 2.22 volts, where after
      shorting it became reduced to .294 volts, or 294 mv, that then
      enabled 1.57 amps conduction. Thus Z =.1872 ohms for the shorted
      phase. Next the adjacent phase was shorted, although no meters
      recorded that phases action, we can easily assume it does the same as
      the phase being measured. Then the voltage dropped to 280 mv enabling
      1.51 a conduction,(total of 3A from 2 phases). The Z for the two
      phase application for each phase can be calculated at Z= .1854 ohms
      Next the last phase was shorted showing a dramatic reduction to .7 A
      conduction on the shorts, with the further reduction of 135 mv
      appearing making the Z comparable at .1928 ohms. But now only a total
      of 2.1 amps on the shorts must be occuring, thus the logical
      efficient reason for obtaining only a dual phase interphasing to pole
      pig primary seems to be indicated by the no field readings.

      Of course as I seem to be preaching here, the no field readings by no
      means should be the basis to predict what will happen in real field
      condtions, so a careful testing of this with shorts was also made.
      The variac AC to DC by transformer step-down of voltage and filtered
      DC rectification by diodes and cap to field rotor was turned up
      gradually so that 2 amp and 4 amp measurements across a single short
      could be made.

      For 2.1 amps across the short, only .39 volts was appearing across
      the stator output, showing Z =.1857 ohms.
      For 3.9 amps appearing across the short, only .73 volts was appearing
      across the stator outputs. Thus then Z=.1871 ohms

      This was established at a variac input level that will normally
      establish about 14 volts with even these low resitance 1 ohm loads,
      and as noted this level was further reduced to about a 11.7 volt
      level in the third retuning. Further investigations into whether
      actual less current is going into the field under those conditions to
      fathom whether this is the cause for that voltage drop should be made
      and reported on. However as is seen here the voltage drops
      DRAMATICALLY ON SHORT, and the custoMARY thinking on that matter is
      that when that item is shorted, it then reveals how much current
      limiting can take place, and the circuit for equal field input to
      establish those currents should never exceed that current measured at

      In fact the supreme confusion that might be appearing at this moment
      in the readers mind is the same paradox of seeming confusion
      initiated when confronted with a paradox, and the minds habit to
      immediately form hypotheses to explain the paradox, whereby some kind
      of statement should be made to explain the paradox. Here the simple
      paradox can be shown by utilysing a single phase of the alternator
      present as what can be aquired as the delivery of a delta output by 3
      wires, where this is converted from the wye wiring inherent for
      stator output windings, where the remaining free ends of the stator
      windings are tied to a common pt, which is why that stator connection
      is noted as WYE. For the rotation aquired on the 7 pole face rotor
      to achieve 480 hz, a certain amount of amperage thru the field rotor
      coil may cause 14 volts to appear on empty loaded stator. AT THAT
      OUPUT STATOR VOLTAGE LEVEL achieved by the field amperage conduction,
      it is then noted that a short on that single phase will then deliver
      ~ 4 amps: whereby the conventional opinion of electrical engineers
      accustomed to the prevalent opinion inherent with the conecept of
      current limiting by source impedance would declare that stator
      winding to be current limited to 4 amps with that impressed field
      amperage. Thus the supposed electrical engineer might be quite
      surprised that in actuality the placing of a 1 0hm resonant circuit
      on that same alternator stator that should yeild less the the current
      limited 4 amps, in fact DOES AND CAN YEILD 7 or 8 amps.

      Now that concept itself of current limiting by outside impedance
      need not be attempted to be DEBUNKED AS NONSCENSE, but as the simple
      fact of observation. Those folks simply dont understand the Marxist
      concept. As Karl noted, From Each according to his Ability/To each
      According to his Needs. One can in take out the short and instead in
      fact obtain more current out of a resonant circuit inserted than in
      fact if a short were placed there,(or otherwise Dr. Wrongway has
      stepped in mud again, And I am wrong on the matter) where that fact
      of observance is made by the respective voltage drop observed in
      conjunction with placing that short upon the outputs, ECT. At 14
      volts, with 12 ohms of resistance added in resonance combination, it
      should be easy to get 1 amp conduction, where the previous
      theory "current limitation vs short on same output."holds valid,
      since a short placed there will then yeild 4 amps conduction. I
      would think that for the single coil resonance formerly made with 10
      mh using 10 uf can outperform the 4 amp short ratio also with 14
      volts stator, so I will definitely report back next as to whether
      this is true. But what is essentially true is that the invariance
      consists of the reduction of amperage unable

      So it is definitely humorous to me at this point in time to advocate
      the correct Marxist view,as Doc would say I was howling.so even
      though the Marx's involved are two different people entirely! I
      regard it as a typical British humor, such as the Marxist viewpoints
      also expressed on Monty Python, and that only certain folks would be
      clued into the inside clue. So having some fun tonight, I wish
      everyone a merry Xmas ect, and see ya later... as hillbilly
      tennesee Doc would say I was howling.

      Sincerely Harvey D Norris/ aka HDN/aka harvich
      Oops this was supposed to be reinserted somewhere above in the
      conversation concerning no field observations and can just be added
      to presumptions and realities to be potentially verified In what
      Tesla himself has termed the Adventure of Discovery, rather than mere
      inventions made on drawing boards.

      Shorting the Individual L and C components showed a difference in
      stator voltage that developes, and if we accept the fact that the
      stator needs a high value of 500 uf to resonate, this seems to get
      mirrored in the fact that the "no field" voltage readings then show a
      higher voltage when placed across capacitive reactances, since this
      must be in some degree supplying resonant rise to the original emf,
      as cancellation of inherent L of the source.Additional comments on
      this were that with a 12 uf cap test as a solitary load across the
      single stator outputs to note possible deviances of X(C) to the
      impedances made by the reactances. Notes of these are only wonderings
      established by data, or just junk data in notes. But further notes
      here are explored with the hypothesis that a large capacitive
      reactance to the source no field stator would display a
      characteristic possibility there. So for a nameplate 12 uf test the
      NF reading yeilds 2.2 stator voltage enabling 78.8 ma eastablisling
      the Z by division as 27.918 ohms. This is remarkably close to
      equation X(L) calculated to be 27.64 ohms by capacitive reactance
      equation. The LCR meter reading of that cap value was slightly less
      than 12 uf, thus verifying the slightly lower reactance value,
      meaning less ohmic value by calculations. From notes a real current
      test at 15 volts level ordinary expected stator voltage in turn then
      only enabled only 10.6 volts to appear at stator enabling a
      conduction of .36A, indicating for the real current testing of
      stators at that voltge level, the Z impedance was apparently
      increased to 29.4 ohms.

      The finished addition of many capacities added from the tank
      configuration noted a continual increase of current from 35-48 uf by
      nameplate values, when applied as the tank circuit. To start from
      some levels to indicate the differences of the real circuit actions;
      @16 volt stator normally made by the variac regulation of field to
      establish that level: the thing being tested in turn influences the
      source supply of voltage, so that in the end result the actual stator
      voltages rise with the assumed stiff voltage supply of the variac to
      transformer that should guaranteed unwavering amperage to the field,
      however this aspect has not been investigated to know for sure. but
      comparisons are apt to give the idea here.

      So for 37 uf in tank, the 16 volt stator regulation gives only .46 A
      into the loop, with 1.73 A measured inside the loop.
      Thus making a small chart here the left is the (actual) ma input
      using the uf values and the right is the amperage inside the loop.
      37 uf yeilds .46 A to 1.73 A in tank
      38 uf yeilds 1.76A in loop, no change in input
      39 uf yeilds 1.85 A in loop, .45A into loop
      40 uf yeilds 2.04 A in loop, .45 A into loop., ...
      44 uf yeilds 2.3 A inside loop. with .47 amps being inputed.
      So by the time all these small additions of small values by 48 uf
      were supposed be existant, that recording made
      48 uf by actual LCR measurement to be 49.7 uf in actuality,: in turn
      by increased capacitive reactance placed against that stator source
      enabling its voltage rise to be determined by the stiff steady
      amperage consumption of the field supply supposed to be invariant,
      actually in the latter circumstances seems to provide 17.5 volts
      stator at near 50 uf, when it only supplied 16 volts starting with
      tests at 37 uf in tank. At the finish then..,
      49.7 uf then enabled .54 Amps into loop, with 2.48 Amps inside the
      loop, a low resistance, resonant amperage rise q of almost 5, when
      before the series resonant votage rise q was only 4 for identical C
      values being tested, establishing the common fact that in Britain's
      glorius history of literature, Holmes always remarked to Watson about
      the Game being afoot, thus perhaps a rereading of those early
      encounters would be in order. Here a confusion is made by the fact
      that no limiting impedance has yet made its predicted appearance with
      those limitations that should start becomeing evident within the
      predicted values for C being in the probability of being the resonant
      values to satisfy the tank equation, and we are left wondering how
      high the capacitance can go before this effect ceases to be!

      To determine this the spiral can be removed from the tank and the
      reactances again noted. In that case with the highest values tested
      at 49.7 uf removing the spiral only enables somewhat the more
      conduction, again about 3 fold at 1.55 amps, but with 10.8 volts
      appearing as stator voltage. Thus in that case the real acting
      current example shows Z as 6.96 ohms. Now the actual Z to be expected
      by X(C) would be 6.67 ohms, actually a 4.3% variance of expectations
      found in the twilight zone. HDN
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.