> Original poster: "Paul Nicholson by way of Terry

Exactly. However I did jump the gun concerning thinking the circuit

> 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?

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

I am unsure how I could measure that relationship, but I am assuming

> 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?

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,

No I havent and again thanks for pointing it out. I have since

> --

> Paul Nicholson

> Manchester, UK

> --

>

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

fact the spirals DO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OF REACTANCE FOR A

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

short, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A CORRESPONDING VOLTAGE DROP OF THE SOUCE

EMF UNDER THOSE SHORT CONDITIONS.

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

Addendum...

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