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

EPR references

Expand Messages
  • Harvey D Norris
    Marx Tank file; Investigation of the voltage doubling priniciple made by Marx Tank method http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/MARX/ Here what was being
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 7, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Marx Tank file;
      Investigation of the voltage doubling priniciple made by Marx Tank
      Here what was being done was to use only TWO 14 gauge coils, and then
      these were set into branches of inversely (180) phased series
      resonances, (A BRS, or Binary Resonant System), and this was done
      from only a SOLITARY phase from the three available from the
      alternator. Things are getting a bit more complicated here, where
      the experimentation involves using either two or all three phases,
      and the coil systems are much longer, and also mutual inductance
      between some of the phases are involved. The simple schematic and
      coils shown for the Marx Tank is shown at;
      Now look at how the capacitors are each hooked to opposite
      polarities, each connected to the opposite polarity: they should each
      be charging up oppositely, also each of the currents in each
      resonance should be opposite because those resonances are also
      oppositely phased. All this should occur, provided no center
      connection between the inversely phased branches occurs.
      What was further done was to use capacities that were NOT resonant to
      the coils and the frequency: this would be the adaptation of the same
      BRS principle to that of a tesla coil primary: where for the tesla
      coil circuit that tesla tank primary, as it is called then uses one
      coil and one capacitor. In contrast then the MARX TANK adaptation
      instead uses TWO Primaries, and TWO Capacities, and also the same

      All this is getting a little bit long winded and repetative, and I
      have not yet even set this up for such a MARX TANK tesla coil,
      although things are ready to go for testing with the finished bifilar
      primary, which is an outside project, where the late year weather is
      making things more difficult.

      But all this is mentioned in retrospect to show the problems of how
      the scopings refused to show what the principle is. I KNOW that a
      voltage doubling takes place because both the Tesla tank and the Marx
      tank primary ideas were actually tested with these large
      uncoventional multiturn coils with an NST, and with identical arc gap
      separations, the tesla tank takes twice the voltage to fire, then
      does the Marx tank. The expected frequencies that should develope
      according to classical tesla coil design, DO NOT DEVELOPE, probably
      because this multiturn coil is entirely unconventional, and this
      multiturn, multilayered coil has its own natural resonant frequency
      of 160,000 hz, which undoubtably overides the frequency that would be
      predicted by Thompsons resonance formula, which is the standard
      method of prediction made in constructing tesla coil primaries.
      But the point of the matter here is that "one thinks" one should
      easily be able to measure this "voltage doubling principle" by
      attaching scope probes on channel 1, and also scope probes on channel
      2, to be placed across the arc gap, and to just actually record those
      voltages without the arc gap actually being engaged. For a dual
      channel scoping, it just simply doesnt work. So then one can try
      using TWO different scopes. It still doesnt work! This is such a
      strange casuality loop, that even with two separate scopes, the
      principle can only be shown if the polarity connections referenced
      between the scopes is in a certain position of relativity between
      them. Following is from past records where this was noted with
      further comments in parentheses {}.

      From Marx Gap File
      Marx tank schematic/ test shows equal input and output voltages
      Here the marx gap is operated at 480 hz with alternator input in open
      condition where each midpoint is given a ruler, and a second voltage
      meter is attached at these midpoints. where each meter registers 2.2
      volts, thus initially no voltage rise seems to be apparent, however
      it is further thought thought this voltage itself is 180 out of phase
      with the input voltage as scope centered phasings from each two
      points in the circuit seem to indicate this.
      {Note; Again the voltage doubling can only be understood from the
      STANDPOINT OF RELATIVITY between the voltage being inputed, AND the
      voltage being outputed at midpoints. Neither the meters nor the
      upcoming scope pictures are able to show that exact relativity
      BETWEEN those systems, except for the fact that if the connections
      are made in a certain correct polarity fashion, one can see
      relatively that one voltage is 180 out of phase with the other. For
      the voltages delivered by the power company, one leg on one side of
      the center tapped pole pig has a voltage 180 out of phase with the
      opposite leg, and it that situation there are absolutely no problems
      in seeing and recording that, and no complex problems of this kind
      of relativity occur. If a voltage meter is placed across a single leg
      to ground, we get 120 volts for our household. If we include the
      second leg in series, we get 240 volts, because those voltages,
      referenced to each other are 180 out of phase, and instantaneously in
      time whenever one side is positive, the other is negative, leading to
      the simple assertion the that 180 phasing provides for a voltage

      Marx input and output scoping of voltage shows 180 phasing

      Unfortunately only one of the three Tek scopes at disposal have dual
      channel function. Additionally when the dual channel was tried it
      would not show two 180 phased traces, which enormously complicates
      this issue. In that situation if the input sensoring of the voltage
      was reversed, then two traces would appear, where it was noted that
      the interior voltage had practically vanished. Not believing the dual
      channel information I decided to instead use two separate scopes. In
      this case the same thing happens, in one polarity hookup, this causes
      a reduction of signal strength on the interior voltage, where both
      the scope and voltage meter show this.
      {Note; It may be a bit difficult to recognize this 180 phasing
      because of the different scopes being used. However each of these
      scopes have the AC form centered across the screen sweep. If one
      first looks at the top scope trace and identifies the y axis in the
      middle one can see its positive peak is about 1/3 of a division to
      the left. Doing the same thing for the bottom scoping one will see
      that its simultaneous voltage polarity is instead negative about 1/3
      div to the left}

      Reversal of input scope connections wipes out output voltage

      As mentioned if from this point one of the input supply lines
      carrying the actual operation are removed, then the circuit will
      record about half the normal voltage of normal operation.
      { This is what is so mind boggling about the casualities involved
      here, as to how can information being recorded by deflection of an
      electron beam on one instrument, influence the information made by a
      second totally separate instrument's electron beam deflection?
      Although I know little or nothing of quantum physics, this sounds
      like it might be an example of what is called the Einstein- Podolsky -
      Rosen effect. If one has a copy of "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by
      Gary Zukav, check the ending of the book, and most assuredly this
      book is a MUST for any serious experimentor. The last section is
      called Enlightenment. Chapter 1 is called "More than One". The
      next chapter is also called Chapter 1, "The End of Science", where
      the EPR effect is dealt with. I cant make any more comment on that
      for now without rereading that experiment, but it sounds reminiscent
      of the problems of logic going on with these examples. Note in the
      concluding paragraph above, I noted that only one connection to the
      outside electron beam sweep will still record about half the normal
      voltage of operation. Amazingly the same kind of effect takes place
      with the 60 hz BRS! When the device is not empowered, with the plug
      inserted into an outlet switch on a utility strip turned to the off
      position, about half of the ordinary household voltage will be
      present! This is so friggin impossible that folks will doubt what I
      am saying is true, so I will make it a point to show a camera photo
      of this, showing 60 volts coming from an off switch. Not only that,
      magnets can be used to turn that 60 volts into 120 volts. Then in
      that situation a small Radio shack neon can be lit also, again from a
      utility switch set to the off position. Where is the one wire that
      enables this operation? It is the ground connection made with that
      3rd prong of the plug of the utility strip!}

      Post note; This was from past records, I am tryin here to decipher
      what was going on.
      Apparently this stuff gets kind of wacky, so I am posting it to
      remind myself to look at these problems again.
      RestaTing things.

      1)Apparently the Marx circuit can function as a voltage doubler when
      two caps are oppositely charged, and then discharged from the
      opposite points in contact with the line connections

      2) this is done in a different way in the adaptation to a Marx Tank
      primary circuit, opposite points of the capacitor discharge, but now
      the circuits are in parallel with the samller impednce of the primary

      3) we should be able to put a voltage meter to record the voltage
      doubling effect, but it records the same voltage as the input. Then
      the scopings show paradoxes also. The polarity connections on the
      inside of the circuit are dependent on how the polarity connections
      on the outside of the circuit are placed, and if we try to obtain the
      input voltage vs twice the input, as an inphased voltage form with
      respect to each other, that is well ny impossible, even when two
      different scopes are used to record each value.

      4) the only way we can know or record this information is to show it
      in the form where two opposite voltages in time are co-existing. The
      question becomes, how do we "understand" this in terms of an actual
      voltage rise with respect to the source?

      5) Heres how we must think to resolve this. First of all we deal with
      the zero crossing issue. Arguments exist about this, including the
      issue of ballasting. The tesla primary arc gap will NATURALLY fire
      90 degrees out of phase with the supply voltage. This further
      implies that when it does this, the Input AC signal will be close to
      its zero crossing pt. The voltage that the capacitor AQUIRES, which
      SHOULD be synonomous with its AC current wave, is at a 90 degree
      phase relationship, implying that by the time the AC signal polarity
      has gone to zero, the greatest charge storage has occured on the
      capacitor. If it discharges at that state, it is disply discharging
      the voltage that has been applied to it. No voltage doubling has

      6) If we apply this same idea simultaneously to two positive and
      negative potentials, that each have parallel but separate pathways,
      the following deductions can take place;
      A) the capacitive current attached to the AC positive plate in time,
      will be 90 degrees out of phase with the source current.
      B) the capacitive current attached to the AC negative plate in time,
      will be 90 degrees out of phase with the source current.
      C) Normally if we were to graph out this phasing relationship for the
      single case we obtain the simple 90 degree relationship.
      D) However when we graph out the relationship between EACH of the two
      oppositely created 90 degree phasings, relative to the actions of
      each reactively created voltage to the other one, each
      instantanerously sourced from opposite potentials: these are now 180
      out of phase with the source voltage, which is exactly what the scope
      can tell us in one arrangement. Conceptially in time what should
      have been created by this is a voltage doubling from the original
      amount, BETWEEN those capacitive potentials, but our instruments
      would record it that way.

      7) I could be out to lunch on this issue but heres what seems to be
      happening. Equal, but opposite voltages are occuring on each
      observation in time, but they are also, and must by definition still
      be in a 90 degree relationship to the source. Time to stop this
      pandora's box entirely, and leave it for future consideration.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.