> Are you familiar with basic electrical theory and

This is what needs to be investigated further. From

> Faraday's law, Lenz law eddy currents, etc?

>

> VOLTS * AMPS = WATTS

>

> Volts or Amperes of current by themselves is NOT

> power. Battery can have VOLTAGE, but no power output

> if nothing is connected to it. With super conductor

> you have current with no power loss. BUT even with

> regular conductors, if well designed, there is

> little

> power loss from I^2R or Current * Current *

> Resistance

> = Power. A good wire doesn't "loose" or dissipate

> much

> power. Most of the current and voltage goes through

> the wire.

>

> In brief, if you get current from a generator it

> creates an opposing force to the changing magnetic

> field. That requires more mechanical input power to

> the generator.

what I fathom I completely agree, the "true" power

input is only the I squared R heating loss of the

wire. However if the coiled wire is resonant to the

frequency of the generator, and has a coresponding C

value in series with the L value, an energy transfer

between magnetic and electric fields can exist. This

can be computed into joules/sec and compared to the

heat loss wattage. In the case for the single L value

as a reactive state; whereby the current lags behind

the voltage according to the phase angle of the

inductor, the amount of energy storage is .5LI^2. This

energy storage is said to exist as borrowed and

returned energy to the generator. Thus "How Much"

mechanical drag will the generator have when part of

this energy transfer from the generator consists of

that "borrowed and returned" energy transfer? The net

effect of then removing this effect of obtaining the

energy transfer of magnetic/electric field oscillation

itself from the generator is that remarkably the

amount of energy transfer occuring in its reactive

state is enhanced q times, where the theoretical q

factor is simply X(L)/R: but more importantly it is

now an oscillation of energy "between" mangnetic AND

electric fields, rather then an oscillation of

borrowed and returned energy with the generator. As

such the load demand as that removal of power source

would dictate should have gone down at the mechanical

input end. In construction of a maximum power transfer

resonance at 480 hz, it seemed remarkable also that

the alternator could output ten amps per phase, a

total of 30 amps, without any appreciable stator core

heating. What seemes bizaare is that these circuits,

having a q of 5, or 8.5 between phases; is that one

can take a 3/8 inch sample of ferrite between these

phases of 5 fold voltage rise, and it will quickly

glow hot within minutes, so much so that a 900 degree

F temperature is achieved. In this situation the

acting resistance of the ferrite has been changed from

20-30,000 ohms to 7 ohms where the 21 volts difference

between phases enables 3 amp of current to be drawn

through the ferrite. The ferrite glow is accomplished

with 63 watts of real observable heat power: BUT

according to phase angle theory the outside supply AC

circuits that can enable these ferrite rectifications

between them must have had its phase angle changed

since it now consumes much less current then it did in

the series resonant case; and essentially then the

load between these phases has driven the circuit into

a power factor correction direction. If we then take

this into consideration, and use the phase angle

method to compute the true power input for the ferrite

heating process, we find that the output exceeds the

"true" power input when those laws are used. I then

think that for this particular example those laws do

not apply, and the apparent power input as VI must

also be considered the true power input. Otherwise we

have a true paradox. The only way all these things

could be known for sure is to measure the mechanical

input power for all these cases.

These circuits I used were of 7 ohms impedance @ 480

hz, which means the load resistance was matched to the

supply lines impedance. The circuits having a q of 5,

have a 5 fold increase of both current and internal

voltage rise within the circuit to accomplish this.

Those outside circuits only behave that way if their

is no load betweeen the phases, and If a trisectional

wye is employed between the phases as a short between

the delta phases voltage rise; this topologically

changes the entire circuit from three phases of series

resonances procurred in Delta to three tank circuits

procurred in WYE, with each of these tank circuits

having shared internal pathways beween phases. In this

situation then 5 times more current exists in the

loops as what the stator lines input.(The resonant

rise of amperage in a tank circuit as governed by q

factor) By using a load that is impedance matched to

the supply lines it also seems practical to note that

if the ferrite heating process is shorted, it only

draws a current slightly higher that what the heating

effect will deliver. Another paradox exists with

regard to the true power input to the tank circuit.

Evidence suggests that the current is 180 out of phase

to the impressed voltage in this case. The phase angle

laws of considering the "instanteous" voltage and

amperage as the true power input seems inadequate for

this situation.

HDN

Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/