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

Re: Example of "Mis-tuned" Resonances

Expand Messages
  • Harvey D Norris
    ... (2nd Reply) For those having no inkling of what I am talking about, let me clarify the matter. Two equal and opposite reactances are initially placed in
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 15, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In teslafy@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey D Norris" <harvich@...> wrote:
      >
      > The following example will be shown in the video. Two identical L values and two identical C values are placed in series with an amperage meter in the center for each branch, and tuned thereby to have identical reactances. Now all four amperage meter ends are disconnected and each reactive branch paired with its opposite reactance so as to make conduction. The circuit will now be mistuned. It should be easy to guess the remedy for this.
      > HDN
      (2nd Reply)
      For those having no inkling of what I am talking about, let me clarify the matter. Two equal and opposite reactances are initially placed in series on two parallel branches, where amperage meters on each branch show equal reactive amperage consumptions, and those amperage meters are placed in the middle of each circuit. This is of no importance for the C series side of the circuit, but it is of crucial importance for the L series side of the circuit, because those two coils can have mutual inductance. when we make the first measurement both the C values and the L values are in series, but the L values in series are also each altered by their mutual inductance with each other. The windings arranged to be in series in magnetic agreement give a higher inductance. These reactive values are fine tuned to be in exact agreement with C values by moving two stacks of L coils close enough together adjacently so that the reactance of each coil side is displaced by mutual inductance to meet the C value requirement for resonance.

      Now by taking the two center wires of each conduction path and switching them to the opposite reactance coil pathway made from the center, this now makes the individual coils magnetic fields to be made in opposition, where formerly in series they were in magnetic agreement which supplies the higher inductance, which supplied the exact C value of opposite reactance when the coils were in series. The reason the magnetic interaction changed was because two mechanisms are responsible for polarity in series resonance, but only one of these are present in parallel resonance. The common sense has been in front of us the whole time, but we did not know how to voice it, because it seems so mystical. We can divide one, but not the either. We can create the opposite of a series resonance, which is its inverse, but we cannot create the opposite of its counterpart tank circuit. We started out here showing the example of a tank circuit; and by changing the connections of the center wires converted this to its series resonant counterpart, but that counterpart actually has two faces and not one.

      Can you reverse the input connections to a tank circuit and expect its magnetic polarity in time to be reversed... No.

      Can you reverse the connections to a series resonance and expect its magnetic polarity in time to be reversed... Yes.

      As time went on I understood that each field from each process is 180 degrees out of phase, BUT only one side can be changed in polarity interaction with the other opposite, which is the series resonant side that can be altered. This means that we can change the wire direction of input on that side of the equation and it will then alter the actions incurred when we change the circuit from a condition of parallel resonance to that of two mutually interacting series resonances, where here by this reconnection of conduction paths from parallel to series resonances, because the double negative is not yet applied by the reversal of input wires on one set of coils, the fields that were formerly in magnetic agreement in parallel resonance, have now become in magnetic opposition by virtue of the simple fact that hey have been converted in the pairing to sets inversely each producing fields in opposition, but a remedy is present on the second case by reversal of input wires. However for the cited case this "REMEDY" is not yet applied, in which case this is an example of a "mis-tuned" resonance. We then simply have to reverse the wires to show the reaction supposedly incurred in the corrected mimicing pattern as one would suppose by resonance.

      Holmes the game is afoot, and that damned hound haunts me. The data doesnt always support the observation.
      HDN
    • Harvey D Norris
      (3rd Reply on this subject showing corrections) ... I will now explain the conundrum that developed here that should now be corrected. Two issues can be
      Message 2 of 7 , Nov 16, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        (3rd Reply on this subject showing corrections)
        --- In teslafy@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey D Norris" <harvich@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In teslafy@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey D Norris" <harvich@> wrote:
        > >
        > > The following example will be shown in the video. Two identical L values and two identical C values are placed in series with an amperage meter in the center for each branch, and tuned thereby to have identical reactances. Now all four amperage meter ends are disconnected and each reactive branch paired with its opposite reactance so as to make conduction. The circuit will now be mistuned. It should be easy to guess the remedy for this.
        > > HDN
        > Guess not indeed...!!!
        > It is difficult to present things when the answers come out contrary to how you think those answers should come out. This then means a different gameplan of demonstration. The meters are set up for demo, but my conclusions were wrong. I suppose I should just show the results but I have to support my former conclusions in context with why I supposed such an action to take place in the first place.
        >
        > One must be patient and follow the arguments before the evidence itself can be understood. As such a somewhat long conclusion is reached from the experimentation, which again did not support my suppositions as they are called. Here specifically however I will return to this example and show the results, but neither this nor its opposite reaches the desired conclusions.
        > Sincerely HDN
        I will now explain the conundrum that developed here that should now be corrected. Two issues can be brought forward, never trust a nameplate capacity value and make sure the parameters of the resonance are actually being observed where this can always usually be obtained by making individual reactance measurements of each side of conduction. Now this first step was fulfilled, we can show a circuit of cancelling reactance currents that are equivalent to each other to a half of a percent or more or less. This then can show the "acting" q factor of the circuit by the ratio of the reactive currents in the loop to that of the input current, where this shows 5-6 times greater current in the loop then is being imputed. Next we split the parallel resonance into two inversely phased series resonances by giving each central amp meter a new routing where the meters formerly being between identical reactances will now be between opposite reactances, which by definition is making a change of circuit from tank condition to a pairing of series resonances that also must be mirror image or inverse to each other; which also means or at least should mean that two things will change. The first thing that changes is the direction of one coils magnetic field with respect to the other ones. Since the C values themselves were obtained from a value determined by that magnetic field interaction, and the new magnetic interaction is opposite to the former one used as the basis for the circuits tuning, this combination of making the series resonant pairings made inversely must be wrong, and thus I have called it a "mis-tuned" resonance. Obviously to correct this we need merely reverse the connections to one of the coils that ensures that its magnetic field in time is also reversed. Now in each of these examples we can put voltage meters on the caps and another third voltage meter between them. This gives an indication of how far out of phase each series resonant voltage rise is to the other, and that middle voltage meter can only be the sum of the outside voltages in the situation where those outside voltages are completely 180 degrees out of phase with each other. And one other tank circuit test is available which is adding the reactance paths together on a common line from opposite directions. If each reactance then is close to being 180 out of phase with the other then the sum of those reactance currents to unity should occur, or simply a doubling of the outside reactive currents along the pathway they share in common. This is the essential point I wished to show in the video. Now if one takes arrows and follows the reactive pathways from identical potentials to their opposite potential points one finds a figure 8, with the middle lateral segment being the one shared by both the inductive and capacitive pathways. Now the arrows showing each current pathway are in opposite directions on this segment, but what normally should be cancellation becomes unity because the currents themselves are 180 out of phase in time with each other. The importance of showing this is it opens the door to designing a tesla primary in the same way. The simple advantage is this, the normal tesla primary is current limited by the capacity in series with it, and as such the currents on the primary and capacity are equal. It would seem obvious that the currents on the primary are responsible for the secondary high voltage currents. What the binary resonant circuit possibility shows is that it is possible to double the currents on that primary with respect to its current limiting capacity in series with it; and this is done by charging two capacities oppositely in parallel and discharging them at twice their charging voltage across the primar(ies) themselves constructed with a midpoint arc gap. This circuit is actually a capacitor voltage doubling system or Marx Gap. Such a scenario demands many changes of operation, including the fact that four times more capacity is being charged by the source prior to arc gap ignition, and during the arc gap connection the capacitive reactance being charged is four times less. Leaving these TC issues behind here, I quickly found out that practically NONE of these effects were being shown in my coil demo. I was only obtaining about a 25% increase of reactive currents in unison, and the voltage comparison readings in series resonance were delivering poor results, so bad that of these two combinations, the combination of resonances in the mistuned state was delivering a better relative voltage rise between the phases then what the correction delivered! I was shaking my head, thinking what is going on now, and how can this be, it is simply in direct contradiction to all of my theories on the subject!
        To make a long story short here is how all these errors occurred. I wanted to use just my few high voltage capacitors that are commonly used in tesla coil work and I rounded up six .1 uf caps. I also had to arrange them in combination so that their reactance equals that of the coil system. This was done by putting two in series, and having each of them in parallel with two more. All six high voltage caps of supposedly equal value had done the job of supplying this equal reactance. The trouble is though, when I split the value in half, this was not a true split, which also meant that the resonances derived from this split were themselves off tuned. This was seen as soon as voltage meters were placed across each side in the measuring of the capacitive reactance, more voltage was present on one side then the other. A LCR meter check showed that one side was correct at .151 uf, but that the other side was low by almost 20 nf. After rounding up 12 high voltage capacitors of .25 uf and placing these in series and adding that capacity to the low side, this corrected the mis-balance. After making all new measurements everything seems to closely jive with theory. As such I am probably ready to make a you tube in a day or two.
        Sincerely HDN
      • Luther Goodman
        Hi Harvey,   Forgive me for asking but what is your youtube channel name?   thanks and best regards,   Luther ... From: Harvey D Norris
        Message 3 of 7 , Nov 16, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Harvey,
           
          Forgive me for asking but what is your youtube channel name?
           
          thanks and best regards,
           
          Luther


          --- On Mon, 11/16/09, Harvey D Norris <harvich@...> wrote:

          From: Harvey D Norris <harvich@...>
          Subject: [teslafy] Re: Example of "Mis-tuned" Resonances
          To: teslafy@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Monday, November 16, 2009, 11:08 AM

           

          (3rd Reply on this subject showing corrections)
          --- In teslafy@yahoogroups .com, "Harvey D Norris" <harvich@... > wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In teslafy@yahoogroups .com, "Harvey D Norris" <harvich@> wrote:
          > >
          > > The following example will be shown in the video. Two identical L values and two identical C values are placed in series with an amperage meter in the center for each branch, and tuned thereby to have identical reactances. Now all four amperage meter ends are disconnected and each reactive branch paired with its opposite reactance so as to make conduction. The circuit will now be mistuned. It should be easy to guess the remedy for this.
          > > HDN
          > Guess not indeed...!!!
          > It is difficult to present things when the answers come out contrary to how you think those answers should come out. This then means a different gameplan of demonstration. The meters are set up for demo, but my conclusions were wrong. I suppose I should just show the results but I have to support my former conclusions in context with why I supposed such an action to take place in the first place.
          >
          > One must be patient and follow the arguments before the evidence itself can be understood. As such a somewhat long conclusion is reached from the experimentation, which again did not support my suppositions as they are called. Here specifically however I will return to this example and show the results, but neither this nor its opposite reaches the desired conclusions.
          > Sincerely HDN
          I will now explain the conundrum that developed here that should now be corrected. Two issues can be brought forward, never trust a nameplate capacity value and make sure the parameters of the resonance are actually being observed where this can always usually be obtained by making individual reactance measurements of each side of conduction. Now this first step was fulfilled, we can show a circuit of cancelling reactance currents that are equivalent to each other to a half of a percent or more or less. This then can show the "acting" q factor of the circuit by the ratio of the reactive currents in the loop to that of the input current, where this shows 5-6 times greater current in the loop then is being imputed. Next we split the parallel resonance into two inversely phased series resonances by giving each central amp meter a new routing where the meters formerly being between identical reactances will now be between opposite reactances, which by definition is making a change of circuit from tank condition to a pairing of series resonances that also must be mirror image or inverse to each other; which also means or at least should mean that two things will change. The first thing that changes is the direction of one coils magnetic field with respect to the other ones. Since the C values themselves were obtained from a value determined by that magnetic field interaction, and the new magnetic interaction is opposite to the former one used as the basis for the circuits tuning, this combination of making the series resonant pairings made inversely must be wrong, and thus I have called it a "mis-tuned" resonance. Obviously to correct this we need merely reverse the connections to one of the coils that ensures that its magnetic field in time is also reversed. Now in each of these examples we can put voltage meters on the caps and another third voltage meter between them. This gives an indication of how far out of phase each series resonant voltage rise is to the other, and that middle voltage meter can only be the sum of the outside voltages in the situation where those outside voltages are completely 180 degrees out of phase with each other. And one other tank circuit test is available which is adding the reactance paths together on a common line from opposite directions. If each reactance then is close to being 180 out of phase with the other then the sum of those reactance currents to unity should occur, or simply a doubling of the outside reactive currents along the pathway they share in common. This is the essential point I wished to show in the video. Now if one takes arrows and follows the reactive pathways from identical potentials to their opposite potential points one finds a figure 8, with the middle lateral segment being the one shared by both the inductive and capacitive pathways. Now the arrows showing each current pathway are in opposite directions on this segment, but what normally should be cancellation becomes unity because the currents themselves are 180 out of phase in time with each other. The importance of showing this is it opens the door to designing a tesla primary in the same way. The simple advantage is this, the normal tesla primary is current limited by the capacity in series with it, and as such the currents on the primary and capacity are equal. It would seem obvious that the currents on the primary are responsible for the secondary high voltage currents. What the binary resonant circuit possibility shows is that it is possible to double the currents on that primary with respect to its current limiting capacity in series with it; and this is done by charging two capacities oppositely in parallel and discharging them at twice their charging voltage across the primar(ies) themselves constructed with a midpoint arc gap. This circuit is actually a capacitor voltage doubling system or Marx Gap. Such a scenario demands many changes of operation, including the fact that four times more capacity is being charged by the source prior to arc gap ignition, and during the arc gap connection the capacitive reactance being charged is four times less. Leaving these TC issues behind here, I quickly found out that practically NONE of these effects were being shown in my coil demo. I was only obtaining about a 25% increase of reactive currents in unison, and the voltage comparison readings in series resonance were delivering poor results, so bad that of these two combinations, the combination of resonances in the mistuned state was delivering a better relative voltage rise between the phases then what the correction delivered! I was shaking my head, thinking what is going on now, and how can this be, it is simply in direct contradiction to all of my theories on the subject!
          To make a long story short here is how all these errors occurred. I wanted to use just my few high voltage capacitors that are commonly used in tesla coil work and I rounded up six .1 uf caps. I also had to arrange them in combination so that their reactance equals that of the coil system. This was done by putting two in series, and having each of them in parallel with two more. All six high voltage caps of supposedly equal value had done the job of supplying this equal reactance. The trouble is though, when I split the value in half, this was not a true split, which also meant that the resonances derived from this split were themselves off tuned. This was seen as soon as voltage meters were placed across each side in the measuring of the capacitive reactance, more voltage was present on one side then the other. A LCR meter check showed that one side was correct at .151 uf, but that the other side was low by almost 20 nf. After rounding up 12 high voltage capacitors of .25 uf and placing these in series and adding that capacity to the low side, this corrected the mis-balance. After making all new measurements everything seems to closely jive with theory. As such I am probably ready to make a you tube in a day or two.
          Sincerely HDN

        • Harvey Norris
          ... From: Luther Goodman Subject: Re: [teslafy] Re: Example of Mis-tuned Resonances To: teslafy@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday,
          Message 4 of 7 , Nov 16, 2009
          • 0 Attachment


            --- On Mon, 11/16/09, Luther Goodman <goodman_luther@...> wrote:

            From: Luther Goodman <goodman_luther@...>
            Subject: Re: [teslafy] Re: Example of "Mis-tuned" Resonances
            To: teslafy@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Monday, November 16, 2009, 12:12 PM

             

            Hi Harvey,
             
            Forgive me for asking but what is your youtube channel name?
             
            thanks and best regards,
             
            Luther
            http://www.youtube.com/user/harvich
            Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/



            _,_._,___

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