currents act when being inputed into a delta junction. The "light at

the end of the tunnel" concerning the first bit of understanding is

to realize that the stator line current represents the subtraction,

and not the addtion of the vector component currents on the arms of

the delta loads connected to the junction. This is a very obtuse

statement, not easily grasped or visualized as a complete

understanding, so we can go a little "further" and make more concrete

analogies where the concept is better imprinted for complete

understanding. I had noted that the 3 stator inputs might be compared

to the three connections of a center tap transformer on the output

end. This should be easily proven if necessary, but what has been

shown whereby the middle stator line connected to the solitary

junction serving two series resonances, in fact DOES NOT convey that

analogy, when the middle line current is near to, or greater than the

currents entering and leaving the remaining stator lines.

In fact for the center tap transformer analogy, if the loads are

balanced in each direction from the center outwards, no current will

be recorded on the center tap line, because of a net cancellation of

current loops taking place on the shared pathway. If we have only one

load from the center to the top connection only, we can imagine in a

single moment of time a clockwise circle of current taking place. If

we then add a equal load from the bottom terminal to the center

connection, we can imagine another similtaneous clockwise circle of

amperage. The arrows of current on the center shared pathway are then

in opposing directions, which is a net cancellation of current on

that pathway. Essentially the top phase current loop does not

complete its current loop journey through the center pathway, instead

it returns the current on the bottom phase, where the arrows of

simultaneous current directions are identical. At any moment in time

the current "leaving from a top terminal, being momentarily negative,

(considering the charge carrier to be an electron)'' will also have

its return loop of current being made to a positive terminal from the

bottom connection.

Now comparing the same actions with the stator lines of an

alternator, this same exact analogy of having the junction stator

line acting as a center tap can only happen if the entirely of the

current on one phase does not return on the middle junction stator

line, but instead returns on the adjacent phase. If this were to

occur we can also conclude that both of these currents themselves are

in unison, or they themselves are IN PHASE.

Now let us also return to the way these collection of 30 coils are

wired in their directions of current. The coils are made in two rows

of 15 coils each, and they are wired for magnetic unison so that if

the 30 coils were given action as a single loop of current, at any

spot between two coils there will be a north pole facing a south

pole. This fact also applies to the two ending coils of the two rows

on each ending of the two row system. This also implies that when we

look from the endings of the two rows of coils, and compare their

winding directions relative to each other, one will be clockwise, and

the other counterclockwise. This is also the same exact relationship

on the bifilar windings of a center tap transformer secondary, they

are wound oppositely so at the center opposite polarities of

transformation exist, and on the endings opposite polarities also

exist but at twice the voltage then either segment alone. ( Note;

that transformer analogy is probably better ignored for now, as it

raises unnecessary confusion.)

Now think about the statement of Lenz law, where we know that the

magnetic field induced on a coil system will provide "a magnetic

field in opposition," or it will set up induced currents on the coil

system to make a magnetic field to oppose the magnetic field that

created it. This is merely another way of saying that the currents

are 180 out of phase with each other. Now we know, or more precisely,

we thought we knew: that the phases of the alternator 3 phase should

produce 3 currents that are each 120 degrees out of phase with each

other. We also see that in this case of driving two series resonances

in mutual induction, that his has enormously complicated the issue,

and that measurements of those stator line currents indicate that

they are NOT 120 degrees out of phase, but something else. At first

without carefully analysing things we are tempted to think that the

resonant phases in mutual induction might instead be closely in phase

because almost twice, or in some cases (made by the as yet unspoken

assumption), more than twice the current from the shared junction

stator line exists compared to the remaining lines. This is

discounted by the vector subtraction argument, but again FURTHER

arguments are made here so that what is actually going on can be more

easily understood or visualized in a more concrete manner, without

necessarily citing the vector subtraction issue, or in the very least

to make that issue clearer than what the single statement makes.

We understand that if the currents were returning on the adjacent

phase, the middle stator line attached to both phases would convey

practically no current, because that current is returning on another

line elsewhere. This would make both of those currents closely in

phase, and it would also mean that on the endings of the two row coil

system we would have both a north and a south on the two coil row

endings. Now let us pretend that we know nothing of the vector

subtraction argument, but we are seeking an understanding of why and

how these stator line currents are working. Here we can use LENZ LAW

to explain our paradox! WE KNOW THAT THE MUTUAL INDUCTANCE BETWEEN

TWO RESONANCES ARE OCCURING, AND THAT THIS MUTUAL INDUCTANCE BY LENZ

LAW WOULD MEAN THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING A NORTH AND SOUTH AT THE

ENDINGS, WE SHOULD HAVE TWO NORTH'S ON ONE END, AND TWO SOUTH'S ON

THE OTHER END!

However we also know that relative to each coil system, each has

relative opposite directions of winding, and if the currents were

going in opposite directions with respect to the junction point, this

would mean that a north would be meeting a south: this would mean

that the current was returning on that branch, not on the junction

stator line,and we are forced by reasoning to conclude that the

currents on each branch MUST be going in the same direction, and each

must be sharing the same junction stator line for the return

currents, hence the apparent addition of those currents. All this

sounds good and fine, until a paradox of enormous ramification hits

us!

If two coiled identical currents in the same direction are making

identical poles, THIS ORDINARILY IMPLIES THAT THEY SHOULD BOTH HAVE

IDENTICAL WINDING DIRECTIONS! Yet we know by definition that this is

NOT THE CASE! Now at first here we become so confused that it

becomes easier to just forget everything we have learned and start

over from square one!

We think, or we suppose by delusion of the above argument that the

winding direction is the only prerequisite for determining polarity.

Going back to square one and removing all of our preconceptions,

starting from a fresh viewpoint, we know the above statement is

rediculous. No the winding direction is not the ONLY determining

factor for a polarity being created, we also have the fact that a

certain winding direction can create either pole, because we also

have the parameter of DECIDING THE CURRENT DIRECTION. In the above

argument we are forced to conclude that some additional unknown

parameter must be present in order for the stator currents to be

present as returning currents in unison at the junction, even though

this should be impossible. What has been done in the above argument

is to first show that we have eliminated one of the parameters of the

current direction, because that is known to be identical directions

on each of the branches in mutual induction, because of the amounts

of current found on the middle stator line.

That again is a delusion fostered by argument, BECAUSE THE LARGE

AMOUNT OF CURRENT FOUND ON THE MIDDLE STATOR LINE M, IS ONLY A LARGE

AMOUNT OF RELATIVE CURRENT WHEN IN FACT THOSE CURRENTS ARE IN

RESONANCE. If we measure just the reactive currents, this in fact no

longer occurs and then a larger amount of current then returns on the

adjacent phase, and the phasing relationships then appear to be a

more normal one! We can in fact make a clockwise wound coil system

produce either pole by the third parameter found with resonance,

WHICH IS HOW WE PHASE THE RESONANCE ITSELF! Thus by taking a

clockwise coil system next to a counterclockwise coil system, the

parameter of how they are wired for current directions get

superceeded by the parameter of how we phase the resonances! If we

wire the both the polarites and the resonances identically as

adjacent branches then of course the coil systems will produce

opposite poles, or identical poles depending on how those winding

directions are made relative to each other. But we can also produce

a kind of "double negative paradox", leading to unity, which is what

is being done here with ordered delta series resonances going around

the three phase circle as {stator line 1}, C1, L1 {stator line M},

C2, L2 {stator line 3}, and finally preserving this order if all

three phases were to be employed, the ending around the circle

connecting back to {stator line 1} would be the elements C3L3. This

is why we call them "ordered" DSR's consisting of C1L1, C2L2, C3L3

around the circle. If one of these orderings were to be reversed,

one of the phase angles would be changed from 120 to 60, and of

course changing this one would change all three of them. But here the

double negative paradox is made into unity by the fact that BOTH the

winding directions on adjacent branches and the resonance phasing

polarities appear opposite in relation to each other, whereby even

though the winding directions are opposite to each other, the

polarities of the endings are not, and if we took the connection to

{stator line 3} and disconnected it and reconnected it to {stator

line 1} we would then have a binary resonance system employed on only

a single phase when one branch C1L1 would be parallel to C2L2 in the

directions of going around that smaller circle, and the resonances

themselves would appear inversely, or oppositely phased to each other.

All of these things can start to sound so confusing, that at points

in time I begin to wonder if I have even explained it according to my

own understanding, and as to whether I am even confusing my own

understanding of things to myself! So as to not promote any more

confusion let us show this simple test of resonance, for just two

phases of alternator application. This test is to show first just the

individual inductive reactance currents, and this is done by shorting

out the capacitive reactances C1 and C2. Then the opposite procedure

is made by shorting out the inductive reactances L1 and L2. The test

for resonance will consist of the fact that these should show

approximately equal currents for both tests, since for resonance X(L)

= X(C), for equal voltage of application. The only additional

complication here will be the voltage meter left between the

midpoints of C1L1 and C2L2 where that meter will also be employed,

but only the stator voltage meter across C2L2 will be the known

indicator of voltage being delivered on phase 2. Phase 2 is actually

the connection between {stator line M} and {stator line 3} Since

these are two different models of Radio Shack meters, small

differences of voltage registry are noted with these meters. If one

draws out the figure A representing phase 1 to the left, and phase 2

to the right, and note how the shorts appear on the sides of the A,

it becomes apparent that for the first test where X(L) is shorted out

for both sides, the extra voltage meter on the lateral branch of the

A means that two voltage meters are both measuring phase 2. In the

second test showing the X(C) quantites being shorted, this implied

the Midpt 1-2 voltage meter is showing the voltage across phase 1,

and the stator meter is again showing the voltage across phase 2.

Additional complications here is that these readings were made at

2:30 AM, and while I am not exactly sure of this, I suspect that late

at night the power grid may be supplying a slightly higher frequency

than it does in the daytime when more power is consumed by industry.

This means that the motor turning the alternator may be rotating

slightly faster late at night. Thus on these readings the difference

in reactive currents seem more apparent where a higher frequency on a

capacitive reactance will allow for more current, and oppositely for

an inductive reactance, it will allow for less current, so that in

the net effect the conversion to ~ 480 hz by alternator will also

exagerate these differences of reactive currents so that a wider

margin of current differences might exist late at night in these

testings. Two new meters that can show frequency have been

purchased, and these potential differences in making night time and

daytime observations will be noted by those frequency differences of

application in the future, if in fact it exists.

First the test for the inductive reactance currents in supposed

mutual inductance is made by shorting out X(C) elements.

Dual Inductive Reactances X(L) in Mutual Inductance/ 20 Volt Variac

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/Dsc00301.jpg

14.22 Stator Volts enabling 30.0 ma on phase 1, from {stator line 1}

amperage comsumption indicates that this phase has slightly more

inductive reactance than phase 2, showing 31.7 ma amperage

consumption from {stator line 3} amperage consumption. The important

point here is that {stator line M} is no longer holding in excess to

the addition of these currents, which when these reactances are put

into resonance DOES hold in excess to the addition of those currents.

As theorized more current is now returning on the adjacent phase.

{Stator Line M} holding 54.1 ma has ~ 87.7% of the addition of those X

(L) currents.

2:30 AM Reactance Test for equal values of .75 uf on Phase 1 and 2/

20 volt Variac

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/Dsc00299.jpg

14.4 Stator Volts enabling ~ equal amperage consumptions of 32.8 ma

on phase 1, and 32.7 ma on phase 2. {Stator Line M} holding 55.2 ma

is ~ 84.3% of the addition of the X(C) currents. The higher stator

voltage for equal field rotor magnetisation of a 20 volt variac when

placed across capacities is typical, and for parametric no field

testings, this difference can become profound. In a test of a

resonant circuit employing low ohmic spirals using a large 160 uf

capacity, a full 1 volt difference of stator voltages was noted in

the past. Here because of the input voltage differences, we cannot

simply use the "Equal Currents" supposition when Z ~= X(L) for

resonance. The former conduction of phase 2 at 31.7 ma @ 14.22 volts

would actually be a 1.26% higher conduction were 14.4 volts actually

present, or a measurement of 32.1 ma, closer to the noted 32.7 ma

conduction noted here on phase 2. Needless to say we can see that

phase 2 will be much more resonant than phase 1 when the reactances

are placed in series, because the reactances are more closely

matched. We can also conclude that the X(L) values of conduction; the

one on phase 1 being 94.6 % less then the conduction on phase 2, does

not at all guarantee that this same % ratio of possible resonances

will develope when the reactances are placed in series. In fact the

lower value will only achieve about 57% of the resonance of the more

closely matched value, which can be shown from former jpegs, here

quickly shown again for comparisons in this end of posting.

The first mistake that is often made when this resonance is done is

to forget to change the amperage scales on the meters. The difference

of amperage that results when this is done can be formed into a ratio

to indicate the "acting" q factor, and when this is compared to the

theoretical q factor that should exist by calculation, this then

shows the limitation brought about by "internal capacity of windings"

at this higher frequency of ~480 hz. When actual frequency meters

are eventually placed into these circuits, we can make those

calculations with some assurance of these deviances, and also to show

how "internal magnetic compression" can be employed to alleviate

those limitations. This will be done on phase 1 to increase its

resonance, by turning one of the coils around to produce

this "magnetic compression" and to show how that method will increase

the acting q to a value closer to the theoretical q.

Finally to conclude this late night work, having gone on entirely too

long past original expectations, let us return to what has already

been noted by jpeg, to show how the "acting q" would be calculated on

phase 2, and to also note the apparent % deviance of resonance on

phase 1, and to note the % of "extra" current being induced

by "poorly tuned resonances in mutual inductance." This older

information is repeated here for reference:

Dual DSR's in Mutual Inductance/20 Volt Variac

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/Dsc00298.jpg

Here the {Stator Lime M} is showing a 106.6% greater amount of

current than the sum of the curents of .44A on phase 1 and .77A on

phase 2. The differences on the inductive reactance currents was

only 94.6 %, but in actual resonance employing approximately equal

capacitive reactances this has become a 57.1 % difference in actual

currents in resonance. For phase 2 the inductive reactance test at

14.22 volts yeilded 31.7 ma, and if this resonance were made at the

same voltage instead of the shown 13.75 volts that would be a

conduction 3.42% higher at 796 ma. The lower stator voltage with

equal magnetising field rotor influences is a consequence of the laws

of supply and demand, where here in resonance, 25 times more current

will be asked for compared to the reactive tests. The ratio of these

differing amperage consumptions would be an acting q factor of 25.1.

This is how far the voltage would be going up ratio wise on that

branch to accomplish that higher conduction. If both branches were

measured in this manner for actual q factors, the actual phase angle

between the branches could be calculated by noting the reduction of

voltage that is actually measured by the Midpt Volt meter. The

theoretical q factor would be obtained by assuming 480 hz, (which is

why we need an actual frequency meter here to make more exact

predictions of the theoretical q factor): then we would find the

actual inductive reactance value X(L) in ohms based on the amperage

consumption at that frequency and imposed voltage, and this would

then be compared to what amperage consumption would be developed at

Ohms Law to determine that theoretical Q factor based on

calculations. Since we know that the branch is ~ 12.5 ohms, this

would mean that at Ohms law the branch at 13.75 volts was only

delivering .77 A, but it should be delivering 1.1 A at ohms law. We

might then conclude without exactness that only .77/1.1 = 70% of the

possible resonance is being delivered, and this ~ 30 % of

undeliverable resonance represents the portion of resonance being

limited by internal capacity at this frequency, but that figure in

actuality should only be cited when in fact we have MORE EXACTLY

SHOWN THE CANCELLING REACTANCES, AND THE AVAILABLE AMOUNT OF CURRENT

DERIVED WITH THAT EXACT CANCELLATION OF REACTANCES, which has not yet

taken place here with these figures. To do that with the phase 2

example we would want at least a tenth of a ma difference between

reactances, and here it has only been shown with a difference of 31.2

ma inductive reactance vs 31.7 ma capacitive reactance for phase 2.

We might also conclude with these preliminary figures then that the

resonance might have an availability of 30% of its total inductance

to be employed for magnetic compression schemes to possibly improve

its resonance. These things however are mere guesswork at this point

in the game, and until the improvement of phase 1's resonance

percentage wise can be compared to the percentage of total inductance

used for magnetic compression in that branch, these things can only

be considered "probable methods" for increasing a resonance by the

cancellation of internal capacity made by magnetic compression.

These numerical methods of noting what developes, and why, are

crucial to the scientific regimen employed by serious researchers of

resonance. If we do not employ these more exact methods of noting the

results of experimentation on components by serious meter study, we

can only expect the many accusations made by others, that we are

only practicizing "psuedo science" in our investigations. An

interesting thing to also be shown here next would be to short out an

inductive reactance on one side of the A, and to instead short out an

opposite capacitive reactance on the other side of the A, and to note

what happens with the amount of current obtained on the {stator Line

M}. This in fact should represent a possible variant on the forms of

resonance availalble with source frequency 3 phase alternator inputs,

since once again cancelling reactances would be employed, but in that

case they would be residing on separate phases.

Sincerely Harvey D Norris