## HDN in deference to Tesla

Expand Messages
• First of all, lets go back to the conceptial beginning of things. In a reactive current you can draw the arrow of that current out. It is current limited by
Message 1 of 1 , Feb 22, 2003
• 0 Attachment
First of all, lets go back to the conceptial beginning of things.
In a reactive current you can draw the arrow of that current out. It
is "current" limited by the amount of reactance that takes place.
That is an ohmic value far surpassing the ohmic value that would take
place if the source was DC. If it were a DC voltage source, there
would still be a time lag before the currents by ohms law developed.
That is due to inductance, and the AC analogy to inductance is
inductive reactance. With the AC laws we can still draw out the
reactive current draws, but when we do so, one branch of draw will
have have an opposite arrow than the oppositely formed reactance.
That is called a capacitive reactance. The net difference of the
reactive current draws gets expreesed as the subtraction of those
draws, and we wind up with obtaining a small amount of current
enabling a larger amount of current in that loop, by the simple laws
of vector addition differences. So when we have these two opposing
reactances in parallel, the original reactance current can still
exist, but it opposes THAT amount of reactance current from
originally entering the circuit. A much smaller amount of current can
enter that parallel reactance loop, but the original amount of
reactance current can still exist. When we draw out the directions of
the reactance currents, we find the reason for this. The arrows show
one way going the same direction as the amperage input itself, but we
also have another arrow that opposes that direction of current flow.
The net result becomes the fact that because of the opposing arrow
directions of reactive amperage consumptions, we have to suppose that
the source supply of amperage can actually only supply the difference
of those opposing CURRENTS IN TIME.

In the doing of this procedure a very small current can create a
larger reactive current in the loop, and this is called the resonant
rise of amperage, based on anti-resonance: but when we analyse the
thought, we understand that the timing is everything. In fact if the
timing was near identical on the opposing currents, even less input
would be recorded than normally happens. And on the outside of that
circuit we would see less of anything because of this perfect
balance. For the line coupled tank circuit, or the tank circiut made
by direct line connections, this is exactly what takes place. We can
have Q times less reactive amperage entering the circuit loop: than
what actually takes place as the reactive amperage circulation that
takes place on that loop. Those are the electrical lwas ascertained
for quite a period of time, and no real mystery rests in that regard,
save for those that would interpret the laws incorrectly and assume a
mystery, when in fact no mystery exists.

Now comes Tesla, with his invention of the air core transformer,
which in his embodiment becomes a high frequency transformer. This
is negotiated by means of an arc gap which changes a source frequency
into a higher one, and then we are left wondering whether all the
same laws hold valid. Many folks hold this to be valid, but a
particular problem is presented. With Tesla's discovery widely
exemplified in the tesla coil, a large amount of energy seems to be
compressed and then exibited in a very small amount of time, so
confusion as to the actual energy expenditure in the instant amount
of time, vs the same input energy averaged over the same time period
of storage; this gets expressed as some confusion as to whether the
output actually exceeds the input. Luckily we have the physics or
other experts to come forward to say, NO, the output doesnt execced
the input when averaged over time, and the laws of science are safe
from the discoveries of Tesla.

However with the modern interpretations brought forward on poor
Tesla, who is unfairly brought out to be a modern idiot savant, we
discount his historical relevance. No need to lecture a single
thought here, some of us consider Tesla to be a godlike figure, and
others wish him to be known as nothing more than a seller of snake
oil: that will cure every common ailment. The man Tesla himself may
have forseen all these arguments, but he died in abject poverty, and
I would suppose that on his death on Sept 7th 1943: which is my
birthday some 12 2/3 years in 9/7/1955, that someone can come back to
give the man Tesla some relevance for later civilization, and we can
come to respect him better than what his detractors have made him out
to be.

One of the first things a modern Tesla can do IS to clear his
name, and to show that HIS concept of a working air core transformer
is VALID, even without the digressions of those who will suppose that
his miracles are only made by the compression of energy from larger
time periods, and then released in small time periods to fool the
public of the physics community. In the light of this let us simply
employ the same rigorous standards employed against Tesla : what is
the energy in: compared to the energy out.

To do this we can take your automotive alternator, convert it to
AC, make the same idea as Tesla had, and then confound all the
experts in the world by applying Tesla's same ideas of an air core
transformers, manipulations of resonance bewtween LpCp and LsCs, and
this is simply a continuous wave principle, where no obtuse
arguments about compressed energy in small time periods can possibly
be valid. This is all done at a mere ~ 500 hz which is quite
unthinkable. Now we can send those detractors back to their
imaginary country where they came from, where they were
indoctrinated from their universities in their new world order of
oppression: where in some countries those were called refuseniks,
those who refuse to believe the truth.
Those refuseniks can go back to the professors who taught them
and ask them a simple question: why didnt you show us the simple
schematic of a figure 8 Tank resonance?
In regards to the simple concept of a tank circuit, by a
source frequency resonance, the enormous complication that developes
is that the "Tesla Coiling Community" does not even often comprehend
the simple essentials of what a tank circuit itself consists of.
They misinterpret that what is called a "Tesla Tank" used in a Tesla
high frequency air core transformer, for the generic meaning of what
actually is historically understood by electrical engineers as
a "bonafide tank circuit"

Binary Resonant Tank Schematic
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/BRS/BRT.jpg
(one needs to enlarge this picture to see it all)
HDN
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.