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

HDN in deference to Tesla

Expand Messages
  • Harvey D Norris <harvich@yahoo.com>
    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
      (one needs to enlarge this picture to see it all)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.