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

Jpegs Of the MISTUNED Binary Resonant Air Core Triple Resonant Transformer

Expand Messages
  • Harvey D Norris
    The subject of the alternator source frequency air core transformer, has not been discussed for some time now, so a sort of refresher course made from past
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      The subject of the alternator source frequency air core transformer,
      has not been discussed for some time now, so a sort of refresher
      course made from past postings is in order. Going through archives I
      find that this subject has not been addressed for many months now.
      The last two postings on the subject were on 3/29/03
      Progress noted on air core transformer.
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/message/697
      This just briefly discusses the concept of going to the use of TWO
      primaries and secondaries.
      From 5/11/03
      Why Amp/Turns and Turns ratio VS Voltage ratios are exceeded on the
      Air Core
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/message/720
      "Now one can go back and just wonder: does the intermediary of the
      air
      core primary: with the comparatively high "internal impedance" of
      secondaries from that system operating as the first two stages of
      this triple resonant air core transformer: DOES THAT GREAT LOSS
      SUPPOSED BY TWO INTERMEDIARIES ITSELF LOWER WHAT WILL BE DELIVERED IF
      INSTEAD THE ENDING SECONDARY LOAD WERE DRIVEN DIRECTLY FROM THE
      ALTERNATOR? To see whether this is true we can backtrack to a jpeg
      showing exactly how this same symmetrical binary resonant tank
      performs when directly line driven from comparable voltages as a
      direct line connection to the load....
      Two Stator Line /Inversely Phased Series Resonances/ Magnetic fields
      in Opposition/ Midpoint Short between Voltage Rises.
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/Dsc00403.jpg
      Here we can see that 15.35 volts from the stator phase is only
      enabling a 1.83 ma input, averaging near 16 ma inside the tank, or a
      tank q of 16/1.83 = 8.7 Here we are not reading what occurs across
      the midpoint path which is double the sides alone, but we are reading
      the actual imposed current going through every twenty coils instead.
      So evidentally the tank driven by a secondary air core source makes
      that tank q factor appear as 18, while when directly line connected
      to the same source (as the intermediary air core primary allows for):
      only a 8.7 fold resonant amperage rise then occurs! So we arrive at
      the incredible conclusion that the load is better powered by the
      intermediaries of the air core triple resonant
      transformer, than would occur if that load were directly line
      connected to the source itself!"(Note a description of that tank is
      also repeated below in this posting)
      And also another notable conclusion:
      "The apparent secret here is that whenever a magnetic field is
      encountered against a source of impedance containing internal
      capacity impeding the resonance, the magnetic field in opposition
      allows for a cancellation of that internal capacity, allowing the
      system to "better" resonate, this exhibiting a higher q factor,
      whether in fact the increased q factor is used to create better q
      factor voltage rises to increase the series resonance, or whether the
      cancelling magnetic field appears as a consequence of lenz law in the
      air core triple tank/series/tank example, where the q factor of the
      tank itself is improved. In this latter case there is also the
      question of making the source itself appear with a vastly higher
      internal resistance, than the case where the alternator internal
      resistance of stator windings appear miniscule in comparisons as that
      source.
      Thus to generalize the many variables, we may say that
      approximately for the series case, the high induction coils that will
      only achieve 5% of their possible resonance when directly line driven
      from resonant sources of external resonances, may then achieve a ~
      doubling of this q factor when also driven by a 14 gauge coil
      delivering a magnetic field in opposition, thus then achieving a
      possible 10% of the available resonance for that high induction coil.
      In direct contrast, the 14 gauge coils line driven from the
      alternator voltage source, being low gauge, lower impedance coils, do
      not suffer such a dramatic reduction of the currents obtainable with
      resonance, where in that case in isolation as primaries, at least 50%
      of the available currents can be achieved with resonance, this being
      an entirely different limitation brought about by having close ratios
      of the internal resistance of the source of emf: and that of the
      load. As is known when these are equal, maximum power transfer
      supposedly occurs, but this occurs at a 50% efficiency loss. In any
      case what we wind up with is a primary part containing fewer winds,
      but the efficiency of that part is not as far removed as the currents
      available on the secondary part, limited at best circumstances to
      only 10% of achievable currents by magnetic field opposition
      methods..."

      Now let us continue on with some past examples, then leading up to
      the latest promised jpegs of this "strange" effect of obtaining both
      more voltage and amperage on the final ending Lsc/Csc of the triple
      resonant transformer. To reiterate what is going on here, in stage
      one a binary tank, or figure 8 tank resonance is used to efficiently
      input power to the system. In ferromagnetic schemes this similar
      method of using a tank
      to input the power to the primary of the transformer, is known
      as "power factor correction". The apparent problem here is that the Q
      of the primary system is vastly reduced when coupled by mutual
      induction to stage 2, which is a pair of high induction coils brought
      to series resonance by this mutual induction. Thus in stage 2 we are
      increasing the voltage by transformation, and like the analogy of the
      ferromagnetic transformer, the rise of voltage is accompanied by a
      loss in amperage, but however because of the unique nature of the air
      core transformer, the voltage generated ratio wise may be in excess
      of the turns ratio, which does not occur in ferromagnetic
      transformers.
      Now in stage 3 what we are doing is taking that amperage loss that
      occurs in stage 2 as a consequence of the voltage rise, and bringing
      it back up to a level surpassing that which was inputed by the
      alternator itself to the first tank circuit. We are essentially
      using the output of the secondaries LsCs to be inputed into a 3rd
      figure 8 tank circuit LscCsc, where this ending tank circuit then has
      an enhanced Q factor, possibly because in the new situation the
      impedances of the source and the load are better matched, lending
      itself to a situation closer resembling maximum power transfer. In
      progression of stages then we are going from a parallel resonance
      input, to a series resonant transformation, and then back to a
      parallel resonance for output. Now we can continue on with citing
      past work on the subject here…


      It should immediately be noted that in the previously noted triple
      resonant shematic;
      Triple Resonant/ Line Coupled Transformer
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/TRC.jpg>

      A special circumstance exists where the current input to the
      primaries of the air core transformer are exceeded on the ending
      currents found on the secondary line coupled ending coils of Lsc.
      This seems remarkable in light of the fact that 10 times more
      resistance is in the circuit of LsCs figure 8 tank, vs the primary
      LpCp figure 8 tank. This "special circumstance" is brought about
      by "mistuning" both primary and secondary resonances. It will be easy
      by scope methods to see the amount of mistuning involved. First then
      the same binary resonant circuit as here being used as a primary for
      two high induction coils; is shown here tuned in isolation from past
      records.

      From
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/MARX/
      Alternator Test of Resonant Marx Gap in Open/Close and mini neon
      load operation.

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/message/289
      Open scoping of Single phase Alternator BRS
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/MARX/DSC00083.JPG>
      Small discrepancies of amperages measured on each side of the circuit
      are noted at ~2.2 amps. This means only 1.1 amps should be on each
      180 phased side. The 4 volt input is enabling a 74 volt resonant rise
      of potential between midpoints. The scoping is made at 2 volts/div,
      where the higher amplitude signal recording the 74 volt signal has
      been given 20 volts /div on the other channel. The phasings become
      identical as amperage is inputed to the system, as the parametric
      phasing difference with no field input can be noted to be apparently
      about 90 degrees. Here complete phasing identity seems apparent in
      the dual trace, suggesting the coils are in resonance with the 10 uf
      caps and ~11mh coils @ 480 hz. The low ~ 1.1 ohm coils do not go to
      the designated amperage at resonance because of complications
      involving the internal resistance of the stator source emf.

      Note: this same technique of using a dual channel scoping to indicate
      any phase angle change between the source of voltage, and the actual
      resonant rise of voltage inside the circuit, would seemingly be a
      good indicator of whether in fact the circuit is in resonance. This
      then is to show how the losses involved in a resonance might be
      factored in so that the general Ohm's law resultant current at
      resonance is not achieved to. Here we have 4 volts across two series
      resonances near one ohms in parallel: and the expected 4 amps of
      current on each branch predicted by Ohms law do not develope,
      because of various factors involving the internal resistance of the
      stator source of voltage, and whether indeed whether the source can
      actually meet the demand, as the alternator is also a "current
      limited" device, that SHOULD only be able to supply the amount of
      current found on short of the outputs for any stated condition of
      field energization, even though apparently a 3 phase scalar Y spiral
      winding may be an exception to this rule. In the above circuit we see
      that a decent voltage rise takes place, 4 volts becoming 74 volts
      internally, and that dual channel scopings of both voltage sources
      show that they are in phase. Now to indicate what happens when this
      entire primary dual resonance system is placed in the vicinity of the
      poles: the presence of LsCs as a shorted loop, or in this case its
      connection to a line coupled tank resonance as the final connection
      in that shorted loop: this condition of mutual induction of primary
      and secondary resonances by Lenz law causes the measured individual
      reactance measurements of the primary coils to go up, thus to tune
      that primary system to the new conditions of mutual inductance, a
      higher amount of capacity is chosen, going from 10 uf to 14 uf.

      This action by Lenz law is the consequence of the fact that a
      magnetic field in opposition to the primary field is set up in the
      adjacent shorted loop LsCs, and that in mutual inductance fields in
      opposition act to reduce the impedance of each coil itself. We can
      also in effect drive both magnetic fields in opposition by the use
      all all 3 phase stator inputs, as shown in the resonant interphase
      schematic
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/RI/Dsc00260.jpg
      The value of this approach is that the q of the high induction LsCs
      is doubled, making that line coupled resonance act as a "perfect"
      action, so that the voltage times the resultant amperage on both
      sides of the interphasing are equal. The consequence of this is that
      the voltage "outside" the LsCs line coupled interphasing will go down
      with the extra coil in magnetic opposition, but inside the circuit
      itself the internal voltage rise becomes greater, thus allowing both
      voltage and amperage figures to go towards the direction of a perfect
      transfer of the energy of DSR to that of the inner component LsCs.

      The discovery beyond this was that the three stator connections
      serving the LsCs interphasing could be severed from the alternator,
      and that currents were still observed on LsCs, thus making it an air
      core transformer. Later it was found that if the endings of the
      stator lines were shorted, LsCs could serve as a voltage source for
      that circuit, where we find that the ending circuit also acts with an
      enhanced q factor. This then becomes the shown third component: the
      binary Lsc/Csc of the "triple resonant/ line coupled transformer."

      On these components then the primary is inputed as a figure 8 tank,
      which might be considered a "power factor corrected" air core
      primary. In the above primary tuned in isolation we found a resonant
      voltage rise of 74/4 equals a series resonant Q of 18.5. Now we need
      to find how the Q changes when the circuit is instead driven as a
      figure 8 Tank, using that same 10 uf value of capacitance shown to be
      scope resonant with regard to phasing of input voltage vs resonant
      voltage rise.

      Midpoint path short measurement
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/MARX/DSC00085.JPG>
      This shows what happens when that 74 volts is shorted. This by theory
      makes the dual series resonances into 2 q squared higher impedance by
      figure 8 tank circuit, changing the 2.2 Amp consumption into a 7.6 ma
      consumption but with 144 ma resonant rise of amperage within the
      circuit. An addtional meter on the midpoint path however does not
      show the expected doubling on that pathway. This why I say the BRS
      concept fails with alternator 480 hz single phase inputs, but can be
      compensated by instead using the interphasal methods of
      reacting 3 phase series resonances with shorts, or interphasal loads
      for desired application. In this instance here since the circuit in
      open position is close to the source stator emf internal resisitance,
      when it is then given the much higher impedance load of the tank
      circuit the input stator voltage will also go up from the previous
      levels. The phasing between voltage readings appears to still be in
      phase.

      This is an acting parallel resonant q factor of 144/7.6 = 18.9
      Now What HAPPENS when we place this entire figure 8 resonance in the
      polar volumes of the high induction coils, as noted it needs to be
      retuned, but even after retuning we find that the "acting" q factors
      have been considerably reduced. In fact in reality we do not know if
      this "tighter" coupling between systems is actually the best to be
      had. This is because the farther we travel away from the point of
      closest linkage, the better the primary will resonate with regards to
      its "acting" Q factors. If additionally we have not retuned the
      resonance, we should then note a definite phase angle difference
      between the resonant voltage case, where we then disconnect the
      midpoint path and record what we get with the same ~ 4 volt input.
      These jpegs here show an ~ input of 4.55 volts, which is not shown in
      the first jpeg that only shows amperage differences between primary
      and secondary.
      Mistuned Bipolar Series Resonance on Primary/ Amperage Differences
      between Primary & Secondary
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/Dsc00485.jpg

      Commentary; At the cost of a 4.55 volt input, the stator is
      outputting 1.1 amps on the primaries. The seco ndary is outputing 6.9
      ma to the extra coil system, which is the line coupled resonance of
      another figure 8 tank resonance, Thus by the (correct) method we use
      a tank for input; convert that to high voltage by the use of a
      secondary in series resonance, and then finally we convert that
      voltage rise back to a high amperage rise in an ending amperage rise
      that itself exceeds what is being inputed as a tank to begin with Q
      wise. {That is not what is being done here; this is only a test!} {
      THIS TEST CONSISTS OF INSTEAD TO INPUT THE PRIMARIES AT 180 PHASED
      SERIES RESONANCES TO NOTE THE AMOUNT OF MISTUNING INVOLVED BY SCOPE
      MONITORING OF PHASE DIFFERENCES IN VOLTAGE INPUT, AND VOLTAGE RISE
      WITHIN THE CIRCUIT ITSELF} This is NOT the correct method here, but
      we need to use this model for scope comparisons as to how mistuned it
      is at series resonance, when the new conditions of placing LsCs as a
      shorted loop in the vicinity of dual LpCp primaries is made. Thus the
      scoping shows the difference of phase angle between the higher
      voltage generated inside the circuit vs the lower voltage inputed
      from the outside. A digital voltage meter only records 13.6 volts for
      4.5 volts inputed by stator voltage, and the scoping also shows this
      lower 3/1 ratio. The extra amperage meter only shows the amperage on
      one side of the resonance at .48 A, which appears not to be well
      balanced given the 1.1 amps being inputed, however it is this meter
      that will be used for observing the parallel resonant rise of
      amperage WITHIN the circuit, when the conditions of instead inputing
      the amperage by figure 8 tank is made. In THAT method we need to
      compare amperage inputed vs amps inside the circuit, so that meter is
      labeled RES. AMPS. The series resonant Q in this case has been
      degraded from 18/1 to 3/1, but had LpCp been given a higher value of
      capacity in its usage, this recorded amount of degradation would have
      been less severe. But it would not have matched its performance in
      isolation. It takes a combination of thought to realize when magnetic
      compression is beneficial.

      Mistuned Bipolar Series Resonance on Primary/ Voltage Differences
      between Primary & Secondary
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/Dsc00486.jpg

      Commentary; In the second take of meters the input voltage from
      stator to output voltage of air core secondary input to line coupled
      or wired secondary LcsCcs is shown. Here the previously cited
      condition of 4.55 volts input from a single stator phase , then
      becoming a 1.1 amp expression of somewhat reactive power input to
      primaries is shown here on the CONVERSION output side. The output
      side contains a q circuit ten times the resistance of the primary
      side, BUT NOMINALLY WITH SLIGHTLY GREATER Q FACTOR BY MUTUAL
      INDUCTANCE. Thus here the outside LsCs system is shown inputing 151
      volts from the 4.55 volts input, and from previous jpeg we see about
      6.9 ma is being supplied by that current limited system LsCs itself.
      This then becomes a resonant rise of amperage to .15 A on each of the
      branches. A Q of about 150/7 or over 20. Not bad, but better total
      comparisons using all three systems are IN ORDER, since it is taking
      a 1.1 amp consumption from stator to cause these end effects

      In all practical of working of cases with air core resonances, we try
      to realize and compensate with the factor known as mutual inductance,
      to make the best design for resonance, however great gaps by
      definition seem to exist in this category. It is the point of being a
      scientist, and researcher that we point out these gaps in obvious
      knowledge termed terminology. Let us just say that many holes exist
      in common definitions, so in mutual induction theory these are also
      compensated for. The long groups of 14 gauge coil formations totaling
      20 *500 ft = 10,000 ft of adjacent air core coils on Lsc/Csc, THOSE
      COIL FORMATIONS SHOW NO MUTUAL INDUCTIONS BY REACTIVE CURRENT
      TESTINGS FROM 480 HZ AC ALTERNATOR But yet we can react those systems
      well against each other when each is given the capacity to resonate.
      What this means is that when reactive current tests are made, there
      is no difference between whether the magnetic fields from the
      reactances were producing magnetic fields in unity or magnetic fields
      in opposition, therefore we assume that minimal mutual inductance
      exists between the systems. However what we find is that if both
      branches are given capacities to resonate according to their
      experienced reactances, if we simply resonate one of these branches,
      we can find about ¼ of that amperage found on the resonant branch to
      be formed by induction on the unused branch. Furthermore we can study
      the voltage rises made when both branches are energized to resonance
      to produce a voltage rise between them. It is seen that almost a 100
      volts better difference is made when we configure the adjacent
      branches to produce a magnetic field in opposition, rather then that
      of unity, which would be the standard approach if we desired a higher
      q factor. Since however we are using the SAME capacity for both of
      these schemes, since that factor is already based on the recorded
      reactive amperage consumptions that do not change because no mutual
      induction is evident for the inductive reactance cases, the WAY that
      we can make these differing arrangements of either magnetic unity or
      opposition is simply by wiring arrangement alone, or essentially
      WHICH end of the coil system we connect to the midpoint of the LC
      series resonance. Hence it is found that it is better to make the
      system act, as if it were acting according to Lenz Law, where a coil
      system will induce a magnetic field in opposition to that which
      creates it by induction. These factors are of course not readily
      evident, since by known mutual inductance laws we predict nothing to
      be in mutual inductance in the first place, and they are only found
      by experimentally making the arrangements, shown here from past
      records;
      Two Stator Line input/ Inversely Phased Resonances for Magnetic Unity
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/Dsc00399.jpg
      13.92 volts is enabling 612 volts difference between the bipolar
      series resonances/ a 43.9 voltage rise Q.
      Note that a meter is in place showing zero amperage on LsCs. That is
      because no load is in place. If it were in place we could use the
      source of voltage here to make what was called an INTERPHASING, or
      line coupled resonance LsCs between phasings; when instead two phases
      of the alternator were used on the outside branches. However the
      reactance readings for the branches 120 degree out of phase were no
      different than the case here for when they are predicted to be in 180
      phasings, which was procured by instead running everthing form a
      single phase of the alternator, thus using 2 of the 3 stator outputs,
      instead of using all 3 of them for two 120 degree phasings,(or so we
      erroneously suppose).or additionally if the wiring arrangement was
      further changed so that the magnetic fields were made identical, in
      which case we would have magnetic opposition instead, even though the
      outside system itself will always be configured as a series resonance
      that is 180 phased SCHEMATICALLY. The possible confusion here lies
      in the fact that there is more than one method to change polarity of
      the resultant magnetic fields, either schematically OR by direction
      of wiring to the midpoint of the resonance itself. Since we
      AUTOMATICALLY assume that 180 phasing would be better then the 120
      phasing method using 2 phases of the alternator, that method id used,
      however TWO variations of that 180 PHASING SCHEMATICALLY PROCURRED,
      are in fact possible, so here we are investigating both of these
      possible methods. The method shown here is the logical one, where the
      mutual inductance would make each coil system appear to have a
      greater coupling, because those magnetic fields are in unison for a
      greater overall inductance of both systems combined, hence a higher q
      factor would be predicted. This is ordinarily true, however this is a
      SPECIAL circumstance since the preliminary readings indicate that NO
      mutual inductance exists. Finally one more thing needs to be
      recognized. This 180 phased series resonance system SCHEMATICALLY
      HAS POINT SYMMETRY, AND IT IS THE SAME THING FROM THE OUTSIDE- IN AS
      IT IS FROM THE INSIDE-OUT. When in fact the 14 gauge coil systems
      are attached as Lcs/Csc as the ending of the triple resonant
      transformer, we take the former connections to the stator source of
      voltage and connect them together as a short, so we are essentially
      running that system backwards as to how it is being tested here.
      Going on here to show the next possibility for making the 180 phased
      14 gauge coil bipolar series resonances;
      Two Stator Line input/ Inversely Phased Resonances for Magnetic
      Opposition
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/Dsc00402.jpg
      Here a 14.42 volt stator is enabling 707 volts between the phasings,
      or a voltage rise q of 49, which is a better result. How can we
      fathom this, if the overall induction of the system must have went
      down in mutual induction with magnetic fields in opposition, hence
      the overall Q of that system should have gone down? These are some
      mysteries that would not be readily self evident, or even
      investigated in the first place by relying on existent definitions of
      mutual inductance. However what we must realize is this; it is the
      AMOUNT of current that determines the AMOUNT of voltage rise, and
      what we have done here is to make the coil systems work together to
      act according to the proper direction of currents that Lenz law would
      cause, or essentially we have tried to tune the resonances according
      to how Lenz law would work, so that each coil system would
      induce "eztra" current on each other. Certain complications exist on
      phase 1, where it already has an inherent magnetic cancellation in
      its coil system, because one of the coils were turned around in
      direction to make each branch have near identical reactance
      measurements. But we can see that on phase 2, extra current has
      appeared, which translates to "extra" voltage rise between the
      systems. Now that this diversion of thought has been completed let
      us return to the operation of the triple resonance transformer using
      a binary tank for input. Other examples of noting the reactance
      measurements of these 14 gauge coil systems are in the folder
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/
      such as
      X(L) Reactance Test for phases 1 and 2, (mutual induction at ~ 120
      degree phase angles)
      Dsc00398.jpg
      X(L) Reactance Test for phases 1 and 2, (mutual induction at ~ 180
      degree phase angles)
      Dsc00397.jpg
      Unfortunately at the time of taking these jpegs I did not make a 3rd
      jpeg showing the reactance measurements for unity phasings, but I
      noted no difference there, but this will have to be done in the
      future so that the reactance argument showing lack of mutual
      inductance here is complete. If anyone specifically wishes to see
      that result I can take the time to make another picture showing the
      arrangement in unity, and how no difference exists between that case
      and for the case of opposition of reactive magnetic fields. All of
      this rehashing was simply necessary to indicate that there is more
      here than meets the eye, and that for air core transformer
      principles, the reacting coil will always act according to Lenz law,
      so when possible the tuning should be made that way. However, AGAIN,
      I must emphasize that this is NOT what is being done here, because
      this posting is limited to showing what can happen when the air core
      transformer itself is operated in a MISTUNED state. We KNOW it is
      mistuned because of the series resonant scoping showing voltage rise
      being out of phase with the source voltage.

      Mistuned Binary Figure 8 Tank as Primary/ Showing Resonant Rise of
      Amperage in Mistuned State
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/Dsc00487.jpg

      Commentary; One may wonder why this author is fooling around with
      investigating this transformer in the mistuned state, and not the
      tuned? Of course that will be done in the next round of
      investigations, however: This is because, from what I have seen so
      far, this is the only combination that yields the peculiar situation
      where the currents on Lsc/Csc exceed the input current made by the
      alternator itself. Yes, if it were properly tuned, the efficiencies
      found on the ending figure 8 tank would not be as efficient.
      This is also a great mystery, but I am merely reporting here what I
      have found, and of course there is the possibility that I have made a
      mistake somewhere, but if this were true, that will be borne out when
      the system is ACTUALLY TUNED TO THE CORRECT CAPACITIES. Unfortunately
      for these jpegs things are broken up so that the operation for both
      amperage and voltage considerations are shown in separate pictures.
      As we understand when a tank is used for the primary, that is a
      configuration of maximum impedance, so to develop any appreciable
      amperage into the primary from the alternator we turn up the
      voltage. But a stator voltage meter is not shown in this jpeg,
      instead the amperage being inputed is shown at .05 A, and on the left
      coil the RES Amp meter shows .26 A which is just over a 5 fold
      resonant rise of amperage. Formerly this same system exhibited a
      parallel Q of around 18.9, so we can see that both the mistuned
      state, and the q reduction from coupling to LsCs has taken place. We
      also see that a voltage meter labeled L1C1 is placed across the left
      coil, and it reads 7.4 volts. Can one now guess what the stator input
      voltage is? To do this lets go back and look at the Binary Resonant
      Tank schematic at
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/BRS/BRT.jpg
      Note the zig zag pathways of each individual reactance, and the
      previously mentioned fact that a voltage meter on just one of the
      coils reads 7.4 volts. If things are working in reality to how this
      schematic presents itself, we should realize that L1's voltage is
      only about half of the impressed voltage on the circuit, as that
      reactance pathway goes on to complete its journey through L2 to reach
      the opposite potential. So now lets go on to the next jpeg showing
      the actual voltage being imposed and the amounts of current found on
      Lsc/Csc. But first another note of the secondary actions found on
      LsCs, where it is showing 3.91 ma. To ACHIEVE the results found on
      this next jpeg, where the currents on Lsc/Csc exceed the primary
      amperage being inputed by the alternator, the secondary LsCs IS ALSO
      MISTUNED! What this means is that the 3.91 ma being procured from
      the secondary is not the maximum amount of current that could be
      attained to without changing anything on the primary, and by changing
      the aluminum foil plexiglass capacity in the background to a
      different value, we could make that 3.9 ma go up to around 5 ma. So
      why isn't that done? Well that shows the complicated
      interrelationships of everything involved here. Yes we can make the
      secondary more efficient to output more amperage to Lsc/Csc, but in
      the doing of this the binary primary Lp/Cp will begin to draw more
      amperage, and then in that condition the amperages found on Lsc/Csc
      will no longer exceed that inputed to the primary. Don't ask me why
      that occurs, I only know that it does, and sure it doesn't make a lot
      of sense. However it doesn't make a lot of sense that we can end up
      with both more current AND input voltage to that ending element
      Lsc/Csc either, and I am only describing the manipulations as to how
      this was done to make that result.

      Mistuned Binary Figure 8 Tank as Primary/ Input and Output Voltage
      Differences/ Extra Current Beyond Primary Input Current Noted on
      Lsc/Csc.
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/Dsc00488.jpg

      Commentary; Here we can see that 18.12 volts goes into the circuit,
      inputing that previously noted .05 amps to binary tank primary. This
      then becomes 88 volts inputing the previously shown 3.9 ma, but with
      a resonant rise of amperage becoming between .08 and .09 A on the
      branches. Again the parallel q resonant rise is a little over 20, but
      at the same time we have been able to reduce the input amperage to a
      great degree, whereas formerly we were inputing 1.1 A as a bipolar
      series resonance with only 4.55 volts input, but now we are inputing
      much less current at .05 A with a much greater voltage of 18.12 volts
      The voltage seems a bit high as we expected only around 15 volts if
      the 7.4 volts found on a single coil were doubled. It may be that
      these primary coils are not well balanced then, as has already been
      noted by the smaller current shown on the left side when the coils
      were series resonated. These things will be shown again when the
      system is properly tuned, and how that is accomplished. For now we
      might form some sort of theory to explain how all these things are
      possible. Since the primary should use 14 uf, but we have given it
      only 10 uf, we know that side of the circuit must be predominantly
      more inductive reactance then capacitive. So the logical conclusion
      might be that the secondary is compensated for by making that side
      predominantly capacitive reactance. These things have not yet been
      measured, so this is only voiced as a possible explanation.

      Sincerely Speculative;
      Harvey D Norris
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.