[Note I have reposted this exerpt from almost two years ago to

clarify some mistakes made evident from the most recent spiral

research., HDN]

> There are quite a few things that the established electrical

thinkers

> have said concerning the discrepancies noted here, where I will

cite

> from Herbert W Jackson's Introduction to Electric Circuits.(3rd

> edition) I have found his descriptions very consise, and here he

> gives 4 statements concerning the matter of how internal resistance

> of a stator emf influences the conductions on the load.

>

> 1. Maximum power output (into the load) occurs when

> R(L) = R(int)

> Also when R(L) is selected for maximum load power

> I = 1/2 I (short circuit current)

> V(L) = 1/2 E (open circuit voltage)

> This is also 1/2 maximum efficiency

> Note that maximum power output does NOT coincide with maximum

> efficiency. When a load resistance is selected for maximum power

> input, there is an equal power dissipation inside the source of emf.

>

> 2. If we want to increase the efficiency, a load resistance of

from

> two to three times the internal resistance of the generator results

> in appreciable reduction in wasted power ( as heat in the

generator)

> for only a small reduction in power output.

>

> 3. A load resistance less than the internal resistance of the

> generator not only results in a reduction of power output, but also

> causes a very high dissipation within the generator. In practice,

> this condition of operation is termed OVERLOAD and must be avoided.

>

> 4. If we are interested more in voltage output than power output

> (as in transistor and vacuum-tube amplifiers), the load resistance

> should be high in comparsion to the internal resistance of the

source

> of emf.

>

> HDN Notes

> No 1 here gives two indications of deciphering the actions of the

> alternator, and whether they seem to be in accordance with these

> laws. Obviously they do not seem to be so since 50 % less current

is

> being obtained on short, than for that of a one ohm resonance, and

by

This is where a total error of measurement seems to have taken place.

I have not yet reproduced a circuit that exhibits that action, but at

the same time it should be possible when applied to a three phase

scenario. In the current research a 4 layer bifilar return wire pair

of spirals has produced a current that is 98% of the current that

will be found on the short, but circumstances where the short current

is less then the active load current have not been found. This is

however is predicted to happen if we had three phases of this bifilar

spiral circuit, and then we simultaneously shorted out all three

phases, where past research has shown that a three phase short

enables only half the currents found on a single phase short. In that

situation then we would theoretically have an actual condition where

the load delivers currents in excess to what would be recieved if the

outputs were shorted!

looking at the graph of load current vs load voltage, and resultant

> load power, the graph clearly shows that maximum amperage exists on

> short, although that mode is not the one giving maximum power

> transfer, because although the amperage delivery is high, the

voltage

> at which this delivery is given is at its lowest values, and power

> being amperage times voltage, the short itself does not yeild

maximum

> power transfer, but IT DOES YEILD MAXIMUM AMPERAGE DELIVERY.

This is exactly what is being countermanded by the circuit, which

means it seems strange in its actions. Since we are only drawing on

one of three phases, perhaps that is why the circuit is not

exhibiting the predicted qualities. In any case for the bifilar

spiral case, WE DO NOT GET the described increase of amperage as we

go to a zero load conditon found by shorting the outputs to determine

how much the current limited supply can give amperage wise per the

overload value of voltage present. This overload value of voltage is

the voltage that appears when the load has reduced the output voltage

by over 50%.

To

> illustrate this apparent contradiction, and how it will be resolved

> so that no contradiction appears, I will once again note those

> conditions previously reffered to that shows this apparent

> contradiction.

>

> "In fact the supreme confusion that might be appearing at this

moment

> in the readers mind is the same paradox of seeming confusion

> initiated when confronted with a paradox, and the minds habit to

> immediately form hypotheses to explain the paradox, whereby some

kind

> of statement should be made to explain the paradox. Here the simple

> paradox can be shown by utilysing a single phase of the alternator

> present as what can be aquired as the delivery of a delta output by

3

> wires, where this is converted from the wye wiring inherent for

> stator output windings, where the remaining free ends of the stator

> windings are tied to a common pt, which is why that stator

connection

> is noted as WYE. For the rotation aquired on the 7 pole face rotor

> to achieve 480 hz, a certain amount of amperage thru the field

rotor

> coil may cause 14 volts to appear on empty loaded stator. AT THAT

> OUPUT STATOR VOLTAGE LEVEL achieved by the field amperage

conduction,

> it is then noted that a short on that single phase will then

deliver

> ~ 4 amps:

This data is now found to be entirely incorrect. A field enabled

through a 4 fold step down transformer connected to AC variac shows

that a 20 volt variac input will Yeild ~ 14.6 stator volts at open

circuits. A single phased short placed on those conditions showed

that the voltage dropped to 4.25 volts ( being over half the open

circuit volatge, this is the voltage condition in overlaod which

allows us to predict the act R(int) value of the stator windings)

enabling 8.5 amps As noted the present 4 layer spiral will conduct

almost that same amperage. However a great mystery exists whereby

because these low ohmic resonances have a fairly large capacity, that

capacity somehow tends to resonate with the inductance of the stator

windings. The net effect of this is that the circuit, when not

precisely tuned to resonance, will actually have the effect of

allowing the stator voltage to RISE, instead of LOWER, when that load

is attached to the stator output. Becuase of this very peculiar

action, it is actually possible to show a circuit that will have MORE

current on the phase then would exist if the phase were instead

shorted. The cited short at 14.6 volts open circuit shows that 4.25

volts appears across the stator phase with a conduction of 8.5 amps,

where Z(int) then appears as one half ohm. A slightly mistuned spiral

resonance will allow the voltage to increase to 15.2 volts from the

open circuit 14.6 stator volts, which then enables a conduction of

9.3 Amps, which when shorted becomes the stated 8.5 amps. Thus again

it seems possible to make circuits where the demand manifests itself

in excess to the thought current limited supply.

whereby the conventional opinion of electrical engineers

> accustomed to the prevalent opinion inherent with the conecept of

> current limiting by source impedance would declare that stator

> winding to be current limited to 4 amps with that impressed field

> amperage. Thus the supposed electrical engineer might be quite

> surprised that in actuality the placing of a 1 0hm resonant circuit

> on that same alternator stator that should yeild less the the

current

> limited 4 amps, in fact DOES AND CAN YEILD 7 or 8 amps."

Again the short does not yeild only 4 amps, and would only do that in

the condition where all three phases were employed and also shorted.

>

> Now how can we then explain this impossible observation? It can and

> has already been explained by the comments regarding amperage

> conductions on shorts, again repeated here,

>

> To finish here a series oif useful experiments was also made to try

> and determine the actual impedance or componenets of said R(int) of

> stator winds, which prooved to be totally irrational. One can only

> conclude that no impedance exists when the stator windings are

> shorted, and only a miniscule ~ .2 ohms of resistance appears to be

> acting, both in no field and real field tests.

>

> To breifly describe this, the practice of observing the voltage

> applied divided by the resultant amperage is used to derive the

> impedance Z , or Z=V/I. As mentioned a single shorted stator

winding

> will produce 1.57 amps in no field conditions.

In the latest parametric no field condtion tests, the single phase

short yeilds about 1.25 A, and these are due to temperature dependent

effects, or at least thought ot be so. A higher temperature of the

field rotor enables more gyroscopic conversion of electron spins.

To be more precise

> here

> first the no field stator was measured at 2.22 volts, where after

> shorting it became reduced to .294 volts, or 294 mv, that then

> enabled 1.57 amps conduction. Thus Z =.1872 ohms for the shorted

> phase. Next the adjacent phase was shorted, although no meters

> recorded that phases action, we can easily assume it does the same

as

> the phase being measured. Then the voltage dropped to 280 mv

enabling

> 1.51 a conduction,(total of 3A from 2 phases). The Z for the two

> phase application for each phase can be calculated at Z= .1854 ohms

> Next the last phase was shorted showing a dramatic reduction to .7

A

> conduction on the shorts, with the further reduction of 135 mv

> appearing making the Z comparable at .1928 ohms. But now only a

total

> of 2.1 amps on the shorts must be occuring, thus the logical

> efficient reason for obtaining only a dual phase interphasing to

pole

> pig primary seems to be indicated by the no field readings.

>

> Of course as I seem to be preaching here, the no field readings by

no

> means should be the basis to predict what will happen in real field

> condtions, so a careful testing of this with shorts was also made.

> The variac AC to DC by transformer step-down of voltage and

filtered

> DC rectification by diodes and cap to field rotor was turned up

> gradually so that 2 amp and 4 amp measurements across a single

short

> could be made.

>

> For 2.1 amps across the short, only .39 volts was appearing across

> the stator output, showing Z =.1857 ohms.

> For 3.9 amps appearing across the short, only .73 volts was

appearing

> across the stator outputs. Thus then Z=.1871 ohms

>

> This was established at a variac input level that will normally

> establish about 14 volts with even these low resitance 1 ohm loads,

> and as noted this level was further reduced to about a 11.7 volt

> level in the third retuning. Further investigations into whether

> actual less current is going into the field under those conditions

to

> fathom whether this is the cause for that voltage drop should be

made

> and reported on. However as is seen here the voltage drops

> DRAMATICALLY ON SHORT, and the custoMARY thinking on that matter is

> that when that item is shorted, it then reveals how much current

> limiting can take place, and the circuit for equal field input to

> establish those currents should never exceed that current measured

at

> short, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A CORRESPONDING VOLTAGE DROP OF THE

> SOURCE

> EMF UNDER THOSE SHORT CONDITIONS."

>

> Now consider again what has occured. A short on one delta phase

> produces 1.57 amps in no field. Attaching another adjacent short

> establishes both at at 1.51 amps. And shorting the third phase in

no

> field conditions then reduces all three short amperages to .7 amps,

> and in all these cases it is the attendant drop in stator voltage

by

> additional loading that has enabled the lesser amperage

conductions.

> Now suppose we are asked if there are any differences in conduction

> if the shorts were instead made in wye. During these testings I did

> not pursue that question as it seemed inconsequential. Since we

> generally obtain less current in WYE extraction, I had supposed the

> same to be true with short currents. THIS IS WHERE THE INTRODUCTION

> OF ERROR OCCURS! They way that things can be explained, is that on

> the input side of things, composed of the stator WYE connected

> motionally varying emf, the electricial laws are actually backwards

> with respect to those acting on the output end, where they are then

> considered acting from time varying emf. Each of the 3 phase

windings

> themselves as emf sources are combined in the WYE stator output to

> yeild 1.7 times the voltage on any single stator phase winding

> itself. This is essentially combining two 120 degree voltage

phasings

> in series as that emf source, coming from a wye based stator. Now

> since the wye as output connection yeilds a lower value of voltage

> application when used in the external circuit, but the opposite

> effect as the internal emf, we should also suspect the same

> measuremets for the cases of shorts. Here is where the question

> answers itself and begins to explain how we have become victims of

> delusion on our measurements. Let us suppose that we have two 1.5

amp

> currents on two shorts. One of the stator lines are then serving

two

> phases. If we then disconnect that point and add another short and

> amperage meter, we can then easily deduce that A MEASUREMENT OF

TWO

> DELTA SHORTS IS THE SAME THING AS A WYE SHORT MEASUREMENT.

>

> Because of this, to obtain the TRUE DELTA SHORT VALUE, we must use

> the value made with 3 shorts and not just one or two, that will

then

> actually convey lower amperage conductions on short, which is also

> made evident by the fact that since TWO sets of stator windings in

> series appear as the internal source resistance on the application

> of true delta shorts, it will then have HALF that R(int)value when

> made instead extracted as a WYE short, consequently shorts made in

> wye will have twice the amperage consumption of those made in a

true

> delta short fashion. Thus to look at the availability of stator

> induced 3 phase emf, when we first give only one phase a load in

> delta, we are already using the availabilty of two of the three

> stator emf winds. When we add a 2nd load to the next phase, we are

> already using all three of the stator windings for producing these

> two phases of delivery. However one of those three stator emf

sources

> is serving two phases, while the remaining in the series are

uniquely

> supplying each remaining phase. When one of these stator winds are

> used as a common line of delivery for two phases, this has the

action

> of taking two one amp deliveries combining to 1.7 as a current

> limiting factor on one of two stator winds of short conductions

for

> two delta shorts. This being a 15% reduction in current on only

half

> the available stator winds empowering emf, compared to the

solitary

> delta short case this becomes 7.5 % theorized reduction in amperge

> for two delta shorts. Now for the case of serving three delta

shorts,

> we have gone from a condition of one third of the stator emf

sources

> serving as dual phasal current sources, to the case of three out of

> three, where we have previously noted doing this for a single

stator

> emf limited tis current 15% by available output, thus this effect

> multiplied three times would be an overall 45 % reduction on

> availability of current for three phases on delta short vs that of

> one. The experimental values made by meter readings then somewhat

> follow this theory.

>

> Thus to now resolve the impossible when we have the amperage

> consumption of the one ohm resonant delta load, or even two phases

of

> these, when we short those phases to compare the amperages at

> identical field input conditions with short, we are not actually

> obtaining true delta shorts, but instead obtaining a short in wye,

> thus in fact to measure the actual shorts in delta, we must use 3

> resonances and 3 shorts. Now however what I thought should have

been

> an explanation, of course does not explain anything, because to

> explain things a higher amount of short amperage needs to be

present

> than that currently being noted, so another theory can be advanced,

> or best of all the actual experiment made, which for the present

may

> not be attended for a while due to more pressing things

>

> In my analysis, note that only ohmic internal resistance was

> accounted for, and I stated that the impedance appears to vanish on

> the short measurements. From

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/message/113

> "Slowly moving the field rotor while LCR meter records

> inductance shows a variance between .22 and .26 mh, thus this

> variance of inductance made by a rotating field rotor would be

> estimated percentage wise with Delta L being .04 mh, where the

> variation of inductance would then be .04/.26, about a 15 %

variation

> in stator inductive values."

>

> Now a special consequence of HW Jacksons description in no 1,

> Also when R(L) is selected for maximum load power

> I = 1/2 I (short circuit current)

Again here we can see the exception being made with this circuit as

the amperage that developes is NOT one half of the short circuit

current, rather it is about 98% of that amount!

> V(L) = 1/2 E (open circuit voltage)

Here the experienced drop in voltage seems to be only a drop to 13

volts from a open voltage of 14.6 volts.

> We have now derived the understanding that the apparent resistance

of

> 3 delta loads, when matched to the internal resistance of the wye

> based motional emf, will result in maximum power transfer. However

> because of the fact that the resistance of loads in wye will have

> half the R(int) value with relation to it's emf source, this then

> shows the sole apparant advantage to loads in wye from alternator

> stators, THAT FOR MAXIMUM POWER TRANSFER IN WYE WILL USE HALF THE

> RESISTANCE FOR THAT USED IN DELTA. Thus for the 3 phase wye spiral

> experiments, the one quarter ohm resistances were still above the

> estimated 1/10th ohm of the single stator intenal resistance, which

> as noted is half the value found in delta application.

>

> But here then R(int) has been found by dead short amperage

> mesurements to be less then .2 ohms by those conductions, as delta

> loads, where internal impedances of the stator do not seem to come

> into the picture. we still have the problem of

> I = 1/2 I (short circuit current) not being obeyed, which will soon

> be rested for this on all three phases simultaneously, to see if

this

> supplies any clues to the apparent deviance from theory, found on

> example, and so far not resolved.

> V(L) = 1/2 E (open circuit voltage)

> however offers an important tool to ascertain whether in actual

load

> application, the stator impedance itself enters into the picture

> appearing as part of the quatity R(int) this can be shown in

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/ALT/Dsc00022.jpg

> Here again as formerly noted by constructing a bifilar wye for

> magnetic agreement, the 1/4 ohm spirals, each having a solitary

> impedance of .16 millihenry, have been given 1.8 times that value

> acting inductance by the mutual inductance brought on by adjacent

> phases of the 3 spirals. The net result is that each spiral sytem

has

> their Q brought up to 4 by mutual induction, and 4 times less

> conduction results then that resistance would allow for the 8.6

volts

> across the stator. Thus 32 amps do not develope but only 8 amps( on

3

> phases.) Now here then because the loads are in wye, we assume the

> 1/4 ohm resistance to be at least twice R(int) in that load

> application. However the importance of specifying how far the

stator

> voltage drops from a no load situation, to that of a low resistance

> high load situation now gives a new meaning as to specifying the

> acting R(int), where it is seen that internal impedance of the

source

> must also be entering the picture. Only the variac voltage

operation

> to field can give a better idea of how far the stator drop has

> occured, while fairly nonlinear, for 0-40 volts variac/4/1

> transformer stepdown, we can estimate the open circuit voltage as

> close to that formerly delivered to the 12 ohm DSR. In that case

the

> stator voltage is roughly 80% of the variac voltage. Thus the 36

> volt variac should have established 28.8 volts no load,est. open

> circuit stator.

>

> Now because of this special voltage law shown in Jackson no 1

comment

> then we can first measure the open circuit voltage, and then when

the

> specific load makes half that output voltage appear as its load

down,

> then it can further be deduced that this is the correct value for

> maximum power transfer, and it should be this load value that also

> appears identical to R(int). The implication here is that the value

> of R(int) may change from when it is measured on dead short,

compared

> to when it is measured in action of equal resistance load

> application. Essentially we are then saying that for the .1 ohm R

> (int) value deduced for wye stator coil by short measurement might

> change to a higher value when we factor in the est .24/2 mh as the Z

> (int) ohmic true internal resistance,

> where X(L)= 6.28*480*.00012 = .36 ohms

> where then Z(int)= sq rt {.1^2+.36^2}=.373 ohms

>

> The particular problem then is that it is speculated that if the 1

> ohm acting impedance was close the the value of maximum power

> transfer, then we should have expected 28.8/2= 14.6 volts at

stator,

> but only 8.6 volts appeared. Since that 1 ohm impedance load loaded

> down the open circuit stator voltage in excess of 50 %, this

implies

> that the ohmic value needs to be higher for Z(int)= Z(load)

>

> So now I am returning to the 6 spiral construction, which will be a

> doubling of the three phases scalar effect. It may be explainable

> that this might be an effect of generator overload, but because of

> the field variac regulation it can be run at safe amperage levels.

> However if we consider the .1 ohm the true R int value on wye load

> application, this then implies that none of the experiments have

> approached that level, since each component was .25 ohm. Here then

on

> a parallel bifilar trifilar wye, instead of 3 wires going to a

scalar

> WYE cancellation, it will be another set of three phase

cancellation

> made with the same coil system turned upside down, which

technically

> makes it a bifilar cancellation in 6 phases. Now the load will also

> appear with half the resistance as the former example, which

already

> produced such a drastic load down of the stator source voltage,

that

> more amperage appeared than should exist by the imprresed voltage

> reading. So It certainly seems a good idea to explore this effect

> further with 6 layers of spirals, and more generator load down, to

> note more of this seeemingly impossible effect.

>

> Sincerely HDN