- OK something else two things really First a month or so back TIME

TRAVEL tyopic was mentioned1 There was a PhD a late IBM researcher in

fact(he also was into Psychic resreach ufos etcd!0 Who in the 1980s

developed a TIME CAMERA Dr. marcel Vogel I have beentrying to replicate

his TIME AMERA using a Tesla Purple plate by the way! Got Digital pics

tha are intresting ! Now, Juul 10th is Teslas birthdfate gLOBAL ENERGY

INDEPPENDENCE DAY TOO(see google) and A TESLA DAY OF SCIENCE remeber

tesla jul10th all thanks ! Dr. laird(Dunans Casle Argylle ,Scotland)

Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D..U>L> Huntington becah, california USA

-----Original Message-----

From: ED <evp@...>

To: usa-tesla <usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Thu, Apr 26, 2012 5:43 pm

Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Re: Ohms Law Value at Series Resonance?

Harvey

None of this makes any sense at all without a diagram showing the

actual configuration, the measurement points, and the measurements and

predicted values for each point. Try that and we might have some

sensible comments.

Ed

Harvey D Norris wrote:

--- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, "McGalliard, Frederick B"

<frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:>

class, and a grad student level evaluation of a range of real

> Harvey. You are strongly overstating the dif between a freshman EE

applications. The freshman uses simple coil and capacitor models and

does his lab demo with components that fall in the range where all the

little idiosyncrasies do not apply. In fact, as all skilled and

experienced EEs, and even some physicists, know, inductors and

capacitors typically have a well behaved nearly ideal range of

behavior,

If we took a single coil and then air core coupled it with another coil

by mutual inductance, the inductive reactance of the first coil will be

reduced. If we then used that lowered reactance and gave it an

identical capacitive reactance, the current would never be able to

reach its ohms law value expressed from the single coil. The Q factor

of that coil could not reach the X(L)/R ratio. If it did all of the

apparent VI input energy would have been used up,(because now in these

ideal conditions VI=I^2R and no energy would be left over for the

secondary to record any current. If it did there would be more power

out then what went in. If the secondary were made more receptive by it

also having a C value in its loop, this would further drive the

primaries inductive reactance down again by a smaller margin. If the

circuit were retuned again, the same thing would apply and the single

inductor would deviate even more from its ideal behavior. However for

just the single inductor without any other receptors in space around

it, we are still confronted with the electric field between the

windings, or the internal capacity of the coil. If the series resonance

were ideal, ALL of the available electric field created by the series

resonant rise of voltage would be in the capacitor, and none would be

left over to manifest itself in the internal capacity of the coil.

I will clarify then the measurements made in http://www.youtube.com/wa

First the total current was measured for two 14 gauge coil spools in

isolation and in series @ 2.6 ohms and given an opposing capacitive

reactance within 1% of the needed value. Stopping the video at 1:06

shows those notes where it is indicated that

16.05 volts enables 5.11 A

Only 82.8% of the expected 6.17 A developes if the load were truly 2.6

ohms. The resonance has not come very close to its ohms law value at

all. This to me is not operating in an ideal range of behavior. When I

showed the circuit to my friend who nit pics and has an electronics

associate degree, he protested that I was not counting the resistance

of all the connecting wires, so I replaced all the capacitive alligator

clips with tight 14 gauge wire connections. At 5:20 in the video most

of these can be seen, but there would have to be some 170 ft of 14

gauge wire involved for his protest to be valid. Then he said the

circuit wasn't perfectly balanced and the books can't be wrong. This

too is invalid because the ratio X(L)/R is not large, thus we do not

have a narrow bandwidth of resonance.

Next the cap bank was shorted to find the Impedance of just the

inductive side. The variac supplying this voltage of the low end of its

150 volt range then showed 18.74 volts enabling 1.67 A for Z=11.22

ohms. After subtracting the squares to find the square of

X(L):(Z^2-R^2=X(L)^2) for the actual 2.6 ohms resistance X(L)= 10.9 ohms

Lastly the inductive side was shorted to determine X(C).

Notice that the variac supply then rose to its highest value where

19.54 volts enabled 1.78 A, which gives X(C)= 10.97 ohms, within 1 % of

the needed value. My electronics friend also noted the the wireless

amperage meter was very accurate in comparison to meters he brought

over, and it was very convenient to have both amperage and voltage

displays on the same screen. My actual repeat of these observations on

the video was unduly long due to inadequate preparation. I hope I have

made my point here. If I had used actual alternator frequencies

(~465Hz) for the demo, the discrepancies between ideal and real

behavior would have been vast, as I had mentioned only ~30% of the

expected amperage developed in that case.

Internal capacity must become more predominant at higher frequencies.

Sincerely HDN Interesting. Where did you get the purple plate and how much do they cost? I've never seen one.

Ed

Ed Johnson wrote:OK something else two things really First a month or so back TIME

TRAVEL tyopic was mentioned1 There was a PhD a late IBM researcher in

fact(he also was into Psychic resreach ufos etcd!0 Who in the 1980s

developed a TIME CAMERA Dr. marcel Vogel I have beentrying to replicate

his TIME AMERA using a Tesla Purple plate by the way! Got Digital pics

tha are intresting ! Now, Juul 10th is Teslas birthdfate gLOBAL ENERGY

INDEPPENDENCE DAY TOO(see google) and A TESLA DAY OF SCIENCE remeber

tesla jul10th all thanks ! Dr. laird(Dunans Casle Argylle ,Scotland)

Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D..U>L> Huntington becah, california USA

-----Original Message-----

From: ED <evp@...>

To: usa-tesla <usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Thu, Apr 26, 2012 5:43 pm

Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Re: Ohms Law Value at Series Resonance?

Harvey

None of this makes any sense at all without a diagram showing the

actual configuration, the measurement points, and the measurements and

predicted values for each point. Try that and we might have some

sensible comments.

Ed

Harvey D Norris wrote:

--- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, "McGalliard, Frederick B"

<frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:

>

> Harvey. You are strongly overstating the dif between a freshman EE

class, and a grad student level evaluation of a range of real

applications. The freshman uses simple coil and capacitor models and

does his lab demo with components that fall in the range where all the

little idiosyncrasies do not apply. In fact, as all skilled and

experienced EEs, and even some physicists, know, inductors and

capacitors typically have a well behaved nearly ideal range of

behavior,

If we took a single coil and then air core coupled it with another coil

by mutual inductance, the inductive reactance of the first coil will be

reduced. If we then used that lowered reactance and gave it an

identical capacitive reactance, the current would never be able to

reach its ohms law value expressed from the single coil. The Q factor

of that coil could not reach the X(L)/R ratio. If it did all of the

apparent VI input energy would have been used up,(because now in these

ideal conditions VI=I^2R and no energy would be left over for the

secondary to record any current. If it did there would be more power

out then what went in. If the secondary were made more receptive by it

also having a C value in its loop, this would further drive the

primaries inductive reactance down again by a smaller margin. If the

circuit were retuned again, the same thing would apply and the single

inductor would deviate even more from its ideal behavior. However for

just the single inductor without any other receptors in space around

it, we are still confronted with the electric field between the

windings, or the internal capacity of the coil. If the series resonance

were ideal, ALL of the available electric field created by the series

resonant rise of voltage would be in the capacitor, and none would be

left over to manifest itself in the internal capacity of the coil.

I will clarify then the measurements made in http://www.youtube.com/wa

First the total current was measured for two 14 gauge coil spools in

isolation and in series @ 2.6 ohms and given an opposing capacitive

reactance within 1% of the needed value. Stopping the video at 1:06

shows those notes where it is indicated that

16.05 volts enables 5.11 A

Only 82.8% of the expected 6.17 A developes if the load were truly 2.6

ohms. The resonance has not come very close to its ohms law value at

all. This to me is not operating in an ideal range of behavior. When I

showed the circuit to my friend who nit pics and has an electronics

associate degree, he protested that I was not counting the resistance

of all the connecting wires, so I replaced all the capacitive alligator

clips with tight 14 gauge wire connections. At 5:20 in the video most

of these can be seen, but there would have to be some 170 ft of 14

gauge wire involved for his protest to be valid. Then he said the

circuit wasn't perfectly balanced and the books can't be wrong. This

too is invalid because the ratio X(L)/R is not large, thus we do not

have a narrow bandwidth of resonance.

Next the cap bank was shorted to find the Impedance of just the

inductive side. The variac supplying this voltage of the low end of its

150 volt range then showed 18.74 volts enabling 1.67 A for Z=11.22

ohms. After subtracting the squares to find the square of

X(L):(Z^2-R^2=X(L)^2) for the actual 2.6 ohms resistance X(L)= 10.9 ohms

Lastly the inductive side was shorted to determine X(C).

Notice that the variac supply then rose to its highest value where

19.54 volts enabled 1.78 A, which gives X(C)= 10.97 ohms, within 1 % of

the needed value. My electronics friend also noted the the wireless

amperage meter was very accurate in comparison to meters he brought

over, and it was very convenient to have both amperage and voltage

displays on the same screen. My actual repeat of these observations on

the video was unduly long due to inadequate preparation. I hope I have

made my point here. If I had used actual alternator frequencies

(~465Hz) for the demo, the discrepancies between ideal and real

behavior would have been vast, as I had mentioned only ~30% of the

expected amperage developed in that case.

Internal capacity must become more predominant at higher frequencies.

Sincerely HDN

- Sorry but I am having a bit of trouble following your test procedure. Note, in a typical solenoid wound coil there is a LOT of radio emission, which will increase the effective resistance in the dissipative (R) direction. A torroidal coil should reduce these losses to a minimum. A ferromagnetic core, of course, will increase this loss even more, while increasing very dramatically the inductance. Capacitors also show substantial losses, depending on the type of materials, peak currents, etc. It is not clear to me if you have included these losses in your test.Also, adding a secondary does nothing to the coil's inductance. If the secondary is loaded, the load, reduced by some coupling constant, and of course adjusted by the relative turns ratio between the two coils, would be seen in the primary, more or less in parallel with the inductance of the primary.And please note that in the circuit wiring itself, you have contact resistance at all of your contacts. This can easily overwhelm all the resistance from the wire itself. You have inductance, radiation, and impedance matching issues that can make the test difficult in some regimes.I have done a few tests where I have used resonance effects, but I do not now recall ever noting that the resonant resistance were substantially different from the R values for the L and C. But then I have usually just ignored the R value for C as too challenging to make an easy desk top measure, compared to the L where this can be easily measured. You could null out most of these effects by measuring the impedance at the resonant frequency, then projecting the real (R direction) component as your resistance (I am a little vague on exactly how you did this, but I think you did). This will include all the dissipative factors of the coil or cap, and not just the DC resistance.If I read you right, your measurements show that the real (R direction) resistance at resonance is 17% higher than it should be? I would recommend rebuilding the inductor as a torroid, to reduce radiation, and measuring the resistive impedance of the cap at the resonant frequency, to include all the ancillary losses. And keep all Ferro magnetic materials, conductive metals, etc., far from the circuit. It would be interesting to put a metal film (low inductance) resistor where the coil/cap are, and verifying that the behavior at frequency is consistent with exactly R of if your circuit still measures 17% high. This would be a good way to separate effects.BTB. I have never considered doing an AC impedance measurement and calculating from this the resistive component. I guess that is what you did below. Mainly because there are a number of ways this can be inaccurate for determining intrinsic values that would apply at other frequencies.For a number of reasons this should be identical to the resistance of the coil at resonance (so long as resonance is this frequency). Mainly like it has to be the same because it has the same stimulus.Again, I may be missing the detail, but it appears from what you said that you did not measure the cap resistance???
**From:**usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com [mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com]**On Behalf Of**Harvey D Norris**Sent:**Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:36 AM**To:**usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com**Subject:**[usa-tesla] Re: Ohms Law Value at Series Resonance?

--- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, "McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:>

freshman EE class, and a grad student level evaluation of a range of real applications. The freshman uses simple coil and capacitor models and does his lab demo with components that fall in the range where all the little idiosyncrasies do not apply. In fact, as all skilled and experienced EEs, and even some physicists, know, inductors and capacitors typically have a well behaved nearly ideal range of behavior,

> Harvey. You are strongly overstating the dif between a

If we took a single coil and then air core coupled it with another coil by mutual inductance, the inductive reactance of the first coil will be reduced. If we then used that lowered reactance and gave it an identical capacitive reactance, the current would never be able to reach its ohms law value expressed from the single coil. The Q factor of that coil could not reach the X(L)/R ratio. If it did all of the apparent VI input energy would have been used up,(because now in these ideal conditions VI=I^2R and no energy would be left over for the secondary to record any current. If it did there would be more power out then what went in. If the secondary were made more receptive by it also having a C value in its loop, this would further drive the primaries inductive reactance down again by a smaller margin. If the circuit were retuned again, the same thing would apply and the single inductor would deviate even more from its ideal behavior. However for just the single inductor wi! thout any other receptors in space around it, we are still confronted with the electric field between the windings, or the internal capacity of the coil. If the series resonance were ideal, ALL of the available electric field created by the series resonant rise of voltage would be in the capacitor, and none would be left over to manifest itself in the internal capacity of the coil.

I will clarify then the measurements made in http://www.youtube.com/wa

First the total current was measured for two 14 gauge coil spools in isolation and in series @ 2.6 ohms and given an opposing capacitive reactance within 1% of the needed value. Stopping the video at 1:06 shows those notes where it is indicated that

16.05 volts enables 5.11 A

Only 82.8% of the expected 6.17 A developes if the load were truly 2.6 ohms. The resonance has not come very close to its ohms law value at all. This to me is not operating in an ideal range of behavior. When I showed the circuit to my friend who nit pics and has an electronics associate degree, he protested that I was not counting the resistance of all the connecting wires, so I replaced all the capacitive alligator clips with tight 14 gauge wire connections. At 5:20 in the video most of these can be seen, but there would have to be some 170 ft of 14 gauge wire involved for his protest to be valid. Then he said the circuit wasn't perfectly balanced and the books can't be wrong. This too is invalid because the ratio X(L)/R is not large, thus we do not have a narrow bandwidth of resonance.

Next the cap bank was shorted to find the Impedance of just the inductive side. The variac supplying this voltage of the low end of its 150 volt range then showed 18.74 volts enabling 1.67 A for Z=11.22 ohms. After subtracting the squares to find the square of X(L):(Z^2-R^2=X(L)^2) for the actual 2.6 ohms resistance X(L)= 10.9 ohms

Lastly the inductive side was shorted to determine X(C).

Notice that the variac supply then rose to its highest value where 19.54 volts enabled 1.78 A, which gives X(C)= 10.97 ohms, within 1 % of the needed value. My electronics friend also noted the the wireless amperage meter was very accurate in comparison to meters he brought over, and it was very convenient to have both amperage and voltage displays on the same screen. My actual repeat of these observations on the video was unduly long due to inadequate preparation. I hope I have made my point here. If I had used actual alternator frequencies (~465Hz) for the demo, the discrepancies between ideal and real behavior would have been vast, as I had mentioned only ~30% of the expected amperage developed in that case.

Internal capacity must become more predominant at higher frequencies.

Sincerely HDN - People who can do documentation are a vital link in the development of inventions. Since so many of our best inventors have no funding at all, we run into this situation too often. I've had the same problem as everyone else with this particular work -- looking at the pure text obviously isn't doing it justice.

If Mr. Norris happens to be anywhere around the places i travel, i'd be willing to stop by and take some pictures, write up some stuff, and get it out there. PESwiki would also be interested.

I live in Loveland, Colorado and regularly go all up and down the Front Range from Cheyenne to Denver, and by extension can materialize anywhere else in Colorado.

Later this month i'm planning on traveling to Albany New York, which means i'd be able to work in the Mohawk and Hudson Valleys, New York City, and New Jersey. Then am planning to spend a few days in Philadelphia working on the possible Tesla Days conference before returning here.

Most of my cross-country travel is on Amtrak so any place along a rail line could become a stop. Since this appears to be a sort of emergency, i'd just ask that somehow a place to stay & meals be provided while i'm on the project.-----Original Message-----

From: ED

Sent: Apr 26, 2012 6:43 PM

To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Re: Ohms Law Value at Series Resonance?

Harvey

None of this makes any sense at all without a diagram showing the actual configuration, the measurement points, and the measurements and predicted values for each point. Try that and we might have some sensible comments.

Ed

Harvey D Norris wrote:

--- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, "McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:

>

> Harvey. You are strongly overstating the dif between a freshman EE class, and a grad student level evaluation of a range of real applications. The freshman uses simple coil and capacitor models and does his lab demo with components that fall in the range where all the little idiosyncrasies do not apply. In fact, as all skilled and experienced EEs, and even some physicists, know, inductors and capacitors typically have a well behaved nearly ideal range of behavior,

If we took a single coil and then air core coupled it with another coil by mutual inductance, the inductive reactance of the first coil will be reduced. If we then used that lowered reactance and gave it an identical capacitive reactance, the current would never be able to reach its ohms law value expressed from the single coil. The Q factor of that coil could not reach the X(L)/R ratio. If it did all of the apparent VI input energy would have been used up,(because now in these ideal conditions VI=I^2R and no energy would be left over for the secondary to record any current. If it did there would be more power out then what went in. If the secondary were made more receptive by it also having a C value in its loop, this would further drive the primaries inductive reactance down again by a smaller margin. If the circuit were retuned again, the same thing would apply and the single inductor would deviate even more from its ideal behavior. However for just the single inductor without any other receptors in space around it, we are still confronted with the electric field between the windings, or the internal capacity of the coil. If the series resonance were ideal, ALL of the available electric field created by the series resonant rise of voltage would be in the capacitor, and none would be left over to manifest itself in the internal capacity of the coil.

I will clarify then the measurements made in http://www.youtube.com/wa

First the total current was measured for two 14 gauge coil spools in isolation and in series @ 2.6 ohms and given an opposing capacitive reactance within 1% of the needed value. Stopping the video at 1:06 shows those notes where it is indicated that

16.05 volts enables 5.11 A

Only 82.8% of the expected 6.17 A developes if the load were truly 2.6 ohms. The resonance has not come very close to its ohms law value at all. This to me is not operating in an ideal range of behavior. When I showed the circuit to my friend who nit pics and has an electronics associate degree, he protested that I was not counting the resistance of all the connecting wires, so I replaced all the capacitive alligator clips with tight 14 gauge wire connections. At 5:20 in the video most of these can be seen, but there would have to be some 170 ft of 14 gauge wire involved for his protest to be valid. Then he said the circuit wasn't perfectly balanced and the books can't be wrong. This too is invalid because the ratio X(L)/R is not large, thus we do not have a narrow bandwidth of resonance.

Next the cap bank was shorted to find the Impedance of just the inductive side. The variac supplying this voltage of the low end of its 150 volt range then showed 18.74 volts enabling 1.67 A for Z=11.22 ohms. After subtracting the squares to find the square of X(L):(Z^2-R^2=X(L)^2) for the actual 2.6 ohms resistance X(L)= 10.9 ohms

Lastly the inductive side was shorted to determine X(C).

Notice that the variac supply then rose to its highest value where 19.54 volts enabled 1.78 A, which gives X(C)= 10.97 ohms, within 1 % of the needed value. My electronics friend also noted the the wireless amperage meter was very accurate in comparison to meters he brought over, and it was very convenient to have both amperage and voltage displays on the same screen. My actual repeat of these observations on the video was unduly long due to inadequate preparation. I hope I have made my point here. If I had used actual alternator frequencies (~465Hz) for the demo, the discrepancies between ideal and real behavior would have been vast, as I had mentioned only ~30% of the expected amperage developed in that case.

Internal capacity must become more predominant at higher frequencies.

Sincerely HDN

-- Michael Riversong Tesla Academy Fort Collins, Colorado www.teslaacademy.info rivedu@...