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

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

Expand Messages
  • Ed Johnson
    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
    Message 1 of 17 , Apr 28, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      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
    • ED
      Interesting. Where did you get the purple plate and how much do they cost? I ve never seen one. Ed
      Message 2 of 17 , Apr 28, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        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

      • McGalliard, Frederick B
        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
        Message 3 of 17 , Apr 30, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          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:

          >
          > 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 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

        • Michael Riversong Education
          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
          Message 4 of 17 , May 6 9:06 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            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@...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.