Wardenclyffe - Tesla's true intention

[Ernst]

Looks nice!
I have entered your coils in my spreadsheet and it says:
Primary:
wire length: 2.356 m
inductance: 3.363 uH
This differs quite a bit from your measured (?) inductance. Do you still have the variable inductance attached, while measuring?
Secondary:
wire length: 48.54 m
inductance: 877 uH (that is much closer to the measured value)
SRF: 1111 KHz (based on C and L values of this coil)
velocity factor: 0.69
SRF: 1059 KHz (based on v-fact and wire length)
Extra:
wire length: 45.54 m
inductance: 917 uH (based on equal spacing over entire coil)
SRF: 2239 KHz (based on C and L values of this coil)
velocity factor: 1.34
SRF: 2200 KHz (based on v-fact and wire length)

Total wire length in sec. system: 94.08 m
v fact in sec. system: 1.005
Working frequency derived from these values: 801 KHz
With a primary L of 3.363 uH you would need 11.7 nF in the prim. circuit
With a primary L of 6 uH you would need 6.58 nF in the prim. circuit

Based on this, I would say, instead of adding more caps, try once with 10 nF and adjust for resonance.

Just noticed that you actually ARE using 10 nF in the prim. circuit.
So that should be pretty good already.
On the top-load... it's capacitance should be about 6.14 pF.
If I take the calculated total L (1.7934 mH) that would result in a F-res of 1.5 MHz.
If I take the measured total L (2.005 mH) that would give an F-res of 1.4 MHz.
both are way above the 801 KHz calculated before.
I think you could try to increase the top-load to around 20 pF, so that this F-res matches the 1/4 wave length.
To get 300 KV on 20pF, you need 6 uC. This charge would travel 1.6 million times through your coils per sec resulting in 9.6 A. Judging from the pictures your wires should be able to handle that...


Ernst

[Farmhand]

Ahh ok thanks for that that is interesting so I have a transformer that works
at light speed, sweet.

I concur with the primary inductance that sounds correct and works out to
jive with the caps I'm using, I tried 11 nF but no go my measuring equipment
is not very accurate.

With the resonant frequency, I determine that in practice with the function
generator, the trick to it is when the secondary extra coils are added the
inductance becomes more than the sum of the inductance of both coils
apparently. So the frequency is a bit lower than first expected. Also the top
ring on the secondary is 6 mm tube and the extra coil has most turns close.

I am considering the making of another extra coil with the turns better spaced
so that I end up with the 3:1 H/D ratio which i'm loosely working to. The
secondary is about 3 x the diameter of the extra ect. just roughly.

I did try a bit more top load but the result was less better, and the function
generator determined resonant frequency is actually a bit higher than the 760 kHz
but because I'm messing with the HV at the top I left it a bit high so when
something gets close or an arc breaks out it comes more into tune than go
out of tune, I forgot about that I think it is actually about 800 kHz.

I forgot to mention the secondary-extra wire is 1 mm diameter.

My inductance meter reads sec 848 uH and ex 1.157 mH, added together gives
2.005 mH but when both are measured together it says 2.26 mH so there is
an extra 260 uh coming from the interaction of the two, bonus inductance.
and a fair bit too. This could be one reason why some people have problems
achieving good resonance. It seems right because more or less top load
reduces the spark length to a wire on the pole.

My primary circuit is AC of course no diodes it is the circuit from page 154 of
the CSN but with static gaps, I need a better spark gap I have tungsten rod
I just need to make it, I'm using three galvanized steel washers.

I fitted the line filter and it seems to have improved the interference. So I
might get an arc picture later. I have some stuff to make, variable caps ect.
for experiments.

Thanks cheers

[TeslaSecrets]

Tesla's Mechanical Oscillators

Hello,

In regards to Ernst's initial statements, specifically:

"Important key:

Quote: A characteristic feature of the engine was that the work-performing piston was not connected with anything else, but was perfectly free to vibrate at an enormous rate.

In a mechanical sense this is close to impossible..."

and also

"Let's continue...
Quote: In this machine I succeeded in doing away with all packings, valves, and lubrication, and in producing so rapid a vibration of the piston that shafts of tough steel, fastened to the same and vibrated longitudinally, were torn asunder.

In mechanical terms this is obviously impossible...."


I think you made an incorrect assumption here, because both these case are entirely possible and were physically realized by Tesla.

As evidence I draw your attention to Tesla's Patents;

Patent #514,169 Patented Feb 6, 1894
Patent #517,900 Patented Apr 10, 1894

This concept has been realized as an internal combustion engine, which you can find more information about by researching "Frank Stelzer" and his engine.
http://www.ovaltech.ca/ovlpics/stelzer1.jpg
http://www.ovaltech.ca/ovlpics/stelzer2.jpg
http://www.ovaltech.ca/ovlpics/stelzer3.jpg
http://www.ovaltech.ca/ovlpics/stelzer4.jpg

So this is definitely not impossible as you say.

Now if we take one of Tesla's mechanical oscillators, we notice the end of the working piston or shaft extends out from the device. That is, when in operation we can see the shaft vibrating back and forth. Stelzer's motor is similar, as Stelzer remarks, "The piston actually extends out from the engine block and when running becomes like a blur, do to the rapid alternations."

Realize we could easily place a large steel I-beam or "shaft of steel" in close proximity to this oscillating piston, so that on each alternation the piston strikes the end of the I-beam or "shaft of steel". This sends a mechanical longitudinal impulse along the length of the I-beam or "shaft of steel". If the impact frequency of the piston, matches the resonant mechanical frequency of the impulse in the piece of steel, we get a mechanical resonance. Thus mechanical energy builds up within the structure of the steel, until this solid piece of steel is simple torn apart from the mechanical stresses within. It is simple torn asunder ass Tesla says.

This is not impossible, Tesla witnessed this effect and it is completely understandable when you consider it in the correct context. In fact he describes large pieces of heavy solid steel, bending and twisting as if made of rubber under the effects of intense resonant vibration. He further mentions, various objects vibrating and moving as he power up these mechanical oscillators in his laboratory and the frequencies went through a range of values. Tesla further makes great efforts in the mechanical oscillators to ensure accurate frequency control.

Tesla concluded he could make a very small mechanical oscillator, which could fit in his pocket, which attached to the structural steel members of a building, could in time destroy the building.

[TeslaSecrets]

Mythbusters did this one:

Tesla's Earthquake Machine - YouTube

I would point out the oscillator they used was far less powerful than what Tesla had.

[TeslaSecrets]

Now if only there was a connection between mechanical impulses and electromagnetic fields, oh wait....

We have Poynting Vector, Lorentz Force, Quantum Mechanics and so on and so on. We already have a relationship between electromagnetic fields and mechanical physical acceleration. Is not gravity just a special case of mechanical acceleration?

[boguslaw]

Actually scientists can prove relationship between electromagnetics and gravity. Small experiment is needed but not a cheap one. Required is the powerful magnet in the form of sheet, superconductor also in good form and a cooling liquid (liquid helium for example) - just because we don't know room temperature superconductors. This experiment is made over and over in every lab or school with levitating magnet but nobody tried to carefully combine superconductor and magnet around it in small light object to test if it can levitate itself when cooled. Or in other words if the force pushing magnet up is only a force or a negation of gravity.... could baron Munchausen pull himself up from the ground by own hair ?

[Ernst]

Thank you TeslaSecrets for your comments.
I have seen the mechanical oscillators designed by Tesla (pictures, drawings and texts) and I understand what you mean. It reminds me of something.
I read this page of William Beaty giving a very logical explanation on the workings of the Wardenclyffe tower. In my opinion it adds to my explanation, but William Beaty has a very different opinion:

he's just guessing, and trying to fit Tesla's writings into his own prior assumptions about what is impossible.

When reading Tesla, the main requirement is to shut up and listen. Tesla's descriptions are inhumanly accurate. If they seem weird, it means that we aren't getting it. Come back years later and read again, and they seem to be much clearer, since our own understanding progressed during the meantime.

The stuff in the Human Energy article, it wasn't "close to impossible." Tesla wasn't doing analogies, instead he was accurately describing a real mechanical device. The mechanical oscillator was Tesla's "earthquake machine." It wasn't "obviously impossible," it really did split steel bars in half by resonance. Tesla demonstrated it outside on the street in a big crowd of people, with two halves of a huge cast-iron "link" from a ship's anchor-chain being flung dangerously in opposite diretions. Eyewitnesses said that the vibrating steel objects would appear to "beat like a heart" before being shattered.

But I agree that Tesla left all kinds of messages buried in his writings, "concealed in plain sight" so that fellow Alchemist-types in the future would benefit, while everyone else just can't seem to read his actual words, and instead we decide that Tesla really meant something else than what he was saying. In my experience, each time I suddenly figure out what Tesla is saying, I realize that I'd been misinterpreting his plain language all along, while assuming that he was being obscure or just ignorant. No, instead he was describing with extreme accuracy an idea that I didn't understand or simply wouldn't accept. The problem was with me, but I'd blame Tesla. (But once I grasped a Tesla idea, then I couldn't explain my breakthrough to others, since I'd start using the same simple language Tesla did, and nobody realizes that I'm being accurate, and not twisted and obscure!)

Even if you and William are right on this, I would (for now) stick with my explanation as it matches far too well with many other facts.

Back to your comment:
Maybe I read this too literally:

A characteristic feature of the engine was that the work-performing piston was not connected with anything else

With nothing connected, which includes a metal rod acting as a valve and a second and third piston as in the engine you mention, things get much more complicated. Besides that, how do you use the mechanical power that that machine creates?
I feel that is close to impossible, though not entirely impossible.
I could be misinterpreting this qoute:

In this machine I succeeded in doing away with all packings, valves, and lubrication, and in producing so rapid a vibration of the piston that shafts of tough steel, fastened to the same and vibrated longitudinally, were torn asunder

But the way I read it, it is a machine that self-destructs.

On the Mythbuster issue I would say that it is not the amount of power applied that matters as long as you can overcome frictional losses, it is a matter of maintaining the exact frequency (something they got right in the end) and attaching it to the right spot.
Look at the way violins are played. The bow has to touch the strings near the bridge to get a good sound. This last thing was not given any thought by our myth busting friends.

This post:

Now if only there was a connection between mechanical impulses and electromagnetic fields, oh wait....

We have Poynting Vector, Lorentz Force, Quantum Mechanics and so on and so on. We already have a relationship between electromagnetic fields and mechanical physical acceleration. Is not gravity just a special case of mechanical acceleration?

remains a mystery to me. What are you trying to say?

Ernst.

[TeslaSecrets]

It is exactly as Tesla describes, the piston is a free floating piston, it is not connected to a crank or any other mechanical system. The piston simply oscillates back and forth. In a normal engine, the piston is connected to a crankshaft with a connecting rod, through pivots and bearings, to change the piston oscillation into rotary motion.

In Tesla's patents there is a rod used to extend the operation of the piston outside the engine, but technically it is part of the piston not a separate part once assembled. The rod and piston cannot move, like the connecting rod to a piston is a normal engine can swing or move.

In the experiment, a separate metal shaft or bar or I-beam is used, which is placed near the oscillating piston so as to be struck by it.

Yes, the Stelzer engine is a more complex version, but using extra chambers does not negate the fact we still have a single free floating piston, which in this case is acting as both exhaust and intake valves as well as a piston.

Stelzer makes the advantages very clear. His motor has eight part, verses the 200 or more parts in a modern engine. No separate moving valves for neither the exhaust nor intake, no crank, no bearings, no timing belt, less friction = less heat buildup and wear. There is a reason this Stelzer engine came out in 1986, and yet we still are not using it over 25 years later, and its not because it doesn't work. More likely it is because it works too well.

The oscillator does not self destruct, the piece of metal in contact with the vibrating piston self destructs. I explained, a metal shaft or bar or I-beam is fixed in close proximity to the oscillator, so the oscillating piston strikes this metal during its oscillation. This impact sends a mechanical wave into the piece of steel, which can increase resonantly.

My comment about mechanical accelerations and electromagnetic fields is related to your question about using the mechanical power these oscillators create. Stelzer mentions this as the prime difficulty with these types of engines, however this problem is far from unsolvable and Stelzer proposes three solutions in the pages I linked.

One of these solutions is to fit electromagnets onto the ends of the oscillator. Oscillating magnets in coils, produces electricity which can be used to run standard electric motors. The other methods involve hydraulics and air compression. If we apply mechanical linkages to these types of oscillators, than were back to the crankshaft and piston motor.

However, there is a much deeper level to this. Perhaps we can induce these same mechanical oscillations, which can self-destruct a piece of metal, induce them electromagnetically, without the need for a physical oscillator.
The result would still be destruction of the piece of steel, but we used an electromagnetic solid state field source, instead of a mechanical oscillator.

People might not get this so let me clarify. If we have a piece of metal so connected to a powerful mechanical oscillator, mechanical vibrations will build up in the metal due to resonance. The oscillator impacts one end of the piece of metal, and a mechanical wave travels along the piece of metal, reflects off the opposite end and travels back. When it reflects again off the original face, the oscillator is striking that face, thus the impulse increases.

Realize this mechanical wave, is traveling as motion in the atoms of the steel itself. It is being transfered through the steel as electromagnetic impulses and actions between the electric fields of the atoms of the steel. With external electromagnetic fields, it is very likely we could reproduce this same waveform, if we had electromagnetic fields of the proper intensity and frequency.

One thing you can be certain of when reading Nikola Tesla's work, he was not one to make fanciful claims he could not back up. If he publicly spoke about an effect, he had seen it with his own eyes. It is exactly like that quote, if someone thinks Tesla was lying about his discoveries or making things up, one is seriously deluding oneself.

One very important difference between the Mythbusters experiment and Tesla's description, was the Mythbusters oscillator, was not actually impacting the steel of the bridge. Theirs was just a free floating oscillation, possibly some impact on the back end, when what you would want is to actually hammer the bridge with every oscillation. Far more energy transfer in the second case, even if both are resonant.

One last thing, all these examples are using a single simple waveform. In practice you may need a much more complex waveform, which may possibly even change frequencies or be composed of multiple frequencies to maintain resonance. Tesla mentions his oscillators had a tendency to increase in frequency, until they self destructed, hence the need for frequency stabalization. He achieved this by using secondary smaller oscillators to control the input pressures to a larger oscillator, which can be seen in his patents.

[Gav]

ive allways tryed to imagine what it was he was talking about when he spoke of the piston, thinking out of the square i thought of a fishtank airstone pump motor, and how the magnet was used to vibrate the arm to pump the air through into the stone.
what about a perminant magnet being bounced back and forth between 2 electromagnets? if it was set up correctly the magnet would sit nearly motionless but vibrating at a huge rate?
an idea from a novice but i seem to think it would work?

Gav

[Ernst]

Thanks for the carification, TeslaSecrets.
It is an interesting thought, the one about inducing mechanical oscillations by non-mechanical means. If I had the proper tools and knowledge I would be interested in conducting some experiments, trying to get that to work. But for now that is not going to happen.
And Gav, yes I have been thinking about 'floating' and vibrating magnets as well, that is why I said it is not entirely impossible.

Going back to the article on increasing the human energy. I must admit that I may have misinterpretted one or two things, but that does not change the overall story.
Look at the parts that he is describing an in what order. The article continues with sending electricity through the air (coupling between the two oscillators in Wardenclyffe) and ends with sending electricity through the earth (distrubution system of Wardenclyffe). Look at the dates he mentions in this article, look at what he was doing at those times. Look at the experiments at CS, how they all fit into this plan. It all fits, I am still absolutely convinced that he is describing Wardenclyffe here.

But I would like to mention one more thing. I believe Tesla's main and primairy focus was on electricity and he visualised the workings of his designs with electricity as a fluid.
These visualisations lead him to believe that what works for electricity might also work for water, and perhaps air, and thus he came to his non-electrical inventions.
I am not saying that this is the one and only truth about Tesla, this is what I believe how he worked.

He wanted to pass on his ideas and plans for Wardenclyffe. But he know his opposition, so it is the most logical thing to do in his case, to describe it in mechanical terms. Whether or not all mechanical equivalents could/have been build is not relevant.

Ernst.

[TeslaSecrets]

@Gav Yes, this is very close to what I am talking about. Realize though that even atoms act like tiny magnets. You can actually do what you suggested, on an atomic scale.

@Ernst Glad I could point this out for you.

I will add I in no way disagree with your conclusions about how this oscillator may be related to the Wardenclyffe power station. Indeed, Tesla always had a mechanical analogy, involving water or air, for most of his electrical devices. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using fluid dynamics to illustrate electrical principles.

Consider this drawing, Tesla's mechanical analog of the Tesla Coil, which I should not have to point out incorporates features of the mechanical oscillator we have just discussed.

http://www.ovaltech.ca/ovlpics/mechcoil.jpg

And I add this image which I think points out the relationship between these mechanical oscillators and the Wardenclyfe power concept quite well.

http://www.ovaltech.ca/images/Scalar...ansmission.png

For if we can oscillate a bridge, why not the Earth?

I am going to point out here, the Earth was far more important to the operation of Wardenclyfe, then the air. Power into the air would be a tremendous loss and inefficient for power transmission, this just isn't how Wardenclyfe worked.

If he had been transmitting the amounts of power he was talking about into the air, the Wardenclyfe tower would have been like a full time fireworks show, with lighting bolts shooting out everywhere, like a normal Tesla Coil. Needless to say, this is not a desirable result for a commercial power station. Most of the power, went into the ground, not the air.

[RAMSET]

Food for thought

Gentlemen
Perhaps you know this.... maybe not?

Unlike Colorodo ,Wardenclyffe is basically built on a sand pit void of any monolithic stone structure whatsoever, a very unique and huge area where water of different density [salt and fresh] and sandy soil interface.

I suppose the availability of a much higher ...good strong solid stone base being right across the sound is the real point....?

The conductivity of the water at Wardenclyffe is very high.........

Appologies if I have stated the profoundly obvious.

Thx
Chet

[Hobby Eon]

Hi Ernst.

First you come with the 'rare notes' and moments later you come with this strange reaction :

What static field are you talking about? and how and where did you apply it?

And if somebody (me) starts rebuilding you come with some lawyer type reactions 'I absolutely don't know what you are talking about'.

This could easely be followed by you with : what lawyer ? What type? '
Must i play this game ? All my collegues understood me perfectly and needed less then half a word from me to help them to get results.
You even dare to ask what results ? Well o.u. effects offcourse. You talk about a 500 kV supply. Do you realize that that is a spark of half a meter long ?

These forums are filled with 10.000 's messages of NOTHING, shall we talk about the Tesla o.u. principle first please ? That needs not more then two lines. Then we can talk about execution. And from there the practical components. If people are not the trained, skilled, very experienced and specialed in r.f. electronics like me , you can't expect from me to train them and wait for their degrees if they ever get there.

Keep it simple. Like this: electrical generator. The world took more then 1700 years to get this marvalous thing. Principle working : '.. cross a magnetic field thru a metal coil and the coil will deliver elektrical power...'
Hoho, how difficult is that to understand ?? Now the same thing can be done to make a T.M.T. working.

And i just don't think that i must be the one to do this. But any serious technician in this field, understands that your message nr 2 from this thread is an epic one !

[boguslaw]

Right .
"These forums are filled with 10.000 's messages of NOTHING, shall we talk about the Tesla o.u. principle first please ?"

I'm all ears...

[Farmhand]

Hi Ernst.

First you come with the 'rare notes' and moments later you come with this strange reaction :

What static field are you talking about? and how and where did you apply it?

And if somebody (me) starts rebuilding you come with some lawyer type reactions 'I absolutely don't know what you are talking about'.

This could easely be followed by you with : what lawyer ? What type? '
Must i play this game ? All my collegues understood me perfectly and needed less then half a word from me to help them to get results.
You even dare to ask what results ? Well o.u. effects offcourse. You talk about a 500 kV supply. Do you realize that that is a spark of half a meter long ?

These forums are filled with 10.000 's messages of NOTHING, shall we talk about the Tesla o.u. principle first please ? That needs not more then two lines. Then we can talk about execution. And from there the practical components. If people are not the trained, skilled, very experienced and specialed in r.f. electronics like me , you can't expect from me to train them and wait for their degrees if they ever get there.

Keep it simple. Like this: electrical generator. The world took more then 1700 years to get this marvalous thing. Principle working : '.. cross a magnetic field thru a metal coil and the coil will deliver elektrical power...'
Hoho, how difficult is that to understand ?? Now the same thing can be done to make a T.M.T. working.

And i just don't think that i must be the one to do this. But any serious technician in this field, understands that your message nr 2 from this thread is an epic one !

Hi Hobby Eon, Can you show me a quote from Tesla in relation to the
Magnifying Transmitter which is a definite claim of Over Unity ? It is my
contention that he never made one. In my opinion the Magnifying Transmitter
was a device for the transmission of energy, not a free energy device.

If you have words from Tesla to indicate it was a free energy device then
please show quotes and provide reference to this information.

Cheers

P.S. 500 kV will only produce a spark half a meter long if the the energy is
released. The HV top terminal is meant to be designed so as hold the energy without
such a release.

Can you show us a picture of your Device ?

My transformer can produce in excess of 200 kv and does produce a spark
200 mm long if I facilitate a "leak" to allow the discharge from the terminal
if the "leak" point is not made there is no sparks or arcs from the terminal.
The 200 kv is produced even with only the minimum of spark gaps, it can be a
lot more. Many people have Tesla type transformers which can produce in
excess of 500 000 volts.

..

.