Cause and Effect in Electro-Magnetic systems

[Cornboy 555]

WOW Erfinder, i do believe, you are trying to teach, thanks.

Regards Cornboy.

[dward]

s!



I have come to view LC as spatial energy storage mechanism. Energy stored up in one half of this two part mechanism is discharged into the other. Understanding this mechanism is key, once we do we come to the realization that there are no flux lines, (mentioned by AC) all is but a displacement of something that is already there, the displacement mechanism gives rise to the illusion of the lines. Isn't it interesting that we are told that cutting lines is what causes potentials to be induced, they tell us this and in doing so drop the spatial relationship. What is happening to the inductance when the so called lines are cutting the inductor? In the same light, whats happening to the capacitance?

What happens when we change our view from change in flux to change in inductance?



As the energy is not part of our dimension proper, and dimension is probably not the proper term to use, impedance takes on a new meaning, and would not apply as we presently use the term. Sure there will be opposition, however the nature of this opposition we can only speculate at. Transient potentials like those in our pulse motor circuits raise its own potential to overcome any opposition that it encounters. Here impedance as we know it goes out the window, for here we have a potential which is oblivious to the impedance set before it.

When I examined the nature of the original "flux lines" idea I kept coming back to the idea that what ever we were taught, the only thing the flux line idea is saying is that, we find a boundary and here denote it as magnetism or dielectricity etc. This is the real value of Dollard's work as far as i'm concerned. As an architect I must remember that my job is to denote boundaries on a piece of paper which represent real relationships in material objects. My job in effect is to say, "this far and no further shall you come." and say it to all the elements of a building. That is what drawing is, and that is, in effect what the flux lines, and even tubules of ether molecules concept is saying as well.

I am firmly convinced that regardless of the phenomena, it is in understanding the correct relationships of bounded things(binary opposition) that leads to our ability to create motion, force, power or any other thing.

Nice insight!

[barbosi]

There is a saying the any miracle lasts for three days. As the term expired, the miracle must be real and it deserves more attention.

As for my present stance on the subject, I have come to view LC as spatial energy storage mechanism. Energy stored up in one half of this two part mechanism is discharged into the other. Understanding this mechanism is key, once we do we come to the realization that there are no flux lines, (mentioned by AC) all is but a displacement of something that is already there, the displacement mechanism gives rise to the illusion of the lines.

This was my AHA! moment when for the first time I made a connection to “The repeating cycles of the universe are based on the piston or the heat pump.” “All electric pulsations are piston strokes between the two sexed conditions which polarize every wave.” “Expansion/contraction occurs simultaneously.” “Repetition is impossible except through waves.”

And the same Tesla was telling us with his picture:

While one side compresses, the other half expands. Cool!

Isn't it interesting that we are told that cutting lines is what causes potentials to be induced, they tell us this and in doing so drop the spatial relationship. What is happening to the inductance when the so called lines are cutting the inductor? In the same light, whats happening to the capacitance?

What happens when we change our view from change in flux to change in inductance?

Interestingly, there was a lecture with demo made by Steorn showing the variance of an inductance while in proximity of a magnet. And that is not resulting from the motion of the magnet in front of the coil, but rather from the distance (space again) between them. I cannot find the video at the moment, but the same is replicated by Naudin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdg74E0xkA. It looks like the very property of a coil (L) is not a constant afterall, but rather a response to an external pressuring force.

The same must occur for a capacitor but the hows and whys are still obscured to me. All these alone deserve more thought.

As the energy is not part of our dimension proper, and dimension is probably not the proper term to use, impedance takes on a new meaning, and would not apply as we presently use the term. Sure there will be opposition, however the nature of this opposition we can only speculate at. Transient potentials like those in our pulse motor circuits raise its own potential to overcome any opposition that it encounters. Here impedance as we know it goes out the window, for here we have a potential which is oblivious to the impedance set before it.

Bingo!

As for you not being able to demonstrate how energy is moving from L to C, our present experimentation with pulse motors is a testament to the fact that you and everyone else does indeed have it within your means to demonstrate this. One need not look any further than the transient phenomena associated with a transitioning switch in a circuit carrying current. I am "suggesting" and by no means claiming that energy is moving from one storage mechanism into another, in this particular example, from the inductive into the capacitive, L to C respectively. This "high emf" as Tesla called it is suitable for charging capacitors. Why would he say that? Was he trying to tell us something? He wouldn't be the hero of this drama if he wasn't.

C to L is the monster you have to attack now. If we can find the mechanism which allows us to generate a current which overcomes the opposition provided by an inductance, we officially earned every watt or watt equivalent that comes out of that effort. The first step in this direction is establishing a foundation. The flux line concept is flawed in my opinion, and must be replaced (not by mainstream, it must take place on the personal level we either want to spend the rest of our lives trying to verify that which has been designed to have us chasing our tails, or we listen to Nature, and those men and women who knew her best) with something that reflects whats really taking place, and is all encompassing, something which supports the idea of work being done through the mechanism of changing in potentials.

So what is impedance? Can it work in our advantage?

That was all refreshing as I was growing tired by finding faults in the established dogma while nothing new to replace it at practical level. Especially when I know what has been said (and largely ignored). But I think there is some wool over my eyes. Time to take all garbage out and make more space. Cannot afford to ignore anymore space as the final frontier.

Thank you.

[barbosi]

Paulo Coelho said in his novel The Alchemist: "When you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it." So apparently a random document I found Tesla Cosmic Radiant Energy by Velimir Abramovich opened my eyes on the topic.

The third method to understand physical reality relates to Tesla’s ideas. Starting from works by M. Faraday and D. Arago from the one hand and L. Galvani and A. Volta from the other hand, Tesla could create his own original theory of world on the basis of theory of acoustic resonators by Helmholz and modified ether model by lord Kelvin. This theory gave outstanding results in experiments. Initial axiom of his theory was that universal energy of one physical system is based on the laws of resonance of vibrations, on coincidence of oscillations of system’s parts. He considered that theory of ether cannot be excluded from physics, because matter and space cannot at all be completely and strictly separated.

I hardly heard about Helmholz resonators so I was curious and found few youtube clips but the real surprise was from the pictures of such resonators, which instantly brought in front of my eyes the work of John Worrell Keely with his resonators and the famous "wire" used to move weights. Leedskalnin alegedly used a wire too to mve his rocks. But that is just my observation and I'd rather stop any speculation now.

Then I found http://www.deicon.com/Helmholtz%20Re...20absorber.pdf where on the first page related to the Figure 2 is explained: Resemblance of Helmholtz resonator with a mechanical spring mass damper system. The same as Tesla's analogy of capacitor and inductance. And amazingly it continues: As shown in Figure A-2, the impedance of a Helmholtz resonator is very low at its natural frequency.

That was definetely enough to say that my idea about "impedance" was nothing more than another form of oposition (how erfinder put it). But now I sense there is much more to it. And it is encompasing the materials, volume and geometry of the mass (inductance) along with the elasticity of capacitor (geometry here again). So even a superficial look cannot avoid the "spaciality".

It is now my firm conviction that Tesla worked with natural frequencies of his circuit elements and it gives me an idea of how simple his applied math was - all geometrical relationships. Moreover, it should be now quite obvious why he chose a "stout copper bar" in his demonstration/lecture and not a pipe as many nowdays experimenters were asking for. One single tone, undisturbed by other cavities.