Eric P. Dollard

[Aaron]

POWER isn't ENERGY

How has that obtained more power out than in? If you do not have more power out than in how did you magnify power?

Point proven - 1 of many examples - you have no idea what the difference is between POWER and ENERGY.

These plugs are simply a plug with peaking caps built into them: The world's most powerful spark plug from Enerpulse

But read this:

• Questions about Pulstar® pulse plug technology – the science of “pulsed energy”

What is the technology behind Pulstar® pulse plugs?
Sandia National Laboratories is the home and global core of “pulsed-power” technology, the underlying science behind the Pulstar® pulse plug ignition product. Pulsed-power is the science of storing energy over a relatively long period of time and discharging the stored energy in a very short period of time Pulsed power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. By using a super efficient capacitor internal to the Pulstar® pulse plug, an intense and energy dense spark discharge of over 1,000,000 watts is possible using the standard automotive ignition system. A very good example of pulsed-power is the comparison of small AA battery powered flashlight and a camera using the same AA battery to power the flash. The output of the flashlight is anemic compared to the power discharged by the camera flash. In the same way, Pulstar® discharges over 1 megawatt while the common sparkplug today discharges not even 50 watts.

I suppose you think that because they claim you can get 1 MILLION WATTS at the plug with a STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE IGNITION that they're claiming overunity? Compare that to 50 WATTS - it is the amount of TIME that a certain amount of potential will be discharged in that determines the power.

And you ask for a sticky thread based on your skepticism? I think you just blew any and all credibility in regards to your claims that you even know what you're talking about.

[Web000x]

Integrity

No thanks, instead of snarking at me like Eric why dont you take the high road and rebutt my challenges. I laid it out extremely simple so any layman can understand, so take your best shot.

Did I sufficiently explain that this "Eric calls Electricity BOUND ETHER which is bounded by the wires." bought you nothing past the coil itself? I presume you understand.

If electricity is bound ether then sound is bound air fair enough?

Oh on the other hand if you want this to be all about some guy standing on his soap box spouting whatever and everyone grovelling at his feet for more whatever then by all means just give me the word and I will not post in this thread and Eric can have all the cheerleaders dancing at his feet and the topic will be limited to erics understanding or lack there of.

Since Eric apparently wants to punish everyone else because I challenged his position just give me the word and I will not post in this thread any more if that is the way you want it. I seen enough to get the picture.

Koko, I trust that you are a man of your word, as you are well spoken.

I officially and unequivocally accept your offer to no longer post at this thread, and as a man of your word, I hold you to your offer.

Warmest Regards Mike

I do see the arguments being presented by yourself as being valid to some extent. The only problem with your arguments that I have is that they are being done with words alone which is far from real science. In order to solve this problem, we must experiment. If I am to be labeled a fool for experimenting with phenomena that 'cannot work', so be it.

Please don't post here unless you can show video clips of your experiments that PROVE Eric Dollard and Nikola Tesla to be wrong.

Good Luck,

Dave

Kokomoj0, integrity?

[t-rex]

Camp David Antenna, Final (1 of 2)

1) In sections one of the “Camp David Antenna” the log-periodic scaling factor was developed. The derived log-periodic sequence is a prelude to a more extended versor system. This leads to a complex versor operator for hyperbolic as well as circular functions. In addition the self-replicating “Golden Ratio” log base was utilized in the derivation of a physical geometric structure, a broadband broadside array.


(2) In section two the concept of sequential loading on a transmission system was developed. It was shown how Alexanderson employed sequential counter-spatial loading elements in his aerials. These are the mutual co-efficients, elastance, K, and enductance, M. This sequential loading gives a concatenated alternating series of counter-spatial and spatial elements. The pair of dimensional relations, space and counter-space, serve to neutralized each other. Hereby derived is propagating without delay. This loading configuration can be called the “Alexanderson Principle”, (space scalar). Concluding section two was the actual physical development of a linear sequential Alexanderson array, this is commonly known as a “Slow Wave” structure (0.33c). This arrangement is applicable to the high frequency band, 3 to 30 mega-cycles, as a vertical aerial.


(3) In this final section the log-periodic, the golden ratio, and the Alexanderson, principles are all united into the “Bolinas Antenna”. Also in this final section the Earth connection requirements for the telluric systems here described are given. Finally the general application of engineerable telluric transmission systems is considered. “So let the pots and pans go black and let us begin the work”. (Oliver Heaviside).


(4) The system developed by Tesla as well as the system developed by Alexanderson are both distinctly single frequency arrangements (this is what we seek to overcome). These telluric systems involve resonance or in general employ the cancellation of reactance by a conjugate suceptance. This condition can only exist at one frequency, or in some cases (Tesla), this one frequency along with its odd order harmonics. The adulteration of the Tesla system by Marconi led to very high magnification factors that prohibited high speed keying. Moreover this magnification did not contribute to the transmission process. In an effort initiated by the U.S. Navy, the Alexanderson aerial developments were applied to the Marconi aerials at station KET in Bolinas, California, and at station WII in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Thru sequential loading and subdivision of these Marconi aerials, Alexanderson redirected the energy of the aerials into the transmission process. This multiple tuned circuit configuration accordingly broadened the modulation bandwidth of the system.


(5) Because the Alexanderson aerial is a sequentially loaded transmission network the log-periodic principle can directly be applied. The resulting structure is shown in Fig-1. This is developed for 5 logarithmic periods. In table-1 is a specific set of dimensions for operation in the high frequency band. The fundamental frequency is 7100 kilocycles per second. This aerial is a slow wave broadband vertical co-linear log-periodic array for both telluric and ionospheric applications. A suitable ground plane is required for its operation, the minimum is 80 wires in a radial configuration. Each wire is 18 gauge or larger and 20 feet or longer. (1600 feet of wire). This should be buried in a watered garden plot. The roots of plants are excellent connections to the Earth. Construction details for a “plumbing” version is shown in Figs-2&3. This is not something one is likely to see in QST magazine. The foremost application of this Aerial-Earth structure is operation in locations where height is a prohibitive restriction.












(6) The Earth connection in telluric systems is of difficult and costly construction, and here exists little room for compromise. The series impedance must be extremely low, and ohm or less. As for the Tesla system the “roots” of Wardenclyff attest to this. The Earth connection at Bolinas is 750 thousand square feet, with plates out to sea! The systems of Tesla and Alexanderson possess very low radiation resistance losses and this gives rise to very large Earth currents. These currents must find their way to the system neutral without opposition. In a complimentary manner very high potentials are developed at the conjugate aerial terminals of these telluric systems. The large currents and high potentials both serve as principle obstacle in the attainment of effective telluric transmission and reception. It should be noted there the meaning of high potentials and large currents. In a receiving system transforming one micro-watt a potential of one volt is a very high voltage and a current of one milli-ampere is a large current. If the same system is transforming 100 watts the potential is now 10 kilo-volts and the current is now 10 amperes. Therefore receiving systems are required to have a “copper investment” similar to that of a transmitting system in order to be effective in its transforming ability.

The bane of large neutral currents is any form of back E.M.F. The primary sources of back E.M.F. are resistance and reactance, giving rise to an effective SERIES IMPEDANCE, this impedance between neutral and ground. Hence a common ground rod in the dirt is no more than a series resistor, and likewise, the connecting wire is now a series reactive parasitic antenna. In common “grounding” it is indeed resistance and reactance are abundant. Moreover these only burden the neutral of the telluric transmission system. In contra-distinction, the bane of a high terminal potential is conductance and suceptance, these giving rise to an effective SHUNT ADMITTANCE. Corona, lousy insulation, and even nearby objects all act to burden the terminal potential. The suppression of spark discharges becomes a primary obstacle in situations involving considerable power. The burdens on the system give rise to detuning effects and resulting off resonance conditions.


(7) The dimensional relation of impedance is here the principle transmission impairment. This dimensional relation can hereby be neutralized thru the employment of a conjugate dimensional relation, admittance. Impedance is the versor combination of the molecular resistance in ohms and of the magnetic field reactance in Henry per second. These are the sources of back E.M.F. Admittance is the versor combination of these molecular conductance in Siemens and dielectric suceptance in farad per second. Under ideal circumstances these two dimensional relations cancel each other, this giving a node of zero E.M.F. at the system neutral. This removes the burden upon the transmission system. Here the transmission characteristics of the Earth become part of the process. Except that power due to energy transmission, this node is a point of zero power flow. (See “Impulses, Waves, and Discharges” page 114, compound circuits).


(8) From a less ideal standpoint an effective Earth connection is an admittance consisting of the molecular conductivity of water and the capacitance of large metallic surface areas. This admittance, as the parallel connection of G and B, appears in series with the impedance, R and X, to the neutral. The objective is the complete elimination of any magnetic induction or reactance. This is achieved by directing the paths of current flow normal to the surface of the metallic structures of the ground system.

Because of the difficulty and expense of constructing a suitable Earth terminal it is best to find one already in existence. Most low frequency radio navigation stations are long gone but in many locations the ground systems are still intact. These sites are optimum for the development of telluric transmission systems. It should be noted that the entire 100 Kc/sec Loran system has been recently shut down making possible the development of a naval telluric transmission system. Also there exists numerous abandoned ground systems left behind by A.M. broadcasting stations. It is possible to share existing grounds with active on air stations in some applications.


(9) Following the successful experimental efforts at Camp David in Bolinas, California the objective was thereafter the implementation of an operating telluric transmission system at the nearby R.C.A. - Marconi radio transmission facility, station KPH. KPH was a commercial ship to shore communications service. Ships in water of course are optimum Earth connections. KPH Bolinas held license to its original low frequency allocation of 126 kilocycles per second. To help facilitate this effort the Alexanderson KET grounding network was found to be intact as well as its connecting points on the still standing shunt coil bases. And further, the self resonant frequency of the Alexanderson shunt (M) coils was near to 126 Kc/sec. With these important factors in place the plan was the utilization of a replicated shunt coil standing on, and grounded to, the existing base. By the addition of a primary resonator, this shunt coil would operate as a Tesla mode resonant transformer producing strong telluric currents at the licensed frequency of 126 Kc/sec. It was a good idea but KPH was put out of operation and I was locked out by the “Greenie”S.S. Here existed one practical telluric transmission application, this as non-Maxwellian ship to shore communication. Nein!

[t-rex]

Camp David Antenna, Final (2 of 2)

(10) The crystal radio initiative in all probability will develop into a powerful A.M. broadcast “DX” receiving tool for which I will receive nothing. A.M. broadcasting exists on low frequency allocations in some countries, but in general the allocations are in a portion of the medium frequency band. It is important to note that the amateur radio service is allocated one medium frequency band from 1800 to 2000 Kc/sec. Here experimental A.M. telluric transmissions can take place. This could possibly lead to a commercial A.M. broadcast station.


(11) The largest kilo-volt-ampere user of telluric transmission systems is the United States Navy. This is for secure submarine communication in the very low frequency band of 20 to 30 Kc/sec. The most prominent station is in Jim Creek, Washington (State), operating near 25 Kc/sec. This station delivers 2000 kilowatts into an aerial strung between mountain peaks. This station is the epitome of the Einstein-Marconi follies, perpetuated by minds such as the Corums, T. Grotz and the I.E.E.E. Gang in general. The result is an enormous electric bill and for what, ineffective communication below the “skin depth” of sea water. Is “the group” so all mighty that even the U.S. Navy is denied the technology of Nikola Tesla?


(12) Telluric transmission systems could take many forms from hobby toys to powerful military communication systems. The properly designed system requires no energy delivery into electro-magnetic radiation losses, greatly reducing the energy requirements. Also it is that telluric currents propagate deep into the telluric medium regardless of the depth. Finally, in all probability it would be found that the attenuation & delay encountered in propagation would be very much less than those encountered in an equivalent electro-magnetic system.

It will take the works of engineers, not physicists to develop working telluric transmission systems. The physics trained engineer will be of no use, he is the enemy. Ultimately the effort falls in the lap of amateur radio. The opposition to the initiative will of course be the emerging totalitarianism of State Science (S.S.).

Herewith closes the topic of Telluric Transmission. All the required preliminary engineering material has been presented. “Tesla” societies, the American Radio Relay League, Bearden/Puharich Zealots, and P.E.E.E. trolls no longer have any meaning and any further reference to, or by them can only be considered pathological. The effort toward development will be your own initiative.

73 DE N6KPH

[Kokomoj0]

Kokomoj0, integrity?

you were overruled

[Kokomoj0]

It is suspicious that you claim to be qualified to debate the subjects in this thread but you don't even know what the difference is between ENERGY and POWER!

Dont be so sure.

It has been defined for you multiple times and you claim to want a specific definition - um, what do you think the definition of POWER is?

Not correctly, based on the scope of what is claimed to be done here. What good is a definition of a cake if I hand you a hub cap to explain it?

So you get one shot pulse, its meaning less. Even if you short a cap across a wire you still have the resistance of the wire it will conduct a corresponding current that will have a corresponding voltage across it, that converts to a corresponding power which shares a direct relationship back to energy.

You obviously think that increasing power is the same as increasing total energy dissipated.

Hardly. I disagree that you increased power, the total power discharged cannot exceed the available capacity. What more can be said about that?

Now an increased power requirement will have a corresponding reduction of available energy if it was not totally dissapated.

If you have x joules of potential in a cap and discharge it over 100 milliseconds, you will have so much power. But if you can discharge it over 1 millisecond, your power is magnified tremendously for that moment of time. The ENERGY is the same but the POWER could be in the megawatts for that shorter period of time.


and the only way can do that is what? EIther lower resistance or increase voltage and you have the same power, dissipated in a shoter time. Look at the nice graph that I drew for you.

This is so elementary, yet you point the finger at others as giving you 1/2 cocked explanations? Maybe you need to get real with yourself and realize that it is your comprehension that is lacking - not the explanations!

This really calls into question what your real motive is here because you are talking in circles.

I fully understand what you are saying. yes its elemetary and I do not disagree with the part that you can discharge the SAME power in shorter time intervals.

In order to discharge POWER you need to have some kind of resistance less than infinity for it to discharge into.

once we know that resistance and that voltage we can calculate the power.






Square waves make it easy since they are perfect easily mathematically dealt with pulses.

Each square represents 1 watt under the curve.

So whats different?

Its the same amount of power over different time frames, but the same power,

So what changed? Why cant anyone tell me if you all have all the answers?

Are we to asume that your current goes up at the same time your voltage goes up in your description or what you want to call your definition?

I showed you bell labs definition which not suprisingly matched my definition and raui agreed that the POWER of the transformer staeyd the same.

The only way the terms you are saying can occur in reality is if you conflate variable values outside reality changing both the applied voltage and current simultaneously which you will not do in the real world unless you physically change to a different setup. Sure anything is possible if you include all possible setups, but lets stick only to one so we can all sing from the same songsheet.

The point here is that if yo uhave a cap charged it has a given capacity, you cannot exceed that capacity and the stored energy directly converts to power and when converting to power you are limited the total capacity stored and the total power out is the same regardless if it is discharged in a nanosecond or 10 years.

If you have a 10 million farad cap charged to 1 volt the rate that you can discharge it is solely dependent on the resistance of the media it is dicharging through, you have physical limitatons and you cannot sum up all possiblities into one theory as it appears these guys are doing when they tell me power is not the RMS value under the curve and you can have current without a magnetic field.

Like you said this is 101.

None of you have shown this with all your claimed definitions to be any different than my version. Dumping the same energy in a smaller timeframe is only changing the time frame and has little value beyond that in a long term system because it fails to express where the engery is coming from to sustain it.

Otherwise sure you can vaporize a chunk of wire, that and a cup of coffee on a scale of one to 10 gives us what benefit?

Is the whole pupose of this to be as vague as possible with the use of the word magnify while at the same time be as critical as possible with words like energy and power?

If you use a transformer you are not magnifying power, everyone has agreed the power stays the same. Voltage sure ok, OR current sure ok. Power BZZZT wrong.

Anyway I am not going through this to check to insure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed and all th eperfect words are used perfectly so there may be places I mispoke that need correction because this was done as fast as I could type. I have things I need to get dont yet today.

BTW, I dont teach, not my gig, so are there any double EE's in here care to explain this?

[Kokomoj0]

It will take the works of engineers, not physicists to develop working telluric transmission systems. The physics trained engineer will be of no use, he is the enemy. Ultimately the effort falls in the lap of amateur radio. The opposition to the initiative will of course be the emerging totalitarianism of State Science (S.S.).

Herewith closes the topic of Telluric Transmission. All the required preliminary engineering material has been presented. “Tesla” societies, the American Radio Relay League, Bearden/Puharich Zealots, and P.E.E.E. trolls no longer have any meaning and any further reference to, or by them can only be considered pathological. The effort toward development will be your own initiative.

73 DE N6KPH

you know politically we are not that far off the mark. its all about promotion of commercialization in our wonderful us of penal colony america.

I couldnt run off without a quick read on your post.

Dont get me started on the gubafia.

I agree with a lot of what you deal with and most of what you deal with is frankly convention.

I am physics trained and I am amrture radio as well. Built more antennas than I can remember. I HATE coding however and leave it to you die hards.

gotta run, laterzzzzzzzzz

[Raui]

Kokomoj0,
You may call me a cheerleader but this cheerleader is schooling an engineer in his own field. Ready? OK! Let's go back to HIGH SCHOOL physics for one moment shall we

I thought I'd pop in and give my two cents on this whole energy, work and power debate, it's application to power magnification and to help clear up a few things which have been asked. This is just a summary of my current understanding which may or may not be able to help those concerned come to a further understanding of what Eric is trying to say.

First of all we'll go back to our fundamental dimensional relations of the difference between energy, work and power. Energy measured is measured in joules, or plancks per second where the Planck was defined by Eric as being of dimensions joule-seconds. Energy is an implied quantity which is only of interest when conditions in a system are changing. If something in our universe changes in any way energy must be equally exchanged between it's various forms (electromagnetic, kinetic, etc.) as to remain a constant quantity as per the Law of the Conservation of Energy or for the Mr Heaviside's out there - 'The Law of the Continuity of Energy'.

When something changes and energy is exchanged there are two more quantities we can talk about and they are work and power. Work is also measured in Joules and is the difference in the energy magnitude from before the system changed to after the system changed. It should be noted that here we have 2 quantities, being energy and work, which have the same dimesions of Joules but represent two slightly different things which is a theme which pops up in the work of Mr Dollard (E,e,I,i being an example).

Power is measured in Watts, Joules per second or Plancks per second per second as per Dollard's units. Power and work are very closely related in that power is measured as the work per second. So basically when the level of energy changes within a system the magnitude of the change is the work and the rapidity of the change is the power.

Okay now let's apply our now defined quantities into a practical situation - the charging and discharging of a capacitor. Let's say I have a 12v battery and I want to charge a 1 Farad capacitor and I am going to charge it through a 1k ohm resistor. The energy stored within a capacitor is given by;
1.

So, from the above equation, after we charge the capacitor we can conclude that we have 72 Joules of energy stored in the dielectric field of the capacitor. The work done in charging this capacitor is given by;
2.

Since we started off with a totally uncharged capacitor (v=0 so E=0) we have done 72-0=72 Joules of work. It should be noted that if the capacitor was charged to any non-zero voltage our values of work and energy wouldn't be equal and so here we have a case of two quantities with the same dimensions having two different meanings for if they had the same meaning they would be equivilent at all times.

So now we want to know how much power or activity we just caused from our charging. Our formula for power is given by;
3.

We already know our work (72 joules) but how much time elapsed in charging our capacitor? Luckily know that the time to charge/discharge a capacitor through a resistance r to just over 63% of it's final value is given by;
4.

I will not try to prove this as it can easily be googled by the time for it to be charged, practically that is since theoretically it is never exactly 12v, is given by 5 times our time constant and so the time taken to charge or discharge our capacitor is given by;
5.

Therefore combining equation 1,2,3 and 5 we get;
6.

So in charging our capacitor of 1 Farad through a 1k resistor to 12 volts we get 0.0144 Watts of electrical activity. Now let's disconnect but not discharge the capacitor and connect it to a separate circuit so that the capacitor discharges into a 10 ohm resistor. Plugging 10 ohms into equation 6 gives 1.44 Watts discharge. The energy stored in the capacitor on charging is the same amount of energy released by the capacitor on discharging, use the above equations to prove this for yourself if don't wish to take my word for it.

I do not have a full chart to prove what I am saying but how about we look at a simple circuit simulator. Here is an example of what I am saying. Notice the peak values for power measured across each resistor.

Interesting what you've said to Garrett before in regards to this (your response in blue);

"With the above exercise, I have come to the conclusion that the measure of an Impulse Discharge's "Power" is an ambiguous quantity! This can be seen by considering the following; the greater the resistance, r, the more "stretched out" time becomes, the greater the conductance, g, the more "compressed" time becomes. All with respect to a finite capacity C and thus a corresponding finite Power. This "dilation" of time causes the different results for the measured magnitude of power, despite the same amount of lines of dielectric induction used. More simply said, a limited amount of Power can be "compressed" or "stretched" by the Time Constant of the circuit. This is clearly seen in the form of the Voltage and Current magnitudes with respect to time.

got any measured results and charts showing this phenomena, frankly I do not see that happening.

From here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post181092

Now I do have a chart proving what I am saying and you are still whining about it. You have done nothing to experimentally prove me wrong, I have physical proof of what I am saying. I am getting the impression that you are intentionally misguiding the flow of conversation, unless of course you aren't a real engineer. I have asked a friend of mine who is an electrician whether or not he understands my reasoning, he did. I asked my father who is not very good at maths to begin with, he understood without a problem. I asked a physicist since this isn't breaking any laws and is in fact used by physicists, he understood very clearly. Yet a so-called engineer stuggles to the point that he slips up and unknowingly admits he doesn't know the difference between energy and power and even when you've got people who have spelt it out for you you still scratch your head and go back to monkey bashing your keyboard.

Look how many people have posted saying they agree with how I've defined power magnification and we are all answering the same things to you. Yet you keep claiming that I am only talking sense to myself, the evidence is mounting. It was explained by Garrett, Steinmetz and of course Eric why you can't treat conductance as 1/r (in most cases) yet you refused to admit it and kept saying you were right. I will admit that the way I was explaining it wasn't the best but these guys have done a great job. If I remember correctly you had a problem with us talking about 'consumption and production' of lines of force, you still haven't come up with a better word.

If words are more important than the phenomena themselves maybe change your field to poetry. When using these words we are trying to explain it to the layman, no one other than you has had a problem with the production and consumption much in the same way that no one other than you had a problem with power magnification.

I mean this in the most respectful way possible but if you don't know the difference between energy, work and power then I might as well blow my nose with your degree, or worse.

EDIT:

Its the same amount of power over different time frames, but the same power,

Incorrect sir, it is the same amount of energy over different time frames, thus different power.

Raui

[Farmhand]

Hi Kokomo,

If the discharge time frame is less than the charge time frame.

And the "amount" of energy is the same.

The amount of power is the same. The "magnitude" of the power is increased.

There is not even any need for a calculation to support that.

If it is useful depends on the situation.

Again do we throw all our magnifying glasses away because they don't produce
more light than what enters them ?

Is a magnifying glass useful to see long distances ?

I must say I do not understand what it is you dispute. Did somebody say energy would spring forth from nowhere ?

Please outline exactly what it is you dispute. Then maybe it will be addressed.

If you see a claim made that you want to dispute you should be able to link to
it so we can read the claim too.

Cheers

P.S. Kokomo, I am curious to know if you believe there to be a complete conservation of energy on a universal scale.

As in - Do you think the Universe has the same total Energy always ?

Or Do you think (like some people do) that eventually the Universe will degrade
to nothing at all, anywhere ? Or otherwise ? Simple question

..

[garrettm4]

His name is KOKO, He is LOCO, I said OH NO!

Good Sir whom calls him self Kokomoj0,

you seem to have a complex with differentials and integrals.

IF YOU INTEGRATE POWER YOU GET ENERGY, IF YOU DIFFERENTIATE WORK YOU GET POWER! There are NO mysteries here. You keep referring to power when you actually mean energy or work - at least that's what this uneducated man thinks.

BTW - Raui has already given an excellent overview of the relation between energy, work and power, on the old thread - which he just quoted and put up in his last post. You may want to go back and re-read it a few times.

The differential plot of POWER shows the PHYSICAL SIGNIFICANCE of what you are dealing with, i.e. the rate of change of its intensity. We can integrate the power curve to get the TOTAL ENERGY and then we can derive the AVERAGE POWER (AKA DC EQUIVALENT) if we divide the total energy by the period, Work/Period=Avg Power. BUT THAT DOESN'T REPRESENT WHAT WE ORIGINALLY SAW. You can play with your square waves all day long, impulses are what the conversation was originally about, but hey throw sand in everyone's eyes to confuse them about what we were originally talking about. The differential power or INSTANTANEOUS, MOMENT to MOMENT INTENSITY is whats SIGNIFICANT about an impulse, NOT the DC equivalent. The PEEK POWER is of the utmost concern not the AVERAGE in this special circumstance. (side note, an easier way to get the average power of an rC discharge, without involving calculus operations, is: ((C(e_2)^2)/2)-((C(e_1)^2)/2) / Tau*n = Average Power, where e_2 is the voltage after discharge and e_1 is the voltage before discharge, tau is the time constant rC or C/g and n is the number of elapsed time constants. The first section of the formula yields work and the second part yields the period, taking the quotient of the two yields the average power.)

Semiconductor or passive component datasheets go "ape-sh*t" about exceeding thresholds, EVEN IF IT IS JUST FOR A MOMENT IN TIME, so it would seem that the differential value of a parameter is of large concern in certain situations. Although, when we are powering a load, the total energy used on input to energy provided on the output is of the biggest concern, here, integration is your best friend.

I have already made these points in the old thread and recently on page 9 of this thread, so either; 1) I am the worlds worst "teacher" at explaining something, 2) I am insane or delusional, 3) you have a disability to learn or 4) you are some sort of subversive intent on disrupting the flow of conversation on this thread. From your disgruntled attitude I would say the latter (4) describes your actions here. I, regretfully must say that I will no longer be reading your posts. You have proven yourself, in my eyes, to be a guy who argues about things I find to be pointless and trivial. Furthermore, I am disappointed in myself for responding to your questions in the hope that I could help, it would seem that my personal time, in doing so, went into a "black hole" of pointless argument. Regardless, I wish you luck in your personal alternative energy efforts, which hopefully are more productive than what I have seen of your actions here.

SIDE NOTE, the quote shown in Raui's post, (2nd post above this one, 2nd quote, where Kokomojo responds to a post I made) should read "energy" not "power" at the end, typographical error on my part, (happens to the best of us). It should be noted that I fixed that in my original post, but obviously the quote was taken before I corrected it.

Garrett M

[Kokomoj0]

Incorrect sir, it is the same amount of energy over different time frames, thus different power.

Raui

seriously I dont have time for a protracted drawn out debate.

use a charged cap for your source and show or describe the exact circuit you are doing this with and all parameters.

It appears we have a language impasse and e need to eliminate that.

[Raui]

seriously I dont have time for a protracted drawn out debate.

use a charged cap for your source and show or describe the exact circuit you are doing this with and all parameters.

It appears we have a language impasse and e need to eliminate that.

You have a language impasse, the rest of us seem to be able to communicate perfectly so that is your problem. I am not going to spell it out anymore clearly than I already have for a certified engineer since if the engineer is worth his beans he wouldn't be so confused about this! Ask one of your colleges to look at my arguements and they will set you straight, if they were taught the same as you though we might get another explosion at the shipyard on our hands. I have spent enough time trying to teach an old dog new tricks.

It doesn't matter whether I use a battery or another cap because the power dissipated in charging the capacitor remains constant therefore if we find that there is different values for power across the discharge resistors of differing values then we have different amounts of power. This is demonstrated, you don't get it that's not my fault. It is the peak value for power that matters here, if it were the average power value then you would not be able to control lightning with 1 mJ of energy (source).

If anyone is going to replicate the experiment I did, use a charged capacitor as the source. I am over trying to explain it to someone who it seems won't ever get it. I have said all I want to say when it comes to this topic, I have spelt out my methods, Tesla spelt out his methods, Eric showed us the math. Guess what, Eric's math predicts this behaviour and Telsa was doing the exact same thing as my experiment showed. Hell, setup the experiment yourself with the cap as the source and prove it for yourself, I have already proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Raui

[Kokomoj0]

You have a language impasse, the rest of us seem to be able to communicate perfectly so that is your problem. I am not going to spell it out anymore clearly than I already have for a certified engineer since if the engineer is worth his beans he wouldn't be so confused about this! Ask one of your colleges to look at my arguements and they will set you straight, if they were taught the same as you though we might get another explosion at the shipyard on our hands. I have spent enough time trying to teach an old dog new tricks.

It doesn't matter whether I use a battery or another cap because the power dissipated in charging the capacitor remains constant therefore if we find that there is different values for power across the discharge resistors of differing values then we have different amounts of power. This is demonstrated, you don't get it that's not my fault. It is the peak value for power that matters here, if it were the average power value then you would not be able to control lightning with 1 mJ of energy (source).

If anyone is going to replicate the experiment I did, use a charged capacitor as the source. I am over trying to explain it to someone who it seems won't ever get it. I have said all I want to say when it comes to this topic, I have spelt out my methods, Tesla spelt out his methods, Eric showed us the math. Guess what, Eric's math predicts this behaviour and Telsa was doing the exact same thing as my experiment showed. Hell, setup the experiment yourself with the cap as the source and prove it for yourself, I have already proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Raui

kool, ok you are right I am wrong. Happy?

Let me know when you submit your manuscript and theories to IJRRECE for peer review.

As far as I am concerned this subject is closed.

[Web000x]

kool, ok you are right I am wrong. Happy?

Let me know when you submit your manuscript and theories to IJRRECE for peer review.

As far as I am concerned this subject is closed.

I am quoting you, Kokomoj0, in order to preserve the bolded statement above so that we will all be able to read it should you try and change your outlook towards the subject. Don't compromise your integrity again for your true colors are brightly shining.

Dave

[OrionLightShip]

assimilation is optional.... change is not....

The Earth connection in telluric systems is of difficult and costly construction, and here exists little room for compromise. The series impedance must be extremely low, and ohm or less. As for the Tesla system the “roots” of Wardenclyff attest to this. The Earth connection at Bolinas is 750 thousand square feet, with plates out to sea!

Coax cable has a built in impedance so you must be talking about using solid copper bars or braid for a lead-in from a 20 acre underground and undersea grounding network. Something no normal human can be expected to copy, obtain, or otherwise achieve but you say it is necessary (and I believe you are right, by the way), so unless there is a work around; why build crystal radio toys? The magic is in the proper grounding, zero reflected wave, and perfected resonance, not a germanium crystal.


The crystal radio initiative in all probability will develop into a powerful A.M. broadcast “DX” receiving tool for which I will receive nothing.

Why would one want a "powerful" AM receiving tool? Do we not already have perfected, highly selective, multi-band receivers that work fine with a long wire antenna?

A.M. broadcasting exists on low frequency allocations in some countries, but in general the allocations are in a portion of the medium frequency band. It is important to note that the amateur radio service is allocated one medium frequency band from 1800 to 2000 Kc/sec. Here experimental A.M. telluric transmissions can take place. This could possibly lead to a commercial A.M. broadcast station.

This a rather optimistic view considering the physical and financial constraints placed on such a project, not to mention the political and corporate rejection, suppression, and removal of free thinking people and technology.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, I simply want to understand what this thread is really about.

Isn't it really about proving/utilizing superluminal communication or transfer of aetheric energy? Didn't you already do that? Why not just do it again instead of crystals 101? I'm sure there are intelligent people here with the equipment and ability to follow your instructions that would love to duplicate your previous success I saw on your old video with "faster than possible" waves on a coil.

I suggested that your efforts be documented on video so we could all learn how and my suggestion was met with silence. I even offered to donate money for the building of said device. I even have a nice video camera I would donate to the cause.

Isn't this the way it always goes.....one person claims to be able to do something, but it never sees the light of day and the inventor takes "it" to their grave and we, the ever hopeful, never know if the "it" was fact, fraud, or just a bad measurement? People then spend thousands of dollars and years of their lives trying to duplicate said dead person's claims.

You have the rare privilege of being a living, breathing, technology suppression victim. You have an opportunity to do something different than those that preceded you. All it takes is a new perspective and direction.



crystal radio initiative....indeed

obligatory ten letters go here