Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[jpolakow]

Think of resistance as opening the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the resistor. As we add resistance the voltage delivered by a collapsing magnetic field (or discharging inductor) climbs. I believe you are aware of this as you mentioned it in an earlier post. Current is usually associated with a magnetic field and an inductor is a storehouse of the magnetic field. When we connect a large resistance (or open the circuit) the magnetic field is allowed to collapse and thus the inductor discharges which results in a high webers per second or voltage. The magnetic field is consumed by a resistance to produce a voltage, the lower the conductance the lower the voltage that will be developed. It can be shown here that a magnetic field is preserved by a conductance.

Now think of conductance as closing the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the conductance. As we add conductance the current delivered by a collapsing dielectric field (or discharging capacitor) increases. Voltage is usually associated with a dielectric field and as we know a capacitor is the storehouse for the dielectric field. When we connect a large conductance (or close the circuit) the dielectric field is allowed to collapse and thus the capacitor discharges which results in a high coulombs per second or current. The dielectric field is consumed by a conductance to produce a voltage, the lower the resistance the lower the current that will be developed. It can be shown here that a dielectric field is preserved by resistance.

I hope this helps.

NOTE: Voltage is not just a phenomena of one field of induction and nor is current. Total voltage and current contain elements of both dielectric and magnetic fields. Hence Eric's E,e,I,i.
Raui

This is something that I was thinking about lately. We know for there to be electrical activity (and Planck's) there must be a dielectric and magnetic component. Then if we have a charging capacitor, we have a displacement current I. This consists of dielectric lines of force in the capacitor. However in order for there to be Planck's charging the capacitor there must be some magnetic component as well. So are there magnetic lines of force in the capacitor(dielectric) as well? Where is the magnetic component?

[Kokomoj0]

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.

--

Now for another matter which has come up; 'I do not follow your conclusions at all. Low r or high 1/r (conductance) aids or creates a better condition for transfering energy et al. so I cant even imagine how you are applying the word consumes.' Your thinking in terms of energy when you should be thinking in terms of fields and their actions on the circuit.

Think of resistance as opening the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the resistor. As we add resistance the voltage delivered by a collapsing magnetic field (or discharging inductor) climbs. I believe you are aware of this as you mentioned it in an earlier post. Current is usually associated with a magnetic field and an inductor is a storehouse of the magnetic field. When we connect a large resistance (or open the circuit) the magnetic field is allowed to collapse and thus the inductor discharges which results in a high webers per second or voltage. The magnetic field is consumed by a resistance to produce a voltage, the lower the conductance the lower the voltage that will be developed. It can be shown here that a magnetic field is preserved by a conductance.

Now think of conductance as closing the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the conductance. As we add conductance the current delivered by a collapsing dielectric field (or discharging capacitor) increases. Voltage is usually associated with a dielectric field and as we know a capacitor is the storehouse for the dielectric field. When we connect a large conductance (or close the circuit) the dielectric field is allowed to collapse and thus the capacitor discharges which results in a high coulombs per second or current. The dielectric field is consumed by a conductance to produce a voltage, the lower the resistance the lower the current that will be developed. It can be shown here that a dielectric field is preserved by resistance.

I hope this helps.

NOTE: Voltage is not just a phenomena of one field of induction and nor is current. Total voltage and current contain elements of both dielectric and magnetic fields. Hence Eric's E,e,I,i.
Raui

you had my undivided attention until you got to where I highlighted.

It seems everyone is missing the point I was trying to convey that is that a cap integrates the pulse which can be computed in terms of power and presuming everyone understood this was in terms of a filter.

When in terms of transmission where we want the impulse to travel through the capacitor it exhibits the "appearance" of a series resistance in the form of reactance which has the highest "conductance" at fo, OR the lowest apparent "resistance" at fo. Just hit 1/x on your calculator to get one or the other, simple as that. Transmission line does not apply in the same sense as I used. (I better add here that it depends on what type of circuit you have, but I presume you all get my drift)

Just because you have higher voltages and shorter time frame pulses does not mean you have a magnification of "power".

Tesla used the term "power", so I use the term "power" and stayed in those units in my posts. It does not negate anything Eric said nor does anything that Eric said negate what I am saying.

I gave an example of how you could go to from 1 to a million volts in with narrower pulses and discharge roughly the same power in each case because it is time dependent. That was the point. Narrower pulses does not = magnification of power.



as I stated and you only need go as far as yahoo (ironicaly the first thing that popped up):

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

"Consumption of electricity" is a non-scientific expression often used to describe the conversion of electrical energy to mechanical work, heat or light.

The Joule is the unit of measurement used to blah blah blah......
Define Consumption of Electricity.? - Yahoo! Answers

4 years ago

Now I do not intend to be a language cop here but consume is completely the wrong word to use and gives the exact opposite implication and in some cases does not even apply in any respect to what is in reality "scientifically" or "electrically" <--(used generically in its most expansive term) is happening.

It is simply the wrong word especially when talking about conductance resulting in conflation of terms.


aside from that you repeated "mostly" what I said until you got to the consume part

I will put the translation of what I said in [ brackets ]
fine but splitting it up into 4 quadrants and 4 elemental forces does not change the fact that somewhere in there is a power measurement and in a manner of speaking for simplification your voltage and current is if you will humor me a balancing scale.

[meaning an energized coil has a "finite" amount of total energy in its field, therefore, upon the collapse of the field, the higher the "resistance" or reciprocally the lower the "conductance" the less current will flow and higher the voltage will rise, power remains the same]

In other words when that magnetic field collapses if there is no where for the current to flow the voltage will try to go toward infinity.

[people for whatever reason are now trying to force the application of conductance for everything rather than just state high resistance as high resistance and appears to be becoming more of a word-smithing exercise than that of science.]

On the other hand when there is somewhere for the current to go the voltage will be based on the source resistance of the coil in reference to the load.

[meaning higher conductance OR LOWER resistance, it goes without saying that the voltage will be not rise as high across a load as it would have with NO load OR near infinite resistance which IS THE SAME as near 0 conductance.]

That said, with voltage and current we can measure power which will be based on the strength and quantity of the magnetic field and the coil characteristics.

[Keeping in mind both the source internal resistance and the load resistance will effect the voltage and current response.]

Nothing said so far negates my claim you see.


basically you started and did say pretty much the same thing I did only reversed it into conductance and you all really should loose words like harvest and consume if we want to talk engineer to engineer rather than like the power company talking to the clueless who would not know the difference anyway.

[Raui]

Raui,

That was an excellent and very thoughtful comment on the subject of Energy Work & Power and how they are interrelated. I also like how you touched upon Electrical Activity as well. You've done a great job of describing the subject better than I did. Thanks.

I fear my explanations are prolix and opaque to most readers, most of my vocabulary and implied connotations are taken from the 1880s to 1920s so I can see why reading my posts might be confusing for some. Also I am an avid user of e E i & I and angular frequency instead of cycles per second in my own work and ironically find it hard to read V & I now. Its like watching a movie halfway though with subtitles on and then taking them off, its harder to follow the movie now, even though the subtitles were annoying at first.

Thank you for your very kind comments. I have been a little unsure if my understanding of E,e,I,i was concrete. I know I'm on the right track though. From Symbolic Representation of the Alternating Electric Wave Eric gives the Total Voltage as E = IR - jIX and total Current being I = EG + jEB. So I always took it as meaning that e = jIX and i = jEB. Does this conform to your ideas of E,e,I,i?

Raui

[garrettm4]

Raui,

That was an excellent and very thoughtful comment on the subject of Energy Work & Power and how they are interrelated. You've done a great job of describing the subject better than I did. Thanks.

I fear my explanations are prolix and opaque to most readers, most of my vocabulary and implied connotations are taken from the 1880s to 1920s so I can see why reading my posts might be confusing for some. Also I am an avid user of e E i & I and angular frequency instead of cycles per second in my own work and ironically find it hard to read V & I now. Its like watching a movie halfway though with subtitles on and then taking them off, its harder to follow the movie now, even though the subtitles were annoying at first.


Kokomoj0,

It would seem we can only agree to disagree on most anything remotely theoretical, at any rate, good luck in your Tesla Transformer construction efforts. Maybe someone else can answer your questions in away that you see fit.


Sputins,

Thanks for the info, I think I am going to ask them (if I can get a hold of anyone first) for another persons lecture and then when I am talking to them ask for the Dollard lectures, I don't think they would see that coming.


Madhatter,

One quick question to your response about L & C annulling in the Tesla Transformer. If the reactance of L & C sum to a zero magnitude vector or reactance X=0=XL-XC (saying they cancel isn't completely correct). Wouldn't that imply a RESONANT condition such as a series LC arrangement, this being in a very unfamiliar one wire (having no return wire) configuration? If so, this makes the "quadra-polar resonance" of LC & MK much more understandable for myself.

Garrett M

[Raui]

Energy, Work, Power and Misc.

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.

--

Now for another matter which has come up; 'I do not follow your conclusions at all. Low r or high 1/r (conductance) aids or creates a better condition for transfering energy et al. so I cant even imagine how you are applying the word consumes.' Your thinking in terms of energy when you should be thinking in terms of fields and their actions on the circuit.

Think of resistance as opening the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the resistor. As we add resistance the voltage delivered by a collapsing magnetic field (or discharging inductor) climbs. I believe you are aware of this as you mentioned it in an earlier post. Current is usually associated with a magnetic field and an inductor is a storehouse of the magnetic field. When we connect a large resistance (or open the circuit) the magnetic field is allowed to collapse and thus the inductor discharges which results in a high webers per second or voltage. The magnetic field is consumed by a resistance to produce a voltage, the lower the conductance the lower the voltage that will be developed. It can be shown here that a magnetic field is preserved by a conductance.

Now think of conductance as closing the circuit a tiny bit, the magnitude of which depends on the conductance. As we add conductance the current delivered by a collapsing dielectric field (or discharging capacitor) increases. Voltage is usually associated with a dielectric field and as we know a capacitor is the storehouse for the dielectric field. When we connect a large conductance (or close the circuit) the dielectric field is allowed to collapse and thus the capacitor discharges which results in a high coulombs per second or current. The dielectric field is consumed by a conductance to produce a voltage, the lower the resistance the lower the current that will be developed. It can be shown here that a dielectric field is preserved by resistance.

I hope this helps.

NOTE: Voltage is not just a phenomena of one field of induction and nor is current. Total voltage and current contain elements of both dielectric and magnetic fields. Hence Eric's E,e,I,i.
Raui

[jake]

TRT calculator

Anyone:

How was the 62% calculated? Does it only apply to round conductors? Does it come from the wind to wind capacitance?

Many Thanks,
jake

In an effort to make friends and get an answer to the question above. I put together an Excel calculator with the equations Eric posted. It works pretty well, except for the extra coil calculations end up with a negative number. Maybe one of you can figure out what I did wrong.

Now would someone please point me in the direction where I can find and answer to the question above. I know Eric said it was a requirement for but why 62%.

Just point me to a page in a document and I can do the rest.

Thanks,


p.s. I just noticed I cant post Excel files if you want it. I will send it to you just pm me.

[john_g]

[QUOTE=Nhopa;181206]

Hi all:
Reading the notes, the name of two items often come up , the "sensitive device" and the "mercury break" or "Thomas clockwork with wheel". The sensitive device looks very similar to a Reed switch, so the question is, can one use the Reed switch, inserted into a coil, in lieu of the sensitive device's glass tube with the two wires?


The question about the break is what kind of mechanical device, if any, can be used instead of the mercury break or the Thomas clockwork? Is there anything commercially available out there? If not, are there plans available to build one of these devices at home?

Hi all:

A few weeks-ago I have asked the above questions but got no response. If we are going to experiment I think it is important to know what equipment to use. Any suggestions?

Hi

I'm wondering if it was Seth Thomas, whom Tesla was rererring to; a well known clockmaker who also made clockwork electrical items, for switching stage lighting etc. There is a book by Tran Duy Ly, on S Thomas, but I haven't managed to find a web copy.

Regards

John

[Nhopa]

Mechanical break

[QUOTE=Nhopa;179124]Hi all:
Reading the notes, the name of two items often come up , the "sensitive device" and the "mercury break" or "Thomas clockwork with wheel". The sensitive device looks very similar to a Reed switch, so the question is, can one use the Reed switch, inserted into a coil, in lieu of the sensitive device's glass tube with the two wires?
The question about the break is what kind of mechanical device, if any, can be used instead of the mercury break or the Thomas clockwork? Is there anything commercially available out there? If not, are there plans available to build one of these devices at home?

Hi all:

A few weeks-ago I have asked the above questions but got no response. If we are going to experiment I think it is important to know what equipment to use. Any suggestions?

[LtBolo]

Brilliant discussions of theory. Way over my head in most cases. I try to reduce things to the simplest thing that I can visualize or experiment with mechanical analogs and whatnot. Has served me pretty well, but has its limitations.

I do have a working theory and I would like comments from some of you more theoretically minded individuals.


Simple question: When the charge density of a conductor (like a capacitive top load) changes over time, resulting in a propagating wave in whatever medium that EM waves propagate in, is any energy consumed by the wave?

At first blush it would appear 'no', given that when I push charge into a sphere it stores energy as 0.5*C*V^2, where C is the effective capacity of the sphere and V=q/C, and when I discharge the sphere I get that energy back minus resistive losses.

Somebody please correct me...I keep arriving at the conclusion that the longitudinal wave emitted by the top load consumes no energy, even though it clearly possesses some.

[7imix]

I would suggest that it will take an American, to directly call them on the phone, call the Chairman or a committee member, someone in charge. Ask them for these lectures politely. Offer money. Physically go there and ask for them politely, bribe them with good old cash, if no success, hound them day and night relentlessly, until they finally break and supply us with those damn lectures!!

I have been planning on going down there in person to ask. I meant to go this month but it was on the 12th and I missed it.

[Kokomoj0]

Kokomoj0,

I am not quite following your logic in any of your posts. Remember that an Impulse wave is not a Square wave. The impulse wave is described by the mathematical understanding of asymptotes NOT sine waves, Impulses are the result of SINGLE ENERGY TRANSIENTS. Square waves can be described by sine waves, all odd order harmonic sines super imposed upon a fundamental sine form the familiar Square wave. Rise Time of a square wave could be thought to relate to its bandwidth or how many odd order harmonic waves compose the square. Dampened Sine waves are the result of DOUBLE ENERGY TRANSIENTS. Note that a "DC" Square wave is a "DC offset" sine wave with its accompanying odd order harmonic companions, there is no difference between the two. I think that Mr. Dollard wouldn't approve of the indiscriminate use of V & I since he has given the concept of Quatra-Polar Electricity, e E i I are more descriptive than just V & I.

To illustrate a very practical example of an ASYMPTOTE WAVE (Impulse wave) apply a "DC square wave" current input into a 1:1 transformer with a variable DC source. Using a time generator control a relay or MOSFET to apply power to the input of the transformer. By controlling the DUTY CYCLE of the square wave and the applied voltage we can now control current into the transformer and thus input a controlled unit of energy. (With the above method no measurement of primary impedance is necessary, as it would change based upon frequency.) Dependent upon the Load connected to the secondary of the transformer you will see some very interesting effects. The greater the Resistance R the HIGHER the EMF produced and subsequently the smaller the discharge time (don't leave windings open), the greater the Conductance the HIGHER the MMF produced and subsequently the greater the discharge time, both waveforms will have equal amounts of energy (from input on primary) but time changes corresponding to the load (the discharge time is when the above takes place, when primary input is off). This effect is called "regauging" and is a reason why impulse chargers work well with "unchargeable" batteries, we are not using winding ratios via transformer action. To further understand Magnification Factor, think about this; the energy stored into the magnetic field of induction from the primary input is the same unit used in the secondary. Thus if the same unit of energy, neglecting losses, is used in a different amount of time, Power changes correspondingly.

fine but splitting it up into 4 quadrants and 4 elemental forces does not change the fact that somewhere in there is a power measurement and in a manner of speaking for simplification your voltage and current is if you will humor me a balancing scale.

In other words when that magnetic field collapses if there is no where for the current to flow the voltage will try to go toward infinity.

On the other hand when there is somewhere for the current to go the voltage will be based on the source resistance of the coil in reference to the load.

That said, with voltage and current we can measure power which will be based on the strength and quantity of the magnetic field and the coil characteristics.

Nothing said so far negates my claim you see.

I suppose Eric would not be happy but if he were to use the kiss factor from a standpoint of power I believe he would be forced to agree with me, or say the same thing in reciprocals, or 4 quadrant analysis, taking us to the same point regardless.


Logarithms are used to Plot what is going on here. I wrote the below on a math website the other day and thought it might add to the conversation:

"I gave it some more thought and came to the conclusion that this idea is quite useful for finding the base of an unknown log and also for any arbitrary log that you need for a specific circumstance. My circumstances were in the understanding of an exponential rise (1-(e^-1)) or fall (e^-1) curves. (Within limits y=1max & x=5max, this region is the only section of the two plots used in my personal study)

This in a nut shell:

Plot of y=b^x is the arbitrary curve being studied, where b is any arbitrary base (other than zero or +-1), (x,0) is a linear length along the x axis and (0,y) is a nonlinear length along the y axis.

Therefore we get for our arbitrary plotted curve being studied:

y=b^x
b=(x root of(y)
x=logb(y)

From here you can find the base b of an unknown log (if a point y and its corresponding point x are known) or any point for y if x and b are known with the same being true for finding x.

This used in a “real life” example for the decay (exponential fall) of a capacitors stored energy into a resistance (single energy transient):

b=(e^-1)=(x root of(y) (the base used is that of exponential fall)
y=(e^-x) (y=magnitude, in percent)
x=loge^-1(y)=(-1)loge(y) (x=time constant “Tau”=(rC))

(where rC corresponds to seconds in time)

Plotting limits y=1max & x=5max (when practically considered, other wise x=infinity or some arbitrary number usually greater than 5)

To find the 50% magnitude or half the voltage of the capacitor:
y=0.5 (the 50% mark or half voltage)
x=loge(2)=(-1)loge(0.5)

This math stuff interpreted comes out to be 0.69314 * rC equals the point in time that the voltage is one half of its prior maximum.

Boring I know but this helped me out a bunch so I thought I would share this with a real life use example as well."

A few good references on this subject:
E. P. Dollard - Introduction to Dielectric & Magnetic Discharges in Electrical Windings [1982]
E. P. Dollard - Introduction to Dielectricity and Capacitance [1990] Mar-Apr JBR pages 10-13
Borderland Science - Free-Energy Research [1987] (Specifically, minuets 7 to 16 of video)

And if your interested, Question On Plank, Q Continued

A synopsis of what I have written here on the forum on this subject (in the above link):

"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.

Also, I have come to the conclusion that resistance r "preserves" lines of dielectric induction (increasing magnitude of resistance r consumes progressively less psi per time) and conductance g "consumes" lines of dielectric induction (increasing magnitude of conductance g consumes progressively more psi per time).

Makes no sense to me, sorry

Whereas for the magnetic circuit this is the exact opposite, or resistance r consumes lines of magnetic induction (increasing magnitude of resistance r consumes progressively more phi per time) and conductance g preserves lines of magnetic induction (increasing magnitude of conductance g consumes progressively less phi per time).

consumes is not a technical word, I cannot make sense out of this.

This is exemplified in the the cases of infinite resistance r for the rC circuit and infinite conductance g for the gL circuit, both have an infinite discharge time despite the finite storage of C or L. This somewhat predicts an LC oscillation, whereby a capacity C appears to be a conductance C/t to an inductance L and an inductance L appears to be a resistance L/t to a capacity C. Here, the lines of induction are not consumed but transformed from one form to the other as a storage and return of energy, whereby the conductance g consumes the energy of the capacity C and the resistance r consumes the energy of the inductance L causing the oscillation to eventually stop."

Garrett M

I have never found a logical reason to mathematically dilate time except as a fudge factor to create a force fit situation. That kind of cyphering makes no sense and would twist my brain into a pretzel if I were to go there.

There is no such thing as an infinitesimally narrow pulse. Especially as you go up in power with big coils and they take time after the mag field collapse to transfer the [whatever] to [wherever].

If you have an area under the curve you have a measurable quantity regardless of the shape, so I do not get hung up on that. If you know the shape the height the varying width you can measure it, simple as that, and there is a point where splitting hair is exactly that just splitting hair.

I do not follow your conclusions at all. Low r or high 1/r (conductance) aids or creates a better condition for transfering energy et al. so I cant even imagine how you are applying the word consumes.

The first thing is do we understand what is going on with this device and at this point I do not. I understand many bits and pieces and I am sure could build a pretty hot unit. The problem I have and continue to have is no one yet has put up enough "stuff" math theory et al including everything I have seen of teslas work for me to make an educated guess on how tesla planned on 1million HP from 100 or whatever. My previously held beliefs based on Erics work went out the window with that bolina video that paul posted.

[Kokomoj0]

Your analogy would actually indicate an exponential rise in energy, but it isn't a good one since it doesn't tie in with reality for a finite amount of stored energy.

If you apply 1 volt for one second, you get 1 volt times 1 amp, or 1 watt of power for one second, thus 1 joule of energy.

If you apply 2 volts for 1/2 second, you get 2 volts times 2 amps, or 4 watts of power for 1/2 second, thus 2 joules of energy.

If you apply 4 volts for 1/4 second, you get 4 volts times 4 amps, or 16 watts of power for 1/4 second, thus 4 joules of energy.

If you apply 1000 volts for 1/1000 second, you get 1000 volts times 1000 amps, or 1,000,000 watts of power for 1/1000 second, thus 1000 joules of energy.

How are you getting the same power dissipation for each case? You should learn to use the term power correctly. I think there are many instances when you should have used energy instead of power. Eric wrote the series of posts so that we would start using terms correctly.

Clearly the power and energy are exponential functions in the previous example.

I don't think that the magnification factor refers to "free energy". I haven't had a chance to put it to practical use, but I am sure that Eric was NOT describing it as being an ability to do excess work.

Dave

that is why I said get a large cap so it charges very little not on the nearly straight up slope of the exponential.

power dissipation is through the 1 ohm resistor to a discharged large cap.

you overlooked the time, each one of those values should be to close to call if you measure the cap voltage after the pulse. I didnt calculate any of this and do not intend to because it can be proven by experiment.

If you use a very large cap the voltage each time should be very close demonstrating the point I am making.

[garrettm4]

Impulse Waves are NOT Square Waves

Kokomoj0,

I am not quite following your logic in any of your posts. Remember that an Impulse wave is not a Square wave (AKA rectangle or step wave). The impulse wave is described by the mathematical understanding of asymptotes NOT sine waves, Impulses are the result of SINGLE ENERGY TRANSIENTS. Square waves can be described by sine waves, all odd order harmonic sines super imposed upon a fundamental sine form the familiar Square wave. Rise Time of a square wave could be thought to relate to its bandwidth or how many odd order harmonic waves compose the square. Dampened Sine waves are the result of DOUBLE ENERGY TRANSIENTS. Note that a "DC" Square wave is a "DC offset" sine wave with its accompanying odd order harmonic companions, there is no difference between the two. I think that Mr. Dollard wouldn't approve of the indiscriminate use of V & I since he has given the concept of Quatra-Polar Electricity, e E i I are more descriptive than just V & I.

To illustrate a very practical example of an ASYMPTOTE WAVE (Impulse wave) apply a "DC square wave" current input into a 1:1 transformer with a variable DC source. Using a time generator control a relay or MOSFET to apply power to the input of the transformer. By controlling the DUTY CYCLE of the square wave and the applied voltage we can now control current into the transformer and thus input a controlled unit of energy. (With the above method no measurement of primary impedance is necessary, as it would change based upon frequency & Dtc.) Dependent upon the Load connected to the secondary of the transformer you will see some very interesting effects. The greater the Resistance R the HIGHER the EMF produced and subsequently the smaller the discharge time (don't leave windings open), the greater the Conductance G, the HIGHER the MMF produced and subsequently the greater the discharge time, both waveforms will have equal amounts of energy available (from input on primary) but discharge time changes corresponding to the load, thus affecting how much energy was consumed in "x" amount of time (the discharge time is when the above takes place, when primary input is off). This effect is called "regauging" and is a reason why impulse chargers work well with "unchargeable" batteries, we are not using winding ratios via transformer action. To further understand Magnification Factor, think about this; the energy stored into the magnetic field of induction, from the primary winding input, is the same unit available in the secondary. Thus if the same unit of energy, neglecting losses, is used in differing amounts of time, Power, which is work per unit time, would have to change corresponding to the relative time of energy consumption (work).

A synopsis of what I have written prior on this same subject:

"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 amount of Energy. 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 Energy 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. Also, I have come to the conclusion that resistance r "preserves" lines of dielectric induction (increasing magnitude of resistance r consumes progressively less psi per time) and conductance g "consumes" lines of dielectric induction (increasing magnitude of conductance g consumes progressively more psi per time). Whereas for the magnetic circuit this is the exact opposite, or resistance r consumes lines of magnetic induction (increasing magnitude of resistance r consumes progressively more phi per time) and conductance g preserves lines of magnetic induction (increasing magnitude of conductance g consumes progressively less phi per time). This is exemplified in the the cases of infinite resistance r for the rC circuit and infinite conductance g for the gL circuit, both have an infinite discharge time despite the finite storage of C or L. This somewhat predicts an LC oscillation, whereby a capacity C appears to be a conductance C/t to an inductance L and an inductance L appears to be a resistance L/t to a capacity C. Here, the lines of induction are not consumed but transformed from one form to the other as a storage and return of energy, whereby the conductance g consumes the energy of the capacity C and the resistance r consumes the energy of the inductance L causing the oscillation to eventually stop."

Logarithms are used to Plot what is going on here. I wrote the below comment on a math website the other day and thought it might add to this conversation:

"I gave it some more thought and came to the conclusion that this idea is quite useful for finding the base of an unknown log and also for any arbitrary log that you need for a specific circumstance. My circumstances were in the understanding of an exponential rise (1-(e^-1)) or fall (e^-1) curves. (Within limits y=1max & x=5max, this region is the only section of the two plots used in my personal study)

This in a nut shell:

Plot of y=b^x is the arbitrary curve being studied, where b is any arbitrary base (other than zero or +-1), (x,0) is a linear length along the x axis and (0,y) is a nonlinear length along the y axis.

Therefore we get for our arbitrary plotted curve being studied:

y=b^x
b=(x root of(y)
x=logb(y)

From here you can find the base b of an unknown log (if a point y and its corresponding point x are known) or any point for y if x and b are known with the same being true for finding x.

This used in a “real life” example for the decay (exponential fall) of a capacitors stored energy into a resistance (single energy transient):

b=(e^-1)=(x root of(y) (the base used is that of exponential fall)
y=(e^-x) (y=magnitude, in percent)
x=loge^-1(y)=(-1)loge(y) (x=time constant “Tau”=(rC))

(where rC corresponds to seconds in time)

Plotting limits y=1max & x=5max (when practically considered, other wise x=infinity or some arbitrary number usually greater than 5)

To find the 50% magnitude or half the voltage of the capacitor:
y=0.5 (the 50% mark or half voltage)
x=loge(2)=(-1)loge(0.5)

This math stuff interpreted comes out to be 0.69314 * rC equals the point in time that the voltage is one half of its prior maximum.

Boring I know but this helped me out a bunch so I thought I would share this with a real life example as well."

A few good references on this subject:
E. P. Dollard - Introduction to Dielectric & Magnetic Discharges in Electrical Windings [1982]
E. P. Dollard - Introduction to Dielectricity and Capacitance [1990] Mar-Apr JBR pages 10-13
Borderland Science - Free-Energy Research [1987] (Specifically, minuets 7 to 16 of video)

And if your interested, Question On Plank, Q Continued

Garrett M

[Web000x]

My point here and the way I understand this is being presented is:

If you have a 1 ohm resistor, and you apply a square 1 volt pulse for 1 second, that is the same "power" as 2 volts for 1/2 second, 4 volts for 1/4 second and so forth......1000 volts for 1/1000 second, the same power dissipates in each case.

If you hang a very large cap on it the cap will come up to the same voltage (storage) level in each case, the shortening of the pulse not with standing, you still wind up with the same power even at 1,000,000 volt pulse for 1/1,000,000 of a second.

by that I mean the V*I into a load for 1 pulse is equal to the V*I if one were to fully discharge an ideal cap used as storage for any one of those pulses. So I do not see an unqualified pulse width as magnification beyond a typical transformer action.

Your analogy would actually indicate an exponential rise in energy, but it isn't a good one since it doesn't tie in with reality for a finite amount of stored energy.

If you apply 1 volt for one second, you get 1 volt times 1 amp, or 1 watt of power for one second, thus 1 joule of energy.

If you apply 2 volts for 1/2 second, you get 2 volts times 2 amps, or 4 watts of power for 1/2 second, thus 2 joules of energy.

If you apply 4 volts for 1/4 second, you get 4 volts times 4 amps, or 16 watts of power for 1/4 second, thus 4 joules of energy.

If you apply 1000 volts for 1/1000 second, you get 1000 volts times 1000 amps, or 1,000,000 watts of power for 1/1000 second, thus 1000 joules of energy.

How are you getting the same power dissipation for each case? You should learn to use the term power correctly. I think there are many instances when you should have used energy instead of power. Eric wrote the series of posts so that we would start using terms correctly.

Clearly the power and energy are exponential functions in the previous example.

I don't think that the magnification factor refers to "free energy". I haven't had a chance to put it to practical use, but I am sure that Eric was NOT describing it as being an ability to do excess work.

Dave

[Kokomoj0]

Madhatter,

Kokomoj0,

I feel as If I may have insulted you in some way, if so I sincerely apologize. It appears we agree to disagree on the subject of Power and Time. The point I was trying to get across without undermining anyone's intelligence was that Impulse wave unit time and Alternating wave unit time are not the same thing. A merry-go-round is an excellent analog to this issue, the guy pushing or "pulsing" the bar of the merry-go-round inputs a small amount of energy, per unit time, after awhile the energy stored in the merry-go-round builds up in magnitude this being in speed of rotation. The energy imparted and the energy stored are two different quantities, they each have their own reference time frames, but energy is coupled from one to the other. If the impulses were more forceful but used less unit time then there is the same equivalent energy exchange but the energy maximum stored in the merry-go-round has now increased from the Magnification Factor of the Impulse energy. This analogy has some flaws but is a fairly direct mechanical analog to this issue. I must state, that I DO NOT intend to IMPLY that there is an EXCESS of energy, only that the oscillatory energy has increased, caused only from storage of the input energy and NOTHING ELSE. This can be seen with a parallel LC circuit driven by a source frequency that equals the LC natural frequency, an oscilloscope set to single trigger mode with the level set near to the final continuous value will capture this short lived event (the reason it doesn't continue to rise to infinity are due to losses not because infinite impedance prevents it). Only in very special cases is there the possibility of excess energy, such as oscillating the Activity of the Electric Field (in planks), see James F Murray for more on this topic.

Garrett M

I think a close examination of the difference between a pulse and a sign wave might be in order.

a pulse when stretched out is nothing more then a sign wave or the 1/2 cycle of a sign wave. Now it may not be pretty but it basically ramps up and then back down with a defined time frame.

It has a definite rise and fall time.

Granted a circuit will react somewhat differently as Eric pointed out than it would to a pure 1/2 cycle of sine wave near fr.

The fast rise/fall at umpteen times fr will tend to generate odd order harmonics whereas the pure sine even order.

For the pulse the medium will store it as the average (or pass it through which ever applies), where the standard units used for power is usually seconds, hours etc.

In order to get consistent and correct measurements we need to stay in the same units, so we cant use one time frame for charge and a different one for discharge cycle.

My point here and the way I understand this is being presented is:

If you have a 1 ohm resistor, and you apply a square 1 volt pulse for 1 second, that is the same "power" as 2 volts for 1/2 second, 4 volts for 1/4 second and so forth......1000 volts for 1/1000 second, the same power dissipates in each case.

If you hang a very large cap on it the cap will come up to the same voltage (storage) level in each case, the shortening of the pulse not with standing, you still wind up with the same power even at 1,000,000 volt pulse for 1/1,000,000 of a second.

by that I mean the V*I into a load for 1 pulse is equal to the V*I if one were to fully discharge an ideal cap used as storage for any one of those pulses. So I do not see an unqualified pulse width as magnification beyond a typical transformer action.