Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[Kokomoj0]

Kokomoj0,
I'm not saying your wrong, a high resistance is a low conductance and visa versa but I fear that is a reductionist way of looking at things. Eric has stressed since the start that what he is trying to convey is more along the ideas of Goethe than conventional science, which should be attributed to Newton, as is shown in the following quote;



and here;


So with that in mind let's look at our disagreement on using conductance and resistance interchangeably instead of low resistance/high resistance. It actually has striking similarity to the battle waged between Goethe and Newton as to a theory of colours. Goethe believed that colour was an interaction between two polar opposites, being light and dark. Newton refuted Goethe's arguments claiming that darkness was only the absence of light and so colours could not possibly be an interaction between light and dark. It is interesting that the Heaviside equation (Off the top of my head it is (RG+XB)+j(RB-XG)), which Eric states is the most fundamental equation in electrical engineering, can be reduced to ZY. This implies that electricity is the interaction of two polar opposite quantities being impedence and admittance in the same way that Goethe said colour arose from the interaction of Light and Dark.

So let's contrast this with our current discussion- Your saying that I am wrong/misinformed because conductance is just a lack of/low resistance, in the same way Newton argued that darkness is an absence of light. Since we are learning Eric's theory we shouldn't try and bring in Newtonian scientific concepts into a concept which has been stressed, repeatedly, that it is Goethean. I am not saying that the Newtonian concepts aren't without their worth but we are moving beyond Newton into a different way of doing science. I feel you might be trying to force the square to be a triangle. Another T-Rex quote. (Yes I know we aren't necessarily talking dimensions here but I feel he'd say a very similar thing to this in response to what we're currently discussing)



Now as for the consumption/production problem. Yes I am aware that to a scientist/engineer trained under conventional theory thinking of the 'consumption' of electricity is a misleading term but again we aren't learning conventional theory we are learning an entirely different theory based on an entirely foreign method of scientific investigation. When a physicist here's the term 'consumption of electricity' they think that one is talking about the consumption of moving electrons which IS a wrong concept, however Eric is moving away from an electron based electricity.

When I say consumption and production I am talking about field lines issuing from the metallic-dielectric confines which seem to just appear out of the geometry with no apparent source (production) and disappear in the same fashion (consumption), what other words should I use? It's interesting to note that to a conventional physicist field lines are just useful analogies to teach students but to the people Eric is references (Heaviside, Thompson, Steinmetz) field lines have a concrete reality. Would you be happier if I used the term 'convert' instead of produce and consume? To me there is no difference between saying convert and saying something consumes one quantity whilst simultaneously producing another quantity and I'd say the answer you prefer would be a matter of philosophy. The other major reason I use the two terms is that Eric uses consume and produce to illustrate these concepts and so I have used these terms as not to further confuse people on an already confusing subject.

If you've never heard of Goethe here is some reading;
Light and Electricity by Tom Brown
Man or Matter by Ernst Lehrs

Garret,
Thanks for your response It's given me some things to think about, I will form a reply a little later.

Raui

I do not have a word off the top of my head, I would have to give that some thought. I do not want to turn this thread into an argue fest, so we will agree to disagree.

[Kokomoj0]

LtBolo,
Kokomojo,

Using a capacitor to integrate the total energy doesn't directly relate to Magnification factor.

Never said it did. I used it to prove a different point with respect to power.

As Raui has pointed out, Energy is the ability to do work, Work is energy used, Power is the time rate of Work or time rate of Energy used. For the Impulse circuit the discharge and charge times can have different values, therefore power would obviously have to change based upon that, seeing as how "time" is involved.

No disagreement with that, in fact that is what I demonstrated in my example.

Energy on the other hand is just the base substance, so the capacitive integrator you were talking about only integrates energy not power

I never referred to it in the context of integrating "power".

(you can derive power with a known time period or a waveform, but not without time).

Yes that is what I said (time), please re-read my previous posts.

If you use the formulae for finding the amount of joules in the capacitor (by measuring the electrostatic potential and using a known value of capacity) from being "pulsed" then all you did was see how much energy was transferred this can be taken as Work but not Power, if time isn’t known.

Never claimed the capacitor stored power and I cant imagine how you derived that from my previous posts.

With what I have read of your comments, I don't think you will be understanding magnification factor as it relates to Power anytime soon.

Frankly no one else does either.

On a side note, the usage of Consumption is a correct word choice. While other words can be used to replace it I choose to use it in honor of CP Steinmetz and Mr. Dollard whom both use that "improper” word choice in their writings. And not only is it used in their writings, many books from the time period of 1880 to 1920, use it in similar context. Thus it has a well-established history of usage, therefore it is a technically correct choice, although a forgotten one at that.


Garrett M

Yeh I am done with that as I said to Raui, its a dead end.

On the other hand you have convinced me that this magnification notion has no foundation.

Simply said, Magnification is a two way road, you can either shrink unit time or add energy per each unit time ("compression" of energy or addition of energy per unit time), BOTH do the same thing, although under different circumstances. The unit of time is the whole span of time thus "charge" is a unit of time and subsequently "discharge" is also a unit of time. The RATIOS of these QUANTITIES of time dictates the MAGNIFICATION FACTOR. "Energy" moved in each time frame is equal, but the "power" is not! This is the whole basis of "magnification factor". (this being true if the charge and discharge of a single energy transient or Impulse wave is considered)

The CHARGE time was in the "past" and hence a "negative time frame", the DISCHARGE is taking place "now" and hence a "positive time frame", this is if only ONE "time frame" is present. IF TWO "time frames" are present in a "window of time" then negative time is that of energy storage or return and positive time is that of energy production or consumption. "Past Time" (forward time that already happened) and "Reverse Time" (time moving backwards) are two different quantities, but could both be represented with negative time (-t). I'll leave it to your imagination as to how you would like to deal with this confusing issue. (Mr Dollard has given us his versor operators to solve this issue but I doubt very many will use them, due to the seemingly intrinsic complexity of their use)

Power has AT LEAST TWO directions, Consumption & Production or Storage & Return. Production and Return oppose one another. Both are happening at the same time, thus power is trying to move in two directions, in this instance negative time is that of return whereas positive time is that of production. If both are equal then no dissipation can take place only a reactive oscillation. Thus a forward-traveling wave (production) and backward-traveling wave (return) exist, the interference pattern produced is that of a standing wave. A parallel LC circuit or open/shorted transmission line describes this situation quite well.

IMPULSES and ALTERNATING WAVES are distinct in their operation. The magnification factor of each is unique, they are NOT the SAME. The combination of one and the other adds to the confusion. The base time unit of an Alternating wave is that of the Radian NOT Cycles per Second 1/(sqrt(LC)) whereas an Impulse is in Tau rC & gL or other algebraically equal forms.

Something to note, is that magnification factor of an LC tank relates to its "Q" or quality factor and also to its "Selectivity", the sharper the Notch, if looked at from a spectrum analyzer, the higher the selectivity and greater the potential reactive voltage & current when driven at its natural frequency. Whereas with an Impulse, NOT a "Pulse", the time, with all things equal, is the only thing that changes the magnification factor.

The best way to look at whats going on in the Tesla Transformer Primary & Secondary is:

Primary -> IMPULSE WAVES (from 'Steinmetz coil' or capacitive discharge, via push-pull center tap on primary)
Secondary -> OSCILLATING CURRENT WAVES (LC & MK Quadra-Polar Resonance, in secondary and maybe between the extra coil/terminal capacity as well)

Thus the MAGNIFICATION Factor, in this special case, isn't in shrinking time, it is in adding energy per unit time to another circuit. Mr. Dollard says that the energy from the Primary is conserved, thus the secondary's TOTAL oscillatory ENERGY MUST BUILD UP IN MAGNITUDE from the IMPULSE energy of the Primary.

The loss factor that takes away from this oscillatory energy is caused from:

RADIATION RESISTANCE (emitted radio waves, length of wire per length of wave traveling alongst it)
SERIES RESISTANCE (emitted infrared radiation, electrons moving, causing photon emission)
PARASITIC MUTUAL CAPACITY & INDUCTANCE (stray coupling to surroundings, metallic or dielectric)
LEAKAGE INDUCTANCE (magnetic energy not coupled to mutual windings)
SHUNT CONDUCTANCE (of the air from corona or humidity, causing partial "shorting" of coil windings)
HYSTERESIS of DIELECTRIC & MAGNETIC media (losses from polarization not following the applied fields, even air has hysteresis)

All of these limit the maximum magnification factor.

In Mr. Dollards book Condensed Intro to Tesla Transformers [1986], he brings up the very special situation of a traveling wave increasing in energy as opposed to losing energy per unit length of a coil. This is on page 27 second paragraph and is continued to page 30. This situation, is what I believe Heavy side was referring to when the wire becomes a source rather than a sink. I believe this situation is what a well made Tesla Transformer performs when operating correctly.


The above is merely a shot in the dark at answering your question (I'm not the most knowledgeable person on this subject), I hope it helps,

Garrett M

The way you describe magnification above is the same as saying that magnification is determined by inequality of the source to load in its function.

Now at resonance it takes very little input to keep something going but thats not magnifying in terms of 100 horsepower in to 1million horsepower out.


well I just responded line by line to your post and the damn thing ate it so screw it.

anyway to sum it all up what ever power you draw off this resonant wave you will have to replace at the input to keep it going regardless of how much magnification you get. Otherwise this would go to infinity too!

See what you can glean from this, I think you will find it fascinating. I know I do.

Making standing waves

[7imix]

Kokomoj0,

I think the issue might be that you are confused about what Tesla was claiming. Do you have a specific quote about the Magnifying Transmitter on which you base your assertion that there must be "extra" energy coming from somewhere?

The Magnification Factor has to do with the "bang for the buck." In "Tesla on his work with Alternating Currents," he draws an analogy between the rapid discharge of a capacitor and the firing of a gun or dynamite. If you want to blow up a rock, you use dynamite, not a campfire that consumes the same amount of energy over a much greater time.

Also in the same book, Tesla discusses at great length how the Magnifying Transmitter, by operating at lower frequencies around 20-200 khz, was a highly efficient transmitter because the energy being put into the earth by each impulse from the driver was not being dissipated through radiation resistance.

This is because the transfer is happening through the earth, which, having a cross-section to length ratio of 1, is a very low resistance conductor. If the transmitter was perfectly tuned to the earth, then the reflected impulses from the other side of the globe would perfectly match up with the impulses at the transmitter and all energy put into the system will be conserved, with minimal losses to ohmic resistance in the driver and earth.

Hook up the transmitter to Niagra Falls, and free energy for the whole earth. However, all the energy being taken out would still be being put in at some point by the driver.

Here's a quote from "Tesla on his work with Alternating Currents" p 130:

Counsel: Will you pardon me for interrupting again. You spoke some time ago about getting all of the energy from your transmitting into your receiving station by this method of yours. I do not understand how you can get all of it.

Tesla: Oh, that is hardly true; I am speaking as a matter of principle. You never can get all the energy, because there is no such thing as a perfect apparatus.

Counsel: I did not mean in that sense. I understand that there is, of course, always some loss, but my conception was that when you created the disturbance in the electrical condition of the earth at your transmitting station, that that extended out in all radial directions.

Tesla: Yes, it did.

Counsel: And therefore how, at any given station, can you get more than a very small fraction of that energy?

Tesla: Pardon me, you are mistaken.

Counsel: That is what I want you to explain. I must be mistaken, because my conception does not fit with your statements.

Tesla: All right, I will explain that.

In my first efforts, of course I simply contemplated to disturb effectively the earth, sufficiently to operate instruments. Well, you know you must first learn how to walk before you can fly. As I perfected my apparatus, I saw clearly that I can recover, of that energy which goes in all directions, a large amount, for the simple reason in the system I have devised, once that current got into the earth it had no chance of escaping, because my frequency was low; hence, the electro-magnetic radiation was low. The potential, the electric potential, is like temperature. We might as well call potential electric temperature. The earth is a vast body. The potential differences in the earth are small, radiation is very small. Therefore, if I pass my current into the earth, the energy of the current is stored there as electromagnetic momentum of the vibrations and is not consumed until I put a receiver at a distance, when it will begin to draw the energy and it will go to that point and nowhere else.

So when talking about the Magnifying Transmitter, it's clear that what comes out is what went in. However, suddenly there is no more need for the millions of miles of transmission lines and the huge amount of radiation they waste just moving the energy from one place to another.

Later in his life, Tesla was even more secretive, so who knows what he discovered then. But when it comes to the Magnifying Transmitter, we have a lot of Tesla's own words to learn from. It's for power distribution. It still needed to be hooked up to Niagra Falls.

[pnajafi]

Pancake shape

Hey Guys,

I hope you are doing well.

Does anyone know why pancake coils generate more voltage than an standard coil between each turn?

This is explained by Tesla, but I am not sure how the shape of the coils were determined. Also, what are the parameters for a single wound and bifilar pancake, any formulas? I just want to see how someone understands and develop an intuition with these shapes.


www.Magnetricity.com ... Tesla's BIFILAR 'COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS' Patent # 512,340, dated January 9, 1894
Nikola Tesla explains that a standard coil of 1000 turns with a potential of 100 volts across it will have a difference of 0.1 volt between turns. A similar BIFILAR coil will have a potential of 50 volts between turns.
In that the stored energy is a function of the square of the voltages the energy in the BIFILAR will be ... 50 squared / .1 squared = 2500 / .01 = 250,000 times greater than the standard coil

[Skiv]

I've got some things running around in my head and would like a little help sorting them out. Specifically, I've been thinking about the flat coil design as used by Eric in the longitudinal video and in the Tesla Marconi Wireless video.

Bear with me while I lay out and then try to integrate some disparate threads that I've been reading.

I was also interested in the Alexanderson Array discussion. What I've read by Tesla -- and, to be sure, Steinmetz and Dollard -- says that the Tesla system can be used for communication and wireless transmission of power, but the texts imply to me to that the conditions under which either one of those aims can be accomplished differ.

In the 1989 video about the Tesla Marconi Wireless that recently resurfaced Eric discusses the Alexanderson Array at Bolinas with respect to the astronomical level of circulating energy in the array. He mentions that the array would "ring" under certain conditions, and that even 15 wpm morse signals would be "slurred" by the inability of the array to shed electromagnetic energy quickly enough.

As a ham operator with some professional wireless experience, I can say that 15 wpm morse Is. Like. Reading. A. Book. One. Word. At. A. Time. An op with a good fist can send 25-40 wpm steady all day, and copy it on a "mill" (typewriter) with ease. True pros usually ran faster than that, though in the maritime service one often had to contend with a sparky on a tramp freigther who was doing well to get his pants on right way front and send reliably at 15 wpm.

I use that example to substantiate what I've read of Tesla and others who talk about configuring the system for its intended use. If the circulating energy made communication difficult it still may have been excellent conditions for transmission of wireless power, which is what I'm getting out of Eric's use of that anecdote.

In the SBARC video, Eric relates using a flat-coil "antenna" on his ham station in the CW portion of the 40-metre band, around 7000 kc. A similar coil as shown in the longitudinal demonstration, the beach "broadcast," and in the Marconi video is described by Eric (in the Marconi video) as a "2.3 megacycle coil."

This implies to me that if he was using a similar coil on his 7000 kc station he was probably using one of two other choices: a coil intended for the 3500 kc or 80-metre ham band, running on the second harmonic; or one built for the 7000 kc or 40-metre band. Intuition tells me it ought to be the latter, because:

Tesla and others specify an odd-multiple of quarter-wavelength for the secondary. A secondary one-quarter-wavelength long at frequency X will be one half-wave (two quarters) long at frequency 2X.

The reason this specifically is interesting to me is that I'd like to build a flat coil like that and try it out at either 80 or 40 metres. From what I read, it seems to me that lower frequencies are better for telluric effects. Eric talks about using a ham transmitter to feed the system, which I have. I don't have a 160-metre rig, however, but my old rig has 80 and 40 on it.

I also want to try it out in a receiving arrangement, much like what Eric shows in the videos mentioned above. I get it that the coil itself is only a "virtual ground" while the ground itself is the active terminal. He demonstrates using his 2.3 mc coil as the virtual ground in a system to receive 10 mc signals, so evidently the specifics of the coil as they apply to receiving action are less critical than for transmitting. Is that essentially parallel to Electro-Magnetic practise, where any ol' chunk of metal in the air will receive but may not transmit effectively?

As I figure it, if I'm going to build a coil it ought to be as useful as possible to me. That, to me, implies building one for, say, 80 metres and then using it as well for other experiments in receiving at frequencies above and below its design frequency.

What seems to be necessary to put this in place are the following conditions:

1. Flat secondary coil of odd-multiple quarter-wavelength, wound with 14 ga. wire as suggested by Eric. At 3725 kc, quarter-wave is 62.8 feet. Making a sufficiently large coil form would allow for a three-quarter wavelength secondary needing 188.4 feet. Still doable and the primary would then be longer as well.

2. Flat primary coil, which at any frequency is not going to be even close to a quarter-wave (extrapolating from Tesla's CSN and from Eric's 2.3 mc coil), wound in one turn with flat copper strip. The coil as demonstrated by Eric seems to have two turns, is that correct? I know Tesla used both one and two turn primaries.

3. A good connection to ground. I live on a mountain of iron-bearing rock. We call the place "Stone Ground Farm" because that's the only bloody kind of ground we have. That means I'll need to lay out a star radial ground terminal system. Probably 16 x 75-foot runs of copper wire, tied to a central ground stake and to stakes at the end of each radial. In the vicinity where I want to put this, I have a buried shipping container used as a root cellar, so I have a large buried body of steel that I will likely tie into.

Looking at Tesla's patents, the centre of the secondary goes to the elevated capacitance, and the outside edge of the secondary goes to ground. The primary is connected across the signal generator. I'm not sure what that's gonna do to a set of solid state finals, even at minimum power.

So, after laying all that out, am I reading/seeing correctly? I will dig out the dimensional calcs from the condensed intro and the wireless books by Eric, as I'm just using standard antenna calcs above (234/f in Mc for 1/4 wave). I'm mainly checking my understanding so far, to see if I'm going in the right direction.

Thanks!

[Pulsed]

With regard to the MIT physics demonstration on the dissectable capacitor linked in post 31 of this thread:

MIT Physics Demo -- Dissectible Capacitor - YouTube

In addition this quote by Mr Eric Dollard from post number 71 on this thread:

"Glass is a dielectric which can store electrical energy within its physical form. This should be common knowledge and not a surprise to anyone today…"

This page seems to attribute this as a 'special effect'. To quote the article here: Leyden jar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"It was initially believed that the charge was stored in the water in early Leyden jars. Franklin's investigations led him to conclude that the charge was stored in the glass, not in the water, as others had assumed. A popular experiment which seems to demonstrate this involves taking one apart after it has been charged and showing that the charge is stored on the dielectric, not the plates. The first documented instance of this demonstration is in a 1749 letter by Franklin.[4] Franklin designed a "dissectible" Leyden jar, which was widely used in demonstrations. The jar in the demonstration is constructed out of a glass cup nested between two fairly snugly fitting metal cups. When the jar is charged with a high voltage and carefully dismantled, it is discovered that all the parts may be freely handled without discharging the jar. If the pieces are re-assembled, a large spark may still be obtained.

This demonstration appears to suggest that capacitors store their charge inside their dielectric. This theory was taught throughout the 1800s. However, this phenomenon is a special effect caused by the high voltage on the Leyden jar.[5]In the dissectible Leyden jar, charge is transferred to the surface of the glass cup by corona discharge when the jar is disassembled; this is the source of the residual charge after the jar is reassembled. Handling the cup while disassembled does not provide enough contact to remove all the surface charge. Soda glass is hygroscopic and forms a partially conductive coating on its surface, which holds the charge.[5] Addenbrook (1922) found that in a dissectible jar made of paraffin wax, or glass baked to remove moisture, the charge remained on the metal plates.[6] Zeleny (1944) confirmed these results and observed the corona charge transfer.[7]In capacitors generally, the charge is not stored in the dielectric, but on the inside surfaces of the plates, as can be observed from capacitors that can function with a vacuum between their plates.[8]"

What would be your thoughts on the operation of a vacuum capacitor then Vacuum variable capacitor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?

Many thanks in advance.

[madhatter]

There have been questions in regards to Erics use of the 'spacing factor' in the coil designs. While I do not have a direct answer as to how it is derived I believe this is a result of experimentation and most likely can be derived from equations in regards to wire transmission. I have not been able yet to fully derive this but I'm working on it. It may be beneficial for further refinement.

I would also like to ask if anyone noticed that there is 2 different designs, a 30 turn and 20 turn coil.

[dR-Green]

So, after laying all that out, am I reading/seeing correctly? I will dig out the dimensional calcs from the condensed intro and the wireless books by Eric, as I'm just using standard antenna calcs above (234/f in Mc for 1/4 wave). I'm mainly checking my understanding so far, to see if I'm going in the right direction.

Thanks!

Hi Skiv. Rather than answering all your questions directly I will give you my flat spiral coil specs to give you an idea, built before any of the crystal radio stuff came up so wasn't intended for any of this, using the method described a few pages back (starting with primary and matching copper weight for secondary).

4mm spacing between each groove that the wire sits in, 4mm space between primary and secondary.

Primary (approx): 59cm diameter, 2 turns, 2x parallel layers 1.5mm diameter wire = 116.8 grams

Approx 113g in winding (excluding lead-in and lead-out).

Secondary (approx): 114 grams = 51.65 metres 24 SWG 0.56mm diameter wire

51.65m with base dimensions = 34.5 turns secondary

I'm tuned to a station broadcasting at 882kHz.

In relation to Eric's equation for calculating secondary conductor length:

ls = 4.8 x 10*9 / 882000 = 54.421768707482993197278911564626 metres

[jake]

62% or nothing

There have been questions in regards to Erics use of the 'spacing factor' in the coil designs. While I do not have a direct answer as to how it is derived I believe this is a result of experimentation and most likely can be derived from equations in regards to wire transmission. I have not been able yet to fully derive this but I'm working on it. It may be beneficial for further refinement.

I would also like to ask if anyone noticed that there is 2 different designs, a 30 turn and 20 turn coil.

Thanks for the reply. In his paper on the oscillating transformer he mentions "ratio of wire diameter to coil pitch is 60%." page 21 or 31. My copy has two page numbers.


What I really what to know is what is the lesser of 2 evils.
-using 14 gauge and having spacing a 'bit' off.
or
-using 14 gauge and adjusting the hight to width to accommodate the 62% of 14 gauge spacing.
??????

[Kokomoj0]

Thanks for the reply. In his paper on the oscillating transformer he mentions "ratio of wire diameter to coil pitch is 60%." page 21 or 31. My copy has two page numbers.


What I really what to know is what is the lesser of 2 evils.
-using 14 gauge and having spacing a 'bit' off.
or
-using 14 gauge and adjusting the hight to width to accommodate the 62% of 14 gauge spacing.
??????

coils are sort of like horseshoes, if you can get it close its usually good enough.

the reason is that in the end this whole thing will need to be tweaked. so you may have to snip wire off and basically adjust the final tuning to match the other coils.

either way if your changes are not radical it will only shift the inductance, capacitance, and fo a little in one direction or the other depending on which way you need to go with it.

generally you set a target for design and best try to hit the target and tweak to finalize from there.

that is why in these old transistor radios you will find lots of coils on th epcb that are bent in all sorts of odd shapes.

[garrettm4]

Pancake Coil

pnajafi,

"Does anyone know why pancake coils generate more voltage than an standard coil between each turn?"

I think it is caused from distributed capacity or mutual-capacity K. We have e, or voltage seen from mutual capacity, E, the reactance voltage, and finally, ((i+I)r) or the voltage drop due to current flow against a resistance. e & E can add depending upon their phase orientation, whereas ((i+I)r) is always a voltage drop. So bringing it altogether; ((j(i+I))r)-j(e+E)=Volts (induced voltage would be negative), the phases of the currents i & I and voltages e & E need to be taken into account for this equation to be useful. Note that this is very different from a parallel or series LC circuit, and could be seen as a type of parallel LK circuit, even though we think of it as just another inductor. My 2cents, hope it helps.



I did some more thinking on this topic and came to some conclusions and thought I would share them with everyone here. The "pancake coil", or any coil for the sake of discussion, has different modes of propagation, axial & radial, dependent upon how it is driven and wound. One mode is called Forced Oscillation, seen as waves of a continuous level in cycles per second, this can be achieved by direct 2-wire connection or mutual induction, this is the 'normal' method of driving circuit elements today. An alternative mode is called Free Oscillation (sometimes known as "ringing"), seen as dampened waves or a changing level in cycle-decibels per second (similar to but NOT AM modulation), this method is almost NEVER used or even discussed except for the transient case where the phenomena is a "problem" that is worked out of the design. In almost all of the later Tesla apparatus I have examined he uses "Dampened Waves", or Free Oscillations, and Impulses to control and drive his experiments. In the pancake coil we can drive it in two differing modes both via mutual induction, this seen as a free coil not hooked up to anything. In the free oscillation mode where impulses of mutual induction are impressed upon the coil, the coil having a larger than normal mutual-capacity has a larger than normal capacity current which cuts across the coil winds through the insulating portions this in per radians per second, much like a drop of water falling into a calm pool of water, the disturbance is radial. The self inductance of the coil is axial and thereby moves along the entire length of the coil, this in radians per second. If we take this further we could talk about the self induced mutual magnetic induction of each turn, another radial phenomena in per radians per second, and the self-capacity, an axial phenomena in radians per second, of the entire coil to a conducting surface such as the earth or a ground plane. I believe this is why Mr. Dollard makes a very large emphasis on his Four Quadrant Theory of Electrical Waves. e E i & I are needed to describe the effects of L C M & K, which is quite hard to do with the usage of only V & I. Furthermore the radial or axial directions of propagation and the normal direction of rotation of the subsequent vector quantities gives rise to some interesting considerations when talking about a coil and what it is doing per unit time.

Garrett M

[jake]

TRT calculator

I posted a calculator for the tesla resonant calculator over in the yahoo group N6KPH because excel file are not allowed here.

Problem is I get a negative number with the calculation for conductor spacing on the extra coil. I get this when I do it manually as well.

Has anyone calculated their extra coil with the "tentative equations" given earlier?

[dR-Green]

I posted a calculator for the tesla resonant calculator over in the yahoo group N6KPH because excel file are not allowed here.

Problem is I get a negative number with the calculation for conductor spacing on the extra coil. I get this when I do it manually as well.

Has anyone calculated their extra coil with the "tentative equations" given earlier?

Yes you are right, negative number here as well. The equation subtracts a big number from a smaller number so immediately goes negative (d - N).

[madhatter]

There's some issues with the equations for the extra coil, not sure if it's just a misprint or haste. I've worked through the secondary coil dimensions and although at first blush they work out, they are also the basis for the extra coil. The Eq Eric has for the spacing factor seems odd. I'm working on the fundamentals of the math behind the dimensions still, hope to have something by morning.

[Web000x]

Thank you Eric, I think that cleared up a great amount of confusion! What may I ask is in Morro Bay? Before you leave, check your paypal, I made a donation last night. Please check in with us when possible, I'll do my best to get this up and running asap. Thank you for all your help.

Do you have gear to get on 40m CW? I know you used to do daily transmissions there, will you be reachable via 40m CW? If you need a radio / tuner / antenna, I'll help you out.

Regards,
Mike

73 DE WX9HV

Hey Mike,

Eric was gone to Lone Pine when you made that post. He contacted me a few days ago updating me of his situation and told me that he had seen your post from a friend's computer. He has no working HAM equipment to transmit right now. He said that if you could get him a working PRC-47 that he would be able to broadcast.

Good luck,

Dave