Re: [Vo]:Toroidal inductors
On Mar 7, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Hi, If one has two separate toroidally wound inductors, and one passes a DC current through each coil, do they experience any force from one another, particularly when sharing a common major axis? I'm interested in both theoretical and experimental responses. It is typically assumed that, with the exception of leakage flux, that all of the flux is held within the tori minor radii, thus there is no interaction between current carrying tori when pure DC is used. There indeed is always, both theoretically and experimentally, small leakage fields from the windings, which can readily be detected when AC current is used. However, when experimenting, it is very easy to make a serious mistake in regard to the above, and which is not related to leakage flux at all. That mistake is to not ensure that an even number of winding layers is used for each torus, with winding direction reversed at layer termination boundaries, so as to avoid major axis net current loops. For example, if a single winding layer comprised of 100 turns is used, then the torus winding is equivalent to 100 ideal current hoops about the minor axis carrying i, plus the equivalent of a single conductor hoop coil centered on the major axis and having the major radius and carrying current i (this is equivalent to a current hoop running through the center of the cake of the doughnut carrying current i). If both tori have an odd number of winding layers, or even if multiple winding layers are used but all or most proceed in the same major axis direction, or some combination of the above resulting in a net major axis current hoop, then they both carry a significant external magnetic field equivalent to hoop coils about their major axes. A pair of tori with such equivalent hoop coils will exhibit significant mutual forces and/ or torques depending on location and orientation. Note that such forces can be larger than just the force between the major axis hoop currents, because flux from one hoop coil can enter the cake of the doughnut volume of the adjacent torus, and thus interact with the flux there (or be viewed as interacting with the small radius windings) to produce much larger forces than might otherwise be anticipated. This also means unexpected force interactions can arise between a major axis hoop current carrying torus and a torus not having such a hoop equivalent current, including a permanent magnet torus in which all flux is internal. Flux repels (or attracts) parallel flux via magnetic pressure. A very interesting and surprising experiment (for me anyway) was the investigation of the vicinity of an iron core toroid coil by means of an approximation to a magnetic monopole probe I made by taping together a long (about 6 long) stack of 3/8 thick circular ceramic magnets (3/4 dia. if I recall). When the toroid coil is driven by AC current it is very easy to sense magnetic field strength manually from the vibration of the probe when it is hand held (at least with the coils I used, which were #10 or #12 wire carrying 20 amps or so). By far, the strongest vibrations are obtained when a probe tip is in the center of the torus. I put a little plywood platform in the center of the torus and placed a single disc ceramic magnet there. It danced about in a lively fashion and slowly rotated as well. A much better approximation to a monopole probe could be made using smaller diameter magnets joined into a longer probe. This probe technique seemed much more sensitive, but provided similar results to a FET probe I made, with regard to determining field envelope shape. The FET probe required AC, but the simple monopole approximating magnetic probe should work with DC. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Tooo obvious for Detroit?
Howdy Vorts, People and their love affairs with their autos. Any fleet operator can show records that prove the Chevrolet autos and small trucks are the best all around. We have a chev fleet, we try other brands for experience but it's Chevrolet. Ever see a fleet of Lexus or Mercedes? Or Toyota trucks ? We can run a fleet of Chev pickups at near zero maintenance and trade when they teach 150,000 miles. Funny, some have a metal ID shows assembled in Jaurez Mexico. Ask anybody that uses Toyota and Mercedes what service costs at their dealership.. notice one of the billionaires listed in this years survey is a Toyota dealer in Texas. GM had the truck engine that won WW2, a 6 cyl workhorse. Germany built the tiger tank, the fighter plane and the 88 long gun but they couldn't build a 6x6 2 1/2 ton truck. It was management at GM that sold GM down the river, the poor dumb people that worked there just built the best.. thank you Roger Smith for the memories, and thank you ITT. ITT was the Mafia wire service telephone company for the Cuba and south. After Castro took over, ITT claimed a loss and was compensated by the US. They took the money and bought US companies and hired accountants to parlay the cash outa the kazoo. They were the teachers of tactics practiced by accountants since. There is not a US insurance company that has a dime in cash in a US bank today. GMAC is now owned by HSBC, a Chinese Hong Kong bank run by British bankers (but never a US trained accountant).. Arthur Anderson CPA and Enron.. no place but Texas. We should know by the ides of March if the banking and financial system of the USA will survive as we know it. The turkeys are trying hard enough to destroy it. Now for the good news... Richard - Original Message - From: thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Tooo obvious for Detroit? Terry Blanton wrote: I can't allow the denigration of engineers in the automotive industry continue. I had a friend who was an engineering manager in Detroit I agree, IMHO, it's the MBA's and the lawyers.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Tooo obvious for Detroit?
Yeah - even though I'm not North American by birth, I easily saw over the years, how much the public had been sucked into Japanese (and European) car mode. And the stupid NA auto manufacturers got just as sucked in and tried to compete with the little 4-cyl jobs. Americans were (and as far as I'm concerned still are) masters of the V8 and big 6 engines... I watched a documentary on how the NA auto designer boys designed all the esoteric cars that were around when I first set foot in Canada around 1968. Outstanding. So a few months ago I leased a Charger with a HEMI engine (after driving a Ford truck for 10 years)... Excellent car... but politically incorrect as if I care. Now if you want to see what the Bean Counters (government Bean Counters, no less) did to what could have been outstanding American nuclear power plant design by Oppenheimer and his group, read Disturbing the Universe by Freeman Dyson. This is what you could call one-dimensional thinking. P. - Original Message From: R C Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2008 8:33:41 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Tooo obvious for Detroit? Howdy Vorts, People and their love affairs with their autos. Any fleet operator can show records that prove the Chevrolet autos and small trucks are the best all around. We have a chev fleet, we try other brands for experience but it's Chevrolet. Ever see a fleet of Lexus or Mercedes? Or Toyota trucks ? We can run a fleet of Chev pickups at near zero maintenance and trade when they teach 150,000 miles. Funny, some have a metal ID shows assembled in Jaurez Mexico. Ask anybody that uses Toyota and Mercedes what service costs at their dealership.. notice one of the billionaires listed in this years survey is a Toyota dealer in Texas. GM had the truck engine that won WW2, a 6 cyl workhorse. Germany built the tiger tank, the fighter plane and the 88 long gun but they couldn't build a 6x6 2 1/2 ton truck. It was management at GM that sold GM down the river, the poor dumb people that worked there just built the best.. thank you Roger Smith for the memories, and thank you ITT. ITT was the Mafia wire service telephone company for the Cuba and south. After Castro took over, ITT claimed a loss and was compensated by the US. They took the money and bought US companies and hired accountants to parlay the cash outa the kazoo. They were the teachers of tactics practiced by accountants since. There is not a US insurance company that has a dime in cash in a US bank today. GMAC is now owned by HSBC, a Chinese Hong Kong bank run by British bankers (but never a US trained accountant).. Arthur Anderson CPA and Enron.. no place but Texas. We should know by the ides of March if the banking and financial system of the USA will survive as we know it. The turkeys are trying hard enough to destroy it. Now for the good news... Richard - Original Message - From: thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Tooo obvious for Detroit? Terry Blanton wrote: I can't allow the denigration of engineers in the automotive industry continue. I had a friend who was an engineering manager in Detroit I agree, IMHO, it's the MBA's and the lawyers.
[Vo]:Re: Toroidal inductors
it is very easy to make a serious mistake in regard to the above, and which is not related to leakage flux at all. That mistake is to not ensure that an even number of winding layers is used for each torus, with winding direction reversed at layer termination boundaries, so as to avoid major axis net current loops. Indeed Horace you must be right that each winding layer not compensated by a reverse wound layer must act as a single turn current loop around the major axis, with the same current as in the winding. This effect, resulting from a turn of wire not being flat in reality, had never occurred to me, many thanks for the enlightening post! Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Toroidal inductors On Mar 7, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Hi, If one has two separate toroidally wound inductors, and one passes a DC current through each coil, do they experience any force from one another, particularly when sharing a common major axis? I'm interested in both theoretical and experimental responses. It is typically assumed that, with the exception of leakage flux, that all of the flux is held within the tori minor radii, thus there is no interaction between current carrying tori when pure DC is used. There indeed is always, both theoretically and experimentally, small leakage fields from the windings, which can readily be detected when AC current is used. However, when experimenting, it is very easy to make a serious mistake in regard to the above, and which is not related to leakage flux at all. That mistake is to not ensure that an even number of winding layers is used for each torus, with winding direction reversed at layer termination boundaries, so as to avoid major axis net current loops. For example, if a single winding layer comprised of 100 turns is used, then the torus winding is equivalent to 100 ideal current hoops about the minor axis carrying i, plus the equivalent of a single conductor hoop coil centered on the major axis and having the major radius and carrying current i (this is equivalent to a current hoop running through the center of the cake of the doughnut carrying current i). If both tori have an odd number of winding layers, or even if multiple winding layers are used but all or most proceed in the same major axis direction, or some combination of the above resulting in a net major axis current hoop, then they both carry a significant external magnetic field equivalent to hoop coils about their major axes. A pair of tori with such equivalent hoop coils will exhibit significant mutual forces and/ or torques depending on location and orientation. Note that such forces can be larger than just the force between the major axis hoop currents, because flux from one hoop coil can enter the cake of the doughnut volume of the adjacent torus, and thus interact with the flux there (or be viewed as interacting with the small radius windings) to produce much larger forces than might otherwise be anticipated. This also means unexpected force interactions can arise between a major axis hoop current carrying torus and a torus not having such a hoop equivalent current, including a permanent magnet torus in which all flux is internal. Flux repels (or attracts) parallel flux via magnetic pressure. A very interesting and surprising experiment (for me anyway) was the investigation of the vicinity of an iron core toroid coil by means of an approximation to a magnetic monopole probe I made by taping together a long (about 6 long) stack of 3/8 thick circular ceramic magnets (3/4 dia. if I recall). When the toroid coil is driven by AC current it is very easy to sense magnetic field strength manually from the vibration of the probe when it is hand held (at least with the coils I used, which were #10 or #12 wire carrying 20 amps or so). By far, the strongest vibrations are obtained when a probe tip is in the center of the torus. I put a little plywood platform in the center of the torus and placed a single disc ceramic magnet there. It danced about in a lively fashion and slowly rotated as well. A much better approximation to a monopole probe could be made using smaller diameter magnets joined into a longer probe. This probe technique seemed much more sensitive, but provided similar results to a FET probe I made, with regard to determining field envelope shape. The FET probe required AC, but the simple monopole approximating magnetic probe should work with DC. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Kiplinger Letter: 03/07/08 comments on energy
Howdy Richard, Just a couple of thoughts: The Kiplinger Letter's recent comments regarding 100 bb'o'crude. black gold reserves stashed away under ND certainly caught my eye. I'm puzzled over the fact that I do not personally recall anyone in the Vortex list ever mentioning the existence of this potential natural resource – and there are some pretty smart cookies here. Has this North Dakota resource ever been discussed here? I must confess that I do not have at my fingertips the current daily consumption of oil within the good'ol U.S.A. I wonder if Mr. Rothwell or Mr. Beene might know those figures. In my experience, The Kiplinger Letter is comprised of a fairly conservative group of reporters who go by the creed of never directly quoting their sources, nor do they directly name their sources – not ever. This anonymity seems to give the their reporting staff a certain level of access to information within inner Washington circles for which other news sources would not necessarily be privy to receiving. What they seem to be good at is digging up and reporting on Washington gossip about national states of affairs – taking the basic temperature of political machinations. They seem to be good at reporting on both international and internal events that will become more generally known to the public in subsequent months. While they do report on interesting and occasionally fascinating technological developments (not yet privy to the general public) it's been my experience that I've rarely read anything in this newsletter that might be considered to be earth shaking in its ramifications. That especially is the case when it comes to the energy front, and what our nation is doing (or not doing) about it. They are extremely conservative in the reporting of our country's energy assessments. That was another reason their reporting on the North Dakota 100 bb'o'oil surprised me. The Kiplinger staff welcomes comments from their paying subscribers (I've been a subscriber since the 1980s) – and they really do respond to individual inquiries! When the Ethanol debate was first brought up here in Vortex I emailed the Kiplinger Staff with a comment or two in regards to what our Vortex group had discussed, particularly how inefficient corn based ethanol production is under current circumstances. I asked their staff if it might be possible for them in the future to report in more detail on the accuracy of whether ethanol production would really help make our nation more energy independent, or not. One of their analysts replied that (and I'm not quoting directly here!) indeed, the ethanol debate was in many ways a politically induced farce that will do absolutely nothing in regards to making us more energy independent. I could tell from the tone of letter that their staff must occasionally get incredibly frustrated with what they uncover and must subsequently report on since from their perspective they can put two and two together and see the rapidly approaching cliff - while many of the anonymous sources they contact appear incapable and/or unwilling to see the same cliff themselves. It's not Kiplinger's job to tell their readership what is politically correct or what is the most sensible action to take. Their job is to report as accurately as possible on what is going on within inner Washington circles and the decisions they are making that will ultimately affect us all for better or worse. BTW, and to their credit, they did eventually report numerous times on how incredibly inefficient corn based Ethanol production really is in regards to creating the illusion energy independence. Based on what I've read I'm convinced some of those anonymous sources have occasionally come from the inner most circles of government including White House staff. This became evident to me during the build up to the eventual ill-planned invasion of Iraq. When we first invaded Afghanistan the Kiplinger Letter stated quite clearly from the very beginning that Iraq was next on the agenda. They told their readership to prepare to start hearing the drumbeat on the need to take care of the Iraq situation. Again, their job is to report on what they uncover, not on the wisdom of what they uncover. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Re: Tooo obvious for Detroit?
Yep, Philip, We have unit 3 4 nuke plant starting construction soon at Bay City Texas.. part of the South Texas project. They are having their share of the problems using a Jap design .. plus the environmental problems to overcome. The problem with Nukes are... They can operate some 40-50 years and reach a point when the metal crystallizes and become unsafe. There can be no repairs because nobody can work to make piping and equipment replacements under such high radiation conditions so They encase the whole plant in a concrete coffin like Chernobyl for 250,000 years.. That fact never gets mentioned Richard
Re: [Vo]:The Kiplinger Letter: 03/07/08 comments on energy
--- OrionWorks wrote: The Kiplinger Letter's recent comments regarding 100 bb'o'crude reserves stashed away under ND certainly caught my eye. I'm puzzled over the fact that I do not personally recall anyone in the Vortex list ever mentioning the existence of this potential natural resource ... Well, there are two things going on in this report, and one of them is thinly disguised political spin... From a quick googling -- it looks to me like Kiplinger is talking about the Williston Basin. But first - we need to realize that Kiplinger has a political agenda, which they try very hard to keep under wraps; but obviously being pro-business often means being pro-big-oil and pro-status-quo and so on ... Many here, of either political persuasion, might prefer that they be ONLY pro-business (small to medium sized business) without being pro-big-oil since most small businesses are harmed by high oil costs. That too is another spin but anyway Part of this oil field has been in production for over 50 years, so it is not a new discovery. It is deep oil, from one to 1.5 miles deep; and at $20 barrel it is too costly to extract or even to get a good idea of how much is there; but now at five times the price, almost any oil, no matter how deep, can be exploited profitably. It is very likely that they have simply increased the estimates on how much is recoverable at $100/ barrel. Was the estimate scientific or not? IOW there is nothing here new except new spin on an old story ... or is there something I am missing ? BTW- it is very much in the interest of those who wish to maintain the status quo politically- to make calming and unprovable claims in order to ease the fears of voters about looming problems. Fearful voters favor change. That kind of politically motivated spin has some bearing on the truthfulness of the new estimates. Where exactly did the estimates come from is one question? (did it originate or was it influenced by the White House or not?) We will probably see more such talk (i.e. that all is well)coming from any candidate in any race - who wishes to convince voters that staying the course of the present administration is preferable to change. Convincing voters that we do not face huge problems with energy is part of that tactic. There are many reasons to hide the fact that (alluded to in Jack's recent post) that we are in Iraq primarily to secure the oil, and that the invasion has nothing to do with war on terrorism. If we wanted a real war on terror we would invade Saudi Arabia. Isn't that where all of the 9/11 hijackers came from? Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Kiplinger Letter: 03/07/08 comments on energy
Mostly correct but the Bakken is not a deep formation but a tight shale (no permability) that is saturated with oil but is very reluctant to give it up. It has been know forever it is basically everywhere under the Williston basin; you see it in every well drilled so that is great if it will produce in economic amounts... I don't know what new techniques are available for recovery but I imaginr directional drilling FRAC technology are involved. Ron --On Saturday, March 08, 2008 10:05 AM -0800 Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- OrionWorks wrote: The Kiplinger Letter's recent comments regarding 100 bb'o'crude reserves stashed away under ND certainly caught my eye. I'm puzzled over the fact that I do not personally recall anyone in the Vortex list ever mentioning the existence of this potential natural resource ... Well, there are two things going on in this report, and one of them is thinly disguised political spin... From a quick googling -- it looks to me like Kiplinger is talking about the Williston Basin. But first - we need to realize that Kiplinger has a political agenda, which they try very hard to keep under wraps; but obviously being pro-business often means being pro-big-oil and pro-status-quo and so on ... Many here, of either political persuasion, might prefer that they be ONLY pro-business (small to medium sized business) without being pro-big-oil since most small businesses are harmed by high oil costs. That too is another spin but anyway Part of this oil field has been in production for over 50 years, so it is not a new discovery. It is deep oil, from one to 1.5 miles deep; and at $20 barrel it is too costly to extract or even to get a good idea of how much is there; but now at five times the price, almost any oil, no matter how deep, can be exploited profitably. It is very likely that they have simply increased the estimates on how much is recoverable at $100/ barrel. Was the estimate scientific or not? IOW there is nothing here new except new spin on an old story ... or is there something I am missing ? BTW- it is very much in the interest of those who wish to maintain the status quo politically- to make calming and unprovable claims in order to ease the fears of voters about looming problems. Fearful voters favor change. That kind of politically motivated spin has some bearing on the truthfulness of the new estimates. Where exactly did the estimates come from is one question? (did it originate or was it influenced by the White House or not?) We will probably see more such talk (i.e. that all is well)coming from any candidate in any race - who wishes to convince voters that staying the course of the present administration is preferable to change. Convincing voters that we do not face huge problems with energy is part of that tactic. There are many reasons to hide the fact that (alluded to in Jack's recent post) that we are in Iraq primarily to secure the oil, and that the invasion has nothing to do with war on terrorism. If we wanted a real war on terror we would invade Saudi Arabia. Isn't that where all of the 9/11 hijackers came from? Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Kiplinger Letter: 03/07/08 comments on energy
Howdy Steven, The 2005 estimate USA crude consumption was some 20 million barrels per day and change, in other words, nobody actually knows for sure.. you can estimate the consumption is now some 21-22 mbd and counting. again nobody knows the actual tally ,nor do they know refining amounts and imports of refined fuel.. just guest estimate... its like estimating the number of jobs lost or found. The guv-ment politicos love these statistics cuz they they can perform wonders with numbers while eating cucumber as you noticed this week reports of falling jobs and the roiling of the stock market. This sudden announcement trimmed some 5 trillion off the stock market... it's fun to watch how easily it's done with statistics. The oil under the ground around North Dakota an over into Canada has been well known for a long time... its near worthless cuz it's so hard to get to and it's heavy near like asphalt. The only nearby plant capable of refining is near Billings, Montana until Canada brings on their new refinery for tar sands. Today's game for politicos is to keep the economy from slipping over the edge until after the November election and after it don't matter because the losers will make it happens and the winners will become the losers and the people will blame us. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Re: Toroidal inductors
On Mar 8, 2008, at 6:49 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Indeed Horace you must be right that each winding layer not compensated by a reverse wound layer must act as a single turn current loop around the major axis, with the same current as in the winding. This effect, resulting from a turn of wire not being flat in reality, had never occurred to me, many thanks for the enlightening post! Michel Thanks Michel. You might might also find it of interest then that the implications of my little experiments along these lines go well beyond this though, by suggesting that the interpretations of a variety of Aharonov-Bohm experiments may be invalid. These A-B experiments examine the interference effects upon electrons, neutrons, or photons by thin contained magnetic fields, such as a field contained by a magnetized Iron whisker, or a circularly polarized laser directed through an optical fiber. The interpretation of these experiments is typically that the B field is fully contained, and thus the action of the B-field contained equivalent to a slit pair is due solely to the A field which extends out externally to the contained B field. I think the fact is the affected particles, moving particles, have B fields which enter the domains of the enclosed B fields, and thus directly interact, superimpose, momentarily changing the energy of the enclosed B fields, resulting in displacement of the motional particles and resulting in an interference pattern. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Kiplinger Letter: 03/07/08 comments on energy
Interesting comments from Jones, Richard, and Ron. I would certainly agree with the claim that The Kiplinger Letter is pro-business. I'm sure their main clientele is the Business owner (of both large and small operations) trying to figure out what the hell Washington is going to do next, and how best to deal with the consequences. Granted, this North Dakota claim may be nothing more than a game of political smoke and mirrors strategically brought forth in the midst of the political election season. However, if in the following months when perhaps a bit more information is put out into the public domain, and if in those reports it appears to be technologically possible to economically extract sufficient quantities of crude from the Williston Basin (at, say, $100/pb) I can only hope that we put the borrowed time it gives us to good use. If oil corporations are now banking on the price of oil remaining at current prices, hopefully the strategy will indirectly help grow and mature a plethora of AE technologies to the point that some of them will actually become cheaper to invest in. Maybe we can finally get our s__t together. ...in 20 years, you think One can hope. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Failure and success are both complex, and sometimes one-and-the-same
thomas malloy wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: I can't allow the denigration of engineers in the automotive industry continue. I had a friend who was an engineering manager in Detroit I agree, IMHO, it's the MBA's and the lawyers. Please, let us not oversimplify. Yes, there are cases such as Enron where a small group of malicious or stupid people destroyed the institution, but in most cases institutions fail for more complex reasons. The design engineers, production line people managers and everyone does the best they can, yet they fail. I think the three most common causes are: 1. A change in the environment. A strategy or product that was successful previously no longer works. This is what drives most species to extinction in biology. 2. Systematic failure. The institution itself degrades or goes off the rails, so that even skilled and competent people are no longer able to do their job properly. 3. Bad leaders commit institutional suicide. The classic example is Napoleon invading Russia. I have long been fascinated by the failure, especially institutional failure in corporations and military history. I have a shelf full of books with titles such as Mismarketing -- case histories of marketing misfires, Computing Catastrophes Military Misfortunes -- The Anatomy a Failure in War British Butchers and Bunglers of World War I plus several books about the Titanic disaster, which I summarized here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf As I said in the subject line, failure is as complex as success. To ascribe it to one person or group of people is like saying that Bill Gates gets all the credit for the success of Microsoft, and all the blame for the low quality of Windows. There is no doubt that Gates is a skilled businessman and he deserves a lot of credit for the success of Microsoft. He is also rapacious and greedy and this is reflected in Microsoft Windows. It is a shoddy, infuriating product in many ways. A software product, a machine, work of art, a meal -- anything made by the hand of man always reflects the personality of the maker. When an archaeologist digs up a fragment of a pot made thousands of years ago she can tell much about the lives and personalities of the people who made that pot. But Gates doesn't get all the credit -- or blame. The success of Microsoft also came about because of a unique set of circumstances and coincidences. Personal computer technology circa 1980 required tight adherence to a single software standard, and this gave rise to a natural monopoly. This also explains why Windows is so shoddy: it has to be backward compatible on a huge range of different hardware which Microsoft does not control. (Not the way Apple controls the Mac.) Today, the tight technical standards model is changing with the rise of web-based software. This may hurt hurt Microsoft while benefiting Google and other companies. Before Microsoft, IBM had a huge market share in computers because of its experience in the 1930s with punch-card based data processing equipment. This gave IBM extensive knowledge of business applications, well-deserved credibility among large corporations, and a cadre of people skilled in electromechanical devices such as tape drives and disk drives, which were some of the most problematic components in early computers. Sometimes, it is difficult to judge whether a strategy was a success or failure. It works well in some ways, but in the long term it causes a calamity. IBM achieved its peak profits and and industry dominance by introducing the Personal Computer. But by the late 1980s the rise of small computers nearly put IBM out of business. The PC was made with off-the-shelf components, and IBM decided to use an open architecture and to let Microsoft write the operating system, and to let Microsoft sell copies of the operating system to other companies. These were sound business decisions at the time. At worst, they might have been considered minor mistakes. IBM managers expected to sell a few hundred thousand PCs. They never imagined that a gigantic PC compatible industry would soon arise or that Microsoft would make billions of dollars selling the operating system to others. Success also evolves into failure when it causes hubris, or overconfidence. In 1861 and 1862, beginning at the first battle of Bull Run, the Confederate armies won many decisive victories. They began to think that they were invulnerable. They did not take steps to build up arms manufacturing or fight a long war. Lincoln, on the other hand, began an unprecedented expansion of military forces, both men and material. By 1865 the size of the Union armies and the mass of ammunition, food and other war material being shipped to the front was larger than anything the world had ever seen. When the Confederates surrendered there were hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers who had never heard a shot fired in
Re: [Vo]:Failure and success . . . correction
I wrote: When the Confederates surrendered there were hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers who had never heard a shot fired in anger. Not hundreds of thousands. I think there were roughly a hundred thousand Union troops in training or waiting, who had never been deployed. More than all the troops left in the Confederate armies. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Tooo obvious for Detroit?
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Sat, 8 Mar 2008 11:58:06 -0600: Hi, [snip] Yep, Philip, We have unit 3 4 nuke plant starting construction soon at Bay City Texas.. part of the South Texas project. They are having their share of the problems using a Jap design .. plus the environmental problems to overcome. The problem with Nukes are... They can operate some 40-50 years and reach a point when the metal crystallizes and become unsafe. There can be no repairs because nobody can work to make piping and equipment replacements under such high radiation conditions so They encase the whole plant in a concrete coffin like Chernobyl for 250,000 years.. That fact never gets mentioned Richard you'd think they would start off building the thing underground so that burying it would be a simple matteror better yet build it in Yucca mountain. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Toroidal inductors
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 7 Mar 2008 23:48:10 -0900: Thanks Horace, [snip] If both tori have an odd number of winding layers, or even if multiple winding layers are used but all or most proceed in the same major axis direction, or some combination of the above resulting in a net major axis current hoop, then they both carry a significant external magnetic field equivalent to hoop coils about their major axes. A pair of tori with such equivalent hoop coils will exhibit significant mutual forces and/ or torques depending on location and orientation. Note that such forces can be larger than just the force between the major axis hoop currents, because flux from one hoop coil can enter the cake of the doughnut volume of the adjacent torus, and thus interact with the flux there (or be viewed as interacting with the small radius windings) to produce much larger forces than might otherwise be anticipated. This also means unexpected force interactions can arise between a major axis hoop current carrying torus and a torus not having such a hoop equivalent current, including a permanent magnet torus in which all flux is internal. Flux repels (or attracts) parallel flux via magnetic pressure. This is along the lines of what I am trying to get at, though I was thinking more of interactions between the individual minor axis loops of one torus with individual minor axis loops of the other (however I could easily be wrong about that). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Toroidal inductors
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:52:54 +1100: Hi, BTW, both tori would only have a single layer. [snip] This is along the lines of what I am trying to get at, though I was thinking more of interactions between the individual minor axis loops of one torus with individual minor axis loops of the other (however I could easily be wrong about that). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Christensen Innovator's Dilemma
Looking over at my shelf of disaster-related books . . . I should list one of the best I have read: C. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma -- When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. I quote from this extensively in chapter 7 of my book. I did not read the book about Enron but I recommend the video documentary Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. The book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq has been widely recommended. I read a few chapters and it seems excellent but I still cannot bring myself to read it. Maybe in a few years. The execution of the war in Iraq resembles British military disasters caused by incompetence and corruption, such as the Crimean war and the battles of the Somme and Gallipoli. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Christensen Innovator's Dilemma
--- Jed Rothwell wrote: The book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq has been widely recommended. I read a few chapters and it seems excellent but I still cannot bring myself to read it. I am still thinking about the article of Jim Holt, which was posted by Jack Smith a few days ago: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/holt01_.html ...which concludes with what may (or may not) be the an accurate summary of the secret agenda of the eight years of Cheney/Bush and all the still hidden Mayberry-Machiavellian scheming ... which had the almost successful goal in the Iraq invasion, of: ... $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical regional supremacy, and cheap[er] gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success it implies that a secret and highly ambitious plan turned out just the way its devisers foresaw, and that almost never happens. ... how deep did this ambitious plan go? ... was 9/11 part of it ? ... is it sustainable through a regime change? ... without it, would oil be headed to $200/barrel? History may record Dick Cheney to be the evil mastermind, not of just the decade, but of all time, if 9/11 turned out to be part of the scheme (the lite version of 9/11, aided and abetted, but not the full conspiracy which most nut-cases and beauty queens are claiming). The irony of it all is that if McCain does not get elected, and that is highly doubtful given his temper and incurable foot-in-mouth disease, all the Cheney scheming will be for naught; and the layered plan will have cost us a trillion, instead of netting much more... What is that about the best laid plans of mice and men? ... alls I know is that the mess we will be left with, not matter who is elected, really Burns ;-) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Toroidal inductors
On Mar 8, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:52:54 +1100: Hi, BTW, both tori would only have a single layer. [snip] This is along the lines of what I am trying to get at, though I was thinking more of interactions between the individual minor axis loops of one torus with individual minor axis loops of the other (however I could easily be wrong about that). It was to me quite surprising the degree to which flux is fully contained by a current envelope, despite gross distortion of the toroid type current envelope that bounds the flux. For example see: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/OddTransNotes.pdf The fringe coupling was nominal in the Odd Transformer, despite large folds in the current envelope, and despite large peripheral winding separations. It is a critical point, and one I tried to emphasize in my prior posts, that forces on and from a major radius hoop current loop are not only created due to a major radius current from the opposed torus, but also are due to the hoop field interaction with the minor radius coils of the opposed torus (if you look at this from a Biot-Savart perspective) or at least the field generated by those coils and which is almost fully enclosed by those coils. In other words, if an independent hoop coil (coil 1) is threaded through a toroidal coil (coil 2), such that the currents through each of those coils are independently controllable, the forces generated with an independent hoop coil (coil 3) will be a function of both the currents in coil 1 and coil 2. In other words, the field of coil 2 does not have to extend beyond its envelope to interact with other coils outside that envelope, provided the fields of the other coils can overlap that of coil 2. It is merely mutually coupled fields, volume sharing fields, that provide an energy interdependence and thus forces. Since you are talking about single layer tori, they both have major axis hoop currents, and thus the confined fields of both tori are shared with, overlap, the hoop fields of the opposed tori, and thus there is a much stronger interaction than one would obtain from the major hoop currents alone. I hope this is making sense and is not just a lot of word salad. I have very little time available today to work on my wording. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Broken Arrow not mended
http://pacificfreepress.com/content/view/2347/81/ What missing nuke? The investigation is little more than a whitewash, so far. Was a false-flag operation averted by the brave soul who snitched? Why has Congress not been holding public hearings into the incident? The only reason for the high level stupor, aside from steroid-abuse in Baseball being of more concern to legislators than missing nukes and it doesn't make much sense either, is that hearings will wait till after a new admin is sworn-in. Perhaps Pelosi does not want to let Bush have the opportunity to pardon the responsible party this time.
Re: [Vo]:Toroidal inductors
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:15:02 -0900: Hi Horace, [snip] Since you are talking about single layer tori, they both have major axis hoop currents, and thus the confined fields of both tori are shared with, overlap, the hoop fields of the opposed tori, and thus there is a much stronger interaction than one would obtain from the major hoop currents alone. I hope this is making sense and is not just a lot of word salad. [snip] It makes sense to me, though if the major axis is common to both tori, then the extending field of the first torus would be largely perpendicular to the enclosed field of the other torus. In such a situation, would you still expect a strong interaction, and could you quantify it? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Toroidal inductors
Not read any of this thread yet, but it reminds me of a thought I had yesterday, I wondered if I could find a way to make a time varying magnetic field not cause induction, and my conclusion is that I could. I could (at one point anyway) cancel the inductive field around a solenoid if I wound it over a toroid with the opposite inductive field but no detectable magnetic field. On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:15:02 -0900: Hi Horace, [snip] Since you are talking about single layer tori, they both have major axis hoop currents, and thus the confined fields of both tori are shared with, overlap, the hoop fields of the opposed tori, and thus there is a much stronger interaction than one would obtain from the major hoop currents alone. I hope this is making sense and is not just a lot of word salad. [snip] It makes sense to me, though if the major axis is common to both tori, then the extending field of the first torus would be largely perpendicular to the enclosed field of the other torus. In such a situation, would you still expect a strong interaction, and could you quantify it? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
