Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: [email protected] [teslafy] <[email protected]>To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019, 2:46:11 PM CDTSubject: [teslafy] Notes on (non-resonant) inductive measurements. I found this on one of my quora replies from the end of 2018, before I had discovered that the reciprocal relationship does not hold. It concerns the measurements between the large 860 ohm coil and the smaller 126 ohm one. Further notes are in brackets[]. The results of tests involving inductive only transfer of energy showed that the large coil, having 6.8 times more resistance then the smaller one, and also having a comparatively large magnetic field in oscillation compared to the reaction coil; this method of transmission was far more effective then its counterpart action for sending of amperages between the components as an air core transfer of reactive energy. A 60 hz AC 100 volt input from lg. coil having 6 ma on sending current produced 2 ma on smaller receiving coil. This is ~ a 3/1 loss. In contrast the reverse sending showed a 25volt input near 30 ma causing 0.5 ma reaction from the large coil. This more like a 60/1 loss, so those quantities do not seem reciprocal to each other. In this case practically no mutual induction is measured between the components. However when each component is resonated by cancelling reactances in series, the reverse scenario takes place where now the energy transfer from the small coil to the larger one is 30% more efficient in that a GAIN in energy oscillations from that being sent in and to what is received is recorded. In contrast when the reverse sending of energy is made the loss of relative amperage from sending and receiving coils again occurs, but it occurs as a reciprocal relationship to the original observed gain in energy transfer. [Actually there was a 89% gain in energy oscillations in going from the small to large coil and conversely a 76.2% loss for the oscillations in going from the large to small coil; and furthermore this does not show a reciprocal factor. We must not confuse apples and oranges here as THREE different variances are being discussed here. In the comparisons of energy oscillations we are deducing the ratio between the change in L to that of the change of I^2. There is secondarily the measurement of the change of I itself between the sender and receiver which should obey the resistive change on L components. The variances found here are theorized to be due to time distortions within the systems. However a third variance is also present as the true power transfer which involves I^2R comparisons between the sending and recieving coils..The above stated (inductive) amperage conversions do not take into account the varying resistances of the receiving inductors compared to the sending ones. In terms of the true power transfer expressed by I^2R measurements it can be shown that the 76.2% loss case is actually more efficient then the 89% gain case. For the 89% energy oscillation gain case we havehttps://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/46127172765/in/dateposted-public/True power input = (.104 A)^2*126 = 1.36 wattsTrue Power output = (.0315 A)^2 *860 = .853 wattsefficiency as .853/1.36 =62.7%For the 76.2% loss casehttps://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/40076241583/in/dateposted-public/True power input = (.014 A)^2*860 = .1685 wattsTrue power output = (.032 A)^2* 126 = .129 wattsefficiency as .129/.168 = 76.5 % As can be seen the true power ratios are entirely different from the energy ratios which are also different from the variance of I by time distortion where here the 89% increase in energy oscillation by having a vibration imparted to a coil having a Q of 5pi does not increase its amperage by 89% but rather 102%. Conversely then for the 76.2 % decrease in using the large coil to vibrate a small coil having a Q of 2pi this decreases its amperage by 66% from what would be delivered by the linear IR inverse proportionality. The hidden understanding of using the pi ratio to describe the q factors is that it tells the percentage of energy being released as resistive losses. Thus for the first case example only 1/5th of its energy oscillation is released as heat which explains it's lower effeciency in true power terms. For the same reason this along with the higher input resistance explains the lower amount of true power input when reversed. What seems to be missed in entirety is that it is the respective coil dimensions themselves that permit or deny the linear IR ratios to be obeyed. The central rule here is simply that the true power ratios cannot exceed 100 %. In the first shown case the developed amperage is just over twice of what the linear IR transformation would deliver; yet that amount still shows 59% more true power input then output. The second case however is entirely different; and as I have indicated it is the geometry of the coils that dictate where the linear IR transformation is possible. In that case if the 14.14 ma input from the 860 ohm coil were to be expanded 6.8 fold to deliver amperage on the 126 ohm coil according to the IR transformation where if R goes down I equally goes up as a inverse proportionally: in that case the I squared calculation would have gone up nine fold and the true power output would exceed the input. In fact even after the developed current of a 66% reduction from linear case takes place, that quantity could only be increased to 30% greater then its developed one before the input and output powers were matched. So what might have been assumed to be possible is shown to be impossible, the linear case can be used in the first case, but not the second. It was once thought that the second case should be the reciprocal of the first,but this shows why that is impossible. Several other factors seem self evident. The 14.14 ma that developes in the second case in the direct line connection sending is the amount of amperage that should be received through the air as the linear inverse proportionality compared to its input from the first case. And in the second case the 25 volts input that appears across the coil is the same voltage imparted to the large coil to achieve those airborne transmissions. And finally the prospect of predicting the reverse transformation by "reverse engineering" the information contained in the first one is shown by the requirement that each ending coil receives the same amount of amperage, irrespective of their relative differences of resistance. Comment made athttps://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-common-misconceptions-in-relativity-physics/answer/Harvey-D-Norris __._,_.___ Posted by: [email protected] | Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) | Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. Visit Your Group • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use SPONSORED LINKS . __,_._,___
