PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-26, 22:19:49
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
Author Topic: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter  (Read 151224 times)

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
I agree.


Therefore, even if the polarization is created in the vacuum where the positron/electron pairs are concerned instead of only the electrons in a wire, there is no clue that "the work required to change the potential is less than the work that the changing potential imparts".


Agreed.
   
Group: Guest
I have invoked this point many times. How many times should I do it again? It's simple electromagnetism laws.
Calculate the wave length of ELF!
When you are at a distance less than a wavelength, the plane EM wave is not yet built or not completely built, of course it's not pure "radio" waves, you are in a bath constituted by E and B fields not linked by the Poynting vector, not propagating. And if you are at some wavelengths, there is a mix of EM waves and such fields.



I made a big mistake in this post, I mixed up klm and meters.

Forget ELF, Tesla said below 35 kHz. Where does ELF end and VLF begin ?

http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

OK so Tesla says the 1/4 wavelength should be an odd multiple of the Earth diameter. Easy.

The Earth is 12756 km diameter. The 1/4 wavelength for 29.4 kHz is 2551 meters, which is roughly 1/5 of the Earths diameter.

So 29.4 kHz is a  reasonable frequency to use. What is so complicated about that.

And 17.64 kHz has a 1/4 wavelength of 4252 km which is 1/3 the diameter of the Earth. Also a reasonable frequency to use.

The next one down is 1/4 wave length equal to the Earths diameter about 5.964 kHz or 12575.45 meters.

It's all spelled out in the patent. Obviously not many people actually read it.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=oSo_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

So to sum up, in order to use 29.4 kHz about 2551 meters of wire would be needed for the secondary/extra coils in total, or just the secondary if no extra coil is used,
but to be more precise, the length of the wire needs to be calculated depending on the propagation velocity through the secondary circuit.

As described in this patent, http://www.google.com/patents?id=p5g_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Cheers
« Last Edit: 2012-11-02, 00:37:36 by Farmhand »
   
Group: Guest


If the work required to change the potential is less than the work that the changing potential imparts, then I have gained energy!



The attaining of free energy may not be from induction process itself, for it would violate action reaction.  However, I see some connected truth from the statement above.

http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/science21/LaserCooling.html

"Laser, or optical, cooling is based on a principle of physics known as anti-Stokes fluorescence and occurs when the amount of energy emitted by a solid, when exposed to an energy source, is more than the energy it absorbs. In other words, a laser aimed at certain materials will excite the materials' atoms to a higher energy state. These excited atoms absorb a little extra energy from the heat of the surrounding material. When they produce photons, the photons are of a higher energy than the initial laser energy and this radiation of energy cools the material."

The process could have been sending out waves that excite the aether, cooling it down.  It absorb energy from ambient and return a greater amount of energy. 



   
Group: Guest
Still no reference by Tesla to say that the transmitter was meant to be a free energy device. Where do people get all the free energy
claptrap from regarding these things ?

Here are some bits of info from his Long Island Notes (supposedly). In my opinion. It clearly states there is no free energy.

I can't even understand how people could imagine it to be anything other than a power transmitter, if they had done some research.

http://www.capturedlightning.com/temp/Rare_Notes.pdf

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd168/Toey1/Rarenotes.jpg
Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter


http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd168/Toey1/Rarenotes2.jpg
Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter


http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd168/Toey1/rarenotes3.png
Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter


There is far too much hearsay on these forums considering they are supposed to be scientific.

People say all kinds of things but in many cases they provide no quotes, no references and no evidence.

Cheers
   
Group: Guest
FH,

We don't need Tesla's consent to talk about free energy and we are not searching free energy for Tesla.  We are in charge of this free energy business whether Tesla in it or not.   


   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
The association between Tesla and Free Energy has many aspects from various interpretations of his work, to the artistic license taken by writers selling books.

The term "magnification" can easily imply more out than in.  I have only seen two modern presentations of a Tesla transmitter and receiver, together, and that is on the "Tesla Radio" site, and Eric Dollard's videos.Both can be found for free with a web search.  Neither state anything about overunity, that I can recall.  Eric does claim it is possible in his book on the Magnifier.

EX equated Tesla's magnification equation to "Q" factor.  This is a measure of the efficiency of a circuit.  What if his Q was calculated or measured to be 100?

I think that the transmitter and receiver may work better when the wave or whatever comes off the top terminal is focused like a beam rather than all around with a hemisphere.

There are stories about Tesla's Pierce Arrow car running without fuel and on electricity, but I don't know that this was ever confirmed.  Gerry Vassilatos (spelling?) claimed that Tesla discovered a radiant charging effect and tells a nice story about it, but I don't know that his source has ever been revealed.  If you can get this radiant charging effect to work, which Dollard does show in his video, then you might have the start of something.  Of course, Eric doesn't seem to have done much with it.
   
Group: Guest
...
The Earth is 12756 km diameter. The 1/4 wavelength for 29.4 kHz is 2551 meters, which is roughly 1/5 of the Earths diameter.
...

roughly 1/5000 of the Earth diameter!  ;)

Your confusion between m and km makes irrelevant the remainder of your post.

   
Group: Guest
FH,

We don't need Tesla's consent to talk about free energy and we are not searching free energy for Tesla.  We are in charge of this free energy business whether Tesla in it or not.   

Blasphemy!  Respect our God or His curse will come upon us.   

O0

   
Group: Guest
...
What if his Q was calculated or measured to be 100?
...

Q= 2*π * E[stored]/E[dissipated/cyle].

Q=100 means that we dissipate about 1/16th of the stored energy, during each cycle.
In best optical cavities, Q can exceed 100 million.
Without losses, Q would be infinite.

But for an energy gain, Q must be negative (as Q is defined from the energy, it is a redundancy to say it). This can be experimented with RLC circuits whose R is negative: the system oscillates in a runaway. Unfortunately in practice we need energy for real negative resistances to work.

   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 472
MAybe we don't understand resonance ? What is the reason , why current in parallel tank circuit is higher then in power source ?
   
Group: Guest
...What is the reason , why current in parallel tank circuit is higher then in power source ?

Considering the tank circuit as a dipole connected to a power source, the current is the same. See Kirchhoff's circuit laws.
Do you mean "is higher in some component of the tank circuit"?
Or do you simply wonder at the principle of a transformer?

   
Group: Guest
I'm sorry FH.

I know you love Tesla, many do.  You're defending him from being call crackpot, delusional, dreamer... but we should let Tesla be who he is.  Setting him free is the only way for him to truly become your friend. 



   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Farmhand
Quote
Still no reference by Tesla to say that the transmitter was meant to be a free energy device. Where do people get all the free energy claptrap from regarding these things ?

Quote
Nikola Tesla states:
“I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. … I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a [power] plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light. More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them. I will tell you in the most general way, the cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charged ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser [capacitor] which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor. I have hopes of building my motor on a large scale, but circumstances have not been favorable to carrying out my plan.”

You know there was another great mind by the name of Victor Schauberger and Victor stated we should always consider things in an opposite sense, we should do the opposite of what we do today. This is not any easy task as we have been taught to think a certain way from the day we are born, we have been told what to think from the moment we could comprehend the spoken word, we think we are open minded but we are not.

Now if Tesla's transmitter was doing the exact opposite to what you think then what would he be doing?. His transmitter was based on the wave like disturbances from lightning strikes as well as the phenomena relating to what occurs when the circuit is closed on a long transmission line, he tells us --- " the cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charged ions and electrons".
Could it be that you have it completely backwards?, is Tesla producing a discharge to transmit energy or is he producing a conductive path for something already present to discharge itself producing a wave like disturbance to transmit energy?.
In the former we must always lose and we have nothing to gain in the latter the only energy required is that to switch on a conductive path for naturally occurring energy to flow from one region to another and if the energy flow can sustain the switching losses then the process is self-sustaining.
You see there is always another way and while we would senselessly hammer on the surface of a body of water in order to create waves we could just as easily drain a very small volume of it abruptly and produce the very same waves. Now if we never have to refill the body of water which is absurd then what have we lost and what have we gained?.

In general I have a simple rule, if we have not considered everything in an opposite sense as well then we are completely lacking in perspective and understanding. I would have though people would have figured this out by now, Equal and Opposite ..... Equal yet Opposite... We do the opposite yet produce the same result.

AC


« Last Edit: 2012-10-31, 15:39:39 by allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
roughly 1/5000 of the Earth diameter!  ;)

Your confusion between m and km makes irrelevant the remainder of your post.



Yes You're right I definitely made a big mistake there. I'll redo the calculations.

Cheers

P.S It's really just a matter of numbers.

Theoretically if the Earth is 12756000 meters diameter and we use 1/4 wavelength we divide the Earths diameter by 4 to get 3189000 meters.
Then if we divide 3189000 that by 3 we get 1063000 meters which is close to 70 Hz, which is ELF.

If we divide the 3189000 meters by 101 we get 31574 meters which is 2400 Hz.

I admit I made a silly mistake but that does not change the facts only the numbers.

And if we divide 3189000 by 797 we get 4001 meters which is about 18.750 kHz

Cheers


« Last Edit: 2012-11-01, 04:24:07 by Farmhand »
   
Group: Guest
Grumpy, there are lots of "stories" about lots of things but most of them are just stories.

Gibbs, I don't "love" Tesla, I just think fair is fair, Tesla is made out to be a crackpot because of all the false claims people attribute to him.

AC I read what Tesla wrote and it seems all pretty clear to me where is your evidence for you're claims.

No I don't have it backwards. The energy transmitter was designed to transmit energy.
The radiant energy collector collects radiant energy and his motors, well they motored.

All the Notes and words I see from Tesla describe an under unity system using long waves to transmit energy using Earth resonance.

Show us some words from Tesla to back up what you say, or show some evidence of you're own to back it up, because as i see it
what you are saying goes directly against what Tesla has said and I think it is fairly clear given all the references and quotes.

I know you all love the idea of free energy from Tesla's stuff. Some of his stuff did collect free energy and when it did he was not afraid to say it.

Tesla made note on several occasions that there was no extra energy, he explained how the magnification was not extra energy just increased power ect.
He did so I think because it was being used to ridicule him even back then, people did not understand, he wasn't claiming extra energy, but people say he
did and even to this day that non existent claim of extra energy is providing ammunition for the debunkers, the debunkers don't care if the claims are or were real they just want to debunk.

So I am asking for people to provide quotes with references to words spoken or written by Tesla which describe a claim of extra energy in relation to the operation of the transmitters.

Do you have any evidence there was a claim of extra energy made by Tesla regarding the operation of the transmitters ?

Without any supporting evidence anyone can claim Tesla claimed anything they wanted him to claim. It's just silly.

Cheers
   
Group: Guest
MAybe we don't understand resonance ? What is the reason , why current in parallel tank circuit is higher then in power source ?

This may help:

http://amrita.vlab.co.in/?sub=1&brch=75&sim=318&cnt=1

The current 'in' a parallel tank circuit 'is' higher than the current from the power source. As well, the current in L will not equal the current in C and the difference between IL and IC will be the current provided by the power source.

@Ex is still correct because Kirchhoff's current law applies to the relationship between the tank circuit (a lumped circuit) and the power source.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Tesla made note on several occasions that there was no extra energy, he explained how the magnification was not extra energy just increased power ect.
FH, please explain what you mean by the difference between "extra energy", and "increased power".


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest


But for an energy gain, Q must be negative (as Q is defined from the energy, it is a redundancy to say it). This can be experimented with RLC circuits whose R is negative: the system oscillates in a runaway. Unfortunately in practice we need energy for real negative resistances to work.



Exn,

We can see energy gain as negative Q, but we can also see energy gain as positive Q with a hidden energy source. lol

I think it could very simple in practice than in theory.  I'm studying the circuit of this canceling coil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJsVSMQqCOM

I decomposed it down to an LC circuit.  I think that's what it is.  In my experiment a while back I see the effect of adding LC increase light brightness.  Touching the oscillator shows similar effect. 

I don't claim that this has anything to do with Tesla although the author did.





   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 472
Free energy comes from  coupled oscillators.. The main ingredient is resonant circuit (high Q) . The second oscillator is passive and gets  a copy of first energy done by nature and has to not load first one. Then the storage system and a way to tap second oscillator without completly damping oscillation.
Tesla used more advanced system with 4 oscillators : 2 forming transmitter and 2 receiver.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Farmhand
Quote
Without any supporting evidence anyone can claim Tesla claimed anything they wanted him to claim. It's just silly.

I think silly is relative, playing the he said/she said game which will always lead us right back to where we started is kind of silly. Looking for supporting evidence which doesn't actually support anything in reality seems kind of silly but if it works for you then I say go for it, I think I will opt out.
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
Who is looking for supporting evidence that doesn't support anything in reality ? You ?

Because I am asking for people to provide evidence of their claims that the transmitters were free energy devices.

Who is playing the he said she said game ? It's not a game it is research.

Cheers

   
Group: Guest
Free energy comes from  coupled oscillators.. The main ingredient is resonant circuit (high Q) . The second oscillator is passive and gets  a copy of first energy done by nature and has to not load first one. Then the storage system and a way to tap second oscillator without completly damping oscillation.
Tesla used more advanced system with 4 oscillators : 2 forming transmitter and 2 receiver.

Can you demonstrate this free energy. And can you show evidence where Tesla got free energy from a system of four oscillators ?

Poynt99 I already have shown what I mean by "not extra energy just increased power".

Cheers
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Poynt99 I already have shown what I mean by "not extra energy just increased power".

Cheers

I presume then you are referring to an equal amount of energy in both cases, but over a shorter duration of time for the "increased power" scenario?


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
I presume then you are referring to an equal amount of energy in both cases, but over a shorter duration of time for the "increased power" scenario?

It can be that way, but it can also be a case of oscillating energy/reactive power. Consider a case where no energy is drawn from the receiver and the input is
for eg. 100 Watts with the plant in an idle state. There is no output but there could be a great deal of oscillating energy so in every cycle the peak power could also be quite high,
much higher than the 100 Watts. The 100 Watts represents the losses to keep the system running "ready" or idle. As with a regular transformer the flux is maximum when the transformer is idle
but the power factor is low there is a lot of power but no output. As the load is applied/increased the input power increases and the power factor gets closer to 1.0. Given the amount of oscillating energy in
such a system energy could be taken from the output at a rate of power much higher than 100 Watts as well, or it could be taken at a lesser rate of power.

When a load is drawn at the receiver the the oscillating energy is tapped and the reactive power is less and so the transmitter input increases to meet the demand much like any regular power system.

Cheers
   
Group: Guest
After the calculation from 7,200,000 V at a capacity of 1000 cm.  I found that it is a design of 1.2 GW power station assuming he going to use 35kH.

So Tesla planning to take half of Niagara fall power and provide it freely to the world?  I guess it's possible for a plan, but unrealistic in so many ways. 


   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-26, 22:19:49