Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Devices > Tesla > Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter

2024-11-27, 00:39:26
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

« previous next »

Author Topic: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter (Read 151280 times)

exnihiloest	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #25 on: 2012-10-09, 10:23:52 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Grumpy on 2012-10-09, 00:15:41 Claimed proof of "scalar longitudinal electrodynamic waves": Monstein and Wesley: Observation of scalar longitudinal electrodynamic waves http://www.astro.ethz.ch/people/pdf_files/cmonstei/7210.pdf (You can find several comments regarding the results presented in this paper.) ... I knew the Monstein's paper, because it is a rare paper about "longitudinal waves" (in air or vacuum) having crossed the frontier of the pseudo-sciences, and as a ham radio operator having also used the 432 Mhz band, I was very interested in this paper. I can say that the experimental setup is far from having eliminated the likely "pollution" of the experiment by classical EM waves. The environment is not controlled, the signal is weak, there are reflections from the surrounding whose the parameters are not known. For me Monstein detected ordinary EM waves. That is why his experiment has been rejected (http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/66/1/153) and that no academic followed him. As for all antenna tests, a serious experiment needs at least an anechoic chamber.

exnihiloest	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #26 on: 2012-10-09, 10:34:14 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Dumped on 2012-10-08, 20:21:39 Perhaps Tesla was speaking of the Magnification Factor or "Q" (Quality) of his circuitry? Possible explanation, but only a misinterpretation of the Q factor could lead to the idea of "magnification". The Q factor determines only the quality of the resonance, i.e. the higher the Q, the longer the possible duration of oscillations due to less losses. But even an (not physical) infinite Q, meaning no dampling of the oscillation, is not "magnification".

Grumpy	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #27 on: 2012-10-09, 13:32:55 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Tesla says the "magnification factor" depends on pL/R Not sure what "p" is.

GibbsHelmholtz	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #28 on: 2012-10-09, 14:39:28 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Grumpy on 2012-10-09, 13:32:55 Tesla says the "magnification factor" depends on pL/R Not sure what "p" is. Possibly frequency in radians per second.

Grumpy	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #29 on: 2012-10-09, 15:21:45 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Quote from: Grumpy on 2012-10-09, 13:32:55 Tesla says the "magnification factor" depends on pL/R Not sure what "p" is. A post I made a long time ago: Quote from: Grumpy on 2010-11-14, 15:45:09 Your system is not driving anything that has a mechanism for gain. You might try changing one of the secondaries to a tertiary magnifier coil and locate it so it is not inductively coupled to the other two coils. Now you will have a two-coil Tesla transformer driving a magnifier coil. Ground on leg of the secondary and the other leg of the secondary goes to the tertiary coil and the other and of the tertiary coil has the large surface area top load. You can bring the ground and top terminal together for plasma between them. Tesla also stated in the CS Notes that you can drive two tertiary coils with a standard transformer, with a ferrous core, and achieve any potential desired. Tesla states that the rise is pressure is due to the factor pL/R. p is the spark rate per second, L is inductance, R is resistance of magnifier coil. He also explains that high self capacity absorbs the energy and ruins the magnification.

GibbsHelmholtz	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #30 on: 2012-10-10, 03:40:31 »
Group: Guest	Hm... So Tesla indeed spoke about the Q factor. However, his statement of achieving any potential desired is not entirely accurate in my thinking. The core eventually reach saturation and put a limit to the voltage. About the capacitance ruin the Q factor can easily be seen in the equation. We know frequency is inverse proportional to the square root of LC. Increasing capacitance would lower the Q factor. Q= pL/R = fL/R = (L/R)(1/sqrt(LC)) I don't know why he did not use pulse motor. He can also achieve any voltage desire with a pulse motor without worry about saturation, but it probably fly itself apart above a few hundred thousands RPM. lol Oh well, pro and con.

Grumpy	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #31 on: 2012-10-10, 05:10:50 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	I don't think they are the same thing.

exnihiloest	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #32 on: 2012-10-10, 09:33:32 »
Group: Guest	From the definition: Q= 2π[Energy stored]/[Energy dissipated per cycle] = 2πf* [Energy stored]/[Energy dissipated] The energy in a coil is 1/2LI². The dissipated energy is RI². So: Q=πf * L/R. Thus in Tesla's equation, p= πf (f the frequency). This is the Q factor of a RL circuit (R reduces to the resistance of the coil if there is not another one). For a series RLC circuit, Q = 1/R √(L/C)

GibbsHelmholtz	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #33 on: 2012-10-10, 14:08:32 »
Group: Guest	What I think he trying to magnify is the voltage. He found a way to keep rising voltage which supposedly restricted by CEMF or Lenz.

Grumpy	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #34 on: 2012-10-10, 14:50:29 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012-10-10, 09:33:32 From the definition: Q= 2π[Energy stored]/[Energy dissipated per cycle] = 2πf* [Energy stored]/[Energy dissipated] The energy in a coil is 1/2LI². The dissipated energy is RI². So: Q=πf * L/R. Thus in Tesla's equation, p= πf (f the frequency). This is the Q factor of a RL circuit (R reduces to the resistance of the coil if there is not another one). For a series RLC circuit, Q = 1/R √(L/C) Agreed. Did Tesla calculate a Q value that led him to believe that his transmitter was "magnifying" the energy supplied to it? Something like: Q < 2π (i.e. more power out than supplied)

forest	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #35 on: 2012-10-10, 15:00:37 »
Sr. Member Posts: 472	Power.

Farmhand	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #36 on: 2012-10-10, 18:13:40 »
Group: Guest	Here is the words from Tesla, In my opinion he is saying he uses resonance to get a very big resonant rise and the curved surface antenna capacitance minimizes radiations so that he could "build" up a very high voltage and oscillating current, before beginning any transmissions. That is the magnification. Magnification need not have anything to do with a physical increase in anything. A magnifying glass does not make more light hit it's lens, it simply concentrates the light that does into a smaller area for greater effect. A magnifying glass does not make free energy or light. Just like a Magnifying Transmitter does not describe a transmitter that make's or capture's extra energy. I don't see any claims by Tesla that he gained "extra Energy". I think all the perceived claims are just that mistaken perceptions. Please see the underlined section in the first quote by Tesla. I invite anyone to show me reference where Tesla claimed to get extra energy from his Transmitters. This particular quote just says that the energies Tesla utilized were 1000 times greater than the energies utilized in the present antenna's, "present" meaning back then, at the trial, after Tesla had stopped. He then go's on to talk about why or how he utilized the greater energies then as compared to the energies utilized at "present" meaning back then. http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm Quote Counsel Mr. Tesla, at that point, what did you mean by electro-magnetic momentum? Tesla I mean that you have to have in the circuit, inertia. You have to have a large self-inductance in order that you may accomplish two things: First, a comparatively low frequency, which will reduce the radiation of the electromagnetic waves to a comparatively small value, and second, a great resonant effect. That is not possible in an antenna, for instance, of large capacity and small self-inductance. A large capacity and small self-inductance is the poorest kind of circuit which can be constructed; it gives a very small resonant effect. That was the reason why in my experiments in Colorado the energies were 1,000 times greater than in the present antennae. Counsel You say the energy was 1,000 times greater. Do you mean that the voltage was increased, or the current, or both? Tesla Yes [both]. To be more explicit, I take a very large self-inductance and a comparatively small capacity, which I have constructed in a certain way so that the electricity cannot leak out. I thus obtain a low frequency; but, as you know, the electromagnetic radiation is proportionate to the square root of the capacity divided by the self-induction. I do not permit the energy to go out; I accumulate in that circuit a tremendous energy. When the high potential is attained, if I want to give off electromagnetic waves, I do so, but I prefer to reduce those waves in quantity and pass a current into the earth, because electromagnetic wave energy is not recoverable while that [earth] current is entirely recoverable, being the energy stored in an elastic system. Counsel What elastic system do you refer to? Tesla I mean this: If you pass a current into a circuit with large self-induction, and no radiation takes place, and you have a low resistance, there is no possibility of this energy getting out into space; therefore, the impressed impulses accumulate. Cheers P.S. If people are going to persist in claiming that Tesla claimed to get extra energy from his Magnifying Transmitter then I will persist in asking for references to the claims by Tesla. And I mean references that can truly be attributed to him not just third party or hearsay claims. I have honestly seen no such claims. I have spent quite some time researching on this subject but there is always the chance I missed the "claim of extra energy". 2nd P.S. This is the quote as above and it tells more, he is also saying in there that the great resonant rise is a result of how he constructed the circuit. In my opinion the amount of resonant rise is the magnification factor basically. There would be more to it but that is the "meat" of it in my opinion. Quote Tesla I mean that you have to have in the circuit, inertia. You have to have a large self-inductance in order that you may accomplish two things: First, a comparatively low frequency, which will reduce the radiation of the electromagnetic waves to a comparatively small value, and second, a great resonant effect. That is not possible in an antenna, for instance, of large capacity and small self-inductance. A large capacity and small self-inductance is the poorest kind of circuit which can be constructed; it gives a very small resonant effect. That was the reason why in my experiments in Colorado the energies were 1,000 times greater than in the present antennae. ..

forest	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #37 on: 2012-10-10, 19:51:30 »
Sr. Member Posts: 472	He wanted LARGE POWER, and he clearly explained it works like explosives. The assumption was to put energy in slow rate into capacitors from regular power station (hydrostation), then to discharge disruptively into magnifying transmitter when the power was enlarged by high Q and frequency raised. After some time it was released as ACTIVITY PULSE of HUGE POWER into ground or upper conducting air strata to form standing wave around globe. Then any receiver can tap this power in small amount but at required level of activity (so up to the max power). The key what he never explained was somewhere else ..... that part he was keen on discussing was about commercial project and supposed to work like ordinary electric station except with minimizing looses (when power station was not loaded it was using only very small power like iddling transformer for example, because of recovery of 95% of energy from standing waves). The key was elsewhere but Tesla was not eager to describe it (because it would break his financial's supporters commercial power plant plans) and he even once stated this very clearly .... Now return back and read it again , this is the essence but my English could place a little fog on it so please ask if something is not clear...

muDped	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #38 on: 2012-10-10, 21:07:40 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Farmhand, you make some very pertinent points. Resonance does "magnify" both voltage and current as the electrical energy circulates between the two reactances, but it is a reactive "power" since voltage and current are displaced in phase by 90 degrees and not a "real" power. There is a realizable gain in signal strength due to resonance as is demonstrated by the simple passive crystal radio. The efficiency of the antenna in collecting radiated energy is increased by resonance. Tesla's coil is a resonant 1/4 wave circuit which is not an efficient radiator. The physical length of the coil (not the length of the conductor itself) is far less than 1/4 wavelength and is thus a very poor radiator. The coil does, however, produce a very intense inductive field in close proximity. In the Colorado Springs experiments there were occasional surges in power which reflected back to the generator plant and did damage to the generators on at least one event. This spike in power which was noted from time to time no doubt was caused by atmospheric charge. Quote from: forest The key was elsewhere but Tesla was not eager to describe it (because it would break his financial's supporters commercial power plant plans) and he even once stated this very clearly .... Tesla was known to have utilized hyperbole rather often to bolster his ability to acquire funding and to enhance his influence. --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

forest	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #39 on: 2012-10-11, 07:57:59 »
Sr. Member Posts: 472	Tesla had to fulfill his financial supporters plans. “Tesla Describes his Efforts in Various Fields of Work” in the November 30, 1898 Electrical Review: “As to the idea of rendering the energy of the sun available for industrial purposes, it fascinated me early but I must admit it was only long after I discovered the rotating magnetic field that it took a firm hold upon my mind. In assailing the problem I found two possible ways of solving it. Either power was to be developed on the spot by converting the energy of the sun’s radiations or the energy of vast reservoirs was to be transmitted economically to any distance. Though there were other possible sources of economical power, only the two solutions mentioned offer the ideal feature of power being obtained without any consumption of material. After long thought I finally arrived at two solutions, but on the first of these, namely, that referring to the development of power in any locality from the sun’s radiations, I can not dwell at present.”

exnihiloest	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #40 on: 2012-10-11, 08:12:12 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Grumpy on 2012-10-10, 14:50:29 ... Did Tesla calculate a Q value that led him to believe that his transmitter was "magnifying" the energy supplied to it? ... From the definition of Q with the energy, we see that an infinite Q means an absence of losses: [Energy dissipated per cycle] -> 0 => [Energy stored]/[Energy dissipated per cycle] -> ∞ => Q -> ∞ A high Q simply means the ability to store energy for a "long" time relative to the signal period, due to weak losses. Energy is added in the system by small quantities at each period, and so we can store more energy and longer if it dissipates slowly. We might perhaps say that the process is a magnification (neither a multiplication nor a creation), if we keep in mind that in any case, [Energy stored] is this one put into the system step by step and that [Energy stored] = input energy.

GibbsHelmholtz	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #41 on: 2012-10-11, 13:57:47 »
Group: Guest	I think Q factor is only one of the things. To me if you have a Q factor of 1 in RLC ciruit, it means the energy you put in will dissipate and nothing stored up. Having a Q factor of 100 means 1 watt of input could theoretically result in 100 watts of reactive power. Let's have a circuit with Q factor of 1000: 1 watts input results in 1kW reactive, but people may have 1 watts input and result in 10 watts reactive or 500 watts input result in 600 watts reactive. This is inefficiency and the other thing I refer to besides having good Q factor. I think the technique lies in timing and pulse width. Same with pulse motor. And if reactive power can be converted to real power, then COP is ... the Q factor.

forest	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #42 on: 2012-10-11, 16:19:10 »
Sr. Member Posts: 472	Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012-10-11, 13:57:47 I think Q factor is only one of the things. To me if you have a Q factor of 1 in RLC ciruit, it means the energy you put in will dissipate and nothing stored up. Having a Q factor of 100 means 1 watt of input could theoretically result in 100 watts of reactive power. Let's have a circuit with Q factor of 1000: 1 watts input results in 1kW reactive, but people may have 1 watts input and result in 10 watts reactive or 500 watts input result in 600 watts reactive. This is inefficiency and the other thing I refer to besides having good Q factor. I think the technique lies in timing and pulse width. Same with pulse motor. And if reactive power can be converted to real power, then COP is ... the Q factor. Exactly. As I told you the thing Tesla was never willing to explain in details is the receiver which run in gain. One impulse from transmitter of known max power (instant power not continous) will let receiver to operate at that power level for many times longer period then the impulse itself or basically mostly infinite time. That was the secret. Without this you have just a power station and many receivers using up to the total power transmitted from station and no more. Read again comment from Tesla I posted previously and you will surely find that I'm right. he just couldn't said it to the press.

GibbsHelmholtz	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #43 on: 2012-10-12, 01:14:31 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: forest on 2012-10-11, 16:19:10 Exactly. As I told you the thing Tesla was never willing to explain in details is the receiver which run in gain. One impulse from transmitter of known max power (instant power not continous) will let receiver to operate at that power level for many times longer period then the impulse itself or basically mostly infinite time. That was the secret. Without this you have just a power station and many receivers using up to the total power transmitted from station and no more. Read again comment from Tesla I posted previously and you will surely find that I'm right. he just couldn't said it to the press. Thanks forest, I think I do understand your thought well. But Tesla did give a patent on how this receiver apparatus...utilizing radiant energy. lol I also gave the math on why it does not use up the reactive power. Basically the current induced to the receiver is so low that it does not load the transmitter. What we extract is just the high voltage being induced. I think this can also be done with regular inductive coupled coil except turn one coil perpendicular. I guess the rapid change in H field would induce a large voltage with little current(still thinking on this one). One would need a capacitor with small capacitance value to maximize the energy capture in this fashion.

forest	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #44 on: 2012-10-12, 12:02:49 »
Sr. Member Posts: 472	Basically this receiver should work in close loop with the bit of starting energy and recovering some looses provided from impulses from transmitter. many implementations are possible. For example two coupled resonant circuits when the second one add energy in phase to the first one, the load is resistive or just quenched by a spark gap or newer devices for example so the oscillations never dies.

GibbsHelmholtz	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #45 on: 2012-10-12, 13:12:24 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: forest on 2012-10-12, 12:02:49 Basically this receiver should work in close loop with the bit of starting energy and recovering some looses provided from impulses from transmitter. many implementations are possible. For example two coupled resonant circuits when the second one add energy in phase to the first one, the load is resistive or just quenched by a spark gap or newer devices for example so the oscillations never dies. These are a bit above my head, but I'll try to catch up. lol

Farmhand	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #46 on: 2012-10-13, 04:27:23 »
Group: Guest	I still don't see any quotes or references to Tesla claiming greater than 100 % efficiency with the transmitters. The radiant energy receivers for the utilization of radiant energy are a different concept entirely. I don't think a claim to greater than 100% efficiency of the transmitters will be found because I don't think one was made. If a claim like that was made by Tesla then I have not seen it. Cheers P.S. I can show quotes where Tesla states the approximate efficiency of at least one setup, and it's less than 100%. Powers above the supply power are normal in many regular devices, power is not energy. ..

forest	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #47 on: 2012-10-13, 08:24:32 »
Sr. Member Posts: 472	Quote from: Farmhand on 2012-10-13, 04:27:23 I still don't see any quotes or references to Tesla claiming greater than 100 % efficiency with the transmitters. The radiant energy receivers for the utilization of radiant energy are a different concept entirely. I don't think a claim to greater than 100% efficiency of the transmitters will be found because I don't think one was made. If a claim like that was made by Tesla then I have not seen it. Cheers P.S. I can show quotes where Tesla states the approximate efficiency of at least one setup, and it's less than 100%. Powers above the supply power are normal in many regular devices, power is not energy. .. Correct. He claimed magnification in activity which means instant power but he also stated he used it . How? he never precisely said The secret is in receivers. All information is not clear public , was supressed or simply Tesla was not eager to say about it.

exnihiloest	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #48 on: 2012-10-13, 09:56:24 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012-10-11, 13:57:47 I think Q factor is only one of the things. To me if you have a Q factor of 1 in RLC ciruit, it means the energy you put in will dissipate and nothing stored up. Having a Q factor of 100 means 1 watt of input could theoretically result in 100 watts of reactive power. Let's have a circuit with Q factor of 1000: 1 watts input results in 1kW reactive... This has no meaning if you don't mention the time. There is no reason to reinterpret the definition of Q which is very clear and without any ambiguity. The Q is a question of energy, not of power. The power depends on the way you put and extract energy, it's not an intrinsic parameter of a resonant circuit, nor it is essential. If you put 1W during 1000 seconds, you can recover 1KW during 1 s, provided that the losses are low due to a high Q. Nothing new here.

GibbsHelmholtz	Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #49 on: 2012-10-13, 13:19:31 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012-10-10, 09:33:32 From the definition: Q= 2π[Energy stored]/[Energy dissipated per cycle] = 2πf* [Energy stored]/[Energy dissipated] ... Q is dimensionless. It is a ratio and required that either energy/energy or power/power to be dimensionless. The second part of the equation above is power/power. When you multiply the top and bottom with frequency f, the energy dissipated per cycle becomes energy dissipated per second, hence power loss in watts. The top part just means the stored energy constantly change from maximum to zero proportional to the frequency. When energy change from max to zero in a certain time, it's power. Since it does not used up, it's reactive. Overall, the top means reactive power.

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

2024-11-27, 00:39:26

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2