PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Devices > Tesla > Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter
2024-11-27, 00:26:58
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9
Author Topic: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter  (Read 151249 times)
Topic Options img
img  thx1138
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #50 on: 2012-10-17, 16:23:20 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012-10-12, 01:14:31
But Tesla did give a patent on how this receiver apparatus...utilizing radiant energy.
Dr. Tesla's radiant energy work and the magnifying transmitter are two separate things. The radiant energy work is a method of collecting energy from, first the sun, and later cosmic rays. The magnifying transmitter was about distributing power regardless of the source. Note the difference between the receiver antenna in the transmission patents and the elevated plate in the radiant enrgy patents.

He said several times that the transmission was via conducance, not inductance. I think the idea that we was accumulating power (from whatever source) and then pumping it back into the system at a higher rate is definitely correct.
Quote from: Collier’s Weekly, Talking With Planets 02/09/1901
…succeeded in producing a machine which, to explain its operation in plain language, resembled a pump in its action, drawing electricity from the earth and driving it back into the same at an enormous rate
I think his resonance was not between the transmitter and the receiver but between the transmitter and the telluric currents in the earth which was accomplished in such a way as to set up the standing waves. The receiver then tapped into the standing waves.

I think the telluric currents result from lightning strikes that make it all the way to the ground and/or electricity produced by the magnetic field generated at the core of the planet. There has been reported 50 to 200 lightning strikes somewhere on the planet every second but I haven't seen anything that says what part of those actually each the ground. The earth is thought to have a solid iron core and around it flows liquid iron/nickel that is thought to be kept liquid by the friction heat of the gravity found there combined with the friction heat of the rotation. This flow of liquid metal also has whirls induced into it by the coriiolis effect from the planet rotating.

If you think about it, his statement quoted above is very similar to what a lightning strike does. The charge accumualtes over time and then disruptively discharges into the ground.

So while most people today think of inductively coupling with the Schumann resonance in the atmosphere, I think Dr. Tesla was enhancing the earth resonance in the solid part of the earth. This may also account of the difference between the Schumann frequency of 7.83 Hz and Dr. Tesla's frequency stated in one of his patents that works out to 11.73 Hz. This could also account for any gain if there truly is any.

Also note that Dr. Tesla's work on transmitting power through the atmosphere as stated in his U.S. Patent 645,576 would have been accomplished between balloons at 30,000 feet. He even notes in the patent that the means to maintain the balloons at that height would have to be engineered at some later date. He had nothing like this at either Wardencliffe or in Colorado Springs.

I think we must consider the telluric current scenario the most probable. After all, he did accomplish the wireless transmission of power in his Colorado Springs experiments.
   
img  forest
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #51 on: 2012-10-17, 18:03:09 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 472
thx1138

All correct, however one thing is missing. Tesla magnifying transmitter was transmitting radiant energy, here is a connection between those two and I can prove it easily !  O0


Radiant energy is radio waves . Hertz waves never existed, radio waves are sound like waves in ether , they look like transverse waves when trapped by apparatus exactly like wind is trapped by trees. The only problem is the way Tesla differentiated Hertz radiation and his radio waves which is what we have to use today (there is no other possibility as he stated - those are the radio waves of today). I suspect that radio waves could be conducted by wire or radiated in space and here is the main problem : we were convinced they can only be radiated from antenna.
   
img  Farmhand
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #52 on: 2012-10-18, 05:53:19 »
Group: Guest
The Magnifying Transmitter was not a device designed for producing radiant energy.
But it could do so, it depends on how it was/is used.

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm#040

Quote
Counsel

Now, if you were giving that a name, what principle would you say was involved by which the radiation loss, where there is no receiver, becomes a gain or a conservation where there is a receiver?

Tesla

There is no radiation in this case.  You see, the apparatus which I devised was an apparatus enabling one to produce tremendous differences of potential and currents in an antenna circuit.  These requirements must be fulfilled, whether you transmit by currents of conduction, or whether you transmit by electromagnetic waves.  You want high potential currents, you want a great amount of vibratory energy; but you can graduate this vibratory energy.  By proper design and choice of wave lengths, you can arrange it so that you get, for instance, 5 percent in these electromagnetic waves and 95 percent in the current that goes through the earth.  That is what I am doing.  Or, you can get, as these radio men, 95 percent in the energy of electromagnetic waves and only 5 percent in the energy of the current.  Then you are wondering why you do not get good results.  I know why I do not get good results in that way.  The apparatus is suitable for one or the other method.  I am not producing radiation in my system; I am suppressing electromagnetic waves.  But, on the other hand, my apparatus can be used effectively with electromagnetic waves.  The apparatus has nothing to do with this new method except that it is the only means to practice it.  So that in my system, you should free yourself of the idea that there is radiation, that energy is radiated.  It is not radiated; it is conserved.

Now on the Magnification matter. The transformer in the video is using roughly 60 Watts input from a 12 volt battery.
But when we consider the peak power of a discharge, or the current in the primary or the voltage on the top terminal
we see magnification I think in all of those area's. A magnification of the power the current and the voltage but not the energy. No free energy.

The resistance in the secondary is about 1.5 Ohms probably the same in the extra coil (same wire) the primary resistance is almost nothing,
the primary inductance is only about 3 uH, the resonant frequency is about 760 kHz the way it is. To get to 180 kHz with thinner wire
would be easy enough but then the resistances get higher (longer primary needed). I think to get to below 100 kHz would take a lot of 1 mm wire.

This setup is power restricted for now and the  input frequency is very low because of it, so no real resonant rise. I'll do some tests as I go along to see how much voltage I can produce with
this coil which has only 166 secondary/extra coil turns. If I can engineer a rotary spark gap I'll be much better off I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wWOzvT8Aak

Cheers
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #53 on: 2012-10-18, 07:34:39 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: forest on 2012-10-17, 18:03:09
...
Tesla magnifying transmitter was transmitting radiant energy, here is a connection between those two and I can prove it easily !  O0

Energy is not radiated but shared and exchanged between the transmitter and the coupled receiver, thanks to the electric and magnetic fields in which it is located.

Quote
Radiant energy is radio waves . Hertz waves never existed, radio waves are sound like waves in ether
...

"Hertz waves" are defined by science and exist as defined, the Hertz experiment is the proof. Maybe Hertz waves are also "ether waves" but your speech remains vain if you don't provide an experiment allowing to show the difference.
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #54 on: 2012-10-18, 07:38:05 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Farmhand on 2012-10-18, 05:53:19
...
But when we consider the peak power of a discharge, or the current in the primary or the voltage on the top terminal we see magnification I think in all of those area's. A magnification of the power the current and the voltage but not the energy. No free energy.
...

 O0
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #55 on: 2012-10-18, 13:47:36 »
Group: Guest
I've been thinking the Tesla coil may operates in a similar condition as ferroresonance.   I've read a few site about ferroR but non seems to explain what is happening.  A few interesting conditions is it can be stable for a wide range of C and absence of losses.  It also happens related to saturation.  I can only think that the looses are hysteresis and coil resistance.  Hysteresis can also associates with saturation.  Pretty much at saturation, hysteresis is reduced.  This is why I think Tesla used air coil with least capacitance possible: to minimize hysteresis and resistance losses.  If it operates on a frequency for a wide range of C, it can only means the frequency is not dependance on C.  The core must have operates on its own frequency. 

   
img  Grumpy
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #56 on: 2012-10-18, 15:00:47 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
My "understanding" of Tesla's Magnifier is that the "magnification" occurs between the transmitter coils, and not between the transmitter and reciever, which are just coupled together.
   
img  forest
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #57 on: 2012-10-18, 16:11:23 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 472
I will not trying to convict anybody because after years of investigating I have still a mess of ideas inside my head and I wonder why is all that so complicated by so many theories. Tesla said : there is only one wave , longitudinal wave in ether like sound in air. Transverse wave , Hertz wave is radiation .
Seems that the key is in word "radiation" and how Tesla comprehended it.

Anyway, I wanted to add a bit of confusion or maybe clarity to the "radiant energy" Tesla patent . That was mentioned , it's not related to magnifying transmitter directly, but what I found is a direct connection. Tesla had thrown the output of his transmitter into the same category as the disturbance from natural sources.

Of course you have the right to disagree, but anyway ....

This is the radiant energy patent : http://www.google.com/patents?id=YitoAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

and here is the British Tesla patent : http://www.keelynet.com/tesla/B0011293.pdf

compare texts and look carefully on Fig 2 in radiant energy patent , and also on Fig 4 in British patent. Then let me know what you think.....maybe it's all much simpler then we think and it's all radio waves radiated into space when their frequency is not matched with Earth dimensions or conducted around in form of stationary waves ?
One ring to rule them alll.  Look at Earth - isn't it a big conductor with magnetic field around ? Disturbance of natural media, what it could be ? Modulation of magnetic field lines ?  C.C
   
img  Farmhand
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #58 on: 2012-10-18, 22:50:23 »
Group: Guest
If I take a bucket I can use it to catch and hold rain or I could use it to catch and hold water shot directly from the end of a hose.

The radiant energy receivers can be used as sensitive devices to collect feeble vibrations. The British patent is for the art of utilizing
of effects and such transmitted through the natural media. Meaning radiation and/or ground waves.

As Tesla said the equipment is not limited to one use. ie. I can use a rifle to shoot or I can use it for a club.

Also if a Transformer disturbing the ground like a Tesla transmitter is not designed for the whole planet,
meaning if the frequency is too high ect. so that the disturbances fade out and don't return then it is like radiation but not Hertz radiation i don't think.

If energy is sent out in all directions and does not return it is radiation if it is sent out through the ground in an expanding circles and is lost it is as good as radiation
but not really radiation in that it doesn't go in all directions, if energy is sent out and is reflected back it is contained in a system and so is not radiation.

It depends on what the system encompasses.

eg. If a full sized Magnifying transmitter was running and transmitting to it's receiver somewhere else on the planet, then a sensitive device could also be used at a distance to detect
the 5% radiation, or a similar device could be used to collect the energy from the ground disturbance, all kinds of things can be done.

The main thing is that Tesla stressed time and again, "The energy is not radiated, it is conserved". How can people claiming to be in favor of Tesla just ignore that.
Ground disturbances are not Hertz waves, radiation goes in all directions, ground waves spread through the Earth they don't go up.


Cheers
   
img  forest
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #59 on: 2012-10-19, 07:19:28 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 472
Quote from: Farmhand on 2012-10-18, 22:50:23
If I take a bucket I can use it to catch and hold rain or I could use it to catch and hold water shot directly from the end of a hose.

The radiant energy receivers can be used as sensitive devices to collect feeble vibrations. The British patent is for the art of utilizing
of effects and such transmitted through the natural media. Meaning radiation and/or ground waves.

As Tesla said the equipment is not limited to one use. ie. I can use a rifle to shoot or I can use it for a club.

Also if a Transformer disturbing the ground like a Tesla transmitter is not designed for the whole planet,
meaning if the frequency is too high ect. so that the disturbances fade out and don't return then it is like radiation but not Hertz radiation i don't think.

If energy is sent out in all directions and does not return it is radiation if it is sent out through the ground in an expanding circles and is lost it is as good as radiation
but not really radiation in that it doesn't go in all directions, if energy is sent out and is reflected back it is contained in a system and so is not radiation.

It depends on what the system encompasses.

eg. If a full sized Magnifying transmitter was running and transmitting to it's receiver somewhere else on the planet, then a sensitive device could also be used at a distance to detect
the 5% radiation, or a similar device could be used to collect the energy from the ground disturbance, all kinds of things can be done.

The main thing is that Tesla stressed time and again, "The energy is not radiated, it is conserved". How can people claiming to be in favor of Tesla just ignore that.
Ground disturbances are not Hertz waves, radiation goes in all directions, ground waves spread through the Earth they don't go up.


Cheers


Energy is conserved , yes this is very true. The same conservation is inside resonant circuit. So the overall picture would be : Tesla is sending impulse around Earth which is energy conserved due to stationary waves , recovered almost 95 % of it if there is no receiver. The next step is receiver. Simple receiver could be used like radio set to get accurate clock value or information from radio station or to allow  communication. Resonant receivers can be used to power appliances because at resonance energy is conserved and looses compensated by the input form Tesla magnifying transmitter. Load in such receivers is a part of resonance.

What is still missing is then why Tesla worked next 25 years to complete functional cosmic rays tapping device ? Why he stated in radiant energy patent that Earth is a vast container of negative electricity (there was very few power stations in 1900 in the whole world so excuse that they were pumping electrons into soils is a mistake)
   
img  wings
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #60 on: 2012-10-19, 08:22:14 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: forest on 2012-10-19, 07:19:28

Energy is conserved , yes this is very true. The same conservation is inside resonant circuit. So the overall picture would be : Tesla is sending impulse around Earth which is energy conserved due to stationary waves , recovered almost 95 % of it if there is no receiver. The next step is receiver. Simple receiver could be used like radio set to get accurate clock value or information from radio station or to allow  communication. Resonant receivers can be used to power appliances because at resonance energy is conserved and looses compensated by the input form Tesla magnifying transmitter. Load in such receivers is a part of resonance.

What is still missing is then why Tesla worked next 25 years to complete functional cosmic rays tapping device ? Why he stated in radiant energy patent that Earth is a vast container of negative electricity (there was very few power stations in 1900 in the whole world so excuse that they were pumping electrons into soils is a mistake)

there is a big transmitter that works from the Beginning

http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/inspire.html
http://theinspireproject.org/default.asp?contentID=4
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #61 on: 2012-10-19, 08:27:35 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: forest on 2012-10-19, 07:19:28
...
Tesla is sending impulse around Earth
...

What do you mean by "impulse"? Firstly, waves around the earth imply that an even number of wavelengths fits the earth circumference. These waves must thus be at the Schuman's frequencies which are very low and consequently their period duration is much more than possible pulses duration, except if you consider pulses on the order of several seconds. Secondly, a resonant circuit with a high Q implies a very narrow frequency band, incompatible with impulses which have a spread spectrum. Impulses could only appear in electric discharges, so not around the earth.
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #62 on: 2012-10-19, 13:58:08 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Farmhand on 2012-10-18, 05:53:19

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm#040



I've read his conversation with the counsel.   The site also pointed at many other writings and finally, I found some Colorado Spring notes on the web. lol  I don't know what was the problem before but this is my own opinion after reading.

Hertz and radiation:

At first it seems like he didn't believe in Hertz wave.  He set experiments where one end of the antenna drove into the earth as his argument.  To me that is like transmission with one wire (earth), so maybe that's the problem.  Later he classify Hertz wave as electromagnetic waves.  However, his view was that it travels longitudinal instead of transverse.  He also think the ether is gaseous and not rigid like Hertz and Maxwell.  Overall, I think he acknowledged the existence of EM radiation, with some differences.

His stand on self-acting engines:

I think he thinks it's possible.  He even try to make a heat engine from a heat pump.  In a way, he does believes in perpetual motion.

CS notes & Tesla coil:

This is a complicated coil according to his notes.  I still have difficulty trying to figure what he trying to say.  I think his coil is not ordinary.  It has stray inductance, stray capacitance (he call it distributed C), coil inductance, coil capacitance... and they all link to each other. lol  He wants the length of the wire to match the wavelength  while the inductance of the circuit also has to match the frequency.  Furthermore, the coil capacitance is a function of stray capacitance C=KC1, and you have to get K from experiment .  It's obvious to me that there is regular LC resonance as well as transmission line standing wave.  Overall, I didn't catch the simple theory of why he wants it that way.  I'm not sure if others understood either.  I'm thinking there must be an easier model to understand distributed circuit in his coil. 







   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #63 on: 2012-10-19, 18:37:26 »
Group: Guest
Hertz experiment and Tesla "magnifying" transmitter are very different setups.

In Hertz experiment, the radiating part which constitutes also the resonant circuit is short: it's a 2 mtrs dipole with terminal capacities and the spark gap is at the center. Therefore the resonant frequency is very high. Hertz used a reflector at 12 mtr from the transmitter to produce standing waves, and shown by this way that 1) the wavelength was around 4 mtr, i.e. a frequency of 75 Mhz, and 2) it was really a propagation because the wave must go back and forth to build the standing wave: Hertz waves really radiate.

Tesla used very low frequencies. At these frequencies, he couldn't observe standing wave due to the wavelength which is by many orders longer than any distance at which he could receive a signal.
Unlike the Hertz experiment, a coil probe or capacity probe anywhere around a Tesla resonant circuit will show the same phase whatever the distance from the circuit because this distance is always short in comparison with the wavelength. In Tesla's experiments, the receiver is simply in the very "near field" from the transmitter (i.e. << quarter-wavelength). None propagation can be observed, but only the electric or magnetic field that couple with the resonant receiver. And when we try to move far away from the transmitter, i.e. at distance of several wavelengths, the signal can't be received because it fades very quickly. The reason is that an antenna whose the length is short in comparison with the wavelength, radiates EM waves very poorly. This fact is confirmed by the observation that a resonant circuit with a high Q like those of Tesla is maintaining the oscillations for a long time, many periods, after the power source of oscillations is disconnected. This means that the energy is kept in the circuit and doesn't radiate under any kind of waves.
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #64 on: 2012-10-19, 23:23:03 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Exn
Quote
Tesla used very low frequencies

You have it backwards, it was low frequency however people are using the false premise that this was the carrier frequency and it was not, it was the modulation while the carrier frequency was extremely high. Higher than any half-wit such as Hertz could possibly imagine which is why few really had a clue what Tesla was doing.


---------------------------
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
   
img  Farmhand
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #65 on: 2012-10-20, 02:52:01 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012-10-19, 23:23:03
@Exn
You have it backwards, it was low frequency however people are using the false premise that this was the carrier frequency and it was not, it was the modulation while the carrier frequency was extremely high. Higher than any half-wit such as Hertz could possibly imagine which is why few really had a clue what Tesla was doing.


Do you have a reference to verify that ?

When I refer to the "Magnifying Transmitter" I refer to the improved transmitter, the last one he designed and patented.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=m7R9AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

And from this patent. Page 3 Lines 27 through 63

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

Here's some to the contrary.

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm#043

Quote
I designed a plant [Wardenclyffe, referring to Fig. 83] years ago with a large capacity and put it before certain architects.  They figured that the antenna would cost $450,000 and I had to modify my plans.  As you see, you are limited by cost as to the size of the antenna; that is, you are limited as to the capacity and, furthermore, you have selected the frequency.  In order to lower the frequency so that there would be no wasteful radiation of energy, you have to employ a large inductance.  You have to employ a capacity as large as permissible, and you must use a large inductance in order that you may reach the low frequency which is economical.

Quote
What low frequency is it that is economical?

Tesla

In a patent which appeared in April 1905, the application of which was filed on May 15, 1900, I have enunciated the law of propagation, which I have explained, and have stated that the frequencies should not be more than 30,000 or 35,000 cycles at most, in order to operate economically.

If pressed I can find quotes where Tesla states the frequencies he used at Colorado
were between 45 kHz or so and 100 kHz or a bit more. It wouldn't be possible to operate
such large coils at resonance at higher frequencies. He could alter the frequencies in different
ways but there were/are limits.

Cheers
« Last Edit: 2012-10-20, 03:31:05 by Farmhand »
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #66 on: 2012-10-20, 05:51:33 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Farmhand
Quote
Do you have a reference to verify that ?

None you would like, however when I built and tested these circuits the primary frequency could be very low however the spectrum each impulse covered was massive. Consider a bell, it does not matter at what frequency you strike it because this has no bearing on the natural resonant frequency of the bell itself. In which case the striker of the bell is modulating the natural resonant frequency of the bell.


---------------------------
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
   
img  Farmhand
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #67 on: 2012-10-20, 06:29:22 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012-10-19, 18:37:26
Hertz experiment and Tesla "magnifying" transmitter are very different setups.

In Hertz experiment, the radiating part which constitutes also the resonant circuit is short: it's a 2 mtrs dipole with terminal capacities and the spark gap is at the center. Therefore the resonant frequency is very high. Hertz used a reflector at 12 mtr from the transmitter to produce standing waves, and shown by this way that 1) the wavelength was around 4 mtr, i.e. a frequency of 75 Mhz, and 2) it was really a propagation because the wave must go back and forth to build the standing wave: Hertz waves really radiate.

Tesla used very low frequencies. At these frequencies, he couldn't observe standing wave due to the wavelength which is by many orders longer than any distance at which he could receive a signal.
Unlike the Hertz experiment, a coil probe or capacity probe anywhere around a Tesla resonant circuit will show the same phase whatever the distance from the circuit because this distance is always short in comparison with the wavelength. In Tesla's experiments, the receiver is simply in the very "near field" from the transmitter (i.e. << quarter-wavelength). None propagation can be observed, but only the electric or magnetic field that couple with the resonant receiver. And when we try to move far away from the transmitter, i.e. at distance of several wavelengths, the signal can't be received because it fades very quickly. The reason is that an antenna whose the length is short in comparison with the wavelength, radiates EM waves very poorly. This fact is confirmed by the observation that a resonant circuit with a high Q like those of Tesla is maintaining the oscillations for a long time, many periods, after the power source of oscillations is disconnected. This means that the energy is kept in the circuit and doesn't radiate under any kind of waves.



Please bear with me ex. I agree with you a lot, but... EDIT: Yes I see, what you are saying is absolutely correct when we deal with
the shorter 1/4 wave lengths (frequencies) not in resonance with the planet. If the planet is resonating then the effect can be had in differing magnitudes anywhere
the ground can be connected to with a receiver. If too high a frequency is used then the disturbance fades out most definitely,
Tesla describes this in the book The Inventions Researches and Writings of Nikola Tesla. A very early realization/observation.

I'm not clear on what constitutes a "near" field, what constitutes "near field" effects ?
Because if a Tesla transmitter was placed on one side of the planet and a receiver was
placed on the other I can't see how their electric and magnetic fields are shared.
Shared fields to me implies that the receiver is in the inductive influence of the transmitter,
I don't think it would be.

First imagine there is no ground disturbance and the setup is off, the transmitter and receiver elevated capacitances are sitting in
their respective electric fields, they could be at a different potential with respect to the Earth, eg. with the transmitter, it's terminal could be
at 1000 volts while the receiver is at 100 volts or the other way when the system is at rest (atmospheric potential - electric field).
Then when the system is run the ground is disturbed so an alternating potential is created because of the alternating potential of the
ground, the top terminal is referenced to it's electric field and acts like a neutral ground while the ground disturbance creates the potential difference to drive the current
through the ground/receiver. I doubt very much that the receiver if disconnected from the ground would have current induced in it by the transmitter on the opposite side of the planet
so I doubt also that it is in an inductive relationship.

I think to even get 1/4 WL resonance there must be a forward and reflected wave-interference to produce a standing 1/4 wave resonance ?.

I don't think near field effects scale up, I think they are an effect of the voltage/frequency maybe or some kind of relative relationship.

Cheers

P.S. The Earth is resonating at multiples of 50/60 Hz all the time I think. There is energy to collect but the ground is disturbed
by the electricity company and the receiver would be expensive to build, as well as it could be considered stealing and the amount of energy to collect
may not be much either.
« Last Edit: 2012-10-20, 07:02:51 by Farmhand »
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #68 on: 2012-10-20, 10:36:14 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012-10-20, 05:51:33
@Farmhand
None you would like, however when I built and tested these circuits the primary frequency could be very low however the spectrum each impulse covered was massive.
...

Non sense. Either your are using a low frequency that is a pure sine and its spectrum is just a line at this frequency, or you are using "pulses", even at a low frequency, and of course the spectrum is wide due to the sharp rise and fall times. But pulses are not compatible with high Q resonant circuits which act as very narrow pass-band filters (pulses can be produced from a spark gap or other means, with high Q circuits, but in this case the production of EM waves is due to the spark and to the near conductors acting as antenna, and not by the resonant circuit).
The spectrum directly follows from the temporal shape of the signal. The temporal and spectral domains are equivalent and straightforwardly linked through Fourier transforms and inverse transforms.
   
img  Farmhand
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #69 on: 2012-10-20, 10:54:24 »
Group: Guest
Ok here are a couple of rough video's, I'm not making any claims other than it is doing what it is doing.
My question is does anyone think it would be worth while to set this up better with less gaps better tune and more fluro's.
With less gaps the arc frequency will be higher and so better light and less flicker.

Fluro's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUdcrhqgiIs

Small Air discharge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ydVK4OUqAc

The fluro's are both 36 Watt items (not that that means anything in particular), and the input is about 7 to 8 amps from a 12 volt battery
but the voltage drop on the primary circuit is significant, I measure only less than 12 volts on the battery when it is running.

I do realize of course that this is not how they are meant to be used but it does give an indication of the power at the terminal
and what it can do.

A strange thing I noticed is that after running it for a while like that with the fluros, the supply transformer was making a throbbing sound
like a strumming of the normal low frequency humm, like -- mmm..mmm..mmm..mmm..mmm..mmm. Then after a short while it stopped. I don't
think it can be heard clearly in the video but I did mention it.

I think it would be impossible to actually measure the output when taken from the top terminal. Maybe I can measure something from the bottom somehow.

Cheers

P.S. If anyone has any suggestions as to something interesting to do with the HV let me know.
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #70 on: 2012-10-20, 11:44:40 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Farmhand on 2012-10-20, 06:29:22
...
I'm not clear on what constitutes a "near" field, what constitutes "near field" effects ?

Hi Fh,

"Near field" is a condition defined in electromagnetism as the area at short distance from the field source. "Short distance" means "short relative to the wavelength", in practice less than a tenth of the wavelength.
Even if the source field is a radiating antenna, as a radio antenna, the propagating plane waves is not yet built in the near field area. This means that B and E are not linked as in EM waves, neither in direction, nor in phase, nor in amplitude. Their topology can be very complex. We are in the same situation as if the source field was simply a not radiating LC circuit whose the electric and magnetic fields depend only on the shape, location and orientation of the circuit components.
In the near field, a receiver is linked to the transmitter. This means that they share the same fields. If the receiver is resonant, its resonance will modify the resonance of the transmitter. If you connect your receiver to a load, you will see that energy is drawn from the transmitter. The receiver must be consider as being directly coupled to the transmitter, magnetically and/or capacitively.
In the far field, a receiver doesn't influence the transmitter, because the energy is already carried away from the transmitter by the radiated wave. The energy is autonomous, disconnected from the transmitter. In the far field, the receiver is not linked to the transmitter, it just takes locally the energy of the propagating wave.
In Tesla's experiments, we are always in the near field. Receiver and transmitter are coupled. We can't speak of propagating waves.

Quote
Because if a Tesla transmitter was placed on one side of the planet and a receiver was placed on the other I can't see how their electric and magnetic fields are shared.
Shared fields to me implies that the receiver is in the inductive influence of the transmitter,

I agree

Quote
I don't think it would be.
...

It would be. Imagine a CLC circuit, i.e. a coil with two terminal capacities, one at each end. This is a resonant LC circuit which works perfectly (you just have to power the central coil by another coupled coil of much less turns). Now replace one of the terminal capacity by the ground: you have the same circuit. The ground acts only like a terminal capacity which simplifies the circuit. Same thing for the receiver. Therefore the relative potential between the local "ground capacity" of the transmitter and this one of the receiver, plays no role. Both could be isolated metallic terminal capacities like these at the other end of the coils, and the circuits would work in the same way.

The problem of the Tesla's idea is not in the principle. Yes a transmitter with a resonant circuit could establish a standing field (not wave) around the earth. Yes a receiver anywhere on earth could be coupled to the transmitter and recover energy from the transmitter. The problem is in the efficiency. The coupling between transmitter and receiver can be strong, only if the dimensions of their components are not negligible in comparison with the distance between them, otherwise the field lines loop much too close from the transmitter, far from the receiver, and the coupling with the receiver fails. The Tesla's idea fails in practice, because we can't erect towers with coils and terminal capacities having dimensions of some % of the earth circumference, which would be the indispensable condition for an efficient coupling of the transmitter with a receiver anywhere on earth.
   
img  poynt99
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #71 on: 2012-10-20, 13:09:40 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012-10-20, 11:44:40
The problem of the Tesla's idea is not in the principle. Yes a transmitter with a resonant circuit could establish a standing field (not wave) around the earth. Yes a receiver anywhere on earth could be coupled to the transmitter and recover energy from the transmitter. The problem is in the efficiency. The coupling between transmitter and receiver can be strong, only if the dimensions of their components are not negligible in comparison with the distance between them, otherwise the field lines loop much too close from the transmitter, far from the receiver, and the coupling with the receiver fails. The Tesla's idea fails in practice, because we can't erect towers with coils and terminal capacities having dimensions of some % of the earth circumference, which would be the indispensable condition for an efficient coupling of the transmitter with a receiver anywhere on earth.
I find it difficult to believe that Tesla would have overlooked something like that. He went through a lot of trouble constructing his devices and was meticulous in his designs and methods.

I think it is more likely that we don't know exactly how he intended his system to be implemented.


---------------------------
"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
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #72 on: 2012-10-20, 13:35:36 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012-10-20, 13:09:40
I find it difficult to believe that Tesla would have overlooked something like that. He went through a lot of trouble constructing his devices and was meticulous in his designs and methods.
...

The reason is simple: he was misleading by his magic idea of longitudinal waves.
But his longitudinal waves has never been experimentally demonstrated. Either they are explained by near field conditions (Tesla's and Meyl's experiments), or they are confused with EM waves (Monstein's experiment). Tesla experimented his circuits at short distance. For working around the earth acording to classical electromagnetism, the dimensions of the circuits must be scaled proportionally. It's not realistic.
And if we invoke the so-called "longitudinal waves", we have no more reasons to suppose it would work, because these waves are not needed to explain the Tesla's experiments, they are not characterized, they are just empty words, without physical properties supporting any possibility of energy transfer.
Tesla was a great and respectable inventor but not a great physicist, unlike Maxwell who was not a great inventor but a great physicist having well modelized the electromagnetism. His genius has been proved by his prediction of transverse EM waves before they have been experimentally demonstrated, what is really a remarkable exploit.
   
img  Farmhand
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #73 on: 2012-10-20, 13:38:48 »
Group: Guest
Yes I also find it difficult to believe that he wouldn't have known these things given the later experiments he did at Wardenclyff.
He describes the action of the receiver here.

Quote
Counsel

To illustrate my question, take for instance the energy used at Sayville and the reception of that at Nauen.  I want to know whether it is your idea that the reception there is due to the earth currents that you have described or to the radiated energy.

Tesla

It is far more due to the earth currents than to the radiated energy.  I believe, indeed, that the radiated energy alone could not possibly produce the effect across the Atlantic.  It is simply because they are incidentally sending a current through the globe -- which they think is their current -- that the receiver is affected.  The current produces variations of potential at the earth's surface in Germany; these fluctuations of potential energize the circuit, and by resonance they increase the potential there and operate the receiver.  But I do not mean that it is absolutely impossible to use my apparatus and operate with electromagnetic waves across the Atlantic or Pacific.  I only say that according to calculations, for instance, which I have made of the Sayville plant, the radiated energy is very small and cannot be operative.  I have also calculated the distribution of the charge on the antenna.  I am told that the Sayville antenna is without abrupt changes of capacity.  It is impossible.  There are changes even in a cylindrical antenna; but particularly in that form at Sayville -- there are very abrupt changes.

And just before he says this.

Quote
The mode of propagation can be expressed by a very simple mathematical law, which is, the current at any point flows with a velocity proportionate to the cosecant of the angle which a radius from that point includes with the axis of symmetry of wave propagation.  At the transmitter, the cosecant is infinite; therefore, the velocity is infinite.  At a distance of 6,000 miles, the cosecant is unity; therefore, the velocity is equal to that of light.  This law I have expressed in a patent by the statement that the projections of all zones on the axis of symmetry are of the same length, which means, in other words, as is known from rules of trigonometry, that the areas of all the zones must also be equal.  It says that although the waves travel with different velocities from point to point, nevertheless each half wave always includes the same area.  This is a simple law, not unlike the one which has been expressed by Kepler with reference to the areas swept over by the radii vectors.

I hope that I have been clear in this exposition – in bringing to your attention that what I show here is the system of the day, and is my system -- only the radio engineers use my apparatus to produce too much of this electromagnetic energy here, instead of concentrating all their attention on designing an apparatus which will impress a current upon the earth and not waste the power of the plant in an uneconomical process.

Cheers
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter « Reply #74 on: 2012-10-20, 15:09:13 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Exn
Quote
Non sense. Either your are using a low frequency that is a pure sine and its spectrum is just a line at this frequency, or you are using "pulses", even at a low frequency, and of course the spectrum is wide due to the sharp rise and fall times. But pulses are not compatible with high Q resonant circuits which act as very narrow pass-band filters (pulses can be produced from a spark gap or other means, with high Q circuits, but in this case the production of EM waves is due to the spark and to the near conductors acting as antenna, and not by the resonant circuit).
The spectrum directly follows from the temporal shape of the signal. The temporal and spectral domains are equivalent and straightforwardly linked through Fourier transforms and inverse transforms.

The first question I would ask is have you ever actually built any of these circuits or are you simply guessing based on something you have read in a textbook, I would guess the latter. Have you built the circuits, have you rigged the quenched gaps, have you wound the coils and oriented them to specs, have you built the oil bath capacitors, have you ever sent a 100kv microsecond discharge into a 10" SS sphere?. You see I think it is wonderful that you like to speculate based on what you have read in your textbooks but as you may know, or not, reality can be very much different from what we read.
For instance did you know the top load undergoes constriction, there is a load SSSSST noise when recorded and played back in at a slower rate and physical material is ejected at high velocity from it which appears as a residue covering the area?. Did you know that if the impulse is tuned to the natural resonant frequency of the top load, no not electrical silly ... mechanical, then not only is the signal distorted but it modifies the near field. Have you actually ever measured the near field and in fact the potential at the machine with an electrometer array so that you could actually determine the true potential as well as the velocity as we now have a time function. No offense but using fancy terms does not really impress me much and it tells me nothing of what you actually understand based on reality and not your textbooks. As well if you had any idea of what you were talking about you would know the spark gap goes not actually have to fire and can operate in the preglow discharge region prior to VAD, hmm imagine that no sparks.

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
   
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, 00:26:58