PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-26, 16:32:53
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Magnetic field from displacement currents and the TPU  (Read 42507 times)
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
From AC:

Quote
That is your personal opinion and nothing more which I happen to disagree with on various levels from experience.

Only problem with  this statement is that you seem very unwilling to share your "supposed" actual "experience" that you allude to with any real and tangible working circuit, diagram or other valuable information that will promote the goals of this forum.

Rhetoric you have in abundance, and you seem to get your kicks challenging the reasonable viewpoints of some, with nothing real to back up your claims,  no circuits, nothing tangible to share. Just a highly exalted point of view.

What are you doing here, anyway? Do you just just enjoy being the "contrarian"? This seems to be the MO of most all of your posts.

I do like and agree with some of the stuff you post (not the condescending stuff), but it is never new nor, is it inspiring, mostly just preaching to the choir.

This is also my personal opinion.

P.S. You might want to parse your longwinded posts into cohesive paragraphs to make them easier to read.



---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Exn
Let's go a little deeper into the rabbit hole.....

It is well known in psychology that crazy people do not know they are crazy and they consider what they do as normal however we do not and this is the primary reason we judge them as "crazy". Now if I put you in a room full of crazy people then logically speaking you should be the only person in the room who knows all of them are crazy as they should be oblivious to this fact. If I put you in a world full of crazy people then logically speaking you should be the only one who knows they are crazy as again they should be oblivious to this fact.

Now we have a problem, do you see it?, well if a crazy person does not know they are crazy then logically either you or all the other people are crazy and neither you nor them can ever know it. You see crazy is not a popularity contest and it is not a numbers game whereby if more people agree with you then you win. This is not the way it works, being crazy is defined by a complete lack of perspective whereby the person must reject every other perspective and only consider their own as the right one. Does this sound familiar Exn?, it should because there are large groups, most all groups, in our society who do seem crazy from our perspective but that does not mean they are as it is always a matter of perspective.

I find this fascinating as one can never know and it may be that our world is truly crazy if we consider the fact that we are destroying the very planet we rely so heavily on to survive. Most all water is heavily polluted, 90% of all fish stocks obliterated, massive deforestation, overpopulation etc..., as you say we need proof and I believe we have it. Fundamentally it should be understood that we are doing something wrong, that we are thinking the wrong way and approaching science and the problems we face the wrong way. Even a crazy person should understand this however unfortunately I do not think this is the case.

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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Ion
Quote
Only problem with  this statement is that you seem very unwilling to share your "supposed" actual "experience" that you allude to with any real and tangible working circuit, diagram or other valuable information that will promote the goals of this forum.

Rhetoric you have in abundance, and you seem to get your kicks challenging the reasonable viewpoints of some, with nothing real to back up your claims,  no circuits, nothing tangible to share. Just a highly exalted point of view.

Lol, you know I agree with you 100% and I am well aware of what I do and how I do it and many times I don't like what I do anymore than you may. However if not me then who?, who will try to offer the other perspective with little bias towards the concept of right or wrong. I may sound judgmental at times however I am not any more certain of anything than anyone else here.
You pretty much nailed it and I would have to agree 100% but I guess the obvious question would be so what?, what if I am?.

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
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 472
Here is the problem. Assuming that  I have Ou device how can I prove this ? Sure way is to allow replication and standardization so it may be mass produced but this is exactly what everybody doesn't want to do due to various reasons, mostly because of existence of upset economy.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
I agree. Nevertheless it's just a way to reformulate at an elementary level concerning electrons, the more general sentence: "we need to get more energy from the device than this we put into it". So what?

There may be a way to "borrow" momentum, transfer it to our electrons and move them, then give the momentum back. Repeated over and over, we induce current.

(I use the correlation of throwing a magic ball, hitting an object causing it to move, and then the ball disappears and magically reappears in your hand to throw it again.)

This involves "perturbation theory" - which I know very little about.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
From AC:

Quote
You pretty much nailed it and I would have to agree 100% but I guess the obvious question would be so what?, what if I am?.

I have no problem with your sometimes very accurate and thoughtful editorial comments. They are suitable for the RANT thread.

In this thread we need tangible experiments and proofs of hypothesis. If you can share some of your experimental experience in this thread I'm sure we would all be grateful. I'm sure you have plenty to teach and share.

I would very much like to see some of the experiments you mentioned in the past, but they were never forthcoming. You often leave us hanging.

Join the team working towards the goal, your input will be much appreciated.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
@Exn
That is your personal opinion and nothing more which I happen to disagree with on various levels from experience.
1)There is not one fact that the device works
Wrong, you have no facts concerning whether it works

A fact is not relative to me.
A fact becomes a fact when it can be observed (or has been widely observed), leading to a wide consensus among the people about its reality.
The allegation from Forest: "Self-suficient device which powers itself and a load from the initial kick from power source running in deep forest far away from any power grid" is not a fact.

Quote
2)not one fact the inventor has a real secret
Wrong, that is unless you know every inventor personally and they told you their secret but that is absurd
...

Fallacy ("Argumentum ad ignorantiam"), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ignorance.

   
Group: Guest
While searching for materials of high permittivity, in order to create and keep displacement currents inside a dielectric, I found that ferrites, which are known for having a high permeability, have also a rather high relative permittivity (from 10 to some tens). This is interesting because we can use the same material to create both the capacitor and the magnetic circuit for detecting the B field from the displacement currents. I don't know yet how.
   
Group: Guest
There is also a possibility to validate device by independent scientific laboratory without uncovering the principle of operation  of device. However I never heard about anybody convinced by such testing procedure....  :P  Look for example at TPU case.  C.C

This procedure is not the best, but it would be very instructive. A black box with an input and an output, showing more energy out than in and providing much more energy than any conventional means of same volume as the box, would be a positive argument in favor of the device. As well, an isolated black box suspended to a wire and deviating from the vertical, would be a strong argument of a non-newtonian thrust. And so on. Unfortunatley there are generally not such tests. The vast majority of "inventors" know that their device don't pass such scientific tests. At my knowledge, only Black Light Power has a third party positive test, and Rossi is said to have one soon.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Exn
Quote
A fact is not relative to me.
A fact becomes a fact when it can be observed (or has been widely observed), leading to a wide consensus among the people about its reality.
The allegation from Forest: "Self-suficient device which powers itself and a load from the initial kick from power source running in deep forest far away from any power grid" is not a fact.

If you exist then it is relative to you, if you believe it to be true it is relative to you regardless of whether you believe there is a connection or not. Have you ever noticed how people always tend to distance themselves from something to make it more believable to others?, as if to say I believe it is true but my believing has nothing to do with it, LOL. As well we should be perfectly clear that just because something is not observed or measured or believed by anyone does not mean it does not exist nor does it mean it is not true and this is the reason we are always discovering new things and discovering some old beliefs were incorrect.

I'm going to edit this post and add something more relevant which may apply. I have found the facts can be debatable and a good example may be a bifiliar coil I believe you were considering at the start of this thread. Now take a bifiliar coil and straighten it out so that we now have two parallel conductors and the conductors are shorted at the end of one conductor to the start of the other. This could be seen as a capacitor, two plates shorted on ends opposite to the connections of the external source current. The problem I saw many years ago when testing this coil was that the facts concerning it were fairly polarized. Some said it was only a coil while others said no it is both a coil and a capacitor and maybe any variation inbetween. However after many experiments it became apparent that it can be either or not and that the line between them becomes so blurred one cannot tell the difference.
AC

« Last Edit: 2012-10-19, 21:39:20 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
...
Now take a bifiliar coil and straighten it out so that we now have two parallel conductors and the conductors are shorted at the end of one conductor to the start of the other. This could be seen as a capacitor, two plates shorted on ends opposite to the connections of the external source current. The problem I saw many years ago when testing this coil was that the facts concerning it were fairly polarized. Some said it was only a coil while others said no it is both a coil and a capacitor and maybe any variation inbetween. However after many experiments it became apparent that it can be either or not and that the line between them becomes so blurred one cannot tell the difference.
AC

Those who said it was only a coil as well as those who said it is both a coil and a capacitor should study electronics instead of oversimplifying, at the price of the falseness, a circuit for it to fit their poor knowledge. There is a line along which a parallel capacity and a series inductance are distributed. When this double-wires line is wound as a coil, there are additionnal inductances and capacities, connected in a way different from the others. An equivalent schematic can be drawn. This is perfectly modelizable, just a question of competence and work.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Exn
Quote
Those who said it was only a coil as well as those who said it is both a coil and a capacitor should study electronics instead of oversimplifying, at the price of the falseness, a circuit for it to fit their poor knowledge. There is a line along which a parallel capacity and a series inductance are distributed. When this double-wires line is wound as a coil, there are additionnal inductances and capacities, connected in a way different from the others. An equivalent schematic can be drawn. This is perfectly modelizable, just a question of competence and work.

Well if you had built and tested Tesla patent #512340 like myself you might understand what is possible a little better and if you would discard the faulty lumped sum element calculations I imagine you are overly preoccupied with then you might actually learn something. First I don't draw an equivalent schematic I build the damn thing then test it and it is my opinion that anyone who believes they can simply replace reality with a few calculations has issues they need to sort out. As well I know you would never ever do this but some people might simply model the coil by adding a parallel capacitance then assume it must be the same thing, I know you would never ever do this because that would be completely insane.

It may help to understand I do not use lumped sum calculations, never have, nor have I ever assumed anything is distributed uniformly anywhere because this is a crazy. Did I mention the 100 year old theory assuming contact electrification was uniform(which everyone believed) was recently proven to be completely false, hmm who would have thunk it. Well I thought this probably 20 years ago when studying electrodynamics and the very notion that everyone simply lumped everything together was absurd. You know people talk of science and observation and the precision of measurement and the clarity of thought and then .... well then they simply lump a bunch of oranges together and call it an apple.

To get back on track let's talk about a really simple concept, now if Tesla was using a quenched spark gap to fire his coil for electromagnets and the impulse produced VHF harmonics as I know it does then is it realistic to say that one of these VHF wavelengths might correspond to the wavelength of his conductors or a harmonic of it?. Well of course it is however we have a problem in that most people think Tesla was some eccentric from the backwoods who was simply blowing sparks across a gap to power some funny looking coils. They assumed he was just playin around and wasn't really as smart as us folks today because we have all these really cool textbooks and the internet stuff which makes us really smart. Well I'm sorry to burst your bubble but this is not the case and if you understood half of what Nikola Tesla did in this field of technology then you should consider yourself fortunate.

If you produce HF harmonics then you can throw your lumped sum theories out the window because they do not apply which should have been obvious from the start. Look at tesla's therapeutic patents, what does he say?, well Tesla states the HF generated forms nodes corresponding to the wavelength of the frequency generated. These nodes can be cm apart, m apart or any distance apart and a person can make a load connection at these nodes which can be anywhere in the circuit. Now let's go way the hell out on a limb, wild ass speculation, and say maybe if we had a couple of wires in close proximity wound as a coil then maybe HF nodes could be formed which might suggest that maybe there was high potentials at these nodes which might at some point be directly across from one another which kind of forms an electric field or non-distributed capacitance at that exact point. Now in Tesla's therapuetic patents he was making load connections in close proximity to one another on what constitutes a shorted conductor, the therapeutic patent is the hairpin circuit. So let's take that haipin circuit and stretch the damn thing out then wind it like patent#512340, hmm I wonder what might happen?. We know what will happen as it could not be any more freaking obvious to anyone that does not simply lump every damn thing together.
I am sorry for my language but I cannot begin to explain how frustrated I get when people who consider themselves as experts cannot seem to grasp even the most basic concepts. No offense but this is the easy part which I find about as difficult as tying my shoes and it gets very very complicated from this point on. One the nodes move with a variation in frequency, two so must the non-distributed electric field perpendicular to the wire, three the self-inductance forms it's own nodes which also couple and interact, four none of what I have mentioned is static or uniformly distributed in any way, shape or form.
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
...
I am sorry for my language but I cannot begin to explain how frustrated I get when people who consider themselves as experts cannot seem to grasp even the most basic concepts.
...

I don't know about what people your are talking, and the rest of your speech, for example about VHF, seems to me a pure speculation, not even a hypothesis.
In spite the hundreds of circuits that I have built in the past, antennae, coils, capacitors... using frequencies from audio to UHF, I have never seen the least anomaly but many strange results, explainable after analysis. Tesla patent #512340 is perfectly clear and understandable. It's an efficient way to make a resonant LC circuit by optimizing the natural capacity of the winding. If you don't think so, show us an experiment that doesn't obey Maxwell's equations and explain which measurements differ from the expected values. I'm interested in facts and quantified observations, not in gibberish or pseudo-scientific tales.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Exn
Quote
I don't know about what people your are talking, and the rest of your speech, for example about VHF, seems to me a pure speculation, not even a hypothesis.
In spite the hundreds of circuits that I have built in the past, antennae, coils, capacitors... using frequencies from audio to UHF, I have never seen the least anomaly but many strange results, explainable after analysis. Tesla patent #512340 is perfectly clear and understandable. It's an efficient way to make a resonant LC circuit by optimizing the natural capacity of the winding. If you don't think so, show us an experiment that doesn't obey Maxwell's equations and explain which measurements differ from the expected values. I'm interested in facts and quantified observations, not in gibberish or pseudo-scientific tales.

I guess that is the problem isn't it? as I have probably built thousands of circuits in my life many relating to HV/HF phenomena and I had never seen anything remotely close as you say until I built the circuits as the patents specify to exhibit these specific effects. As well you have confused the issue of the coil itself and the circuit which drives it and in this light I could just as well say the coil will do nothing if it's just sitting on my table doing nothing, you have simply stated the obvious nothing more. Have you read the patent?, what does Tesla state this coil can be used for?.

As well you make the false assumption that these effects do not agree with Maxwell's equations because you personally do not understand them, please do not insult the memory of Maxwell by thinking your lack of understanding must reflect on his great work. No rules have been broken in any way and as I said this should not be that difficult to understand as all of these effects are known in the art and they simply occur in a slightly different way.
To be honest this is really comical because I believe you have spoken of every single effect I have mentioned and you were in complete agreement with them however when I mention these effects can occur together you seem completely confused by them and imply your not understanding it must be a violation of Maxwells work.... Really?, wow.
How can I make this any more clear?, there is nothing out of the ordinary happening and this is really simple, no violations of anything, nothing happens that is not expected once you understand what is happening ---- read what I said again until you understand what I am saying, verify what I have said in the literature, then comment.


---------------------------
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
@ac
Maybe I misinterpreted what you said, it was not clear nor concise. I'm open to operational suggestions, not to old and useless stories and digressions around interpretations of Tesla's designs. So I invite you to continue the research about the magnetic field from displacement currents, which is the subject here. Tks.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Exn
Quote
Maybe I misinterpreted what you said, it was not clear nor concise. I'm open to operational suggestions, not to old and useless stories and digressions around interpretations of Tesla's designs. So I invite you to continue the research about the magnetic field from displacement currents, which is the subject here. Tks.

To be honest I think were on the same page but use different methods, I have always used electron flow notation and infinite element analysis exclusively which makes me the odd man out. Some might say this is an inductance and I say no because I have subdivided it into 1,000 pieces it is inductance(s), some might say this is a capacitance and I say no because it assumes uniform distribution it is capacitance(s). So it depends on what degree one is willing to go to understand something, I like to go all the way.
Some people see things at the 50ms time division while I'm thinking it in the sub-nanosecond range ;).


---------------------------
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
I think it would save us some effort if we look back at what experiment already done.  It came across my mine that the hair pin circuit may had some of what we looking for.

http://www.tfcbooks.com/images/lectures/1893-02-24/04-183.gif





The first left picture is normal: more voltage closer to the terminals.  The middle picture is also normal: more current pass through the top lamp makes it brighter.  The third one is not normal:  More current pass through the top but the lowest lamp get brighter.  How come? 


   
Group: Guest
...
The third one is not normal:  More current pass through the top but the lowest lamp get brighter.  How come?  


The third one is normal if the line length is about a half-wave.



("Maximum E"/"Zero E" is between the two lines, "Maximum I"/"Zero I" is along each line)

   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
These are called Lecher lines and are well known in the art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecher_lines

Thank you ex, for clearly showing how they operate, there is no mystery here.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
Lecher line could be an explanation.  However, I tend to agree with Tesla that it's not frequency dependent.  It's the rate of change (cap charge/discharge) that causing this effect. 

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1893-02-24.htm

"...These results, as I have pointed out previously, should not be considered to be due exactly to frequency but rather to the time rate of change which may be great, even with low frequencies.  A great many other results of the same kind, equally interesting, especially to those who are only used to manipulate steady currents, may be obtained and they afford precious clues in investigating the nature of electric currents..."
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@All

Woo that was a close one and I knew it was because I broke out in a cold sweat and my thighs started chafing which is ... well you know a sign. I started thinking about the hairpin circuit which is just like Tesla's therapeutic circuit and I wondered what might happen if we stretched the darn thing out and wound it like a coil for electromagnets. Could nodes of maximum and minimum potential occur perpendicular to one another to form a capacitor almost anywhere? and my mind was racing and wondering ... there was a great deal of wondering going on.
Thank god Exn stepped in and defined the phenomena because it is a well know fact that once something is defined let alone a term, I say a term, to define it then we can just ignore it because all is known. As well Ion confirmed this fact by saying there is no mystery here and that was a great relief and as if a great euphoric calm swept over me.
I'm really happy I don't have to think anymore, thinking is hard, and it is a well known fact that hard things are bad. Woot you guys saved the day and I am sure I will sleep like a baby knowing you are here and everything is as it should be.


---------------------------
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: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
From AC:
Quote
Could nodes of maximum and minimum potential occur perpendicular to one another to form a capacitor almost anywhere? and my mind was racing and wondering ... there was a great deal of wondering going on.

Maybe, but not almost everywhere.

Stay tuned for more mystery.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
From AC:
Quote
Could nodes of maximum and minimum potential occur perpendicular to one another to form a capacitor almost anywhere? and my mind was racing and wondering ... there was a great deal of wondering going on

Maybe, but not almost everywhere.

Stay tuned for more mystery.

you need two conductors perpendicular to the min max nodes if intercepting a longitudinal electric wave

I think a high-K dielectric helps but I never had one available
   
Group: Guest
Lecher line could be an explanation.  However, I tend to agree with Tesla that it's not frequency dependent.
...

The experiment proves that it's frequency dependent. When you multiply the frequency by 2, you must shorten the line length by 2 to obtain the same effect.
Why to deny the facts?
And since Newton modelized the fall of an apple and the motion of the planets with the same law, it is well understood that there is no need for a special theory about any particular phenomenon when it is explained by a more general theory.

Quote
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1893-02-24.htm

"...These results, as I have pointed out previously, should not be considered to be due exactly to frequency but rather to the time rate of change which may be great, even with low frequencies.  A great many other results of the same kind, equally interesting, especially to those who are only used to manipulate steady currents, may be obtained and they afford precious clues in investigating the nature of electric currents..."

For a sine signal at any frequency, the time rate of change is the derivative of the sine, i.e. a cosine which is also a sine whith a different phase. And any signal is a sum of sine signals, each of them being independant of the others when propagating along a line because the medium is linear.

   
Group: Guest
The experiment proves that it's frequency dependent. When you multiply the frequency by 2, you must shorten the line length by 2 to obtain the same effect.
Why to deny the facts?
And since Newton modelized the fall of an apple and the motion of the planets with the same law, it is well understood that there is no need for a special theory about any particular phenomenon when it is explained by a more general theory.

For a sine signal at any frequency, the time rate of change is the derivative of the sine, i.e. a cosine which is also a sine whith a different phase. And any signal is a sum of sine signals, each of them being independant of the others when propagating along a line because the medium is linear.



You may be right.  I'm just looking at this vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDWF50fUoYY

When he adjust the light near top position, it dimmed.  Looks like he has reach two same node?  Then he slide the light down lengths greater.  I do not see the bulb dim again.  The more he slide down the brighter it gets. 

For sine and cosine, my point is deriving energy from the sine is one thing.  Deriving energy from its rate of change, the cosine, could be another thing? 

   
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-26, 16:32:53