OK now that we have all this like/dislike business out of the way, can we continue on CT, if it's not asking too much.
So maybe I can point in one specific direction that is coil pulsing by DC versus coil driving by AC (not @AC - hehehe).
The question is, can you define the exact differences between DC and AC pulsing of a coil. Start by defining what DC and AC potentials are, how they work, and how they exhibit different effects when applied to a primary coil of a transformer.
This is critical because this one simple method has been overblown to Saturn and back. This is critical because it will help explain why Tesla realized at the time that DC was not overly suitable for electric motors and transformers. This is critical because in those days when all there was in existence was DC, and, someone named Tesla saw it fit to think OOTB and go against the total mindset of the times, to be ridiculed by his own teachers saying such a thing is "impossible", to be flat out denied by Mr. DC himself, regardless, this one man persevered and single handedly changed the world.
He did in fact change the world, but what is the real impact of DC compared to AC? What is DC? What is AC? REALLY?
The argument that DC is not suitable for use in motors and transformers is in my opinion unjustified. I am of the opinion that since we have no real conception of how to work with the forces independent of one another, and yet still under the influence of one another, we cannot setup conditions which result in reduced to loss-less operation. For a definition of the fundamental difference we need not look to each others opinions, we can open a book and inform ourselves of the accepted fundamental differences. As your question is connected to Tesla, we will be hard pressed to find a suitable answer in the textbooks. The question should be rephrased so that the potential answer can be related to Tesla's perspective, as it was presented in his patent and lectures. @Erfinder mentioned something in his Patent thread, but it does not go deep enough.
In my own defense, until you experience my world through my eyes, you are not justified in saying how deep a comment or statement I make is or isn't. Please don't take offense to this, I do not mean to offend you in any way. The reason I am playing this game of tell me first is because in such discussions we absolutely need someone from the EE standpoint to provide the traditional answer so we can then build up a contrasting dialog. You can answer this question in one sentence, or you can take 1 page to answer it, it all depends on how deep you want to go. I am not asking you or implying to you that you will become the spokesperson for Standard EE. You are simply a reference source.
If you are looking for an EE perspective then you will need to invite an EE to the discussion. Like you I read the books, studied the laws, and find that they have their place. I do not challenge the laws, but on the same note, I have learned that it is not beneficial to me in the long run to limit myself by them either. Let's take AC for example, 110 VAC applied to a transformer primary DOES WHAT to make the changes inside the primary that can be conveyed to the secondary. We are working with these coils, DC, AC, pulsed, but what does it really do inside our coils. This we do all day long, pulse, but what does it mean for the coil? So for AC, you have a hot lead and a neutral lead. You connect them to your primary so explain to us what exactly happens in the primary.
This ONE effect is the prime subject that everyone has to be 1000% proficient in realizing what is going on in our coils, because when we go about winding coils, choosing ready made coils, pulsing coils, looking for "field collapse", talking about BEMF/CEMF, FEMF (my term only - SC related), flyback, designing new coil topologies and all these subsets of the pulsing act are WHAT in real physical terms.
You see, someone far far away creates a generator system that uses falling water, that turns a turbine, that turns a rotor inside a stator, that produces electricity, that is fed to your house for you to use in your experiments. All that part of the process is 100% physical activity and 100% of your end of the experiment is also physical activity. Physical activities produce physical results, not etheric results. Your physical results may be as simple as using the output of your experimental device to turn a fan, which is a physical result.
Not really sure how to contribute to what you are asking here. Like in Teslas' days where everyone was happy go lucky and totally intellectually satisfied with the DC world of The Great Edison, someone came up and started questioning the norm. Those questions led to some very critical thinking that just happened to change the world. Does not take much but it does require EFFORT and in Teslas' case, he took it to the limits. But I don't even think Tesla knew the true answers for the above, or, if he did, he never published anything that went into it deep enough because he realized academia was going in a totally different direction but since their direction would never change Teslas' direction, he must have rationalized that he is better spending his time on the real devices and not put any time on the theoretical rationalizations of the then academia. Academia of the day took his invention and ran with it, gave it some empirical data points then set some basic AC formulas and from there, we are here today with the same half empty book of electrical reality. The most extraordinary phenomena of physical activity, of physical atomic attributes that produce the greatest forces humanity has ever had the pleasure of utilizing to change our state of existence for the better, and, after 150 years, we still have the same reason for all this change being relegated to invisible fields, flux, and magnetism. All that reality we witness everyday is simply reasoned out to be the result of a total mysterious and unprovable entity that we will never see, touch or feel. Where have you ever read Tesla discussing the merits of the electron. Tesla was a realist, he called his electricity "potential". He did not invent the word electron that led to the word electricity. if it was up to Tesla, he would have invented the word "Potentiatron" instead of "electron" and he would have responsibly designated it as being a "transitory" nomenclature "until man found out what the potential really was". But no, the academia could never accept such a conditional form of knowledge. It has to be the electron and it has to be electricity and it has to be caused by flux and it has to originate from magnetism. That is the base line of Standard academia since 150 years. Deviate from that and you will be stepping on some pretty high placed toes.
Some may think this question is so elementary that all that is required is a simple 1st Grade explanation, but let's not play that game. Let's go to the other extreme. Give me your explanations based on it being the most advanced, most knowledgeable most highest level of learning possible to provide the answer. No hyperphysics.com links required.
wattsup
Again I am not sure how to aid here, my journey begins and ends with concrete questions, we have to remember how to ask real questions and ask them. The proper questions come when you have an idea of what it is that you are looking for. Ultimately I am looking for the energy that we are told exists in locations which are too small for us to do anything with. Taking responsibility for my ignorance, and here I am not referring to academic ignorance, I began asking questions that only experiment and meditation could answer and found that the energy that I am looking for is present in what could be considered as unlimited amounts in the most simple of apparatus, locked in the gray zone found between the two energy storage mechanisms of inductance and capacitance for better or worse. Regards
|
Author
Topic: Tesla Patent 464666 (Read 14542 times)
