Free Solid State/mechanical energy

[barbosi]

If you follow my previous posts, I explained, Tesla is using mainly BEMF (much powerful) instead of EMF. Thus he obtains a higher potential in secondary. The mechanism is suction instead of compression.

[Charlie_V]

I don't see how Back EMF would be any stronger than EMF.  At most they would be equal to each other.  In standard devices, the EMF is typically stronger than the Back EMF.  If you make the load of a normal generator very large, then there is a very large Back EMF.  This is why its harder to rotate a heavily loaded generator - which is how those bicycle machines at the gym work.  Yet, this large Back Torque (Back EMF) is still not as big as the original EMF. 

I'll have to think about how this setup makes the Back EMF larger than the input.  Yes if you could do this then maybe you would get unity?  But as of this minute, I don't see how the Back EMF is.... oh wait....  Hey, if the current in the secondary circuit is much larger than the current in the primary (which it would be), then the back EMF from the secondary would be much larger.

Hrmm, that still wouldn't explain it because in a standard transformer, the primary side can have 120V with 2A and the secondary can have 2V with 120A.  The Back EMF in the secondary, in this case, would be larger than the primary.  But wait a sec, in this standard example, the windings on the primary would be much larger than the windings of the secondary.  In Tesla's setup its the reverse!  The Tesla secondary has many more windings AND has much larger current flowing in it.  Maybe this is the key.  I'll have to think about it some more. 

[midnight_blue]

bocas, I believe that is correct. 2 fields.

Lets see if I have this right.

emf = compression, implosion, paramagnetic, positive, centripetal
bemf = expansion, explosion, diamagnetic, negative discharge, centrifugal

If not correct or am missing any let me know.

The length of the secondary coil B or of each secondary coil when two are used, as in Fig. 3, is, as before stated, approximately one-quarter of the wave length of the electrical disturbance in the secondary circuit, based on the velocity of propagation of the electrical disturbance through the coil itself and the circuit with which it is designed to be used ? that is to say, if the rate at which a current traverses the circuit, including the coil, be one hundred and eighty-five thousand miles per second, then a frequency of nine hundred and twenty-five per second would maintain nine hundred and twenty-five stationary waves in a circuit one hundred and eighty-five thousand miles long, and each wave length would be two hundred miles in length.  For such a frequency I should use a secondary fifty miles in length, so that at one terminal the potential would be zero and at the other maximum.

One thing bothers me about this and perhaps it is because I cannot imagine 50 miles of wire and my focus is on that. Could some kind sole post a more realistic example. Thanks in advance.

ps. Charlie good to see you back.

Regards,
Mark

[bocas]

Midnight_blue:
  Also, emf = electricity
         bemf=magnetism

[Maximumgravity1]

Could some kind sole post a more realistic example.

You can increase the frequency by multiples of 925 and keep the basic formula within proportion.  Doubling the frequncy to 1850, only requires 25  miles of secondary.  However, keeping the circuit proportionate on a realistic scale is a good begining.  Not too many circuits are 185,000 miles long.  This is about 7 times around the earth.  Coincidentally, this is almost the equivalent of increasing the frequency 27 times.  I think this is just illustrative of how the formula works.  However, in talking about it, it is sort of bizaare the scale that he used to illustrate his point.  It makes me wonder why he chose these numbers, and if there is some significance to scaling down the circuit length....hmmm..gonna have to play with some numbers now.

However, I think it is more illustrative of the point, that the speed of electricity can propegate through the circuit many times faster then the speed of light.  I believe he only used this approximation (185,000) to show the NEED to increase that speed through the circuit - or more importantly, what can be accomplished when that speed is increased.  Hmmmm....this also provides some interesting food for thought.