The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)

[BEP]

Force IS "action over distance".

Excellent correction of my statement! Perhaps I should have used the word potential instead. So according to the classic definition of force it no longer exists when movement stops or the distance no longer changes?
Yes, I know there is 'another variation' of force definition (many others). The problem I have with it all is there is always 'another variation' on the definition.

In my understanding there is no difference between "electric" (electrostatic) field and magnetic field (I gave some insights why before in some other posts).

My understanding is still different. Perhaps flawed. So then momentum and the associated mass are one in the same? Bad analogy, I know.
Since one can exist without the other (electric/magnetic) and without movement how can they be one in the same. Hopelessly tied together, yes but the same? It is a binding factor that makes it all one as a system(IMO).

Learning never stops. I appreciate the lesson

Rather than clogg this good thread I'll look you up where those other posts reside asap.

[Grumpy]

magnetic contains tempic and electric

electric contains tempic

just the way it works.

[pese]

@loner, pese, & all

I have a possible oscillator I just designed, based upon a Hartley oscillator, with feedback for a two CC TPU I would like some input on.

Paul Andrulis

Paul. the scematis are or.  it is not to show . that output coil , wiring to the diodebridge MUST be couplet in near of the oscillating coils.  Some mor help ... on mail.
Gustav Pese

[aleks]

Excellent correction of my statement! Perhaps I should have used the word potential instead. So according to the classic definition of force it no longer exists when movement stops or the distance no longer changes?

The true understanding of "force" is flawed throughout the physics. Force is a transient when it acts, and is potential field when it exists. It's like a DC voltage change. It implies a lot of things "behind the scene". In my understanding when two bodies or potential fields collide or come close, they create a "third" field which I call a "transient potential", or space DC potential (DC acoustic wave). So, when we are talking about applied force in motion we should keep in mind that two bodies repel from each other on the impact due to a "transient potential" appearing. In the case of macro rubber bodies this potential is most obviously represented by potential force of deformation. In the case of electrons or atoms things become much more complex as I think it's pretty shaky to assume electron's field can also deform. In my opinion, upon collision of electrons a virtual "transient" particle is born, which forms a system with the nearby electrons. And this is where "the overunity" may be hidden assuming this "transient" particle is actually appearing out of nowhere - out of ether or whatever. Without such particle I find it hard to visualize electron kinetics. So, while this particle may work as a "repellant" of electrons during direct electron-electron impact, this particle may act upon all nearby matter and electrons if the velocity of impact is high. However, to gain energy out of this transient particle, a special energy flow arrangement (symmetry) should be used so that this transient particle mainly accelerates nearby particles. In average, this transient particle will both accelerate and decelerate nearby particles yielding no net energy gain. This virtual particle may appear as attracting (another sign) in cases when two electrons pass near each other without collision - this is what may be happening in "Casimir effect", not understood well to date (mainly described via quantum mechanics ZPF, and may have its flaws). I think if such attracting particle never appeared, electrons would accelerate each other beyond sanity.

On the "force being action over distance" notion, I should add that this does not contradict electrical and acoustical facts, because both electricity and acoustics are driven by kinetic statistics and so speed of forceful particle interactions is limited. Indeed, while an impact of two electrons is heard by all universe, this does not change potential fields at a distance much due to 1/x^2 potential field intensity law and so kinetic "short-distance" interactions prevail making long-distance interactions minor and basically insignificant. Beside that electrical flow is mainly carried by EM waves which have a limiting speed of propagation C.

My understanding is still different. Perhaps flawed. So then momentum and the associated mass are one in the same? Bad analogy, I know.
Since one can exist without the other (electric/magnetic) and without movement how can they be one in the same. Hopelessly tied together, yes but the same? It is a binding factor that makes it all one as a system(IMO).

In my opinion, "momentum" cannot exist with particles or bodies having no internal structure. So, "momentum" is inherently an "assymetry" of substructural arrangement. For example, if we assume electron to be composed of 3 smaller subparticles, the momentum of electron can be "stored" as an assymetry between these subparticles (3 should be enough to store both linear and angular momentum). In this case, when subparticles are perfectly symmetrical, we may say that electron has no momentum relative to similar symmetrical electrons: relative to other non-symmetrical electrons it will have momentum, of course.

Electric/magnetic is a quadrature of the changing density of "charge" - note that DC current's magnetic and electric field intensity changes together.

I myself can hardly grasp this concept, but there is no factual or mathematical contradiction, because when one makes a Fourier transform, each point of our 3D space can be represented as a complex number. So, it's pretty safe to assume that we live in a complex-numbered 3D space whose future state solely depends on its current state.

Learning never stops. I appreciate the lesson
Rather than clogg this good thread I'll look you up where those other posts reside asap.

Thanks for the discussion, and I'm not a teacher - just trying to find a common denominator for my own understanding.

[pauldude000]

@all

A note about using a diode bridge to recitify high frequency. I told Pese I would point this out to everyone.

For a bridge rectifier to work, it must be able to clamp the signals at speeds in ns FASTER than the frequency wave reversal time. Otherwise, it will not rectify anything. For instance, a 25ns clamp time diode will not work for any frequency with half wave >= 25 ns.

High frequency diodes are a must, and an "off the shelf" diode bridge will be worthless.

Paul Andrulis