Welcome,
The first two pages of the talk are up on erfinders website www.Forgotten-Genius.com
You can find them under the Armagdn03 tab at the top, or by clicking here http://www.forgotten-genius.com/documents/pg__2_2.html
There will be a discussion bord on the page as well. Anybody wanting serious discussion can contact Erfinder or myself at forum@forgotten-genius.com
Space is limited so take advantage! Unfortunately there is not enough space for everyone. I will be availible for serious questions on this forum as well, or PM me.
A third section to the presentation on Erfinders website has been posted.
This will show how to keep ressonant conditions through out a device, allowing propagating energy through the engineering of induction oscillating 90 degrees out of phase with conduction. This is what people mean when they say we should be enginnering around induction.
This concept is the father-mother of many free energy devices.
Hi armagdn03,
I applaud your efforts to post the information onto the Web, just as you said in the Tesla Project post, and looking forward to more...
Thank you.
@armagdn03,
Thankyou very, very much for your posting of this information,
This is precisely the information I happened to be looking for at the moment, Wireless transfer of energy through resonant LC coupling. Greatly appreciated!
-rha8b
Here is an excellent tool for preliminary calculations, if you are wanting to play around a bit.
http://www.pronine.ca/lcf.htm
If you start playing with series LC circuits the ressonant point will be the same, but the impedance function on this calc will not give an acurate awnser.
Quote from: armagdn03 on October 09, 2008, 05:56:44 PM
Here is an excellent tool for preliminary calculations, if you are wanting to play around a bit.
http://www.pronine.ca/lcf.htm
If you start playing with series LC circuits the ressonant point will be the same, but the impedance function on this calc will not give an acurate awnser.
With your "inductance-problem" i ca help you
(any "radio-amateur" know this (that have constructed his old tube equipments)
Capacicit Inductance frequency , all with "one view" print it out (wallpaper)
http://www.beis.de/Elektronik/Nomograms/RF-WP/RF-Wallpaper.html
The RF-Wallpaper
(Impedance Chart)
an R - L - C - f Nomogram as a PDF-File
This nomogram provides a quick graphical way to evaluate relations between R, L, C and f according to the corresponding formulas.
Its use should be obvious: Just look where the lines of the two given values (components or frequency) cross each other and follow the line of the value you're looking for.
I provided two nomograms: One is for the overview of several decades and with a second one with only one decade results of higher precision may be evaluated.
Should you often have to deal with the evaluation of passive components I recommend to hang these nomograms on the wall, just like I've done since my first steps in electronics. You will very soon get used to use them over and over and won't want to miss them. They are really convenient.
Gustav Pese
Pese
Love ya man, thanks for the great input. I plan on going through all of the relationships with respect to band width, quality factor etc in design and evaluation of such tank circuits when the time comes to start optimising things. This will undoubtedly be a great tool for people to use.
To all who have not been privy to this info:
I want to emphisize that what needs to grasped is the concept, dont worry about perfecting things and small details till you see the big picture.
Im not gonna out inductances, or capacitances, or part numbers or wire guages ha ha ha, im sure you all have plenty of stuff laying around if you want to tinker. I just think its way better to learn by doing things yourself and figuring it out with out precise in structions, then all that you see are details. I still contend though that you dont have to build to larn. Build once you know every aspect of the thing will work. Otherwise just build little tests to test concepts such as I am doing here. The next installment will be up tomorow when Erfinder can put it up.
Thanks again Pese, that will be very useful.
The power Tesla is referring to in almost all of those quotes on "http://www.forgotten-genius.com/" is referring to what I call Oscillation power (or Reactive power). Here is an example of what he means:
You have a capacitor of 0.2 micro farads and a resistor of 20,000 ohms. Lets assume we use a 10,000V source that can supply 1amps. We have a spark gap so that when the capacitor reaches 10kV the spark gap discharges into a 4 micro henry inductor of very low resistance (i.e. large wires). So, the capacitor and inductor make a tank circuit when the spark gap discharges.
The time it requires to charge the capacitor up to 10,000V is roughly 0.004 seconds. Since the capacitor is discharged so rapidly when the gap fires, we can neglect the fall time of the capacitor. This means that we can fire the gap at about 250 times in one second (250Hz). How much energy is in the capacitor when it dumps into the inductor?
E=0.5*C*V^2
So the there are 10 Joules in the capacitor when it fires. We are inputting P=10/0.004, about 2500 Watts of power into the tank circuit. HOWEVER! What is the power in the tank circuit - it is NOT 2500 Watts! The resonant circuit oscillates at 177,940 Hz [ f = 1/(2*PI*sqrt(LC)) ]. The time constant of the tank circuit is 5.6 micro seconds!!! The energy in the capacitor is still 10 Joules, so the power of the oscillation is 10/5.6micro which is equal to about 1.779 Mega Watts (1,779,406 Watts).
Do we have over unity? No we don't, that is because that 1.8 mega watts of power is all reactive. This means that the 10 Joules of energy is only tossed back and forth between the capacitor and inductor 177,940 times in one second but the amount of energy in the system does not change (just 10 Watts and decreasing due to resistance).
How does this apply to anything useful? Well, it allows us to take an oscillation and passively intensify it. We can then use a resonant cavity (which is a device that increases the amplitude of a wave by bouncing smaller waves of the same frequency back and forth within it self many times, each small wave adds to the others before it dies giving you an over all wave of the same frequency but large amplitude) to amplify the oscillations and distribute them over greater distances.
That's what a Tesla coil is suppose to do - not make sparks. You transfer a slow vibration (DC or low frequency AC) to a very intense high frequency oscillation with a tank circuit. The field of the primary inductor magnetically couples to the secondary (so the energy - 10 Joules using our last example - is input through the magnetic field). The secondary acts as a resonant cavity for those waves (hence the quarter wavelength - just like a guitar or flute, all it does is amplify the vigorous oscillations of the tank circuit). Whatever you connect to the ground terminal of the secondary, it will also begin to oscillate at whatever frequency the primary tank circuit is at. Those vibrations can go for a very long distances assuming the ground plane will accept those frequencies. The earth for example likes low frequencies, harmonics of 7.5Hz. Telsa said not to use below 30kHz when using the earth. You can definitely use higher than 30kHz but the oscillations will not traverse the planet, they will drop off as you get away from the transmitter.
Those oscillations I'm talking about travel through the ground plane (whether its the earth or a wire), they do not travel in the air. You can collect them using another Tesla coil whose secondary matches the same frequency as the oscillations. Basically you can transmit that 10 Joules of energy from one Tesla coil to the other using the ground connection - disconnect the ground and you stop transmission like cutting a wire. However, if the two coils are close enough they can magnetically couple like transformers, which can go pretty far but not nearly the distance that the ground oscillations will cover.
Unfortunately Tesla tried to tell people this, and no one understood it and they ignored him. They still ignore it when he has patents and papers which tell you EXACTLY how to do it. Read his Colorado spring notes - it even gives the capacitance, inductance, and voltages he used, shows pictures of lighting up bulbs in a field 100s of feet away (well past the magnetic field coupling range) and still no one uses this technique.
Whats best is that they (Tesla coils) can pick up outside oscillation very well. Mine is 15 feet tall and in the building its in it produces 15Volts at 60 Hertz and its resonance is 240kHz! That would make it the 4000 Harmonic but 15 Volts for the 4000 Harmonic is amazing, just think if it was tuned to 60 Hertz haha! I could draw all the power I wanted from the Grid!!! But this opens the door to new ways of energy harvesting that a solar panel could never do.
Once I can get a source that has enough UHMF, I plan to power a 25W light bulb from hopefully greater than 30 Meters, which should beat MIT's pathetic 3 foot display. I think it can go farther than 30 meters but it really depends on the frequency and how much voltage my setup can withstand - distance for a ground oscillation at 250kHz is very dependent on the voltage and it should die off pretty quick because 250kHz is way too high for the earth - time will tell I suppose.
Quote from: Charlie_V on October 09, 2008, 07:45:50 PM
The energy in the capacitor is still 10 Joules, so the power of the oscillation is 10/5.6micro which is equal to about 1.779 Mega Watts (1,779,406 Watts).
Do we have over unity? No we don't, that is because that 1.8 mega watts of power is all reactive. This means that the 10 Joules of energy is only tossed back and forth between the capacitor and inductor 177,940 times in one second but the amount of energy in the system does not change (just 10 Watts and decreasing due to resistance).
Thank you for sharing your example. I would however like to comment specifically on this statement. This is the very problem that people have suposedly been trying to solve for quite some time.
The problem is this. That 10 joules is indeed just tossed back and forth over and over, decaying with time due to system losses. If you try and tap that circuit. i.e inductively, directly, however, you will just use that 10 joules, and you will have just that 10 joules or less due to decay. but...
What if that 10 joules of work can be used to do work, over and over while not being depleated???
That right there is the entire point of the inductive transfer into a working circuit of resonant quality.
For example, a person could create a motor that is based on an LC, the rotoverter is a good example, terribly constructed for its perpose, but thats because they are taking existing equipment built for one thing, and using it for another application. They are tuning the load, to the source. If you have a room full of tuning forks, you are multiplying your power through transfer from one system of resonance to another. Do you think that the adition 100 forks makes the origional die 100 times quicker? this doesnt match what you would intuitively think, or what you would find experimentally. The tuning forks can take on different forms, as long as they are tuned to one another.
Someone asked a while back on a thread here if turning on a huge ammountof radios would depleat the antenas power, great question, it applies.
one example:
http://www.altenergy-pro.com/device02.htm
I do not know this man, but I know this concept would work, if you consider each of the 3 receiving coils as tuned loads, you will not deplete the source.
ah....now we walk into the world of transducers and how to sever ties to the source.
that 10 joules can indirectly do work over and over each time it is transfered back and forth, as long as the source doesnt depleat the oscillations. What do you think our friend Doc Stiffler is trying to do, again it could be done better but the concepts are the same, and this will be shown.....
The question has never been how much energy does an LC have....it has been, What do we do with its oscillations.
Hi armagdn03,
thank you for starting this very important Introduction to Resonance topic.
I have known for a while now that this is an area I need to better understand to further circuit effect quality. So you have my full interest and support to your topic.
I applaud your effort and am very grateful for you to take time to share your knowledge.
Luc
@Charlie_V
"Telsa said not to use below 30kHz when using the earth. "
Did you mean below or did you mean to say above.
When the Primary gets hit and transfers to the secondary, there is also the primary flyback that has to be considered and I am wondering if there is a way to calculate this in advance. What I mean is if the secondary winds up with 10 joules, the Primary would have spent the 10 joules less the flyback.
@armagdn03
"ah....now we walk into the world of transducers and how to sever ties to the source. "
I am right up to this point. lol
How to re-condense the explosion or expansion. Hmmm.
The only way I have figured so far is by using multiple capacitors that all charge up to a maximum voltage, then discharge the capacitors in multiple individual circuits. Then recombine those outputs. So one LC circuit could run 10 LC circuits that run 100 LC circuits then output. The first LC would have its resonance, then the 10 LCs would be constructed for the resonance of the output of the first LC, then the 100 LCs would be constructed for the resonance of the output of the 10 LCs.
The thing is trying to do this through trial and error could take decades. Unless if there is a way to calculate the components, turns rations, etc., Hmmmm again.
But here is a concrete question.
Let's say a FG only had one frequency that was close to the resonance frequency required but not right on it. Is there a way to add a potentiometer to the LC circuit to then tune the circuit to the one frequency in order to achieve resonance.
Quote from: wattsup on October 10, 2008, 12:38:00 AM
@Charlie_V
"Telsa said not to use below 30kHz when using the earth. "
Did you mean below or did you mean to say above.
When the Primary gets hit and transfers to the secondary, there is also the primary flyback that has to be considered and I am wondering if there is a way to calculate this in advance. What I mean is if the secondary winds up with 10 joules, the Primary would have spent the 10 joules less the flyback.
@armagdn03
"ah....now we walk into the world of transducers and how to sever ties to the source. "
I am right up to this point. lol
How to re-condense the explosion or expansion. Hmmm.
The only way I have figured so far is by using multiple capacitors that all charge up to a maximum voltage, then discharge the capacitors in multiple individual circuits. Then recombine those outputs. So one LC circuit could run 10 LC circuits that run 100 LC circuits then output. The first LC would have its resonance, then the 10 LCs would be constructed for the resonance of the output of the first LC, then the 100 LCs would be constructed for the resonance of the output of the 10 LCs.
The thing is trying to do this through trial and error could take decades. Unless if there is a way to calculate the components, turns rations, etc., Hmmmm again.
But here is a concrete question.
Let's say a FG only had one frequency that was close to the resonance frequency required but not right on it. Is there a way to add a potentiometer to the LC circuit to then tune the circuit to the one frequency in order to achieve resonance.
You are making this to comlicated, its simpler than you think,
L and C dictate the resonant frequency, not R. A pot will vary resistance, and so will have no effect other than to make the waves decay more quickly.
An LC is a natural way to condense expansion, followed by expanding contraction, over and over. Think in cycles, the world is composed of them.
possibly, this knowledge and exoerience, can help ...
http://glafreniere.com/matter.htm
Pese
Quote@Charlie_V
"Telsa said not to use below 30kHz when using the earth. "
Did you mean below or did you mean to say above.
Oops yea I meant that you shouldn't use waves
above 30kHz for the earth - sorry. Again that is for a complete global transmission.
QuoteFor example, a person could create a motor that is based on an LC, the rotoverter is a good example, terribly constructed for its perpose, but thats because they are taking existing equipment built for one thing, and using it for another application. They are tuning the load, to the source. If you have a room full of tuning forks, you are multiplying your power through transfer from one system of resonance to another. Do you think that the adition 100 forks makes the origional die 100 times quicker? this doesnt match what you would intuitively think, or what you would find experimentally. The tuning forks can take on different forms, as long as they are tuned to one another.
Someone asked a while back on a thread here if turning on a huge ammountof radios would depleat the antenas power, great question, it applies.
One antenna will NEVER have the same amount of energy in it as what the radio transmitter is producing. If you summed over all of them, and you had an infinite amount 360 degrees to catch all the RADIATED energy, then the sum of all of them would equal the energy the transmitter RADIATED out. A tesla coil DOES NOT RADIATE the energy into space. The energy from the transmitting tesla coil will be divided by number of receiving Tesla coils that are placed UNDER LOAD.
In the case of your tuning forks, it depends on how you are driving them. If you RADIATE the sound across the room, then it will be the exact same thing as the radio antenna. The energy from the transducer is placed into the air and that energy spreads to every point, getting weaker due to its spread the farther distance you go. 100 million tuning forks placed around that transducer will collect a small amount of the energy emitted based on its distance from the transducer, but not one could ever have the same amount of energy that the transducer put out.
HOWEVER, if you pass the sound waves through a table, they will not be radiated into the air. They will reflect back and forth and stay within the boundaries of the table. Now if you connect your 100 million tuning forks to the table, they will resonant each from the table oscillations - all with the same amplitude. However, if you connect a load to each of those tuning forks, it will damp the table oscillations and the transducer will have to supply more energy to keep things going. The resonant frequency of the table comes into play too since certain frequencies too high or too low might attenuate the sound waves traveling through it and make them not go as far - your hoping the table is relatively broad band if you want to use a wide range of frequencies. This is how a Tesla coil is suppose to work. If you have 1 receiver, that receiver can collect 100% of the energy that the transmitter sends out, regardless of distance. You will not find that the case for a radio transmitter - since the energy is radiated away into space.
How you could power stuff with just the oscillations of each tuning fork without placing them under load I have no idea. But you seem to allude to the possibility. My ears are open, you can tell me any time.
Thanks everybody for your support and kind words
Thanks CharlieV for asking these questions! they are very important,
Quote from: Charlie_V on October 10, 2008, 12:21:24 PM
Now if you connect your 100 million tuning forks to the table, they will resonant each from the table oscillations - all with the same amplitude. However, if you connect a load to each of those tuning forks, it will damp the table oscillations and the transducer will have to supply more energy to keep things going.
Refering specifically to the quote above. What seemse to have slipped by most people is, you DON'T connect a load to the tuning forks on the table in the example. You dont connect a load, because they ARE the load.
Dealing only with the principles I have covered so far, I have shown how to make a load that does not depleat the source, with the exception of needing to cover ohmic and other losses. If you were to connect any load other than one that acts exacly like and LC resonating at a 1:1 frequency, you will depleat the oscillations of the LC and yes, you would have to supply extra energy. But if the load itself is a mirror of the source, you are golden. You dont need it to look the same, or do the same thing in terms of output, but you do need them to behave ellectrically the same with respect to frequency. You cant just rectify these currents, or hook em up to a battery, or plug in your tv, because all of these devices will destroy the condition of resonance you worked to hard to establish in the first place.
The point is to make sure your devices in all aspects foster the correct conditions to propagate standing electrical waves through the use of interchange between inductance and capacitance. If any part of the device fails to gracefully resonate with every other part, then you will have a tough time.
Also you are correct about the energy consumption of radio applications. These however are designed to radiate energy away from itself. A correct application of this concept would minimise loss, not try to exagerate it.
@Wattsup
Sorry I missed your last question about tuning and the pot. If you want to tune because the sig gen doesnt hit the mark perfectly refer to this patent
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat0568178.pdf (http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat0568178.pdf)
In this patent Tesla shows how to vary capacitance and inductance. Tese techniques are directly aplicable to what has been shown in the presentation and will allow fine tuning. Remember, the euqation for resonant frequency is dependant on capacitance and inductance, so these are what we must vary.
There is something I'm missing. While all this stuff meets all common knowledge and I'm not going to argue about that, there are few formulas thought in schools that do not make any sense to me.
An example is here http://www.pronine.ca/lcf.htm and for your convenience I attach a screenshot.
So my trouble is to understand where is the impedance formula coming from?
And I'm sure it is pretty familiar to many.
Does anyone realises that the infinite impedance (at resonance) has the value of 31.6227... ohms? ??? >:( (see screenshot)
Maybe is just me sweeping under the rocks...
If I wanted to get 2 coils to resonate at alternated times and use the back emf of one to help energize the other.
How would I go about doing this?
Sort of a teeter toter effect.
I want to make a 2 cylinder electromagnetic piston engine.
To awnser Barbosi
In a perfect world, there would be no losses in the components. Perfect inductors, and perfect capacitors would give infinite impedance in parallel configuration, and zero impedance in series. The calculation given for impedance is a closer aproximation to real life where we do not have perfect loss-less systems. You can see from the equation which components to use to get higher or lower impedances.
To awnser AbbaRue
Sorry, im not here to speculate on how to make certain devices, if you think about why whats happening is happening, you will find that that is not directly possible.
Quote from: armagdn03 on October 10, 2008, 04:22:55 PM
The calculation given for impedance is a closer aproximation to real life where we do not have perfect loss-less systems.
Well this is a darn sloppy approximation. And the formula for impedance is flat out wrong if you pay attention to the parameters. While you may have for different values the same resonant frequency, the impedance varies like hell.
From the values on my screenshot you get frequency about 50kHz and Z abut 31 ohms/.
If you change to C=100uF and L=100nH you'll have the same frequency but Z=0.031 ohms :-\ (which in no way approximates infinite).
That was all my point and I see almost nowhere that familiar formula, which was also kind of useless.
And I'm pretty sure was at the base of transmission lines theory, matching impedance stuff, etc.
But is OK, I'm not going to hog the thread with a pervert formula. :-X
HA HA HA ;D
that rant cracked me up a bit,
I didnt actually check the acuracy of that formula, I cannot vouch for it. The one for finding resonant freq is correct though. But its true, you may have the same resonant freq with diferent sized caps and inductors, which will have different impedances. Impedance matching is important when optimising, for now though, this information is just meant to give the bigger picture, dont get bogged down with details. Find other calculators, find books, find articles, check formulas, go and learn!
And hey........dont just take one source and believe it! fact check! be a detective! I just like that calc because you could enter any 2 of 3 variables, didnt ever really use the impedance part, notice I didnt talk about calculating impedance....were not there yet.
The impedance the formula gives is what they call the characteristic impedance. It is correct but with respect to the objects at hand. The idea behind this is if you want to transmit power from one circuit to the other, you want their Zo (characteristic impedance) to match, and you get maximum real power transfer. The more the Zo of one circuit mismatches the other circuit, then the more energy will go back and forth between circuits - aka the more oscillations you will have.
As an example, if you could put a variable capacitor in parallel to your house's breaker box (where the power comes in from the pole) and start changing the capacitance, at some point your house's Zo will match perfectly with the Zo of the transmission line, but if you keep changing it, you can get it to a point where they are greatly mismatched and nothing in your house will turn on. But the standing waves on the transmission line won't last long because the power companies have instruments that watch for standing waves and kill them whenever they start.
With Tesla coils you want your primary and secondary circuit to be as greatly mismatched as possible. There are also tricks like using an extra coil to help reduce damping that occurs when the secondary is near the primary inductor. But all this is fine and dandy, I'm interested on how an oscillating load is useful? If it just oscillates there and doesn't power anything in your house, what is the use? Maybe I'm missing something?
Hi armagdn03,
I've been pulsing inductor for a while but always using square wave to trigger a transistor that pulses a DC source, since my Wavetek 234 has no real power output. On its own it can only light one LED at max output. I see that your signal generator is capable of lighting a 6 vdc flashlight bulb with sign wave. Can you or someone else please tell me what I have to do or get to be able to have a higher power output so I can do the same tests as you are doing.
Another thing I'm wondering about is, to achieve resonance in an inductor is it only possible to do it with a capacitor or is it possible to do it without one? I have noticed inductors without a capacitor have a certain frequency that the amplitude goes up. I have 2 air core inductors that at 1.64Mhz do this.
Thanks
Luc
Here's a page I liked that explains the impedance in relations to capacitors and inductors. I also like the two graphs of the resonance in relation to frequency and current at the bottom of the page, displaying the characteristics when LC are in series or parallel.
http://arts.ucsc.edu/EMS/Music/tech_background/Z/impedance.html
Also, regarding impedance, my understanding is that impedance is 0 at the resonance, not infinite as someone mentioned above. It has to be 0 because XL has to equal XC and in series circuit that happens when one goes to the other side of the = sign. In parallel circuit you are dividing by 0 (as XL = XC) so conditions are satisfied.
On that page right before the Transformer section it describes minimum current at resonance of parallel circuit due to two waves canceling out:
As the frequency rises, the inductor impedes, but the capacitor will take over. When the impedances of both match, you get no current flow. How is this possible?
It's because of the phase changes: the current through a capacitor is 90° ahead of the voltage, and the current through the inductor is 90° behind. When the circuit is in resonance, the two cancel out. In real circuits, series resistance tends to reduce the peaks. This is called damping, and the ratio of inductive reactance to resistance is known as Q (for quality factor).
@Charlie_V
You said that in Tesla coils, primary and secondary need to be mismatched as much as possible. Wouldn't that imply that the energy would be wasted in the primary trying to keep the oscillations going in the secondary which is out of tune?
QuoteAlso, regarding impedance, my understanding is that impedance is 0 at the resonance, not infinite as someone mentioned above. It has to be 0 because XL has to equal XC and in series circuit that happens when one goes to the other side of the = sign. In parallel circuit you are dividing by 0 (as XL = XC) so conditions are satisfied.
On that page right before the Transformer section it describes minimum current at resonance of parallel circuit due to two waves canceling out:
As the frequency rises, the inductor impedes, but the capacitor will take over. When the impedances of both match, you get no current flow. How is this possible?
It's because of the phase changes: the current through a capacitor is 90° ahead of the voltage, and the current through the inductor is 90° behind. When the circuit is in resonance, the two cancel out. In real circuits, series resistance tends to reduce the peaks. This is called damping, and the ratio of inductive reactance to resistance is known as Q (for quality factor).
I'm not sure I like this explanation. It is wrong about getting no current flow when the impedances match, current DOES flow - always. But there are two things going on here, the SELF inductance and capacitance make up the characteristic impedance (Zo) of a circuit. At resonance the self capacitance and the self inductance do cancel each other - current always flows regardless of resonance or not, but the circuit still has a characteristic impedance which is not zero. Basically a single circuit with an inductor and a capacitor will have a frequency (resonance) in which the current and voltage will be IN PHASE with each other, for all other frequencies the voltage and current will be OUT OF PHASE. When you have an IN PHASE case, you get maximum real power transfer through the circuit (since power is the voltage multiplied by current, when they are in phase you get the maximum value of the multiplication).
Characteristic impedance (Zo) is only useful when you are trying to link two circuits together. Because both circuits may share the same resonance, but REAL power will not be transmitted to the second circuit unless they both share the same characteristic impedance.
Lets take an example: we have a radio transmitter - circuit 1. And we have a power supply with "transmission line" aka the wires that you want to connect to the transmitter - this is circuit 2. Now the radio has a characteristic impedance (meaning it has a capacitance and inductance based on its makeup - all electrical bodies do, whether they are really a capacitor/inductor or just a cable, transistor, etc.) So the radio transmitter (circuit 1) has ONE frequency in which the current and voltage will be in phase, for all other frequencies it will be out of phase. Circuit 2 (the transmission line) also has one frequency that only allows the current/voltage inphase case. So in order to get the power from the power supply to the radio transmitter, you want both characteristic impedances to match Zo1 = Zo2. So lets assume we did that. Now with radio you want to "radiate" your power into the air (we'll call the air's impedance Zo3). This means you want to make all the space/universe around us your load. Well it turns out that space also has a characteristic impedance, this is 377 Ohms. So if you want to radiate as much energy into space as your power source can supply, you want to make sure that Zo1=Zo2=Zo3.
Now lets look at a Tesla coil for the reasons in the above threads. We again have two circuits, our primary, and our secondary. Each circuit has its own self capacitances and inductances. And each one leads us to the characteristic impedances (Zo1 for the primary and Zo2 for the secondary). Well, our purpose is the exact opposite to the radio transmitter above, instead of radiating our energy into space, we want to neutralize radiation and setup the strongest oscillations that we can - to send those oscillation through the ground connection (be it a wire or the earth or whatever the bottom terminal of the secondary is connected). Well typically in Tesla coils, the primary is made of a relatively large capacitance and a pretty low inductance at some frequency determined by those two quantities. The secondary is an inductor of much larger inductance with a capacitance (normally the toroid, sphere at the top with respect to ground) which is very low. So the primary is maybe microfarad capacitor and microhenry inductor and the secondary is millihenry inductor and pecofarad capacitor, so Zo1 is usually very small and Zo2 is normally VERY big - we get maximum mismatch here so no REAL power flow. BUT, the resonant frequency of the primary matches the secondary. So both circuits will oscillate at the same frequency and slosh the power input to them back and forth between each other, developing very large oscillations - maximum REACTIVE power, but no real power.
By now looking at the formulas posted on the website that armagdn03 gave, you should realize that a Tesla coil can be made into a radio transmitter very easily. Make the capacitance in the primary match the capacitance in the secondary, and make the inductors in the two equal each other as well. This will match Zo1 and Zo2 and the resonant frequencies of both circuits will be the same. If you match those values with that of free space (377Ohm) you'll have yourself a good little radiator. Tesla said he invented a knife, with a dull edge and a sharp edge, you can cut butter with both sides. Unfortunately, mankind decided it was going to use the dull edge and completely ignore the sharp one!
QuoteYou said that in Tesla coils, primary and secondary need to be mismatched as much as possible. Wouldn't that imply that the energy would be wasted in the primary trying to keep the oscillations going in the secondary which is out of tune?
I think my above rant explained this but to reiterate, the energy wasted in the system is wasted on the resistance in the wires. Those are what damps the system. Both secondary and primary are IN TUNE with each other, they both share the same resonant frequency, with their self capacitance and inductance canceled in each individual circuit (1 and 2), but their characteristic impedances are greatly different - so the energy is just sloshed back and forth between them.
@armagdn03
What I really want to know is how you can use a "load" that just oscillates. A vibrating tuning fork may look pretty but what is it going to do? How can we use it, how can we convert the energy to power our resistive loads WITHOUT damping the system. That's the real trick I want to learn here. I'm still very intent on finding out!!!
Quote from: Charlie_V on October 11, 2008, 06:51:43 PM
I'm not sure I like this explanation. It is wrong about getting no current flow when the impedances match, current DOES flow - always. But there are two things going on here, the SELF inductance and capacitance make up the characteristic impedance (Zo) of a circuit. At resonance the self capacitance and the self inductance do cancel each other - current always flows regardless of resonance or not, but the circuit still has a characteristic impedance which is not zero.
Yes you are right, I think the parallel resonance graph from the page I linked is much better as a depiction than its text. The graph shows that the dip is still above the X axis so there's current flowing, just minimal amount.
QuoteTesla said he invented a knife, with a dull edge and a sharp edge, you can cut butter with both sides. Unfortunately, mankind decided it was going to use the dull edge and completely ignore the sharp one!
Thank you for that quote, I got a good chuckle from it. :D
QuoteI think my above rant explained this but to reiterate, the energy wasted in the system is wasted on the resistance in the wires. Those are what damps the system. Both secondary and primary are IN TUNE with each other, they both share the same resonant frequency, with their self capacitance and inductance canceled in each individual circuit (1 and 2), but their characteristic impedances are greatly different - so the energy is just sloshed back and forth between them.
Sorry I didn't really read the above yet, I usually go backwards and when I see large posts I tend to go back and read them in one sitting with sufficient attention and focus so that I don't miss something important.
So basically if we had a superconductor we would have no resistance and there would be no end to oscillations, otherwise we have the Q factor due to resistance?
QuoteWhat I really want to know is how you can use a "load" that just oscillates. A vibrating tuning fork may look pretty but what is it going to do? How can we use it, how can we convert the energy to power our resistive loads WITHOUT damping the system. That's the real trick I want to learn here. I'm still very intent on finding out!!!
I thought we'd need another transformer there in the secondary circuit to actually hook up the load. Wasn't it all going through the ground in Tesla's case so you would tap the ground to get the good stuff and would not need another transformer ? I guess the other component were Longitudinal Waves which were instantaneous (propagating at c^2 iirc from Eric Dollard's lecture).
QuoteI thought we'd need another transformer there in the secondary circuit to actually hook up the load. Wasn't it all going through the ground in Tesla's case so you would tap the ground to get the good stuff and would not need another transformer ? I guess the other component were Longitudinal Waves which were instantaneous (propagating at c^2 iirc from Eric Dollard's lecture).
I don't know about c^2 and instantaneous, I'm not that far yet. But if you take another transformer and get it oscillating from the ground currents (which come from the secondary of the main Tesla coil - we'll call it the transmitting Tesla coil) and hook a load to this transformer, it damps the system still because you start draining the energy in the two circuits that normally would slosh back and forth. So the power from the source that input the energy into the transmitting Tesla coil, will again have to add more energy to keep the oscillations going. The ground oscillations allow us to use 1 wire (the ground) instead of 2 (a hot and a ground). Basically we make the 1 wire serve as both a hot and a ground simultaneously.
You can collect energy though from natural sources - and man made, like my coil does with 60Hz. For example, the earth mechanically vibrates at 7.5Hertz. Because the ground and ionosphere act as a big capacitor, when the earth vibrates it creates a weak AC wave which is normally measured to be small. But maybe a Tesla coil tuned to this resonance could pick that up and power loads from it - who knows!
Sorry for such a long post last time. I kinda got carried away haha - I like talking about this stuff.
Quote from: Charlie_V on October 11, 2008, 09:52:13 PM
You can collect energy though from natural sources - and man made, like my coil does with 60Hz. For example, the earth mechanically vibrates at 7.5Hertz. Because the ground and ionosphere act as a big capacitor, when the earth vibrates it creates a weak AC wave which is normally measured to be small. But maybe a Tesla coil tuned to this resonance could pick that up and power loads from it - who knows!
The more I look at Tesla's patents more I believe that his intention was not to use the circuits with our conventional devices. If anything, we need to create the same loads as he did in order to tap into it and get useful work out. And you know that he had built lots of custom light bulbs, motors and such items that ran on his circuits no problem.
I think we are just trying to push a square peg through a round hole and it won't work, but we still keep trying never the less. I keep saying about it all the time but it falls on def ears. Moment there's a possibility about some alternative device producing energy, people try to short circuit it so it runs on conventional loads. It's like trying to bring the mountain to yourself, when it's much much easier to just take the trip to the mountain and be blessed with beautiful sights, clean air, rocks and trees and flowing streams of water.
QuoteSorry for such a long post last time. I kinda got carried away haha - I like talking about this stuff.
Hey, you and me both, but that's great because it gets the ideas going, information is exchanged, and we are both richer at the end. :D
Yea, I think you are right, he did make custom loads. In his day these loads still had a chance since electricity was new. There was a possibility of everyone going down his route but unfortunately they didn't.
I'm interested in finding ways to power the devices we have today. It would be hard to come up with different types and actually market them, you'd almost have to start over - 200 years invested on the types of loads we have now. They built a mountain of trash, it would be really difficult to try to topple it. Instead I want to recycle that trash by finding a clever way of using the loads we have, I know its possible because the universe itself MUST function with both energy consuming and regenerating - this must be balanced. Whatever energy is going downhill in the universe there is a mechanism that is bringing it back up the hill, no one has figured out what that is - but I know it is there, otherwise we would not exist.
I have some ideas I'm trying but right now its slow going. Its only a matter of time before someone figures it out. I think armagdn03 is right when he says there are ways to use the same energy over and over again. The trick is going to be a way to link the regenerative part to the resistive part without damping. There are a million ways to skin a cat, we just need to find the cat first hahaha!
I'm off to bed, good night.
Quote from: Charlie_V on October 09, 2008, 07:45:50 PM
You have a capacitor of 0.2 micro farads and a resistor of 20,000 ohms. Lets assume we use a 10,000V source that can supply 1amps. We have a spark gap so that when the capacitor reaches 10kV the spark gap discharges into a 4 micro henry inductor of very low resistance (i.e. large wires). So, the capacitor and inductor make a tank circuit when the spark gap discharges.
The time it requires to charge the capacitor up to 10,000V is roughly 0.004 seconds. Since the capacitor is discharged so rapidly when the gap fires, we can neglect the fall time of the capacitor. This means that we can fire the gap at about 250 times in one second (250Hz). How much energy is in the capacitor when it dumps into the inductor?
E=0.5*C*V^2
So the there are 10 Joules in the capacitor when it fires. We are inputting P=10/0.004, about 2500 Watts of power into the tank circuit. HOWEVER! What is the power in the tank circuit - it is NOT 2500 Watts! The resonant circuit oscillates at 177,940 Hz [ f = 1/(2*PI*sqrt(LC)) ]. The time constant of the tank circuit is 5.6 micro seconds!!! The energy in the capacitor is still 10 Joules, so the power of the oscillation is 10/5.6micro which is equal to about 1.779 Mega Watts (1,779,406 Watts).
Do we have over unity? No we don't, that is because that 1.8 mega watts of power is all reactive. This means that the 10 Joules of energy is only tossed back and forth between the capacitor and inductor 177,940 times in one second but the amount of energy in the system does not change (just 10 Watts and decreasing due to resistance).
Could you please elaborate on the numbers here since I am kinda confused. I see where you got the 0.004 sec for charging (ref: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/electric/capchg.html#c2) but I am puzzled about your power computation and the pure reactive power. This is where I'm looking for reference http://www.sayedsaad.com/fundmental/66_OHMS%20LAW%20FOR%20AC%20.htm which is basically NEETS in colour.
According to that page, reactive power is based on reactive current and total reactance, but we are in resonance so wouldn't that make X=0 |XL-XC| making the whole circuit only resistive with true power of 5KW, or did I get all this wrong?
The time it takes a capacitor to charge up is R*C (resistance times capacitance). The energy the capacitor stores is E = 0.5*C*V^2 (one half times the capacitance times the voltage squared). With a voltage of 10,000 Volts, and a capacitance of 0.2microfarads, the energy in the capacitor is 10Joules. Power is Joules divided by seconds. Since the capacitor discharges into an inductor of neglectable resistance, the time constant for discharging is basically zero and the only wait time we have is the charging time constant (which was 0.004 seconds). Therefore, with our spark gap set to fire when the capacitor reaches 10kV, the power we are inputting to the capacitor (which dumps into the inductor) is 10/0.004 or 2500Watts.
When the spark gap fires, it shorts the power supply and essentially disconnects the capacitor, leaving the capacitor and inductor as a separate circuit for a certain amount of time until the spark in the gap goes out. In this instant of time, the capacitor and inductor form a tank circuit with no load. The capacitor (disconnected by the closed spark gap from the power supply) dumps its energy into the inductor. The inductor, in-turn, takes that energy and dumps it back into the capacitor. The energy continues to slosh back and forth between the two components at a frequency of f = 1/(2*PI*sqrt(LC)) = 177,940 Hz. If you read about tank circuit resonance, you will find that the energy sloshing in the tank circuit is purely reactive. In one instant, the capacitor is charged and no current flows in the inductor. In the next instant all the current is flowing and there is no voltage in the capacitor. Basically, the current and voltage in an oscillating tank circuit are 90 degrees out of phase, this is purely reactive power. The resistance of the tank circuit damps it, otherwise it would ring like that forever - so I suppose in a real situation there is a small amount real power being consumed due to wire resistance, if we used super conductors it will oscillate indefinitely.
In fact, by putting a load on the tank circuit, it won't oscillate at all. The capacitor will dump that 2500 Watts into the load once, if it is a light bulb it will light up one time. However, if you start charging and discharging the capacitor at 177,940Hz you will be putting the most energy into the load that can be placed. If you go higher or lower than 177,940Hz, the light bulb will not be as bright. In the case of a loaded tank circuit, the tank turns into a filter and it guarantees that only signals input at its resonant frequency will fully reach the load.
QuoteAccording to that page, reactive power is based on reactive current and total reactance, but we are in resonance so wouldn't that make X=0 |XL-XC| making the whole circuit only resistive with true power of 5KW, or did I get all this wrong?
That's because that website is talking about apples and not oranges. It is explaining how a circuit acts if you are trying to input energy to a load that has a "filter" within it. Yes, if you have a load with some reactance and you want to give it the most power, you want your input frequency (your power supply frequency) to match the resonant frequency of that "filter". If you take away the load from the filter, and are left with just the filter, at resonance the energy will just slosh back and forth and you'll only get reactive power. Basically the energy you send to the filter will bounce back if there is no load to absorb the energy. You will rarely find a website that talks about energy bounce back simplistically because it is something they try to avoid (and is rarely thought about and understood - I think). Radio websites give the best details into this matter.
http://www.ycars.org/EFRA/Module%20C/TLSWR.htm
Read the linked page of this website (but just this first page that I have linked - making sure to watch the "click here" videos - because other sections of this guys website are crappy). This one page gives a really good simple explanation of how energy can bounce back in an electrical system.
Hope that helps!
Quote from: Charlie_V on October 12, 2008, 12:06:48 AM
Yea, I think you are right, he did make custom loads. In his day these loads still had a chance since electricity was new. There was a possibility of everyone going down his route but unfortunately they didn't.
I'm interested in finding ways to power the devices we have today. It would be hard to come up with different types and actually market them, you'd almost have to start over - 200 years invested on the types of loads we have now. They built a mountain of trash, it would be really difficult to try to topple it. Instead I want to recycle that trash by finding a clever way of using the loads we have, I know its possible because the universe itself MUST function with both energy consuming and regenerating - this must be balanced. Whatever energy is going downhill in the universe there is a mechanism that is bringing it back up the hill, no one has figured out what that is - but I know it is there, otherwise we would not exist.
I have some ideas I'm trying but right now its slow going. Its only a matter of time before someone figures it out. I think armagdn03 is right when he says there are ways to use the same energy over and over again. The trick is going to be a way to link the regenerative part to the resistive part without damping. There are a million ways to skin a cat, we just need to find the cat first hahaha!
I'm off to bed, good night.
I thought that connecting conventional loads shorts the secondary circuit and we loose all the oscillations and the energy we amassed over the time so I am not sure that is the best course of action.
Why is everyone so stuck up on running conventional loads anyways? It is obvious that we need to design devices to run on this new (old) type of electricity to get the full benefit from it. Yes, there might be a need for a transitional period where we would have to connect conventional devices and incur losses in the circuits, but I'd rather see new devices being designed and produced to replace existing conventional loads and just flip the switch instead of going through the process of "adding up apples and oranges."
Beats me.
As the current oscillates between the cap and the inductor what is it doing to the field? If it is radiating voltage potential that can be felt at afar could we tap this energy. In other words the dielectric field the oscillator is in reacts to the space charge of the conductor. This sets off a chain reaction of charge shift that can radiate out from the oscillator and fall upon a field of mass that does not damp the circuit. It just gets messed with by the radiant energy of the oscillator mass. A boat goes across a lake. The displacement waves spread out and hit the beach.
They roll the sand up and down make foam cast twigs up the bank whatever. It doesn't slow the boat down does it?
@sparks
Quit reading my mind will y'a. I was just about to post this but had supper first, then you posted your post.
Specifically to @armagnd03's demonstration video #3, the cap/air coil pair reaches resonance when it is not placed onto the core, and once on the core has to be re-adjusted to reach it's new resonance point. This means you can have resonance with or without a center core, right.
By placing the cap/coil onto the core and reaching resonance, he has shown that there is in fact a central magnetic field exchange imparted from inside the air core that to the second coil/cap/bulb.
Now instead of trying to capture this energy, changing it with a secondary or via any other form of core transfer, etc., what if I simply put one of my reed switches inside the air core (as I did in the Tesla Project thread). The reed contact should again oscillate, and if it does, then this is a great low energy answer to the pulsing section of any potential OU circuit.
Next experiments coming up. lol
Quote from: wattsup on October 12, 2008, 06:38:34 PM
@sparks
Quit reading my mind will y'a. I was just about to post this but had supper first, then you posted your post.
Specifically to @armagnd03's demonstration video #3, the cap/air coil pair reaches resonance when it is not placed onto the core, and once on the core has to be re-adjusted to reach it's new resonance point. This means you can have resonance with or without a center core, right.
By placing the cap/coil onto the core and reaching resonance, he has shown that there is in fact a central magnetic field exchange imparted from inside the air core that to the second coil/cap/bulb.
Now instead of trying to capture this energy, changing it with a secondary or via any other form of core transfer, etc., what if I simply put one of my reed switches inside the air core (as I did in the Tesla Project thread). The reed contact should again oscillate, and if it does, then this is a great low energy answer to the pulsing section of any potential OU circuit.
Next experiments coming up. lol
You are correct. Changing either the inductance or the capacitance changes the resonant frequency of the LC. In this case, adding the core increases inductance decreasing the natural frequency of resonance. Removing the core decreases the inductance raising the natural frequency of oscillation. What you are describing with the reed switch could possibly be a good way to control the oscillation rate. However, I want to drive it home and hard, that how you create your rate of frequency is not important, plenty of clever tricks to be had, what IS important is how the parts of the circuit relate to one another. Electrical Engineering without resonance is a waste of energy, ;)
The next section will be posted tomorrow.
The next section has been posted.
Also, the forum is up on erfinders site again, with a registration button. If you would like help in your experimentation, would like to speculate etc, this forum will be my primary. I will still field questions here, but will go a bit more in depth on the other. Register if you like, and the admin will have to approve. Take care.
The newest section has been posted on www.forgotten-genius.com
armagdn03 Thankyou I GREATLY appreciate your time and effort
As I am sure many others do
Chet