Gyulasun,
The first part I already answered and you deflected so I answered again.
The next part of your long reply actually is not even part of the point of discussion. It is just a show of numbers. I run the same sort of numbers when I am doing different things. You are trying too hard to impress people with numbers. I am trying to show people the issue at hand in an non-convoluted way. Notice your deflecting the point again. You claim that you are referring to my comparison of the frequency generator with the gate driver. But your explination does not actually address the issue as I have repeatedly pointed out. It is an ignoration elenchi that misses the point of what I am saying. So this is a deliberate attempt to divert the point with a bunch of words to make it look like you are responding to the point. The point is that if the frequency generator powered by the metered power supply draws substantially the same power as the gate driver, then we have a gain demonstrated because of the fact of the rate of change and not because of all your gymnastics.

What you do at the end is then argue from ignorance. You say in the end that you just haven't been proven a point. Well none of this can be proven at all. You are fine with all the information from Itsu or me up to a point you do not want to believe. Again, I am not expecting you to believe any of this. But I am showing how you are playing deflecting games. We all heard your understanding of impedances but the whole point of all of this was that I made the point that the rate of change makes a difference in the output when substantially the same input. This was seen in my motors over the years when I added the gate driver the motor efficiency went up but the output much more. This is one key principle of gain, just as oscillatory energy, with Tesla.

You could have saved everyone the words and just said, well Rick, the input must equal the output no matter what you say or show over the internet. And the input will go substantially down out of resonance, while the input will go substantially up in resonance to comply with conservation. But the problem Gyulasun, is that the amount of radiation produced between these two does not correspond to the input. And everyone knows this, even you. Nice try!

And I already addressed the bulbs. I made them just so bright as to make it obvious as well. This is just arguing like the other guy about me running my boat for three years rotating the batteries is not any indication at all of OU because I didn't log EVERY trip. All you guys do is seek to disprove things you disagree with while you believe equally shown things you agree with. This is why I showed all this as I did. To bring out this double standard.

Quote from: gyulasun on July 19, 2019, 12:33:16 PM
I understand that in a working setup shown in the video, the 1.153 MHz AC output from one of the receiver coils might be used instead of an FG to drive the input of the gate driver IC so the FG could be dispensed with. 

BUT my explanation refers also to your example you often mention like in the above quote: [BLA BLA BLA deflection follows] when you drive the TX circuit from the FG you get 250 V at resonance across either the L or C and when you drive this same TX circuit from the gate driver you get 1300 V. The explanation I gave includes impedance matching issue when using the FG's 50 Ohm output resistance and matching is better with the gate driver IC's 1 Ohm or so output resistance.  And there is much less loss across a 1 Ohm generator resistance than across a 50 Ohm generator resistance. The missing 50-1=49 Ohm is what enables a much higher  current in the TX coil versus the current the FG would be able to insure and higher coil current does increase the EM field, ok?  And Tesla used mainly charged up capacitors as voltage sources that had very small equivalent series  resistances hence the internal loss was also very small. And his fast mechanical switches (often in combinations) determined the rate of change he mastered to quasi perfection, they did the disruptive dicharges from the (mainly HV) charged up capacitors.   

So it is not the fast rate of change which caused the high voltage across your L or C but the higher current due to much better impedance matching between the series LC circuit and the output impedance driving the LC circuit.  And this is valid whenever the driver IC feeds a load comparable to its low output resistance: internal power loss is much less than that of
a FG with the 50 Ohm output resistance.  That loss not present in the driver IC converts directly to an enhanced output current. I did mention that I am aware of the switching speed data involved both for an FG and for gate driver ICs (including the very fast 5 ns or so families you mention).  There is no as much difference in speed between them as to cause the high voltage change. 
Of course, when you pulse a coil and no resonance involved, the fast rate of change does count: the higher the switching speed the higher the induced peak voltage across the coil at the moment the magnetic field collapses.

You also wrote: "Anyway, you don't acknowledge any gains in impulse and rate of change as determining the amount of gains, as well as oscillating energy as a gain, with higher Q and higher CPS as determining the amount of gains."

I never wrote any of what you listed. I did write about voltage gain across L or C at resonance, I explained how much the energy content the created EM field can possess due to the higher current the gate driver IC insures under the better impedance matched condition.  Understand now? 

You also wrote: "The missing point was that the input was about the same when the tank was in or out of resonance.
And that was my point from the very beginning that you wouldn't address."

Rick, your claimed 8 W output power versus 0.75 W or so input has not been verified by replications yet so until then how can I comment your point meaningfully? 

You also wrote: "One more  point is that I showed in the video that the added grounding changed the output even more. 
The input did not increase as well." 

I wrote earlier that one cannot estimate power levels by the naked eye, by simply watching the brightness of LED bulbs.
I watched in your video how the brightness increased (or decreased) when you put the ground wire onto the different
RX circuit points. I understand the difficulty of measuring output power of the receiver units and I also explained earlier
to A.king why the ground wire brings in more TX energy from the enviroment. It is the same effect a crystal radio receiver
manifests by giving higher (lauder) audio output when a ground wire is attached. The ground wire opens higher receiving
area / surface for the RX units when ground is connected to the proper circuit point. You say the ground wire brings in
extra electrons, this might fit here too but actually how much power this would add to that of the received by the EM near
field radiation should be estimated by measurements. Naked eye brightness observations are good for fine tuning to
achieve maximum transfer. 

Gyula

Quote from: rickfriedrich on July 19, 2019, 06:28:51 PM
Like I just wrote, you don't know what you are talking about.

Rick,

You know, I searched thru the posts here trying to find where you said the above but I could find nothing.  Then I thought "wait a minute"' and sure enough, you had posted that on OUR.  That is really poor forum etiquette sir and not very commendable!

Plus, do you realize that you and those in control of this forum may be bordering on libel with your statement above? 

As I stated on OUR, you are not worth wasting anymore time on.

Carry on-
Pm

 

Quote from: partzman on July 19, 2019, 10:18:42 PM
Rick,

You know, I searched thru the posts here trying to find where you said the above but I could find nothing.  Then I thought "wait a minute"' and sure enough, you had posted that on OUR.  That is really poor forum etiquette sir and not very commendable!

Plus, do you realize that you and those in control of this forum may be bordering on libel with your statement above? 

As I stated on OUR, you are not worth wasting anymore time on.

Carry on-
Pm

All right M, you said you were a troll. Prove to us the Conservation of energy is a universal.

Quote from: MoFo on July 19, 2019, 10:34:20 PM
Why are you even entertaining this idiot?
Clearly he knows nothing about basic science. Conservation of energy baby, never gonna beat it, stop kidding yourselves.
rick f = scam con-man, bs-artist and liar just like TrollMan

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS


Although originally a non-offensive reference to fishing by trolling for comments or suggestions, the term in Internetspeak has evolved and now refers to someone who engages in discussions purely to provoke or annoy. Because trolls take away from productive work, the ideal response is to starve the troll of attention by ignoring it and going about your usual business. People being people, though, someone usually takes the bait, which is why trolls are so notorious.
The term "troll" derives from Norse mythology, where a troll is also an unhelpful being, in some descriptions appearing to be like a normal human and others to be quite ugly and slow-witted.
Many presume that troll refers to the ugly monsters who eat people alive, but the term derives from the practice in fishing of dragging a baited hook or lure behind a moving boat (trolling).[2] In other words, trolls are looking for some sucker who'll bite.


Moral:  "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS"


I've seen this person on other sites and he is just a kid. They go through those phases. Usually when they are about 12 years old.