Testing the TK Tar Baby

[mrsean2k]

@TK and his fellow unfortunates may feel the need to view and respond to Rosemary's boilerplate word-soup.

But not me.

Profile -> Modify Profile -> Edit Ignore List - > "Rosemary Ainslie" -> Add

If she says anything worth saying, I'm sure it'll get through.

[sparks]

   Any chance the device underconsideration is an application of Tesla's distribution plan below.   This patent is confusing because he refers to megacycles and generators takingup and putting out energy and all sorts of stuff.  I can't make heads nor tails out of it.  And what the hell is a disruptive discharge and exactly what is it disrupting?  There are references to gaining time and opposite electricities rushing towards capacitors.  In rush currents are weird.  I have seen them trip breakers rated well over locked rotor amps.  I have had to install electronic soft start modules on one of identical units in a plant where the other units have no problem with in rush currents.   I believe it has to do with the length of the conductors and the speed of the contact closure. And the hf produced when the contacts act as a spark gap.   In this patent tesla is converting highvoltage to lower voltage.  It appears that voltage is potential energy and current is kinetic energy so the higher the potential the more the current.  Current is a work function and voltage is an energy function.  The inrush currents charge a capacitor where energy is stored.  The inrush currents of great magnitude charge the capacitor time and time again up to millions of times a second.  The voltage rise on the capacitor terminal discharges through the loads  (translating devices is how Tesla referred to them) where the voltage drop does such things as heat wires and cause currents to flow through various motor coils.  I guess what Tesla was doing here was using inrush currents to charge the capacitor and dc potentials to drive the loads.  The capacitor would be charged up to potentials that either alternated or oscillated it depended on what kind of translational load you wanted to drive.  Also in this patent we have Tesla telling us that we can modify the currents in a portion of a circuit by attaching a capacitor.  What I see is yes attach the capacitor in parallel with a load of highself-inductance where voltage developed on the local capacitor causes highmagnitude currents to flow in the load from conversion of voltage into current. 
  The inrush current part is what intrigues me as it seems quite instantaneous.  Like how fast a field can propogate from an electron or proton.  The field propogating from these little emwavefields appears to be instantaneously propogated.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=66VeAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

[TinselKoala]

Yes, and no.
In 462418, Tesla shows a system for taking a higher voltage source and regulating the distribution of power from this source to multiple loads, that may have different power requirements, by using sparkgaps and capacitors and wire lengths in tuned circuits. Tesla here isn't concerned about where the power came from or how it got to the source in this patent. He's just showing how to "down-convert" it, as sparks says, from HV perhaps low current source or supply, to LV, higher current source to power loads.

Yes, in that the receiver system of the Royer oscillator wireless power transmission system is doing that, in effect, especially in the receiver that powers the DC motor at high RPM: there you have all the elements, a spark gap at the commutator, a heavily inductive load, and a large reservoir capacitor that makes the whole thing work.

No, in that the present power transmission system appears to be strictly inductive in its mechanism, rather than the capacitative methods of wireless power transmission that Telsa seemed to prefer. Of course the transmission of power from Tesla's primary coils to his secondaries and tertiary coils was mostly inductive. But the longer range,  globespanning systems were making use of the capacitance of the Schumann cavity for their instantaneous, lossless power transmission through the electric field. A big problem with that system, though, is that pretty much everything is a receiver for the power.... it is hard to "tune it _out_."

My TinselKoil v 2.0 is a solid-state analog of Telsa's disruptive discharge system. You can see that its power arc is of relatively great power for the size of the device. With a proper pulse-shaping network between the x-bridge and the primary, true DD performance could be attained and the output peak power increased greatly even over what is shown. Another alternative would be to incorporate a sparkgap-cap in a tuned tank between the xbridge and the primary, making a hybrid ss-sg system that might prove interesting indeed. Also might produce spectacular mosfet fireworks!

[TinselKoala]

@TK and his fellow unfortunates may feel the need to view and respond to Rosemary's boilerplate word-soup.

But not me.

Profile -> Modify Profile -> Edit Ignore List - > "Rosemary Ainslie" -> Add

If she says anything worth saying, I'm sure it'll get through.

We've seen how she garbles simple information from single paragraphs that people here and elsewhere have posted to her. Her impression of QED is similarly garbled. If she can garble three or four facts in every paragraph of a discussion about simple electrical circuits... over and over..... imagine how scrambled her internal representation of QED or any other actual scientific construct must be. Especially since she has never had any formal study in the topic, never solved a real quantitative problem, and has no calculus, no trig, or even algebra from the looks of things.
She doesn't read the words, she only looks at the shapes, after all. And she assiduously avoids looking at anything, like my clear explanatory video demonstrations, that could disabuse her of her erroneously held assumptions about those things she has not studied. Willfully ignorant of her topic, she continues to respond NOT to actualities, but to her own delusions and hallucinations of what she _thinks_ people have said, what she would _like_ them to have said, and to what she _conceives_  a scientific construct like QED to be. And she gets it all wrong, more often than not, because, like the blind man, she doesn't need a light herself, it's all the same darkness to her, and when she bumps into somebody else, she thinks it's their fault for not seeing HER light..... but she can't see that her own light has gone out... or in this case, was never lit at all.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys I realise that the most of you are bored to tears with theory.  And God knows that TK's handle on theory is somewhat tenuous.  But I've attempted to answer some of this nonsense in this link.  And I feel that I deserve some hearing to discount the entirely spurious objections that picowatt and TK are posing against our thesis on this.  Also - it may at least serve to alert those of you who need it - to the absurdities of QED per TK and picowatt.

Regards,
Rosemary

Here's the link
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2729.html#msg2729