Resonance and HHO

[pauldude000]

Producing a signal which is rich in phase locked harmonics
is quite easy.  One of the most useful in this respect is the
pulse waveform;  a short pulse with fast rise and fall times.
For example, a 1.0 KHz pulse waveshape with sharp edges
can produce harmonics into the hundreds of MHz and beyond.
But this is not "resonance."

Other waveshapes, which are a distortion of the sinusoid, will
produce harmonics as well.  The shape of the wave will determine
whether the harmonics are odd, even, or both.


Harmonics are derived from the distorted fundamental waveshape
and their spectrum can be extremely broad.  By altering the shape
of the fundamental wave it is possible to accentuate certain harmonics.



When a system is "at Q" or resonance it will by nature exhibit
a narrow bandpass;  the higher the Q the narrower the bandpass.
An efficient resonant circuit will filter out most harmonics.
In order for harmonics to span a broad (extreme) range the circuit
must be non-resonant.


You'll have to elaborate on the "all harmonics are resonant
simply because they resonate" and how in Tesla's universe
"harmonics are at pure resonance."


A quarter wave resonant system such as an antenna,
a coil or a resonant cavity, is responsive to certain near
harmonics.

The graphic you provided illustrates the normal
phase relationships of the various harmonics
which are within the structure of a distorted
sinusoid.  You'll have to clarify what you mean
by "the only reason they are resonant at all..."

I clarify things for those people wanting to understand my statements. I choose to do so by free will.


Your posts are starting to appear as if you perceive that I have some obligation or responsibility to clarify something to you, which is simply not true.


Just thought I would point that out.


-----


If I followed your concept to design my unit, the waves would distort beyond recognition, emf cancellation and algebraic distortions would throw the waveform off frequency. Amperage cancellations would amplify, and the strength of the harmonics would bleed out to nothing quickly. It would be a cool looking waveform on my oscilloscope at that point, with just that much value. To the water molecules, I would be delivering precisely jack squat in resonant power at any frequency they care about.


NO!


You are talking quarter wave resonance, but thinking full wave resonance. You are questioning the theory based upon the standard model when I have patiently explained I am not using the standard model. I do not think it gets clearer then that. When I stated that my definitions of 'resonant' do not match due to Tesla's usages, I would expect people to both understand and accept that they do not indeed match. That is common sense.


I will try once more, as I do have better things to do. I am tired, and if you cannot tell, it is possible that I am just a hair cranky. This sometimes occurs when I am tired.


I am using Tesla's concept model of both resonance and resonation. As for 'pure resonance' and 'true resonance', those are his words. You are right in that they, make no sense when examined from the common model. I cannot help that, as they are a part of his concept model. It wasn't until I realized that he was speaking a different language that just happened to use the same words, that I tried to understand just what in the heck he was even talking about.


I, like you, was basing my understanding on the common model.


If you actually want to understand, you are going to have no choice but get out of the proverbial 'box' for a few minutes.


To find the quarter wavelength frequency for an antenna, you take the antenna length and multiply it times four. (Assuming in a vacuum where the speed of light is actually C. It is somewhat slower in the atmosphere. and f=c/wavelength)


This gives you the frequency at which any given antenna resonates and creates the maximum difference of potential between the ends of the signal for any give wave of a specific amplitude but varying the aspect of frequency.


Only in multiples or divisions of 5 times the design frequency does this reoccur. Still with me?


In a POWER based system you do not want harmonics lowering the emf. It goes against the concept of efficient POWER distribution. POWER is the emf (in volts) x Amperage at any given point on any wave.


Using the 1/4 wavelength principle, it acts like, or appears to be, a standing wave, though in reality the wave is oscillating back and forth. The antenna 1/4 wave single dipole appears to the applied signal to be four times it's length.


Any harmonic which tries to destroy (algebraic bs here) the waveform is also trying to change the frequency, which also affects the amperage in unstable ways, which makes the system put out less TOTAL POWER, which is the goal.


The more POWER is available in the system of frequencies, the more POWER can be delivered by all of the frequencies to any other antenna which will resonate at 1/4 wave to the frequency. If I remember correctly, any dipole that absorbs the energy will automatically re-radiate half of that energy.


Therefore, we need as much POWER on frequency, and on all frequencies which will treat the GOAL WAVELENGTH as a 1/4 wave dipole as we can provide. The POWER in any induced harmonic is always LESS than the applied POWER for the main frequency. Much less. The farther in frequency one gets from the main frequency, the LESS POWER the harmonic has.


Those three super-imposed waveforms were to show how they reinforce each other AT CRITICAL POINTS IN THE WAVEFORM. Anything else is not resonant to the system, but actually destroys 'pure' resonance.


--------


Tesla demonstrated the traits of a form of autism called Asperger syndrome. He would have necessarily been EXTREMELY high functioning. I wouldn't have caught that myself except that my own son is Asperger.


Just like Tesla, I find him using my words, but speaking a different language than what I think he is necessarily saying, which I then have to interpret to understand. ALL of Tesla's weird 'quirks' fall into line with Asperger syndrome. His self-described extreme clumsiness as a child, his demonstrated obsessions and repetitive routines that he had to do merely to function.... His complete lack of empathy which he described when his dad died... Classic. Almost textbook. It also explains his brilliance and fixation upon resonant systems.


What is worse is what it implies. A high functioning person with the syndrome, such as my son, can focus 100% of their concentration into solving a problem.... IF they want to. (Otherwise forget it.) As intelligent as Tesla was, it literally means he could be Einstein on any particular subject he had interest in, yet be somewhat deficient in others just because he had no interest or could see no perceived value.


It doesn't make him an idiot savant. It made him an intelligent savant. It also explains his weird ***** conceptions. He wasn't using our dictionary. If the definition didn't fit, he would have defined it for himself.


I personally find his definition of 'resonant' more accurate towards reality.

[SeaMonkey]

If I followed your concept to design my unit, the waves would distort beyond recognition, emf cancellation and algebraic distortions would throw the waveform off frequency. Amperage cancellations would amplify, and the strength of the harmonics would bleed out to nothing quickly. It would be a cool looking waveform on my oscilloscope at that point, with just that much value. To the water molecules, I would be delivering precisely jack squat in resonant power at any frequency they care about.

I'm not suggesting any sort of design criteria
with respect to your unit;  I'm merely providing
clarification on the process of generating harmonics
and how they can easily be produced for some
useful purpose.  Some of your explanation of where
you're going is difficult to follow and it appears that
there may be confusion.

You are talking quarter wave resonance, but thinking full wave resonance. You are questioning the theory based upon the standard model when I have patiently explained I am not using the standard model. I do not think it gets clearer then that. When I stated that my definitions of 'resonant' do not match due to Tesla's usages, I would expect people to both understand and accept that they do not indeed match. That is common sense.

There is really nothing unusual or contradictory
about Tesla's use of the term resonance.  In that
time resonance was surprisingly well understood.
Quarter Wave Resonance is a reality which cannot
be confused with Full Wave Resonance.  The
dimensions are different.

I will try once more, as I do have better things to do. I am tired, and if you cannot tell, it is possible that I am just a hair cranky. This sometimes occurs when I am tired.


I am using Tesla's concept model of both resonance and resonation. As for 'pure resonance' and 'true resonance', those are his words. You are right in that they, make no sense when examined from the common model. I cannot help that, as they are a part of his concept model. It wasn't until I realized that he was speaking a different language that just happened to use the same words, that I tried to understand just what in the heck he was even talking about.


I, like you, was basing my understanding on the common model.


If you actually want to understand, you are going to have no choice but get out of the proverbial 'box' for a few minutes.

Tesla may have been the first to understand
propagational resonance as it develops in the
end fed coil or the end fed antenna and the
impedance transformation at resonance.  But
in his writings I've not encountered anything
which is indicative of some "new model."  He
was breaking new ground and some of his
terminology requires thought to put it into
perspective regarding what we now know about
Radio Frequency Phenomena.

To find the quarter wavelength frequency for an antenna, you take the antenna length and multiply it times four. (Assuming in a vacuum where the speed of light is actually C. It is somewhat slower in the atmosphere. and f=c/wavelength)


This gives you the frequency at which any given antenna resonates and creates the maximum difference of potential between the ends of the signal for any give wave of a specific amplitude but varying the aspect of frequency.


Only in multiples or divisions of 5 times the design frequency does this reoccur. Still with me?

No, afraid not.  Five times?  There seems to
be some confusion in your understanding of
quarter wave resonance and the phasing of
the reflected wave at the point of reflection.

In a POWER based system you do not want harmonics lowering the emf. It goes against the concept of efficient POWER distribution. POWER is the emf (in volts) x Amperage at any given point on any wave.

It is true that in a power distribution system
that harmonics can cause problems.  But how
would harmonics "lower the emf?"

What you've said regarding power in the wave
is correct relative to the instantaneous power at
any given point along the wavelength.

Using the 1/4 wavelength principle, it acts like, or appears to be, a standing wave, though in reality the wave is oscillating back and forth. The antenna 1/4 wave single dipole appears to the applied signal to be four times it's length.

To the applied resonant frequency the
1/4 wave antenna would appear to be
1/4 the length of the full wavelength.
Or, 90 degrees of wavelength.

The applied incident wave propagates
down the antenna to its end where it
encounters an "open circuit" which
forces the wave to reflect backwards
towards the feedpoint.  There is no
phase change at the point of reflection.

At the feedpoint the reflected wave
arrives after 180 degrees of delay to
interact with the incident wave

Yes, it is the algebraic summation of the
incident wave and the reflected wave which
accounts for the Standing Wave.  The standing
wave is a sure sign of resonance and causes a
stationary voltage maximum at the far end of
the antenna and a stationary voltage minimum
at the feedpoint of the antenna.

The power measured at any point on the Standing
Wave is essentially equal, minus radiation loss or
resistive loss.  Where the voltage is low the current
is high and where the voltage is high the current is
low.  Each point on the standing wave has its own
differing impedance as a consequence.  To extract
power from the standing wave efficiently the device
being powered must have an impedance which matches
the impedance at some point on the standing wave.

Tesla observed these same phenomena in his
work with his coils, his so called "hairpin" resonator
and his magnifying transmitter.

Any harmonic which tries to destroy (algebraic bs here) the waveform is also trying to change the frequency, which also affects the amperage in unstable ways, which makes the system put out less TOTAL POWER, which is the goal.

Harmonics do not destroy the waveform.
The harmonics can be filtered out to find
the fundamental waveshape is intact.

In an electrical power system of 50 Hz or
60 Hz harmonics can disrupt certain devices
such as motors and sensory/control devices
which regulate the "grid."

Harmonics can add to the fundamental wave
to produce unusual waveshapes but nothing
is destroyed.  The frequency is not changed;
the fundamental and all harmonics are discrete
and can be separated if desired.

The more POWER is available in the system of frequencies, the more POWER can be delivered by all of the frequencies to any other antenna which will resonate at 1/4 wave to the frequency. If I remember correctly, any dipole that absorbs the energy will automatically re-radiate half of that energy.

If you're referring to sourcing a multitude of
harmonics to stimulate numerous antennae
which are each resonant to a different harmonic
then that is a possibility.  There are broadband
systems which operate on that principle.  An antenna
array properly designed can be fed with numerous
frequencies on a common transmission line and
each will find its own resonant antenna.

Therefore, we need as much POWER on frequency, and on all frequencies which will treat the GOAL WAVELENGTH as a 1/4 wave dipole as we can provide. The POWER in any induced harmonic is always LESS than the applied POWER for the main frequency. Much less. The farther in frequency one gets from the main frequency, the LESS POWER the harmonic has.

Yes, that is correct.

Those three super-imposed waveforms were to show how they reinforce each other AT CRITICAL POINTS IN THE WAVEFORM. Anything else is not resonant to the system, but actually destroys 'pure' resonance.

Pure Resonance cannot be destroyed.  Any
wave present which does not support resonance
will simply be rejected by the resonant circuit
or device.  A resonant circuit is selective and
will reject anything which does not fit.

--------

Tesla demonstrated the traits of a form of autism called Asperger syndrome. He would have necessarily been EXTREMELY high functioning. I wouldn't have caught that myself except that my own son is Asperger.


Just like Tesla, I find him using my words, but speaking a different language than what I think he is necessarily saying, which I then have to interpret to understand. ALL of Tesla's weird 'quirks' fall into line with Asperger syndrome. His self-described extreme clumsiness as a child, his demonstrated obsessions and repetitive routines that he had to do merely to function.... His complete lack of empathy which he described when his dad died... Classic. Almost textbook. It also explains his brilliance and fixation upon resonant systems.


What is worse is what it implies. A high functioning person with the syndrome, such as my son, can focus 100% of their concentration into solving a problem.... IF they want to. (Otherwise forget it.) As intelligent as Tesla was, it literally means he could be Einstein on any particular subject he had interest in, yet be somewhat deficient in others just because he had no interest or could see no perceived value.


It doesn't make him an idiot savant. It made him an intelligent savant. It also explains his weird ***** conceptions. He wasn't using our dictionary. If the definition didn't fit, he would have defined it for himself.


I personally find his definition of 'resonant' more accurate towards reality.

Tesla was indeed an unusual man and he may
have suffered from that condition.  No matter,
he was valued and loved by many because of
who he was.  Just as your Son is no doubt loved
and appreciated.  Each of us has our own flaws
and defects; somehow we manage to learn and
to devote our energies to things we enjoy and
find value in.

[pauldude000]

@Seamonkey

No, afraid not.  Five times?  There seems tobe some confusion in your understanding ofquarter wave resonance and the phasing ofthe reflected wave at the point of reflection.

Dude, I cannot help it if you have never examined the issue. There are several sine wave generator apps on the web, use one. I demonstrated thee frequencies, and ALL of those I demonstrated were multiples of five. I did not include any dissonant frequency multiples, such as 2, 3, or 4 wavelengths. Though they are harmonics, they are NOT truly 1/4 wave resonant to an antenna designed to the base frequency. Not even close.


Sorry if this confuses or upsets you. Prove it to yourself.


This link is to an online sinewave graphics generator. 1 cycle is one wavelength. Create five images, downloading them. 1 cycle, 2 cycles, etc to 5 cycles.


http://www.maxmcarter.com/sinewave/sinegen.html


Erase the backgrounds using a good graphics program.


http://bit.ly/11Y1kpV (short link to Chasys Draw IES graphics editor which is free, and almost as powerful as photoshop)




Super-impose the images.


At the start of the base wave, draw a 1/4 wave dipole. (straight line 1/4 wavelength)


NONE of the other four waves is 1/4 wave resonant. Only one of the four shorter wavelengths will work, as it can SIMULATE 1/4 wave resonance. (is at the proper phase and amplitude at 90 degree phase of the base (antenna) wavelength)


Like I said before, and say again (for the last time in this particular conversation), this ONLY occurs with wavelengths that are multiples of 5 or 1/5 of the base wavelength.

[SeaMonkey]

Dude, I cannot help it if you have never examined the issue. There are several sine wave generator apps on the web, use one. I demonstrated thee frequencies, and ALL of those I demonstrated were multiples of five. I did not include any dissonant frequency multiples, such as 2, 3, or 4 wavelengths. Though they are harmonics, they are NOT truly 1/4 wave resonant to an antenna designed to the base frequency. Not even close.

There is possibly some confusion as to what
Quarter Wave Resonance is?  Or, for that matter,
Resonance itself?

An antenna which is cut for 1/4 wave resonance
will exhibit that resonance at only a single
frequency or wavelength.

It is possible for such an antenna to exhibit
resonance at harmonics but that would not
be 1/4 wave resonance.  The developed standing
wave patterns would be greater than 1/4 wave.

Studying how the peaks of harmonically related
sinusoidal waves align constructively when
superimposed is interesting and does confirm
Fourier analysis to some extent, but that is not a
definition of "resonance."

Your "multiples of five" when combined will produce
a certain unique waveshape but what has that to
do with Resonance?

In any case water in an electrolyzer is responsive
to stimulation by pulsing at various frequencies
and waveshapes.  The efficiency of Hydrogen and
Oxygen evolution can be enhanced by such pulsing.
That certain frequencies have produced favorable
increases in gaseous production has been studied
and verified.

Whether any sort of resonance is involved in the
phenomenon hasn't been conclusively demonstrated.

[pauldude000]

There is possibly some confusion as to what
Quarter Wave Resonance is?  Or, for that matter,
Resonance itself?

An antenna which is cut for 1/4 wave resonance
will exhibit that resonance at only a single
frequency or wavelength.

It is possible for such an antenna to exhibit
resonance at harmonics but that would not
be 1/4 wave resonance.  The developed standing
wave patterns would be greater than 1/4 wave.

.........

Your "multiples of five" when combined will produce
a certain unique waveshape but what has that to
do with Resonance?

..........

Whether any sort of resonance is involved in the
phenomenon hasn't been conclusively demonstrated.

Good, you have at least opened the proverbial box. Awesome! We can actually discuss this, which I am all for.


Here is where I start deviating from the standard model.


"An antenna which is cut for 1/4 wave resonance will exhibit that resonance at only a single frequency or wavelength."


Prove it... Those 'mutiples of 5' are not just harmonics. They are 1/4 wave harmonics. They share all of the wave characteristics to resonate on the antenna alongside the main frequency. Every single one of them will resonate on that antenna, producing the qualifying standing wave. They will modify the wave shape, but not change either the main frequency or reduce the power within the system.


They will actually be strengthened by the main signal, while reinforcing the main signal. If They are the main signal, they will produce the same available power on the same antenna as would the base signal. The antenna itself cannot tell the difference. However this is a one way street, from the smaller wavelength to the larger.


If the base signal is applied directly to a 1/5 smaller antenna, it will instead induce a resonance of the frequency at which the smaller antenna was cut for, but with great loss of power as well as considerable 'noise'. This is caused by indirect coupling and induction.


Think tuning fork next to a crystal glass rod. The frequency the glass rod resonates at is not necessarily the frequency of the fork. Using an antenna principle, the glass rod was nowhere near the length of the 1/4, 1/2, or even 1 wavelength of the applied wave, which are kilometers long at the frequency of sound, so why did it resonate at all and return an audible pitch with waves themselves kilometers long? Small antennas often show the same principles. That is why the antenna on your portable AM/FM radio doesn't have to be kilometers or even hundreds of meters long.


If the smaller wavelength is applied to a 5 times larger than normal 1/4 wave dipole antenna, it will ring as if designed for it. This is determined by wave phase of the applied signal at the end of the antenna. If on phase at the proper point in the cycle, it will create a standing wave. The applied wave must be at 90 degrees at the end of the antenna.


You may wonder about my use of the term 'system'. I use the term to refer to not only the main frequency and it's power, but all the derivatives and their interactions as well, all of the above as a combined into single conceptual enitity.


At to your  first question in your post, consider this. The modern definitions of resonance and harmonics, etc., are based inherently off of music and sound, and in their usage have no more real applicability towards electromagnetism than octave or pitch. Similar in concept, but enough different in practicality that a new term should have been created. That is why many physics books use the base frequency as the first harmonic, and many calculators and engineering concepts separate the base signal from the harmonics of the base signal, as it is both self-referencing and illogical to reference a base signal as it's own harmonic. We aren't teaching music, nor building pianos.


As to:

Whether any sort of resonance is involved in the [/size]phenomenon hasn't been conclusively demonstrated.[/size]

Absolutely. Precisely. Yes! No-one has said it does.


We are going to check that out, as it should play a part... That is unless someone is implying that the mysterious water molecule is some sort of unique magical entity that doesn't follow the pattern of everything else in the universe.


That is a very good reason to experiment with the concept, now is it not?