Free Solid State/mechanical energy

[Trump]

barbosi,  Not only you, but others ask the same questions, " where did it say that? What patent are you talking about? yes I am behind a lot of you, but this  seems very valuable to me that if you relate to the specific patents and where on what patent  you are talking about it would really help everyone a lot. Myself,  I am looking for a specific reference point to go back to. Fitting the puzzle together people is what others have tried to do for 120 years. It may be just a fore site of mine, but, it seems we have a lot of people are whizzing through this that have a lot of electrical and electronic back grounds, that is good, but I see  a lot of people making statements and not stating where in the patent, and what patent they are talking about. If everyone stays on this pace I think we will be just like the countless numbers of people who have tried to figure this out many many years ago, and finally just gave up as they did not understand Nikola Tesla's patents. I think we have a very good chance in overcoming the problem of understanding Nikola Tesla patents as we have Erfinder helping us.We must stick together and learn and have a way to reference back on topics so everyone can understand every part of the patents. I really hope it is just me and the rest of you are really on top of this and everyone has both patents all ironed out. If all of the issues here are just my issues then please help me by letting me know where your information fits and what patent you are talking about. I am not giving up on this and hope that everyone else feels the same. Again, people have been trying to understand Nikola Tesla's patents out for 120 years.  I feel we may have a group of people who can do this as we have a great leader Erfinder IF? we can stay on track and learn together. Hope Erfinder agrees with me on this.

Deepest Regards




Trump

[barbosi]

In all my comments I only refer to pat#646666. However, a patent has not only words, but also drawings. It might be the case when someone sees a particular shape in coil distribution, of poles, etc. To me a set of specific shapes, are connected to geometry and from here to sacred geometry which has to do with fancy numbers etc. That was the reason I asked in the early post. People might see something I'm blind.

Back on the track, from the Tesla's patent (lines 90-99):

"On the intermediate poles B are wound fine-wire energizing-coils G, which are connected in series with one another and also with the series of secondary coils F, the direction of winding being such that a current-impulse induced from the primary coils E imparts the same magnetism to the poles B as that produced in poles A by the primary impulse.  This condition is indicated by the characters N' S'.

So suddenly there are not AC currents but also pulses? Is this thing ready to harvest BEMF?

[Charlie_V]

From what I've read, I'm also thinking the same as you guys are.  However, I would like to add a different point of view real quick.  This pertains to patent 464,666. 

It's well known that when you produce resonance in a circuit, the impedance from capacitance cancels with the impedance of the inductor - we get voltage and current in phase (max power through).  However, the over all impedance of the circuit can act differently.  In a series RLC circuit, the impedance goes to zero at resonance, so you get maximum current at resonance.  In a parallel RLC circuit, the impedance goes to infinity, so you get maximum voltage. 

What if you magnetically couple these two circuits?  One circuit will have almost no impedance while the other is nothing but impedance.  They will both oscillate at the same frequency but the over all impedances will be mismatched (so their oscillation will be out of phase).  You will have resonance without power usage - pure reactive power. 

Now when I look at this patent, that is pretty much what I see.  The first circuit, composed of primary windings, is the parallel circuit.  The capacitance in the first circuit is internal (a self capacitance in the wires themselves) which is always viewed as paralleled.  The second circuit is series'ed.  The first circuit will have large voltage while the second has large current.  This is similar to a Tesla coil actually - only the capacitor of the series circuit in a Tesla coil is made to be internal and the parallel circuit's capacitance is an actual element. 

What is very interesting, as Erfinder pointed out, is the intersection of the secondary windings.  Look at how the wires are coiled to produce the magnetic fields.  They are looped.  The field flows from the "transformer" (being the secondary circuit coiled by a primary) to the stand-a-lone secondaries.  Basically, the magnetic field in the secondary is made to flow within itself.  The primaries are just injection points to couple the circuits.  The fields are shown in a single instant.  In the next instant, the fields would be reversed, all the North's becoming South's and vice versa.

Like what I said earlier, to me I see a rotating magnetic field produced from purely reactive power.  That is so very cool.  And I'm sure putting magnets on the rotor is what will make up for resistance losses so the device can run truly on unity.  This is probably where the resonant/octave tuning comes into play. 

[barbosi]

Charlie,
As you know, if you want to consider parasitic capacitance on primary coils (E), then you know a greater parasitic capacitance is in secondaries (F and G) and you cannot ignore them. (I prefer to call the coils by letters to make shorter sentences, easy to follow.) I would rather say that given the frequency range this motor is supposed to run (Hz), a few pF would not play a big role. Bottom line Tesla states the purpose of playing with this configuration is to achieve 90 degree phase shift with a smaller and cheaper capacitor.

However, If anyone sees the need to consider the parasitic capacitance, I'm all ears to arguments.

Although apparently we see the same things, personally I'm not convinced and I want to double check and to make sure.

From what I've read, I'm also thinking the same as you guys are.
...
What is very interesting, as Erfinder pointed out, is the intersection of the secondary windings.  Look at how the wires are coiled to produce the magnetic fields.  They are looped.
...

When you say looped do you mean from capacitor, F coils go round clock wise then hit the sweet spot Erfinder pointed out and G coils return counter-clock wise to capacitor?
If so, the next statement sound about right, although I cannot make the whole sense.

The field flows from the "transformer" (being the secondary circuit coiled by a primary) to the stand-a-lone secondaries.  Basically, the magnetic field in the secondary is made to flow within itself.

Please do me a big favor and try to rephrase this, it may help me to "visualize" what could be the benefit. If you don't mind... I struggle with this for a couple of days and I don't see it. A similar loop could have been to continue with G coils in the same direction (clock wise) and end in the same spot - the capacitor. It seems important and yet I don't get it.

The primaries are just injection points to couple the circuits.  The fields are shown in a single instant.  In the next instant, the fields would be reversed, all the North's becoming South's and vice versa.

Agree!

Thanks for your comments, b.

[Trump]

Thanks everyone,

With a lot of re-reading and asking some questions, things are starting to come together finally. It is great that we have a bunch of People that are going out of there way to help others. A tightly knitted group is what we are becoming, and that is good. Thanks for letting me catch up and hopefully I can also help others when the time comes.

Regards



Trump