Free Solid State/mechanical energy

[bocas]

From my old electronics communications book under transformers:

1.  The source emf produces a primary current
2.  The primary current produces counter emf in the primary
3.  Primary current also produces an induced secondary emf
4.  Secondary emf produce a secondary current. (through load)
5.  Secondary current produces a counter emf in the secondary
6.  Secondary current also produces a counter counter emf in the primary(opposite
     to the original counter emf in the primary and in the same direction
     as the source emf.
7.  Counter counter emf partially cancels counter emf of primary
8.  Cancellation of primary counter emf allows source emf to supply
     more current through the primary
     
So if we set the secondary current 90 deg. off of the primary current,
the counter counter emf in the primary will be 90 deg. off of the source emf.
Does this produce it's own primary current and start a whole new process
in addition to the original source emf and do this over and over?

Jeff

[allcanadian]

I have no doubt all of you have seen this-
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Rotoverter:Replications:Hector:Original_Disclosure

The rotoverter uses a capacitor to produce 3 phase power from a single phase source,where tesla used a secondary transformer circuit and cap to produce a "shadow" phase. I say shadow phase because if the primary phase could be seen as an object blocking the "light" the secondary phase would be it's shadow. So, how many shadows could an object cast? It would depend on the sources wouldn't it? No, I don't think so, I could use one source producing multiple reflections with mirrors and cast as many shadows as I require from a single object. Now, we know the light is our source, we know the object is our primary phase, we know the shadow is our secondary phase coupled to the primary phase and using a capacitor we produce a phase shift(the shadow), the secondary phase is dependant on the primary but obviously does not draw from it. So now the most relavant question I have is what would constitute a mirror?

I cannot help but think that a transformer might constitute a mirror, as erfinder stated that teslas greatest discovery may have been the transformer. It is a reflection of the source, but not truly "the" source, even more so if the reflection produces a distorted image of the source, a transformation. This transformation may simply be "potential", as erfinder said "electricity is a high potential-high frequency field" and magnetism is static or bound somehow.
I think we have missed something on the most fundamental level of understanding, we see what we have been told, we see what we have been taught to see but we cannot see the reality of what is right in front of us.

Fundamentally, I have come to believe the magnetic field we supposedly create does not exist. The stator coils electric field orients the paramagnetic core, the atoms fields in the core align themselves with the external electric field. This is not a source of magnetism, but a sink, a cold immobile region with bound charges not "creating" an external field but having all external fields in the surrounding matter  conform(align) to it's field. I base this of the fact that magnetism(ie superconductors) increases with a lack of temperature or cold and magnetism decreases with heat. A rapidly spinning disk in free space will produce magnetism. The faraday generator has proven that a magnetic field is static in space relative to the magnets movement, and the fact that a magnet will stick to a fridge forever dispite gravity. So the only forces producing magnetism are electrostatic in nature, electrostatic charges in matter bound in alignment by external forces. Electrostastic atomic forces are lossless systems, hence high potential electricity has less losses than high amperage electricity.

I think teslas patent used transfomer action to raise the potential to reduce losses, he then used "shadow" phases like the rotoverter to produce lossless rotating magnetic fields somehow de-coupled from the primary phase. I am missing something very important however, that is the frequency/potential relationship with matter. Matter has charges, charged fields and motion(vibration/resonance) and I just can't put the relationship in context yet.

Im sorry if this seems off topic, but there is something very interesting going on here I can't figure out yet.

Best of luck

[brnbrade]

Good Job brnbrade, I like those pictures.  What program did you use?  Paintshop? 

Hi Charlie_V.

No. Photoshop.

I put layers and rebuild the paths with the tools.

Sorry my poor english.
Not expressing my thoughts correctly.

[nat1971a]

Hi All,

Charlie_V. - I dont think it would make any difference if the primary is wrapped around the secondary. It still achieves the same result.

Barbosi - the armature coil arrangement - this is the point where deductive reasoning comes in to play. Tesla's doesnt tell us the configuration of the armature coils and for good reason. It has become apparent that this is the heart and soul of the invention. And thus his most guarded secret. It has become obvious to me that in the patents we have been looking at he neglects to tells us the configuration of the magnets in patent 568176 and the coil configuration in 464666. But why? - thats what he is obscuring or hiding from everyone.

He states to us in patent 464,666 line 11-16 "The general object of my present invention is to secure artifically a difference of a quarter phase b/w the currents.....in which the action or operation is dependent upon the inductive influence upon a rotating armature of...magnets or coils...".

So in other words the quarter phase is to influence the armature coils or magnets. But why is he doing this? what is the relationship? Well I have deduced that the quarter phase (Reactive power - thanks Charlie_V) resonates to the neutral point (The Void). This was deduced by the following evidence.

*********************************************************
START OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE - as posted earlier:-p55 occult ether physics
?Thomsons system was later investigated by Bjerknes. He showed that when two spheres immersed in an incompressible fluid were pulsated, they exerted a mutual attraction, while if the phases differed by a half wave, the spheres repelled. At one quarter wave difference, there was no action. Where pulses were non-instantaneous at distances greater than a quarter wavelength, attractions and repulsations were reversed............The publishings of these researches and experiments in the physical journals of Europe were available to Nikola Tesla....Tesla could read and understand all these journals in their original languages."

The important point here is "at one quarter wave difference, there was no action."

So what does this mean? Well what does this represent? This represents the void!!!!!!!!!!!!  ...the neutral point.......the point of no attraction and no repulsion.
This highlights that a quarter wave length resonates with the neutral point!!!!.

END OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE
********************************************************

So if we accept the fact that the quarter phase difference (reactive power) resonates with the neutral point. Then it doesnt take much to deduce that it resonates with the neutral point of the coils (as stated earlier magnets & coils have a N,S and a neutral point) OR the magnets (as he stated that the coils could be magnets.....and that the object of the invention was to secure a difference of a quarter phase). The only problem he doesnt tell us the configuration. So we will have to deduce what the configuration is. It is also possible that he hasnt drawn the coils exactly as they should be in an effort to obscure what he wanted patented as most inventors do. Otherwise the secret is out.

So I have deduced that the configuration is NSNSNSNSNSNS. As that appears to be the only configuration that would produce a neutral outcome (a neutral ring). One has to keep in mind that he did say the the armature coils could be replaced by magnets. So if it helps to think of the coils as magnets then that is what is required. As stated earlier I cant confirm this. One has to conclude it. So it remains unconfirmed but highly likely.

If this is the case why the difference b/w 6 coils and 4 magnets later on in patent 568,176. Who knows. But it seems obvious that the configuration of the 4 magnets (creates 8 neutral points) is a refinement on the configuration of 6 coils (creates 12 neutral points).

Regards,

N.

[nat1971a]

On the otherhand the coil arrangement could be