The Old Standard Ignition System. Battery. Coil. Points. And Condenser....

[stupify12]

Since the natives are restless, I will do something positive to rally the troops:

The Tesla Ozone Patent in modern technical English:

To whom it may concern:

There is a DC electric motor C that blows air down an enclosed trough.  Opposite sides of the trough have plates P that have an alternating high voltage between them that produces the ozone.

The current for the DC electric motor is routed through a cylindrical commutator E that is on the shaft of the motor.  The commutator and associated brushes form the controller H.  The controller will periodically interrupt the current that flows through the motor coils.  When the current to the motor is interrupted by the controller it is directed into an LC resonator formed by coil M and high-voltage capacitor L.  Coil M also forms the primary of a transformer, the secondary of the transformer is coil N.

When the controller interrupts the current to the motor, the motor coils discharge their current through the coil N of the LC resonator and charge up capacitor L to a high voltage.  A short time later the controller disconnects motor's coils leaving the capacitor charged.  A short time after that the controller connects the capacitor to the coil M and there is an LC resonant ring down.  Coil M couples to the secondary coil N which amplifies the AC voltage across coil M.  The ends of coil N connect to the plates P resulting in a very high voltage alternating potential across the plates.  This very high voltage across the plates P produces ozone as the air starts to conduct current.  This will drain energy out of the LC resonator.  A fan is connected to the motor to blow air through the enclosed trough.

What you dont see is the very efficient charging inductor on the motor (F and D) . When the switch interupter close, the motor coil and core charge the energy on the input and held momentarily, discharge (charge) it to the capacitor L when the switch interuptor OPEN. What we need to focus is that big INDUCTOR (charging circuit) on before the L and C. As per Tesla say when he does this he is charging the system twice the energy in a very efficient and little energy input on the L and C.

Remember its the big INDUCTOR on before the L and C.

Meow

[Magluvin]

Havnt had much time lately.

Thanks Nelson for the book. 

What up kitty?  been a while.

Im getting some things setup for the speaker thread to show some things soon.  The ported enclosures, think about the air in the box as the capacitor and the port as the inductor. The speaker makes pressure(like voltage potential) in the box, and the port, with its length and volume of air as the inductor. The port is a low pass filter like and inductor.  So with this we can emulate and compare it to an LC circuit.

Mags

[MileHigh]

What you dont see is the very efficient charging inductor on the motor (F and D) . When the switch interupter close, the motor coil and core charge the energy on the input and held momentarily, discharge (charge) it to the capacitor L when the switch interuptor OPEN. What we need to focus is that big INDUCTOR (charging circuit) on before the L and C. As per Tesla say when he does this he is charging the system twice the energy in a very efficient and little energy input on the L and C.

Remember its the big INDUCTOR on before the L and C.

Well I actually see things very clearly.  Without defining efficiency it's a meaningless term.  What needs to be focused on is the entire circuit and how it operates and how power and energy flows through the circuit.  There is no "twice the energy" anywhere in this circuit.  That's a classic line that you see all the time, "my circuit recycles energy that is otherwise wasted" or "my circuit uses the same energy twice."  Those are meaningless statements.

As I previously indicated, this simple circuit could be completely and unambiguously understood by building it and probing it with an oscilloscope and then constructing a full timing diagram that includes all scoped current and voltage waveforms and waveforms for things like power and energy that are derived by the experimenter using his or her intellect.

It may have been something that was patentable in the late 19th century.  However, by today's standards and for the past 70 years, this circuit is no more than a grade seven science project.  It's very easy to imagine a 12-year-old in 1952 that was a serious electronics hobbyist and was lucky enough to have access to an oscilloscope demonstrating this circuit at an elementary school school science fair and explaining it perfectly to the visiting parents.

[Magluvin]

Well I actually see things very clearly.  Without defining efficiency it's a meaningless term.  What needs to be focused on is the entire circuit and how it operates and how power and energy flows through the circuit.  There is no "twice the energy" anywhere in this circuit.  That's a classic line that you see all the time, "my circuit recycles energy that is otherwise wasted" or "my circuit uses the same energy twice."  Those are meaningless statements.

As I previously indicated, this simple circuit could be completely and unambiguously understood by building it and probing it with an oscilloscope and then constructing a full timing diagram that includes all scoped current and voltage waveforms and waveforms for things like power and energy that are derived by the experimenter using his or her intellect.

It may have been something that was patentable in the late 19th century.  However, by today's standards and for the past 70 years, this circuit is no more than a grade seven science project.  It's very easy to imagine a 12-year-old in 1952 that was a serious electronics hobbyist and was lucky enough to have access to an oscilloscope demonstrating this circuit at an elementary school school science fair and explaining it perfectly to the visiting parents.

"Well I actually see things very clearly.  Without defining efficiency it's a meaningless term.  What needs to be focused on is the entire circuit and how it operates and how power and energy flows through the circuit.  There is no "twice the energy" anywhere in this circuit.  That's a classic line that you see all the time, "my circuit recycles energy that is otherwise wasted" or "my circuit uses the same energy twice."  Those are meaningless statements"


Well if it were like debunkifieds latest series of vids , all the circuitry and what ever in a box and just 4 wires coming out, input and output, and we couldnt see in the box, but we could measure the input and output, then could we not measure the efficiency of the In/Out?  Lets go another step forward, to be more transparent. So we encapsulate the circuit in a block of cured surfboard resin and 4 wires, power in and power out. Now we know we cannot get to the circuit other than by way of these 4 wires, but we can clearly see inside and see that there is no batteries, etc.  Could we not then measure the efficiency of the in and out and produce qualified results from just those 4 wires?

The difference between the conventional spark circuit, using a correct spark coil, a correct cap and the relay was the closest I could get to points, and the Tesla Igniter version, in efficiency comparison, using the same switching times, is so far off it isnt even funny..  With the conventional circuit, the spark primary is placed across the battery for X amount of time when the switch closes, and in the Igniter circuit the large inductor in series with the primary is also put across the battery for the same X amount of time when the switch closes.  So if during X amount of time, the conventional primary, what, 5.5mh, 1ohm plus the 1ohm ballast for 2ohms, and then the Igniter with the large coil, .9H 46ohm IN SERIES with the 5.5mh 1ohm primary, which one will pull more current from the battery over X amount of time? 12V battery. Which circuit will kill the battery first, no matter what X is?  Well just in your head, for max current over X amount of time, 6A for the conventional and .25A for the igniter..  Not a nice way to think about it?  Well over X amount of time, the .9h coil will take a lot longer to even reach max current than the 5.5mh primary, so the conventional is killing that battery quite a bit faster than the Igniter circuit, and basically no matter what X is.  If there wasnt even a time lag for each example to reach max current, the conventional would be pulling 72w during X time and the Igniter would only pull 3w over X time.  This is just simple figuring.

So really now would be the time to measure the output to see how the 2 would compare. After my scope freaked in my one vid scoping the primary, I went with 2 10kohm resistors in series across the primary and put the scope across just 1 resistor. The voltages were still higher readings for the igniter circuit than the scope directly across the primary in the conventional circuit. All just to say, Im not putting my scope leads anywhere near the sec output terminal.

But, I bet that igniter circuit would run a motor. And if it can, then we have greatly reduced the input using the igniter over the conventional circuit. I mean if you want to go into the measurements of the inputs in a more detailed and statistical manner, I dont think you will get much of an evening out of the power in between the 2 compared to what Ive just described and threw together with a calculator. Just cant see it. Going by the resistances alone, it plays a big factor in power within the X time period, let alone the longer delay of the Igniter circuit to even reach max current over X time!!


"my circuit recycles energy that is otherwise wasted?" Well yeah if the circuit did not have the cap, there would be 1 spark.  And a weak spark at that. Wont jump 1cm like with the cap, in which I can get with the igniter just the same. We need that spark period to last more than 1 pip. We need to ensure the burn. And the cap in the conventional circuit gives us that. And the igniter can pull it off also at a small fraction of the input.


"my circuit uses the same energy twice?"  Well we can see the primary oscillation first few peaks are cut shorter than they would normally be when the sec sparks, again and again and again till the spark does not happen any longer, and then the ring down continues smoothly without cutoff peaks. So if there were no cap, this repeated spark would not occur, and nowhere near as strong, as shown in the vids. So we get a first good spark during the rise of the oscillation and the next spark during the neg throw of the oscillation, and then another with the next positive rise, until the spark just cant happen again until the circuit charges up the cap again via switchings. Otherwise we get 1 pip, and it may not be enough to burn all the fuel, let alone ignite the mix regularly or maybe not even at all depending on circumstances.


I know. You dont see the oscillations as possible causes for more than 1 spark. Well My pics and vids show that there are individual arcs. Not some long lasting DC discharge that would snake around instead of showing off the multiple bright arc contact points on the spark plugs electrodes for the individual arcs themselves that we can see.



"As I previously indicated, this simple circuit could be completely and unambiguously understood by building it and probing it with an oscilloscope and then constructing a full timing diagram that includes all scoped current and voltage waveforms and waveforms for things like power and energy that are derived by the experimenter using his or her intellect."

Well get to it then. Show us what you want to show us.


"It may have been something that was patentable in the late 19th century.  However, by today's standards and for the past 70 years, this circuit is no more than a grade seven science project.  It's very easy to imagine a 12-year-old in 1952 that was a serious electronics hobbyist and was lucky enough to have access to an oscilloscope demonstrating this circuit at an elementary school school science fair and explaining it perfectly to the visiting parents."

I loved science classes. We never got into this particular stuff ever. Not even in in vo-tech classes for electronics the last 3 years of high school, or even during my time at Electronic Institute of Pittsburgh.  Not even 1 guy I have talked to about this in all of the mech shops I deal with knows much about any of what is actually happening here.
Well its very easy for me to imagine Tesla putting that 12yr old in his place on this subject.  Explaining it perfectly to the visiting parents? How many pages since page 2 have you gotten it wrong?  That 12 yr old your talking about is kicking your ass. lol.  Come on dude. Takes a lot of balls to come up with a statement like that after reading the thread up until that last post. Dont ya think?

Anyway.....

Mags

[hoptoad]

snip....
Well get to it then. Show us what you want to show us.
snip....

Milehigh writes a great many truths, is occasionally wrong, human like the rest of us. But to get him to roll up his sleeves and do some bench work, then show it, may require a miracle that is beyond anyone's expectations.

snip...
I loved science classes. We never got into this particular stuff ever. Not even in in vo-tech classes for electronics the last 3 years of high school, or even during my time at Electronic Institute of Pittsburgh.  Not even 1 guy I have talked to about this in all of the mech shops I deal with knows much about any of what is actually happening here.
snip...
Mags

Perhaps you were unlucky. As a telecommunications technician in the early 1970s, I was lucky enough to experience training in technology going back as far as the 1930/40s that was still in operation, side by side with 1950/60s and 1970s equipment. As such, a sound knowledge of relay (inductor) behaviour coupled with RC circuits and various switching techniques, was essential, given that almost all pre-1960s telecommunications equipment was relay (inductor) driven.

On two points, I agree with Milehigh. Efficiency must be defined. Energy is accountable.

Efficiency can be defined as result versus effort. But that doesn't necessarily mean, the greatest result from the least energy, unless you specifically define efficiency with those parameters in mind.

For example : Lets say I'm a soldier who wishes to kill an enemy at 1000 meters. I can take aim with a high powered rifle and hope I get a direct hit. Or I can fire a short range artillery shell at the same target. I might be lucky in the first instance if I hit the target and killed my enemy, but I'd be incredibly unlucky if I did the same with artillery and didn't kill the enemy with a direct hit.

Obviously artillery is more expensive and high energy expenditure. But the result is likely to be more efficient, if only the result (killed enemy at 1000 meters) is the measure to be taken.

Bad example I know, but something to think about. Desired results sometimes demand high expenditure, but ways of reducing expenditure should always be explored.
Cheers