You could go to his site and tie up his bandwidth by posting Tesla
info! LOL! First of all, if it worked well, he wouldn't be wasting
his time posting to an obscure group that has nothing to do with his
subject! That ought to tell you something.

Tesla was a great scientist but a very poor businessman. If he
hadn't tore up his agreement with Westinghouse on the electric
motor, he would have been a very rich man. The world might also have
been very different as he wouldn't have had to rely on robber barons
such as JP Morgan to fund his experiements with wireless energy and
radiant energy. So Tesla's altruistic attitude may have cost him and
us in the long run...

MagicBill

--- In teslafy@yahoogroups.com, "Judy Hayes" <judylynn@...> wrote:
>
> Its spam,  they are not in the group to read, they post it and
leave
> typically, even if they don't leave they don't read messages so
they will
> never get your message telling them to stop. Unless someone helps
the group
> by offering to be an assistant moderator this stuff will keep
popping up in
> here.
>
>
>
> Judy
>
>
>

This four step guide will give you the foundation you always wanted. Learning
the basics in handling stocks.

  This guide will help anyone, interested in getting into the stocks game. Once
you follow through the guide, you will understand it's no rocket science. Only
thing is nobody ever try to explain it you from A to Z. Start now, just have a
look,

http://www.myjobhome.com/amex/

Step 1 - Basics
http://www.myjobhome.com/amex/Ameritrade-part1.htm

Step 2 - Initial Public Offerings
http://www.myjobhome.com/amex/Ameritrade-Part2.htm

Step 3 - Stock Market Players
http://www.myjobhome.com/amex/Ameritrade-Part3.htm

Step 4 - The Life of a Trade
http://www.myjobhome.com/amex/Ameritrade-Part4.htm





______________________________________________________________

If you think this email is spam
UNSUBSCRIBE - Please forward this email to deactivatenow@...

I detest receiving garbage in my email box and this recurring email
message: "How the Stock Market Works - easy 4 step guide" certainly
qualifies.

Recently I sent two email messages to this list's moderator without
response.


They read:

Mr. Harvey D Norris,

I protest the inclusion of bullshit like this in the tesla group. This
has nothing to do with Nikola Tesla and I hate seeing garbage like
this in my inbox, especially from a group I joined.

Please do not allow this or anything like this in future postings.

Thank you,

Jim Robbins
TwoCoins1@...


Apparently our list moderator is asleep at the wheel.

So I want know is there any way that I could complain to someone in
authority to have the moderator either removed or forced to exclude
email like this from future postings?

Please advise.

Thank you for your help,

Jim Robbins
TwoCoins1@...

In Harvey's absence, I have taken the liberty of reporting the "4-Step
Stock Market" spammer to Yahoo abuse for TOS violations.  I would
expect that Yahoo! will take action and remove this miscreant within
48 hours.

Anyone can report such spammers using the abuse reporting form found at:
http://add.yahoo.com/fast/help/us/groups/cgi_abuse

Regards,
MB

REAL Biker Babes and Sexy biker chicks looking for riding buddy! Check
their profiles here:
http://www.geocities.com/bikerbabes4082

Let's hope Y! puts them back on their bikes and sends them away.

-MB

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-93485617365460579&q=ufo

That was a cgi-made ad for the sci-fi channel

Soj

On 8/8/06, mojo_j_2000 <mojo_j_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-93485617365460579&q=ufo

--
http://www.bricktown.biz. Insanity at it's best. Guaranteed.

Check out these new srories about Nikola Tesla on the net:

Google Alert for: Nikola Tesla

Electric cars always seem to be just over the horizon in the US ...
Lexington Dispatch - Lexington,NC,USA
http://www.telluridewatch.com/080806/tech.htm
... He co-founded Tesla Motors (named for Nikola Tesla, the Siberian
engineer who built the first alternating current motor in the 1880s)
and plans to introduce ...


The First Art Newspaper on the Net
Art Daily - USA
http://www.artdaily.com/section/news/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=16910
... On the occasion of the 150th anniversary of Nikola Tesla's birth,
participants of this international project have created works in
response to Nikola Tesla ...

The Telluride Watch
Telluride Watch - Telluride,CO,USA
http://www.the-dispatch.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060807/COLUMNS/60807033\
5/1041/news
... world's first commercial grade alternating-current power plant"
debuted in 1891, thanks to the pioneering AC work done by Nikola
Tesla, George Westinghouse ...

Sorry about the negligence here as a moderator and the controlling of
spam. Anyone can volunteer to be a co- moderator. I seem to recall
the the VTA list was started by someone who later dissapeared,
perhaps even with some sending funds to him (the original author of
the VTA list). I guess Guy Resh (spelling in question) took over as
moderator of that list.

Anyways I am skeptical about the possibility of setting a magnetic
substance into internal molecular or domain rotation so as for the
end effect of setting up a collector coil to continually extract
energy.

I believe in focusing on what is possible and discarding the
impossibilities. But every false lead may lead down further avenues
of this labyrinth in hope of reaching the end of the maze. Strontium
ferrite usage as a heating element seems to be a practical
possibility provided the inputs and arrangements are correct. These
consist of impedance matching of outer ballasting components and the
availability of input frequency, which may be a obstacle for
commercial developement since we are generally based on the 60 hertz
power distribution.

Comments concerning the efficiency of solid state conversion of
frequency to higher frequency are welcome. As I understand it the
variable speed AC motor driven by a frequency controller is in quite
common usage. Here instead of the higher frequency being sent to a
variable speed AC motor the possibility of the input being sent into
resonantly ballasted strontium ferrite heat release seems a distinct
possibility. This might become practical for such devices in plastic
extrusion ect..  The whole question becomes a comparison of current
devices to electrically provide this heat demand versus the
resonantly driven ones using SrFe, as I have outlined in
investigations of the maximum energy transfer principle as powered by
a common automotive AC alternator providing 480 hz to proper resonant
circuits. In this particular  Teslafy cited instance the outer
ballasting used was of a lower inductance to provide for the highest
amperage delivery across the ferrite, which would set it into
incandescence. This in turn would crumble and melt the ferrite. It
would seem possible to employ ferrite heat release in a much less
dramatic manner provided higher inductances were designed on the
outer ballasting elements, which should be a subject to be further
persued with the existing 480 hz alternator. A more important future
aspect would be to explore the use of frequency controllers to
replace the function of the alternator, and the efficiency losses
involved on that input at higher frequencies. I would hope to soon
speak to my local motor supplier concerning this aspect, and again
any informed comments on the matter will be welcome.

Lately the scientific efforts on my part have come to a standstill
but I think this is only a temporary diversion. The household
arrangements have become complicated by many factors, all due to the
reception of a large monetary amount from family land sale and some
family infighting. A substantial sum has been spent on foolishness,
drug abuse, alcoholism all enabled by a band venture that has taken
away all free time, including that for the teslafy group, so again
anyone can volunteer to be a moderator, but I hope to now more
frequently check in as my living arrangements should be finalized
next week.

I am surrounded by scavengers with no income, who have a musical
inclinations with me, and I complain to myself about the invasion of
privacy but this is a story in itself about the many  somewhat
perilous conditions I have had to endure for the common good.  Some
20,000 dollars have been frittered away. Our musical band is named
RFR, whose initial symbolism is Ready for Rehab, which I think all of
us are.  These folks around me have some bad mental problems, leading
to many stories about the exploits I have been forced into.  We
should have some kind of DVD release soon.

Harvey D Norris
Future Teslafy Contributor

Note: back in May 06 I began connecting some past teslafy records for
possible publication as a paper on this method of providing a self
timed DC pulse for field energization obtained by virtue of
controlled self feedback loop between stator output and field
energization demands obtained from pre-existant AC stator output and
associated DC rectification costs in the conversion. Some of the
URL's may not be correct so I am posting this from May Records to see
for errors. The document needs one more jpeg added for conclusion.
HDN

Self Energized Alternator Field Method via Maximum Energy Transfer
Resonances Ballasted By Water Electrolysis Loading.

Breif Intro;
Here three phases of series resonances are procurred from a car
alternator reconfigured to provide 3 phase AC, producing a frequency
of 480 hz. Between these series resonances containing Q fold series
resonant voltage rises are full wave rectifications, of which two of
the phases are loaded by a water cell, and the remaining phase  of DC
rectification is employed for the field self feedback loop. The
operation of the water electrolysis then regulates its own voltage
source, via the action of the third phases action as a supplier of
current for the field, which itself also determines the stator
voltage in such a way that the voltage and amperage that the
alternator supplies is itself controlled by the level of plate area
used for the electrolysis. If the plates are entirely removed from
the water, the operation then borders overload. The water is used to
control or regulate the voltage available for the fields self
feedback loop.

Preliminary Field Observations; (Dec 5, 2004 )


Yesterday I measured the field resistance with a Wavetech LM-22 LCR
meter; this was an expensive meter, (200 dollars) I purchased about
10 years ago that also measures inductance and capacitance. I always
use that meter when it comes to recording resistance, but I formerly
found that it seemed to have problems recording lower resistances
near 1 ohm, as when the megacable spirals were measured some time
ago, it gave a reading of 1 ohm for the set of windings, but later
when 5 of these were put in series I found that the resistance should
be closer to .6 ohms. In any case yesterday I was making some
repeated comparisons between the externally powered field and the
self energized one, and I also wanted to repeat some observations
concerning the non linear resistance of the field phenomenon. I put
the meter on the field to record its resistance. At first I obtained
a reading near 6.1 ohms, and then I thought that can't be right. I
disconnected things and rehooked them up and let the meter fluxuate
for a while and obtained a steady state reading of about 6.1 ohms. I
thought "Damn I could of sworn that I did this same thing before, and
had recorded a field resistance of 20 ohms? What is going on here?"
The LCR meter has three selections for making readings, the switch is
either in off position, where the next movement of the switch puts
the reading in "D" which stands for dissipation factor,(which has
something to do with finding the q of a inductor when making
inductance readings), and the next position reads LCR, which is the
standard position for making either inductance L, capacitance C, or
resistance R readings. I thought well maybe before I had made a
mistake and taken the reading from the D switch postion. Having a
reading of 6.1 ohms I then switched the meter to D position, but it
did not give me a reading of 20. So that wasnt the problem. Now also
some time ago I had used the LCR meter to record the fields
inductance. This was also rechecked and by moving the field rotor it
would vary between 10.13 mh and 10.18 uh. Not much variance there.
There is however a significant variance found when the LCR meter is
measuring inductance and attached to one of the stator phases. Then
the high and low portions of readings vary between .215 mh and .260
mh, according to the position of the field rotor. This is about a 17%
variance of inductance values, where it was also theorized that the
output of the alternator with no field amperage inputed could be
classified as a parametric oscillator, which can be defined
inductance wise as a device that has an inductance that varies over
time, which of course occurs when the field rotor is in rotation.
This alternator has a 7 pole face rotor on each side, with
intervening air gaps. I wanted to measure the rise and fall of
inductance values for one complete rotation of the field rotor, where
I found that 14 of these occur. When the field is energized the
magnetism stays inside the ferromagnetic metal, and only leaves the
metal at the air gaps between the two pole faces, where this is
referred to as flux leakage. It is this flux leakage that bends
outwards in space so that it then intersects the ferromagnetic metal
of enclosed by the stator windings, so that moving flux made by a
moving field rotor induces voltage in those stator windings. The
point of maximum flux change then is when the air gaps are directly
underneath one set of stator windings, since the field leaks out and
intersects the stator phase when the flux leakage intersects those
stator windings. This then implies that when the metal is underneath
the stator winds, the AC signal goes back down to zero as now the
field lines do not intersect the stator winds. HOWEVER when the metal
is directly under that set of stator winds, the inductance meter
records the highest inductance for that phase, which means those two
relationships of the highest stator inductance and the highest
amperage output on the AC signal in fact do not correspond to each
other, rather they are actually about 90 degrees out of phase. After
making these tests to see the change in inductance of a stator phase
with rotation of the field rotor, I got another digital resistance
meter connected to the field and found that sure enough now I was
getting a reading near 20 ohms! I began to wonder if the change of
inductance on the measured stator phase had anything to do with the
field resistance reading, and sure enough there was a direct
correlation as shown by the following data;

Stator Inductance                                    Field Resistance
.214 mh                                                   6.5 Ohms
.226 mh                                                   8.1 Ohms
.242 mh                                                   20.7 Ohms
.262 mh                                                   26.1 Ohms
Although this correlation was found things still didn't make sense
since the field rotor encompasses three stator phases and not just
one. When one phase measures .261 mh, the other phases respectively
measure .229 mh and .232 mh. None of the phases are then at their
minimum inductances. A phase measured at the minimum inductance
of .215 mh has the adjacent phases measuring .253 and .248 mh. Both
of these data sets give about the same average value. I have no
understand why obtaining a highest inductance reading on one phase
would give an associated highest resistance reading, but that's what
I recorded. To further complicate things a needle analogue meter
recording resistance appeared to give entirely different resistance
values for the field, but the same effect was seen where a .217 mh
inductance stator gave a reading of ~7.5 ohms and a .261 mh reading
gave~ 10.5 ohms, but those readings were very much more sporiadic,
where the slightest movement of the field rotor would cause the
needle reading to move to higher values, and then gradually decrease
to the low value. The final point here is that the field once in
movement has a very non-linear resistance. The same needle resistance
meter recording values near 7-10 ohms for the field in non movement
will record 40-50 ohms when the alternator is turned on with a
rotation of ~ 4140 rpm yielding the freq near 480 hz. Likewise when
the lowest amounts of amperage are introduced into the field, it
correspondingly acts with a resistance higher then what it should be.
Here are some externally sourced field amperage measurements with the
linear load of METR phases attached as loads, without the interphased
water cell in place.

Field Voltage        Field Amperage                 V/I field
Res.            Ave Stator V .33 V                  .02
A                                 16.65 Ohms              1.83
V            .9 V                       .07
A                                 12.8 Ohms                2.66
V           1.9 V                     .30
A                                  6.4 Ohms                 5.5
V          2.6 V                     .47
A                                  5.5 Ohms                 8.4
V           3.5 V                     .75
A                                  4.6 Ohms                 13.26 V
  If the true resistance of the field were noted as 6.1 ohms, then we
might imagine that after a ~.33A field conduction is reached it
starts registering as a value lower then its actual value, exhibiting
something resembling forward emf. Below this value the fields
resistance appears higher then its real existence, resembling the
back emf principle found in conventional AC motors, where the motion
of the armature causes a resistance much higher then its actual value
to be registered. It is theorized that until the amp-turns of the
field create a magnetism that surpasses the pre-existant magnetism
caused by field rotor spin, the total field magnetism does not
linearly correspond to its amount of amp-turns. This rotational
magnetism barrier might be supposed to be ~.33A for this example,
where significant rises of stator voltage do not occur per increases
of field amperage, and when this starts to occur the apparent
resistance of the field rotor begins to match its actual value.
Before this value is reached during the second noted increase of
field amperage we can see a ~quadrupling of field amperage only
doubles the stator voltage. After the value is crossed increasing the
field amperage 50% approximately increases the stator volts 50%, so
things begin to appear linear. In the next segment increasing the
field amperage 60% also gives a 60% rise in stator voltage. The loads
placed on the stator for this instance are loads that will load down
the stator voltage to the maximum level, because they are loads of
maximum energy transfer. If the water cell were in place across the
resonances that would not be a linear load, since it looses
resistance as the impressed voltage goes up, but in that case we can
see Field Amperage                Ave Stator Volts
.02A                                 2.35
V
   .07A                                 3.5
V
         .30 A                                8.9
V
     .47A                                 14.25
V
        .75 A                                21.1 V
  As one can see the presense of a water cell interphasal load across
the METR resonances, where that cell looses resistance as the
impressed voltage goes up makes the outside circuit appear with more
impedance, thus the stator voltage drop from its open circuit state
is less severe.
Dec 4, 2004
Showing the Parameters for Field Self Feedback Loop
In fact that 6-7 ohm resistance value for the field gives more sense
to later observations about where the rotational magnetism barrier
exists. On issue of difference on stator heating vs external field vs
self energized where I stopped at the end at this article, no
significant differences were found, maybe 5 degrees F. The noted self
energized field method DOES provide for 13% more stator voltage then
the same amperage input to field from an external source, when
compared @ .75 A field input, and the theory is then verified via
expanding and collapsing field accompanied by field rotation in space
alone. The question becomes is the self energized field method in
itself more efficient? More parameters then get involved. Ordinarily
13 % of the expressed wattage output is used to recycle the field
energy at the measured levels, so that sounds like even steven. The
figures can be dealt with later, but using identical levels of .75 A
to field the external source provides the load delivering 10.3 volts
DC to water cell for a conduction of 2.8 A, while the self energized
method only produces 9.6 volts enabling conduction of 2.55 A. The
extra requirements for the externally powered field are 3.5 volts to
achieve .75 A conduction for field, but in the second example the
field requirements are taken from the output. So both case examples
appear to be approximately equal, even though the self energized
field example appears to generate a higher output voltage, this is
countered by the requirements of energy required to energize its own
field. Without further adieu here is the prepared article composed so
far... Hope the urls are correct...
Showing the Parameters for Field Self Feedback Loop.
Provided the alternator is behaving like it should, and outputing
three lines of stator line current on parametric turn on, the
following steps can be shown. First we look at this parametric
ambient output without the fields self feedback loop employed. Recall
that the three phases attached to the three stator lines are Radio
Shack MegaCable spiral resonances that provide a 5 fold voltage rise
or Q factor, provided no load exists between the voltage rises. They
are specified as Maximum Energy Transfer Resonances,(METR) spirals,
in that in their unloaded states,(without interphasal loads attached
between the LC midpoint resonant rises of voltage), they will pull
the same amount of amperage as would be found if the stator phase
outputs were instead shorted. This then of course represents the
maximum amount of resistance that can be put in a coiled form and
resonated, without that resistance itself causing the current supply
to be diminished below what it is measured at when shorted. Since we
have three 120 degree phased circuits with a Q of 5, the measured
voltage rise between two of these resonant phases is 1.7 * 5 = 8.5.
This is the interphasal voltage rise. The multiplication Q factor is
referenced to that found on the stator voltage itself. The fact that
the resonances are made with resistances that output the maximum
possible energy transfer also means that the R(load) = R(int) of the
stator phase itself, which further means that the open circuit stator
voltage, which is the voltage that would appear without any loads
attached to the phases: that voltage will appear to be roughly twice
the voltage that appears when the METR components are attached as
loads. Thus given the fact that the normal parametric voltage that
appears without any loads attached is near 2 volts (on this smaller
Delco Remy model); once the METR components are attached this drives
the former open circuit voltage down to about 50% of the former open
circuit value, for a stator voltage output close to 1 volt. Thus far
in this description everything that is observed generally matches
what is written concerning the principles of maximum energy transfer.
However a crucial exception is found with the METR components that
goes against the theory of maximum energy transfer. What is supposed
to happen when a load is made to match R(int) of the source is that
the identical R(int) resistance as R(load) will make for a condition
where the derived currents with those loads should also be half of
the current found on short of the outputs. Instead what actually
happens is that we see no dimunition of the observed short currents:
the currents found with the resonances are identical to the currents
found on short. The following jpegs show the stator voltages, the
stator line amperages, the individual phase amperages, the DC voltage
and amperage across the water cell after two of these interphasal
voltage rises are rectified by sets of full wave rectifiers, referred
to as MIDPT (2-3)(1-3)DC Volts, and the remaining full wave
rectification MIDPT (1-2)DC Volts, which is the voltage available for
application towards the fields self feedback loop. The amperage on
the field feedback loop is also shown, where it is prooved that the
field has a non-linear resistance by comparing its resistance for two
modes of higher voltage operation, where the fields effective
resistance is found by merely dividing the fields impressed DC
voltage by its resultant amperage. The only further complication that
needs to be noted is the technical difference between what occurs
with a series resonance, and how it is driven towards the direction
of a parallel resonance. When the amperages on the METR phases
themselves exceed the amount of current that should appear by its
stator line delivery, we surmise that the "extra" amount of amperage
that has developed is due to the circuits beginning to operate in the
direction of displaying parallel resonance, which yields a resonant
rise of amperage vs the actual amperage being inputed by its
connected stator line. When no interphasal currents are passed
between the resonances, this represents the condition of the highest
possible series resonant rise of voltage, and also the highest amount
of amperage delivery to those phases. However once we procure
currents between those resonances by the addition of interphasal
loads, similar to what happens when loads are placed on the ordinary
stator outputs, the presence of the load will drop the former
unloaded Q resonant rise of voltage down according to the manifested
ratio of delivery stator line currents vs actual phase currents. This
will be seen once the first self feedback loop example is provided,
whereby then the % of resonant rise of amperage can be determined for
each stator line junction. If this principle, (of resonant amperage
rise), were to be exploited to the fullest possible degree, three
shorts placed between the three resonant rises of voltage would turn
the circuits completely from the actions of three series resonant
rises of voltage to that of three phases of circuits showing resonant
rise of amperage. It should also be recognized that this resonant
transformation of voltages appearing between the MIDPT.s of each METR
phase as interphasal loads can either act as a small voltage rise OR
a step down of voltage, where BOTH of these aspects are necessary for
an immediate starting reaction for the fields self feedback loop.
Since the field has no other connection then its internally generated
voltage, generated as an interphasal load current; at the start of
the process it relies totally on the availability of current on that
branch which is derived from the parametric situation that is
encountered. Thus the first jpeg will show what that initial
parametric condition consist of. In fact if a straight connection
between a rectified stator output and field were employed in that
initial condition, with the METR phases also attached as loads; no
effective self feedback effect would be seen at all; since the
presence of the METR loads has reduced the parametric stator voltage
50%, down to a level near 1 volt, which in the actual situation of
the initial parametric situation, interphasal currents are also
present, which allows the parametric stator voltage to appear
slightly higher at about 1.4 volts. However we need at least 1.7
volts to enable the self feedback process to start to work; so
INITIALLY a voltage HIGHER then the output stator voltage is required
to start the action of the feedback loop. Once the feedback loop has
started working however after a certain amount of output is made, the
situation reverses itself and a voltage LOWER than the voltage that
appears on the stator output is required for the fields demand;
otherwise a runaway magnetic chain reaction would occur between the
stator output and its generated field output occurs in which the
entire system will quickly go into saturation overload, which makes a
peculiar loud whining noise so that we immediately know when this has
occurred. In fact the regulated voltage that must appear across the
field has a rather narrow margin of operating values, compared to the
rest of the circuits, and this is due to the fact that the field's
resistance varies tremendously in its expressed resistance according
to its imposed voltage. To get an idea of those parameters involved,
when the field voltage is low enough so that hardly any amperage
issues through the field, it may register a resistance 5 times higher
then its actual resistance when no movement is occurring; which for
this alternator appears as 20 ohms with no field rotation, but for
voltages that input only a small amount of amperage after the field
movement has come to its operational rpm the field's resistance may
appear as high as 100 ohms. This may explain why straightforward
feedback schemes may take as long as 20 to 30 seconds to start
operating, as numerous feedback loops are only slowly incrementally
increasing the output stator voltage to be recycled: but once in
operation to the point where the stator voltage that appears is
enough to make the fields resistance appear below its non rotational
value: the opposite undesirable effect of overload saturation then
quickly appears in an instant of time. This is why in the past that
self feedback schemes were deemed a difficult control issue; in that
we are faced with two opposite extremes; either practically no effect
is observed, and then it almost instantaneously changes to a
situation where an excessive effect is obtained. This excessive
feedback effect is also shown by the fact that once the stator
voltage has reached values in the 20-30 volt range, the field's
resistance may only register as ~ 5 ohms. As will be further seen; to
show the variance between the actual stator voltage, and the needed
field voltage to assure a stable operation for a highest stator value
of 22 volts, only 4.2 volts need appear across the field. To further
show the non-linearity involved with the field voltage vs stator
voltage, if we increased the stator voltage 60% to a value near 35
volts by changing the conditions of the feedback loop, the field
voltage to accomplish this only rises 33% to a value of 5.6 volts. In
the situation of complete resonant rise of amperage obtained by
employing a WYE short across the triple delta series resonant rises
of voltage, we obtain Q times more current inside the phase then what
its stator line delivery wire will input as the input current. This
situation is not encountered in the self feedback scheme since all
the interphasal loads always consist of real resistances. However the
situation is mentioned so that the theory can show what is the
MAXIMUM amount of current obtainable on a interphasal current
pathway; and this amount should be 1.7 times the current that would
exist if the outside circuits were pure reactances, and this
establishes a maximum current that can be known once the stator
voltage is known, so that we can say the interphasal circuit
is "current limited" to so and so of a value given the specs of the
imposed stator voltage. Since the reactances are known to be 7 ohms
at 480 hz, we can say that @ of a 7 volt stator, the interphasal
current should be current limited to 1.7 amps. Again because
resistances are always present on these interphasal pathways, the
actual current on those pathways will always be quite lower that what
the branch has as a current limitation. Dealing with the theory also
explains how the actual current input to the tanks will be found,
which gives us a figure to base the possible resonant rise of
amperage upon. What makes this possible is that the tank circuits
increase the effective impedance of the circuit Q times further then
what the actual reactance impedance of the individual matched L and
C  reactances  provide for. Now for the cases of series resonances as
loads, the reactances are cancelled so that (ideally in a perfectly
resonating circuit) only the R(load) value appears as the resistance.
If all the capacitive reactances were shorted out, so that the
circuits then appeared totally as inductive reactances, since the Q
of the circuits is found to be 5, making the circuits appear in the
reactive state would also increase the AC resistances of the circuits
5 fold. If the circuits were further manipulated so that the
reactances appeared in parallel to one another, as occurs in three
phase when a WYE short is employed between the LC midpoints of three
equal DELTA series resonances; where equal reactances in parallel is
what occurs in a tank circuit, then the AC resistances of the
circuits would then appear 25 times higher then for the case when the
reactances are cancelled by being wired in series. But inside the
tank circuits themselves we would find the original amount of current
that would appear if the circuit were merely a reactance dictated
current, which again is a 5 fold higher AC resistance value compared
to the case of series resonance where the reactances are cancelled.
So essentially a 5 fold higher AC resistance figure is made to appear
as if it were a 25 fold higher AC resistance towards its actual
source of current, which is how the actual input current to the tank
can be 5 times less then the actual current in the tank itself in
this example of circuits with a Q of 5, which is the principle of the
resonant rise of amperage. And because of the special METR condition
that the loads of the series resonances themselves drop the open
circuit voltage 50% downwards because of its low apparent AC
resistance, when the circuits are changed to parallel resonances that
appear with 25 times more AC resistance, THEN that new load will be a
condition where the load itself barely causes the open circuit
voltage to drop at all. Now in the parametric condition ~2 volts
appears as the open circuit stator, which as noted is driven
downwards towards 1 volt when the unloaded METR components are added
as loads. BUT when we additionally allow interphasal currents to
exist between the resonances, this also drives the circuits in the
direction towards becoming more resembling that of a tank circuit,
thus making the circuit appear to the source as a higher AC
resistance, which further entails that less of a load vs open circuit
voltage drop then occurs. The first jpeg shows the amount of voltage
available for this job, after the water cell has made a voltage
reduction itself on its interphasal voltage rise. To make a sensible
self feedback loop using water as the voltage control factor, very
little baking soda as electrolyte is employed, this is to keep the
voltage across the cell relatively high, as this voltage also governs
how much voltage will be available for the field self feedback loop.
The cell electrodes are steel rulers immersed in about 9 inches of
water, where the rulers also employ three 3/8 in blocks of Sr Fe as
spacers.
  Parametric Electrolysis/ Voltage Available For Field Self Feedback
Loop <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/SEF/Dsc00742.jpg>
Stator voltages vary from 1.4 volts to 2 volts. Given a stator line
output of .47- .48 A that splits between the phase lines of delivery,
we obtain a small voltage rise to 3.46 DC volts enabling .23 A across
the cell for a acting resistance near 15 ohms. If the water cell were
instead directly connected to the parametric stator voltage output
after diode rectification we would expect hardly any current at all
since no voltage rise were employed, and generally we need at least
two DC volts across this cell before any appreciable amperage will be
recorded. A brief test was made in which all the METR spirals were
removed, and instead phase 1 was directly connected to a full wave
rectification hooked to the identical water cell which means that the
water cell is now unballasted by any intervening METR spirals. An AC
short of a single phase in the parametric state will normally yield
about 1.25 A. If three of these shorts were employed on all three
phases, those current limited sources would then appear to allow a
reduced value of .75 A on each phase. And since the METR spirals
themselves will conduct the same value as the shorts will show, when
three phases of METR spirals, (with open circuit or no load
interphasal connections) are attached to the parametric outputs they
also will conduct about .75 A. However the 3 Amp rated diodes
themselves used in the rectification bridge themselves appear to
present a formidable resistance to the parametric source of amperage.
Thus after rectification, and making a test of the DC short current
from the current limited supply of the parametric source, we find
that the open circuit voltage of 1.9 AC parametric volts has been
reduced to 1.5 volts AC, and the spec.s of the DC short show
that .575 DC volts enables 190 ma on short. This is at least a 6 fold
reduction of a single parametric current supply, made at the cost of
converting the AC to pulsed DC via use of 4 diodes as a full wave
rectification. If this output were to be recycled back to field, as a
straight DC pulsed rectification, we might find that it takes 20 or
30 seconds to take effect before a runaway uncontrolled magnetic
chain reaction between connected field and stator currents begins to
appear. This is apparently because the supply of 190 ma is just below
the critical value to get things to recycle as an instantaneous
action. When we instead use the higher source of voltage made by METR
resonances for the fields self feedback loop, the actions of recycled
currents manifesting themselves as further larger stator current
output are more or less instantaneous. And additionally since the
currents available from such a source are also "current limited" by
the impedance of the outside METR reactances, we have no danger of an
uncontrolled magnetic chain reaction from occurring, as long as the
METR voltage rise itself is limited by the load of the water cell,
which exhibits a non-linear resistance according to the voltage that
is imposed on it. The resonances act as a gate that will only allow
so much current to be used for the purpose of field recycling. So for
comparison purposes here the unballasted cell is compared to the METR
ballasted one. The same cell hooked directly to the rectified
parametric stator voltage showed that 1.5 VAC became 1.35 Volts DC
that enabled a conduction of only 4 ma! This has something to do with
the voltage threshold for electrolysis, where a certain voltage must
be reached before appreciable currents will develop across the water
cell. Apparently when only 1.35 DC volts are applied across this
cell, the acting resistance of the cell is 1.35/.004 = 337.5 ohms. In
contrast with the METR ballasted method we obtain 3.46 Volts DC
enabling 230 ma, thus the METR ballasting method applied to the
parametric state has enabled some 57.5 times more amperage to
develope across the cell compared to the unballasted comparison.
Those results are due to two factors, the resonant rise of voltage
that has occurred, and also the non-linear resistance of the water
cell that decreases its resistance upon encountering higher input
voltages. From the jpeg we see that 2.9 DC volts are available for
the fields self feedback loop from the remaining MIDPT's (1-2)'s
voltage rise. This voltage rise, or more appropriately the existant
voltage on MIDPT (1-2) will generally be about half that found on
MIDPT's (1- 3)(2-3) full wave rectifications joined together to
provide a common DC amperage output , but at this lowest parametric
level this ratio is larger. Paradoxically if we choose to add all
three MIDPT DC rectifications to the water cell; this does not
increase the voltage beyond what two of them provide. A simple test
performed at the parametric level can show this fact. The wires to
the cell are disconnected, and its DC voltage registered. With one
rectification between METR midpoints we see that a 1.1 average stator
voltage will produce a reading of 8.4 Volts DC between two of the
resonances. Adding the second rectification between all three of the
resonances then produces a 10.8 Volts DC reading, with the same 1.1
average stator voltage reading. Adding the third rectification shows
that the output remains at 10.8 DC volts. Since the interphasal q
factor is 8.5, (1.7 *5), and we are starting from a stator near 1.1
average volts, the addition of the second rectification in common
with its neighboring rectification appears to have increased the Q
factor, but this is a delusion brought on by meter artifacts. When we
are reading from a single rectification, the output is actually in
the form of a DC pulse, therefore the meter commonly records the
average value of the DC pulse, or its rms value, and not its peak
voltage value. When two of the rectifications are procured together
this is actually combining sets of DC pulses that are 120 degrees out
of phase, therefore when one set of DC pulses has reached its zero
value, the neighboring set of DC pulses is not at its zero value, and
this fills in the DC signal so that we see a more steady state DC
value that should have a small amount of DC ripple. The rms value of
that more constant DC voltage reading with a small DC ripple will
obviously be higher that what the rms reading for a single pulsed DC
will provide. So by the above observations we conclude that two of
the MIDPT voltage rises does the same job as three of them do, and
proportionally going from one MIDPT rectification to two of them
shows a larger DC voltage rise reading because the DC pulses have
been smoothed out and now more closely approach the actual peak value
of the pulses themselves. Two full wave MIDPT rectifications is
topologically the same as three of them, since two full wave
rectifiers hooked in common output across two delta phases also
leaves a diode pathway across the third delta phase, although we have
not yet specifically placed a full wave rectification across that
phase. Later we add that rectification that does supply an extra
voltage, but it is routed to a different destination, that of the
fields self feedback loop. This leaves us an extra DC voltage source
that is redundant to the purposes of the water cell, but it can be
used for the fields self feedback loop. Again if the ordinary
parametric stator voltage were to be used for this purpose, it would
lead to a runaway remagnetization chain reaction of the field, which
will be seen once the loop is employed, where in that situation
involving an actual current energized field; the voltage across the
field will be regulated to appear far lower then the actual stator
voltages. In the beginning however the voltage across the field will
appear slightly higher then what the parametric conditions supply at
the stator voltage level: (2.9 volts vs 2 volts for the highest
stator voltage in this example) All these complications exist because
of the fact that the fields resistance itself, like the water cell,
has a non-linear resistance according to the voltage imposed upon it,
which will be proven using examples of a 22 volt stator vs a 35 volt
stator. In this situation we have first determined that provided a
3.46 DC voltage level appears across the cell, this will leave 2.9
volts available on the third rectification. Next we measure the
ability of that 2.9 volts to supply current, this is done by shorting
out that rectification. Also interesting is the fact that employing
this (rectified) short across two of the MIDPT's of the resonant
phases, does not significantly shut down the currents still available
on MIDPT's (1-3)(2-3) rectifications. This is still logical since the
short across MIDPT's 1 and 2 will drive those resonant voltages on
those phases down to near zero, but the MIDPT of phase 3's voltage
rise has not specifically been shorted with that one leg of
interphasal short on (1-2), which leaves its resonant rise still
available to supply current. Short Measurement of MIDPT (1-2)'s 2.9
Volts for Fields Initial Current Supply on Self Feedback Loop
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/SEF/Dsc00743.jpg
The short across MIDPT (1-2) reduces the voltage to .2 DC volts
enabling a supply of .128 A: this affects a drop across the water
cell where the output now is lowered to 3.06 DC Volts enabling .15 A,
for an acting cell resistance of 20.4 ohms. Other previous
measurements with an external field have shown that the ability of
MIDPT (1-2)'s potential to supply current, with the DC water cell in
place, will be only a slightly higher current then what the normal
field currents demand involve. This insures the ability of the fields
self feedback loop to function without runaway effect, the supply
will always only be slightly higher then the demand. However given
the fact that the field employs an actual resistance as a load, it
still does seem amazing that the amounts of current develope only
slightly lower then what the actual ability of the source is to
supply them. In fact the short measurement may be somewhat
irrevalent. Earlier experimentation with water saturated with the
proper amount of baking soda showed that .128 A to field was
insufficient to enable the self feedback loop to work in a dramatic
way, in that the .128 A would only be slightly increased once the
self feedback loop was employed. Then it was determined that at
least .25 A should be necessary for a dramatic takeoff to occur. With
a very conductive solution the plates had to be almost entirely
removed from the water solution, with only an inch or so immersion,
so that the voltage across the cell would reach higher amounts, thus
the voltage across the feedback loop also would increase to get the
feedback loop to perform efficiently. Thus it seems safe to conclude
that it is NOT the amount of amperage entering the feedback loop that
determines how far up the operation will be increased, but rather it
is the effective VOLTAGE that appears across the field initially that
determines how far the effect will rise to. While initially this does
not seem to make a lot of sense, the fact that the field ALSO, like
the water cell: has a non-linear resistance according to the voltage
imposed on it, with that additional consideration the facts seem to
jive a bit better. This is why the best (self- feedback) effects are
made with water that only has a small amount of electrolyte, (with
this size of a cell for experimentation) so that the voltage
reduction across the cell is not as severe. Now the self feedback
loop can be connected and the results for these conditions looked at.
Connection of 2.9 DC Volts from MIDPT (1-2) for a Self Magnified
Field Feedback Loop @ 21.9 Volts Power Output Phase
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/SEF/> Dsc00745.jpg
We can actually make a distinction between the SELF MAGNIFIED
feedback loop, and the ordinary feedback loop. Suppose for example we
started with a cell that only supplied 2.2 DC volts availability on
the initial feedback loop. At the start before the field self
feedback circuit was connected we may have seen a 1.4-2 voltage
distribution at the parametric stator voltage level. After the
feedback loop was connected perhaps we see a result of an average 6
volt stator voltage appearance. The feedback loop has worked to
provide an increase of output, so technically we can say it is
working. But during this working we may have found that the initial
2.2 volts available for the feedback loop has been decreased to ~ 1.9
volts, because of the added load of the field. The voltage
availability compared to open circuit vs the new condition of an
actual load provides for a voltage drop below what the initial
conditions provided for. This of course is the standard action of
electrical circuits, a load always decreases the open circuit
voltage. In contrast for a SELF MAGNIFIED field self feedback loop,
instead of a voltage reduction of the initial field voltage
occurring, instead we see a voltage that gradually cycles upwards
until an equilibrium point is reached. This equilibrium point took
about two minutes to be reached. In some situations where a higher
voltage output is negotiated, and the feedback loop is in place
before the actual turn on of the alternator; the output voltage may
occur instantaneously, so nothing here is necessarily written in
stone, but in this trial the voltage slowly cycled upwards until
phase 1 reached about 22 volts. In fact the initial starting
temperature of the water cell can have quite a bit to do with how
much voltage initially appears across the cell, as a colder cell is
less conductive. During a colder start up at nightime a day before
these tests were made, the output went instantaneously to 35 volts on
phase 1. If we wished to obtain 35 volts for this example, we need
only briefly raise the plates halfway out of the water, at which
point about 45 volts will appear, and when the plates are dropped
back to their normal position, 35 volts will appear, which then will
slowly cycle downwards back towards the 22 volt level in about 20
minutes. Again the temperature of the water cell (mostly dictated by
the environmental temperature) has quite a bit to do with what
voltage will appear. Now the "phasing" of the DC pulses that are
procured from MIDPT (1-2) should be closely in phase with the AC
pulses that occur on phase 3. The phasing issue is geometrically
shown by drawing a triangle within a triangle, where the inner
triangle is connected to the midpoints of the outer triangles METR
resonances. The phase of the inner triangles action is identical to
the outer segment that is parallel to the inner one. And the segment
bisecting phase 1 and 2 is parallel to the outer phase 3. This means
that the voltage pulse from MIDPT (1-2) voltage peak, if the
resultant amperage were in phase with the DC pulse, we would expect
phase 3 to have the highest resultant voltage from the pulsed DC
going through the field. However because of the reactance of the DC
field rotor, a time delay occurs between when the DC voltage appears,
and when the resultant DC amperage appears. This time delay dictates
that the next adjacent phase, which is phase 1, recieves the majority
of the rotating magnetic flux produced by the field rotor. Hence in
order of induced voltage on each phase we find the most on phase 1,
then phase 3 where the pulse starts from, and the least amount of
rotational magnetic flux on phase 2 which probably sees the most
portion of zero current between the DC pulses. On phase 3 where the
DC pulse in voltage timing is thought to originate from we find 19.7
volts. On phase 1 where the majority of the actual amperage timing of
the pulse is thought to exist timing wise we find 21.9 volts. And on
the remaining phase where it is thought the DC pulse goes back down
to zero timing wise, we find only 15.5 volts. The fact that each
phase apparently receives a differing amount of magnetic flux change
by the internally generated timing of the fields DC pulse may have
other important ramifications. We have actually combined the
principles of a transformer, that employs an emf generated by a
changing magnetic field in time, with that of the alternator that
employs a changing magnetic field by virtue of flux leakage in
spatial rotation. When phase 1 is receiving the majority of magnetic
flux change from the fields source of rotation of flux leakage, that
magnetic field movement is further enhanced by the fact that the
field is also expanding and collapsing during its rotation, hence
this is comparable to having the field actually move faster through
space in its rotation to achieve the same volume of flux change on
that stator segment. Hence we imagine that this practice has caused a
more efficient conversion of field energy into stator output energy,
since we have decreased the amount of field energy required by
comparing that of a DC pulse requirement vs that of a steady state DC
value, thus less energy should be expended on the field for that
comparison, and yet on the output side for at least one of the
effected phases noted as the highest power output phase we have
increased the flux change that would occur at that rotation by
addition of the fields movement in BOTH time and space. One may
counter that: yes, well one phase might have an increased efficiency
of generation, but what about the remaining phases? Again that
argument might be used in reverse in that the phase receiving the
least amount of flux change might also be receiving a great
efficiency due to the argument often used to explain parametric
effects, which is the remanent magnetism of the pole faces. So in
actuallity even though the source of mmf may have collapsed to zero,
if we rely on the often cited remanent magnetism argument, than for
that weakest phase some of the fields magnetic effects are actually
being obtained for free! And finally to conclude at the end of this
paper some stator heating experiments will be conducted where it is
also surmised that the stator core heating losses should also be
minimised with an internally generated and timed DC pulse via field
self feedback loop. Since we have three different stator voltages
being outputed at approximately 5 volts separation: we should be able
to run the alternator at the middle specified voltage on all three
phases, and also noting the amperage output on the stator lines for
comparisons we can measure the stator heating effect for the
situation when an externally applied constant amperage is inputed to
the field. Then this can be compared to the internally generated DC
pulsed field method. Associated with these observations is also
another plus, where it is thought that the majority of the stator
heating effects is not brought upon by the actual loads involved, but
rather the highest heat losses are found when the stator core
approaches saturation values. This is noted because the alternator
can seriously overheat at higher output voltage levels, even when no
loads are attached to the outputs! Apparently even though the
internal stator wiring is made in WYE configuration, a one ended
internal circulation of stator winding currents developes via the
phasing differences created by the moving field rotor, so that
currents actually flow between the phases, even though no loads are
placed on the outputs. So as far as stator saturation effects are
concerned, the predominant parameter involved is not the current
being generated, but rather it is the voltage being generated. And if
it is also the amount of flux change being encountered on the stator
segment that causes this effect, because the flux is also being
changed in time the higher amount of flux that intersect the stator
windings is only briefly being encountered at the peak of the DC
pulse. What all this is leading up to is the fact that with the self
energized field method employing an internally timed DC pulse, we may
be able to operate at higher peak voltages without excessive heat
generation on the stator output then would be the case for when the
alternator is operated with an externally operated constant amperage
field. ENDICH>>> SO FAR.. HDN

Harvey

> Note: back in May 06 I began connecting some past teslafy
> records for
possible publication as a paper on this method of providing a self
timed DC pulse for field energization obtained by virtue of
controlled self feedback loop between stator output and field
energization demands obtained from pre-existant AC stator output
and
associated DC rectification costs in the conversion.


This sounds somewhat reminiscent of one of Stanley Meyer's
circuit - in that he used a feedback and timing sytstem in his
electrolysis cell to lower the voltage once current started to
build. You may have seen the rep on this site:

http://www.recountflorida.com/files/hpot/energy/myers/MeyerRep.pdf#search=%22Sta\
nley%20meyer%20circuit%22

Meyer's brother designed the circuit, according to those who saw
it working, as Stan was a total clutz with circuitry, believe it
or not.

But actually you may have a better idea on this as those FETs are
lossy and your system may not be as lossy. Have you ever tried to
get a feel for how efficient it is?

You probaly know that Stan Meyer could run a VW for a short while
on nothing more than the gas produced from his cell (plus the oil
which was sloshing up from the crankcase - the VW enegine was
notoriously leaky and his was very old).

Best,

Jones Beene

Hi Harvey,

Welcome back.

Do keep us informed about your trials and tribulations with RFR,
your stories are wonderful and most charming. I'll certainly consider
buying a copy of the DVD.

K.

-----Original Message-----
From: teslafy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:teslafy@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
Of Harvey D Norris
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:43 PM
To: teslafy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [teslafy] HDN Reports Back


Sorry about the negligence here as a moderator and the controlling of
spam. Anyone can volunteer to be a co- moderator. I seem to recall
the the VTA list was started by someone who later dissapeared,
perhaps even with some sending funds to him (the original author of
the VTA list). I guess Guy Resh (spelling in question) took over as
moderator of that list.

Anyways I am skeptical about the possibility of setting a magnetic
substance into internal molecular or domain rotation so as for the
end effect of setting up a collector coil to continually extract
energy.

I believe in focusing on what is possible and discarding the
impossibilities. But every false lead may lead down further avenues
of this labyrinth in hope of reaching the end of the maze. Strontium
ferrite usage as a heating element seems to be a practical
possibility provided the inputs and arrangements are correct. These
consist of impedance matching of outer ballasting components and the
availability of input frequency, which may be a obstacle for
commercial developement since we are generally based on the 60 hertz
power distribution.

Comments concerning the efficiency of solid state conversion of
frequency to higher frequency are welcome. As I understand it the
variable speed AC motor driven by a frequency controller is in quite
common usage. Here instead of the higher frequency being sent to a
variable speed AC motor the possibility of the input being sent into
resonantly ballasted strontium ferrite heat release seems a distinct
possibility. This might become practical for such devices in plastic
extrusion ect..  The whole question becomes a comparison of current
devices to electrically provide this heat demand versus the
resonantly driven ones using SrFe, as I have outlined in
investigations of the maximum energy transfer principle as powered by
a common automotive AC alternator providing 480 hz to proper resonant
circuits. In this particular  Teslafy cited instance the outer
ballasting used was of a lower inductance to provide for the highest
amperage delivery across the ferrite, which would set it into
incandescence. This in turn would crumble and melt the ferrite. It
would seem possible to employ ferrite heat release in a much less
dramatic manner provided higher inductances were designed on the
outer ballasting elements, which should be a subject to be further
persued with the existing 480 hz alternator. A more important future
aspect would be to explore the use of frequency controllers to
replace the function of the alternator, and the efficiency losses
involved on that input at higher frequencies. I would hope to soon
speak to my local motor supplier concerning this aspect, and again
any informed comments on the matter will be welcome.

Lately the scientific efforts on my part have come to a standstill
but I think this is only a temporary diversion. The household
arrangements have become complicated by many factors, all due to the
reception of a large monetary amount from family land sale and some
family infighting. A substantial sum has been spent on foolishness,
drug abuse, alcoholism all enabled by a band venture that has taken
away all free time, including that for the teslafy group, so again
anyone can volunteer to be a moderator, but I hope to now more
frequently check in as my living arrangements should be finalized
next week.

I am surrounded by scavengers with no income, who have a musical
inclinations with me, and I complain to myself about the invasion of
privacy but this is a story in itself about the many  somewhat
perilous conditions I have had to endure for the common good.  Some
20,000 dollars have been frittered away. Our musical band is named
RFR, whose initial symbolism is Ready for Rehab, which I think all of
us are.  These folks around me have some bad mental problems, leading
to many stories about the exploits I have been forced into.  We
should have some kind of DVD release soon.

Harvey D Norris
Future Teslafy Contributor









Yahoo! Groups Links

--- Keith Nagel <knagel@...> wrote:

> Hi Harvey,
>
> Welcome back.
>
> Do keep us informed about your trials and
> tribulations with RFR,
> your stories are wonderful and most charming. I'll
> certainly consider
> buying a copy of the DVD.
>
> K.
This may be awhile according to the editor. He wishes
to do printed captions ect. Looking to soon buy
regular sound recording eqipment to record ordinary CD
  without video counterpart.

There is a thing about people.  The drummer mentioned
often looking at the clock and seeing 4:44, even
waking up late at night to see the  digital clock
display reading the number.

The undeniable fact is that according to flat
dimensional phasing laws a stator line delivery
sharing both sending and return currents to the delta
arrangement will be most efficient with four phases
instead of three. With three phases; 1.7 Amps delivery
from stator line to phasing load lines can split into
1 amp deliveries. Yet with 4 phase this becomes the
same effect yeilding 1 amp deliveries on phases with
only 1.4 amp delivery lines. Is this a deception or
not?  Where is the arguments against it? I have surely
thought of this. The four lines each containing 1.4 A
supply total 4*1.4= 5.6 A in vs 4 A on delivery lines.
In contrast the three phase example is 1.7*3= 5.1 in
yeilding 3 A on delivery lines. If we went to 5 phases
the stator lines would contain SQ RT of 5 stator line
delivery; higher then the SQ RT 3= 1.7 A delivery
evident in three phase. The quadrature phase delivery
is based on the lowest sq rt of 2 = 1.4

Now think about three dimensional stator/ phase load
arrangements. For this purpose we might imagine a cube
or other three dimensional construct whereby each line
of the three dimensional construct represents a phase
and each corner of the imagined 3D structure is served
by a stator line. A 3D arrangement like this implies
that on minimum a stator line can serve three arms of
the load instead of merely two as exists on the flat
plane arrangement.

Now concerning the meaning of 444: how could
quadrature be placed into three dimensions as to make
it more efficient then flat plane laws can allow?
This is a more mysterious problem then is first
considered. A three dimensional rotation may not be
the answer. but rather a semblance of the same effect
can be conceptualized using 3 sets of 3 phases
arranged to chase each in three dimensional space
orthogonally on all appropriate 3D angles. This would
be a mental construct employing a geometry employing
nine different corners I would suppose.

A lot of mistakes can be made in suppositions. In the
above idea we would have to split the 360 degrees of
timing into 9 equal parts for stator delivery to the
corners. But to concieve three dimensionally as
arrangement for timing delivery upon the corners in a
harmonical matter even demands further consideration.
Similar to the construction of magic cubes, there may
be a minimal size for the first possibility to exist.

A flat plane magic square is first evident using 3,
but the same construct applied to three dimensions is
impossible using 3. It is also impossible using 4.
When the realization beset me I then knew that 8 to a
side was possible on three dimensions and I started to
map it out. But on further questioning on the matter I
was informed that it could be done with 5 to a side
which seems to be a contradiction of theory, but
nevertheless it has been proved.

Six, the duality of three is a more difficult balance
on flat plane magic number laws. But yet if we
attempted to incorporate the idea of quadrature in
three dimensions as the 444 idea seems to lead to:
only six points of stator lines leads to a 3D object
on its corners. This would then be represented as a
visible four sided pyramid setting opposite to its
mirror images with respect to both bases.

In any case the imagination of man is a grand thing:
and it is how imagination is applied to reality that
produces new conceptions. Here the concept of three
dimensional phasing arrangements is concieved of.

Sincerely HDN

Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

--- Jones Beene <jonesb9@...> wrote:

> This sounds somewhat reminiscent of one of Stanley
> Meyer's
> circuit - in that he used a feedback and timing
> sytstem in his
> electrolysis cell to lower the voltage once current
> started to
> build. You may have seen the rep on this site:
>
>
http://www.recountflorida.com/files/hpot/energy/myers/MeyerRep.pdf#search=%22Sta\
nley%20meyer%20circuit%22
Rather good URL there Jones, havent seen that.
> Meyer's brother designed the circuit, according to
> those who saw
> it working, as Stan was a total clutz with
> circuitry, believe it
> or not.
Yup
> But actually you may have a better idea on this as
> those FETs are
> lossy and your system may not be as lossy. Have you
> ever tried to
> get a feel for how efficient it is?
An Alternator principle in generation of electricity
may be far more common then people suppose. We are
accustomed to think that rotating magnets on the field
are used in hydroelectric facilities. But so many more
factors are involved to coordinate one dynamo with
another, and also phasing issues with one generation
facility matching phase with another facility many
miles away. I have no idea whatsoever as to how those
issues are resolved. However I had a conversation with
a retired Goodyear employee that worked on dynamoes in
Akron Ohio that supplied subsidiary power behind their
electric grid intake. Obviously one power source
intaking AC should be in "cycle phase" to an added AC
source if no  DC rectification issues were present. I
asked this guy about the magnets in their dynamoes. He
said what magnets? There are no magnets: only
electromagnets revolving in the field. This set me to
thinking/ perhaps some phasing combination issues
might be easily solved if we employed a rotating
electromagnet that can be energized timing wise in
coodination with all accompanied  parallel sources of
emf. Sounds silly of course, but maybe it true.

Undoubtably a rotating magnet field would be more
efficient then a rotating electromagnet as used in
alternator design, but in that alternator design
control of output becomes more important then
efficiency of output. Perhaps the electric grid must
employ the same losses for phasing issues, dont know
and can stand to be corrected, But the point of the
issue here is that for the example of a self energized
field; where the fields input energy is taken from the
output energy of the generator: the efficiencies may
be roughly equal; but also considering that
electrolysis of water is a byproduct of the field
regulation this may also be considered as a portion of
the output energy.

Sounds like some double talk here; I'll sleep on it.
Sayanara...
HDN

Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Hi Harvey,

Frankly, I find your personal stories much more interesting and
enlightening, for example your story about "rooster" the mathematician
was a gem that kept me smiling for days...But you want to talk
about numbers now, so OK.

I've thought abit about this same problem, that of a "3 dimensional"
rotation. What got me to think about this is something called
spacial quantization, but as the idea didn't fit the physical
observations I won't bore you with the details. However, the
basic idea of a three dimensional spin follows from this
reasoning.

We define spin in three dimensions by a plane, and an orthogonal
axis. It follows that there are three such spins, cooresponding
to the three dimensions. This same idea can be applied to a 4
dimensional space, now with four possible spin axis and a plane
in 2 dimensions.

It's interesting to speculate on a new kind of spin, one defined
by a three dimensional volume rather than a 2 dimensional plane,
and an axis. Again there are 4 such spins, cooresponding
to the 4 dimensions, but the appearance of such a "3 spin" in our
3 dimensional world would be quite odd. Is this what you are
referring to below, or the more simple case of an ordinary spin
but with the axis being the 4th dimension?

K.

-----Original Message-----
From: teslafy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:teslafy@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
Of Harvey Norris
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:02 AM
To: teslafy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [teslafy] HDN Reports Back




--- Keith Nagel <knagel@...> wrote:

> Hi Harvey,
>
> Welcome back.
>
> Do keep us informed about your trials and
> tribulations with RFR,
> your stories are wonderful and most charming. I'll
> certainly consider
> buying a copy of the DVD.
>
> K.
This may be awhile according to the editor. He wishes
to do printed captions ect. Looking to soon buy
regular sound recording eqipment to record ordinary CD
  without video counterpart.

There is a thing about people.  The drummer mentioned
often looking at the clock and seeing 4:44, even
waking up late at night to see the  digital clock
display reading the number.

The undeniable fact is that according to flat
dimensional phasing laws a stator line delivery
sharing both sending and return currents to the delta
arrangement will be most efficient with four phases
instead of three. With three phases; 1.7 Amps delivery
from stator line to phasing load lines can split into
1 amp deliveries. Yet with 4 phase this becomes the
same effect yeilding 1 amp deliveries on phases with
only 1.4 amp delivery lines. Is this a deception or
not?  Where is the arguments against it? I have surely
thought of this. The four lines each containing 1.4 A
supply total 4*1.4= 5.6 A in vs 4 A on delivery lines.
In contrast the three phase example is 1.7*3= 5.1 in
yeilding 3 A on delivery lines. If we went to 5 phases
the stator lines would contain SQ RT of 5 stator line
delivery; higher then the SQ RT 3= 1.7 A delivery
evident in three phase. The quadrature phase delivery
is based on the lowest sq rt of 2 = 1.4

Now think about three dimensional stator/ phase load
arrangements. For this purpose we might imagine a cube
or other three dimensional construct whereby each line
of the three dimensional construct represents a phase
and each corner of the imagined 3D structure is served
by a stator line. A 3D arrangement like this implies
that on minimum a stator line can serve three arms of
the load instead of merely two as exists on the flat
plane arrangement.

Now concerning the meaning of 444: how could
quadrature be placed into three dimensions as to make
it more efficient then flat plane laws can allow?
This is a more mysterious problem then is first
considered. A three dimensional rotation may not be
the answer. but rather a semblance of the same effect
can be conceptualized using 3 sets of 3 phases
arranged to chase each in three dimensional space
orthogonally on all appropriate 3D angles. This would
be a mental construct employing a geometry employing
nine different corners I would suppose.

A lot of mistakes can be made in suppositions. In the
above idea we would have to split the 360 degrees of
timing into 9 equal parts for stator delivery to the
corners. But to concieve three dimensionally as
arrangement for timing delivery upon the corners in a
harmonical matter even demands further consideration.
Similar to the construction of magic cubes, there may
be a minimal size for the first possibility to exist.

A flat plane magic square is first evident using 3,
but the same construct applied to three dimensions is
impossible using 3. It is also impossible using 4.
When the realization beset me I then knew that 8 to a
side was possible on three dimensions and I started to
map it out. But on further questioning on the matter I
was informed that it could be done with 5 to a side
which seems to be a contradiction of theory, but
nevertheless it has been proved.

Six, the duality of three is a more difficult balance
on flat plane magic number laws. But yet if we
attempted to incorporate the idea of quadrature in
three dimensions as the 444 idea seems to lead to:
only six points of stator lines leads to a 3D object
on its corners. This would then be represented as a
visible four sided pyramid setting opposite to its
mirror images with respect to both bases.

In any case the imagination of man is a grand thing:
and it is how imagination is applied to reality that
produces new conceptions. Here the concept of three
dimensional phasing arrangements is concieved of.

Sincerely HDN

Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/



Yahoo! Groups Links

I enjoy your postings did not mind deleting stock market posting
scifuntubes

--- James David Robbins <TwoCoins1@...> wrote:

> Let me get this straight:
>
> After months of silence, you post a missive saying
> you were there all the
> time, you weren't asleep at the wheel and the very
> next posting includes:
>
> The Great Stock Market
>
Secret<http:///?&ik=2601a4d0c9&view=cv&search=inbox&th=10dc1211e4d30a5e&ww=1016&\
lvp=5&cvp=6&qt=&zx=mfm8ew-6n7ivi#10dc1211e4d30a5e_2>From:
> Casey Shimano
>
> What is going on? Do you think this is a joke?
Yep

How
> much are these bozos
> paying you to allow this bullshit to be posted?
One thousand dollars a year.
Did
> one of your relatives
> get a stockbroker gig.
Yep my brother educated me to be very light on touch,
trials and tribulations.
>
> I do not like seeing this. I spend too much time
> everyday deleting bullshit
> like this from my inbox and then I open this.
As George Clinton says  open or free your mind and
your ass will follow.
>
> Maybe you need a little help.
Yes I'm Ready for Rehab.
Maybe you should
> resign and let someone else
> do this job.
Dont piss me off here. I was specifically selected for
this job.

  You don't seem up to it.
I was up to it from the day I was born.
> I quit. Please remove my name from this list.
No favor can be granted from the outside in. Remove
yourself from where you came from if it is to be
reckoned. The truth comes from the inside-out, not the
outside-in. Harvich Indubitably.
> Jim Robbins
>


Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Re: HDN Reports Back

Posted by: "Harvey Norris" harvich@...   harvich

Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:03 am (PST)

--- James David Robbins <TwoCoins1@...> wrote:

> Let me get this straight:
>
> After months of silence, you post a missive saying
> you were there all the
> time, you weren't asleep at the wheel and the very
> next posting includes:
>
> The Great Stock Market
>
Secret< http:///?&ik=2601a4d0c9&view=cv&search=inbox&th=10dc1211e4d30a5e&ww=1016&lvp=5&cvp=6&qt=&zx=mfm8ew-6n7ivi#10dc1211e4d30a5e_2>From:
> Casey Shimano
>
> What is going on? Do you think this is a joke?
Yep

How
> much are these bozos
> paying you to allow this bullshit to be posted?
One thousand dollars a year.
Did
> one of your relatives
> get a stockbroker gig.
Yep my brother educated me to be very light on touch,
trials and tribulations.
>
> I do not like seeing this. I spend too much time
> everyday deleting bullshit
> like this from my inbox and then I open this.
As George Clinton says open or free your mind and
your ass will follow.
>
> Maybe you need a little help.
Yes I'm Ready for Rehab.
Maybe you should
> resign and let someone else
> do this job.
Dont piss me off here. I was specifically selected for
this job.

You don't seem up to it.
I was up to it from the day I was born.
> I quit. Please remove my name from this list.
No favor can be granted from the outside in. Remove
yourself from where you came from if it is to be
reckoned. The truth comes from the inside-out, not the
outside-in. Harvich Indubitably.
> Jim Robbins
>

Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (6)

A Stock Market Investment Plan That Never Lets You Down

Posted by: "Casey Shimano" caseyshimano@...   caseyshimano

Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:01 pm (PST)