It appears that I may be mistaken with regards to certain observations, but the
standard thesis still holds. I am still working on a video concerning the
subject, but now I have found out that the resistance of the delivery wires
could be accounting for the recorded deviances I have measured. Will retest and
try better the next time.
HDN

--- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, "McGalliard, Frederick B"
<frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:
>
> Harvey. You are strongly overstating the dif between a freshman EE class, and
a grad student level evaluation of a range of real applications. The freshman
uses simple coil and capacitor models and does his lab demo with components that
fall in the range where all the little idiosyncrasies do not apply. In fact, as
all skilled and experienced EEs, and even some physicists, know, inductors and
capacitors typically have a well behaved nearly ideal range of behavior, and a
crazy complex region where the cap or inductor may be a series/parallel/other
mix of inductive, resistive, and capacitative elements, with asymmetries thrown
in by polarization, nonlinear dissipation, radiation, and magnetic saturation
effects. Take this to say that I believe that I could find a range of operation
for any given inductor, my choice of capacitors, or capacitor, my choice of
inductors, my choice of resonant frequency and intensity, where the residual
resistance is very close to the value you would measure. Or the contrary, I
could easily chose a region where the series resonance has a much more
complicated behavior. The book generally deals with the ideal models. We all
know that. That's why you hire an expert that understands something of the
behavior near the limits/around the edges, to design a system that must work
"out of the box". Alternatively you breadboard and test.
> I would agree that a simple first year course in EE should not cause the
student to imagine that they understand all they need to to design the US power
grid, or a TV. That would indeed be a spoon fed delusion.
> And if you do not think the answer is written in the books, you have way not
read enough books. There are entire thick books, and thousands of erudite
papers, published to describe the behavior of the two simple elements you
describe, the inductor and the capacitor. Around 15 different kinds of
capacitors with dozens of little details that strongly or weakly affect their
performance around the edges. I got to study some of this over the years by
studying hardware used in the (then) new PWM power supplies. A lot of the
details are in the IEEE papers of the time.
>
> ________________________________
> From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com [mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Ed Phillips
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 7:24 PM
> To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Ohms Law Value at Series Resonance?
>
>
>
> If this is directed to me answer is you can't measure with DC.  Why would you
want to.  Rest I'd have to study.
>
> Harvey Norris wrote:
>
>
> How can you measure it with DC when L and C are in series? Then it would only
charge the C value and quit conducting. How can you determine the resistance by
that measurement method? What we have here is the parroting of a saying, that
has been heard so many times it is assumed to be the truth. The ONLY instance
where I have seen it to be true was with a large collection of air core coils
arranged so that the magnetic field can curve around and resemble a toroid
formation. Any time a solitary coil emits a free magnetic field in space, it
never happens. If the coil has iron core in the interior, it never happens
either. I will be doing a demonstration of this on you tube with a 500 ft spool
of 14 gauge wire. It will have a 465 hz input from a car alternator. The
capacitive reactance value used to cancel it is within 1 /10th of a percent
deviance. Yet only 1/6th of the current that would be enabled by ohms law
assumes itself. Consequently only 1/6th of the ideal Q factor predicted by
X(L)/R developes. There is a TREMENDOUS difference between the IDEAL q factor
predicted by book knowledge and the actual REAL working Q factors found in
experimental observations. This is called a spoon fed delusion supported by
folks that assume that the truth is written in electrical books; where they have
never actually tested it for themselves. The "ohms law value at series
resonance" is a conditional statement dependent on many other factors that
cannot be supplied using only one coil for making the demonstration. Things may
be a little different for power factor correction schemes if we are instead
dealing with parallel L and C values. In that case the reduction of  current
into the loop is supposedly again defined by the ideal Q factor negotiated by
X(L)/R. One should quickly realize that with ferromagnetic transformers where
this so called "power factor correction" is exercised, the value of the actual R
used in the (ferromagnetic transformer) winding compared to the actual impedance
under load is many times lower ratio wise then what the power factor correction
itself delivers according to that ratio. The book value predictions completely
miss the actual real working conditions. If you can supply any examples at all,
I would be glad to hear of them.
> HDN
>
> Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
>
> --- On Mon, 2/27/12, Ed Phillips <evp@...><mailto:evp@...> wrote:
>
> From: Ed Phillips <evp@...><mailto:evp@...>
> Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Ohms Law Value at Series Resonance?
> To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com<mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Monday, February 27, 2012, 6:31 PM
>
>
>
> At the resonant frequency the answer is a qualified yes if you are talking
about the impedance of  the series circuit as you describe it  Qualification is
that depending on the frequency and the exact coil geometry the 'AC resistance'
can be a lot higher than the value measured at DC, particularly if you have some
sort of 'iron' core in it.
>
> Harvey D Norris wrote:
>
>
>
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120226211631AATHaHu
> What will happen when I take a solitary coil, and cancel its inductive
> reactance from an AC input,(under 500 hz for this example) by using equal
opposite capacitive reactances in series? Should I obtain the Ohms law value?
> HDN
>

http://dvice.com/archives/2012/03/230-efficient-l.php

Physicists hellbent on destroying the universe have come up with a
tiny LED that produces 69 picowatts of light while using just 30
picowatts of power. That's an efficiency of above 100%, which should
be impossible, but isn't. And in other breaking news, up is down,
black is white, and zebras
<http://dvice.com/archives/2011/12/nasa-wants-to-s-2.php> look the same.

Last week, physicists from MIT published a paper in /Physical Review
Letters/ entitled "Thermoelectrically Pumped Light-Emitting Diodes
Operating above Unity Efficiency." My guess is that most physicists
cringe a little bit when they see the phrase "above unity," because
that's another way of saying either "perpetual motion machine" or
"free energy," both of which are likely to get you branded as either
an eccentric (if you're lucky) or a total crackpot (if you're not).

Over-unity machines may be impossible, but the LED in this paper
definitely put out more than twice as much energy in the form of
photons as the researchers fed it in the form of electrons. They
found that as they decreased the electrical voltage that went into
the LED, the emitted light decreased by a direct proportion, while
the input power decreased exponentially. In other words, the less
power you put into an LED, the more efficient it gets at producing
light, and if you decrease the power enough, you can blow right past
the 100% efficiency mark.

So, how does this not totally and completely invalidate the
conservation of energy? We have to look at how energy flows through
the /entire/ system, not just at the electricity in and light out.
When the LED gets more than 100% /electrically/ efficient, it starts
to cool itself down, which is another way of saying that it's
stealing energy (in the form of heat) from its environment and
converting that heat into those over-unity photons.

This cooling effect has some interesting implications for low-power
electronics, but most importantly, we can all rest just a little bit
easier knowing that the basic physical rules that frame our
perception of the universe have survived for one more day

This may sound dumb, but a 32mhz osc chip claims 4.5V output, but even just
loaded on my scope its lucky to get up to 3 volts. As such it is useless as
I need a true TTL logic one of 4.5volts or better. I tried a buffer (F type)
and it just made it worse down to 2volts. The only way I got it to work was
to run a TTL buffer on about 7 volts! Of course it didn't last very long,
but the only option I see is to use a cmos buffer, and run that on 7volts to
get a 5volt logic 1 output. Though I am not sure the cmos device will have
enough current to drive TTL stuff at speed anyway.

So I wonder if anyone has any suggestions on how to buffer the 32mhz so it
gives a correct 4.5V logic 1 output ? I know this was being done in the 80's
as I have a old video chip which outputs 4.5 volt from a 3V crystal, so its
nothing new, just seems "new" chips just do not seem capable for some reason
:-\

Cheers,
Chris

Do you have a 0.01 - 0.1 uF ceramic bypass cap connected between your
buffer's Vcc and ground? You may be seeing the effects of power supply
bus inductance.

TTL is "current sinking" logic - an output is at logical zero when
sinking current at an output Vsat voltage between 0.2 - 0.8 volts. Other
than charging line and input gate capacitance, a logic "one" does not
have to source any current. If your output voltage is higher than the
logical high threshold for TTL logic (around 2.7 volts), your 3V buffer
output still should be sufficient to drive a TTL input.

See:
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_4/chpt_3/10.html

Bert
--
Bert Hickman
Stoneridge Engineering
http://www.capturedlightning.com
***********************************************************************
World's source for "Captured Lightning" Lichtenberg Figure sculptures,
magnetically "shrunken" coins, and scarce/out of print technical books
***********************************************************************

Chris Swinson wrote:
> This may sound dumb, but a 32mhz osc chip claims 4.5V output, but even just
> loaded on my scope its lucky to get up to 3 volts. As such it is useless as
> I need a true TTL logic one of 4.5volts or better. I tried a buffer (F
> type)
> and it just made it worse down to 2volts. The only way I got it to work was
> to run a TTL buffer on about 7 volts! Of course it didn't last very long,
> but the only option I see is to use a cmos buffer, and run that on
> 7volts to
> get a 5volt logic 1 output. Though I am not sure the cmos device will have
> enough current to drive TTL stuff at speed anyway.
>
> So I wonder if anyone has any suggestions on how to buffer the 32mhz so it
> gives a correct 4.5V logic 1 output ? I know this was being done in the
> 80's
> as I have a old video chip which outputs 4.5 volt from a 3V crystal, so its
> nothing new, just seems "new" chips just do not seem capable for some
> reason
> :-\
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bert Hickman" <bert.hickman@...>
To: <usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] clock buffers ?


> Do you have a 0.01 - 0.1 uF ceramic bypass cap connected between your
> buffer's Vcc and ground? You may be seeing the effects of power supply
> bus inductance.
>

Yeah, I have tried 100nF, 200nF and even a few uF direct between the vss and
gnd pins, i could try some better caps and see if it improves my results.



> TTL is "current sinking" logic - an output is at logical zero when
> sinking current at an output Vsat voltage between 0.2 - 0.8 volts. Other
> than charging line and input gate capacitance, a logic "one" does not
> have to source any current. If your output voltage is higher than the
> logical high threshold for TTL logic (around 2.7 volts), your 3V buffer
> output still should be sufficient to drive a TTL input.
>
> See:
> http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_4/chpt_3/10.html
>

Yeah know what you mean, though the circuit I am "editing" seems to need a
4.5V input for a logic 1. I have half a feeling that they really old TTL
stuff needed 4.5V as a logic one, I know a few years back I was looking for
some buffers with good hysteresis thinking there is some out there with 3
volts, but was lucky to find 200mV at the time. This was over 10 years ago
all in all, but I think 4.5 was the guaranteed logic 1, maybe old age of the
chips upset this a little I don't know, though if I was using all new stuff
it wouldn't be a problem.

Chris

----- Original Message -----

From: McGalliard, Frederick B

To: 'usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com'

Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 2:18 PM

Subject: RE: [usa-tesla] clock buffers ?

You tried a lower value pull up resistor? These TTL gates should sink up to 50 ma.

---

From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com [mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Swinson
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 1:18 AM
To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [usa-tesla] clock buffers ?

 

This may sound dumb, but a 32mhz osc chip claims 4.5V output, but even just
loaded on my scope its lucky to get up to 3 volts. As such it is useless as
I need a true TTL logic one of 4.5volts or better. I tried a buffer (F type)
and it just made it worse down to 2volts. The only way I got it to work was
to run a TTL buffer on about 7 volts! Of course it didn't last very long,
but the only option I see is to use a cmos buffer, and run that on 7volts to
get a 5volt logic 1 output. Though I am not sure the cmos device will have
enough current to drive TTL stuff at speed anyway.

So I wonder if anyone has any suggestions on how to buffer the 32mhz so it
gives a correct 4.5V logic 1 output ? I know this was being done in the 80's
as I have a old video chip which outputs 4.5 volt from a 3V crystal, so its
nothing new, just seems "new" chips just do not seem capable for some reason
:-\

Cheers,
Chris

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4859 - Release Date: 03/08/12

Interesting. Thanks for the note. I wonder how they managed to count all the photons emitted? The emission is asymmetric and changes with power level.

---

From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Reese
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 3:35 PM
To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [usa-tesla] 230% efficient LEDs seem to violate first law of thermodynamics

 


http://dvice.com/archives/2012/03/230-efficient-l.php

Physicists hellbent on destroying the universe have come up with a
tiny LED that produces 69 picowatts of light while using just 30
picowatts of power. That's an efficiency of above 100%, which should
be impossible, but isn't. And in other breaking news, up is down,
black is white, and zebras
< http://dvice.com/archives/2011/12/nasa-wants-to-s-2.php> look the same.

Last week, physicists from MIT published a paper in /Physical Review
Letters/ entitled "Thermoelectrically Pumped Light-Emitting Diodes
Operating above Unity Efficiency." My guess is that most physicists
cringe a little bit when they see the phrase "above unity," because
that's another way of saying either "perpetual motion machine" or
"free energy," both of which are likely to get you branded as either
an eccentric (if you're lucky) or a total crackpot (if you're not).

Over-unity machines may be impossible, but the LED in this paper
definitely put out more than twice as much energy in the form of
photons as the researchers fed it in the form of electrons. They
found that as they decreased the electrical voltage that went into
the LED, the emitted light decreased by a direct proportion, while
the input power decreased exponentially. In other words, the less
power you put into an LED, the more efficient it gets at producing
light, and if you decrease the power enough, you can blow right past
the 100% efficiency mark.

So, how does this not totally and completely invalidate the
conservation of energy? We have to look at how energy flows through
the /entire/ system, not just at the electricity in and light out.
When the LED gets more than 100% /electrically/ efficient, it starts
to cool itself down, which is another way of saying that it's
stealing energy (in the form of heat) from its environment and
converting that heat into those over-unity photons.

This cooling effect has some interesting implications for low-power
electronics, but most importantly, we can all rest just a little bit
easier knowing that the basic physical rules that frame our
perception of the universe have survived for one more day

 

I would not expect this to yield any big changes except for some unique applications at awesomely low light levels. Can't think of any now. But the issue is, I think, a relative of the Maxwell's demon. I think the solution turned out to be that the demon would, if it existed, consume more energy deciding which "hot" molecules to let through than would be achieved by the heat engine that could then use these "hot" molecules. It is very unlikely that conservation of energy does not apply here. Very interesting, even if it just demands a greater understanding of how heat and LEDs work. Conceivably we could make some way cool heat sensors with this.

---

From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com [mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Reese
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 7:46 AM
To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [usa-tesla] 230% efficient LEDs seem to violate first law of thermodynamics

 

The larger question is, can this quirk be scaled to exploitable dimensions.
I for one am keeping my fingers crossed.

Reese

At 09:28 AM 3/9/2012, McGalliard, Frederick B wrote:

Interesting. Thanks for the note. I wonder how they managed to count all the photons emitted? The emission is asymmetric and changes with power level.

---

From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Reese
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 3:35 PM
To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [usa-tesla] 230% efficient LEDs seem to violate first law of thermodynamics

 


http://dvice.com/archives/2012/03/230-efficient-l.php

Physicists hellbent on destroying the universe have come up with a
tiny LED that produces 69 picowatts of light while using just 30
picowatts of power. That's an efficiency of above 100%, which should
be impossible, but isn't. And in other breaking news, up is down,
black is white, and zebras
< http://dvice.com/archives/2011/12/nasa-wants-to-s-2.php> look the same.

Last week, physicists from MIT published a paper in /Physical Review
Letters/ entitled "Thermoelectrically Pumped Light-Emitting Diodes
Operating above Unity Efficiency." My guess is that most physicists
cringe a little bit when they see the phrase "above unity," because
that's another way of saying either "perpetual motion machine" or
"free energy," both of which are likely to get you branded as either
an eccentric (if you're lucky) or a total crackpot (if you're not).

Over-unity machines may be impossible, but the LED in this paper
definitely put out more than twice as much energy in the form of
photons as the researchers fed it in the form of electrons. They
found that as they decreased the electrical voltage that went into
the LED, the emitted light decreased by a direct proportion, while
the input power decreased exponentially. In other words, the less
power you put into an LED, the more efficient it gets at producing
light, and if you decrease the power enough, you can blow right past
the 100% efficiency mark.

So, how does this not totally and completely invalidate the
conservation of energy? We have to look at how energy flows through
the /entire/ system, not just at the electricity in and light out.
When the LED gets more than 100% /electrically/ efficient, it starts
to cool itself down, which is another way of saying that it's
stealing energy (in the form of heat) from its environment and
converting that heat into those over-unity photons.

This cooling effect has some interesting implications for low-power
electronics, but most importantly, we can all rest just a little bit
easier knowing that the basic physical rules that frame our
perception of the universe have survived for one more day

http://www.rexresearch.com/correa/correa.htm

Energy = Spin X Frequency, so Spin = Energy X Time, because Spin is conserved so
Energy variation give Time variation (speed of time). In our space-time generaly
we don't observe Time acceleration or Time decceleration so generaly we don't
observe energy violation. A possible local time definition could be: Local spin
density / Local energy density. What could be Local Spin density ? probably
Local "AB/Z" (A = Potential Vector, B=Magnetic Field, Z=vaccum impedance,
AB=scalar product). My firsts results experiments seems confirm what I say. (AB
product is the local magnetic helicity, as demonstrated, she is a conservated
value)
you can see my work in the file section (Laurent DAMOIS experiments)
Laurent DAMOIS

--- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, "McGalliard, Frederick B"
<frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:
>
> I am having a bit of trouble parsing Laurent's comments, but
> All slow transformations may be considered an infinite sum of much smaller
arbitrarily fast transitions?
> Perhaps he is referring to the quantum flux, where energy can vary and even
include negative values? In spite of this obscure behavior, the total always
seems to race back to conservation before we can get our hands on any of this
energy. The why is very much a subject for the next great theory to deal with.
Probably requires quantum and relativity to get merged somehow.
> Never heard of anyone trying to merge spin and time. Space and time, sure. but
why Spin? Why not color, or any of the 10 other sub nuclear parameters,
features, characteristics, or dimensions of freedom??? (not counting the 27
string dimensions which cannot be measured and exist only in equations, or the
47 - the answer to life the universe and everything (the hitchhikers guide to
the galaxy)??)
>
> ________________________________
> From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com [mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Laurent DAMOIS
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 9:59 AM
> To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] 230% efficient LEDs seem to violate first law of
thermodynamics
>
>
>
> these men (and other) have published papers et patents that demonstrate in
plasma discharge we have Overunity (output greater input). In slow
transformation we have energy conservation, but in fast transformation we don't
have energy conservation. It is a thermodynamic problem, the difference beetwen
reversible and no reversible. It is also a consequency of the planck formula,
that say two things. 1�) Origin of all energy is a spin tme variation. 2�)
Because Spin is a conservated value (even in relativity), so the product Time by
Energy is constant, so we can have energy violation if we have also time
violation. This problem is not new, it exist also in CPT violation. Because we
live in space time with constant speed of time we can say that we have energy
conservation.
>
> http://www.rexresearch.com/correa/correa.htm
>
> http://www.rexresearch.com/chernetskii/chernetskii.htm
>
> The reason why CFL bulb are 5 X more efficient than classical bulb, is because
we have discharge
>
> https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=fr&shva=1#inbox/135f7e5783600c32
>
> in leds we have "something" similar to a time violation
>
> Laurent DAMOIS
>
>
> 2012/3/9 Ed Phillips <evp@...<mailto:evp@...>>
>
>
> A couple of years ago Science magazine had a paper on experiments which
appeared to violate the second law.  I can't remember the details but it
involved thermionic emission from a hot cathode and apparent violation in that
energy flowed from cold to hot regions.  On careful examination it turned out
that there was no violation.  The 'cold side' actually got colder when it
emitted electrons.
>
> McGalliard, Frederick B wrote:
>
>
> I would not expect this to yield any big changes except for some unique
applications at awesomely low light levels. Can't think of any now. But the
issue is, I think, a relative of the Maxwell's demon. I think the solution
turned out to be that the demon would, if it existed, consume more energy
deciding which "hot" molecules to let through than would be achieved by the heat
engine that could then use these "hot" molecules. It is very unlikely that
conservation of energy does not apply here. Very interesting, even if it just
demands a greater understanding of how heat and LEDs work. Conceivably we could
make some way cool heat sensors with this.
>
> ________________________________
> From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com<mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Reese
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 7:46 AM
> To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com<mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [usa-tesla] 230% efficient LEDs seem to violate first law of
thermodynamics
>
>
>
> The larger question is, can this quirk be scaled to exploitable dimensions.
> I for one am keeping my fingers crossed.
>
> Reese
>
> At 09:28 AM 3/9/2012, McGalliard, Frederick B wrote:
>
>
>
> Interesting. Thanks for the note. I wonder how they managed to count all the
photons emitted? The emission is asymmetric and changes with power level.
>
> ________________________________
> From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com<mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com> [
mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Reese
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 3:35 PM
> To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com<mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [usa-tesla] 230% efficient LEDs seem to violate first law of
thermodynamics
>
>
>
>
> http://dvice.com/archives/2012/03/230-efficient-l.php
>
> Physicists hellbent on destroying the universe have come up with a
> tiny LED that produces 69 picowatts of light while using just 30
> picowatts of power. That's an efficiency of above 100%, which should
> be impossible, but isn't. And in other breaking news, up is down,
> black is white, and zebras
> < http://dvice.com/archives/2011/12/nasa-wants-to-s-2.php> look the same.
>
> Last week, physicists from MIT published a paper in /Physical Review
> Letters/ entitled "Thermoelectrically Pumped Light-Emitting Diodes
> Operating above Unity Efficiency." My guess is that most physicists
> cringe a little bit when they see the phrase "above unity," because
> that's another way of saying either "perpetual motion machine" or
> "free energy," both of which are likely to get you branded as either
> an eccentric (if you're lucky) or a total crackpot (if you're not).
>
> Over-unity machines may be impossible, but the LED in this paper
> definitely put out more than twice as much energy in the form of
> photons as the researchers fed it in the form of electrons. They
> found that as they decreased the electrical voltage that went into
> the LED, the emitted light decreased by a direct proportion, while
> the input power decreased exponentially. In other words, the less
> power you put into an LED, the more efficient it gets at producing
> light, and if you decrease the power enough, you can blow right past
> the 100% efficiency mark.
>
> So, how does this not totally and completely invalidate the
> conservation of energy? We have to look at how energy flows through
> the /entire/ system, not just at the electricity in and light out.
> When the LED gets more than 100% /electrically/ efficient, it starts
> to cool itself down, which is another way of saying that it's
> stealing energy (in the form of heat) from its environment and
> converting that heat into those over-unity photons.
>
> This cooling effect has some interesting implications for low-power
> electronics, but most importantly, we can all rest just a little bit
> easier knowing that the basic physical rules that frame our
> perception of the universe have survived for one more day
>

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-science/20120316/SCIENCE-US-SCIENCE-NEU\
TRINOS/

New test finds neutrinos didn't beat light barrier

2 hours ago

LONDON � New research suggests neutrinos that appeared
to break a basic law of physics by travelling faster than the
speed of light kept within the universal speed limit after all.

The latest measurement of the sub-atomic particles' time
of flight from the CERN research centre in Geneva to
Gran Sasso in central Italy contradicts an initial
super-fast reading reported last September, which caused
a scientific sensation.

Since then, more doubts have crept in about the original
claims, especially after news last month that the first finding
from the so-called OPERA experiment may have been
distorted by faulty cabling.
...

--
best
  dwp

83% of predicted Ohms Law current at 60hz Series Resonance employing measured
equal opposite reactances in series. Secondary neon/ magnet loading showing
primary changes of amperage from re-tuned primary condition. Secondary voltage
distributions across neon and magnet.
http://youtu.be/LgXfbkqxBok

 

83% of predicted Ohms Law current at 60hz Series Resonance employing measured
equal opposite reactances in series. Secondary neon/ magnet loading showing
primary changes of amperage from re-tuned primary condition. Secondary voltage
distributions across neon and magnet.
http://youtu.be/LgXfbkqxBok

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: mriversong@...
Sent: Apr 23, 2012 4:05 PM
To: Michael Riversong Education , chylogos@...
Subject: Fwd: Abstracts Uploaded... April Special Deadline Looms!



Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone

----- Forwarded message -----
From: "Steven Elswick" <steve@...>
To: <mriversong@...>
Subject: Abstracts Uploaded... April Special Deadline Looms!
Date: Mon, Apr 23, 2012 16:00

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here     Abstracts have been uploaded and can be viewed at http://www.teslatech.info/ttevents/2012conf/program.htm New additions include Foster Gamble (and his THRIVE Documentary), Robert Rohner demonstrating his gyro/kinetic technology derived from Papp technology, and the John Milewski Thursday Afternoon Workshop! Additionally the NPA conference will be overlapping the ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference. Attendees for the ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference will be able to attend the NPA conference for a nominal fee (more will be published on this later). Since the NPA Conference starts on Wednesday, those intending to attend the both conferences need to make hotel reservations starting on Wednesday. __________________________________________ 2012 Conference PreRegistration Special! Save 25% by preregistering before April 30... Preregistration for the 2012 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference (Jul 26- 29 / Albuquerque, NM) is ongoing. However, in order to receive the 25% discount, members must sign up before April 30, 2012!!! To PreRegister ... http://www.teslatech.info/ttevents/2012conf/register.htm or call 520-463-1994 Other current tentative list of speaker/topics include: Joshua Parker - Decrypting Rife's Disease Fighting Technology Norman Shealy - Tesla Nanotechnology Rejuvenation Of Telomeres Kenneth Taylor - Bio-Resonance According to Paul Schmidt Moray King - Cavitating Electrolyzers: The Key to "Over Unity" Dr. Konstantin Meyl - TESLATEC or DESERTEC? Dan Davidson - On the Detection of Longitudinal/Scalar Waves Lucian M. Ionescu - Tesla waves, Biofields and Aetheric energy Bruce Perreault - Radiant Energy Technology Chuck Reithmeyer - Practical Rodin Coil Generator Application Marko Rodin - The Dandelion Puff Principle on Steroids Harvey Fiala - Inertial Propulsion Breakthrough Suzanne Price - Qualar Physics: Wave of the Future Sterling Allan - Top 5 Exotic Free Energy Technologies .... and there will be more added soon! Bring the family as well! It is a great time to share your ideas with those you love... who knows, you may be opening a door into their lives you never knew existed! Even if the Conference is not their cup of tea, Albuquerque itself is an interesting place to visit. Old Town is just down the street from the conference and gives you the flavor of the Old West. There's the famous tramway up Sandia Mountain, and other attractions nearby. You can stay a few extra days and make Albuquerque your hub to explore New Mexico. It's a great opportunity to expand your personal horizons... just beware of aliens if you travel to Roswell! Save an additional 5% during the month of April with our Companion Special. Simply preregister TWO people at once to qualify. It can be yourself and your spouse, family member or a just a friend. Instead of a 25% discount... you will receive a 30% discount! To PreRegister ... http://www.teslatech.info/ttevents/2012conf/register.htm or call 520-463-1994 This Registration Special ends on April 30th!!!     If you no longer wish to receive our emails, click the link below:  Unsubscribe Tesla Tech Inc 296 E. Donna Dr. Queen Valley, Arizona 85118 United States (520) 463-1904

-- Michael Riversong
Tesla Academy
Fort Collins, Colorado
www.teslaacademy.info
rivedu@...

Can we get this in pdf? (www;>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,program.html link.)

I don't do xls.

a joe in Texas

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:13:01 -0600 (GMT-06:00), Michael Riversong Education <rivedu@...> wrote:

 

Been waiting for this for a while.  It's good to see things moving on this conference.  Anyone with a concern for the state of advanced energy research, leading to environmentally safe and economical technologies, should seriously consider attending.  DVDs will be available later, but there's nothing like being there.  The listed speakers are definitely "The Real Thing."

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: mriversong@...
Sent: Apr 23, 2012 4:05 PM
To: Michael Riversong Education , chylogos@...
Subject: Fwd: Abstracts Uploaded... April Special Deadline Looms!



Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone

----- Forwarded message -----
From: "Steven Elswick" <steve@...>
To: <mriversong@...>
Subject: Abstracts Uploaded... April Special Deadline Looms!
Date: Mon, Apr 23, 2012 16:00

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here     Abstracts have been uploaded and can be viewed at http://www.teslatech.info/ttevents/2012conf/program.htm New additions include Foster Gamble (and his THRIVE Documentary), Robert Rohner demonstrating his gyro/kinetic technology derived from Papp technology, and the John Milewski Thursday Afternoon Workshop! Additionally the NPA conference will be overlapping the ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference. Attendees for the ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference will be able to attend the NPA conference for a nominal fee (more will be published on this later). Since the NPA Conference starts on Wednesday, those intending to attend the both conferences need to make hotel reservations starting on Wednesday. __________________________________________ 2012 Conference PreRegistration Special! Save 25% by preregistering before April 30... Preregistration for the 2012 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference (Jul 26- 29 / Albuquerque, NM) is ongoing. However, in order to receive the 25% discount, members must sign up before April 30, 2012!!! To PreRegister ... http://www.teslatech.info/ttevents/2012conf/register.htm or call 520-463-1994 Other current tentative list of speaker/topics include: Joshua Parker - Decrypting Rife's Disease Fighting Technology Norman Shealy - Tesla Nanotechnology Rejuvenation Of Telomeres Kenneth Taylor - Bio-Resonance According to Paul Schmidt Moray King - Cavitating Electrolyzers: The Key to "Over Unity" Dr. Konstantin Meyl - TESLATEC or DESERTEC? Dan Davidson - On the Detection of Longitudinal/Scalar Waves Lucian M. Ionescu - Tesla waves, Biofields and Aetheric energy Bruce Perreault - Radiant Energy Technology Chuck Reithmeyer - Practical Rodin Coil Generator Application Marko Rodin - The Dandelion Puff Principle on Steroids Harvey Fiala - Inertial Propulsion Breakthrough Suzanne Price - Qualar Physics: Wave of the Future Sterling Allan - Top 5 Exotic Free Energy Technologies .... and there will be more added soon! Bring the family as well! It is a great time to share your ideas with those you love... who knows, you may be opening a door into their lives you never knew existed! Even if the Conference is not their cup of tea, Albuquerque itself is an interesting place to visit. Old Town is just down the street from the conference and gives you the flavor of the Old West. There's the famous tramway up Sandia Mountain, and other attractions nearby. You can stay a few extra days and make Albuquerque your hub to explore New Mexico. It's a great opportunity to expand your personal horizons... just beware of aliens if you travel to Roswell! Save an additional 5% during the month of April with our Companion Special. Simply preregister TWO people at once to qualify. It can be yourself and your spouse, family member or a just a friend. Instead of a 25% discount... you will receive a 30% discount! To PreRegister ... http://www.teslatech.info/ttevents/2012conf/register.htm or call 520-463-1994 This Registration Special ends on April 30th!!!     If you no longer wish to receive our emails, click the link below:  Unsubscribe Tesla Tech Inc 296 E. Donna Dr. Queen Valley, Arizona 85118 United States (520) 463-1904

-- Michael Riversong
Tesla Academy
Fort Collins, Colorado
www.teslaacademy.info
rivedu@...

--- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, "McGalliard, Frederick B"
<frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:
>
> Harvey. You are strongly overstating the dif between a freshman EE class, and
a grad student level evaluation of a range of real applications. The freshman
uses simple coil and capacitor models and does his lab demo with components that
fall in the range where all the little idiosyncrasies do not apply. In fact, as
all skilled and experienced EEs, and even some physicists, know, inductors and
capacitors typically have a well behaved nearly ideal range of behavior,

If we took a single coil and then air core coupled it with another coil by
mutual inductance, the inductive reactance of the first coil will be reduced. If
we then used that lowered reactance and gave it an identical capacitive
reactance, the current would never be able to reach its ohms law value expressed
from the single coil. The Q factor of that coil could not reach the X(L)/R
ratio. If it did all of the apparent VI input energy would have been used
up,(because now in these ideal conditions VI=I^2R and no energy would be left
over for the secondary to record any current. If it did there would be more
power out then what went in. If the secondary were made more receptive by it
also having a C value in its loop, this would further drive the primaries
inductive reactance down again by a smaller margin. If the circuit were retuned
again, the same thing would apply and the single inductor would deviate even
more from its ideal behavior. However for just the single inductor without any
other receptors in space around it, we are still confronted with the electric
field between the windings, or the internal capacity of the coil. If the series
resonance were ideal, ALL of the available electric field created by the series
resonant rise of voltage would be in the capacitor, and none would be left over
to manifest itself in the internal capacity of the coil.
     I will clarify then the measurements made in http://www.youtube.com/wa
First the total current was measured for two 14 gauge coil spools in isolation
and in series @ 2.6 ohms and given an opposing capacitive reactance within 1% of
the needed value. Stopping the video at 1:06 shows those notes where it is
indicated that
16.05 volts enables 5.11 A
     Only 82.8% of the expected 6.17 A developes if the load were truly 2.6 ohms.
The resonance has not come very close to its ohms law value at all. This to me
is not operating in an ideal range of behavior. When I showed the circuit to my
friend who nit pics and has an electronics associate degree, he protested that I
was not counting the resistance of all the connecting wires, so I replaced all
the capacitive alligator clips with tight 14 gauge wire connections. At 5:20 in
the video most of these can be seen, but there would have to be some 170 ft of
14 gauge wire involved for his protest to be valid. Then he said the circuit
wasn't perfectly balanced and the books can't be wrong. This too is invalid
because the ratio X(L)/R is not large, thus we do not have a narrow bandwidth of
resonance.
     Next the cap bank was shorted to find the Impedance of just the inductive
side. The variac supplying this voltage of the low end of its 150 volt range
then showed 18.74 volts enabling 1.67 A for Z=11.22 ohms. After subtracting the
squares to find the square of X(L):(Z^2-R^2=X(L)^2) for the actual 2.6 ohms
resistance X(L)= 10.9 ohms
     Lastly the inductive side was shorted to determine X(C).
Notice that the variac supply then rose to its highest value where 19.54 volts
enabled 1.78 A, which gives X(C)= 10.97 ohms, within 1 % of the needed value. My
electronics friend also noted the the wireless amperage meter was very accurate
in comparison to meters he brought over, and it was very convenient to have both
amperage and voltage displays on the same screen. My actual repeat of these
observations on the video was unduly long due to inadequate preparation. I hope
I have made my point here. If I had used actual alternator frequencies (~465Hz)
for the demo, the discrepancies between ideal and real behavior would have been
vast, as I had mentioned only ~30% of the expected amperage developed in that
case.
Internal capacity must become more predominant at higher frequencies.
Sincerely HDN

 

--- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, "McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:
>
> Harvey. You are strongly overstating the dif between a freshman EE class, and a grad student level evaluation of a range of real applications. The freshman uses simple coil and capacitor models and does his lab demo with components that fall in the range where all the little idiosyncrasies do not apply. In fact, as all skilled and experienced EEs, and even some physicists, know, inductors and capacitors typically have a well behaved nearly ideal range of behavior,

If we took a single coil and then air core coupled it with another coil by mutual inductance, the inductive reactance of the first coil will be reduced. If we then used that lowered reactance and gave it an identical capacitive reactance, the current would never be able to reach its ohms law value expressed from the single coil. The Q factor of that coil could not reach the X(L)/R ratio. If it did all of the apparent VI input energy would have been used up,(because now in these ideal conditions VI=I^2R and no energy would be left over for the secondary to record any current. If it did there would be more power out then what went in. If the secondary were made more receptive by it also having a C value in its loop, this would further drive the primaries inductive reactance down again by a smaller margin. If the circuit were retuned again, the same thing would apply and the single inductor would deviate even more from its ideal behavior. However for just the single inductor without any other receptors in space around it, we are still confronted with the electric field between the windings, or the internal capacity of the coil. If the series resonance were ideal, ALL of the available electric field created by the series resonant rise of voltage would be in the capacitor, and none would be left over to manifest itself in the internal capacity of the coil.
I will clarify then the measurements made in http://www.youtube.com/wa
First the total current was measured for two 14 gauge coil spools in isolation and in series @ 2.6 ohms and given an opposing capacitive reactance within 1% of the needed value. Stopping the video at 1:06 shows those notes where it is indicated that
16.05 volts enables 5.11 A
Only 82.8% of the expected 6.17 A developes if the load were truly 2.6 ohms. The resonance has not come very close to its ohms law value at all. This to me is not operating in an ideal range of behavior. When I showed the circuit to my friend who nit pics and has an electronics associate degree, he protested that I was not counting the resistance of all the connecting wires, so I replaced all the capacitive alligator clips with tight 14 gauge wire connections. At 5:20 in the video most of these can be seen, but there would have to be some 170 ft of 14 gauge wire involved for his protest to be valid. Then he said the circuit wasn't perfectly balanced and the books can't be wrong. This too is invalid because the ratio X(L)/R is not large, thus we do not have a narrow bandwidth of resonance.
Next the cap bank was shorted to find the Impedance of just the inductive side. The variac supplying this voltage of the low end of its 150 volt range then showed 18.74 volts enabling 1.67 A for Z=11.22 ohms. After subtracting the squares to find the square of X(L):(Z^2-R^2=X(L)^2) for the actual 2.6 ohms resistance X(L)= 10.9 ohms
Lastly the inductive side was shorted to determine X(C).
Notice that the variac supply then rose to its highest value where 19.54 volts enabled 1.78 A, which gives X(C)= 10.97 ohms, within 1 % of the needed value. My electronics friend also noted the the wireless amperage meter was very accurate in comparison to meters he brought over, and it was very convenient to have both amperage and voltage displays on the same screen. My actual repeat of these observations on the video was unduly long due to inadequate preparation. I hope I have made my point here. If I had used actual alternator frequencies (~465Hz) for the demo, the discrepancies between ideal and real behavior would have been vast, as I had mentioned only ~30% of the expected amperage developed in that case.
Internal capacity must become more predominant at higher frequencies.
Sincerely HDN

Went ahead and munched the original backup reference file into PDF.  It might be
a little odd, because apparently it included some comments, but anyway if anyone
else wants that file let me know and i can send it off-list. 
rivedu@...

Also this message is in plain text format, in case anyone needs to use it that
way.

-----Original Message-----

From: joesmith@...

Sent: Apr 24, 2012 6:29 PM

To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] ExtraOrdinary Technology Abstracts Uploaded... April
SpecialDeadline Looms!



Can we get this in pdf?
(www;>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,program.html link.)
I don't do xls.a
joe in Texas

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:13:01 -0600
(GMT-06:00), Michael  Riversong Education <rivedu@...>
wrote:











       Been
waiting for this for a while.  It's good to see things moving on this
conference.  Anyone with a concern for the state of advanced energy
research, leading to environmentally safe and economical technologies, should
seriously consider attending.  DVDs will be available later, but there's
nothing like being there.  The listed speakers are definitely "The Real
Thing."

-----Forwarded Message-----

From: mriversong@...

Sent: Apr 23, 2012 4:05 PM

To: Michael Riversong Education , chylogos@...

Subject: Fwd: Abstracts Uploaded... April Special Deadline Looms!






Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone

----- Forwarded message -----
From: "Steven Elswick"
<steve@...>
To: <mriversong@...>
Subject:
Abstracts Uploaded... April Special Deadline Looms!
Date: Mon, Apr 23, 2012
16:00


















         Having trouble viewing this email? Click
here






















































Abstracts have been uploaded and can be viewed at


       http://www.teslatech.info/ttevents/2012conf/program.htm


New
additions include Foster Gamble (and his
THRIVE
Documentary), Robert Rohner
demonstrating his gyro/kinetic technology derived
from Papp technology, and the John Milewski  Thursday Afternoon
  Workshop!





Additionally the NPA conference
will be overlapping the ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference. Attendees
for the ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference will be able to attend the NPA
conference for a nominal fee (more will be published on this
later).


Since the
NPA Conference starts on Wednesday, those intending to attend the both
conferences need to make hotel reservations starting on Wednesday.





__________________________________________



2012 Conference PreRegistration
Special!





Save 25% by
preregistering  before April 30...





Preregistration
for the 2012 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference (Jul 26- 29 /
Albuquerque, NM) is ongoing. However, in order to receive the 25% discount,
members must sign up before April 30, 2012!!!


To PreRegister ...





         http://www.teslatech.info/ttevents/2012conf/register.htm





or call   520-463-1994




Other current tentative list of
speaker/topics include:





Joshua Parker - Decrypting Rife's
Disease Fighting Technology


Norman Shealy - Tesla Nanotechnology
Rejuvenation Of Telomeres


Kenneth Taylor - Bio-Resonance
According to Paul Schmidt


Moray King - Cavitating
Electrolyzers: The Key to "Over Unity"


Dr. Konstantin Meyl -  TESLATEC or
DESERTEC?


Dan Davidson - On
the Detection of Longitudinal/Scalar Waves





Lucian M. Ionescu - Tesla waves,
Biofields and Aetheric energy


Bruce Perreault - Radiant Energy
Technology


Chuck Reithmeyer - Practical Rodin
Coil Generator Application


Marko Rodin - The Dandelion Puff
Principle on Steroids


Harvey Fiala -  Inertial Propulsion
Breakthrough


Suzanne Price - Qualar Physics:
Wave of the Future


Sterling Allan - Top 5 Exotic Free Energy Technologies


      .... and there will be more added soon!






Bring the family as well!  It is a great time
to share your ideas
with those you love... who knows, you may be opening a door into their lives you
never knew existed! Even if the Conference is not their cup of tea, Albuquerque
itself  is an interesting place to visit.  Old Town is just down the
street from the conference and gives you the flavor of the Old West.
There's the famous tramway up Sandia Mountain, and other attractions
nearby.  You can stay a few extra days and make Albuquerque your hub to
explore New Mexico.  It's a great opportunity to expand your personal
horizons... just beware of aliens if you travel to Roswell!


Save an additional 5%  during
the month of April with our Companion Special. Simply
preregister TWO people at once to qualify. It can be yourself and your spouse,
family
member  or a just a friend.  Instead of a 25% discount... you will
receive a 30% discount!


To PreRegister ...





         http://www.teslatech.info/ttevents/2012conf/register.htm



or
call
  520-463-1994








This Registration Special ends on April 30th!!!




























If you no longer wish to receive our emails, click the link below:
  Unsubscribe




Tesla Tech Inc 296 E. Donna Dr. Queen Valley, Arizona 85118 United States (520)
463-1904















-- Michael Riversong
Tesla Academy
Fort Collins, Colorado
www.teslaacademy.info
rivedu@...

-- Michael Riversong
Tesla Academy
Fort Collins, Colorado
www.teslaacademy.info
rivedu@...

OK something else two things really First a month or so back TIME
TRAVEL tyopic was mentioned1 There was a PhD a late IBM researcher in
fact(he also was into Psychic resreach ufos etcd!0 Who in the 1980s
developed a TIME CAMERA Dr. marcel Vogel I have beentrying to replicate
his TIME AMERA using a Tesla Purple plate by the way! Got Digital pics
tha are intresting ! Now, Juul 10th is Teslas birthdfate gLOBAL ENERGY
INDEPPENDENCE DAY TOO(see google) and A TESLA DAY OF SCIENCE remeber
tesla jul10th all thanks ! Dr. laird(Dunans Casle Argylle ,Scotland)
Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D..U>L> Huntington becah, california USA


-----Original Message-----
From: ED <evp@...>
To: usa-tesla <usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 26, 2012 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Re: Ohms Law Value at Series Resonance?




Harvey

    None of this makes any sense at all without a diagram showing the
actual configuration, the measurement points, and the measurements and
predicted values for each point.  Try that and we might have some
sensible comments.

Ed

Harvey D Norris wrote:

 


--- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, "McGalliard, Frederick B"
<frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:
>
> Harvey. You are strongly overstating the dif between a freshman EE
class, and a grad student level evaluation of a range of real
applications. The freshman uses simple coil and capacitor models and
does his lab demo with components that fall in the range where all the
little idiosyncrasies do not apply. In fact, as all skilled and
experienced EEs, and even some physicists, know, inductors and
capacitors typically have a well behaved nearly ideal range of
behavior,

If we took a single coil and then air core coupled it with another coil
by mutual inductance, the inductive reactance of the first coil will be
reduced. If we then used that lowered reactance and gave it an
identical capacitive reactance, the current would never be able to
reach its ohms law value expressed from the single coil. The Q factor
of that coil could not reach the X(L)/R ratio. If it did all of the
apparent VI input energy would have been used up,(because now in these
ideal conditions VI=I^2R and no energy would be left over for the
secondary to record any current. If it did there would be more power
out then what went in. If the secondary were made more receptive by it
also having a C value in its loop, this would further drive the
primaries inductive reactance down again by a smaller margin. If the
circuit were retuned again, the same thing would apply and the single
inductor would deviate even more from its ideal behavior. However for
just the single inductor without any other receptors in space around
it, we are still confronted with the electric field between the
windings, or the internal capacity of the coil. If the series resonance
were ideal, ALL of the available electric field created by the series
resonant rise of voltage would be in the capacitor, and none would be
left over to manifest itself in the internal capacity of the coil.
I will clarify then the measurements made in http://www.youtube.com/wa
First the total current was measured for two 14 gauge coil spools in
isolation and in series @ 2.6 ohms and given an opposing capacitive
reactance within 1% of the needed value. Stopping the video at 1:06
shows those notes where it is indicated that
16.05 volts enables 5.11 A
Only 82.8% of the expected 6.17 A developes if the load were truly 2.6
ohms. The resonance has not come very close to its ohms law value at
all. This to me is not operating in an ideal range of behavior. When I
showed the circuit to my friend who nit pics and has an electronics
associate degree, he protested that I was not counting the resistance
of all the connecting wires, so I replaced all the capacitive alligator
clips with tight 14 gauge wire connections. At 5:20 in the video most
of these can be seen, but there would have to be some 170 ft of 14
gauge wire involved for his protest to be valid. Then he said the
circuit wasn't perfectly balanced and the books can't be wrong. This
too is invalid because the ratio X(L)/R is not large, thus we do not
have a narrow bandwidth of resonance.
Next the cap bank was shorted to find the Impedance of just the
inductive side. The variac supplying this voltage of the low end of its
150 volt range then showed 18.74 volts enabling 1.67 A for Z=11.22
ohms. After subtracting the squares to find the square of
X(L):(Z^2-R^2=X(L)^2) for the actual 2.6 ohms resistance X(L)= 10.9 ohms
Lastly the inductive side was shorted to determine X(C).
Notice that the variac supply then rose to its highest value where
19.54 volts enabled 1.78 A, which gives X(C)= 10.97 ohms, within 1 % of
the needed value. My electronics friend also noted the the wireless
amperage meter was very accurate in comparison to meters he brought
over, and it was very convenient to have both amperage and voltage
displays on the same screen. My actual repeat of these observations on
the video was unduly long due to inadequate preparation. I hope I have
made my point here. If I had used actual alternator frequencies
(~465Hz) for the demo, the discrepancies between ideal and real
behavior would have been vast, as I had mentioned only ~30% of the
expected amperage developed in that case.
Internal capacity must become more predominant at higher frequencies.
Sincerely HDN