[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Spiral Coil test suggestions: was Re: (Fwd) RE: Longitudinal Waves



Original poster: "Mark L. Fergerson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <mfergerson1-at-cox-dot-net>

> Original poster: "David Thomson by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <dave-at-volantis-dot-org>
>
> Hi Malcolm,
>
> >your suspicions about the oscilloscope are wrong.
>
> For the reasons I cited in previous posts, I will maintain my position.
> There's no sense in debating the point further, however, until I can
either
> provide information from a study already completed or prove the point with
> evidence myself.

  I keep remembering that Tesla had _no_ O-scopes at all, D or A. I also
keep remembering that both types give representations of what's under
measurement, interpreted differently (not to mention the appropriate probe
issue).

  It's probably best to keep in mind what your measuring setup is, and how
it affects the readings you'll get. That's assuming one knows how a scope
will react in a given situation. I don't believe I always will. Surprises
happen

> >> Your explanation is helpful.  At what point of the cycle is new energy
> >> added?  We know there are losses in the system, so at some point the
> energy
> >> has to be replaced, correct?
> >>
> >> I'm going to jump ahead of your answer, because I can't see how energy
> would
> >> be efficiently added gradually through the entire cycle, it must be
added
> as
> >> a pulse at a given time.

  Why do you say that? The current waveform of the primary is (mostly) what
determines the voltage waveform across the secondary.

> >The fact that you don't see how does not mean that it doesn't happen.

  That also depends on how it's being looked for (re: scope setup).

> >In fact the energy exchange is a continuous process with the tiniest
> >of time delays between the pusher and pushed.
>
> The fact that nobody has explained precisely how the energy is added to
the
> wave to keep it oscillating as a sine wave is what will keep me on my
> current theory.

  Start at the beginning; primary C charging, 0 current in the primary, 0
voltage on the secondary. The gap fires, yanking the primary coil voltage up
to the voltage on the C, but current can't flow instantaneously in a coil so
it rises slowly in the familiar exponential curve. Ideally, the L/C ratio is
such that the voltage and current track each other, following a sine curve
from the get-go. It proceeds to decrease smoothly as the cap discharges
towards the extinction voltage of the gap. That produces the relatively
smooth transfer of energy.

  Now I recognize the initial transient can be, er, magnified by the system
parameters, but ISTM that most coilers here try to get the smoothest
transfer possible because it keeps the smoke inside expensive parts.

  Also, there's the fact that a deliberately non-linear load is used
(usually anyway, to get streamers). That'll make for reflections back toward
the primary, but then again, that's deliberately minimized in a
"well-designed" system.

> I'm open to learning, and I realize most of you here are experts in your
> field.  I'll listen.  So far, nobody has explained to me in precise terms
> how the center of a flat spiral coil can have an electrostatic charge, the
> outer windings have a steady zero (or near zero) volts, and electric
> movement still takes place between the two.

  BTW, I'm still not clear if you're grounding either end of the coil, and
if so how. If not, what else is in proximity that might accumulate charge?

  Finally, the suggestions. Have you turned the coil _over_ and retested for
the apparent "longitudinal" effects? Have you accounted for the fact that
the ions measured are derived from the surrounding air, which is being
_heated_ by the streamers? Have you run the thing with the coil axis
horizontal and looked for the longitudinal effects? What will happen if you
run it in a vacuum?

> >    Are the "laws" established laws, verified and agreed as having been
> verified by the scientific community? If not and they do not agree with
> observation (or vice versa), which would you be the first to suspect?

  Observation. Chances are that a given "out of agreement" measurement
involves faulty technique or false initial assumptions. Verification _means_
being tested by observation.

  _But_, the method obviously has a major impact on results. I refer to
Uncle Al's insistence on sci.physics that the Eotvos experiment be run with
oppositely-handed test masses to _test_ the fundamental geometrical
assumptions of Relativity. If there's something non-ordinary about your
testing method that's giving these weird results, _and_ it's a valid
difference (not a failure to take into account something like atmospheric
ions moving in non-intuitive directions, frinst), then you may indeed have
something.

> Since when does a new theory have to be established law?

  It has to _agree_ with established law. If it produces new, unpredicted
results, it means the old standard must be _extended_, not just dumped.

> Look, longitudinal waves were not first conceived by me.  They have been
> reported extensively by one of the greatest electric geniuses of all time.

  I still wish I had a time machine available, so I could give Tesla a
scope.

> "Established laws", as far as I know, don't recognize longitudinal waves
as
> occurring in EMR.  Yet there is no problem describing longitudinal waves
> occurring as sound in the atmosphere or other fluids.  The scientific
> community cannot agree on the exact nature of light, let alone the
> quarterwave length of coils, or the DC component of a high voltage
> oscillator.  All of these uncertainties have the potential of being
> clarified in my theory.  Should I abandon my theory just because it hasn't
> been proven?  What do you think I should do?

  First, longitudinal waves _are_ known to occur in EM, but a medium is
required. Usually they're inconsequential unless the medium can make
sufficient mobile heavy ions available to make the effects visible. They're
a real pain in fusion reactor design, frinst.

  Secondly, the "exact nature" of light is a trick phrase; what's agreed on
is the _observable efects_ of EM phenomena. QED (Quantum ElectroDynamics) is
often touted as the most successful theory to date _because_ it makes
predictions that _always_ meet measurement to the limit of accuracy.

  "The exact nature of light" is a philosophical concept like "why", not a
scientific one like "how".

  The lumped constant/transmission line debate has been pretty much settled
here AFAICT. There are situations when one dominates, others where the other
dominates.

  As for DC components, well, streamers do show rectification effects, and
coil forms can hold a charge by being formed into electrets.

  What should you do? I'd recommend you get real sure of your measurement
techniques; do some testing of "known" systems before dipping into TCs,
especially ones built to specs "out of the usual box". Then, if your results
hold, try to deliberately screw them up to see how far you can stretch the
agreement of your model to your measurements. Run it sideways, frinst.

> I'll listen to any information relevant to the science of my theory, but
I'm
> not merely going to accept an "it's not possible" answer just because
> someone not fully familiar with my theory has his doubts.

  QED (or even old-fashioned Maxwell) leave no room for longitudinal waves
_in vacuo_ in terms of accounting for energy. That means there's nothing to
look for. That's even including the claims that Maxwell's Quaternions were
"crippled" by Heaviside et al.

  I know that Bearden desperately want this to be real, and to be frank, I'd
like it to be real, too. I also know he goes on about the fact that power
flows along the Poynting vector outside a conductor, and is merely
manifested in the familiar flow of electrons as a side effect, and that the
power source in a circuit is merely "directs" the infinite power of the ZPF.

  Unfortunately, I also know he makes _no testable predictions_ about how to
directly tap this infinite energy without providing the equivalent amount of
"ordinary" power to get the ZPF moving.

  This isn't to say it's impossible. Rather, that we need a serious change
in our thinking, or perhaps a technological serendipity moment to see it.
You may have had such a moment, or your measurement technique, or your
interpretation of it, may be faulty. The only way to tell is to note _every
detail_ of your technique, and to try my (and others') suggestions.

> This week I have some more experiments lined up to investigate the nature
of
> the electrostatic charge in the flat spiral.  I built another 30"
> electrostatically sealed plate to place below the coil and balance the
> charge from the upper plate.  I'm going to do some research to see how I
can
> conclusively prove there is a constant electrostatic charge in the plates
> with the materials and equipment I have on hand.  It can't be all that
> difficult.

  Definitely try it sideways.

> Also, I plan to test for the presence of longitudinal waves.  It would
seem
> to follow that IF a flat spiral coil produces longitudinal waves, then
> another flat spiral coil should receive them if situated in the same
plane.
> It would be highly unlikely that a zero volt wire at the edge of one flat
> spiral coil could transfer energy to the edge of an adjacent flat spiral
> coil through transverse RF.  So if energy is received by the receiving
coil,
> there would be sufficient evidence to suggest longitudinal waves were
> present.  I'm not saying it would be conclusive, but it would be evidence
in
> favor of it.  After that, it would be a matter of modulating and
> demodulating to transceive a signal.

  Also remember to account for fringe effects and ordinary EM coupling; use
a large interposed electrostatic shield, frinst.

> Just give me one good reason why I shouldn't pursue longitudinal waves in
a
> flat spiral secondary and a theory that would explain them.

  Can't do that. Good luck.

  Mark L. Fergerson