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

Re: Frequency splitting (fwd)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:21:46 EDT
From: Mddeming@xxxxxxx
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Frequency splitting (fwd)

 
 
 
Hi Bart, All,
 
    As we have seen crop up on the list many times  before, stout claims 
contrary to accepted theory seem to require only a  firm belief in one's own 
ideas. This is especially true among the persecuted and  unrecognized geniuses. 
Haughty attitude and deprecating language have also  been hallmarks of this ilk. 
And the beat goes on....
 
Matt D.

 
 
In a message dated 8/19/07 11:31:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

I understand your theory and it's not a bad one. But, think for a  
moment, do you "really" know that an arc does not have a capacitance?  
What is your source for such a stout claim? From my understanding, an  
arc absolutely contains a charge or various charges throughout various  
regions of the arc channel and thus a capacity. If it didn't, there  
would be no arc in the first place.

Your theory is interesting, but  please don't use phrases like "it has 
come to my attention that many  experts....". That just sounds so damn 
degrading! The fact is, sparks load  down the coils frequency by a small 
degree. Maybe from the spark itself or  in your theory the dampening 
effect. The "only" thing the so called  experts are saying is that it 
doesn't hurt to detune the coil for this  frequency divergence.

BTW, I've never met an expert coiler. In my  opinion, there is no such 
thing as an expert coiler except maybe in ones  own mind. There is 
experience.

Take care,
Bart


>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun,  19 Aug 2007 15:22:28 -0400
> From: Jared Dwarshuis  <jdwarshuis@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Pupman  <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Frequency  splitting
>
>                Frequency  splitting
>
> If we build a circuit with two identical parallel LC  oscillators that have
> been coupled with a third capacitor ( which we  will label as C') we can
> easily describe the beat frequency as being  comprised of two individual
> frequencies: w+ = 1/sqrt(LC) and w- =  1/sqrt( L( C + 2(C') )
>
> We can make remarks about the charge  amplitude and show the beat frequency
> as being comprised of w+ and  w-
>
> q = 2 q0 sin [ ( w+ +  w-  )/2   t ]  cos [ (w+  - w- )/2   t  ]
>
> We can also  model a pair of identical mass /spring's  coupled with a 
>  central
> spring labeled k'  by using the exact same mathematical  underpinnings.
>
> In this case w+ = sqrt (k/m) and w- = sqrt [(k  + 2k')/m]
>
> Wall-----Spring k---Mass--- Spring k' ----Mass---  Spring k -----Wall
>
> We can make remarks about the amplitude and  show the beat frequency as 
> being
> comprised of w+ and  w-
>
> x = 2 x0 sin [ ( w+ +  w-  )/2   t ]  cos [ (w+  - w- )/2   t  ]
>
> Now to give  some physicality. We find the two fundamental modes of this
> coupled  mass spring system by examining two special cases of motion.
>
>  When we move both mass the same direction and distance, we find that  the
> central spring k' remains flaccid and does not contribute to the  frequency
> of the system. In this case the term k' disappears and we  get w = sqrt 
> (k/m)
>
> When we move both mass in opposite  directions and equal distance. We are
> stretching the center spring k'.  This is where we get the second 
> frequency:
>

> w- = sqrt( (k + 2k') /m)
>
> Now if we were to introduce  dampening to one side of our mass spring 
> system
> we could no  longer make these simple remarks. We would need to write all 
>  of
> this using decaying exponential functions.
>
>> But  in a pinch we could always get a lightly dampened system to respond
>  decently to the driver by tweaking one or more of: m, k, or   k'
>
> Now does it makes sense to use the phrase "frequency  splitting". Not 
> really
> since it is already implied that we  have a superposition of two 
> frequencies
> in a coupled system.  The beat envelope increases as we diminish k'. this 
> is
> no  surprise since:
>
> w- = sqrt( (k + 2k') /m) becomes: w = sqrt  (k/m) as k' goes to zero.
>
> End.
>
>
>  Commentaries:
>
> It has come to my attention that many experts on  Pupman are now describing
> the plasma arc from the secondary  capacitor  as having a capacitance. They
> are tuning coils as if  the capacitance was really there.
>
> There is no such capacitance  in the arc. Capacitors do not increase
> capacitance when they arc out.  Arcs do not have an ability to store 
> charge.
> Arcs  do  not have plates nor can they be described with a fixed  geometry.
>
> Nor can we describe an arc as having an appreciable  inductance. The 
> geometry
> is not much good for  inductance.
>
> Nope!;  you are altering C or C'  to  make up for changes in frequency 
> caused
> by dampening.  (dampening from  the non linear resistance of the arc)
>
>  Empirical corrections are wonderful, my hats off!  I am sure that a  great
> deal of effort was involved in arriving at a useable correction  factor. 
> But
> there is no capacitance in the arc. There is only  non linear resistance 
> and
> perhaps a tiny bit of  inductance.
>
>
> Jared Dwarshuis  August  07
>








************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour