Re: Missing Meyer Patent Info/Reflections on resonance
Meat Truck ( (no email) )
Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:46:01 -0500
Hi Dennis and many other addresses. You made a statement/question, isnt
resonance akin to superconductivity?
No its kin to Ohms Law. That is electrical resonance anyways. The term
resonance also has other uses.
Surprisingly we see little referance to the fact that resonance is greatly
inhibited by the substance the magnetic field must permeate. Air works the
better than most materials. Also the uniformity in the geometry of the
capacitor seems to be a factor. I once built a crude wax paper/ aluminum
foil capacitor wrapped on a fiber drum. I constructed it to be the same
value as the capacitance needed to resonate a large air core coil. Normal
oil filled capacitors would give me a 15 fold increase of amperage and
voltage and 60 hertz. The home-made capacitor had many wrinkles and non
uniformity in its structure. Even though it it gave an identical capacitive
reading it would only give a 3 fold rise compared to 15 from the store
bought caps.
Series resonance is a conceptually a cancellation of inductive
reactance,which is the AC analogy of DC inductance,or magnetic "inertia".
This cancellation takes the form of an equal and opposite capacitive
reactance (in ohms) in series with the former. The net result is that
current is supposed to conduct at Ohms Law with no reactance,although this
an ideal situation that I have never seen. The best I have got
experimentally is 75% of the full conduction that would occur at ohms
law value (using an air core.) Perhaps the plastic core holding the wire
also inhibits this resonance,in addition to the internal capacitance
involved with thousands of winds.
The ignorance about the facts concerning resonance usually gets
expressed as the question "If I can obtain more amperage than is being
inputed in a parallel resonant circuit is this not free energy?" Another
famous question I have heard; "In a transformer the voltage is raised with
corresponding decrease in the amperage, but how then when the voltage is
raised by resonance both of these quantities increase?" And lastly my
favorite question, If the conservation of energy states that the sum of
energies expressed as kinetic and potential (in electrical resonance these
are magnetic and electrical fields) are a constant than when one increases
the other will decrease. How is it possible to make a system where both of
these can simultaneously increase and react with each other to produce a
theoretical over unity? I will attempt to answer the first two questions.
In the Stephen King movie in the background called "Needful Things"
,which these certainly are, the cop asks the priest If he believes in the
devil. The priest says something like you cant have one without the other.
So resonance is often quoted without the counterpart known as
anti-resonance. This is the parallel resonant circuit. So what is this
resonant choke circuit Meyer is quoted as using? I thought I might describe
my understanding of this.
Resonant circuits at first glance may seem to disobey modern
conceptions of how electricity should travel. We are taught in DC circuits
that current takes the path of least resistance. In AC circuits the obvious
carrying forth of this analogy would be that given a choice or branch of a
lower and higher impedance the lower would be chosen. In actual fact the
opposite effect can and does take place.
I have shown in my own experimentation a circuit of 100,000 ohms impedance
essentially in parallel with a 500 ohm branch in which the current path
exclusively takes the 100,000 ohm impedance path.
A quite a bit of ruckus has been raised in the last 10 years about
zero point energy, vacuum energy potential and so forth. I would like to be
like a botanist who tried to classify and organize different pepper species
50 years ago. A maze of confusion existed then. Perhaps the crux of the
biscuit started with Joe Newmans invention and his definition of Unobvious
force and energy.(No offense intended against Keely,Tesla,Moray ect. as
being the first) In fact I know nothing of Keelys teaching but perhaps this
is what is reffered as a neutral center. Not to get off the point here but
in harder times my working comrade who is sorely needed at this point in
time accused me a being the devils advocate.( I need that person to come
back to work so if anyone knows the whereabouts of Sean Farmer from
Louisiana/Ohio .e mail me)
Anyways to play the devils advocate is to ask one thing as I gulp the
tequila worm. Unobvious force and energy implies two forces acting in
opposition. If no movement takes place no work or energy takes place. Is
there an opposite to an unobvious force? Is it possible to create two
unobvious potentials and seek to harness this unobvious energy by their
reaction? To interrupt again I would say that I have read some of Tom
Beardens material over the years and I dont understand it that well because
of my education. But I am trying to explain things in terms I and others
might more easily comprehend.
Now in the case of an alternating current through an inductor the
magnetic field that emerges from the coiled geometry of the wire expresses
itself as a continual resistive voltage against the source voltage. This
happens because that magnetic field is continually changing in response to
the continually changing AC input. From zero to maximum voltage the
expanding field opposes its source emf exactly as occurs in DC induction.