Voltage/Length -> reactive losses

To: "'Tesla List'" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Voltage/Length -> reactive losses
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 08:21:20 -0600
Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net

----------
From:  Thornton, Russ #CSR2000 [SMTP:ThorntoR-at-rc.pafb.af.mil]
Sent:  Tuesday, February 03, 1998 7:34 AM
To:  'Tesla discussion Group'
Subject:  RE: Voltage/Length -> reactive losses

Kind of analogous to the tree in the forest question.

If there is no sensor to detect and a field collapses does it make a
deflection?

I am so sorry, I just couldn't help myself!

Russ Thornton
CSR 2040, 
Building 989, Rm.  A1-N20
Phone: (407) 494-6430 
Email: thorntor-at-rc.pafb.af.mil


>----------
>From: 	Tesla List[SMTP:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
>Sent: 	Monday, February 02, 1998 11:55 PM
>To: 	'Tesla List'
>Subject: 	Voltage/Length -> reactive losses
>
>
>----------
>From:  Malcolm Watts [SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
>Sent:  Sunday, February 01, 1998 4:44 PM
>To:  Tesla List
>Subject:  Re: Voltage/Length -> reactive losses
>
>John,
>      I trust this enquiry was made tongue-in-cheek?
>
>> From:  John H. Couture [SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
>> Sent:  Friday, January 30, 1998 6:51 PM
>> To:  Tesla List
>> Subject:  Re: Voltage/Length -> reactive losses
>> 
>> At 11:11 PM 1/29/98 -0600, you wrote:
>> >
>> >----------
>> >From:  Malcolm Watts [SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
>> >Sent:  Thursday, January 29, 1998 2:45 PM
>> >To:  Tesla List
>> >Subject:  Re: Voltage/Length -> reactive losses
>> >
>> >Hi Jim,
>> >
>> >> From:  Jim Monte [SMTP:JDM95003-at-UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU]
>> >> Sent:  Wednesday, January 28, 1998 11:46 AM
>> >> To:  tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>> >> Subject:  Re: Voltage/Length -> reactive losses
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> >From:  John H. Couture [SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
>> >> >Sent:  Wednesday, January 28, 1998 2:17 AM
>> >> >To:  Tesla List
>> >> >Subject:  Re: Voltage/Length (fwd)
>> >> >
>> >> < big snip >
>> >> >  Note that energy and power transfer between the pri and sec circuits
>>is
>> >> >always 100 percent (Skilling). This is easily understood. The transfer
>>is by
>> >> >induction and there are no losses in inductive reactance. Also, there
>>are no
>> >> >equations for losses in inductive or capacitive reactances. The coil
>> >> >resistance losses and the capacitor dissipation losses are all Ohms law
>>(not
>> >> >reactive)  losses.
>> >> 
>> >>   Unfortunately, any loss is still a loss and will reduce total energy
>> >>   available to do other things.  Talking about "reactive losses",
>> >>   how about energy lost to stray coupling to other objects?  For
>> >>   example, has anyone looked into losses due to coupling of the
>> >>   primary to a good earth ground as a function of primary distance
>> >>   above ground?  Is this negligible?
>> >
>> >You are quite right. It is not negligible. You can easily measure a 
>> >change in Q if you move a good primary further away from the floor.
>> >Your note on the losses is appreciated. I have tried to make the same 
>> >point on other occasions.
>> >
>> >Malcolm
>> ><snip>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>>   Malcolm, All -
>> 
>>   Can you give us an example of how you calculate the reactive losses if
>>for
>> example the Q varies from 100 to 50?
>> 
>>   John Couture
>
>As you well know, a pure reactance does not lose power. That is a far 
>cry from saying that "all power is transferred from primary to 
>secondary because the transfer is by reactive mechanisms"!!
>
>Q - is there a current flowing in the primary wiring while the 
>    magnetic field it is producing is changing? 
>A - Yes.
>
>Q - So there is an I^2.R loss associated with the primary wiring 
>    during this period?
>A - Yes.
>
>Q - is there an induced current in the secondary wiring during this 
>    period?
>A - Yes.
>
>Q - is there an I^2.R loss associated with the secondary wiring 
>    during this period?
>A - Yes.
>
>Q - is the primary coupled to nothing other than the secondary? 
>A - No.
>
>Q - Can you prove this?
>A - Yes. I can detect currents flowing in other conductors in 
>    proximity to the system. I can also detect E-fields using a 
>    meagre scope probe positioned many feet away. My neighbours don't 
>    like it either.
>
>Q - So power is being lost *during* the pri-sec transfer?
>A - Yes.
>
>Q - So does all primary power reach the secondary?
>A - No.
>
>QED.
>Malcolm
>
>
>