Re: Real data from real experiments.

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Real data from real experiments.
• From: open_minded <bturner-at-apc-dot-net>
• Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:49:55 -0800

Tesla List wrote:
> 
> >From MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nzMon Nov 11 22:51:02 1996
> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 08:31:39 +1200
> From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Real data from real experiments.
> 
> >   Exactly...  Actually, I mentioned the hydraulic analogy
> > to Jack a while back, with no better comprehension resulting.
> > I suggested comparing the two caps to two water tanks, one
> > filled, the other, identical tank empty. Open a valve that
> > connects the two at the bottom. After oscillating a bit,
> > the water levels end up at 1/2 the original height, and
> > a total of 1/2 the original POTENTIAL energy is available.
> > Certainly, nothing was "radiated", and we can't easily
> > believe the water was heated that much by friction as it
> > passed through the valve and pipes.
> >
> 
> C'mon guys. If the system oscillates, you have kinetic energy in
> there. When it stops, you have lost the kinetic energy. This is
> physics 1.
> 
> Malcolm


Well, yeah. But I was talking in the ideal situation. I can't believe
that more than, say 5 or 10% of the charge is 'written off' to losses,
unless you are really pumping a load of current through the wire. At
least the losses shouldn't come close to 1/2 of the total original
energy. The idea of this thread was on a theoretical basis anyway.

- brent

• Prev: Re: shorted turn?
• Next: Re: Power arcing on a rotary(?)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread