[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