Hidden Tesla Technological System
thhissux
systems of technology within one basic hardware design. That is the
one we use now with AC polyphase system and another "hidden" system of
application which uses the same hardware and terminology but is of a
"non-electrical" energy. The non-electrical component being present in
the electrical but in this other one specifically isolated and freed
from the movement of electrons. It's interesting because when I looked
at both I realized that the other would function just the same with
minor adjustments to all of our existing hardware. Could we have a
hidden potential technology just waiting to be used and applied to our
current electrical grid? While reading his paper "Experiments With
Alternate Currents Of High Potential And High Frequency" you could
just as easily think he was describing one type of technology when in
reality a concealed second meaning was being described as well in
which if one had the "key" would unveil a new realm of possibilities.
J.B. Wood
Hello, and Nikola Tesla, while arguably one of the world's great
inventors, is often associated with, for lack of a better term,
fantastic/sci-fi devices. Tesla himself is partly to blame since he
made claims for some of his more exotic devices (e.g. a handheld
oscillator that could bring down a bridge) that were never demonstrated.
Another problem is that biographies on Tesla (e.g. Margaret Cheney's
book) aren't written by folks with sufficient technical knowledge IMO to
separate the wheat from the chaff. Whether or not this is a deliberate
attempt to sell more books I can't say. Kind of like the Syfy channel's
"Ghost Hunters" show. Is it really science or more for pure
entertainment? (The hosts are Roto-Rooter plumbers by day if that means
anything.)
As any EE like myself knows, Tesla's contributions to A.C. power
generation, distribution and utilization are real, practical, and
well-documented. A unit for magnetic flux density takes his name. His
experiments in high-frequency A.C. also added to our knowledge of
electrophysics. Can't we just let it go at that and let the man RIP?
Sincerely,
--
John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
contrex
> As any EE like myself knows, Tesla's contributions to A.C. power
> generation, distribution and utilization are real, practical, and
> well-documented. A unit for magnetic flux density takes his name. His
> experiments in high-frequency A.C. also added to our knowledge of
> electrophysics. Can't we just let it go at that and let the man RIP?
Amen to that.
wbeaty
in dishonest exaggeration, and his amazing claims could not have
worked.
Instead, if you want a group which assumes that Tesla concealed some
major discoveries; that his later claims were genuine, try "Tesla
Experimental" in the link below:
Tesla forums
http://amasci.com/tesla/high_voltage1.html
On Nov 15, 9:09 pm, thhissux <thhis...@aol.com> wrote:
> Has anyone ever heard of Tesla having designed two entirely different
> systems of technology within one basic hardware design. That is the
> one we use now with AC polyphase system and another "hidden" system of
> application which uses the same hardware and terminology but is of a
> "non-electrical" energy.
Sounds like Bearden's "Scalar" stuff. That work mostly is theory,
still no giant Nobel-worthy experimental breakthroughs. There are
thousands of alt-theory people out there, far too many to bother
with. But if one of them has come up with some replicable
experimental evidence or some working hardware, that's different.
> The non-electrical component being present in
> the electrical but in this other one specifically isolated and freed
> from the movement of electrons. It's interesting because when I looked
> at both I realized that the other would function just the same with
> minor adjustments to all of our existing hardware. Could we have a
> hidden potential technology just waiting to be used and applied to our
> current electrical grid?
Tesla said this directly in one of his articles. His "World System"
was supposed to be totally compatible with an AC power grid running at
60Hz. And Tesla of course was the one who determined the 60Hz value
in early Westinghouse days. But this is just an issue of efficiency
and expense. If the USA power grid was 50Hz or 133Hz, perhaps Tesla
would just need to add some rotary converters.
> While reading his paper "Experiments With
> Alternate Currents Of High Potential And High Frequency" you could
> just as easily think he was describing one type of technology when in
> reality a concealed second meaning was being described as well in
> which if one had the "key" would unveil a new realm of possibilities.
That's very "Tesla." For example, if we only study their schematics,
then his mechanical radio receivers are very obscure.
Tesla's receivers: regen coherers in 1899
http://www.teslasociety.com/teslarec.pdf
In their actual operation, we find that Tesla was using components for
multiple functions, with more than one separate circuit "overlapped"
together.
I see such things as evidence of a genius mind trying to impress
others, that or perhaps attempting to conceal valuable engineering
tricks from copycat inventors (today it would be a genius software
engineer who writes convoluted code which nobody else is able to use.)
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
beaty, chem washington edu Research Engineer
billb, amasci com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74
206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
m II
There indeed *IS* a parallel, hidden system at work. While Tesla's
devices supply the modern world with electricity and horsepower, the
OTHER system, developed by greed, is making money flow out of your
pockets, in the other direction.
That other system generally has a period or cycle not of 60 Hertz, but
of approximately a month. Strangely, there is a very tight
co-relationship between the amount of money and the amount of current
provided.
mike
m II
> Tesla said this directly in one of his articles. His "World System"
> was supposed to be totally compatible with an AC power grid running at
> 60Hz. And Tesla of course was the one who determined the 60Hz value
> in early Westinghouse days. But this is just an issue of efficiency
> and expense.
Tesla decided on a sixty Hz. frequency because it was easier to design
electric clocks with gearing related to 60. Think seconds...
He was asked to think of a 50 Hz system, but declined, even though 50
would be a bit more 'Metric' in nature. The sixty also allowed a bit of
a saving in transformer cores and such like.
mike
Joel Koltner
> He was asked to think of a 50 Hz system, but declined, even though 50 would
> be a bit more 'Metric' in nature. The sixty also allowed a bit of a saving
> in transformer cores and such like.
So... why not 100Hz? Too lossy back when this was all being seriously
considered?
wbeaty
wrote:
> "m II" <C...@in.the.hat> wrote in messagenews:4ce3...@news.x-privat.org...
> > He was asked to think of a 50 Hz system, but declined, even though 50 would
> > be a bit more 'Metric' in nature. The sixty also allowed a bit of a saving
> > in transformer cores and such like.
>
> So... why not 100Hz? Too lossy back when this was all being seriously
> considered?
It wasn't divisible by 3 like his hotel room number, number of laps he
swam at the pool, etc.
wbeaty
>
> Tesla decided on a sixty Hz. frequency because it was easier to design
> electric clocks with gearing related to 60. Think seconds...
Also there is a Schumann cavity mode at ~59.8Hz.
Only one trouble: Tesla forced through this standards change from
133Hz to 60Hz many years before going to Colorado and discovering that
one of the global resonance freqs was near 60Hz!
glen herrmannsfeldt
> On 10-11-16 01:44 PM, wbeaty wrote:
>> Tesla said this directly in one of his articles. His "World System"
>> was supposed to be totally compatible with an AC power grid running at
>> 60Hz. And Tesla of course was the one who determined the 60Hz value
>> in early Westinghouse days. But this is just an issue of efficiency
>> and expense.
> Tesla decided on a sixty Hz. frequency because it was easier to design
> electric clocks with gearing related to 60. Think seconds...
The story I heard many years ago had to do with the losses in the
silicon steel available at the time. Magnetic loss, such as
eddy currents and magnetic hysteresis, increases with frequency.
> He was asked to think of a 50 Hz system, but declined, even though 50
> would be a bit more 'Metric' in nature. The sixty also allowed a bit of
> a saving in transformer cores and such like.
As I heard it, Europe didn't have as good transformer steel
at the time, and so 50Hz was a better choice. Once set, it is
hard to change.
-- glen
Don Kelly
As any EE like myself knows, Tesla's contributions to A.C. power
generation, distribution and utilization are real, practical, and
well-documented. A unit for magnetic flux density takes his name. His
experiments in high-frequency A.C. also added to our knowledge of
electrophysics. Can't we just let it go at that and let the man RIP?
Sincerely,
--
John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
----------------------
Right on! Remember him for what he really accomplished.
Don Kelly
cross out to reply
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Don Klipstein
For equal magnetic flux, hysteresis loss is proportional to frequency
and eddy current loss is nearly proportional to frequency squared.
However, volts per turn is proportional to frequency, hysteresis loss is
approximately proportional to flux squared, and eddy current loss is
proportional to flux squared.
So, for equal volts per turn, hysteresis loss varies roughly inversely
with frequency, and eddy current loss is constant to varying slightly
inversely with frequency (due to skin effect).
Transformers get less lossy and more useful as frequency increases,
until stray inductances and capacitances get problematic.
--
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
glen herrmannsfeldt
(snip, I wrote)
>>As I heard it, Europe didn't have as good transformer steel
>>at the time, and so 50Hz was a better choice. Once set, it is
>>hard to change.
> For equal magnetic flux, hysteresis loss is proportional to frequency
> and eddy current loss is nearly proportional to frequency squared.
> However, volts per turn is proportional to frequency, hysteresis loss is
> approximately proportional to flux squared, and eddy current loss is
> proportional to flux squared.
> So, for equal volts per turn, hysteresis loss varies roughly inversely
> with frequency, and eddy current loss is constant to varying slightly
> inversely with frequency (due to skin effect).
> Transformers get less lossy and more useful as frequency increases,
> until stray inductances and capacitances get problematic.
The reason why aeronautics uses 400Hz, and the usual PC switching
power supply, with a ferrite core transformer, run about 20kHz.
I was wondering some time ago about the optimal power line
frequency for ferrite core transformers. (And I have
no idea on the relative cost.)
-- glen
Don Kelly
clout than Tesla so he is commonly cited. How much effect Tesla had on
Westinghouse at stage of the game is an open question.
There were several systems in use from 16.33 Hz to 133 Hz. 16 and 25Hz were
commonly used for industry because of need for lower speed motors driving
multiple loads through belts. Some 25Hz generation was still in use at
Niagara and in cities like New York and Toronto until the 1960's-70's or
later. lamp flicker was unpleasant 16.33Hz is still used for electric
railways in many areas (1/3 of 50Hz) 133Hz was considered nicer for
lighting than the lower frequencies as flicker is eliminated. 50 and 60Hz
were a compromise- a balance between lighting and motor needs. The actual
choice between 50 and 60 Hz really was a judgement call made differently in
different places (hey, if the Brits went 50Hz, the US would pick 60Hz). In
Japan it turned out to be a matter of which salesmen, British or US, had the
edge in a particular part of the country- so part is still 50Hz and the rest
is 60Hz. Modern electronics made the interconnection between these areas
feasible.
Differences in gearing are not really a problem: 60/1 vs 72/1 gear ratio
(for the second hand -2 pole motor). The rest is the same.
Differences in core size- not a big deal but favours 60Hz slightly but
initially drive technology favoured the slower generator speeds needed for
50Hz.
50Hz is better for transmission but at the distances then involved it really
wasn't a big consideration. Win some lose some.
it all came down to a bit of a coin toss as the technical aspects at the
time were relatively minor considerations. Once a particular frequency
became common- economics of scale took over.
Don Kelly
cross out to reply
"m II" wrote in message news:4ce3...@news.x-privat.org...
Clifford Heath
> I was wondering some time ago about the optimal power line
> frequency for ferrite core transformers. (And I have
> no idea on the relative cost.)
I don't know, but skin effect would affect the price of the
long cable runs. You also have losses related to induced
motion in the cables. It's not just transformer losses.
Clifford Heath.
glen herrmannsfeldt
(snip 60Hz vs. 50Hz)
> Differences in gearing are not really a problem: 60/1 vs 72/1 gear ratio
> (for the second hand -2 pole motor). The rest is the same.
> Differences in core size- not a big deal but favours 60Hz slightly but
> initially drive technology favoured the slower generator speeds needed for
> 50Hz.
I remember touring the Lake Shasta power plant when I was young,
maybe about 6h grade, and being surprised to learn that the
generators run at 20rev/s, so six pole. I probably didn't know about
more than two poles at the time.
Then much more recently on the Grand Coulee tour, I was again
surprised to learn that they run at 72RPM. They are much bigger,
so I suppose they couldn't really go at 3600RPM or even 1200RPM,
but I wouldn't have guessed 72.
I was then wondering if one could measure the pole non-uniformity
by looking for subharmonics in the AC waveform, presumably with
a lot of averaging.
-- glen
Sylvia Else
One consideration is that when you start dealing with the kinds of
currents involved in power supply infrastructure, skin effects, which
can be usually be ignored at such frequencies, can be an issue because
of the sizes of the conductors required. The higher frequency reduces
the size of conductors that can be used without requiring skin-effect
mitigation techniques.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect
Sylvia.
Benj
> As any EE like myself knows, Tesla's contributions to A.C. power
> generation, distribution and utilization are real, practical, and
> well-documented. A unit for magnetic flux density takes his name. His
> experiments in high-frequency A.C. also added to our knowledge of
> electrophysics. Can't we just let it go at that and let the man RIP?
> Sincerely,
> John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: w...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
>
> Naval Research Laboratory
> 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
> Washington, DC 20375-5337
Well, working as a gummint shill, why am I NOT surprised at your
efforts to STILL sweep Tesla and his inventions under the rug? If you
want Telsa to RIP then how about revealing all that Tesla based secret
technology that you and yours work with all the time?
Those in power have been trying to bury Tesla almost from the
beginning. His lab burned down just as he started to gain momentum.
Then he came under the thumb of J.P. Morgan. J.P.Morgan pulled no
punches: "Nobody milks my cow for free!" he said in regard to hiring
Tesla to produce inventions. Read almost any physics or Engineering
book nearly up to the present and his name has been chiseled off all
the monuments! And Tesla is the guy who just about single-handedly
invented the 20th century. Not just power distribution and 3 phase and
induction motors and all the rest that modern industry, nay,
civilization couldn't exist without, but truly advanced items like the
AND and OR gate! Or the remote controlled robot (he called them
teleautomatons). Even the genius of the analog speedometer in your car
still in wide use today is a Tesla invention.
Yet, the probing and study of all he did is STILL discouraged by guys
like John Wood. What are they afraid of? You can bet that the very
fact of trying to minimize and denigrate his inventions shows that
there are things there of POLITICAL importance that they do NOT want
discovered. So the beat goes on. We are all supposed to be happy that
there is a unit of magnetic flux bearing his name. Whoop de do!
Don't be mislead by all the bullshit (of which the speculations in
this thread are a fine example). Go dig it out for yourself as best
you can and be aware that there are others interested in seeing that
you DO NOT dig it out. Be careful out there.
By the way 60 Hz was picked because it provided the best compromise
between weight and efficiency given the use of readily available
inexpensive soft iron of the day for transformers. 400 Hz was picked
for aircraft (of WWII) because weight reduction was more important
than efficiency and by then there were also better core materials
available. Obviously modern Ferrites provided another possible jump in
frequency without losses being too serious. Tesla himself calculated
the optimum soft iron frequency arriving at 60 hz. Earth resonance
experiments came later.
Uwe Hercksen
m II schrieb:
> would be a bit more 'Metric' in nature. The sixty also allowed a bit of
> a saving in transformer cores and such like.
Hello,
16.7 % saving in transformer core weight, but 20 % more problems with
long power transmission lines.
Bye
Ian Bell
> On Nov 16, 2:50 pm, "Joel Koltner"<zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> "m II"<C...@in.the.hat> wrote in messagenews:4ce3...@news.x-privat.org...
>>> He was asked to think of a 50 Hz system, but declined, even though 50 would
>>> be a bit more 'Metric' in nature. The sixty also allowed a bit of a saving
>>> in transformer cores and such like.
>>
>> So... why not 100Hz? Too lossy back when this was all being seriously
>> considered?
>
> It wasn't divisible by 3 like his hotel room number, number of laps he
> swam at the pool, etc.
>
>
Duh? 100, just like any other number IS divisible by three. The result just
isn't an integer.
Cheers
Ian
Sylvia Else
The expression "divisible by x" is conventionally understood to mean an
integral number of times, since otherwise the expression would have no
purpose as it would, as you point out, apply to any number.
Sylvia.
Rich Grise
> On 17/11/2010 9:45 PM, Ian Bell wrote:
>> wbeaty wrote:
>>> On Nov 16, 2:50 pm, "Joel Koltner"<zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>>>> 50 would
>>>>> be a bit more 'Metric' in nature. The sixty also allowed a bit of a
>>>>> saving
>>>>> in transformer cores and such like.
>>>>
>>>> So... why not 100Hz? Too lossy back when this was all being seriously
>>>> considered?
>>>
>>> It wasn't divisible by 3 like his hotel room number, number of laps he
>>> swam at the pool, etc.
>>
>> Duh? 100, just like any other number IS divisible by three. The result
>> just isn't an integer.
>
> integral number of times, since otherwise the expression would have no
> purpose as it would, as you point out, apply to any number.
Isn't there some expression like "evenly divisible..." or some such, to
disambiguate the phrase?
Cheers!
Rich
Uwe Hercksen
glen herrmannsfeldt schrieb:
> Then much more recently on the Grand Coulee tour, I was again
> surprised to learn that they run at 72RPM. They are much bigger,
> so I suppose they couldn't really go at 3600RPM or even 1200RPM,
> but I wouldn't have guessed 72.
Hello,
are you sure with 72 RPM? 75 RPM are also possible.
Bye
Uwe Hercksen
Clifford Heath schrieb:
> I don't know, but skin effect would affect the price of the
> long cable runs. You also have losses related to induced
> motion in the cables. It's not just transformer losses.
Hello,
there are heavy problems with the Ferranti effect when using frequencies
of about 1 kHz and more on long transmisson lines.
Bye
m II
If I recall, Edison's distribution was horrible. Ten or twenty miles?
Compared to that, anything was an improvement. It doesn't seem very
likely they were considering two thousand kilometer long grids back
then. Now, we're stuck with the frequency, so they're using super high
voltage DC for longer lines and reconverting to AC on the receiving end.
mike (the schrieber)
glen herrmannsfeldt
(snip, I wrote)
>> Then much more recently on the Grand Coulee tour, I was again
>> surprised to learn that they run at 72RPM. They are much bigger,
>> so I suppose they couldn't really go at 3600RPM or even 1200RPM,
>> but I wouldn't have guessed 72.
> are you sure with 72 RPM? 75 RPM are also possible.
Putting "grand coulee" RPM into google, the first one I find,
including pictures of building the dam and generators, has one
indicating 120RPM, for one built in 1943.
There are now three power plants, the third one built around 1968.
It is the third that runs at 72RPM. Three 600MW and three 700MW
turbine-generator units, 615385kVA at 97.5% power factor.
Each rotor is 60ft (18m) in diameter.
-- glen
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
The statement "is divisible by" is null if there isn't an implicit
understanding of an integer result.
thhissux
the instant of switch closer which if not insulated or grounded
properly can cause death or serious injury. These discharges are
several times the magnitude of the voltage the generator can supply.
My question is what causes this to occur and where is this "excess" or
increased power coming from? Could we continually generate such an
instance and somehow tap this energy? Does this mean that under
certain conditions in the systems used today we have access to even
greater amounts of energy then we presently utilize?
Don Kelly
news:ibvr3d$s45$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
(snip 60Hz vs. 50Hz)
-- glen
-----------------------------
I think that what you saw at Shasta would be 200rpm and 36 pole (20rpm,
360 pole doesn't make sense) rpm=120*frequency/poles The Coulee units
are, on the basis of your information, 100 pole. It appears that some are
120rpm 60 pole.
The optimal speed for a hydro turbine is related to the head and the
generator is designed for operation at or near the optimum speed. The lower
the head, the lower the speed so more poles are needed for a given frequency
(and the diameter is necessarily large . Steam turbines work best at high
speeds so the turbines and 60Hz generators will have typical speeds of
either 1800 (4 pole) or 3600(2 pole) rpm.
As for pole non-uniformity and subharmonics - it appears that you are
looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Are you thinking about some poles
being weaker than others? This won't lead to harmonics or subharmonics.
The main cause of harmonics is due to the need to have the stator windings
in slots rather than distributed perfectly smoothly on the stator surface.
The distribution around the periphery is approximately sinusoidal because of
this, leading to slot harmonics. The windings are designed to get rid of
the 5th and 7th harmonics while the 3rd and multiples of the 3rd are not
present under balanced 3 phase loading. Even harmonics are zero. The lowest
harmonics that you will see with a scope are the 11th and 13th and these are
small.
Don Kelly
The reason why aeronautics uses 400Hz, and the usual PC switching
power supply, with a ferrite core transformer, run about 20kHz.
I was wondering some time ago about the optimal power line
frequency for ferrite core transformers. (And I have
no idea on the relative cost.)
-- glen
A couple of problems:
1)Ferrite is nice at higher frequencies but at lower frequencies,
transformer steel still has an edge with regard to relative permeability and
allowable flux density.
2) so why not go to higher frequencies for transmission-?
There the problem is the capacitance and inductance of the transmission
line. The advantages/disadvantages of ferrites vs ordinary transformers are
negligable with respect to the problems at higher frequencies. As opposed to
communication systems. In fact the trend is towards high voltage DC for
long lines.
400Hz in an aircraft makes sense as the generators are driven by high speed
turbines, and there are weight/size advantages (not as important for
stationary ground based units) and distances are small compared to those of
ground based systems.
Different strokes for different people.
thhissux
to the lower frequencies which could be dangerous and painful.
However, I also found that he discovered that the earth was by itself
resonant 6Hz(6.67 precisely). He also saw the earth as the inner
conductor plate of a spherical capacitor, with the ionosphere as the
outer conductor plate and the atmosphere as the dielectric, which
formed a resonating cavity with a peak at 8Hz(7.83Hz). While these low
frequencies would be dangerous a multiple of them would be a safe and
harmonic operation level with the earth and its surrounding media. I
also read that while experimenting with a mechanically vibrating
platform at 6Hz "one would develop a feeling of pleasant dizziness,
some mild nausea, and a profound pelvic relaxation that could lead to
sudden massive diarrhea". Maybe some dangers for not using the lower
frequencies included not sending the entire nation to the bathroom at
once, twice, thrice...until someone re-tuned the grid.
Don Kelly
news:991197c5-91b8-48fd...@a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a government shill and I agree with John. Sure there are many other
things that Tesla did- he was a genius. He deserves more credit than Edison.
I'm not belittling his real accomplishments (though those you mention got
nowhere at the time - probably because the technology and/or the need
weren't there to make it feasible at the time, rather than an attempt to
hide his accomplishments ) .
What I have a problem with is the same one that his backers had in the later
years- his mind had gone round the bend and was chasing rainbows in
Colorado. When the backers realized this, the funds dried up.
So I try to distinguish between his real accomplishments and what might
have been or were simply pie in the sky.
Tesla is given as much or (deservedly) more credit than Edison in many
engineering texts- and elsewhere- at least in those that I am most familiar
with.
Oh, yes, the inexpensive soft irons of the day don't favour 60Hz over
50Hz.- In fact, with the irons in use at the time, 50Hz had an advantage.
Even in the US 50Hz was on the scene prior to 60Hz- but to say one is
better than the other depends on how you define "better" Win some, lose
some. 25Hz survived for a long time and it had its advantages for the
application of Tesla's motors. 133Hz has an advantage with regard to
lighting. 16.33Hz is still in use for railways because it has an advantage
in a specialized application.
What was recognized was that there had to be a standardization.
All that happened is that Tesla, Westinghouse and others made a choice on a
compromise basis for general use and this was in the 50-60Hz range-
suboptimal for everything.
glen herrmannsfeldt
(snip, I wrote)
>> I remember touring the Lake Shasta power plant when I was young,
>> maybe about 6h grade, and being surprised to learn that the
>> generators run at 20rev/s, so six pole. I probably didn't know about
>> more than two poles at the time.
>> Then much more recently on the Grand Coulee tour, I was again
>> surprised to learn that they run at 72RPM. They are much bigger,
>> so I suppose they couldn't really go at 3600RPM or even 1200RPM,
>> but I wouldn't have guessed 72.
>> I was then wondering if one could measure the pole non-uniformity
>> by looking for subharmonics in the AC waveform, presumably with
>> a lot of averaging.
> I think that what you saw at Shasta would be 200rpm and 36 pole (20rpm,
> 360 pole doesn't make sense) rpm=120*frequency/poles The Coulee units
> are, on the basis of your information, 100 pole. It appears that some are
> 120rpm 60 pole.
It seems that the main Shasta units, according to the web site,
run at 138.5RPM. That is close to, but not exactly, 3600/26.
In addition, there are service units, which I believe supply the
power to run the plant. There are two 2MW generators, according
to the web, at 600RPM. (They are much smaller.) So either I
remembered it wrong or the tour guide was wrong, but only off
by a factor of two.
> The optimal speed for a hydro turbine is related to the head and the
> generator is designed for operation at or near the optimum speed. The lower
> the head, the lower the speed so more poles are needed for a given frequency
> (and the diameter is necessarily large . Steam turbines work best at high
> speeds so the turbines and 60Hz generators will have typical speeds of
> either 1800 (4 pole) or 3600(2 pole) rpm.
> As for pole non-uniformity and subharmonics - it appears that you are
> looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Are you thinking about some poles
> being weaker than others? This won't lead to harmonics or subharmonics.
Yes. I was thinking, if one pole was different: weaker, stronger,
or off in some other direction, it would cause a noticable effect
at the rotation frequency, such as 1.2Hz, or harmonics of 1.2Hz
(for 72RPM rotation).
I realize, thought, that is more obvious in the case of a two pole
rotor and 100 pole stator, or the other way around, which isn't
likely. Even so, it would seem that small difference in the poles
could be measured if averages over enough cycles.
> The main cause of harmonics is due to the need to have the stator windings
> in slots rather than distributed perfectly smoothly on the stator surface.
> The distribution around the periphery is approximately sinusoidal because of
> this, leading to slot harmonics. The windings are designed to get rid of
> the 5th and 7th harmonics while the 3rd and multiples of the 3rd are not
> present under balanced 3 phase loading. Even harmonics are zero. The lowest
> harmonics that you will see with a scope are the 11th and 13th and these are
> small.
-- glen
Tim Williams
news:aK1Fo.32261$lL3....@newsfe08.iad...
> 1)Ferrite is nice at higher frequencies but at lower frequencies,
> transformer steel still has an edge with regard to relative permeability
> and allowable flux density.
That's not always true. Good steel (like high grade, stripwound GOSS)
will have permeabilities at or above ferrite levels (mu_r = 10-30k), but
cheap stamped stock typically lands in the ~1k range. Ferrites do about
the same.
On the other hand, flux density is through the roof. Ferrites top out at
0.4T. Steel runs triple that!
Tim
--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
Jasen Betts
> Tesla found that the frequencies between 40-100Hz were safe as opposed
> to the lower frequencies which could be dangerous and painful.
> However, I also found that he discovered that the earth was by itself
> resonant 6Hz(6.67 precisely). He also saw the earth as the inner
> conductor plate of a spherical capacitor, with the ionosphere as the
> outer conductor plate and the atmosphere as the dielectric, which
> formed a resonating cavity with a peak at 8Hz(7.83Hz). While these low
> frequencies would be dangerous a multiple of them would be a safe and
> harmonic operation level with the earth and its surrounding media. I
> also read that while experimenting with a mechanically vibrating
> platform at 6Hz "one would develop a feeling of pleasant dizziness,
> some mild nausea, and a profound pelvic relaxation that could lead to
> sudden massive diarrhea".
Tesla discovered "the brown note" ?
Have you got a cite for that?
--
⚂⚃ 100% natural
alie...@gmail.com
> These forums assume that, later in life, Tesla was crazy, or indulged
> in dishonest exaggeration, and his amazing claims could not have
> worked.
Personally I suspect he was speaking truth as he understood it. I
also suspect he either had one or more misapprehensions about em-
related physics, or just didn't parse it in the "standard" way.
A lot of his "crazy" ideas did indeed work, and still do.
> Instead, if you want a group which assumes that Tesla concealed some
> major discoveries; that his later claims were genuine, try "Tesla
> Experimental" in the link below:
>
> Tesla forumshttp://amasci.com/tesla/high_voltage1.html
>
> On Nov 15, 9:09 pm, thhissux <thhis...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Has anyone ever heard of Tesla having designed two entirely different
> > systems of technology within one basic hardware design. That is the
> > one we use now with AC polyphase system and another "hidden" system of
> > application which uses the same hardware and terminology but is of a
> > "non-electrical" energy.
I have also read rumors of this. Unfortunately...
> Sounds like Bearden's "Scalar" stuff. That work mostly is theory,
> still no giant Nobel-worthy experimental breakthroughs. There are
> thousands of alt-theory people out there, far too many to bother
> with. But if one of them has come up with some replicable
> experimental evidence or some working hardware, that's different.
...Bearden and his ilk are also the source of most of said rumors.
> > The non-electrical component being present in
> > the electrical but in this other one specifically isolated and freed
> > from the movement of electrons. It's interesting because when I looked
> > at both I realized that the other would function just the same with
> > minor adjustments to all of our existing hardware. Could we have a
> > hidden potential technology just waiting to be used and applied to our
> > current electrical grid?
Tesla believed in a specific sort of scalar wave, a longitudinal em
wave denied by Maxwell et. al. It'd be a monopolar, not dipole wave,
but monopole waves can't exist if electric flux must end on opposite
charges.
It's hard to see that as a matter of parsing, since if his waves
exist then Maxwell needs amending; flux lines can "ground" themselves
on the vacuum.
> Tesla said this directly in one of his articles. His "World System"
> was supposed to be totally compatible with an AC power grid running at
> 60Hz. And Tesla of course was the one who determined the 60Hz value
> in early Westinghouse days. But this is just an issue of efficiency
> and expense. If the USA power grid was 50Hz or 133Hz, perhaps Tesla
> would just need to add some rotary converters.
If Tesla had known about "red sprites" and "blue jets" associated
with thunderstorm he probably would have tried to tap them.
> > While reading his paper "Experiments With
> > Alternate Currents Of High Potential And High Frequency" you could
> > just as easily think he was describing one type of technology when in
> > reality a concealed second meaning was being described as well in
> > which if one had the "key" would unveil a new realm of possibilities.
>
> That's very "Tesla." For example, if we only study their schematics,
> then his mechanical radio receivers are very obscure.
>
> Tesla's receivers: regen coherers in 1899http://www.teslasociety.com/teslarec.pdf
>
> In their actual operation, we find that Tesla was using components for
> multiple functions, with more than one separate circuit "overlapped"
> together.
Yet they can be redrawn to conform to standard conventions. Such
things as distributed capacitance are not mere mathematical
conveniences.
> I see such things as evidence of a genius mind trying to impress
> others, that or perhaps attempting to conceal valuable engineering
> tricks from copycat inventors (today it would be a genius software
> engineer who writes convoluted code which nobody else is able to use.)
I see them as evidence Tesla did indeed parse reality to a different
standard. Whether Reality also believes in his longitudinal waves
remains to be seen, since AFAIK nobody's been able to show anything
attributable to Tesla that might be an antenna for them that didn't
"really" operate in an opposing-pole fashion.
Mark L. Fergerson
Bob Masta
<thhi...@aol.com> wrote:
> I
>also read that while experimenting with a mechanically vibrating
>platform at 6Hz "one would develop a feeling of pleasant dizziness,
>some mild nausea, and a profound pelvic relaxation that could lead to
>sudden massive diarrhea".
There is a well-known resonance frequency of the human
abdomen that is in this frequency range, usually noted as 7
Hz. Similar results have been obtained with (very) loud
sub-sonic sound (from a steam whistle, as I recall).
Best regards,
Bob Masta
DAQARTA v5.10
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
DaqMusic - FREE MUSIC, Forever!
(Some assembly required)
Science (and fun!) with your sound card!
Szczepan Bialek
"nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote
news:3aa02d62-3200-476a...@s9g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
Sir Oliver Lodge discovered the longitudinal waves in the wires. Tesla send
it in the vacuum (rare plasma).
"In April 1887, Tesla began investigating what would later be called X-rays
using his own single terminal vacuum tubes (similar to his patent #514,170).
This device differed from other early X-ray tubes in that it had no target
electrode. The modern term for the phenomenon produced by this device is
bremsstrahlung (or braking radiation). We now know that this device operated
by emitting electrons from the single electrode through a combination of
field electron emission and thermionic emission. Once liberated, electrons
are strongly repelled by the high electric field near the electrode during
negative voltage peaks from the oscillating HV output of the Tesla Coil,
generating X rays as they collide with the glass envelope."
Electrons jump off from the end of antenna and cause the longitudinal
(monopolar) waves in the rare plasma.
There is a full analogy to the acoustic waves.
>> Tesla said this directly in one of his articles. His "World System"
> was supposed to be totally compatible with an AC power grid running at
> 60Hz. And Tesla of course was the one who determined the 60Hz value
> in early Westinghouse days. But this is just an issue of efficiency
> and expense. If the USA power grid was 50Hz or 133Hz, perhaps Tesla
> would just need to add some rotary converters.
> If Tesla had known about "red sprites" and "blue jets" associated
with thunderstorm he probably would have tried to tap them.
All clouds expel electrons in the all directions.
>> > While reading his paper "Experiments With
> > Alternate Currents Of High Potential And High Frequency" you could
> > just as easily think he was describing one type of technology when in
> > reality a concealed second meaning was being described as well in
> > which if one had the "key" would unveil a new realm of possibilities.
>
>> That's very "Tesla." For example, if we only study their schematics,
> then his mechanical radio receivers are very obscure.
>
>> Tesla's receivers: regen coherers in 1899http:/
>> /www.teslasociety.com/teslarec.pdf
>
>> In their actual operation, we find that Tesla was using components for
> multiple functions, with more than one separate circuit "overlapped"
> together.
> Yet they can be redrawn to conform to standard conventions. Such
things as distributed capacitance are not mere mathematical
conveniences.
>> I see such things as evidence of a genius mind trying to impress
> others, that or perhaps attempting to conceal valuable engineering
> tricks from copycat inventors (today it would be a genius software
> engineer who writes convoluted code which nobody else is able to use.)
> I see them as evidence Tesla did indeed parse reality to a different
standard. Whether Reality also believes in his longitudinal waves
remains to be seen, since AFAIK nobody's been able to show anything
attributable to Tesla that might be an antenna for them that didn't
"really" operate in an opposing-pole fashion.
Electric waves from a monopole are longitudinal. The ones emitted from
dipole are coupled. Like the acoustic from the two sources.
S*
Mark L. Fergerson
J.B. Wood
> On Nov 16, 6:36 am, "J.B. Wood"<john.w...@nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
>
>> As any EE like myself knows, Tesla's contributions to A.C. power
>> generation, distribution and utilization are real, practical, and
>> well-documented. A unit for magnetic flux density takes his name. His
>> experiments in high-frequency A.C. also added to our knowledge of
>> electrophysics. Can't we just let it go at that and let the man RIP?
>> Sincerely,
>
>> John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: w...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
>>
>> Naval Research Laboratory
>> 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
>> Washington, DC 20375-5337
>
> Well, working as a gummint shill, why am I NOT surprised at your
> efforts to STILL sweep Tesla and his inventions under the rug? If you
> want Telsa to RIP then how about revealing all that Tesla based secret
> technology that you and yours work with all the time?
You're entitled to your views/opinions; It doesn't mean I or anyone else
has to agree with them. If you're ever in the metro Washington D.C.
area I would be more than happy to give you a tour of the U.S. Navy's
S&T corporate lab (the establishment of which was suggested by Edison
himself) where I work. (If you're not a U.S. citizen the tour would be
more limited.) You might even learn something. Have a nice day.
Sincerely,
--
John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Jon Elson
> "m II" <C...@in.the.hat> wrote in message news:4ce3...@news.x-privat.org...
>> He was asked to think of a 50 Hz system, but declined, even though 50
>> would be a bit more 'Metric' in nature. The sixty also allowed a bit
>> of a saving in transformer cores and such like.
>
> So... why not 100Hz? Too lossy back when this was all being seriously
> considered?
>
Radiation to space and ground heating increase with frequency, so
staying at a low frequency is good for long transmission lines.
Also, the thin laminations needed for large power transformers probably
make you want to stay with fewer, thicker laminations to keep a lid on
the cost of them. I can't imagine how many thousands of layers you'd
need for a megawatt-level transformer at hundreds of Hz.
Aircraft use 400 Hz and it drastically reduces the size of transformers
and motors. IBM used 115 V 5 KHz power in the IBM 360 family as the
transformers were TINY on a 100+ Amp power supply. Wish I could find
some of those transformers now, I'd love to have the cores.
Jon
glen herrmannsfeldt
(snip)
> Aircraft use 400 Hz and it drastically reduces the size of transformers
> and motors. IBM used 115 V 5 KHz power in the IBM 360 family as the
> transformers were TINY on a 100+ Amp power supply. Wish I could find
> some of those transformers now, I'd love to have the cores.
I know at least the big S/360's were powered by motor-generators.
I always thought that was for transient surpression, but that would
also allow for frequency conversion.
The higher frequency also allows for smaller filter capacitors
in the power supply.
-- glen
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>In sci.physics.electromag Jon Elson <jme...@wustl.edu> wrote:
>(snip)
>
>> Aircraft use 400 Hz and it drastically reduces the size of transformers
>> and motors. IBM used 115 V 5 KHz power in the IBM 360 family as the
>> transformers were TINY on a 100+ Amp power supply. Wish I could find
>> some of those transformers now, I'd love to have the cores.
>
>I know at least the big S/360's were powered by motor-generators.
>I always thought that was for transient surpression, but that would
>also allow for frequency conversion.
...and an orderly shut-down on power fault. MG sets were around a lot longer
than 360s, too.
>The higher frequency also allows for smaller filter capacitors
>in the power supply.
Certainly. Later models (3080s) used phase-controlled regulators, which use
SCRs as the pass elements from the three (400Hz) phases. Filter capacitor
size was quite important. ;-)
Bob Masta
<sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>Sir Oliver Lodge discovered the longitudinal waves in the wires. Tesla send
>it in the vacuum (rare plasma).
>"In April 1887, Tesla began investigating what would later be called X-rays
>using his own single terminal vacuum tubes (similar to his patent #514,170).
>This device differed from other early X-ray tubes in that it had no target
>electrode. The modern term for the phenomenon produced by this device is
>bremsstrahlung (or braking radiation). We now know that this device operated
>by emitting electrons from the single electrode through a combination of
>field electron emission and thermionic emission. Once liberated, electrons
>are strongly repelled by the high electric field near the electrode during
>negative voltage peaks from the oscillating HV output of the Tesla Coil,
>generating X rays as they collide with the glass envelope."
A conventional X-ray tube with a target also works via
bremsstrahlung, created when the fast-moving electrons
collide with the metal target.
Actually, I don't think the phenomenon behind bremsstrahlung
is limited to X-rays or deceleration of electrons. It
should be created whenever a charge is accelerated in any
way. I suspect it is the same ultimate mechanism behind
synchrotron radiation, which arises from change-of-direction
acceleration instead of change-of-speed. Perhaps some
physicist in the group could enlighten us?
Szczepan Białek
"Bob Masta" <N0S...@daqarta.com> wrote
news:4ce6790...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:22:11 +0100, "Szczepan Bialek"
> <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>
>>Sir Oliver Lodge discovered the longitudinal waves in the wires. Tesla
>>send
>>it in the vacuum (rare plasma).
>>"In April 1887, Tesla began investigating what would later be called
>>X-rays
>>using his own single terminal vacuum tubes (similar to his patent
>>#514,170).
>>This device differed from other early X-ray tubes in that it had no target
>>electrode. The modern term for the phenomenon produced by this device is
>>bremsstrahlung (or braking radiation). We now know that this device
>>operated
>>by emitting electrons from the single electrode through a combination of
>>field electron emission and thermionic emission. Once liberated, electrons
>>are strongly repelled by the high electric field near the electrode during
>>negative voltage peaks from the oscillating HV output of the Tesla Coil,
>>generating X rays as they collide with the glass envelope."
>
> A conventional X-ray tube with a target also works via
> bremsstrahlung, created when the fast-moving electrons
> collide with the metal target.
Tesla Coil produced the radio waves. The electrons emitted from the end of
the antenna produced X-rays when collide with a solid. In the collision
place they collide with the atoms and electrons. They oscillate. The
oscillating charged body radiate.
>
> Actually, I don't think the phenomenon behind bremsstrahlung
> is limited to X-rays or deceleration of electrons.
Each moving body disturbes the medium. But waves are produced only by
oscillations.
> It should be created whenever a charge is accelerated in any
> way. I suspect it is the same ultimate mechanism behind
> synchrotron radiation, which arises from change-of-direction
> acceleration instead of change-of-speed. Perhaps some
> physicist in the group could enlighten us?
All natural waves are produced by oscillations. The first electric waves
were produced by oscillations in the dipole (Hertz dipole).
Now we can shield the one end of the dipole and radiate from monopole. Such
waves are longitudinal.
That from the two ends of the dipole are also longitudinal. But they are
coupled in the one plane. So we can say that they are polarized.
Maxwell proposed the transversal waves to explain the light polarization.
Waves from a dipole are also polarized but in different sense.
> Perhaps some physicist in the group could enlighten us?
Stokes, Helmholtz, Kelvin and Tesla were the best.
S*
glen herrmannsfeldt
(snip)
> Actually, I don't think the phenomenon behind bremsstrahlung
> is limited to X-rays or deceleration of electrons. It
> should be created whenever a charge is accelerated in any
> way. I suspect it is the same ultimate mechanism behind
> synchrotron radiation, which arises from change-of-direction
> acceleration instead of change-of-speed. Perhaps some
> physicist in the group could enlighten us?
If you argue it that way, then protons should emit synchrotron
radiation at the same rate as electrons. From the wikipedia
page Synchrotron_radiation, you find that there as a (special)
relativistic term that is also needed. (But there are way
too many complicated equations on that page.)
-- glen
Bob Masta
Agreed. (Especially about the equations!) The Wikipedia
page on bremsstrahlung radiation says:
"Strictly speaking, bremsstrahlung refers to any radiation
due to the acceleration of a charged particle, which
includes synchrotron radiation; however, it is frequently
used in the more narrow sense of radiation from electrons
stopping in matter."
alie...@gmail.com
(snip)
> Now we can shield the one end of the dipole and radiate from monopole.
> Such waves are longitudinal.
Fertilizer. So-called monopole antennas have a *ground plane* (not a
"shield") placed where the midpoint of a dipole would be; E-field
lines from the antenna extend to the ground plane (until they go far-
field, of course). The antenna behaves like a dipole (radiating
perfectly ordinary transverse EM waves) with one element being a sort
of virtual reflection in the ground plane of the real element:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopole_antenna
Mark L. Fergerson
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
The are heavier and so the same field will not accelerate/decelerate
them at the same rate. However, at the same speed (but not the same
energy) and radius of curvature of the synchrotron they should radiate
identically.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Szczepan Białek
U�ytkownik "nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
news:bebd981d-18ba-4b90...@j21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopole_antenna
Ordinary transverse EM waves are a myth - said Tesla.
" If multiple monopole antennas are used in order to control the direction
of Radio Frequency (RF) propagation, they are called directional antenna
arrays."
The dipoles are the "multiple monopole antennas" and are always used to
"control the direction of Radio Frequency (RF) propagation"
The ground plane (120 radials) is a chassis. The top of antenna expels of
electrons and the chassis is a reservoir of them. The monopole does not
behave like a dipole.
The Royal Society rejected the Maxwell's hipothesis. Heaviside renewed it.
Who was better - Heaviside or Tesla?
S*
Szczepan Białek
"Bob Masta" <N0S...@daqarta.com>wrote
news:4ce7c38...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>The Wikipedia
> page on bremsstrahlung radiation says:
>
> "Strictly speaking, bremsstrahlung refers to any radiation
> due to the acceleration of a charged particle, which
> includes synchrotron radiation; however, it is frequently
> used in the more narrow sense of radiation from electrons
> stopping in matter."
"stopping in matter" is not precise. Electrons must oscillate before
stopping. The oscillations are the only source of radiation.
S*
Don Kelly
generator to a load when closing the switch? Is the discharge across the
switch gap when it is small? This could simply be due to a high field due
to the generator voltage across the gap,causing an arc. It could also be
due to discharge of capacitance in the generator. Being several times
higher than the generator voltage suggests some resonance.
Can you tap this energy?
In theory you could have a perfect switch so the load would get it but it is
really quite negligible and not worth the effort. In any case, it is not
"free" but comes from energy put into the generator in the first place. So,
the answer is NO.
Don Kelly
cross out to reply
"thhissux" wrote in message
news:202ce5f2-566f-4c90...@26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
Don Klipstein
Acceleration, including decelleration, including change of direction
without change of magnitude of velocity, is sufficient for charged
particles to produce "bremsstrahlung radiation".
Particles being decellerated sometimes do not oascillate - consider
"critical damping"and "overdamping". However, forcing a change of
vector velocity of a charged particle is often sufficient to achieve
energy conversion from kinetic energy to electromagnetic radiation.
No "oscillation" is necessary here.
--
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Szczepan Bialek
"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote
news:slrniehlt...@manx.misty.com...
> In <4ce8318d$0$27036$6578...@news.neostrada.pl>, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>
>> "Bob Masta" <N0S...@daqarta.com>wrote
>>news:4ce7c38...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>The Wikipedia
>>> page on bremsstrahlung radiation says:
>>>
>>> "Strictly speaking, bremsstrahlung refers to any radiation
>>> due to the acceleration of a charged particle, which
>>> includes synchrotron radiation; however, it is frequently
>>> used in the more narrow sense of radiation from electrons
>>> stopping in matter."
>>
>>"stopping in matter" is not precise. Electrons must oscillate before
>>stopping. The oscillations are the only source of radiation.
>
> Acceleration, including decelleration, including change of direction
> without change of magnitude of velocity, is sufficient for charged
> particles to produce "bremsstrahlung radiation".
From the Hertz dipole to Free electron laser electrons oscillate. So we can
assume that the radiation is result of the oscillations.
>
> Particles being decellerated sometimes do not oascillate - consider
> "critical damping"and "overdamping". However, forcing a change of
> vector velocity of a charged particle is often sufficient to achieve
> energy conversion from kinetic energy to electromagnetic radiation.
Radiation in form of coherent waves must be caused by oscillations.
> No "oscillation" is necessary here.
May be that to do soliton.
Oscillations in the Hertz dipole are the simplest to analyse.
In Heaviside theory the oscillating current create the oscillating magnetic
whirl. Such oscillations are transversal.
In Tesla's the voltage which is doubled at the ends of the dipole create
the alternate electric fields. Such alternations are longitudinal. The
directional patern of the dipole is the result of interference of waves from
the two ends.
Who do you prefer? Heaviside or Tesla?
S*
Bob Masta
Agreed, and I suspect (but don't have the math skills to
back it up) that it is the *acceleration* aspect of the
oscillation in "normal" (say, transmitter antenna) RF that
is responsible for the EM waves.
Since we know that acceleration of charge causes EM waves,
and we know that a sinusoidal antenna current has a
(co)sinusoidal acceleration of the bazillions of electrons
in the antrenna, then we assume that this constant-frequency
acceleration must result in EM waves. It seems unlikely
that this is a separate mechanism from "normal" antenna
operation (or we would have to account for it separately,
which I've never heard of), so my guess is that it is the
one and only mechanism.
But even if I had the math to show they are equivalent, I'm
not sure what good it would be... just an interesting way of
looking at things!
Szczepan Białek
"Bob Masta" <N0S...@daqarta.com> wrote
news:4ce9200...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >
> Agreed, and I suspect (but don't have the math skills to
> back it up) that it is the *acceleration* aspect of the
> oscillation in "normal" (say, transmitter antenna) RF that
> is responsible for the EM waves.
In "normal" (Hertz) dipole are the two places where the bazillions of
electrons accelerate/decelerate. The two ends.There are the two sources of
electric waves.
>
> Since we know that acceleration of charge causes EM waves,
> and we know that a sinusoidal antenna current has a
> (co)sinusoidal acceleration of the bazillions of electrons
> in the antrenna, then we assume that this constant-frequency
> acceleration must result in EM waves. It seems unlikely
> that this is a separate mechanism from "normal" antenna
> operation (or we would have to account for it separately,
> which I've never heard of), so my guess is that it is the
> one and only mechanism.
There are the two theories. EM waves in form of rotational oscillations and
longitudinal electric waves.
The Hertz dipole is as one source of EM or as the two sources of electric
waves.
>
> But even if I had the math to show they are equivalent, I'm
> not sure what good it would be... just an interesting way of
> looking at things!
Look what S. Errede wrote about Ampere (1825):
http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys435/spring10/Lecture_Notes/A_Brief_History_of_Electromagnetism.pdf
" It is infortunate that electrodynamics and relativity decide in favor of
Biot and Savart rather than for the much more sophisticated Ampere..."
So the magnetic whirl and the trnsverse waves are for kids.
For us should be the electric waves.
Best Regards,
S*
alie...@gmail.com
> U¿ytkownik "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶cinews:bebd981d-18ba-4b90...@j21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 19, 9:11 am, Szczepan Bia³ek <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >> Now we can shield the one end of the dipole and radiate from monopole.
> > Such waves are longitudinal.
>
> > Fertilizer. So-called monopole antennas have a *ground plane* (not a
> "shield") placed where the midpoint of a dipole would be; E-field
> lines from the antenna extend to the ground plane (until they go far-
> field, of course). The antenna behaves like a dipole (radiating
> perfectly ordinary transverse EM waves) with one element being a sort
> of virtual reflection in the ground plane of the real element:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopole_antenna
>
> Ordinary transverse EM waves are a myth - said Tesla.
Yes, I know. I don't think he was right about that, though.
> " If multiple monopole antennas are used in order to control the direction
> of Radio Frequency (RF) propagation, they are called directional antenna
> arrays."
I don't recognize the quote. Source?
> The dipoles are the "multiple monopole antennas" and are always used to
> "control the direction of Radio Frequency (RF) propagation"
I disagree with the statement that dipoles are "multiple monopoles".
> The ground plane (120 radials) is a chassis. The top of antenna expels of
> electrons and the chassis is a reservoir of them.
You are asserting that a monopole antenna is an electron gun?
> The monopole does not behave like a dipole.
Yet it is observed to radiate like one; dipole antennas in its far
field receive dipole waves. In what way do you assert that it does not
behave like a dipole?
> The Royal Society rejected the Maxwell's hipothesis. Heaviside renewed it.
> Who was better - Heaviside or Tesla?
"Better" by what criteria?
Mark L. Fergerson
Szczepan Białek
"nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote
news:6a888dbe-5169-4108...@a30g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 12:28 pm, Szczepan Białek <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> >
>> >> Now we can shield the one end of the dipole and radiate from monopole.
> > Such waves are longitudinal.
>
>> > Fertilizer. So-called monopole antennas have a *ground plane* (not a
> "shield") placed where the midpoint of a dipole would be; E-field
> lines from the antenna extend to the ground plane (until they go far-
> field, of course). The antenna behaves like a dipole (radiating
> perfectly ordinary transverse EM waves) with one element being a sort
> of virtual reflection in the ground plane of the real element:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopole_antenna
>
>> Ordinary transverse EM waves are a myth - said Tesla.
> Yes, I know. I don't think he was right about that, though.
> " If multiple monopole antennas are used in order to control the direction
> of Radio Frequency (RF) propagation, they are called directional antenna
> arrays."
I don't recognize the quote. Source?
Your link. The whole paragraf: "
When used for radio broadcasting, the radio frequency power from the
broadcasting transmitter is fed across the base insulator between the tower
and a ground system. The ideal ground system for AM broadcasters comprises
at least 120 buried copper or phosphor bronze radial wires at least
one-quarter wavelength long and a ground-screen in the immediate vicinity of
the tower. All the ground system components are bonded together, usually by
welding, brazing or using coin silver solder to help reduce corrosion.
Monopole antennas that use guy-wires for support are called masts in some
countries. In the United States, the term “mast” is generally used to
describe a pipe supporting a smaller antenna, so both self-supporting and
guy-wire supported radio antennas are simply called monopoles if they stand
alone. If multiple monopole antennas are used in order to control the
direction of Radio Frequency (RF) propagation, they are called directional
antenna arrays."
>> The dipoles are the "multiple monopole antennas" and are always used to
> "control the direction of Radio Frequency (RF) propagation"
> I disagree with the statement that dipoles are "multiple monopoles".
Phaze radars have more monopoles. If we want to control the direction of
Radio Frequency (RF) propagation we must use a dipole at least.
>> The ground plane (120 radials) is a chassis. The top of antenna expels of
> electrons and the chassis is a reservoir of them.
> You are asserting that a monopole antenna is an electron gun?
Tesla did the first electron gun: ""In April 1887, Tesla began investigating
what would later be called X-rays
using his own single terminal vacuum tubes (similar to his patent #514,170).
This device differed from other early X-ray tubes in that it had no target
electrode. The modern term for the phenomenon produced by this device is
bremsstrahlung (or braking radiation). We now know that this device operated
by emitting electrons from the single electrode through a combination of
field electron emission and thermionic emission. Once liberated, electrons
are strongly repelled by the high electric field near the electrode during
negative voltage peaks from the oscillating HV output of the Tesla Coil,
generating X rays as they collide with the glass envelope."
If Tesla coil is a monopole antena than it is a electron gun: "Once
liberated, electrons
are strongly repelled by the high electric field near the electrode during
negative voltage peaks from the oscillating HV output of the Tesla Coil,"
>> The monopole does not behave like a dipole.
> Yet it is observed to radiate like one; dipole antennas in its far
field receive dipole waves. In what way do you assert that it does not
behave like a dipole?
It is not a phase radar. The dipole is.
>> The Royal Society rejected the Maxwell's hipothesis. Heaviside renewed
>> it.
> Who was better - Heaviside or Tesla?
> "Better" by what criteria?
Who is right in view on todays facts?
In Heaviside the electric current is like an incompressible massles fluid.
Tesla use the electrons.
S*
Autymn D. C.
> On 11/16/2010 04:50 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
>
> >> He was asked to think of a 50 Hz system, but declined, even though 50
> >> would be a bit more 'Metric' in nature. The sixty also allowed a bit
> >> of a saving in transformer cores and such like.
>
> > So... why not 100Hz? Too lossy back when this was all being seriously
> > considered?
>
> Radiation to space and ground heating increase with frequency, so
> staying at a low frequency is good for long transmission lines.
Toward http://wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC for farther/wider than 350
miles.
http://google.com/groups?q=%22abuse+of+English%22+heiht
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+-autumn+%22length+is+time%22
Are there [cheap] diaelèctric wires with lossleas wavelength gaps,
where X→0?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_impedance#Lossless_line
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic-crystal_fiber
I couldn't find much here:
http://google.com/#q=%22frequency+window%22+resistance%7Cimpedance%7Creactance
http://google.com/#q=%22nonlinear+reactance%22+minimum
http://google.com/#q=%22zero+impedance%22+waveguide
http://google.com/#q=%22infinite+susceptance%22
http://google.com/#q=%22infinite+permittivity%22
http://google.com/#q=%22zero+permeability%22
> Also, the thin laminations needed for large power transformers probably
> make you want to stay with fewer, thicker laminations to keep a lid on
thin -> shallow
large := broad -> great
thicker -> deeper
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> 1)Ferrite is nice at higher frequencies but at lower frequencies,
> transformer steel still has an edge with regard to relative permeability and
> allowable flux density.
Autymn D. C.
> Yes. I was thinking, if one pole was different: weaker, stronger,
> or off in some other direction, it would cause a noticable effect
http://google.com/groups?q=%22Comparisons+for+the+illiterate%22+weak
> I realize, thought, that is more obvious in the case of a two pole
> rotor and 100 pole stator, or the other way around, which isn't
two-pole
100-pole
Don Kelly
news:92909748-fdc8-4878...@j9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Ah, yes- at least the meaning is clear compared to
"Toward http://wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC for farther/wider than 350
miles."
"diaelèctric wires with lossleas wavelength gaps"
The English language has evolved and continues to do so- that is its
strength.
Now, do you have anything useful to say about power transmission lines?
Have a "nice" day
Michael A. Terrell
Szczepan Bia?ek wrote:
>
> Your link. The whole paragraf: "
> When used for radio broadcasting, the radio frequency power from the
> broadcasting transmitter is fed across the base insulator between the tower
> and a ground system.
Not all radio stations. I've seen one AM broadcast station that used
a center tapped dipole, and the VOA Bethany station used a large curtain
antenna.
--
For the last time: I am not a mad scientist, I'm just a very ticked off
scientist!!!
Szczepan Bialek
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net>wrote
news:wK-dnUS-CO3SvHbR...@earthlink.com...
>
> Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>
>> Your link. The whole paragraf: "
>> When used for radio broadcasting, the radio frequency power from the
>> broadcasting transmitter is fed across the base insulator between the
>> tower
>> and a ground system.
>
>
> Not all radio stations. I've seen one AM broadcast station that used
> a center tapped dipole,
Such was in Warsaw. The most famous was in Luxemburg (frequency doubling
effect).
>and the VOA Bethany station used a large curtain
> antenna.
> --
> For the last time: I am not a mad scientist, I'm just a very ticked off
> scientist!!!
What do you prefer? Longitudinal or transversal?
Is a dipole the one suurce of EM waves or the two of electric waves?
S*
Michael A. Terrell
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net>wrote
> news:wK-dnUS-CO3SvHbR...@earthlink.com...
> >
> > Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> >>
> >> Your link. The whole paragraf: "
> >> When used for radio broadcasting, the radio frequency power from the
> >> broadcasting transmitter is fed across the base insulator between the
> >> tower
> >> and a ground system.
> >
> >
> > Not all radio stations. I've seen one AM broadcast station that used
> > a center tapped dipole,
>
> Such was in Warsaw. The most famous was in Luxemburg (frequency doubling
> effect).
>
> >and the VOA Bethany station used a large curtain
> > antenna.
>
What do you think? A loaded AM broadcast tower uses the ground for
the counterpoise. A dipole antenna is two radiators fed 180 degrees out
of phase.
The AM broadcast station was an oddball. It was built before the
Alaskan power grid. The power lines passed overhead and parallel to the
250 W 980 KHz station. You could pick it up during the day in
Fairbanks, 105 miles away.
The VOA curtain antenna was between three large towers, and directed
to Europe. It could handle up to 500 KW from the 10, 50 KW National
Radio transmitters. They could be controlled and opoerated as a single
transmitter. They were installed in the late '60s. Self tuning, and a
stable master VFO per transmitter. They could change frequency in
seconds, unlike the WW-II vintage Crosley transmitters they replaced.
TheM
>
> Such was in Warsaw. The most famous was in Luxemburg (frequency doubling effect).
Huh? Care to explain without using alchemy science?
M
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
>
> Szczepan Bia?ek wrote:
>>
>> Your link. The whole paragraf: "
>> When used for radio broadcasting, the radio frequency power from the
>> broadcasting transmitter is fed across the base insulator between the tower
>> and a ground system.
>
>
> Not all radio stations. I've seen one AM broadcast station that used
> a center tapped dipole, and the VOA Bethany station used a large curtain
> antenna.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Autymn D. C.
> "Autymn D. C." wrote in messagenews:92909748-fdc8-4878...@j9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Nov 17, 8:13 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...@shawcross.ca> wrote:> 1)Ferrite is nice at higher frequencies but at lower frequencies,
> > transformer steel still has an edge with regard to relative permeability
> > and
> > allowable flux density.
>
> Post on nesci.physics.* instead:http://wiktionary.org/wiki/nice.
>
> Ah, yes- at least the meaning is clear compared to
>
> "Towardhttp://wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDCfor farther/wider than 350
> miles."
clear--longer wavelengths are toward DC.
> "diaelèctric wires with lossleas wavelength gaps"
clear--metals are lossful near plasma/Debye scale, whereas
diaelèctrèts can be perfect mirrors or conductors for a wonted band.
> The English language has evolved and continues to do so- that is its
> strength.
It does not: http://google.com/groups?q=%22Benj+asks+about+history%22.
By the way, - is a glottal stop.
> Now, do you have anything useful to say about power transmission lines?
You don't! I had something to ask.
> Have a "nice" day
Screw you, who can't learn English.
-Aut
Rich Grise
>
> What do you think? A loaded AM broadcast tower uses the ground for
> the counterpoise. A dipole antenna is two radiators fed 180 degrees out
> of phase.
>
They are perfectly _IN_ phase, but of opposite polarity.
With a sinusoid, the result of a polarity reversal _LOOKS_ exactly the
same as a 180 degree phase shift, but they are _FAR_ from the same thing.
To test this, just try it with a pulse:
_ _ _ _
__| |____| |____| |____| |___ <-- start here
__ ____ ____ ____ ___
|_| |_| |_| |_| <-- polarity inversion
_ _ _ _
| |____| |____| |____| |___ <-- 180 degree phase shift
_NOW_ do you get it?
Thanks,
Rich
Michael A. Terrell
You don't use square waves for AM broadcast.
John Fields
<lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Screw you, who can't learn English.
>
>-Aut
---
Definitely PKB since you don't seem to be too bad at not learning it
yourself.
---
JF
Rich Grise
>
> Rich Grise wrote:
>>
>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>> >
>> > What do you think? A loaded AM broadcast tower uses the ground for
>> > the counterpoise. A dipole antenna is two radiators fed 180 degrees
>> > out of phase.
>> >
>> THEY ARE NOT "OUT OF PHASE"!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> They are perfectly _IN_ phase, but of opposite polarity.
>>
>> With a sinusoid, the result of a polarity reversal _LOOKS_ exactly the
>> same as a 180 degree phase shift, but they are _FAR_ from the same thing.
>>
>> To test this, just try it with a pulse:
>>
>> _ _ _ _
>> __| |____| |____| |____| |___ <-- start here
>>
>> __ ____ ____ ____ ___
>> |_| |_| |_| |_| <-- polarity inversion
>>
>> _ _ _ _
>> | |____| |____| |____| |___ <-- 180 degree phase shift
>>
>> _NOW_ do you get it?
>
>
> You don't use square waves for AM broadcast.
>
You must be a liberal. Change the subject rather than admit that you're in
error.
Good Luck!
Rich
Tim Williams
news:ichamg$4at$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> THEY ARE NOT "OUT OF PHASE"!!!!!!!!!!
Uh, yes they are.
> They are perfectly _IN_ phase, but of opposite polarity.
...Which is exactly 180 degrees phase.
> With a sinusoid, the result of a polarity reversal _LOOKS_ exactly the
> same as a 180 degree phase shift, but they are _FAR_ from the same
> thing.
>
> To test this, just try it with a pulse:
>
> _ _ _ _
> __| |____| |____| |____| |___ <-- start here
>
>
> __ ____ ____ ____ ___
> |_| |_| |_| |_| <-- polarity inversion
If you had gone to school, you'd have performed Fourier transforms and
been taught that:
F{-f(t)} = -F{f(t)} = F{f(t)} * e^pi
i.e., negation of the time-domain function is negation = multiplied by
e^pi = 180 degree phase shift of the frequency-domain function.
Would you like a proof? It becomes obvious from the integral.
What is NOT obvious is any other phase shift besides 0 and 180. Here's an
example of a "brick wall" filtered square wave (up to, I think, the 15th
harmonic), with an equal phase shift applied to all harmonics, in 10
degree increments.
http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/Square_Phaseshift.gif
It's clearly flat-topped inbetween, if still quite squiggly due to Gibbs'
phenomenon. It looks more triangular at 90 degrees, except for the strong
peak.
The halfway point (i.e., 90 / 270 degrees) is known as the Hilbert
transform. Naturally, no finite network exists which has this behavior
(flat response, 90 degree phase shift); it's usually approximated with a
truncated series of all-pass filters, or computed in DSP.
Tim
--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
Don Klipstein
You are saying that shifting each harmonic by 180 degrees of its
individual frequency is the same as inverting polarity of the whole as
well as all individual harmonics. That is true.
Rich was saying shifting a waveform by 180 degrees of its fundamental
frequency is not the same as inversion - which is true when there is "lack
of halfwave symmetry"
(negative half cycle is not an inverted repeat of positive half cycle).
(True when even harmonics are present, false when even harmonics are
absent).
Michael A. Terrell
No. I was a broadcst engineer and you're an idiot.
Michael A. Terrell
There aren't supposed to be ANY harmonics in a radio or TV broadcast.
Autymn D. C.
How is that? I spend hours in dictionaries.
John Fields
---
I rather doubt that.
What you _mean_ is that you spend hours _reading_ dictionaries, yes?
---
JF
Rich Grise
>
> Rich was saying shifting a waveform by 180 degrees of its fundamental
> frequency is not the same as inversion - which is true when there is "lack
> of halfwave symmetry"
> (negative half cycle is not an inverted repeat of positive half cycle).
>
> (True when even harmonics are present, false when even harmonics are
> absent).
That's what I'm saying - they might _look_ identical, but they got there by
entirely different mechanisms. Calling a polarity inversion a "phase shift"
is a misunderstanding of the principles involved.
Thanks,
Rich
Jos Bergervoet
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> What do you think? A loaded AM broadcast tower uses the ground for
>> the counterpoise. A dipole antenna is two radiators fed 180 degrees out
>> of phase.
>>
> THEY ARE NOT "OUT OF PHASE"!!!!!!!!!!
>
> They are perfectly _IN_ phase, but of opposite polarity.
>
> With a sinusoid, the result of a polarity reversal _LOOKS_ exactly the
> same as a 180 degree phase shift,
So how do _you_ know so well which one it is, if they look the same?
I would tend to agree with you if a wideband balun is used to generate
the pair of signals. But if someone chooses to do it with a 1/2
wavelenght delay it's better described as "out of phase".
--
Jos
Rich Grise
> On 11/23/2010 10:10 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> What do you think? A loaded AM broadcast tower uses the ground for
>>> the counterpoise. A dipole antenna is two radiators fed 180 degrees out
>>> of phase.
>>>
>> THEY ARE NOT "OUT OF PHASE"!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> They are perfectly _IN_ phase, but of opposite polarity.
>>
>> With a sinusoid, the result of a polarity reversal _LOOKS_ exactly the
>> same as a 180 degree phase shift,
>
> So how do _you_ know so well which one it is, if they look the same?
By where it comes from. A phase shift has some reactive element that
actually shifts the phase. A polarity inversion comes from, say, a
center-tapped transformer or an inverting amplifier.
>
> I would tend to agree with you if a wideband balun is used to generate
> the pair of signals. But if someone chooses to do it with a 1/2
> wavelenght delay it's better described as "out of phase".
>
If it's done with a phase shifter, then yes, it's phase shifted. Otherwise,
(CT Transformer, inverting amp) it's simply a polarity inversion.
Admittedly, it's a terminology thing, but sloppiness in expression leads to
sloppy thinking.
Thanks,
Rich
John Fields
>Screw you, who can't learn English.
---
Is that an offer?
---
JF
John Fields
<lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Screw you, who can't learn English.
>
>-Aut
---
If you're talking about a particular individual, a proper noun should
follow the comma and be followed by a comma.
For example: "Screw you, Jack, who can't learn English."
On the other hand, if you're demeaning a group, the comma is
superfluous.
In either case, it seems you're using the "screw you" epithet in a
negative sense, implying that the screwer is causing the
screwee to be looked on with disdain.
Have your sexual relationships been like that?
---
JF
Don Kelly
"Autymn D. C." wrote in message
news:376bdcf5-5bf1-4278...@p11g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------
--------------
>> Have a "nice" day
>Screw you, who can't learn English.
I looked at your "self" reference. It is too bad for you that it starts with
some technical discussion regarding power systems and transmission lines
between myself and someone I respect.
You wisely stayed away from this so you did not show your ignorance of the
topic. You finally came to life to "correct" the use of English. OOPS!,
"muttish"
At that time you were asked if you had anything useful to say. You didn't.
You still don't.
I use modern English not something supposed to be English based on Old Saxon
which has no words (nor needed them) for modern physics and engineering
concepts. Oh well, you can invent, as you have, your own language to cover
this lack of foresight of our ancestors on the basis that obscurity hides
meaning. This is something commonly expressed as "Bullshit Baffles Brains"
If you have something to ask- do so in clear "modern English" ( you have
mastered one of the idiomatic uses of "screw" even if you haven't mastered
one of the idiomatic uses of "nice" so you can do so if you try).
As for your comments/questions(sic) on power transmission lines
"clear--longer wavelengths are toward DC." Wow, what a revelation! Hertz
is rolling over in his grave!
"clear--metals are lossful near plasma/Debye scale, whereas
diaelèctrèts can be perfect mirrors or conductors for a wonted band."
0) wonted-->wanted? Lossful-> lossy?
1) define "diaelèctrèts" (oh dear, you are going back to Greek with French
accents) as opposed in properties to electrets and why you think they are
useful.
2) what has the "plasma/Debye" scale have to do with the topic? It appears
that you are trying to regurgitate something that isn't actually applicable
to dress up the fact that metallic conductors have losses- which is a fact
of life.
3) it appears that you have no concepts of what is important in
transmitting hundreds of MW over hundreds of Km (but a fraction of a
wavelength).
Losses, while not desired, are a relatively minor problem.
and excellent estimations of important line performance can be found by
ignoring losses (e.g. for a 500KV line the effect on the magnitude of the
characteristic impedance is about 0.1 % which is well within the error
limits of the calculated data (Based on a particular case of a 500KV line
where Zo =271-j9.7 ohms=271.2 @ 2 degrees full transposition assumed)
Don Kelly
news:0o7re6ll7nkem3v0f...@4ax.com...
It may be- but it might be a good idea to ascertain the gender of Autymn
before accepting the offer.
Don Kelly
cross out to reply
---
JF
Benj
>
> >Screw you, who can't learn English.
>
> ---
> Is that an offer?
>
> It may be- but it might be a good idea to ascertain the gender of Autymn
> before accepting the offer.
>
> Don Kelly
You'll probably also need the permission of nurse Ratched and a key to
the ward as well...
Autymn D. C.
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:12:16 -0800 (PST), "Autymn D. C."
>
> >Screw you, who can't learn English.
>
> >-Aut
>
> ---
> If you're talking about a particular individual, a proper noun should
> follow the comma and be followed by a comma.
>
> For example: "Screw you, Jack, who can't learn English."
>
> On the other hand, if you're demeaning a group, the comma is
> superfluous.
The proper noun is superfluose.
John Fields
---
"Superfluose" is not a proper word, you annoying twit.
Plonk.
---
JF
Jasen Betts
Proper nouns should be capitalised, but it's an adjective.
--
⚂⚃ 100% natural
Benj
I thought superfluose was a state that some cryogenic liquids can
attain...
Anyway, "superfluous" is proper for muttish!
Nurse Ratched doesn't let you talk to other humans much, does she?
Since I brought up the subject of the DSM-IV, have you found yourself
in there yet?
glen herrmannsfeldt
(snip, someone wrote)
> I thought superfluose was a state that some cryogenic liquids can
> attain...
You mean superfluid?
> Anyway, "superfluous" is proper for muttish!
The other famous (watch Apollo 13 for this one) cryogenic
liquid state is supercritical. That is, above the critical point.
Apollo had fans in the oxygen tanks, as it is difficult to
measure the amount remaining in the tank. A short in the power
wires for the fan caused the explosion. (Previously it wasn't
known that teflon would burn in supercritical oxygen.)
-- glen
Autymn D. C.
wrote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ose is a proper stem, you
cretinose dolt.
Autymn D. C.
Autymn D. C.
> On Nov 30, 12:34 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 4:35 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
> > > On the other hand, if you're demeaning a group, the comma is
> > > superfluous.
>
> > The proper noun is superfluose.
>
> I thought superfluose was a state that some cryogenic liquids can
> attain...
superfluor, superflumen
> Anyway, "superfluous" is proper for muttish!
>
> Nurse Ratched doesn't let you talk to other humans much, does she?
>
> Since I brought up the subject of the DSM-IV, have you found yourself
> in there yet?
Keep your imaginary friends and twits to yourself.
Rich Grise
Well, that didn't take long.
Plonk.