Murray / Newman / Babcock / Tesla

talisman

Re: Murray / Newman / Babcock / Tesla
« Reply #50,  »Last edited
Quote
something to think about...

This goes back to the question of dose the load consume the ENERGY?

...
~Russ
The load cannot consume the energy because of the conventional proof energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Energy is transformed.

"Power" is not energy in to-tum; it is the amount transformed and directed to the load for useful "work".

Stay with what you see and know, the whole grasp is part of the others mind. Try to see what you think
is right and if it is the bench will give the answer.

There might be details not the same to built objects.

The net energy (ie :power?) and the total energy are audit amounts for the energy audit.

A proper device energy audit includes all losses and combined with possible gains.
     

Piero

Re: Murray / Newman / Babcock / Tesla
« Reply #51,  »Last edited
Energy  is  what   sustains  matter.
Energy   is  in fact  Synergy,  that means 'which  work with'.
We  should replace  E  with  S:

-->  S =  m.c2 

For instance in an atom, synergy   represents   the constant  flow  of  energy  that  vaccuum,  full of energy, constantly give  to the atom  to  sustain  its structure,  which, as we now know,  is  vibration, aka energy as of our  model of matter. This is coherent  to maintain  the  structure  of the atom which is  the sine qua non  condition  for the natural  equilibrium  of  the  whole  planetarium  system, that of the  atom  ,  other  of  our  Solar system.

The  synergy  of  a  system  in equilibrium  must be  constant.

Matt Watts

Re: Murray / Newman / Babcock / Tesla
« Reply #52,  »
Quote from Piero on May 6th, 11:04 AM
...   in the  very short  time  ...
By our standards, however we have the ability to stretch that time out to something we can work with.  We have at our disposal, length and permittivity.

~Russ

Re: Murray / Newman / Babcock / Tesla
« Reply #53,  »
Energy in a system is = to the power it can deliver. So if we amplify energy... we can amplify power. Using the understanding of the sling shot. Each time we sling it . We gain. And this gain is in its self power amplification.  Not voltage or current ... but both!

~Russ

http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?e=q-00000-00---off-0cdl--00-0----0-10-0---0---0direct-10---4-----stt--0-1l--11-en-50---20-about-Jim+Murray--00-0-1-00-0--4----0-0-11-00-0utfZz-8-00&a=d&c=cdl&srp=0&srn=0&cl=search&d=HASH0107648ee466d1b75f493474.26
Re: Murray / Newman / Babcock / Tesla
« Reply #54,  »
slingshot effect in nascar

Think about how a car can go faster than the motor can take it by using the other dynamics of the system...

~Russ

(Good one matt)
Re: Murray / Newman / Babcock / Tesla
« Reply #55,  »
Energy resonance...

The use of all frequncys. Not just thenone where we can only amplify current OR voltage. But never both at the same time...

"The primary source never delivers energy directly to a dissipated load, but rather to an energy storage system which then, over the second half the cycle, delivers its accumulated energy to the load at hand."

Sling shot... give and take. Gain a little more than you have to give. Then give it back to the load. And you never lost any...

~Russ
Re: Murray / Newman / Babcock / Tesla
« Reply #56,  »Last edited
Sling shot effect implies moving "points" for the lack of a better universal word... The first point is constant.  But moving relative to the other. The "extra" energy seems to come from "know where."  Becuse of yoir frame of refrance your mesuring at.. if you were on the moving constant... it would appear that it "came from nothing" ..

However . If mesured from the outside of both points you would see the entire picture..

To my point.

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/teach_res/mp/doc/mec_slingshot.htm

A frame of reference changes everything...

Thinkabout that. If the planet "transfers" this energy to the satellite... but the planet hardly feels anything becuse of the mass difference...

We get to set that up every 1/2 cycle...

Slinng shoting every 1/4 cycle and dumping that in to the load...

Then reseting for the next 1/2 cycle.

Our tiny amount of mass in the magentic feild compared to the mass where it came from is huge... and we can re set this every 1/2 cycle back to where it was.. the potental is huge in that system...

Doing it is the hard part. Things have to be just right for it to work...

More to studdy for sure.

~Russ

Piero

Re: Murray / Newman / Babcock / Tesla
« Reply #57,  »
Quote from Matt Watts on May 6th, 11:44 AM
By our standards, however we have the ability to stretch that time out to something we can work with.  We have at our disposal, length and permittivity.
Exact ))

Matt Watts

Re: Murray / Newman / Babcock / Tesla
« Reply #59,  »
Quote from Piero on May 7th, 04:55 AM
nascar ?
National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR)

Russ is referring to the well-known technique of drafting a leading car, then just prior to contact, snapping to the side and "sling shotting" past.  This technique works best during a turn where the increased angular momentum adds to the effect allowing a slower car to pass a car directly in front of him.  The late Dale Earnhardt is noted as being the driver to utilize this technique successfully on several occasions.  Also note, "timing is everything".

~Russ

Re: Murray / Newman / Babcock / Tesla
« Reply #60,  »Last edited
PDF version of the text from Murray. extracted from the link posted on previous post.

Piero, It seems that you would dive into those math's in Jim's work and get a good grasp of it. It seems that your math's are more advanced than Mine. i also think you already have a good grasp on similar concepts, so theses might help you advance even further.

~Russ

Piero

Re: Murray / Newman / Babcock / Tesla
« Reply #61,  »
Quote from ~Russ on May 7th, 08:41 AM
PDF version of the text from Murray. extracted from the link posted on previous post.

Piero, It seems that you would dive into those math's in Jim's work and get a good grasp of it. It seems that your math's are more advanced than Mine. i also think you already have a good grasp on similar concepts, so theses might help you advance even further.

~Russ
Yes,  Jim  uses  classical  theory

Cycle

Re: Murray / Newman / Babcock / Tesla
« Reply #62,  »
Quote from ~Russ on May 7th, 08:41 AM
PDF version of the text from Murray. extracted from the link posted on previous post.

Piero, It seems that you would dive into those math's in Jim's work and get a good grasp of it. It seems that your math's are more advanced than Mine. i also think you already have a good grasp on similar concepts, so theses might help you advance even further.

~Russ
Murray was talking about solitons in that paper.

That's a soliton beam for space propulsion. It combines a photon beam and neutral particle beam which combine to prevent beam-spreading via mutual interaction of the laser and particle beams so that refractive index variations produced by the particle beam generate a waveguide effect (thereby eliminating laser diffraction) and the particle beam is trapped in regions of high electric field strength near the center of the laser beam.

It's known as PROCSIMA (Photon-particle Optically Coupled Soliton Interstellar Mission Accelerator.

I can see why, if Murray was generating a soliton beam, he welded alligator clips together in another room and ruined his Minerva chronograph... with no beam-spreading, you can pack an incredible amount of energy into a very small profile beam, and it can go great distances.

haxar

Re: Murray / Newman / Babcock / Tesla
« Reply #63,  »
Quote from ~Russ on May 6th, 11:14 PM
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/teach_res/mp/doc/mec_slingshot.htm

A frame of reference changes everything...

Thinkabout that. If the planet "transfers" this energy to the satellite... but the planet hardly feels anything becuse of the mass difference...
One point (planet) has enough mass to influence another point (satellite), which is a tiny fraction of the total planet mass, in a frictionless vacuum.

Friction/Stress == Heat == T.E.M. conventional circuits

Pluto, and similar mass to its moon, appear to be spinning together, sharing a center point of gravity, between two points. Different behavior with Earth and its moon's mass.

~Russ