If I followed your concept to design my unit, the waves would distort beyond recognition, emf cancellation and algebraic distortions would throw the waveform off frequency. Amperage cancellations would amplify, and the strength of the harmonics would bleed out to nothing quickly. It would be a cool looking waveform on my oscilloscope at that point, with just that much value. To the water molecules, I would be delivering precisely jack squat in resonant power at any frequency they care about.
I'm not suggesting any sort of design criteria
with respect to your unit; I'm merely providing
clarification on the process of generating harmonics
and how they can easily be produced for some
useful purpose. Some of your explanation of where
you're going is difficult to follow and it appears that
there may be confusion.
You are talking quarter wave resonance, but thinking full wave resonance. You are questioning the theory based upon the standard model when I have patiently explained I am not using the standard model. I do not think it gets clearer then that. When I stated that my definitions of 'resonant' do not match due to Tesla's usages, I would expect people to both understand and accept that they do not indeed match. That is common sense.
There is really nothing unusual or contradictory
about Tesla's use of the term resonance. In that
time resonance was surprisingly well understood.
Quarter Wave Resonance is a reality which cannot
be confused with Full Wave Resonance. The
dimensions are different.
I will try once more, as I do have better things to do. I am tired, and if you cannot tell, it is possible that I am just a hair cranky. This sometimes occurs when I am tired.
I am using Tesla's concept model of both resonance and resonation. As for 'pure resonance' and 'true resonance', those are his words. You are right in that they, make no sense when examined from the common model. I cannot help that, as they are a part of his concept model. It wasn't until I realized that he was speaking a different language that just happened to use the same words, that I tried to understand just what in the heck he was even talking about.
I, like you, was basing my understanding on the common model.
If you actually want to understand, you are going to have no choice but get out of the proverbial 'box' for a few minutes.
Tesla may have been the first to understand
propagational resonance as it develops in the
end fed coil or the end fed antenna and the
impedance transformation at resonance. But
in his writings I've not encountered anything
which is indicative of some "new model." He
was breaking new ground and some of his
terminology requires thought to put it into
perspective regarding what we now know about
Radio Frequency Phenomena.
To find the quarter wavelength frequency for an antenna, you take the antenna length and multiply it times four. (Assuming in a vacuum where the speed of light is actually C. It is somewhat slower in the atmosphere. and f=c/wavelength)
This gives you the frequency at which any given antenna resonates and creates the maximum difference of potential between the ends of the signal for any give wave of a specific amplitude but varying the aspect of frequency.
Only in multiples or divisions of 5 times the design frequency does this reoccur. Still with me?
No, afraid not. Five times? There seems to
be some confusion in your understanding of
quarter wave resonance and the phasing of
the reflected wave at the point of reflection.
In a POWER based system you do not want harmonics lowering the emf. It goes against the concept of efficient POWER distribution. POWER is the emf (in volts) x Amperage at any given point on any wave.
It is true that in a power distribution system
that harmonics can cause problems. But how
would harmonics "lower the emf?"
What you've said regarding power in the wave
is correct relative to the instantaneous power at
any given point along the wavelength.
Using the 1/4 wavelength principle, it acts like, or appears to be, a standing wave, though in reality the wave is oscillating back and forth. The antenna 1/4 wave single dipole appears to the applied signal to be four times it's length.
To the applied resonant frequency the
1/4 wave antenna would appear to be
1/4 the length of the full wavelength.
Or, 90 degrees of wavelength.
The applied incident wave propagates
down the antenna to its end where it
encounters an "open circuit" which
forces the wave to reflect backwards
towards the feedpoint. There is no
phase change at the point of reflection.
At the feedpoint the reflected wave
arrives after 180 degrees of delay to
interact with the incident wave
Yes, it is the algebraic summation of the
incident wave and the reflected wave which
accounts for the Standing Wave. The standing
wave is a sure sign of resonance and causes a
stationary voltage maximum at the far end of
the antenna and a stationary voltage minimum
at the feedpoint of the antenna.
The power measured at any point on the Standing
Wave is essentially equal, minus radiation loss or
resistive loss. Where the voltage is low the current
is high and where the voltage is high the current is
low. Each point on the standing wave has its own
differing impedance as a consequence. To extract
power from the standing wave efficiently the device
being powered must have an impedance which matches
the impedance at some point on the standing wave.
Tesla observed these same phenomena in his
work with his coils, his so called "hairpin" resonator
and his magnifying transmitter.
Any harmonic which tries to destroy (algebraic bs here) the waveform is also trying to change the frequency, which also affects the amperage in unstable ways, which makes the system put out less TOTAL POWER, which is the goal.
Harmonics do not destroy the waveform.
The harmonics can be filtered out to find
the fundamental waveshape is intact.
In an electrical power system of 50 Hz or
60 Hz harmonics can disrupt certain devices
such as motors and sensory/control devices
which regulate the "grid."
Harmonics can add to the fundamental wave
to produce unusual waveshapes but nothing
is destroyed. The frequency is not changed;
the fundamental and all harmonics are discrete
and can be separated if desired.
The more POWER is available in the system of frequencies, the more POWER can be delivered by all of the frequencies to any other antenna which will resonate at 1/4 wave to the frequency. If I remember correctly, any dipole that absorbs the energy will automatically re-radiate half of that energy.
If you're referring to sourcing a multitude of
harmonics to stimulate numerous antennae
which are each resonant to a different harmonic
then that is a possibility. There are broadband
systems which operate on that principle. An antenna
array properly designed can be fed with numerous
frequencies on a common transmission line and
each will find its own resonant antenna.
Therefore, we need as much POWER on frequency, and on all frequencies which will treat the GOAL WAVELENGTH as a 1/4 wave dipole as we can provide. The POWER in any induced harmonic is always LESS than the applied POWER for the main frequency. Much less. The farther in frequency one gets from the main frequency, the LESS POWER the harmonic has.
Yes, that is correct.
Those three super-imposed waveforms were to show how they reinforce each other AT CRITICAL POINTS IN THE WAVEFORM. Anything else is not resonant to the system, but actually destroys 'pure' resonance.
Pure Resonance cannot be destroyed. Any
wave present which does not support resonance
will simply be rejected by the resonant circuit
or device. A resonant circuit is selective and
will reject anything which does not fit.
Tesla demonstrated the traits of a form of autism called Asperger syndrome. He would have necessarily been EXTREMELY high functioning. I wouldn't have caught that myself except that my own son is Asperger.
Just like Tesla, I find him using my words, but speaking a different language than what I think he is necessarily saying, which I then have to interpret to understand. ALL of Tesla's weird 'quirks' fall into line with Asperger syndrome. His self-described extreme clumsiness as a child, his demonstrated obsessions and repetitive routines that he had to do merely to function.... His complete lack of empathy which he described when his dad died... Classic. Almost textbook. It also explains his brilliance and fixation upon resonant systems.
What is worse is what it implies. A high functioning person with the syndrome, such as my son, can focus 100% of their concentration into solving a problem.... IF they want to. (Otherwise forget it.) As intelligent as Tesla was, it literally means he could be Einstein on any particular subject he had interest in, yet be somewhat deficient in others just because he had no interest or could see no perceived value.
It doesn't make him an idiot savant. It made him an intelligent savant. It also explains his weird ***** conceptions. He wasn't using our dictionary. If the definition didn't fit, he would have defined it for himself.
I personally find his definition of 'resonant' more accurate towards reality.
Tesla was indeed an unusual man and he may
have suffered from that condition. No matter,
he was valued and loved by many because of
who he was. Just as your Son is no doubt loved
and appreciated. Each of us has our own flaws
and defects; somehow we manage to learn and
to devote our energies to things we enjoy and
find value in.