Yay! Another blog post. This one is pretty cool, and goes into a lot of detail that the General Blog topic on frequency transformation doesn't cover.
This is a BIG DEAL.
Here is the correspondence:
"You show your ignorance here;
That's called "transforming." Any time you work one coil with another
coil to change frequencies, or to change volts, you are transforming.
RF transformers are part of a resonant circuit where, one particular frequency is allowed to be amplified and the rest discarded.
It's NOT about changing frequencies, you dim nig nog, OK.
On the dial it appears as though you are "changing" frequency but that's
not the way it works electronically.
For the last time, transformers do not change the frequency of the applied voltage."
"???? That's about the weirdest way I've heard anyone explain it. Tit for tat, eh? It all amounts to the same thing. You say tomoto, I say tomato.
You know when your frequency changes when you can speed up or slow down your motor at the other end of the variable transformer. But your motor has to turn faster than your generator to get a true frequency increase beyond your generator's frequency (your motor has higher cycles per second than your generator).
It's nice you know about resonant circuits.
Another way to look at "cycles per second" is the number of 360 degree turns in a coil, whereas it's your waveform that's doing the cycling. The oscilloscope only shows us a flat wave, but it's really spiraling, and the crests and troughs is the complete 360 spin of the rotor either in a generator or a motor. ... ACTUALLY, let me clarify. I made an error there ..... the complete turn of a wire is actually 360 degrees in a generator, if you have just two magnets, a north on one side, and a south on the other; or at the very least is represented with the turning of the coils past the magnets ... in relation to north being above the x axis, and south pole below the x-axis on a sinwave. I am trying to represent a full circular rotation on a coil like in a bar antenna, rather than in the generator geometry, but those correlations ought to be understood without me going into painful detail.
If on a 3 foot coil 6 inches in diameter, you can measure how many wire loops in one foot, and that will tell you your frequency. In a span of 2 feet, you'll have twice as many loops, so in that 2 feet span you have a set frequency of however many loops (basically). In a foot span, you're dealing with less turns (cycles per second). In 2 feet, you've got more.
You can tear your coil apart and use thinner wire to get a higher frequency, and/or higher volts, sure. But because the wave resonates, you can just adjust your secondary coil.
Your secondary changes the moment of measurement in a span or length of wire.. Even though the distance increases or decreases, in that moment, you'll get a waveform of either higher or lower frequency / volts.
Volts and frequency is roughly similar. Your volts reflects with the number of turns in a span, but your oscilloscope won't know the difference, particularly if you are pulsing signals from a generator. Each pulse will take the same amount of time (span and distance), but pass through more coils (higher or lower volt / frequency). A pulse is a length of time (distance / span in spatial terms) when the current turns on/off/on/off.
When the pulses are timed with a slight gap in the signal, (bringing the wave to a zero between the magnets as the rotor turns around the stator), then you've got a little room to play with how many times that electrical current spins in an interval. There's a subtle difference between volts and frequency, but then there's a noticeable difference depending on your application.
Electrical arcing you'll get when the length of the null part of the wave is exceeded by the number of turns of wire in the coil, so when your magnetic field collapses, the distance of the wave is longer than the frequency of the pulse, electrically bridging the gap.
Your definition applies more to static coils (non moving or non-adjustable), like a basic transformer where you have a few turns of thick wire around one armature, and many turns of thinner wire around another. The current volume is still the same but you trade between volts and amps. In that sense, that kind of transformer affects no variance unless you change the speed of your generator.
A potentiometer acts similarly, but is more akin to a variable resistor. If I had to name a variable resistor, I'd call it a potentiometer. A variable transformer, I'd call a "Tesla transformer."
In fact, that's what it is. A Tesla transformer is what I'm talking about, with a long fat tube, and a secondary coil around it (a narrow but wider cylinder segment) that slides up and down the longer tube (the tube is wound with wire).
But you're dealing with a difference with all that. First of all, you have just one wind around a cylinder surface, which isn't doubled up over itself like in a standard electromagnet coil wind. You can even transform between electromagnetic and magneto-electrostatic if you use bare wire spaced evenly in the secondary coil, which is what Tesla did with his secondary winding.
Our college books don't go into Tesla Transformers, though. Many people think a Tesla Transformer consists of two coils side-by-side, and they call it a Tesla Transformer erroneously.
You can get a frequency increase working between electromagnetic, and magneto-electrostatic.
Pure electrostatic has no usable electromagnetic component. A coil won't create a magnetic field, because the magnetic wave is spinning both ways simultaneously, and you have to polarize it to get the electromagnetic wave. An electromagnetic wave only spins in one direction, it is polarized, that's what the energy is.
Magneto electrostatic is when you have an electrical static wave, with a magnetic component. In many cases that wave is not "static," meaning it's in motion and acceleration, just conducting "in the air" which is what really determines the difference between what is a static conductive-to-air energy, or an electromagnetic field. Any time you have a spark, it's magneto-electrostatic energy type. If you have sparks in motion around a circle, then you actually have rotating and accelerating static charge, which is what our college textbooks do not define as "static."
Our textbooks say a "Static" charge must be sitting still, but when you get static pulses moving through the air, then the college books have no definition for that application. Actually it's called ion beams or di-electric "static" pulses. When electricity conducts "through the air," it's static.
That's really when you're able to get frequency increases, because you're amplifying the resonance of the wave making it both larger, as well as faster.
I am not ignorant to your way of thinking and perception. I do realize what you are saying is essentially that you can't get a motor to spin any faster than what the generator is spinning at, merely by transforming between volts and amps. That's not what I'm talking about when I say "frequency transformation."
But you are saying such a thing is impossible because of what you know and have learned. I'm saying that frequencies can be increased and decreased. It would better suit your research to look into those areas of where frequencies can be raised or lowered, to first of all acknowledge the existence of such a concept.
THEN, we can talk more about engineering it.
Another concept you need to be familiar with is what you have already touched upon -- resonance and amplification.
In certain toroid-shaped coils, you will get a "resonance amplification" of both volts AND amps, increasing the overall WATTS of the current, itself.
Once you have that, and you say well that's impossible because of thermodynamics, then you'd HAVE to accept logically, that it's a matter of frequency instead, and then you'd have to look at frequency in such a way that also includes watts. That way you're not saying you are creating energy, just increasing the frequency of the watts.
But still, you ARE creating energy if you can "amplify the watts," of "increase the frequency of the watts."
When you look at the sun as an electrical plasma generator, instead of a fusion reactor, then it makes a lot more sense as to the very nature of energy itself.
I can appreciate where you're coming from, that just because the textbooks don't say it, it's not real ... but so many make that mistake thinking they know everything there is, just because it's taught in college. There's a lot of stuff that's total bullcrap in college, PARTICULARLY in the area of psychology.
As long as you resort to labels of me, then it's very obvious that to your mind, you aren't even trying to look at where I'm coming from, you are trying to say that you know more, and that your way is the right way, and anything different is wrong, incorrect, impossible, and cannot exist. The world does not revolve around your existence, and you can't look at the world and JUST see where YOU exist, because there are others, too.
If I would have had more resources, and if certain things didn't happen in my life, I would have continued these experiments to demonstrate this very thing we're talking about; and too, so I could understand it better through doing experimentation on it.
But the good thing though, is that it does fit with a type of "standard model" (just not "Standardized") that these branches of sciences do fit within. The metaphysics of energy creation is logically explained with examples and experiments and evidence to back it up, in these new discoveries in science we're making these days that are way beyond that of university curriculum.
Otherwise, I'd be more inclined to examine the roots of "watt amplification" more to see how it involves the radiant and electrostatic fields of the planet, of the sun, of the solar capacitor, and those things in general, but that quickly gets into infinite and incalculable and uncategorizable things (like how all the lightning around the planet is generated and all the tidal currents of land and water, the gravitational energy of the moon moving around the sun, and even down to the energy of a single atom, which is just as much as the energy of the galaxy itself in several mathematical illustrations currently in cutting-edge quantum science, because the abundant energy in the universe quickly goes off the charts, and we are unable to find where all that energy comes from, because ultimately there's just so dang much of it in everything, down to the very shape and landscaping of physical reality, itself, and which MAINTAINS that shape and form of planets and trees and people and whatnot.
When you deal with frequency transformation, you're dealing also with transforming between electromagnetic and electrostatic waves, which is the secret of what Tesla discovered.