You've been asking a lot of slightly strange questions recently and I'm beginning to get a little suspicious that you might be a troll. I'm very sorry if that's not the case - I really wouldn't want to put you off if you really are a female undergraduate Electronics engineer but..
You said....
"I'm analyzing the magnetic field produced by plotting
> it in 3D"
..which makes perfect sense on it's own but then you make statements like....
"I can't find any AC resistor 110 volts at electronic stores".
or
"What would it take to build a square wave power
> inverter that totally eliminate the high frequencies
> riding in the square wave??"
..which hint that you probably aren't really analysing magnetic fields in
3D.
and what this about....
"I have wasted so much time constructing pcb, circuit,
> soldering for a function generator and variable power
> inverter and it's only up to 9 khz. I want something as
> large as 10 megahertz. Can commercial function gen
> create very clean sine wave?"
You seem to be trying very hard to achieve something but I'm not sure what exactly? If you told us what your end objective was that we might be able to save you a lot of time and effort. You've mentioned something about analysing loads a few times, what loads are you planning to hook up to this
10Mhz 110V signal generator and why experiment at such hazardous voltages. Much better at 9V !
I wanna invest in the marketing of a new generation of nanotech circuits powered by induction. Sometimes I thought how all those magnetic field in the sides of the monitor can become wasted or appliances producing the B field. To make sure the mini-circuits would work fine. I have to know how the high powered components in the magnetic field could affect it. Obviously I couldn't use 9 volts as the current generated is not typical of those inside appliances.
Emma, please don't take this the wrong way, but...well, I guess there just aren't too many ways you COULD take this. You seem woefully unprepared to even begin work on such things. Why don't you spend a few hours talking over such ideas with a qualified engineer, and get some idea of just how (im)practical they might be?
I've got some direct experience testing computers and set-top boxes to see if they meet emissions standards or are susceptible to interference from outside energy sources (but not specifically induction loop powered devices). The tests we did were carried out hundreds of feet down an underground salt mine to screen the equipment under test from other sources that were outside our control (like local radio stations and taxi companies). The test equipment we used had a total value or around $250,000 although we usually hired it along with time down the mine. Even with all this equipment and expertise it was always a nightmare trying to ensure equipment under test met the required standards.
If you submit ANY electronic device to sufficient interference it will malfunction - the problem is knowing if the level that it tollerates is acceptable in the real world. That takes an expert with experience. If you are thinking of making a significant investment in a company that's making induction loop devices you should probably ask to see their product test reports and have a professional engineer look at them. I wouldn't consider myself qualified despite the experience I've had.
Oh and you could use 9V. It's quite possible for a low voltage source to produce high currents (even 100's of Amps). The 12 V battery in your car does it every time you start up.
I'm sorry if I too am wrong but I'm not buying all this. The below quote just doesn't fit with the rest of "Emmas" apparent knowledge.
Hmm... yes.. a good idea.. Pc sound card... it can also produce current that can cause magnetic field in the coil, right?? What's the typical amperage of the pc sound card, I need very high amperage so I can easily measure the magnetic field and typical of monitor magnetic field strength.
Would any of you guys be entertaining this if "Emma" was called Bob?
And take a look at the switching between excellent colloquial English and pidgeon English.
Some of you may hate Retic. But let's forget the hatred for a while and focus on the substance of his arguments that in General Relativity, there is no Lorentz Transformations for length and it is a mistake of Einstein. Why is Retic wrong in his arguments as follows:
An alarm bell should ring when one examines the conclusions of General Relativity and of Special Relativity. One does not need a high level of brilliance or education to recognize that the two theories are incompatible and, as a result, cannot satisfy the Principle of Equivalence! Somewhere in the mathematics an error had been made. The existence of this error is made evident by the fact that, in a force-length-time system of measurement, there exists, under Special Relativity, the Lorentz Transformations for Length and for Time. Under General Relativity, on the other hand, while there is a transformation for time (the time dilation), there is no analogous transformation for length. It is the absence of this transformation which required the concept of "curved space" to make the mathematics self consistent.
When one examines the mathematical treatment which produced General Relativity to find the source of obvious error in the theory, it is not hard to find that error. The mathematics involved the double integration of and equation in the form:-
(dS)^2= (dX)^2+(dY)^2+(dZ)^2-(Kt*C*dT)^2
where Kt is the time transformation provided by Special Relativity. Anyone who is familiar with integral calculus will recognize that, to be rigorously correct, coefficients must be provided for the length terms (dX), (dY), and (dZ). The failure to include such coefficients arbitrarily sets them at unity. The effect is, to borrow a term from the legal profession, the arbitrary assumption of a fact not yet in evidence. Adding such coefficients does not introduce an error, if they are not required the mathematical solution will set them at unity and no harm will be done. If they are required, the solution will either be in error or will be impossible (as was the case with General Relativity). Unfortunately, instead of correcting this error, Dr. Einstein resorted to the fakery of "curved space"! For the derivation of General Relativity to have been rigorous, the equation to be integrated should have been written:
While separate coefficients for X, Y, and Z are required for rigor, it is not unreasonable to assume that space is isotropic and set Kx, Ky, and Kz are equal and set them equal to K. If this had been done, General Relativity would have yielded its result in terms of our normal three dimensional Euclidean Space. The existence of this error is evident in the difficulty in reconciling
General Relativity with Quantum Theory without mathematically resorting to fictitious extra dimensions (eleven dimensional space seems to be currently in vogue). When one corrects the information provided by General Relativity, which has been derived independently by two other independent methods, an entirely different picture of reality emerges. Energy is found to be conserved in the absolute sense, the source of the force of gravity is revealed, and our cosmological observations are provided with a clear explanation. It shows that the "big bang" origin of our universe never happened. As observed from the inside of a gravitationally collapsing object, the object appears to contract until a radius of four times the
horizon radius is reached and then is observed to expand to an infinite
radius as its absolute radius contracts to the horizon radius. Gravity is revealed to be a force resulting from the release of mass energy due to the contraction of matter as a result of a reduction of elevation. The subject is treated in detail in
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.