It is based upon parametric excitations among non-impedance matched, passive components requiring the use of at least pairs of capacitors flanking either side of an inductor.
You're using the offensive sales tactic of getting others "invested" in your charade. Which will only make this audience even more unhappy.
TLDR:
its a simulation artefact resulting from a unrealisable lossless resonant circuit
Just put the information up clearly, or you are being a attention seeker.
So, you take no interest in the notes section of post #72?
We're not wading through your drivel to try and find something interesting. If you have something so amazing it is on you to present it clearly. What in those notes would explain that the simulation is correct? and that it is not a well understood numerical error?
I bolded the important part in the above quote.
There is no absolute frame of reference. Everything is subject to relativity. That goes for time. But that also applies to energy -- especially since energy (not power) is measured in terms of time. And the temporal aspect of any particular "thing" in existence is subject to the limitations of its own rate of oscillation making it a relativistic proposition to measure one frequency by the use of another whenever we measure any frequency of oscillation by comparing it to our own oscillating time-pieces of watches, and clocks, etc.
Our measurement of energy is subject to alteration based on to what degree do we let, or encourage, the elements of reactance to alter our perception of energy. All of the elements of electrical reactance, namely: frequency, duration, and capacitive and inductive impedances, will impact our perception of energy.
If I simulate a flashlight by ignoring the variable capacitance of its switch, and if I feed this scenario more than enough energy from its battery to power its lightbulb, then I will never notice to what extent does the reactance of the connecting wires and the variable capacitance existing between the two metallic contacts of the switch will impact the outcome. Nor will I notice any appreciable reactance coming from the lightbulb if it is not an original lightbulb from Thomas Edison who invented a lightbulb in which its air was vacuumed out of it and it was lit up with a carbonized filament of charred bamboo.
By the way, Edison did not invent the tungsten filament lightbulb. That was invented nine years later by Irving Langmuir. And Irving used a noble gas to surround his filament to handle the variable voltages of an A/C power supply while Edison's version was only operational when fed by a D/C power supply. That's why an Edison bulb will last forever and feed a small contribution of current back into the network if it is fed from a D/C source, but will quickly burn out its bulb whenever fed from an A/C source. And the lightbulbs of Paul Falstad's simulator remain faithful to the Edison bulb. They literally feed a small contribution of current back into the circuit.
Most of the time, we don't let reactance overly alter our perception, and -hence- our measurement, of energy. But I encourage this alteration to occur. I foster it. I nurture it. The result is the illusory appearance of "free energy". Meanwhile, the energy which is/was fed into the circuit is diminishing. Yet, the parasitic reactance of the circuit acts independently of the input of energy and is, thus, not beholden to it and, thus, does not conform to conservation since reactance is not a conservable entity even though energy is.
And since the byproduct of reactance, namely: imaginary power, can be converted into real power within the restricted domain of a resistor (and not outside of it) -- or imaginary power can be converted into real power within the elevated resistance of an inductive heating element (but not outside of it), then there is no
theoretical limit to the synthesis of energy from the ingredients of electrical reactance.
Once the imaginary power resulting from electrical reactance is converted into usable (real) energy within the restricted domain of resistance, conservation applies. But prior to that, conservation does not, nor can it, apply to electrical reactance. Conservation cannot apply to frequency since frequency is a potential form of energy while the kinetic energy of current is -indeed- conservable. Likewise, conservation does not apply to duration, nor to the impedances of capacitance and inductance.
This is the "secret" of illusory "free energy" so long as we don't suppress this possibility by assuming that conservation always applies to everything regardless of anything's status of being kinetic (in which conservation does apply) versus a potentiality (in which conservation cannot apply). For if we assume that conservation always applies, then we will always assume that we need to calculate the requirements of our load, and the requirements of our losses and leakages, and tally this total under the presumption that we must feed this total to our load/s with the consequence that we will also be suppressing and ignoring the illusory creation of free energy (freely available reactance; highly efficient reactance).
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
