Can reactive power be recycled fast enough to power resistive loads?

[Zero999]

LTSpice is geared for digital electronics. It is less suitable for analog circuit simulations.

Question for reasonable, informed (i.e., non-Chet) readers: is this true?

I have no idea.

It is true if you agree with my opinion of the parent company who gives LTSpice away for free. They make up the difference by advertising for sale a large variety of microchips which are catalogued by their LTSpice software.

I specifically excluded you from the list of preferred respondents, so please just butt out.

You don’t make the rules here. Anyone is free to respond, whether you like it or not.

And I'm free to tell them to fuck off. See how that works?

Or you could simply grow up and ignore it? That would be better. Swearing at people is generally frowned upon here.

[Chet]

Any incidence of a sparking arc across air between a conductive material, such as a screwdriver, and the terminal of an electrical component, such as a capacitor, is a disruptive discharge constituting a chaotic nonlinear event.

How does that lead to production of free energy?

It does not lead to free energy. What leads to free energy is a combination of factors,...

Low energy input of an extreme scarcity, and the interaction among large values of capacitances and inductances, or an extreme disparity between separate subcircuit groups of inductances along with parametric oscillation of self- or mutual- capacitances.

The chaotic (disruptive) discharges of spark gaps upsets the linearity of components enhancing the probability of their becoming nonlinear in their response, ie: a non-proportionality between inputs and outputs. Hence, the circuit could be altered in its arrangement of components and/or the parameters of its reactive components to vastly alter its output per unit of time (if it is explosive and out of control) while its input varies by far less magnitude. Thus, spark gaps enhance (ie, adds efficiency) to what might already be an overunity or underunity circuit, but are not required.

For example,...

In the case of the delta-star simulation posted a while back, I found it necessary to add neon bulbs. That spawned an instability (nonlinearity) which reduced the duration of time that it took to achieve noticeable magnitudes of output reducing the duration from tens of millions of seconds to less than ten seconds. But it added too much instability adversely affecting the stability of the numerical calculations of the simulator. So, I added a simple LC combination in parallel with each other and in series with the neon bulb. Then I got curious and slowly removed each of the three neon bulbs one at a time eventually discovering that none of the neon bulbs were needed anymore to reduce the duration of noticeable explosion to within the same reduction of time.

So, in that situation, the neon bulbs proved to be a valuable learning tool, and a short-cut, to what I preferred which was to avoid using them if I could and stick to my preferred method which is to rely on capacitances and inductances to as great an extent as is possible.

This is simplicity, because capacitances and inductances plus a scarcity of input is theoretically all that is required to spawn a nonlinearity, ie. a non-proportionality, between input and output and, thus, fulfill the expectations of what constitutes "free energy", namely more OUT than IN (in deference to the misunderstood but popular definition of "something from nothing").

That misunderstanding is predicated upon not waiting long enough to see the results increase, and/or an inability to measure all scales of magnitude. Because the rise of the magnitude of free energy may begin at magnitudes which are beyond our ability to measure over a long enough period of time and/or in the quantity (of amps, and volts, etc) making it look as if the energy has come from nowhere when it hasn't.

[Chet]

joeqsmith: it does not lead to free energy, it only wastes grid derived energy in pointless sparking. Chet, you indirectly raised the subject of Searl, a notorious liar and hoaxer and I will always act to counter bullshit when it appears in any associated documentation.

Suit yourself.

[Chet]

But he did claim the ability to pull current out of the ground which is what Chris Bake is managing to perform.

Chet, you've mentioned "pulling current out of the ground" several times, but I just don't get it.

Clearly you can pull current out of the ground if you put it back in...

This is where you make your mistake. Because you'll be assuming that you will be pushing it back in.

Consider air pressure alleviated by wind.
A high pressure zone moves air to a low pressure zone since the elevated air pressure pushes air to move in the direction of the low pressure zone. This accumulates a rise in pressure in the low pressure zone. This is similar to how a battery interacts with a circuit. In both of these instances, pressure differences equalize so as to reduce the likelihood, or the need, for any wind to blow or any direct current to flow.

But what if the wind should/could move in reverse? What will be the consequences, then?

The wind will pile up pressure in the high pressure zone and the low pressure zone will drop to zero pressure. This is what I see occur time and time again in my circuit type which utilizes the properties of the golden ratio among its mutual inductances of three sets of coils without being limited to the golden ration, itself (see previous post somewhere in here!).

In other words, the reversal of current has occurred (sometimes called negative impedance or negative resistance). But I've stated, somewhere in a prior posting, that due to using Ohm's Law, it is more correct to call this the inversion of output voltage (also known as current) inducing negative watts.

So, the inversion of current is more appropriate. This is what forms black holes which don't have to be limited to stars, but can also occur with planets. This is also analogous to invisibility since, according to Patanjali in his Yoga Sutras, his definition of invisibility is whenever the reflected light is not allowed to leave an object.

...the yogi is not adding the quality of invisibility; rather he is withdrawing the quality of see-ability.

-- Patanjali's Yoga Sutras 3.21

Hence, his definition of invisibility is in complete accord with what we observe with black holes in which their light is not allowed to leave (because the emission of light is analogous to the reflection of light).

This has the consequence of redefining the reflection of light as its absorption and re-emission (when allowed to do so).

This negation (inversion) of current results in the negation (the inversion) of entropy which may give us the illusory (false) impression that time has reversed (inverted) its forward direction. This is not so. But I cover this illusion in another posting regarding parasitic frequencies riding piggy-back on top of their input frequencies in which the magnitude of the input frequency becomes superseded by the largess of the resultant parasitic frequency tricking ourselves (and tricking the simulation software that we design) to misinterpret this as the reversal of time when it is not true. Instead, the correct interpretation is that the reference for time (used by the energy within the circuit), namely the input frequency spawn a parasitic frequency whose amplitude grows larger than the input frequency tricking the simulator into erroneously assuming that time has reversed itself.

This does not replace the theory held by physics that the gravity of a very large quantity could reverse the direction of light. It merely adds another alternative contrivance as to how its reversal could occur and, thus, removes the assumption that a very large gravity (such as a star) is required to effect this reversal. For, any reversal of light will result in a black hole or the invisibility of any object.

This does not succeed in making a spark gap or a neon bulb invisible since we are not locating our perspective at one, or the other, electrode. We are looking inside from outside. Thus, we are not being affected by this reversal.

But with a black hole, we are where that light would have come to had it not reversed. Thus, we (the observer) are the analogous point of view of one of the electrodes of a spark gap whenever we look in the direction of a black hole or an invisible object or subject.

This is why the perspective of time is a relativistic perspective dependent upon the location of the observer. Is it located within the energy, itself? Or is it our perspective located outside of the energy which is within the circuit? These two perspectives can sometimes give completely opposing conclusions whenever a surge occurs towards the initial moments of a simulator's runtime or a physical network/circuit's on-time.

... to the ground elsewhere. Obvious examples are any circuits with an earth return, including the 1-wire telegraph.

(Attachment Link)

Where I struggle is when you are pulling current out of the ground without putting it back. Where does it go? I've tried to capture my difficulty with the following diagram. How can I pull current out of the ground in this case?

(Attachment Link)

Please don't answer with just a link to another post. Can you just give a clear and simple answer? Thank you.

[MK14]

..cut...
inducing negative watts.

So, the inversion of current is more appropriate. This is what forms black holes
...cut...
also analogous to invisibility since, according to Patanjali in his Yoga Sutras, his definition of invisibility is
...cut...
This negation (inversion) of current results in the negation (the inversion) of entropy
...cut...

 

[Halcyon]

And I'm free to tell them to fuck off. See how that works?

I support people's freedom to tell someone else to get fucked.

Is it tactful? No.
Is it polite? No.
Will some people take offence? Probably.
Does it really matter?...

[Chet]

But he did claim the ability to pull current out of the ground which is what Chris Bake is managing to perform.

Chet, you've mentioned "pulling current out of the ground" several times, but I just don't get it.

Clearly you can pull current out of the ground if you put it back in...

This is where you make your mistake. Because you'll be assuming that you will be pushing it back in.

Consider air pressure alleviated by wind.
A high pressure zone moves air to a low pressure zone since the elevated air pressure pushes air to move in the direction of the low pressure zone. This accumulates a rise in pressure in the low pressure zone. This is similar to how a battery interacts with a circuit. In both of these instances, pressure differences equalize so as to reduce the likelihood, or the need, for any wind to blow or any direct current to flow.

But what if the wind should/could move in reverse? What will be the consequences, then?

The wind will pile up pressure in the high pressure zone and the low pressure zone will drop to zero pressure. This is what I see occur time and time again in my circuit type which utilizes the properties of the golden ratio among its mutual inductances of three sets of coils without being limited to the golden ration, itself (see previous post somewhere in here!).

In other words, the reversal of current has occurred (sometimes called negative impedance or negative resistance). But I've stated, somewhere in a prior posting, that due to using Ohm's Law, it is more correct to call this the inversion of output voltage (also known as current) inducing negative watts.

So, the inversion of current is more appropriate. This is what forms black holes which don't have to be limited to stars, but can also occur with planets. This is also analogous to invisibility since, according to Patanjali in his Yoga Sutras, his definition of invisibility is whenever the reflected light is not allowed to leave an object.

...the yogi is not adding the quality of invisibility; rather he is withdrawing the quality of see-ability.

-- Patanjali's Yoga Sutras 3.21

Hence, his definition of invisibility is in complete accord with what we observe with black holes in which their light is not allowed to leave (because the emission of light is analogous to the reflection of light).

This has the consequence of redefining the reflection of light as its absorption and re-emission (when allowed to do so).

This negation (inversion) of current results in the negation (the inversion) of entropy which may give us the illusory (false) impression that time has reversed (inverted) its forward direction. This is not so. But I cover this illusion in another posting regarding parasitic frequencies riding piggy-back on top of their input frequencies in which the magnitude of the input frequency becomes superseded by the largess of the resultant parasitic frequency tricking ourselves (and tricking the simulation software that we design) to misinterpret this as the reversal of time when it is not true. Instead, the correct interpretation is that the reference for time (used by the energy within the circuit), namely the input frequency spawn a parasitic frequency whose amplitude grows larger than the input frequency tricking the simulator into erroneously assuming that time has reversed itself.

This does not replace the theory held by physics that the gravity of a very large quantity could reverse the direction of light. It merely adds another alternative contrivance as to how its reversal could occur and, thus, removes the assumption that a very large gravity (such as a star) is required to effect this reversal. For, any reversal of light will result in a black hole or the invisibility of any object.

This does not succeed in making a spark gap or a neon bulb invisible since we are not locating our perspective at one, or the other, electrode. We are looking inside from outside. Thus, we are not being affected by this reversal.

But with a black hole, we are where that light would have come to had it not reversed. Thus, we (the observer) are the analogous point of view of one of the electrodes of a spark gap whenever we look in the direction of a black hole or an invisible object or subject.

This is why the perspective of time is a relativistic perspective dependent upon the location of the observer. Is it located within the energy, itself? Or is it our perspective located outside of the energy which is within the circuit? These two perspectives can sometimes give completely opposing conclusions whenever a surge occurs towards the initial moments of a simulator's runtime or a physical network/circuit's on-time.

... to the ground elsewhere. Obvious examples are any circuits with an earth return, including the 1-wire telegraph.

(Attachment Link)

Where I struggle is when you are pulling current out of the ground without putting it back. Where does it go? I've tried to capture my difficulty with the following diagram. How can I pull current out of the ground in this case?

(Attachment Link)

Please don't answer with just a link to another post. Can you just give a clear and simple answer? Thank you.

If you are the target of a black hole, then it will appear to you as a black hole. If you are the target of a black hole, then it will be taking energy from you but not necessarily from anywhere else if gravity is not the cause of its blackness. In other words, it will appear to be a normal star if it's not taking energy from those other points of view. It will only appear to be black if it's sucking energy from the point of view that sees it as being black.

This is in deference to the gravity theory which would mean that all points of view see that star as being black which need not be the case.

This alternative view makes for a variety of viewpoints which do not have to be the same as each other.

This satisfies your contention that current taken out of the ground at one point has to be put into the ground at another point.

Thank you for repeating this criticism of yours over and over again because I can see how it would fit in with the cosmological scale.

But a free energy device is not the cosmos. It is a special case which has to be made up for somehow or another but I don't worry about it because black holes are not the default condition for stars and neither is free energy the default condition for energy.

We all know that the default condition for energy is entropy. It is not the default condition of energy to be negative entropy. Hence, in the big picture, the anomaly known as free energy and the anomaly known as black holes are rare in contrast to what is more commonplace, namely stars which shine and energy which diminishes.

I hope this helps you understand.

[Chet]

And I'm free to tell them to fuck off. See how that works?

I support people's freedom to tell someone else to get fucked.

Is it tactful? No.
Is it polite? No.
Will some people take offence? Probably.
Does it really matter?...

Tact requires a certain degree of detachment which is not an attitude or a mood. It cannot be orchestrated by intention. It is an expression of a type of consciousness which does not identify with the subject or object to which the tact pertains to.

This is analogous to the statement, "be in the world but not of the world".

Again, this is not an affirmation but a description of a state of consciousness with respect to the subject or object which is under consideration. Because we all have differing feelings regarding different things or people and if we don't identify with them, then we can interact without becoming overwhelmed.

This is why parents are not our peers. Because if they were our peers, then they would not be able to have the detachment required to be our parents. And our grandparents have a detachment even greater than our parents which is why we like them so much!

[Halcyon]

And I'm free to tell them to fuck off. See how that works?

I support people's freedom to tell someone else to get fucked.

Is it tactful? No.
Is it polite? No.
Will some people take offence? Probably.
Does it really matter?...

Tact requires a certain degree of detachment which is not an attitude or a mood. It cannot be orchestrated by intention. It is an expression of a type of consciousness which does not identify with the subject or object to which the tact pertains to.

This is analogous to the statement, "be in the world but not of the world".

Again, this is not an affirmation but a description of a state of consciousness with respect to the subject or object which is under consideration. Because we all have differing feelings regarding different things or people and if we don't identify with them, then we can interact without becoming overwhelmed.

This is why parents are not our peers. Because if they were our peers, then they would not be able to have the detachment required to be our parents. And our grandparents have a detachment even greater than our parents which is why we like them so much!

Completely no idea what you're referring to. By tact, I mean the usual definition of the word, i.e.: "a keen sense of what to say or do to avoid giving offence; skill in dealing with difficult or delicate situations".

[Chet]

But he did claim the ability to pull current out of the ground which is what Chris Bake is managing to perform.

Chet, you've mentioned "pulling current out of the ground" several times, but I just don't get it.

Clearly you can pull current out of the ground if you put it back in...

This is where you make your mistake. Because you'll be assuming that you will be pushing it back in.

Consider air pressure alleviated by wind.
A high pressure zone moves air to a low pressure zone since the elevated air pressure pushes air to move in the direction of the low pressure zone. This accumulates a rise in pressure in the low pressure zone. This is similar to how a battery interacts with a circuit. In both of these instances, pressure differences equalize so as to reduce the likelihood, or the need, for any wind to blow or any direct current to flow.

But what if the wind should/could move in reverse? What will be the consequences, then?

The wind will pile up pressure in the high pressure zone and the low pressure zone will drop to zero pressure. This is what I see occur time and time again in my circuit type which utilizes the properties of the golden ratio among its mutual inductances of three sets of coils without being limited to the golden ration, itself (see previous post somewhere in here!).

In other words, the reversal of current has occurred (sometimes called negative impedance or negative resistance). But I've stated, somewhere in a prior posting, that due to using Ohm's Law, it is more correct to call this the inversion of output voltage (also known as current) inducing negative watts.

So, the inversion of current is more appropriate. This is what forms black holes which don't have to be limited to stars, but can also occur with planets. This is also analogous to invisibility since, according to Patanjali in his Yoga Sutras, his definition of invisibility is whenever the reflected light is not allowed to leave an object.

...the yogi is not adding the quality of invisibility; rather he is withdrawing the quality of see-ability.

-- Patanjali's Yoga Sutras 3.21

Hence, his definition of invisibility is in complete accord with what we observe with black holes in which their light is not allowed to leave (because the emission of light is analogous to the reflection of light).

This has the consequence of redefining the reflection of light as its absorption and re-emission (when allowed to do so).

This negation (inversion) of current results in the negation (the inversion) of entropy which may give us the illusory (false) impression that time has reversed (inverted) its forward direction. This is not so. But I cover this illusion in another posting regarding parasitic frequencies riding piggy-back on top of their input frequencies in which the magnitude of the input frequency becomes superseded by the largess of the resultant parasitic frequency tricking ourselves (and tricking the simulation software that we design) to misinterpret this as the reversal of time when it is not true. Instead, the correct interpretation is that the reference for time (used by the energy within the circuit), namely the input frequency spawn a parasitic frequency whose amplitude grows larger than the input frequency tricking the simulator into erroneously assuming that time has reversed itself.

This does not replace the theory held by physics that the gravity of a very large quantity could reverse the direction of light. It merely adds another alternative contrivance as to how its reversal could occur and, thus, removes the assumption that a very large gravity (such as a star) is required to effect this reversal. For, any reversal of light will result in a black hole or the invisibility of any object.

This does not succeed in making a spark gap or a neon bulb invisible since we are not locating our perspective at one, or the other, electrode. We are looking inside from outside. Thus, we are not being affected by this reversal.

But with a black hole, we are where that light would have come to had it not reversed. Thus, we (the observer) are the analogous point of view of one of the electrodes of a spark gap whenever we look in the direction of a black hole or an invisible object or subject.

This is why the perspective of time is a relativistic perspective dependent upon the location of the observer. Is it located within the energy, itself? Or is it our perspective located outside of the energy which is within the circuit? These two perspectives can sometimes give completely opposing conclusions whenever a surge occurs towards the initial moments of a simulator's runtime or a physical network/circuit's on-time.

... to the ground elsewhere. Obvious examples are any circuits with an earth return, including the 1-wire telegraph.

(Attachment Link)

Where I struggle is when you are pulling current out of the ground without putting it back. Where does it go? I've tried to capture my difficulty with the following diagram. How can I pull current out of the ground in this case?

(Attachment Link)

Please don't answer with just a link to another post. Can you just give a clear and simple answer? Thank you.

If you are the target of a black hole, then it will appear to you as a black hole. If you are the target of a black hole, then it will be taking energy from you but not necessarily from anywhere else if gravity is not the cause of its blackness. In other words, it will appear to be a normal star if it's not taking energy from those other points of view. It will only appear to be black if it's sucking energy from the point of view that sees it as being black.

This is in deference to the gravity theory which would mean that all points of view see that star as being black which need not be the case.

This alternative view makes for a variety of viewpoints which do not have to be the same as each other.

This satisfies your contention that current taken out of the ground at one point has to be put into the ground at another point.

Thank you for repeating this criticism of yours over and over again because I can see how it would fit in with the cosmological scale.

But a free energy device is not the cosmos. It is a special case which has to be made up for somehow or another but I don't worry about it because black holes are not the default condition for stars and neither is free energy the default condition for energy.

We all know that the default condition for energy is entropy. It is not the default condition of energy to be negative entropy. Hence, in the big picture, the anomaly known as free energy and the anomaly known as black holes are rare in contrast to what is more commonplace, namely stars which shine and energy which diminishes.

I hope this helps you understand.

At first it seemed to me that I was unfairly restricting myself in order to accommodate your limitations of vision and understanding in order to satisfy your curiosity on the one hand but your limitations as well.

But then I got to thinking about it and I realized although that is true it doesn't mean I have to stop there with my explanation so here is my extension...

Several years ago I made a bullet list of the three types of free energy based on where it comes from. The type to which I explained the phenomenon of relativistic viewpoint with regards to black holes to make an analogy with free energy to answer your question of current leaving one place has to enter another to accommodate conservation of energy was the second of three points bullet points that I had fashioned several years ago in which energy is taken from somewhere else to satisfy the requirements of the free energy device. This removal of energy from one place exterior to the circuit can have different spins of interpretation placed on it depending on what those exterior sources are. Are they man-made? Then we can call it theft. Is it from nature? Then we can call it harvesting.

The first bullet point is the recycling of energy or the more intelligent management of energy usage. For instance, most of the energy of a battery pack running an electric car is not for the purpose of running the electric motor in the electric car but for neutralizing the voltage difference between the two poles of the battery pack which is great for the people who bill us for the use of their energy to recharge the battery pack but is not so great for the customer who has to keep paying for that inefficient model of energy usage. So if the energy could be recycled rather than sent back to the opposing terminal of the battery to neutralize the voltage difference between the two terminals, then a whole lot of expense could be saved and could be counted as a source of free energy especially if the proportionality of reuse keeps getting closer and closer to 100%. Because if the ReUse of energy is 99% versus 90%, that means we've increased our apparent quantity of available energy by a factor of 10 and if we increased our reuse of energy to a factor of 99.9%, then we have increased our energy availability by a factor of 100 over 90%. This could make it look like the output has exceeded our input by a factor of 100 if our energy reuse is set to some sort of standard that we might call 90% usage. So the math can make it look like free energy when all it is is a percentage of reuse.

The third type of free energy sourcing is to not take it from the real plane of existence such as the environment or man-made objects such as the power grid, constituting harvesting or theft respectively speaking, but to take it from the imaginary plane of numbers governed by the square roots of negative numbers. Because this is so imaginary, it traditionally was called the aether but now we can call it by other names more appropriate such as counter-space. In any case, this is the third bullet point of where free energy can come from and we can't say that there's no limit to how much energy we can take from the aether. All we can say about it is that we don't know how much energy is in the aether because we can't measure the aether because the aether does not exist except as an imaginary scheme within our consciousness when we perform the mathematics of electrical engineering.

[Chet]

And I'm free to tell them to fuck off. See how that works?

I support people's freedom to tell someone else to get fucked.

Is it tactful? No.
Is it polite? No.
Will some people take offence? Probably.
Does it really matter?...

Tact requires a certain degree of detachment which is not an attitude or a mood. It cannot be orchestrated by intention. It is an expression of a type of consciousness which does not identify with the subject or object to which the tact pertains to.

This is analogous to the statement, "be in the world but not of the world".

Again, this is not an affirmation but a description of a state of consciousness with respect to the subject or object which is under consideration. Because we all have differing feelings regarding different things or people and if we don't identify with them, then we can interact without becoming overwhelmed.

This is why parents are not our peers. Because if they were our peers, then they would not be able to have the detachment required to be our parents. And our grandparents have a detachment even greater than our parents which is why we like them so much!

Completely no idea what you're referring to. By tact, I mean the usual definition of the word, i.e.: "a keen sense of what to say or do to avoid giving offence; skill in dealing with difficult or delicate situations".

It sounds to me like the word you use concerning "skill" or the phrase of "a keen sense" are the controlling words of your whole statement. For without skill, there can be no results even if they are forced they are merely faked and is not the same as if it comes about in a natural way. Because if it is an innate skill that brings about tact, then we can say it is a benefit of the natural instinct of the individual which says something about the consciousness of that individual with respect to what the tact is applied to.

This was what I was attempting to explain that we can have detachment on some subjects or objects but not others because of how we feel about some subjects or objects may not be the same as how we feel about other subjects or objects in which we may have the advantage of detachment towards some subjects and objects but lack this advantage towards others. This makes it possible for us to exercise tact in a relativistic manner depending on how well in an overall manner in a broad General sense is our consciousness of tact developed as a skill. Because if it is localized to the development of tact with regard to just some subjects or some objects, then we only get to make use of this skill some of the time instead of all of the time.

So what you call skill is what I might call consciousness in the sense that it is a natural ability that is not forced or faked or covered over with a mood or an attitude but is a very real and honest ability to be skillful with regard to tact.

[MK14]

 

[paul cotter]

I am lost for words having had a quick look at post #909. As a collection of absolute nonsense, so bad that it is not even wrong, it tells me that Chet does not want to learn and prefers to live in his fairy story world, unperturbed by the harsh realities of the real world.

[Zero999]

And I'm free to tell them to fuck off. See how that works?

I support people's freedom to tell someone else to get fucked.

Is it tactful? No.
Is it polite? No.
Will some people take offence? Probably.
Does it really matter?...

Fine, but I know from experience thread often turn to crap once someone starts behaving like that. If you want to tolerate it then don’t start whining about it.

[SteveThackery]

But he did claim the ability to pull current out of the ground which is what Chris Bake is managing to perform.

Chet, you've mentioned "pulling current out of the ground" several times, but I just don't get it.

Clearly you can pull current out of the ground if you put it back in...

This is where you make your mistake. Because you'll be assuming that you will be pushing it back in.

Chet, no, I am not making that assumption! I showed two scenarios: one where the current does go back into the ground, and one where it doesn't. It's the latter I'm struggling to understand. Could you please just answer that simple question? Where does that wire in my diagram go in the case where we are taking current from the ground connection but not putting it back in?

[Chet]

But he did claim the ability to pull current out of the ground which is what Chris Bake is managing to perform.

Chet, you've mentioned "pulling current out of the ground" several times, but I just don't get it.

Clearly you can pull current out of the ground if you put it back in...

This is where you make your mistake. Because you'll be assuming that you will be pushing it back in.

Chet, no, I am not making that assumption! I showed two scenarios: one where the current does go back into the ground, and one where it doesn't. It's the latter I'm struggling to understand. Could you please just answer that simple question? Where does that wire in my diagram go in the case where we are taking current from the ground connection but not putting it back in?

It goes to two locations,

One location is the accumulation (buildup) of voltage within the reactive components and resistive components of this type of circuit which is building up voltage as a consequence of the pervasive reversal of current taking place outside of any influence arising from spark gaps (since spark gaps are not required; they merely enhance what is taking place across major portion/s of this type of circuit).

The other location is exterior to the circuit, namely: the dissipation of this buildup of voltage via any resistances within reactive components or series resistances which are exterior to reactive components.

[Chet]

I am lost for words having had a quick look at post #909. As a collection of absolute nonsense, so bad that it is not even wrong, it tells me that Chet does not want to learn and prefers to live in his fairy story world, unperturbed by the harsh realities of the real world.

Chuckle, chuckle...

If harsh realities include lying, cheating and clever trickery to support whatever it takes to win as if winning were the new morality and losing was the new evil, then I need not fear anything nor deprive myself of my self-respect since I do not have to lye or cheat to affect a result, for that would deprive people of awareness. Yet, I do need to make use of clever trickery to fool entropy into working for me rather than against me by converting all of the significantly large impedances (resistances) into negative impedances and negative resistances.

I don't agree with my usage of these terms since I don't believe that either negative impedance or negative resistance actually exists, but I have to use them since they are standard terms within our consensural vocabulary. I prefer the inversion (or reversal) of current.

[paul cotter]

Steve, I do not see that as an answer to your question, it is just more word salad, garnished with sciency sounding words.

[paul cotter]

Chet, the harsh realities of life are that most humans have to work daily to provide for themselves with many barely scraping by. Nothing in this universe is free, everything has to be paid for. You mention lying, cheating and clever trickery- one of the best place to find such despicable behaviour is in the free energy claimants.

[Chet]

Steve, I do not see that as

an my [paul cotter's]

answer to your question, it is just more word salad, garnished with sciency sounding words.

Obviously, Paul. For you did not originate that answer. I did. So, of course it does not appear to be your type of answer that would satisfy your predilection for thinking about that question. At least let's give credit where credit is due.

[Chet]

Chet, the harsh realities of life are that most humans have to work daily to provide for themselves with many barely scraping by. Nothing in this universe is free, everything has to be paid for. You mention lying, cheating and clever trickery- one of the best place to find such despicable behaviour is in the free energy claimants.

The cost of a heat pump is less than the quantity of freely available sunlight shining down on the roof of a building.

The cost of recycling whatever energy is already being supplied from an exterior source is the benevolent usage of limited resources.

The cost of dissipating real heat through a real resistance from an imaginary source of power is far less than the real cost of operating that system.

Either way, the gain is free at the cost of our intelligence if we subtract the marginal input which amounts to chicken scratch.

The harsh reality you speak of is slavery to an unquestioning faith in our ignorance represented as common sense and misrepresented as a complete knowledge of scientific inquiry.

[MK14]

Please seek help from a medical professional.

[Chet]

Please seek help from a medical professional.

A medical professional is not capable of helping you to understand me. That said, neither can a medical professional help me to understand you on the presumption that we are equals, not non-equals, on the plane of understanding.

[MK14]

on the plane of understanding.

I'm not sure I want to go through, what you needed to go through (I presume), in order to get to that plane of understanding.

[Analog Kid]

And I'm free to tell them to fuck off. See how that works?

I support people's freedom to tell someone else to get fucked.

Is it tactful? No.
Is it polite? No.
Will some people take offence? Probably.
Does it really matter?...

Fine, but I know from experience thread often turn to crap once someone starts behaving like that. If you want to tolerate it then don’t start whining about it.

What are you, some kind of net nanny?
That function is completely unnecessary.
Why don't you tend to your own knitting and contribute the thread's topic, rather than trying to do some kind of behavior-modification thing here, 'K?