Chet that is more nonsense, unfortunately. An LCR network is inherently lossy due to the resistance component and will always dissipate power.
As a friend (
who was a staid businessman in charge of all of the rebar and concrete sold to contractors who built a four-leaf, clover leaf interchange on one of the freeways in downtown Los Angeles) once quipped, "
money is only a problem to those who don't have it" in response to a question from a meditator as to whether or not wealth was a barrier to yoga practice.
Likewise, the dissipation of power, due to entropic losses and conversions, is only a problem if this rate of dissipation exceeds its replenishment.
But you've heard me say that already. So, I'm not saying anything new....yet.
A low value of capacitance, how low due to want? You can easily make a cap of a couple of picofarads by twisting two pieces of narrow wire for a couple of turns and I have often done this for a light coupling at rf. You are correct that refractive index and dielectric constant are related but no capacitor is ever going to be a prism, it doesn't even make sense.
It'll never make sense in an LRC network. It'll make sense in an LRCC network. It takes two capacitors to actualize this phenomenon by the alteration of the dielectric field of each low-level capacitor by its partnered cap. This, then, becomes a parametric oscillation (see, below).
There is a tiny amount of energy in the environment but unless you live near a transmission site you would be very lucky to barely light a sensitive led.
Only by using low levels of input power will the non-suppression of these effects occur. It doesn't have to come from the environment. But that's one example.
I found by experimentation/simulation that anything greater than 3V of a constant input was probably going to risk suppression of these overly reactive behaviors. And anything less than 1e-15V will also probably jeopardize a gainful outcome.
And even whenever I use 3V, I throw away most of it to ground/s using either voltage division or current division to diminish the input watts, because all I want out of the input is a frequency devoid of amplitude for the most part.
A proper education in electrical engineering is not designed to maintain the status quo- it is designed to give you the basics so that subsequently you are only limited by your own imagination. To suggest that the system of education deliberately avoids areas of research that might challenge vested interests is conspiracy theory without **a shred of evidence**.
Good that I only need to provide a single shred! That saves me a lot of time looking all of them up!
Project Camelot interviews Ralph Ring, at 46 min. 18 sec.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/w3SF9NGr7u0?start=2778The current electrical theories work extremely well and need no improvement.
They need no improvement because if they got any better, then these theories would be too good for sustaining a robust economy.
That's not to say that our quality of life would go downhill if the economy were not robust since economy and quality of life are not necessarily codependent factors.
The reason no research is done on free energy is because it is known to be a futile cul-de-sac. Chet ask Verpies or F6 about this and see what they say. PS: just noticed your query "theft". If you fool a utility meter into believing your power bill is less than it really is then that is theft.
None of my simulations do well whenever they are hooked up to the grid. So, I've almost exclusively focused my attention on providing power either from a sinusoidal voltage source which bleeds an excess of its power to ground, or else a capacitor which is precharged with 1e-6V more or less give or take several orders of magnitude in either direction.
I've watched the damping of the oscillation which results from the dissipation of precharged capacitances die out to values which are not measurable anymore followed several simulator-seconds later by an escalating oscillation which I can only view as being "parasitic" since the precharged energy has already disappeared from view.
Thus, ends my responses.
The attachments, below, are pertinent to the following post...
Ignorance vs MotivationThe trans-Atlantic telegraph transmission problem of the 1800s seemed like a daunting task. They couldn’t figure out, at first, why the messages were not getting through. It took the insights of Oliver Heaviside to figure it out.
The point is, that they didn’t give up. What with all of their failures, they wanted to be successful badly enough to keep at it even if a Mr. Whitehouse got fired for frying one of the cables of his company by assuming that all that’s needed is to give it more voltage.
You’re not taught about LRCC circuits because you’re taught to believe that anything more complicated than LRC can be converted into its equivalent version of an LRC.
But there is no equivalency for ignorance. To ignore the factor of variable parameters due to the significance of a variable dielectric field surrounding capacitors is equivalent to the trans-Atlantic telegraph transmission problem in which the engineers were ignoring something no one had ever taught them before: the magnetic leakage which was occurring all along the entire length of each and every transmission cable.
Why? Because their technological know-how was to assume that copper is good enough for the transmission of potential.
Yet, it wasn’t adequate for preventing magnetic leakage and the phase distortions which resulted between potential and current. For that, iron was needed along the entire length of the transmission line.
And it took Oliver Heaviside to suggest the additional use of iron for having seen it suggested in his mathematical simulations of (what has become known as) his Telegrapher’s Equations.
Parametric variations of the dielectric field surrounding each capacitor is more likely to occur with “unstable” parameters than it is likely to occur within the context of stable parameters. And a stable parameter is more likely to occur within an enlarged parameter than within a parameter so small that manufacturers don’t even sell them below one pico Farad.
That can’t stop anyone from “winging it” by fabricating their own variety of low-level capacitances by stringing a dozen or more pico Farad caps in series, but that has stopped anyone from assuming that it’s worth the bother, because electrical engineers are not taught the significance of parametric excitation.
There’s been some studies done on this topic – mostly to benefit audio engineering (see note #1, below), but not much emphasis is placed upon this topic within the realm of power stations.
It has been discovered that an amplification by a factor off two is possible. Simulators make the mistake of multiplying the amplitude of a signal by a factor of ten since they’re based on a decimal system of enumeration.
But the natural log base of ‘e’ is most likely the upper boundary of an exponential growth rate.
Still, that’s impressive!
Notes- BSTJ 15: 3. July 1936: Oscillations in an Electromechanical System. (Hussey, L.W.; Wrathall, L.R.) – “…When the impressed voltage was increased beyond a critical value mechanical vibrations suddenly built up and current of the difference frequency, larger in amplitude than the current of the impressed frequency, appeared in the electrical system.”
- Klein Paradox – How an electron can pass through a barrier of electrostatic potential whose energy is greater than the energy of the electron by creating a pair of electrons one of which is the negation of its original making this inverse electron into the reversal of current. This describes the prismatic behavior of an extremely low-level of capacitance (significantly less than mere pico Farads).
- Parametric Excitation of a Linear Oscillator, manual, by Eugene Butikov – “An important difference between parametric excitation and forced oscillations is related to the dependence of the growth of energy on the energy already stored in the system. While for forced excitation the increment of energy during one period is proportional to the amplitude of oscillations, i.e., to the square root of the energy, at parametric resonance the increment of energy is proportional to the energy stored in the system.” – Editor’s note: this latter condition of “the increment of energy is proportional to the energy stored in the system” makes it possible to witness exponential rates of growth of the amplitude of energy of a parametric oscillator. Although some of my simulations grow to infinity, others taper off at a plateau of amplitude to which the simulator treats this magnitude as if it were an unreachable limit. Butikov’s paper alludes to this: “In the case of parametric resonance, both the investment of energy caused by the modulation of a parameter and the frictional losses are proportional to the energy stored (to the square of the amplitude), and so their ratio does not depend on the amplitude. Therefore, parametric resonance is possible only when a threshold is exceeded, that is, when the increment of energy during a period (caused by the parametric variation) is larger than the amount of energy dissipated during the same time. To satisfy this requirement, the range of the parametric variation (the depth of modulation) must exceed some critical value. This critical (threshold) value of the modulation depth depends on friction. However, if the threshold is exceeded, the frictional losses of energy cannot restrict the growth of the amplitude. In a linear system the amplitude of parametrically excited oscillations must grow infinitely. In a nonlinear system the natural period depends on the amplitude of oscillations. If conditions for parametric resonance are fulfilled at small oscillations and the amplitude begins to grow, the conditions of resonance become violated at large amplitudes. In a real system the growth of the amplitude is restricted by nonlinear effects.”
- Nonlinear Dynamics – “What is ‘nonlinear dynamics’? Isn't it a ridiculous term like ‘non-elephant zoology’?” – Editor’s note: seven years ago, I gathered together the pages of these links (notes #4, #5, and #6). But none of this registered with anything I had ever known about before then. Last summer was when I “woke up” to this concept. And, today, I get to rediscover my having saved these webpages onto my computer. So, unless you’ve already known about how pendulums can variously oscillate under these conditions of “non-elephant zoology”, it would not be surprising if you sweep it aside as another example of “word-salad” or something similarly useless or not relevant.
- “The foldover effect got its name from the bending of the resonance peak in a[n] amplitude versus frequency plot…. That is, the nonlinear oscillator oscillates either with a large amplitude or a small amplitude.” – Editor’s note: either an exponential gain over time or a comatose state (far less than the input level of energy). Here is a plot of an exponential gain taken from this website… {see, below, in the attachments filename pendper - graphic used in my post.gif}
- Parametrically excited oscillations – “In parametric resonance the amplitude of the unstable solution grows exponentially to infinity. Damping does not help to saturate this growth contrary to normal resonance caused by an additive driving force.”
- Mr. Milkovic’s two-stage oscillator as a parametric oscillator, by Aleksandar B. Slavkovic, March 07, 2009
- Gabriel's Horn, Wikipedia – “Gabriel's horn (also called Torricelli's trumpet) is a particular geometric figure that has infinite surface area but finite volume.” – I can relate the volume of this to the Conservation of Energy. Yet, the container of this, namely: electrical reactance, could be analogous to the surface area of Gabriel’s Horn. The significance is that our perception, i.e.: measurement, of the finite energetic content of an indefinite reactive containment can vary over time giving us equivalencies of the magnitude of content of an energetic system has also varied over time. These equivalencies are what we call parametric amplification. In other words, more work is performed per unit of energy of expenditure. A simulator can’t tell the difference. So, it renders its parametric results as an amplification of power. For all practical purposes, this constitutes a “quarterback end-run” around the limitation of a conserved quantity of energy without actually violating it.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
