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

[joeqsmith]

Right! Credibility takes time and effort since I remain a lone wolf.

You're not alone.  There are unlimited scammers when it comes to this topic.  They show up here a few times a year.  The last one was an expert in robotics.  The prior was and expert in warp drives.   I have to give them point as at least they deviated from the usual free energy.

Since I don't possess a formal education of this subject, ...

Its never too late if that's what you want.  I never had a class in free energy.   

[paul cotter]

Chet I am tired and I am going to hit the sack soon and I only glanced at your recent post. You have some major errors again. You say we are not taught about "LRCC" ! You have no idea the complexity of cap and coil(with inherent resistance) arrangements that I have dealt with- you name and I'm sure I will have done it at some time. I worked on high power am and fm transmission where bandpass filters were ubiquitous so don't tell me I cannot analyse any such LRC or LRCC or LRCCCCC. Second point: there are electric fields and magnetic fields or more correctly electromagnetic fields but there are no dielectric fields. There are dielectric materials and effects but no such field.

[Gyro]

...
BTW, Xena E, faringon/treez/ocset had some (ahem) "special interests", but his monomania could be traced to a.form of reality.

Curiously, he has just had his username on edaboard changed from 'cupoftea' to '24vtingle'. The same old never-learning unsafe crap though. We're not missing anything apart from the thanks ( hmm )

His "thanking" strategy was useful: it clearly and unambiguously demonstrated why up/downvoting is harmful.

How did you spot his moniker change? I wouldn't have, even if I still frequented edaboard.

i just looked in the power section and wondered where his posts had gone, then I realized the titles were still there, it was just the name that had changed. I don't know why I bother to look (and it is only occasionally), I still feel my blood pressure rising. It must be sheer masochistic fascination combined with lingering disbelief!

[SteveThackery]

Right then, @Chet - you've posted LOTS of words. If you want any credibility at all, stop telling people why they can't understand what you are proposing, BUILD A CIRCUIT AND SHOW US IT GENERATING THIS EXCESS ENERGY.

Anything less than that is just blah-blah.

[Chet]

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.

Trite and wrong; Readers Digest level philosophy.

As a kid my, my family unwittingly became friends with an extremely wealthy family. We learned that wealth does bring some problems, e.g. becoming isolated and friendless, not knowing who to trust. That caused them to value our friendship.

We also learned that those who have always been wealthy know what money doesn't bring, and don't worry about its trappings. The nouveaux riche are the ones who flaunt wealth, because they still think it makes them happy.

The 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

I wondered how long it would be before this syllogism raised its head: "X was an eccentric misunderstood  genius; I am eccentric and misunderstood, therefore I am a genius" .

Hint: Heavyside made predictions that were shown to work in practical cases. They were later incorporated into standard mathematical theories that successfully made more correct predictions.

I, I, I... Don't take it so personal. I don't. To me, it's "it", "it", "it" (namely, the situation -- the dialogue, between us). By not taking it personal, then there is no trauma to get over since this is not about me. This is about us.

That is why I quoted my friend, because his job killed him before he started meditation. He was lucky, though. He was told on the other side that "they" were very pleased with his life. But if he wanted to do even more good for people, then he would be sent back. Those of us who knew him are glad he chose to return.

Yes, money does not bring happiness. Inner peace brings happiness which can weather almost any storm. Yet, lack of money adds to the storm. My friend was not extremely wealthy. So, your extreme example is not the same.

Doris Duke, once dubbed the wealthiest woman, alive, had her hands full what with all of the people who came to her for financial aid.

[Someone]

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.

You talk on and on about the passive components being the key, but there is a voltage dependence? that would violate the well accepted principles of linearity. Or are there active components in the design?

Why is it so hard to just show the schematic here clearly (like an embedded or attached picture) so others can reproduce your groundbreaking results?

[Analog Kid]

Please post a schematic, a sketch, anything concrete that we can use to see what exactly you're doing here.

Enough with the word salad. It's time for another course, hopefully a more nourishing one.

[Chet]

Right then, @Chet - you've posted LOTS of words. If you want any credibility at all, stop telling people why they can't understand what you are proposing, BUILD A CIRCUIT AND SHOW US IT GENERATING THIS EXCESS ENERGY.

Anything less than that is just blah-blah.

Pray for me. I am homeless. I've spent plenty of time preparing myself for understanding this subject. But I have no stressless job. I'm too old to do my stressful job without wishing I had a desk job.

Besides, if you recall (I'll quote myself), it's not the excess energy that matters. It's getting the job done spending less energy from an ever-diminishing supply (whatever is left remaining within the circuit) that matters. The simulator doesn't know the difference between the input of energy and the output of work which is performed on the load. That's why it relegates the cause of the output gain to a quantity of energy -- the same unit of measurement as the input -- when it's actually the quantity of work which is accomplished that has occurred.

This is why I say, or at least have attempted to communicate (clearly or not), that the manipulation of reactance -- not the manipulation of energy -- is far more effective at accomplishing an illusory gain using less energy in the process by comparison to if energy had been directly manipulated rather than indirectly by way of the manipulation of reactance.

Reactance is not merely what its name implies. It's not merely a reaction to the application of energy against a reactive circuit. It is its over-reactance which alters our perception of its energy usage since it is illusory (yet, convincing to the uninitiated) that energy is what has become amplified.

Yet, the public doesn't know any better and continues to call this "free energy". I would be a fool if I tried to convince everyone that they've got the wrong vernacular. So, I stick to the populist sentiment while describing it differently than what this term would imply unless the discussion gets more developed -- such as it has done so with your "SHOW US IT GENERATING THIS EXCESS ENERGY" response. Then, I deem it an appropriate moment to correct the vernacular misusage (predicated upon a misunderstanding and a lack of an understanding).

So, you have every good reason to rail against it (free energy). I can't; I have to tolerate it since I have to use it, somewhat. But the discussion must always steer away from it (eventually) since energy is not the topic after all. In fact, I hold energy to be of an inconsequential value by comparison to a more accurate term might be "reactive efficiency".

Energy usage is always less efficient than 100%. That's what my simulation of the Joseph Newman motor taught me. That it's vastly inefficient yet makes up for its tremendous energy wastefulness by accessing more current than it wastes. The net current which is left remaining is less than an ampere sent back to the battery pack to top them off and prevent their voltage from dropping at all. The real gain is a mechanical gain in the format of its ability to deliver lots of torque due to the massive voltage in its humungous coil. That enlarged voltage (twice the voltage of its battery pack) would have quickly drained its battery pack had the improved version (taught to Newman by an electrical engineer but never given the credit by Newman for the assistance which had been given to Newman) not made use of a method to source an elevated frequency to improve efficiency in the area of the circuit's current.

This improvement in the area of reactive efficiency overcomes the inefficiencies of the original version of the Newman device which Newman, himself, had invented prior to the assistance rendered to Newman by the electrical engineer who chose to help Newman with some advice.

[Chet]

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.

You talk on and on about the passive components being the key, but there is a voltage dependence? that would violate the well accepted principles of linearity. Or are there active components in the design?

Why is it so hard to just show the schematic here clearly (like an embedded or attached picture) so others can reproduce your groundbreaking results?

If you understood the principles, you would have gained a skill that would make it possible for you to engineer these types of results on your own given any circumstance in which you find yourself. That's why I spend so much time simulating -- not to produce a circuit which is practical and safe to operate (because that's vastly more difficult given the instability of these types of circuits), but to develop a skill for being able to design a circuit of reactive efficiency with less error during each trial.

I enjoyed crafting post #72, because what they're saying about quantum behaviors is directly relevant. So, this is not merely my word salad. It's true, I developed my own style for explaining this which appears to be word salad since it's derived from my own experience and not from someone else's. But, I'm not alone anymore. I'm not a lone wolf anymore.

So-called free energy is the macro-view of a quantum dynamic.

This is nonlinear due to parametric oscillations among pairs of passive capacitors flanking either side of a passive inductor.

It is not based on simple resonance among impedance matched, passive components.

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.

If you don't like Paul Falstad's simulator, then post #44, makes use of Micro-Cap v.12.

[Chet]

Please post a schematic, a sketch, anything concrete that we can use to see what exactly you're doing here.

Enough with the word salad. It's time for another course, hopefully a more nourishing one.

See, post #83.

[Analog Kid]

Please post a schematic, a sketch, anything concrete that we can use to see what exactly you're doing here.

Enough with the word salad. It's time for another course, hopefully a more nourishing one.

See, post #83.

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

I'm taking the liberty of posting your schematic here for all to see:



So now, would you care to explain in some detail how this is supposed to work?
What's with the coils made of different material (copper, iron, aluminum): why does the material matter?
You repeatedly write "tolerates XXXV" on various components: what does that mean? are those the voltage ratings of those parts?
The only source of power I see is your sinewave generator; is that correct? no other power inputs?

[Someone]

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.

[joeqsmith]

I see a sad and lonely AC source with nothing to do....  At least the robot guy had some splatter, ground down wells to show.  Warp drive guy had some bird houses made.   

How do people fund your work?

[Someone]

I see a sad and lonely AC source with nothing to do....  At least the robot guy had some splatter, ground down wells to show.  Warp drive guy had some bird houses made.

The switch is used to manually provide an impulse which starts the numerical instability. My choice of simulator simply refuses to analyse the circuit in the time domain as it correctly predicts there will be unrealistic results.

[Analog Kid]

Wait, wait: I'm confused now.
Do we have a second contender for "over-unity"/free energy here?
What's that last circuit about? Yours? or something having to do with the OP's?
(I don't see any resemblance.)

[Bud]

It is based upon parametric excitations among non-impedance matched, passive components

A sane reader stops reading right here 

[Bud]

Chet, I know your heart is in the right place(from years of reading your posts)

Oh, good to know how much popcorn we should start stocking. Were you guys kicked out of that right place and found this forum to continue the soap opera?

[Chet]

Please post a schematic, a sketch, anything concrete that we can use to see what exactly you're doing here.

Enough with the word salad. It's time for another course, hopefully a more nourishing one.

See, post #83.

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

I'm taking the liberty of posting your schematic here for all to see:

(Attachment Link)

So now, would you care to explain in some detail how this is supposed to work?

"no-C2_10us_output_4-graphs.JPG" and "no-C2_20us_output_4-graphs.JPG" and "no-C2_50us_output_4-graphs.JPG" demonstrate in their upper two graphs that a parasitic oscillation has already begun to form within the resistor named, "Bulb100W" since they're oscillating faster than the sine wave generator's waveform in the lower two graphs. At "no-C2_100us_output_4-graphs.JPG", the amplitude of those parasitic oscillations appears to diminish, but picks up at "no-C2_200us_output_4-graphs.JPG" with an altered wave form of spikes which the simulator renders as triangle wave shapes but they're not since there are no plots other than the peaks and the troughs. The amplitude of these spikes becomes unstable at "no-C2_500us_output_4-graphs.JPG". This instability continues at "no-C2_1ms_output_4-graphs.JPG" with an additional feature of a more obvious growth of amplitude averaged over time. At "no-C2_2s_output_2-graphs.JPG", the output remains unstable but with a twist: it becomes a periodic instability peaking at a consistent limit due to a periodic collapse, after which, it quickly resumes its upward exponential growth rate from the bottom end of each collapse. This periodic collapse prevents an unbridled growth of amplitude.

Yet, the peaks are a bit excessive since lightbulbs are not supposed to be capable of tolerating peaks of voltage at 424 and one-half volts. Yet, that's where the peaks of voltage top off at for the resistor which is named, "Bulb100W" in the upper left corner of the schematic. Since heat is the initial impetus for the filament of an incandescent lightbulb to become illuminated, these extreme peaks of voltage might be better suited for an electric heater after adjustments are made to accommodate the parameters of an electric heater?

Making these adjustments, although complicatedly involving several factors all at once, is possible which is what makes this circuit archetype one of my favorites (from a theoretical standpoint) if the mystery of how to build it could be resolved. I think there are four factors to simultaneously keep track of (if my memory serves me): the self-inductance parameters of each of the three sets of coils (counts as three parameters since each of the three sets of coils share the same value of self-inductance among each set), and the frequency of the sine source.

So, those claims of tolerance are not claims so much as they are requirements made upon those components.

The sine wave source is shorted to itself to reduce to a bare minimum its output so as to not interfere with my intention to nurture the formation of parasitic oscillations. For if these PO's don't form right away, then they won't form at all because they will become continuously suppressed. We can't see them on the ""no-C2_10us_output_4-graphs.JPG" graph. So, you'll have to trust me that they are there. It's like a fire you try to start by rubbing two sticks together in hopes of producing a spark to light some dry tinder nearby. The initial moments during simulator runtime are what make all the difference between success and failure.

I use the Trapezoidal approximation engine, rather than Gear or Backward Euler, since I don't have the patience to wait that long.

The inspiration for this design comes courtesy of a single-phase induction motor I removed from a Nostalgia Ice Cream Making Machine which runs its motor off of A/C at 50 watts. If you were to unwind the main coil of a single-phase induction motor and cut its magnetic winding wire into five equal lengths, and rewind them together in parallel connection to each other, then you'd have coils Cu1 through Cu5.

The starter coils for a single-phase induction motor have been renamed, Fe1 and Fe2. The aluminum coil in the upper right corner of the schematic represents the rotor coil of a single-phase induction motor.

The fact that these coils are named after copper, iron and aluminum is purely conjecture on my part in an attempt to speculate how to fashion three magnetic couplings among these eight coils in which three distinct and mathematically precise percentage of couplings are somehow made possible. This was my speculation when I drafted this schematic two years ago.

But now I'm of a different persuasion. I'm willing to speculate that ferrous and aluminum sheet metals might maneuver the magnetic couplings among these eight copper coils since Micro-Cap assumes that all stand-alone inductors will be wound with standard, copper enameled winding wire.

These three magnetic couplings are the byproduct of precise relationships of the following rules of thumb...

• The first magnetic coupling between the five Cu1 through Cu5 coils and the two Fe1 and Fe2 coils, is defined by the ".define primary 0.7" statement in the middle of the schematic to the far right. It must be equal to or greater than the golden ratio of 61.8% and less than 100%.
• The second magnetic coupling between the five Cu1 through Cu5 coils and the singular aluminum coil, is defined by the ".define secondary 0.5477" statement. This value results from subtracting the first coupling from 100% and taking its square root.
• The third magnetic coupling between the two Fe1 and Fe2 coils and the lone aluminum coil is found by subtracting the first coupling from 100% and taking its cube power unless you chose for your first coupling the golden ratio in which case you take the fractional portion (to the right of the decimal point) of the square root of five to be this coupling. But if you were to choose 99% as your first coupling, then you'll probably have to adjust this third coupling up or down by trial and error or else remove this parameter from the simulation file since it will be extremely small: (1 - 0.99) = 0.01 when raised to the 3rd power = 0.000001 .

Just because this design was inspired by an electric ice cream machine motor does not imply that any of these coils are intended to rotate. Think of them, instead, as multiple coils interacting with each other in multiple ways. For instance, due to the lowered 3rd magnetic coupling, implies at least two things: a lowered mutual induction and an elevated mutual capacitance among these three coils since mutual capacitance and mutual inductance are inversely related to each other.

What's with the coils made of different material (copper, iron, aluminum): why does the material matter?
You repeatedly write "tolerates XXXV" on various components: what does that mean? are those the voltage ratings of those parts?
The only source of power I see is your sinewave generator; is that correct? no other power inputs?

The neon bulb could be considered as a "source" since it produces negative current due to its negative resistance.

I did an interesting experiment in Paul Falstad's simulator in which I placed a battery in series with a negative resistor and a capacitor. Lo, and behold, the current went backwards -- recharging the battery -- despite whatever voltage I put into the battery.

https://tinyurl.com/yr72rabc

For comparison...

https://tinyurl.com/yrlce7a5

Resistor, R5, of 100,000 ohms (1e5) replaces capacitor, C2, which used to occupy that position. But due to a hazard of the circuit blowing up if there was *any* residual charge left remaining on C2 from prior runs, I had to remove it and make other adjustments to accommodate its removal while retaining the characteristic behavior of this circuit.

[Chet]

Wait, wait: I'm confused now.
Do we have a second contender for "over-unity"/free energy here?
What's that last circuit about? Yours? or something having to do with the OP's?
(I don't see any resemblance.)

No contention since they won't produce equivalent results if they were to be built since their simulations lack series resistance between the components which would have come in handy to represent solder joints or the series resistance of the coils. Yet, they are easy to fabricate to illustrate a point, in this case, how pairs of capacitors flanking both sides of an inductor can alter the amplitude of power over sufficient time.

And you may notice that engaging the sine source accelerates the gain of power at the expense of accelerating the rate of drainage of the source. Since the circuit's accumulated energy builds up anyway, with or without the source's support after initially using the source for an instant to get things going, I just assume not engage the source beyond its momentary initial involvement.

[Chet]

I see a sad and lonely AC source with nothing to do....  At least the robot guy had some splatter, ground down wells to show.  Warp drive guy had some bird houses made.   

I'm lost. What does this refer to?

How do people fund your work?

They don't. I fund it to the extent that I can.

Sociologically speaking, this is not a profitable enterprise according to Ralph Ring's quotation of an FBI raid made upon Otis T. Carr's research to which Ralph belonged to.

YouTube video previously mentioned in post #72...

Project Camelot interviews Ralph Ring, at 46 min. 18 sec.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/w3SF9NGr7u0?start=2778

[Chet]

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?

[Xena E]

...
BTW, Xena E, faringon/treez/ocset had some (ahem) "special interests", but his monomania could be traced to a.form of reality.

Curiously, he has just had his username on edaboard changed from 'cupoftea' to '24vtingle'. The same old never-learning unsafe crap though. We're not missing anything apart from the thanks ( hmm )

His "thanking" strategy was useful: it clearly and unambiguously demonstrated why up/downvoting is harmful.

How did you spot his moniker change? I wouldn't have, even if I still frequented edaboard.

i just looked in the power section and wondered where his posts had gone, then I realized the titles were still there, it was just the name that had changed. I don't know why I bother to look (and it is only occasionally), I still feel my blood pressure rising. It must be sheer masochistic fascination combined with lingering disbelief!

It was a bit of a shame about him to be fair, he did have a miss applied talent for creative fiction... Also imaginative people do often make good electronics designers, unfortunately, they need other practical/academic skills as well. Farringdon didn’t have the time to develop those as he was just too busy dreaming up the next topic starter...

As for this guy...   

[Someone]

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.

[tggzzz]

As for this guy...   

Sad...

That is why I quoted my friend, because his job killed him before he started meditation. He was lucky, though. He was told on the other side that "they" were very pleased with his life. But if he wanted to do even more good for people, then he would be sent back. Those of us who knew him are glad he chose to return.

Pray for me. I am homeless. I've spent plenty of time preparing myself for understanding this subject. But I have no stressless job. I'm too old to do my stressful job without wishing I had a desk job.

Clearly time to realise someone is in a very bad place. I'm out.

[paul cotter]

This is getting worse and worse and I'm out too. A few final comments: Chet, you simply do not understand reactance and a capacitor either side of an inductor is a pi network, in regular use in almost every radio frequency device to match impedances. You quote the likes of Newman, Ring and "Vinyasi" to back up your ideas- lets be clear, Newman was a scammer and nutcase with a penchant for young girls(which I find revolting), Ralph Ring is a raving lunatic, plain and simple, and that "Vinyasi" guy has no clue whatsoever about electrical engineering. You are just going down one rabbit hole after another. If you don't understand the basics first you cannot build a house without a good foundation. This quest for free energy has been going on for years and years without a microwatt being produced and it will continue to do so, a futile waste of time and money. Signing out with thanks to the other contributers.