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

[Chet]

In the real world of conservation of energy in physics, the conserved quantity is the sum of potential and kinetic energy.
Saying that current is kinetic and therefore conserved is not true.

Oops! I've just said current is conserved. I believe it is in that whatever current enters a component (or the earth) is always balanced by what comes out.

EDIT: I'm beginning to see where Chet is going wrong. His mental model of basic electricity, voltage, and current seems to be faulty, and it means that everything he builds upon that mental model is wrong.

Chet: the earth is not a reservoir of current*. The earth is a conductor, that is all. You cannot pump current out of the earth as if it were water. For every milliamp you "pump" out you must pump a milliamp in, exactly as if the earth were a copper wire.

*I'm discounting from what Chet is describing: that the earth and ionosphere act as a giant capacitor which continuously gets charged by thunderstorms and discharged by the "fair-weather current".

Regardless of reality, simulators regard a ground as a source of a fixed value of voltage (namely, zero) and an unlimited value of current.

No, in simulators ground is just the reference point from where all voltages are calculated from. You have to do a same thing when calculating voltages and currents manually with nodal or mesh analysis. It's purely a mathematical necessity.

Micro-Cap won't allow me to place a series resistance of any value inside of a DC source. Odd.

Many SPICE implementations don't. The solution is to add another resistor, which should yield similar results.

I've had another look at your results and they contain errors such as 90 degree phase shift, when there are no inductors or capacitors. I don't have the time to go through it at the moment though.

[joeqsmith]

I followed your signature and ended up in Quora, Energeticforum, SubStack and finally Youtube.   I think this one summed it up well. 

Outside of being an uber driver, have you ever held a steady job or have you always tried the con game?  Just curious. 

[Chet]

I followed your signature and ended up in Quora, Energeticforum, SubStack and finally Youtube.   I think this one summed it up well. 

Outside of being an uber driver, have you ever held a steady job or have you always tried the con game?  Just curious. 

I don't know what a con is. Oh, I know what it is in theory, to promise one thing and deliver another. That's called "flim-flam" in an older vernacular.

But I couldn't do what I do with intentions to defraud anyone. In fact, I gave up the work-for-pay ethic at the age of 15 when my step-father demanded my vote of confidence in his theft of designer labels from Levi Strauss and company and slapped onto generic jeans made in China which had no labels on them. Had I reported him at the time to authorities, I could have saved myself a lifetime of headaches, because I never would have become an activist. I would have married one of the three girls I chose to avoid, had a career (I enjoyed photography and video editing), and would have enjoyed growing up in a semi-wealthy neighborhood.

But, I guess it wasn't meant to be. Anger (self-righteous indignation) took over and guided my choices. So, if that's your reaction to me at times among some of you, then that doesn't surprise me since I grew up with that and spent a lifetime feeling that way. (What goes around, comes around.)

That sealed in my head that I never wanted to work for money. I just wanted patronage so as to fund my working out of my pocket for all of my expenses for the privilege to work (website bills, etc) and had it up until a few years ago when my trustee stole two and half million dollars from 13 of her clients. She's in jail and I'm sleeping in my dead car on the street having avoided work for a lifetime before recently.

I pay for my privilege to work. And if the money don't come, then I lose that privilege. This is my idea of voluntary service.

All I've known is research since the age of 4. That's all I'm good at.

For example,...
I've researched the golden ratio, the silver ratio and discovered their relationship to planetary anthropology, namely: how evolutionary systems of harmony are endowed on planets to give a unique flavor to the development of creatures on that planet. For instance, how come humpback whales sing in a diatonic scale? Who taught them that? No one. They do it 'cuz it comes naturally to them since this planet supports that sense of harmony around the Fibonacci series. But other planets in our solar system are endowed with the silver ratio. So, if life ever developed on any of them, they'd have a slightly different system for learning about the do's and don'ts of life. Every planet has to possess a system of harmony or else its creatures would never learn to harmonize with each other or what the effects of disharmony entail. But each planet can have a unique system of harmony; it's own signature or flavor of harmonization.

[joeqsmith]

I don't know what a con is. Oh, I know what it is in theory, to promise one thing and deliver another. That's called "flim-flam" in an older vernacular.

But I couldn't do what I do with intentions to defraud anyone. In fact, I gave up the work-for-pay ethic at the age of 15 when my step-father demanded my vote of confidence in his theft of designer labels from Levi Strauss and company and slapped onto generic jeans made in China which had no labels on them.
...

You can't deliver over unity perpetual motion, and  your asking for funding.  As you suggest, a con.   

Growing up with it, it makes sense that's what you became later in life. 

Had I reported him at the time to authorities, I could have saved myself a lifetime of headaches, because I never would have become an activist. I would have married one of the three girls I chose to avoid, had a career (I enjoyed photography and video editing), and would have enjoyed growing up in a semi-wealthy neighborhood.

And you may have actually contributed something, rather than preying on people.  When the con racket doesn't pay the bills, how do you get money to live?  Rob?  Sell drugs?  Just curious what goes on in the life of a con man. 

[Chet]

but that won't matter because the voltage will keep going up to work even harder to get more current from the Earth from more distant locations to move towards the location of the circuit and in time May succeed at gathering current from distant locations and get it to localize within the area where the ground connections are made in the Earth.

So there's no violation of physics

 It's a simple pumping action – what I like to call the reactance version of a heat pump, because it pumps current around using voltage generated by reactance and sequestered by reactive components so as to encourage and protect the accumulation of that voltage and the buildup of that voltage.

This is something I don't understand. Unless you are a lightning bolt, you can't "pump" current out of the earth without "pumping" the same amount of current back into the earth. The earth is not a reservoir of current; current isn't like water, you cannot "suck" it out of the earth and use it. Current always flows in a circuit: current is conserved. What goes in, comes out, and vice versa.

You're beginning to understand me. My circuit is a lightning bolt.

https://tinyurl.com/zerobatt

[Chet]

I don't know what a con is. Oh, I know what it is in theory, to promise one thing and deliver another. That's called "flim-flam" in an older vernacular.

But I couldn't do what I do with intentions to defraud anyone. In fact, I gave up the work-for-pay ethic at the age of 15 when my step-father demanded my vote of confidence in his theft of designer labels from Levi Strauss and company and slapped onto generic jeans made in China which had no labels on them.
...

You can't deliver over unity perpetual motion, and  your asking for funding.  As you suggest, a con.   

Growing up with it, it makes sense that's what you became later in life. 

Had I reported him at the time to authorities, I could have saved myself a lifetime of headaches, because I never would have become an activist. I would have married one of the three girls I chose to avoid, had a career (I enjoyed photography and video editing), and would have enjoyed growing up in a semi-wealthy neighborhood.

And you may have actually contributed something, rather than preying on people.  When the con racket doesn't pay the bills, how do you get money to live?  Rob?  Sell drugs?  Just curious what goes on in the life of a con man.

Just because I can't deliver it doesn't mean I can't study it. I'm grateful for what little I can do.

I used to worry about paying the bills. That's why I worked for Uber. Now I stopped worrying and I just hang out with you guys and gals.

No sense worrying about something I can't change.

[joeqsmith]

Just because I can't deliver it doesn't mean I can't study it. I'm grateful for what little I can do.

I used to worry about paying the bills. That's why I worked for Uber. Now I stopped worrying and I just hang out with you guys and gals.

No sense worrying about something I can't change.

Waste all the time studying free energy you want.  Once you start asking for money, then you become just another free energy con.  The warp drive con talked about fleecing the government for funding.  Maybe ditch the free energy and go after something the government would pay for.  Maybe solar roadways is in your future.

[MK14]

To Chet, is this you?





For the UFO one, note the Teddy Bear, on the right hand side, compare to forum icon picture.

[SteveThackery]

Regardless of reality, simulators regard a ground as a source of a fixed value of voltage (namely, zero) and an unlimited value of current.

That "regardless of reality" slip says a lot!  😄

But seriously, Chet, I do want to ask you about grounds, which you describe as a source of an unlimited value of current. Would you please draw a simple schematic of a circuit where current is drawn out of the earth but not returned to it? I don't mean anything as complex as the circuits you've been showing us recently - just the simplest possible circuit that demonstrates it.  Perhaps a DC circuit?

Also, I definitely want to understand more about a simulator ground being a source of an unlimited value of current.  That doesn't sound right to me. It's just that I thought - even in a simulator - any current being drawn out of a ground connection has to be matched by current being pushed into a ground connection elsewhere in the circuit. In other words, in a simulator as in real life, the net ground current is always zero.

In my mind - when I visualise a schematic that's real or simulated - there is a wire that joins all the ground symbols together. The simulator software treats this wire as the reference point against which all the circuit voltages are measured. I don't think a simulator has a concept of the planet, to which your ground wire is connected. Or does it? Please correct me.

This wire can conduct an unlimited amount of current, yes, but as I see it any current in this wire must flow between two points in the circuit. Is that wrong?  I'm not at all familiar with the inner workings of simulator software, unlike yourself.

Chet, I'm hoping you won't reply with just a link to another post. I'm really hoping you can use the plainest possible English and the simplest possible circuits to demonstrate and explain how the ground can act as a "source of an unlimited value of current". This is a sincere question - I am not trying to spring a trap on you, I'm trying to understand what it is that you see.

[Chet]

Regardless of reality, simulators regard a ground as a source of a fixed value of voltage (namely, zero) and an unlimited value of current.

That "regardless of reality" slip says a lot!  😄

But seriously, Chet, I do want to ask you about grounds, which you describe as a source of an unlimited value of current. Would you please draw a simple schematic of a circuit where current is drawn out of the earth but not returned to it? I don't mean anything as complex as the circuits you've been showing us recently - just the simplest possible circuit that demonstrates it.  Perhaps a DC circuit?

Also, I definitely want to understand more about a simulator ground being a source of an unlimited value of current.  That doesn't sound right to me. It's just that I thought - even in a simulator - any current being drawn out of a ground connection has to be matched by current being pushed into a ground connection elsewhere in the circuit. In other words, in a simulator as in real life, the net ground current is always zero.

In my mind - when I visualise a schematic that's real or simulated - there is a wire that joins all the ground symbols together. {It is more than this.} The simulator software treats this wire as the reference point against which all the circuit voltages are measured. I don't think a simulator has a concept of the planet, to which your ground wire is connected. Or does it? Please correct me.

This wire can conduct an unlimited amount of current, yes, but as I see it any current in this wire must flow between two points in the circuit. Is that wrong?  I'm not at all familiar with the inner workings of simulator software, unlike yourself.

Chet, I'm hoping you won't reply with just a link to another post. I'm really hoping you can use the plainest possible English and the simplest possible circuits to demonstrate and explain how the ground can act as a "source of an unlimited value of current". This is a sincere question - I am not trying to spring a trap on you, I'm trying to understand what it is that you see.

Everything you say about a circuit is true but a ground is not part of the circuit, remember? It is merely a reference for calculating voltage drop across the circuit which supersedes the circuit, because it's referring to something else which is located outside of the circuit yet connected to it, namely the ground. Hence, it doesn't follow the rules of circuitry in which you have to have two points to create a flow of current. Instead, all you need is one. This is the definition of a ground – a more expanded definition (which is predicated upon the consequences of the simpler version) of a definition of a ground which you have been taught, namely a ground is not internal to the circuit. Think of it in the same context as a prime mover: something which is outside of the circuit yet is connected to it.

Being analogous to the location of a prime mover, it has its own rules which are not the rules of circuit construction.

In other words, according to artificial intelligence over at Google, an Earth ground provides for a return path to the prime mover, namely: the source. This makes a ground connection to Earth a back door (so to speak) and, thus, a partial clone of a prime mover (namely: another source)!



https://tinyurl.com/zerobatt

https://tinyurl.com/zerovolts

Oh, and by the way, there's no such thing as a simple circuit that can take advantage of ground as a zero-voltage source of infinite amp-hours such as how simulators view a ground connection, because I have never in my life managed to make a DC version of an over-unity circuit. They must always be an oscillating circuit in order to provide over unity because reactance has to be engaged in order to draw current from out of the ground using a reverse polarity of voltage concept, namely voltage pulling current instead of pushing it. In other words, negative impedance. You won't get this in a DC circuit. It has to be oscillating. Which makes it complicated!

[joeqsmith]

To Chet, is this you?
...
For the UFO one, note the Teddy Bear, on the right hand side, compare to forum icon picture.
...

It sure seems like their channel. 

[Chet]

Regardless of reality, simulators regard a ground as a source of a fixed value of voltage (namely, zero) and an unlimited value of current.

That "regardless of reality" slip says a lot!  😄

But seriously, Chet, I do want to ask you about grounds, which you describe as a source of an unlimited value of current. Would you please draw a simple schematic of a circuit where current is drawn out of the earth but not returned to it? I don't mean anything as complex as the circuits you've been showing us recently - just the simplest possible circuit that demonstrates it.  Perhaps a DC circuit?

Also, I definitely want to understand more about a simulator ground being a source of an unlimited value of current.  That doesn't sound right to me. It's just that I thought - even in a simulator - any current being drawn out of a ground connection has to be matched by current being pushed into a ground connection elsewhere in the circuit. In other words, in a simulator as in real life, the net ground current is always zero.

In my mind - when I visualise a schematic that's real or simulated - there is a wire that joins all the ground symbols together. {It is more than this.} The simulator software treats this wire as the reference point against which all the circuit voltages are measured. I don't think a simulator has a concept of the planet, to which your ground wire is connected. Or does it? Please correct me.

This wire can conduct an unlimited amount of current, yes, but as I see it any current in this wire must flow between two points in the circuit. Is that wrong?  I'm not at all familiar with the inner workings of simulator software, unlike yourself.

Chet, I'm hoping you won't reply with just a link to another post. I'm really hoping you can use the plainest possible English and the simplest possible circuits to demonstrate and explain how the ground can act as a "source of an unlimited value of current". This is a sincere question - I am not trying to spring a trap on you, I'm trying to understand what it is that you see.

Everything you say about a circuit is true but a ground is not part of the circuit, remember? It is merely a reference for calculating voltage drop across the circuit which supersedes the circuit, because it's referring to something else which is located outside of the circuit yet connected to it, namely the ground. Hence, it doesn't follow the rules of circuitry in which you have to have two points to create a flow of current. Instead, all you need is one. This is the definition of a ground – a more expanded definition (which is predicated upon the consequences of the simpler version) of a definition of a ground which you have been taught, namely a ground is not internal to the circuit. Think of it in the same context as a prime mover: something which is outside of the circuit yet is connected to it.

Being analogous to the location of a prime mover, it has its own rules which are not the rules of circuit construction.

In other words, according to artificial intelligence over at Google, an Earth ground provides for a return path to the prime mover, namely: the source. This makes a ground connection to Earth a back door (so to speak) and, thus, a partial clone of a prime mover (namely: another source)!

Google's AI definition of an electrical ground connection constituting (among other things) a "return path to a generic source". This does not necessitate a return to any specific source. This is where the limited scholastic training, among students of electrical engineering, has broken down!

https://tinyurl.com/zerobatt

https://tinyurl.com/zerovolts

Oh, and by the way, there's no such thing as a simple circuit that can take advantage of ground as a zero-voltage source of infinite amp-hours such as how simulators view a ground connection, because I have never in my life managed to make a DC version of an over-unity circuit. They must always be an oscillating circuit in order to provide over unity because reactance has to be engaged in order to draw current from out of the ground using a reverse polarity of voltage concept, namely voltage pulling current instead of pushing it. In other words, negative impedance. You won't get this in a DC circuit. It has to be oscillating. Which makes it complicated!

The complication is in crafting a dipole from out of reactance to supplement for the lack of an adequate input from a standard prime mover.

This reactive dipole is what constitutes the pairing of extreme parameters, such as: possessing a very small resistance along with a very large resistance, plus very large inductances and capacitances, etc., as in the following example...



But it doesn't always need to be extremely enlarged capacitances or inductors. It could just as easily involve reactive parameters which are very small, such as: using 100 pico Farad capacitances, etc.

So, when some of you have claimed that I am "breaking the simulator", in actuality, I am breaking with conforming to conventional standards of crafting "stable norms of society" among electrical engineers in particular and the public at large in general.


What I've learned from this is that reactance is not rigid. It is more or less analogous to a rubber band in which it can be stretched or compressed with energetic consequences of similar character, namely: energy can become expanded or contracted (not created, nor destroyed) in a manner which is similar to the Ant-Man character in Marvel comics. This does not violate conservation since our measurement of energy is always predicated upon whatever reactance prevails at the moment which we take our measurement of energy.

In other words, reactance alters our perception of energetic reality. It's not the energy which has become altered. It is our perception of energy which has become altered.

This is also analogous to the last scene of the Will Smith movie entitled, "Men in Black" (part one), in which we view our galaxy as being a tiny corpuscle within a much larger galaxy which, in turn, is contained within another larger galaxy, and these cascading structures are left to the viewer as being without any clear limitation as to how far does it proceed upwards, or downwards, in scale.

This thought is repeated by the sage, Vasishtha, in which he states (more or less), "when we wake up (become enlightened) from our present reality, we are waking up into another reality. Each reality appears to be real while we're in it. Yet, from a point of view which is located in the next reality which supersedes the present version, our present reality appears to be an illusory dream of insubstantial character."

[Hr_Satch]

No, that is plain simple what (-negative or opposed polarity-) Re-active energy is, . . .
The energy is always already delivered by its source,
so a counter EMF re-active spike is just waste.

I have tried creating numerous Induktive Counter-EMF so-called battery juvinators.
It works to re-gen a sparsely 'damaged' battery,
BUT you always need to put more energy into it, period .
-- -- --
Forget about it, there is NO FREE energy, or it was already massive used by the
kapitalist energy companies, asking you money for it.

The sun is our only distant FREE energy source,
and wind (but that's a result from the sun), and waterfalls, etc . . .

Regards, Harry.

[Hr_Satch]

Hello, I'd like to ge deeper on this,
for decades wrong misconception of electricity.

a Current is the result of a Voltage (power source)
OVER a conductive load (resistance, capacitance, inductivity, etc . . . )

When there is no current capable of flowing we speak about an insulator.

a Voltage can exist on its own, like a static field.
A current just can't !

Even a static field that deflects an electrons trajectory, does encounter a very
small load, under the form of a current, even if it is just a fraction of a Femto Ampère.

Evenso, ALL inductive Back EMF's energy; has yet been delivered by its power source:
the supply voltage.

I hope this helps, get rid of this basic mis understanding of Voltage
versus Current versus Energy.
The Joules or Coulombs, are just the result of a current through a conductive Load.
And this is the result of a Voltage OVER this conuctive Load.

I can't specify it more, Harry.

[TimFox]

I have often sent a current of ions or electrons between electrodes in a vacuum chamber, without a conductor in the way.
That is one of many kinds of current, all of which are treated in electromagnetism.
Another is transport of charge on the belt in a Van de Graaff generator, where the motion results from moving the belt mechanically.

The Joules are the product of the charge in Coulombs multiplied by the voltage between terminals.
Therefore, the power in Watts is the product of the current (time rate of charge) and the voltage.
Not difficult.

I have also used superconducting magnets in persistent mode (shorted solenoid) where the current just keeps on flowing.

[Analog Kid]

I have often sent a current of ions or electrons between electrodes in a vacuum chamber, without a conductor in the way.

[raises hand] Me too! Me too!
Well, at least I used to when I turned on things that used tubes (valves).
It's been a while, as I have no tube-based devices around these days.
Does that still work? Thermionic emission and all?
My god, it's like magic; electricity flowing without any conductor!

[TimFox]

I have often sent a current of ions or electrons between electrodes in a vacuum chamber, without a conductor in the way.

[raises hand] Me too! Me too!
Well, at least I used to when I turned on things that used tubes (valves).
It's been a while, as I have no tube-based devices around these days.
Does that still work? Thermionic emission and all?
My god, it's like magic; electricity flowing without any conductor!

Lee de Forest, the inventor of the audion (triode vacuum tube) thought a bit of air left inside the bulb was necessary for current to flow.
Once you are in the "vacuum" region, not glow discharge, the current is almost independent of the remaining gas pressure in these devices.

[paul cotter]

There is no restriction on "pumping" current out of or into the ground(earth). However one will EXPEND energy doing this. Chet unfortunately has not yet got an understanding of reactance- the only property of reactance is that AC current through a reactance will be phase shifted +90degrees(capacitive) and -90degrees(inductive) relative to the applied voltage. There are no magic properties that can generate energy and there are no negative reactances(ie no reactance with an absolute value being negative). Negative resistance is a TRANSIENT phenomenon observable in gas discharge tubes and some semiconductors but again it is never the source of energy. Chet seems to believe in a conspiracy to discourage engineers looking at certain circuit methodologies and this is nonsense as engineers will try anything that has a hope of functioning- they will not waste their time on that which has been proven not to work. 

[SteveThackery]

There is no restriction on "pumping" current out of or into the ground(earth).

Could you explain this more fully, Paul, because I think there is and want to understand why.

As I see it, there is no way of "pumping" current out of the earth without also pumping it into the earth elsewhere. In other words, the earth behaves like a conductor, not a reservoir. I am really hoping you can explain why my model is wrong, because I simply cannot follow Chet's writing.

EDIT: Paul what would be really helpful is if you could draw a circuit with one earth connection that "pumps" current into and/or out of the earth. 

[SteveThackery]

Regardless of reality, simulators regard a ground as a source of a fixed value of voltage (namely, zero) and an unlimited value of current.

I'm really struggling to understand your explanations, Chet, but I think that bold assertion is simply wrong. I think you cannot draw current out of the earth without putting the same amount back in.

I've asked Paul Cotter to explain your argument because I'm afraid I simply cannot follow your explanations. Not because the phenomenon is unfamiliar to me (I'm not an idiot) but because you have no idea how to write clearly.

[Chet]

There is no restriction on "pumping" current out of or into the ground(earth). However one will EXPEND energy doing this. Chet unfortunately has not yet got an understanding of reactance- the only property of reactance is that AC current through a reactance will be phase shifted +90degrees(capacitive) and -90degrees(inductive) relative to the applied voltage. There are no magic properties that can generate energy and there are no negative reactances(ie no reactance with an absolute value being negative). Negative resistance is a TRANSIENT phenomenon observable in gas discharge tubes and some semiconductors but again it is never the source of energy. Chet seems to believe in a conspiracy to discourage engineers looking at certain circuit methodologies and this is nonsense as engineers will try anything that has a hope of functioning- they will not waste their time on that which has been proven not to work.

Expending energy to achieve this goal is your only mistake because it will get in the way

The reason is that it will block the inversion of current from occurring

This inversion is 180° of phase displacement beyond the minor imitation that you seem to be stuck in the mindset of 90° of phase displacement as if that were a law but it is not it is merely a limitation of insight into the mechanics of how to get a phase displacement between current and voltage of 180° within a circuit outside the boundaries of a gas discharge tube by using capacitances and inductances and resistances to achieve this goal utilizing gas discharge tubes only as an enhancement but they are not required to produce this result and consider them to be a distraction

Only under low input conditions can what I describe occur because reactance has to dominate the circuit in other words the input of energy to initiate this process has to be replaced due to the entropic loss of the input energy not being replaced with more input energy but is instead replaced with reactive energy which has nowhere to go but to bounce around inside the circuit bounded by the circuit because it can't get out

 this buildup of reactance is what is needed to create a reversal of current as a potentiality and once connected to another source outside the circuit such as ground then the circuit can provide a sucking action to pull current from out of the ground as if the ground were a voltage source which is what it is a voltage source of zero voltage of zero potential because it is a reference but it is more than a reference it is also a source if we provide an inverted polarity of voltage to pull the current from out of the ground

Reactance can achieve this goal but only if we give it so little energy that nothing can happen on the basis of energy alone

[Chet]

There is no restriction on "pumping" current out of or into the ground(earth).

Could you explain this more fully, Paul, because I think there is and want to understand why.

As I see it, there is no way of "pumping" current out of the earth without also pumping it into the earth elsewhere. In other words, the earth behaves like a conductor, not a reservoir. I am really hoping you can explain why my model is wrong, because I simply cannot follow Chet's writing.

EDIT: Paul what would be really helpful is if you could draw a circuit with one earth connection that "pumps" current into and/or out of the earth.

I can see what you're driving at now it's not intrinsic to the process of pumping the current out of the ground but it is a consequence so let's cover it

Nathan Stubblefield system is an electrostatic system but in order for it to operate leakage current has to be taken into account

So this is the answer to your question in which everywhere else other than where the current is being pumped out of the ground everywhere else it's being sucked into the ground but at a level that would be considered leakage from the atmosphere from plants and animals from people from the grid the utility grid wherever it's available it'll get sucked into the ground but at such low levels spread out and dispersed over such a large area that no one will notice if you're the only one pumping the current out of the ground small caveat but a caveat nonetheless so long as this does not become too popular no one will notice it taking place elsewhere if you don't tell them

[Chet]

Regardless of reality, simulators regard a ground as a source of a fixed value of voltage (namely, zero) and an unlimited value of current.

I'm really struggling to understand your explanations, Chet, but I think that bold assertion is simply wrong. I think you cannot draw current out of the earth without putting the same amount back in.

I've asked Paul Cotter to explain your argument because I'm afraid I simply cannot follow your explanations. Not because the phenomenon is unfamiliar to me (I'm not an idiot) but because you have no idea how to write clearly.

When we think of electrical engineering and what the job description entails we usually think about accountability kind of like a bookkeeper in which an electrical engineer is required by the conservation of energy to become responsible for all energy inputs and is held accountable for all of them

This is the mindset where you are coming from so I can appreciate your concern but think of it this way

I'm a homeless person and in order to survive I have learned to depend on nameless individuals whoever gets picked and who allows it to happen to depend on things that normally I would take responsibility in a weird roundabout way by expecting my trustee to pay for it such things that we take for granted such as a toilet or a private residence or a car to drive in my trustee would pay for all of that and take responsibility which she no longer does after having embezzled all the money from out of the trust that I had depended on up until a few years ago

But now that I'm homeless I have to get that stuff wherever I can find it wherever it's available wherever I am allowed to make use of it free of charge and that makes for slight headaches at times and a certain amount of consternation especially if I decide to sleep in a neighborhood where I'm not wanted

But the point of all of this is that I'm not holding myself accountable for providing myself these things except to search them out and wherever I find them make use of them

To put this in a nutshell would be to say that instead of requiring that the circuit accesses some energy source a singular Source that's going to provide all the energy the circuit needs instead of this ...

consider the universe is your play field and all of it is available for you to extract energy from the universe to supply energy for your circuit so you pump it out of the ground in one location and the universe everywhere else makes up the difference by leaking energy into the ground to make up for what you took out

The universe has to because your circuit will provide a constant influence of suction that will keep pulling on the universe until something gives way there always is as much as the universe might fight you and resist you or resist your circuit that's only the universe in general in particular there will be weaknesses somewhere in the universe weaknesses of compassion or weaknesses of oversight call them what you will that will give way and leak energy to the ground to make up for what you took

[Chet]

the universe will make up for what you take from the ground

Besides sunshine raining down on us for free let me give you another example that's a little bit more extreme and only happens once in a while but it happened over a century ago a decade or two before the civil War in the United States

If you're familiar with ball lightning this is a form of solar flare that is similar to ball lightning in that it can travel great distances from the Sun and it hit the Earth several years prior to the civil War in the United States and it charged the Earth with so much electrical force that telegraph operators could not touch the keys of their telegraph without getting a very painful shock even though they disconnected the galvanic pile batteries that were supplying energy for their system they were still getting energy from the return line through the Earth (to save on copper) that was charging up the telegraph system with so much charge that the keys clattered on their own ...they called it ghost messages

Such a style of solar flare missed the Earth by a few million miles back in 2018 so we could be hit once again it could happen at any time and unlike the mild problems of the telegraph industry at the time the last time that this happened the consequences would be fatal in as much as it would fry transformers and wipe out all of the memory on our hard drives but it would charge the Earth with energy in a humongous quantity that we don't have to pay for just like we don't have to pay for the sunshine

The reason why I bring this up is because of that return line of the telegraph industry back in the 1800s was the Earth because they wanted to save on copper so they didn't use a return line of copper they used the Earth as the return line and that made a direct connection to the Earth which supplied the telegraph transmission line with so much energy because the Earth was the source of that energy the ground of the Earth

Nobody asked the sun to hit the Earth with so much energy it just happened we were given it for free and that's the way you should look at free energy it's just an extension of the concept of sunshine and wind and geothermal with a distinct difference that we don't wait around for these things to be made available we go and we take it that's all there is to it call it theft call it harvesting from nature call it whatever you like but it is an aggressive act that is certainly the case and the attitude

But it's seemingly no different than being aggressive and going out and getting a job to pay for somebody else to give you the energy when instead you could aggressively go out and get the energy instead of the job hahaha

[Chet]

When considering the ground as a source of current, a zero voltage source, consider the ground not merely as a zero point of reference but in addition consider it as the neutral line on a transmission line in which the neutral is part of the transmission it's part of the return to the source but it is also grounded.

It should be a standard consideration as part of the theory surrounding an earth ground connection because it's already part of the actuality of an AC transmission system. But we're not taught to think this way even though it is implied.