Cold Heat from Canada, a documentary.

[Chet]

If reactive power can be dissipated out of an electrical system as wasted heat, to boil water to preserve the lifespan of the resistor, then that is definitely a good use to put this wasted heat to for the sake of that resistor.

[sarcasm] Wow Chet, that is interesting! Can you, for the enlightenment of the less intelligent of us describe exactly what "reactive power" actually is, and how it can be made to do useful work?[/sarcasm]

Actually here's my explanation which hopefully even a fucking moron will grasp as they seem to like making shitty analogies.

Reactive power is where system inductance and/or capacitance causes the voltage and current of an AC supply to become out of step with each other .

Reactive power can do no useful work, it's like the revenue service overcharging you for your annual taxation, and you having to reclaim the amount you overpaid. It's a back and forth process that can only create financial loss.

 Reactive power flows back and forth between the source and load. In power generation and supply this means that it is an extra burden on supply cabling and switchgear which your utility supplier doesn't like at his end because heating of the switchgear is a real power loss, and his having to provide infrastructure to accommodate it.

If you could arrange to use reactive power, it then becomes real power useage, power that's removed from the system, you have removed energy from the system, this is not free energy, or overunity, it's energy theft if you can recover it, it has to be generated and can't be extracted from the "vacuum".

I'll repeat that... any heating in a system caused by reactive power, whether a power utility system or some home built "free energy generator" is a real energy useage, it is not using the reactive power, it has to be introduced into the system in the first place.

Please go back, take classes and graduate high school. This isn't your/Electrodynamic's cutting edge energy harvesting research, its electricity class 101 and was understood long before the midwife slapped your arse.

There, I've contributed! What will it change in Chets understanding? Fuck all.

AI had me add up all of the components in my latest simulation of Fogal’s circuit and confirmed that it is behaving exactly as he claimed.

Quaternion Noncommutativity and Current Inversion

[paul cotter]

Chet, who steadfastly refuses to understand the relatively simple concept of reactance is now adding npn transistors to his utter confusion. I'm lost for words!

[Xena E]

As I predicted Paul, Fuck all has sunk in... No! the square root of fuck all has sunk in. As Opa used to say, "you can't teach stupid".

Last try on the reactive power theme. Then I give up on this shitfest.

I did think of ploughing through all this myself but this guy gets it (mostly) as I was taught and explains the basic principles well starting with the DC theory and only the necessary mathematics.

(And all i's are current  )

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HDABrT-YTJU&t=368s&pp=2AHwApACAQ%3D%3D

[paul cotter]

I had to look up "Opa" to find it means grandfather. Not a term I was familiar with.

[TimFox]

All  Js are current density (vector).
The next war will probably start over voltage/potential being written as U, V, or even E.

[Xena E]

All  Js are current density (vector).
The next war will probably start over voltage/potential being written as U, V, or even E.

Yeah, why not, it will make a change from Chets hallucinations.
 
I'll start with  U, cultural reasons, standing for Unterschied... (potential) difference, in my education subtly not equal to electromotive force E being the energy source in a circuit, both measured in Volts V of course.

We then learn that the terms are used interchangeably anyhow, so perhaps there's no point in argument.

At least I'm not prepared to die on that hill.

[TimFox]

No argument here, just an observation about cultural differences.
One hill that I’ll die on is italicizing terms in equations.  I wonder how much more overpriced Springer textbooks would be if they sprang for a bit of extra typesetting.  V in Roman is “Volts”, the unit.
V = I x R,  or J = g E,
where g = conductivity (sometimes a tensor), and J and E are vectors.

[IanB]

The next war will probably start over voltage/potential being written as U, V, or even E.

Things get very complicated if you try to bridge between subject areas. For example, is \$U\$ voltage or internal energy? Is \$V\$ voltage or volume? Is \$E\$ emf or energy? Is \$P\$ power or pressure? Is \$Q\$ charge or heat flow or volumetric flow?

[TimFox]

The next war will probably start over voltage/potential being written as U, V, or even E.

Things get very complicated if you try to bridge between subject areas. For example, is \$U\$ voltage or internal energy? Is \$V\$ voltage or volume? Is \$E\$ emf or energy? Is \$P\$ power or pressure? Is \$Q\$ charge or heat flow or volumetric flow?

When writing formal memos, I often waste time thinking about which letter to use for an added variable because of the connotations with other variables.  A generic variable could be A, but that sounds like area, and so on down the alphabet.  Bad enough confusing E = voltage gradient = electric field with E = energy, ignoring EMF = electromotive force that sounds like the electromagnetic field that makes cellphones dangerous.

[Chet]

As I predicted Paul, Fuck all has sunk in... No! the square root of fuck all has sunk in. As Opa used to say, "you can't teach stupid".

Last try on the reactive power theme. Then I give up on this shitfest.

I did think of ploughing through all this myself but this guy gets it (mostly) as I was taught and explains the basic principles well starting with the DC theory and only the necessary mathematics.

(And all i's are current  )

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HDABrT-YTJU&t=368s&pp=2AHwApACAQ%3D%3D

Reactive power is not a source which generates power nor is it a sink for absorbing power. It is merely the oscillation of power among reactive components.

But this oscillation can render its instantaneous power into something significant whenever the elements of this oscillation, namely: the phases between current versus voltage, should become displaced by half a cycle of oscillation. Then this is when it gets interesting -- especially if we don't have to employ any external pump but, instead, make use of an internal switch ... in this case, a transistor, to produce this result. And if this oscillation should relabel what constitutes a sink versus a source so as to make coils into generators bereft of the necessity of moving those coils through a magnetic field to generate current inside of them, then we've bypassed Michael Faraday's Law of Induction. And if generators become motors, then this continues to get mighty interesting as far as this theoretical odyssey is concerned.

[Xena E]

The next war will probably start over voltage/potential being written as U, V, or even E.

Things get very complicated if you try to bridge between subject areas. For example, is \$U\$ voltage or internal energy? Is \$V\$ voltage or volume? Is \$E\$ emf or energy? Is \$P\$ power or pressure? Is \$Q\$ charge or heat flow or volumetric flow?

When writing formal memos, I often waste time thinking about which letter to use for an added variable because of the connotations with other variables.  A generic variable could be A, but that sounds like area, and so on down the alphabet.  Bad enough confusing E = voltage gradient = electric field with E = energy, ignoring EMF = electromotive force that sounds like the electromagnetic field that makes cellphones dangerous.

I'm probably a s bad as anyone, but we all have aspects of notational ambiguity that grinds our gears.

If I see EMF written or hear it mentioned I also always ask for clarification before engaging because the new science nutters love spouting about its harmful effects.

The one that gets the blood pressure rising is possibly the least important, not even as part of an equation... the capitalisation of the letter k, as in Kg.

It causes another possible aversion to the use of LT Spice that Bob Pease perhaps didn't pick up.

Old schematics are fun too! resistances for instance marked 500M ... M to denote 10³ rather than 10⁶ I assume for mille or millia...

The list is long and often fun to negotiate.

[Xena E]

As I predicted Paul, Fuck all has sunk in... No! the square root of fuck all has sunk in. As Opa used to say, "you can't teach stupid".

Last try on the reactive power theme. Then I give up on this shitfest.

I did think of ploughing through all this myself but this guy gets it (mostly) as I was taught and explains the basic principles well starting with the DC theory and only the necessary mathematics.

(And all i's are current  )

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HDABrT-YTJU&t=368s&pp=2AHwApACAQ%3D%3D

Reactive power is not a source which generates power nor is it a sink for absorbing power. It is merely the oscillation of power among reactive components.

OK, I'll let that go...

But this oscillation can render its instantaneous power into something significant whenever the elements of this oscillation, namely: the phases between current versus voltage, should become displaced by half a cycle of oscillation. Then this is when it gets interesting -- especially if we don't have to employ any external pump but, instead, make use of an internal switch ... in this case, a transistor, to produce this result. And if this oscillation should relabel what constitutes a sink versus a source so as to make coils into generators bereft of the necessity of moving those coils through a magnetic field to generate current inside of them, then we've bypassed Michael Faraday's Law of Induction. And if generators become motors, then this continues to get mighty interesting as far as this theoretical odyssey is concerned.

X

0/10 must try harder

[SteveThackery]

(And all i's are current  )

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HDABrT-YTJU&t=368s&pp=2AHwApACAQ%3D%3D

Actually I don't like the way he keeps saying "power flows" (it doesn't), plus he frequently mixes up power and energy.  Also:

2:07 - "We're looking at the power across these two terminals." WTF?

[paul cotter]

I did not watch that video. In general I don't watch videos(unless they are saucy!), preferring an argument in text. Even if there are shortcomings I don't believe it could match the misuse of technical terms and general language that we find in Chet's contributions.
"Reactive power is not a source which generates power nor is it a sink for absorbing power. It is merely the oscillation of power among reactive components"
Xena said that she would let this go, I cannot do so. By some bizarre quirk of nature the second sentence here is actually correct but not so for the first. Sources and sinks are real-world hardware items while power, reactive or real, is a descriptive term indicating the rate of transfer of energy. This misuse of terms is abhorrent to me and I will continue to decry it, as long as I am able.

[Electrodynamic]

https://time.com/article/2026/05/11/whats-inside-new-government-ufo-files/?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-ca

I thought this was comical and very similar to the Epstein files. Yes folks it's going to be complete disclosure but then turns out to be anything but and much ado about nothing. The current U.S. administration must think most people are brain dead. It's weird how most people just keep falling for the classic bait and switch scam.

I miss the days when politicians were a little misleading and not grifters peddling complete bs.

[TimFox]

The next war will probably start over voltage/potential being written as U, V, or even E.

Things get very complicated if you try to bridge between subject areas. For example, is \$U\$ voltage or internal energy? Is \$V\$ voltage or volume? Is \$E\$ emf or energy? Is \$P\$ power or pressure? Is \$Q\$ charge or heat flow or volumetric flow?

When writing formal memos, I often waste time thinking about which letter to use for an added variable because of the connotations with other variables.  A generic variable could be A, but that sounds like area, and so on down the alphabet.  Bad enough confusing E = voltage gradient = electric field with E = energy, ignoring EMF = electromotive force that sounds like the electromagnetic field that makes cellphones dangerous.

I'm probably a s bad as anyone, but we all have aspects of notational ambiguity that grinds our gears.

If I see EMF written or hear it mentioned I also always ask for clarification before engaging because the new science nutters love spouting about its harmful effects.

The one that gets the blood pressure rising is possibly the least important, not even as part of an equation... the capitalisation of the letter k, as in Kg.

It causes another possible aversion to the use of LT Spice that Bob Pease perhaps didn't pick up.

Old schematics are fun too! resistances for instance marked 500M ... M to denote 10³ rather than 10⁶ I assume for mille or millia...

The list is long and often fun to negotiate.

I have some ancient capacitors labeled “100 mmfd”, where “mm” (pronounced ‘mickey-mike’) means “p”, as in “micro-micro”.  Accountants sometimes use “M” for 1000 (as in Roman), and dotards confuse mega and milli because they can’t be bothered about errors of x10⁹.  I once saw a relay specified as having insulation resistance of 100 m\$\Omega\$ and contact resistance 10 M\$\Omega\$:  bloody useless as a switch.

Spice is backwards-compatible to the original form using Hollerith cards and upper-case, hence “MEG” for 10⁶ and “M” for 10^-3 (case-invariant).

[paul cotter]

I unfortunately have to put my hands up here as I am often guilty of using the wrong case, assuming that the context will indicate the correct interpretation.

[Xena E]

(And all i's are current  )

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HDABrT-YTJU&t=368s&pp=2AHwApACAQ%3D%3D

Actually I don't like the way he keeps saying "power flows" (it doesn't), plus he frequently mixes up power and energy.  Also:

2:07 - "We're looking at the power across these two terminals." WTF?

I did say "mostly gets it" 😁 though I do get the annoyance of abuse and misuse of terms, I wasn't prepared to trawl too many videos for one suitable to entertain Chet, all had uncorrected errors, (possibly innocent mistakes), that one seemed to fit the requirements best.

Power and energy equivalency is a major gripe for me, but so is the term "current flow"... people's insistence on using Watts as a unit of generation of power left in ambiguity as to its frame of reference is another... a recent conversation about solar panels with a neighbour left me knowing that their instalation was producing 15kW... tumbleweed rolls by ... 

I did not watch that video. In general I don't watch videos(unless they are saucy!), preferring an argument in text. Even if there are shortcomings I don't believe it could match the misuse of technical terms and general language that we find in Chet's contributions.
"Reactive power is not a source which generates power nor is it a sink for absorbing power. It is merely the oscillation of power among reactive components"
Xena said that she would let this go, I cannot do so. By some bizarre quirk of nature the second sentence here is actually correct but not so for the first. Sources and sinks are real-world hardware items while power, reactive or real, is a descriptive term indicating the rate of transfer of energy. This misuse of terms is abhorrent to me and I will continue to decry it, as long as I am able.

Well Paul... "Reactive power is not a leprechaun that produces cotton candy every time he farts", is also technically a correct statement! Like that Chets comment comes under the description of not even wrong though I do take your point it is also a misuse of terms.

[Xena E]

I have some ancient capacitors labeled “100 mmfd”, where “mm” (pronounced ‘mickey-mike’) means “p”, as in “micro-micro”. 

One capacitor producer in the seventies, Daly I think, (I've seen examples in vintage equipment), sometimes used mfd on larger electrolytic capacitors, I'm not sure of the value I'd seen but say for example "10 mfd 16V" I was curious what this was, it was polarised so it's size suggested large capacity, not just 10μF. Testing revealed a healthy ≈ 10,000 μF so assumed the legend to mean 10 milliFarad.

I've also seen Mfd used but seemed to just stand for μF.

[TimFox]

I have some ancient capacitors labeled “100 mmfd”, where “mm” (pronounced ‘mickey-mike’) means “p”, as in “micro-micro”. 

One capacitor producer in the seventies, Daly I think, (I've seen examples in vintage equipment), sometimes used mfd on larger electrolytic capacitors, I'm not sure of the value I'd seen but say for example "10 mfd 16V" I was curious what this was, it was polarised so it's size suggested large capacity, not just 10μF. Testing revealed a healthy ≈ 10,000 μF so assumed the legend to mean 10 milliFarad.

I've also seen Mfd used but seemed to just stand for μF.

Did the label on the 16 V capacitor say "mfd" or "mF"?  The latter would be correct modern usage, where the F is always capitalized.

[Xena E]

I have some ancient capacitors labeled “100 mmfd”, where “mm” (pronounced ‘mickey-mike’) means “p”, as in “micro-micro”. 

One capacitor producer in the seventies, Daly I think, (I've seen examples in vintage equipment), sometimes used mfd on larger electrolytic capacitors, I'm not sure of the value I'd seen but say for example "10 mfd 16V" I was curious what this was, it was polarised so it's size suggested large capacity, not just 10μF. Testing revealed a healthy ≈ 10,000 μF so assumed the legend to mean 10 milliFarad.

I've also seen Mfd used but seemed to just stand for μF.

Did the label on the 16 V capacitor say "mfd" or "mF"?  The latter would be correct modern usage, where the F is always capitalized.

mfd, lowercase. Until then a given for me to assume contraction of microfarad.

[TimFox]

Yes, I also have older paper capacitors with "mfd" meaning microfarad.

[Chet]

I'm glad to see none of you waltzed all over Bill Fogal's grave. So long as I'm alive, I guess you've got me for pea shootin' instead. Besides, I'm not a vet. And certainly not a Vietnam vet.

It's too bad he's dead and never got any recognition for what he accomplished. And by the looks of my notoriety around here, it doesn't look like I'm helping him out any either.

[paul cotter]

Ok, Chet, can you tell us in plain simple English what this Fogal guy has done that is of any use to man or beast. I did a search and I could not find anything useful or realistic. Any mention of Bearden or his psychoses is an automatic fail, I remind you. The common emitter mode with a bypassed emitter resistor is commonplace and has been for over 70 years. 

[Electrodynamic]

Ok, Chet, can you tell us in plain simple English what this Fogal guy has done that is of any use to man or beast. I did a search and I could not find anything useful or realistic. Any mention of Bearden or his psychoses is an automatic fail, I remind you. The common emitter mode with a bypassed emitter resistor is commonplace and has been for over 70 years.

Beyond all the quantum mechanics gobbledygook they seem to be talking about charge blocking. Where a transistor can be configured to only allow very small packets of electrons to pass periodically. They claim this can produce extremely high frequency oscillations which act in addition to any electron current flow. The analogy could be pressure waves caused by periodic water hammer within any water already flowing.

It was a little difficult to decipher with all the nonsensical equations and terminology but this is basically what they are talking about imo.