How to build an ideal transformer!

[Xena E]

For those of us who need reminding I'm just going to start throwing in some definitions so we can all sing from the same hymn sheet... there's no point in trying to translate between standard and Unscience^TM

Impedance:-
the total measure of opposition a circuit or system presents to the flow of an alternating current.

[Xena E]

NO.

OK. A D/C voltage zeros its impedance. But, since zero impedance defaults to no contribution, this is the same as saying a resultant of positive impedance since positive impedance is always the default of entropic loss which pervades the cosmos unless displaced so that one area gets to be less positive while another gets to become more positive.

Some area has to give up its positive impedance if another area is to gain positive impedance. So, impedance -- like voltage/potential -- is a relativistic thing such that, overall, no net impedance has altered in the cosmic scheme of things unless the cosmos were to spawn another cosmos to "take up the slack" so to speak.

An ideal DC voltage source inherently forces its internal impedance to zero to maintain a perfectly constant potential across varying loads. However, since real-world physical systems always exhibit internal resistance, achieving absolute zero impedance in a non-superconducting circuit requires offsetting entropy. This effectively transfers the thermodynamic burden to the surrounding environment. In thermodynamics, energy dispersal is the default state. This is what happens here on earth.

For a specific location within the cosmos to decrease its entropy or potential, the total system must undergo an overall increase in entropy—often driving other areas to higher energy states or thermal equilibrium. This however does not mean that you can dream up random places where this higher energy state can cause disembodied electrical current to appear just because you have the notion that you can combine *several* lower level energy sources through some cobbled circuitry.

Cosmological scales are vast, and the gradients are tiny there are no vast untapped local pockets of this energy lurking in the glovebox of your car.

[SteveThackery]

I guess repetition is a form of elucidation? ;-)

• A low powered, positive impedance of 120V/60Hz, plus ...
• A very reactive, negative impedance of 1 microvolt, of a D/C base plus an unknown combination of frequencies (could be parasitic; could be 60Hz; or any combination thereof) could unite to potentially form ...
• An elevated power of mixed impedances.

I see you are becoming impatient. 😄

Unfortunately, I just cannot make sense of what you've just written. A "positive impedance of 120V" is nonsensical - an impedance does not have a voltage value, it has an ohms value.

Perhaps you mean "A 120V/60Hz supply with a positive impedance"? Is that what you meant? If so, I wish you'd said it!

Assuming that is what you meant: two supplies, one being 120VAC/60Hz with a positive impedance, the other a DC supply of 1 micro volt displaying a negative impedance (is that possible?), could be combined to create "an elevated power source of mixed impedances". Is that what you meant to say?

If so, it's just an assertion, with no evidence and no explanation. Crucially, exactly how would you combine those sources? Add them? Multiply them? One modulates the other? We need a schematic!

Equally crucially, we need a proper and full explanation of why combining them creates "an elevated power source".

Your written English is appalling. It reads like a jumble of words - no structure, no grammar, misuse of terminology..... no wonder nobody has a clue of what you are trying to say. I wish you would take the time to write some well-constructed sentences whose meaning is clear and explicit.

[Chet]

Cosmological scales are vast, and the gradients are tiny there are no vast untapped local pockets of this energy lurking in the glovebox of your car.

Where do we disagree?

A grounding rod is not connecting to a car's glovebox. So, how does your example fit my circumstance?

It would seem that your example is out-of-touch with my circumstance and, hence, is not relevant -- although entertaining.

Indeed, the cosmos is vast. That's why I cite it such that any alteration at the local level (surrounding the A/C mains and extending outwards for an unknown distance) is tied in with the non-local area of cosmic scale since mounting nodal voltages will continue to extend the reach of negative impedance until it acquires what it seeks: more current.

Not all of the current will come from the local vicinity. That's a given since there's probably very little lingering close at hand. But that's the value of an escalating voltage operating through a negative impedance is its ability to reach out to further and further distances to acquire what it seeks.

Of course, this is unnatural since it's manmade. But unnatural never stopped us from building our skyscrapers higher and higher, or our bridges across larger and larger spans. And if there is any moral cost to our modern-day unnaturalness, then so be it. This is (generally) nothing new. Only the specifics of our achievements are novel and seemingly new.

[Chet]

I guess repetition is a form of elucidation? ;-)

• A low powered, positive impedance of 120V/60Hz, plus ...
• A very reactive, negative impedance of 1 microvolt, of a D/C base plus an unknown combination of frequencies (could be parasitic; could be 60Hz; or any combination thereof) could unite to potentially form ...
• An elevated power of mixed impedances.

I see you are becoming impatient. 😄

Unfortunately, I just cannot make sense of what you've just written. A "positive impedance of 120V" is nonsensical - an impedance does not have a voltage value, it has an ohms value.

Perhaps you mean "A 120V/60Hz supply with a positive impedance"? Is that what you meant? If so, I wish you'd said it!

Assuming that is what you meant: two supplies, one being 120VAC/60Hz with a positive impedance, the other a DC supply of 1 micro volt displaying a negative impedance (is that possible?), could be combined to create "an elevated power source of mixed impedances". Is that what you meant to say?

If so, it's just an assertion, with no evidence and no explanation. Crucially, exactly how would you combine those sources? Add them? Multiply them? One modulates the other? We need a schematic!

Equally crucially, we need a proper and full explanation of why combining them creates "an elevated power source".

Your written English is appalling. It reads like a jumble of words - no structure, no grammar, misuse of terminology..... no wonder nobody has a clue of what you are trying to say. I wish you would take the time to write some well-constructed sentences whose meaning is clear and explicit.

Does this help?

[Chet]

If you cannot grasp the "Introductory Electrical Engineering" then there is no point in trying to bypass it. Just as a stable building requires a solid foundation, so you need to understand the basics first.

Maybe @SteveThakery is right? Maybe I am impatient. I can't stand dwelling on basics since that could imply that you have an ulterior motive to exclude anything more advanced whose inclusion could override the simplicity of basics.

[Someone]

an escalating voltage operating through a negative impedance is its ability to reach out to further and further distances to acquire what it seeks.

Its this sort of technobabble trying to connect differing things that puts you so at odds with everyone else.

If there is a relation between voltage, resistance, and distance. What is that relation? What minimal example can show results unexplained by existing theory?

Learned people have turned off as there is no established relationship and you are unable/unwilling to explain or show any of your reasoning (instead just adding more crap on the crap rather than distilling it to something understandable).

[Someone]

Some area has to give up its positive impedance if another area is to gain positive impedance. So, impedance -- like voltage/potential -- is a relativistic thing such that, overall, no net impedance has altered in the cosmic scheme of things unless the cosmos were to spawn another cosmos to "take up the slack" so to speak.

False, light dependent resistors have a varying impedance without connection to a pool of impedance to "take"/"give" that from.

This is how reason is used. If you want to make a sensational claim such as impedance is a finite resource that is moved around then it is on you to produce a minimal example of proof. Not imagination, or something you would like to believe. An experiment which others can reproduce showing changing impedance in one area must change the impedance in another.

An LDR falsifies your claim unless you have some demonstration of the impedance it is drawing from.

[Chet]

an escalating voltage operating through a negative impedance is its ability to reach out to further and further distances to acquire what it seeks.

Its this sort of technobabble trying to connect differing things that puts you so at odds with everyone else.

If there is a relation between voltage, resistance, and distance. What is that relation? What minimal example can show results unexplained by existing theory?

If only you could avoid misquoting me, you'd me much better off (less confused/annoyed/etc).

If there is a relation between voltage, resistance, and distance.

Resistance can heighten impedance, yet it cannot substitute for it since impedance is nonlinear while resistance is linear.

What is that relation? What minimal example can show results unexplained by existing theory?

Byron's Tesla Hairpin. By I wouldn't consider anything which I present to be unexplained by preexistent theory.

[Chet]

Some area has to give up its positive impedance if another area is to gain positive impedance. So, impedance -- like voltage/potential -- is a relativistic thing such that, overall, no net impedance has altered in the cosmic scheme of things unless the cosmos were to spawn another cosmos to "take up the slack" so to speak.

False, light dependent resistors have a varying impedance without connection to a pool of impedance to "take"/"give" that from.

This is how reason is used. If you want to make a sensational claim such as impedance is a finite resource that is moved around then it is on you to produce a minimal example of proof. Not imagination, or something you would like to believe. An experiment which others can reproduce showing changing impedance in one area must change the impedance in another.

An LDR falsifies your claim unless you have some demonstration of the impedance it is drawing from.

Do Light-Dependent Resistors Exhibit Negative Impedance?

Light-dependent resistors (LDRs) do not exhibit negative impedance in the sense of having negative differential resistance (NDR) like tunnel diodes or Gunn diodes

We're talking past each other if you think that your objection has any relevance.

[Someone]

Some area has to give up its positive impedance if another area is to gain positive impedance. So, impedance -- like voltage/potential -- is a relativistic thing such that, overall, no net impedance has altered in the cosmic scheme of things unless the cosmos were to spawn another cosmos to "take up the slack" so to speak.

False, light dependent resistors have a varying impedance without connection to a pool of impedance to "take"/"give" that from.

This is how reason is used. If you want to make a sensational claim such as impedance is a finite resource that is moved around then it is on you to produce a minimal example of proof. Not imagination, or something you would like to believe. An experiment which others can reproduce showing changing impedance in one area must change the impedance in another.

An LDR falsifies your claim unless you have some demonstration of the impedance it is drawing from.

Do Light-Dependent Resistors Exhibit Negative Impedance?

Light-dependent resistors (LDRs) do not exhibit negative impedance in the sense of having negative differential resistance (NDR) like tunnel diodes or Gunn diodes

We're talking past each other if you think that your objection has any relevance.

This is your adding more and more and more to the point that it is an untaglable mess. Go back to what I quoted:

Some area has to give up its positive impedance if another area is to gain positive impedance.

No negatives, no specific component, a claim that positive impedances are a pool that must be transferred and do not appear out of nothing (as conventional theory would claim). If this is the basis for your more complicated ideas then it is all bogus. You cannot build something complex on unproven starting points/assumptions.

If there really is something then it is on you to show and convince. Not talk, not misdirection, not adding more to the pile of stinking garbage, not trolling, put up or shut up.

[Someone]

an escalating voltage operating through a negative impedance is its ability to reach out to further and further distances to acquire what it seeks.

Its this sort of technobabble trying to connect differing things that puts you so at odds with everyone else.

If there is a relation between voltage, resistance, and distance. What is that relation? What minimal example can show results unexplained by existing theory?

If only you could avoid misquoting me, you'd me much better off (less confused/annoyed/etc).

If there is a relation between voltage, resistance, and distance.

Resistance can heighten impedance, yet it cannot substitute for it since impedance is nonlinear while resistance is linear.

Ah the blustering non-linear argument, despite that impedances are linear by definition (resistance is one mappable dimension or magnitude of impedance).

Dreams and delusions are all you have.

[Chet]

an escalating voltage operating through a negative impedance is its ability to reach out to further and further distances to acquire what it seeks.

Its this sort of technobabble trying to connect differing things that puts you so at odds with everyone else.

If there is a relation between voltage, resistance, and distance. What is that relation? What minimal example can show results unexplained by existing theory?

If only you could avoid misquoting me, you'd me much better off (less confused/annoyed/etc).

If there is a relation between voltage, resistance, and distance.

Resistance can heighten impedance, yet it cannot substitute for it since impedance is nonlinear while resistance is linear.

Ah the blustering non-linear argument, despite that impedances are linear by definition (resistance is one mappable dimension or magnitude of impedance).

Dreams and delusions are all you have.

Kudos to you. I forgot that you dwell in a land of mediocrity in which tank circuits are boiled down to one capacitance and one inductance with an optional resistance thrown in for good measure.

But I dwell in a different land of parametric impedance in which the instances of capacitance are doubled, at the very least, if not also doubling the occurrences of inductance. And, by the proper arrangement, the field of each type of impedance may (may) become capable of modifying the field of its partnered likeness so as to induce parametric amplification.

This, then, is nonlinear. Sorry for not explaining myself (recently). But I take this feature for granted and tend to overlook it since I always include its use or how else could I expect to achieve results?


BTW, parametric excitation only affects the strength (intensity) of reactive factors, such as the factors of electrical reactance (frequency, capacitive reactance, and inductive reactance). It does not affect the amplitude of voltage or current -- at least not directly.

But since reactance always includes some oscillation, then the current drawn from the Earth is returned to the Earth every alternate half-cycle of oscillation. And if the oscillating reactive power should be engineered to slowly accumulate, then it's possible to slowly increase the nodal voltages resulting in their gradual elevation above the ground's potential. This will intensify the dielectric fields of capacitances and the magnetic fields of coils which will additionally contribute to an increased amplitude of reactive dynamics spawning a positive feedback loop. This is why a gradual escalation (in this regard) can suddenly explode if the slightest imbalance should trip up this gradual process of escalation.

[Xena E]

Cosmological scales are vast, and the gradients are tiny there are no vast untapped local pockets of this energy lurking in the glovebox of your car.

Where do we disagree?

A grounding rod is not connecting to a car's glovebox. So, how does your example fit my circumstance?

I don't know if we agree on any point just yet as you seem to only be interested in maintaining this policy of talking  technobabble. I was hopeful that you would agree with my post as it's really just a simplification, clarification as far as I could of what you had written.

I didn't quote the part of your post where you are still maintaining insistence that there is some form of negative resistance that can be brought into play just as you would any passive component or system. That for the moment is a side issue but will need to be explained as you mention it as a fact and part of your thesis.

Strange you should pick my reductio ad absurdum used as a form of humour to comment upon. Of course you won't find any in your car glovebox as I was joking it being too ridiculously small, and contained within a Faraday cage, (assuming your car has a steel shell).

Even then I made two mistakes of terminology.

You want to not be part of traditional science, which is up to you, but if you want to talk to people about your ideas on a technical forum then you have to use standard technical terminology for others to understand. Using flowery language to make yourself sound erudite just confuses and annoys the fuck out of the reader. If you want to talk about wine, or guitars, or ... audiophile stuff then go to a forum and talk about that stuff in poetic grandiose terms, it's what they do... but not here.

OK. So. This is not a trick question it is solely so that I can understand.

Without resorting to to any of the aforementioned, or any other diversionary double talk, technobabble, or Unscience^TM, and using only yes/no answers; is it your assertion that you believe:- 

It is possible to combine multiple sources of power into one, in your proposed system, making the available power, substantially greater in total than the sum available in its components?

Once you have answered this, and it is the main question, there's a mental flow diagram of further questions I will follow that will lead me to the essence of what you are trying to promote.

If I think your theory is correct I will agree, if not I'll explain as best I can why not... I won't expect you to accept any answer I give, but at least remember to answer the questions YES or NO.

Use no other words.

[SteveThackery]

Not all of the current will come from the local vicinity. That's a given since there's probably very little lingering close at hand. But that's the value of an escalating voltage operating through a negative impedance is its ability to reach out to further and further distances to acquire what it seeks.

You asked "Does this help?" No, it does not!!

Current doesn't "linger". Voltage doesn't "reach out", voltage doesn't "acquire" and it doesn't "seek".

Do you actually know what is meant by "negative impedance"? You seem to think it's something with less than zero ohms - ie something which will supply amps continuously and freely unless actually stopped from doing so. That is, a source of free energy. But in real life, negative impedance refers to components or circuits in which the current reduces when the voltage across it increases. This is in no sense a free supply of current (and thus energy).

[Xena E]

@ SteveThackery.
Negative impedance to the overunity crowd means below zero ohms or greater conductance than a super conductor... they seem to believe that all electrical components work on at least a two quadrant plane and that there is negative resistance, inductance, and capacitance.

[TimFox]

Also, as I keep pointing out, actual negative impedance circuits, where the derivative dV/dI or its reciprocal dI/dV at the terminals, such as tunnel diodes or vacuum-tube transitrons, is negative, all are powered from an external power supply, while real (possibly non-linear) two-terminal resistors are passive (no external power).
Edit:  forgot the word “negative”.

[themadhippy]

Current doesn't "linger". Voltage doesn't "reach out", voltage doesn't "acquire" and it doesn't "seek".

It does not speak, it does not wake
It does not dream
It does not hope, it does not fear
It does not love, it does not hate
It does not encourage any of these qualities

[Xena E]

Also, as I keep pointing out, actual negative impedance circuits, where the derivative dV/dI or its reciprocal dI/dV at the terminals, such as tunnel diodes or vacuum-tube transitrons, all are powered from an external power supply, while real (possibly non-linear) two-terminal resistors are passive (no external power).

But these are inconvenient details that the Unscience^TM crowd either reject or just plain don't understand.

It does not speak, it does not wake
It does not dream
It does not hope, it does not fear
It does not love, it does not hate
It does not encourage any of these qualities

The Hollow Knight would not reject, the Hollow Knight would understand before the Chet...

[paul cotter]

Hi all, I have been on the road most of the day(commissioning job) and since I don't possess a smart phone(I'm the ultimate luddite) I have to wait till I get home to check this thread. It is good to see that my presence was not missed and others have joined in in this most noble effort. 

[Chet]

Cosmological scales are vast, and the gradients are tiny there are no vast untapped local pockets of this energy lurking in the glovebox of your car.

Where do we disagree?

A grounding rod is not connecting to a car's glovebox. So, how does your example fit my circumstance?

I don't know if we agree on any point just yet as you seem to only be interested in maintaining this policy of talking  technobabble. I was hopeful that you would agree with my post as it's really just a simplification, clarification as far as I could of what you had written.

I didn't quote the part of your post where you are still maintaining insistence that there is some form of negative resistance that can be brought into play just as you would any passive component or system. That for the moment is a side issue but will need to be explained as you mention it as a fact and part of your thesis.

Strange you should pick my reductio ad absurdum used as a form of humour to comment upon. Of course you won't find any in your car glovebox as I was joking it being too ridiculously small, and contained within a Faraday cage, (assuming your car has a steel shell).

Even then I made two mistakes of terminology.

You want to not be part of traditional science, which is up to you, but if you want to talk to people about your ideas on a technical forum then you have to use standard technical terminology for others to understand. Using flowery language to make yourself sound erudite just confuses and annoys the fuck out of the reader. If you want to talk about wine, or guitars, or ... audiophile stuff then go to a forum and talk about that stuff in poetic grandiose terms, it's what they do... but not here.

OK. So. This is not a trick question it is solely so that I can understand.

Without resorting to to any of the aforementioned, or any other diversionary double talk, technobabble, or Unscience^TM, and using only yes/no answers; is it your assertion that you believe:- 

It is possible to combine multiple sources of power into one, in your proposed system, making the available power, substantially greater in total than the sum available in its components?

Once you have answered this, and it is the main question, there's a mental flow diagram of further questions I will follow that will lead me to the essence of what you are trying to promote.

If I think your theory is correct I will agree, if not I'll explain as best I can why not... I won't expect you to accept any answer I give, but at least remember to answer the questions YES or NO.

Use no other words.

You say tomatoes and I say tomatos ...

It's interesting that we each treat (mistreat) each other by sidelining what is important to ourselves.

You want to sideline negative reactance.

And I want to sideline the simple addition of two power sources since I don't see its relevance.

Yet, negative reactance is very relevant since the Earth's current is the sole source for adding power to an otherwise meagerly powered circuit. And there won't be any other way to extract the Earth's current except to engage the Earth as part of a reactive circuit as if the Earth were reactive -- which it normally is not. But it can be convinced to become engaged with a reactive circuit if sufficient pressure is brought to bear upon the Earth's ground potential using negative impedance and parametric reactance.

So, like the other fellow here, we're talking past each other. That certainly doesn't constitute an argument/debate if we can't engage each other. 

[Chet]

Current doesn't "linger". Voltage doesn't "reach out", voltage doesn't "acquire" and it doesn't "seek".

Correct: voltage doesn't reach out. Yet, negative impedance does.

[Chet]

@ SteveThackery.
Negative impedance to the overunity crowd means below zero ohms or greater conductance than a super conductor... they seem to believe that all electrical components work on at least a two quadrant plane and that there is negative resistance, inductance, and capacitance.

If the phase of current becomes inverted (180 degrees from) the phase of voltage, then by what influence other than negative impedance could spawn such a reaction?

[Chet]

Not all of the current will come from the local vicinity. That's a given since there's probably very little lingering close at hand. But that's the value of an escalating voltage operating through a negative impedance is its ability to reach out to further and further distances to acquire what it seeks.

You asked "Does this help?" No, it does not!!

Current doesn't "linger".

Yes. It does when pressured by resistance to linger in an area of lesser resistance.

Voltage doesn't "reach out", voltage doesn't "acquire" and it doesn't "seek".

Negative impedance reaches out and seeks sources which could be "milked" for the potential to act as a source of amp-hours. And voltage will intensify this process. And parametric oscillations of impedances will prevent ossification of this process since stagnation is the bane of "free energy". And not merely stagnation of current. But also stagnation of parameters of reactive impedance is a sure-fire way to thwart the acquisition of amp-hours from outside of a circuit rather than waiting around for a conventionally designed circuit to receive the benevolence of an outside source of power greater than the circuit's load/s.

Conventionally designed circuits are supposed to passively wait around for power to be force-fed into the circuit as if this type of circuit were a member of a slave class not sufficiently privileged to dynamically acquire the additional power which it will require to make up for whatever meager power level "woke up" its insatiable desire for more power but without satisfying it.

Do you actually know what is meant by "negative impedance"? You seem to think it's something with less than zero ohms - ie something which will supply amps continuously and freely unless actually stopped from doing so. That is, a source of free energy. But in real life, negative impedance refers to components or circuits in which the current reduces when the voltage across it increases. This is in no sense a free supply of current (and thus energy).

Not less than zero ohms. But inverted positive ohms.
Negative impedance does not magically supply amp-hours.
Negative impedance merely provides for the inversion of what we like to think of voltage as a mere source of pressure which pushes current. But negative impedance provides for the reinterpretation of voltage as a force which is capable of the suction of current if a source of charge can be located which will give up its charge as a flow of current.

[TimFox]

Polarity and phase angle need definition.
Voltage is measured from the conductor to some other point in the circuit (e.g. the metal case as “ground”).
Current is measured through the conductor with respect to a direction along the conductor, which the observer sets in one of two ways according to his own desire.
In my examples of negative resistance in a two-terminal circuit, positive resistance is that exhibited by a normal “resistor” purchased from Vishay, with voltage and current polarities chosen to make the derivative dV/dI positive for that object, while a negative resistance with those definitions will show a negative derivative.
Negative resistance in practical circuits such as my favorite the transitron are very useful in making oscillators.