How to build an ideal transformer!

[Chet]

OK fair enough so you disagree that it is possible? Or are you saying something else, as I just hit the quote button and then asked you another hypothetical question... I'm just trying to understand what you're actually claiming in terms that spectators here can understand.

English being a third language for me it is sometimes hard fought for me to understand. I live in the UK but complex nuances escape me very often.

Viz

Yea, I have seen that with the suggestion of combining a high voltage low current source with a low voltage high current source to produce a high voltage high current source!

Where is there the error in that?

To help us understand are you asking Mr Cotter to explain the error, or are you in disagreement, and with that comment refuting his statement?

If you can clear up these simple questions for me, perhaps then I can move on to understand this proposal of yours for the more complex matter of multiple sources.

So.

Do you then claim that it is possible to combine a 100 Volt supply that can only drive a load with 1mA (ie., a maximum of 100mW...) with a 1mV supply that can drive a load with 100Amps (ie., also a maximum of 100mW), and from the combination of the two derive a supply capable of 100Volts that can drive a current of 100Amps (ie., a maximum of 10kW)?

Your only answer is to say yes or no.

Thank you.

As is demonstrated in my simulation, we have to provide at least one source which is of a positive impedance. This source need not be large -- certainly not large enough to provide for all of the power consumed by the device's loads since the difference could be made up for from the negative impedance(s) of the device if it is designed to do so.

Not all negative impedances will satisfy this situation. That's up to the design whether it be successful or not.

[Xena E]

OK fair enough so you disagree that it is possible? Or are you saying something else, as I just hit the quote button and then asked you another hypothetical question... I'm just trying to understand what you're actually claiming in terms that spectators here can understand.

English being a third language for me it is sometimes hard fought for me to understand. I live in the UK but complex nuances escape me very often.

Viz

Yea, I have seen that with the suggestion of combining a high voltage low current source with a low voltage high current source to produce a high voltage high current source!

Where is there the error in that?

To help us understand are you asking Mr Cotter to explain the error, or are you in disagreement, and with that comment refuting his statement?

If you can clear up these simple questions for me, perhaps then I can move on to understand this proposal of yours for the more complex matter of multiple sources.

So.

Do you then claim that it is possible to combine a 100 Volt supply that can only drive a load with 1mA (ie., a maximum of 100mW...) with a 1mV supply that can drive a load with 100Amps (ie., also a maximum of 100mW), and from the combination of the two derive a supply capable of 100Volts that can drive a current of 100Amps (ie., a maximum of 10kW)?

Your only answer is to say yes or no.

Thank you.

As is demonstrated in my simulation, we have to provide at least one source which is of a positive impedance. This source need not be large -- certainly not large enough to provide for all of the power consumed by the device's loads since the difference could be made up for from the negative impedance(s) of the device if it is designed to do so.

Not all negative impedances will satisfy this situation. That's up to the design whether it be successful or not.

That's absolutely excellent Chet! And the creation of negative impedance in the real world incarnation of your device I'm sure will be fascinating... However, the question posed hasn't been answered. I need that and so will others to bridge the gap in understanding your fantastic breakthrough (if it is indeed a breakthrough... )

[Chet]

OK fair enough so you disagree that it is possible? Or are you saying something else, as I just hit the quote button and then asked you another hypothetical question... I'm just trying to understand what you're actually claiming in terms that spectators here can understand.

English being a third language for me it is sometimes hard fought for me to understand. I live in the UK but complex nuances escape me very often.

Viz

Yea, I have seen that with the suggestion of combining a high voltage low current source with a low voltage high current source to produce a high voltage high current source!

Where is there the error in that?

To help us understand are you asking Mr Cotter to explain the error, or are you in disagreement, and with that comment refuting his statement?

If you can clear up these simple questions for me, perhaps then I can move on to understand this proposal of yours for the more complex matter of multiple sources.

So.

Do you then claim that it is possible to combine a 100 Volt supply that can only drive a load with 1mA (ie., a maximum of 100mW...) with a 1mV supply that can drive a load with 100Amps (ie., also a maximum of 100mW), and from the combination of the two derive a supply capable of 100Volts that can drive a current of 100Amps (ie., a maximum of 10kW)?

Your only answer is to say yes or no.

Thank you.

As is demonstrated in my simulation, we have to provide at least one source which is of a positive impedance. This source need not be large -- certainly not large enough to provide for all of the power consumed by the device's loads since the difference could be made up for from the negative impedance(s) of the device if it is designed to do so.

Not all negative impedances will satisfy this situation. That's up to the design whether it be successful or not.

That's absolutely excellent Chet! And the creation of negative impedance in the real world incarnation of your device I'm sure will be fascinating... However, the question posed hasn't been answered. I need that and so will others to bridge the gap in understanding your fantastic breakthrough (if it is indeed a breakthrough... )

I already answered with a definitive "no" since your proposal (which is not mine) overly simplifies mine to the point of it being a conventional no-brainer of its lack of efficacy. Whether or not it is doable, I don't know. But it won't be as easy. So, why bother? Isn't that the point of your collective criticisms?

[Electrodynamic]

Yea, I have seen that with the suggestion of combining a high voltage low current source with a low voltage high current source to produce a high voltage high current source!

Where is there the error in that?

Indeed and the concept is very easy to understand.

In the picture below we have a high voltage low electron current moving from left to right. The low voltage high current capacitor adds in series with the high voltage low current in the conductor. The bypass diode is required to keep the capacitor from discharging into itself.

I used to do a lot of R&D with high efficiency energy scavenging circuits. This circuit was interesting because the bypass diode could be replaced with a very low resistance active rectifier or zero threshold device. In this setup I also used another transistor to switch the 2.7v 13F capacitor out of the circuit for recharging and to prevent reverse charging. It's an interesting concept because the low voltage capacitor can add it's energy in series right down to zero volts unlike a switched inductor.

This relates to concepts I was working on which treats the voltage (potential difference) across a circuit as an infinite number of smaller series potentials. Similar to the bird on a HV wire concept. If the difference in potential between the birds feet is small we could replace them with a low voltage charged capacitor and bypass diode to add to the line voltage and current. In fact, most solar panels use bypass diodes to a similar effect.

There is nothing magical or woo woo about it.

[SteveThackery]

Yea, I have seen that with the suggestion of combining a high voltage low current source with a low voltage high current source to produce a high voltage high current source!

Where is there the error in that?

Chet: I, too, am puzzled by that.

1/ A high voltage low current source has low power because power = volts x amps.

2/ 1/ A high current low voltage source has low power because power = amps x volts

Combining two low power sources just creates a source with low power x 2. In other words, you get twice as much power, but it still isn't much because twice a low power is still pretty low. The idea that adding them gives you high voltage and high current, thus very high power, doesn't work.

Obviously I've failed to understand what you were trying to say. Could you elucidate?

[SteveThackery]

One thing I notice about all of the Unscience^TM* brigade......

*copyright @ SteveThackery.

Kind of you to grant me that! 😄

Seriously, though, I really dislike the term "wooh wooh", which seems to be used almost universally. "Unscience" just flows easier.

[Chet]

Yea, I have seen that with the suggestion of combining a high voltage low current source with a low voltage high current source to produce a high voltage high current source!

Where is there the error in that?

Chet: I, too, am puzzled by that.

1/ A high voltage low current source has low power because power = volts x amps.

2/ 1/ A high current low voltage source has low power because power = amps x volts

Combining two low power sources just creates a source with low power x 2. In other words, you get twice as much power, but it still isn't much because twice a low power is still pretty low. The idea that adding them gives you high voltage and high current, thus very high power, doesn't work.

Obviously I've failed to understand what you were trying to say. Could you elucidate?

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.

[Xena E]

I'm so sorry, I took the only No that you included in your subsequent posts as a refusal to answer the question, you stating (erroneously) that I'd misquoted you. I only seemingly misunderstood, though the following observation seems to indicate you are being a little disingenuous...

...As you seemed to be questioning Paul Cotter when he stated the exact same thing, you saying ...

where is the error in that?

As I said, I do have problems with the nuances in the English languages, and I find American English different again...

Whether or not it is doable, I don't know. But it won't be as easy. So, why bother? Isn't that the point of your collective criticisms?

No it's not and let me explain why.

There have been threads, here and on other forums where people have presented ideas that have seemed to most on the surface as completely ridiculous and I've considered them and found they have merit, and defended them.

For example:

"Downwind faster than the wind" here, (possibly of no more than  a curiosity). Then on another forum a method of using the power of electric motors on soak test to generate an offset to the cost of performing those tests, (my company took that one up from the 'inventor' he now has a comfortable lifestyle, and several motor manufacturers have benefited with operational savings).

However Chet, you keep bashing your head against the brick wall of criticism because of your following crackpot science, and unwillingness to explain things in simple terms, instead of your AI flowery wall of text method.

Personally I can't decide if you're a troll or just genuinely trying to find something special to leave behind for a legacy. I admit I've prodded you from all directions for a reaction. And I'm very good at gauging people as a rule. With you, I just can't tell!

I haven't seen anything yet of value, but you never know...

Here's a tip though: as much as I detest the legend of Tesla, in his early years he did do some original work, the hairpin circuit you've often mentioned recently, is a valid technology, though trying to get it, or any incarnation to work at low frequencies for your prospective purpose, as you describe it is doomed to fail as its a resonant system, and works at a very high frequencies or very long tuned lines.

My heart felt advice is to stop chasing overunity, you are obviously not a trained engineer or academic, (and dont say that thing about dogma will you?), there's still lots of opportunities in energy harvesting for instance, which is a real thing you could succeed at, but of course it's your life...

Regards,
X

[Xena E]

One thing I notice about all of the Unscience^TM* brigade......

*copyright @ SteveThackery.

Kind of you to grant me that! 😄

Seriously, though, I really dislike the term "wooh wooh", which seems to be used almost universally. "Unscience" just flows easier.

Forever to be credited to you,
👍

[paul cotter]

   " 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."

Good God!, what utter confusion. An impedance will be a+jb, not 120/60hz which is an AC voltage. A negative impedance, if it existed will be -(a+jb), not 1 microvolt which again is a voltage. What the hell is a D/C base of unknown combination of frequencies? An elevated power of mixed impedances?
 

[Xena E]

   " 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."

Good God!, what utter confusion. An impedance will be a+jb, not 120/60hz which is an AC voltage. A negative impedance, if it existed will be -(a+jb), not 1 microvolt which again is a voltage. What the hell is a D/C base of unknown combination of frequencies? An elevated power of mixed impedances?
 

He won't give straight answers to electronics 101 questions, so there's no doubt he isn't going to come up with anything remotely credible for the rest of the slop.

[paul cotter]

Xena, Steve, there is no point discussing Chet's ideas when technical terms are grossly misused as there can be no common ground if agreement on the meaning of reactance, impedance, resistance, sources and sinks does not exist.

[Xena E]

Xena, Steve, there is no point discussing Chet's ideas when technical terms are grossly misused as there can be no common ground if agreement on the meaning of reactance, impedance, resistance, sources and sinks does not exist.

I'm/we're not discussing it,  I/we didn't get past level one, it's the slow walk to an epiphany that may never materialise now.

And I'm still not sure if he believes all the bullshit he posts.

Sad thing is, it's a waste of a life, it's like a wino dancing for beer, funny but tragic. Never mind it's kept me entertained, it's boring being at work on a hot Sunday afternoon watching thousands of statistically insignificant tests being performed on a piece of new kit.

[paul cotter]

For sure, I pointed out long ago that he was destined to spin his wheels going nowhere unless he seeks proper understanding and what he is doing is total waste of what is left of his life.

[Chet]

two 100mW supplies into one 10kW one.

Three supplies: two driven by positive impedance (the A/C mains and the mains ground) and one driven by negative impedance (a separate Earth ground rod).

The amplitude of voltage will always contribute to the rate of current flow. But the direction is another matter determined by impedance.

A voltage source, by itself, is a positive impedant component. But the positive impedance of the Earth ground rod can change when a circuit is attached whose reactances overwhelm the voltage source's positive impedance with sufficient offset so as to produce a net effect of negative impedance.

The Earth doesn't normally provide for the flow of current up, or down, a ground rod. But that's due to its stability.

But what if the Earth should receive a shock from the Sun, such as: the Carrington Event of 1859 wherein telegraph operators received a nasty shock if they attempted to touch the key of their telegraph?

That instability is but one example since the inherent nonlinearity of reactance is another.

[Chet]

An impedance will be a+jb, not 120/60hz which is an AC voltage. A negative impedance, if it existed will be -(a+jb), not 1 microvolt which again is a voltage.

Correct. One microvolt, by itself, will be a positive impedance. Any circuit attached to that could alter its net impedance.

[paul cotter]

NO.

[Chet]

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.

Yoga has an analogous situation in which an immortalized yogi gives up his karma: his bad karma goes to those who hate him, his good karma goes to whomever endears themselves to him, while his indifferent karma is free to go wherever the wind blows. Somebody has to pay for all of an immortal's karma. It just won't be him.

Like that, something has to pay the cost for entropically endowed, positive (zero) impedance while something else will/must benefit from its refund so that everything zeros out to a balanced condition.

[TimFox]

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.

Yoga has an analogous situation in which an immortalized yogi gives up his karma: his bad karma goes to those who hate him, his good karma goes to whomever endears themselves to him, while his indifferent karma is free to go wherever the wind blows. Somebody has to pay for all of an immortal's karma. It just won't be him.

Like that, something has to pay the cost for entropically endowed, positive (zero) impedance while something else will/must benefit from its refund so that everything zeros out to a balanced condition.

Utter nonsense.  Voltage and impedance are different features:  a voltage source has an effective voltage and a source impedance, which are independent of each other and measured in different units (Volts and Ohms, respectively).

[Chet]

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.

Yoga has an analogous situation in which an immortalized yogi gives up his karma: his bad karma goes to those who hate him, his good karma goes to whomever endears themselves to him, while his indifferent karma is free to go wherever the wind blows. Somebody has to pay for all of an immortal's karma. It just won't be him.

Like that, something has to pay the cost for entropically endowed, positive (zero) impedance while something else will/must benefit from its refund so that everything zeros out to a balanced condition.

Utter nonsense.  Voltage and impedance are different features:  a voltage source has an effective voltage and a source impedance, which are independent of each other and measured in different units (Volts and Ohms, respectively).

Precisely.

I am not saying they are equivalent. I am saying they are analogous.

[paul cotter]

We have tried, Tim, to no avail.

[Chet]

We have tried, Tim, to no avail.

Why should impedance be any different than potential when distributed across a network? Each will vary across a network. Each cannot possible be non-varying across the spatial distribution of a network nor across time for any segment of a network. A perfect condition of stasis is not possible across a network.

A circuit can be considered to be a microcosm of a network.

[paul cotter]

Impedance is analogous to resistance, not potential.

[Chet]

Impedance is analogous to resistance, not potential.

In the classic sense of using resistance as a teaching tool for beginning students. But I don't presume yourself to be limited to Introductory Electrical Engineering. I presume you are familiar with network analysis and the concept of the distribution of impedance across a network and its variation across networks.

[paul cotter]

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.