How to build an ideal transformer!

[Xena E]

.

You say tomatoes and I say tomatos ...

I say Tomate.

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

Sorry I don't understand, what have I sidelined that you think is important to me?

You want to sideline negative reactance.

X_c? Why would I "sideline" it?

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

Your choice... no problem with that.

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.

Well! Someone had a big stack of waffle for his breakfast, with a side order of Kuhscheiße word salad!

.

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. 

All I have been trying to do is get a clear idea of your understanding of electrical engineering, ie., NOT make assumptions about it, but have you confirm it...but if you're not prepared to just answer Yes or No to a few simple questions then it is you who is the one not prepared to have a debate.

 

[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.

So nobody has an objections to combining a high voltage low current source with a low voltage high current source to produce a high voltage high current source?. It sounded like Paul Cotter had a problem with this concept. I thought it was interesting because there is a common misconception that we would need to raise the lower voltage to match the higher voltage which obviously isn't the case.

Steve Thackery also seemed confused about the matter.

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?

Yes I can elucidate, when we combine the high voltage low current source with a low voltage high current source they demonstrably combine. A good example is the high current HV plasma spark plug circuit below which I did a lot of R&D on. When the HV ignition coil sparks it opens a path of conduction for the low voltage high current from the capacitor to discharge. In some cases the plasma discharge is so great it can blow off the spark plug ground electrode. Here is a good example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voSp9qQH14g, (Power Plasma Spark), go to minute 1:00 to see the effect. The video doesn't do the effect justice and in reality it sounds very close to a small caliber rifle.

The LV to HV circuit which was shown prior below, LV to HV, does the same thing in effect. It's not low power plus low power equals low power which is absurd as Steve Thackery suggests. You people need to get out a little more and do some actual experiments versus trolling on the internet.

[Chet]

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.

[Xena E]

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.

Your last post you were talking about negative reactance, but perhaps I misunderstood.

No matter.

YES or NO questions first, then discussion. Then you can tell me all about how you intend to create negative resistance, maybe with a gunn diode, pentode valve transitron, discreet transistor circuit, or perhaps operational amplifier... I'll be most fascinated, very useful circuits for oscillators and the like as Tim said...

Best regards,
X

[TimFox]

Transitrons are cool.  Use a 6AS6 dual-control pentode, also useful in the well-named phantastron circuit.

[SteveThackery]

Yes I can elucidate, when we combine the high voltage low current source with a low voltage high current source they demonstrably combine. A good example is the high current HV plasma spark plug circuit below which I did a lot of R&D on. When the HV ignition coil sparks it opens a path of conduction for the low voltage high current from the capacitor to discharge. In some cases the plasma discharge is so great it can blow off the spark plug ground electrode. Here is a good example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voSp9qQH14g, (Power Plasma Spark), go to minute 1:00 to see the effect. The video doesn't do the effect justice and in reality it sounds very close to a small caliber rifle.

Thanks for that, but this isn't what Chet was describing. The bottom line is that every joule of energy in that spark comes from the battery. Chet seems to be describing something that "sucks" current (thus energy) from the earth.

[SteveThackery]

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.

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.

Chet at his very best. It seems that his version of "negative impedance" is entirely imaginary, and has nothing to do with the real thing.

Chet: it is clearly you who is failing to engage in a proper discussion. You just keep repeating these assertions, which are so far removed from real physics that there is no common ground from which to build a common understanding.

Honestly, Chet, you will get literally nowhere without building something that actually demonstrates what you claim. You keep coming up with excuses, but they won't wash. Without something real and physical, your words are merely hot air.

[Someone]

So nobody has an objections to combining a high voltage low current source with a low voltage high current source to produce a high voltage high current source?. It sounded like Paul Cotter had a problem with this concept. I thought it was interesting because there is a common misconception that we would need to raise the lower voltage to match the higher voltage which obviously isn't the case.

Like we need more smoke and mirrors in a thread full of impenetrable wordy nonsense?

Various high/low voltage/current measurements could be made at various points of a system at various times, and yes as in your example some "long" time scale accumulation could have a massive power delivered from a small power input. But energy conservation remains a hard limit.

Paul is clearly trying to elucidate details about an AC simulation where there is no energy accumulation, and the power inputs and outputs are in steady state.

Seriously.

One thing I notice about all of the Unscience^TM* brigade is their apparent common notion that Voltage and Current are tangible things that like fuel and oxygen can be combined with suitable circuitry to create power, rather than abstract means of measuring the electrical energy within a circuit.

*copyright @ 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!
Another common error is to multiply the open circuit voltage with the short circuit current to calculate the max deliverable power.

You have fallen right into that trap!

[Someone]

Chet at his very best. It seems that his version of "negative impedance" is entirely imaginary, and has nothing to do with the real thing.

The revisionist "oh but I didn't realise you misunderstood what I meant"

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?

Apologises for not explaining and immediately avoids explaining. Breathtaking!

So now we have some new "UNscience"
negative parametric non-linear impedance
...sure to be more adjectives added to it soon in ever escalating grandeur, yet no explanation of any theory or concrete use of this.

[Xena E]

Transitrons are cool.  Use a 6AS6 dual-control pentode, also useful in the well-named phantastron circuit.

My Opa showed me a circuit in a TV from the 1950s that used a power pentode, (EL38) that was configured as a Transitron oscillator, it was also the EHT generator and line (sweep) driver, as well as being frequency locked through a sync separator.

Now that was real inovation, however every Watt of power to drive the circuit and it's load came courtesy of the utilities supplier.

https://www.r-type.org/articles/art-304.htm

[Xena E]

Seriously.

One thing I notice about all of the Unscience^TM* brigade is their apparent common notion that Voltage and Current are tangible things that like fuel and oxygen can be combined with suitable circuitry to create power, rather than abstract means of measuring the electrical energy within a circuit.

*copyright @ 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!
Another common error is to multiply the open circuit voltage with the short circuit current to calculate the max deliverable power.

You have fallen right into that trap!

Thanks for that!
When I saw the post that you linked and were commenting about (that user is on my ignore list), it gave me the best laugh I've had this week, the member is so keen to jump in with some self aggrandisement BS that he didn't read the other members posts carefully enough!

Never mind, we all make mistakes.

It all adds to the big pile of stinking Kuhscheiße.

[Electrodynamic]

Yes I can elucidate, when we combine the high voltage low current source with a low voltage high current source they demonstrably combine. A good example is the high current HV plasma spark plug circuit below which I did a lot of R&D on. When the HV ignition coil sparks it opens a path of conduction for the low voltage high current from the capacitor to discharge. In some cases the plasma discharge is so great it can blow off the spark plug ground electrode. Here is a good example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voSp9qQH14g, (Power Plasma Spark), go to minute 1:00 to see the effect. The video doesn't do the effect justice and in reality it sounds very close to a small caliber rifle.

Thanks for that, but this isn't what Chet was describing. The bottom line is that every joule of energy in that spark comes from the battery. Chet seems to be describing something that "sucks" current (thus energy) from the earth.

If by "something that "sucks" current (thus energy) from the earth" you mean moves free electrons from the Earth to another body that's not difficult. Our body normally has a (+) surface charge because our shoes are insulated and the air around us is (+). However the moment we take off our shoes or touch the ground the free electrons in the earth move to cover our body. In effect, the (+) charges around us in the air do suck a current, thus energy, from the earth. The problem is the energy is very small and we now have to remove the electrons covering our body to repeat the cycle, ergo no free lunch.

This reminds me of Tesla patent Patent No. 685,957 "Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy" shown below. Tesla was half correct in thinking the device harnessed cosmic rays. You see the elevated plates did suck electrons and energy from the Earth but it was due to what we know as the photoelectric effect. Solar radiation knocks electrons free from the metal's surface leaving it with a (+) charge which the (-) electrons in the Earth are attracted to, opposite charges attract. So the capacitor shown in the patent would slowly charge due to the photoelectric effect acting on the elevated plate and periodically discharge doing work.

The problem was never moving (-) electrons in the Earth to a (+) charged body which is easy. The problem is making a practical device which can produce large currents which is much more difficult and remains to be seen.

[paul cotter]

Photoelectric effect? only if one is using exotic metals as the work function of common metals prevent this. I don't believe any of these Tesla ideas has ever produced a milliwatt.

[Electrodynamic]

Photoelectric effect? only if one is using exotic metals as the work function of common metals prevent this. I don't believe any of these Tesla ideas has ever produced a milliwatt.

Yes illiteracy is a problem for many.

If one were to actually read the patent we find Tesla claimed "the surface should be clean and preferably highly polished or amalgamated".

AI claims, "amalgamated metals are subject to the photoelectric effect. In fact, historically, amalgamated metals played a vital role in early quantum physics experiments to prove the existence of the photoelectric effect. Physicists would amalgamate the zinc plate with mercury. The liquid mercury created a highly polished, self-cleaning, mirror-like surface that resisted oxidation, providing a pristine metallic target for light beams to cleanly trigger the photoelectric effect."

Hardly un-science more so textbook science. In fact, in the patent Tesla claimed a Roentgen tube excited by HV/HF known to produce X-rays was also used in testing. X-rays can easily exceed the binding energy of electrons in most metals more so amalgamated metals. As well by periodically discharging the capacitor charged by the photoelectric effect we could determine the strength of the source, transmission/energy transfer and the effectiveness/work function of the metals used.

It weird because I used this same setup to measure current in high voltage applications. Rather than risk my electronic measuring equipment getting smoked the HV electrostatic source charged a HV capacitor connected to Earth ground. When the capacitor reached a set voltage it would fire through a quenched spark gap to ground. We can then calculate the current based on the voltage, energy stored in the capacitor and the time period between discharges. I got the idea from my rain gauge which fills then dumps periodically. In theory the capacitor dump method could measure HV currents down to pico-watt levels.

[paul cotter]

Only an electropostive metal will give any significant output from regular light. What is the point of producing x-rays to produce photoelectricity? The overall efficiency would be abysmal. The bottom line: Tesla proposed these ideas to collect energy and none of these will do so to any appreciable extent.

[TimFox]

X-ray production:  only a small fraction of the tube’s electron beam power is converted by Bremsstrahling to x-ray photon power; the rest goes to heat the anode.

[SteveThackery]

If by "something that "sucks" current (thus energy) from the earth" you mean moves free electrons from the Earth to another body that's not difficult.

It's not what I mean, it's what Chet means. That's what I struggle with.

[paul cotter]

"If by "something that "sucks" current (thus energy) from the earth" you mean moves free electrons from the Earth to another body that's not difficult."


I strongly disagree with the "(thus energy)" bit. Yes, you can produce a current that travels in/out of the earth(ground) but you most definitely cannot suck energy. Running a current in/out of the earth(ground) will involve the expenditure of energy and there will be no gain, only losses.

[Electrodynamic]

If by "something that "sucks" current (thus energy) from the earth" you mean moves free electrons from the Earth to another body that's not difficult.

It's not what I mean, it's what Chet means. That's what I struggle with.

What does Chet mean?, I'm as confused as everyone else trying to decipher what the hell he's getting at.

[Chet]

"If by "something that "sucks" current (thus energy) from the earth" you mean moves free electrons from the Earth to another body that's not difficult."


I strongly disagree with the "(thus energy)" bit. Yes, you can produce a current that travels in/out of the earth(ground) but you most definitely cannot suck energy. Running a current in/out of the earth(ground) will involve the expenditure of energy and there will be no gain, only losses.

It's the huge buildup of nodal voltage that helps oscillate the current into and out through the ground connections so that the ground can participate instead of merely passively leaking out through the ground.

Of course, this is predicated upon the trapezoidal rendering engine which, as you know, tends to accumulate results if there is insufficient leakage in the circuit's simulation to encourage losses.

But whenever a neon bulb, styled spark gap can produce overwhelming negative watts (greater than its positively consumptive wattage), that's encouraging.

[themadhippy]

But whenever a neon bulb, styled spark gap can produce overwhelming negative watts

Are them the ones that produce negative light , so when you turn em on the room gets darker.

[Chet]

But whenever a neon bulb, styled spark gap can produce overwhelming negative watts

Are them the ones that produce negative light , so when you turn em on the room gets darker.

No, but is a similar (parallel) principle in that interferometry could mess with the phases of light if heavily influenced by a HV field interfering with the passage of light (through such a highly charged field) such that it could have any influence on the resident light within that field.

Nikola Tesla boasted he could black out a volume of space such that you couldn't see your nose in front of your face despite the intense luminosity of the lights which had previously lit up your surroundings prior to his disruptive interference.

This disruption would probably shift the current phase of the light beams out of sync with the voltage phases by one half cycle of oscillation which would render it equivalent to a similar occurrence of negative resistance within a neon bulb.


Notice how I took seriously what you may have intended to be a mild attempt at humor since there was an appropriate, relevant truth behind your jocular attitude.

These are the opportunities I wait for.

[paul cotter]

And yet again a big NO. Light is not affected by either an electric field or a magnetic field.
Tesla claimed many things, did he ever prove these claims?
All discharge lamps display non-linear resistance but never has a single picowatt of excess energy been obtained from this behaviour.

[TimFox]

Back to my persistent rant about negative-resistance circuits requiring external power:
Early in the 20th century, a practical source of high-power RF was the “Federal Arc” (q.v.) that was an improvement on the original Poulsen arc, using an arc discharge stabilized by a strong magnetic field.
When connected to a resonant circuit, the negative resistance resulted in a high-power oscillator.
For Morse CW transmission, the stabilization was too slow to permit keying of the external power, so FSK was used by switching a capacitor in and out of the resonant tank circuit.
It was made obsolete by the Alexandersson alternator followed by the vacuum tube.
Amusingly, the first cyclotron particle accelerator used the magnetic armature from a Federal Arc, found in a Palo Alto area scrapyard.

[Andy Chee]

But whenever a neon bulb, styled spark gap can produce overwhelming negative watts (greater than its positively consumptive wattage), that's encouraging.

Again, you have not constructed and demonstrated a real prototype in physical hardware.

Simulation is insufficient.