Electrolysis, in a microwave is possible.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
If anyone really reads the following article in full detail, from start
to finish, they will know that there is more than one way to skin a
water molecule.
http://www.chemengr.ucsb.edu/~ceweb/mcfar/courses/uploads/246/Bockris_HydrogenbyPhotocat_Lecture_18.pdf
So, very simply, by filling the jar with steam first. Then leaving the
bottle cap full of hot water in the microwave allows for the steam to
be present for plasmolysis.
The match, is already at 1800-3030 K.
So, you read at this link that a blue flame can be within a range of
temperatures, and the blue part of the flame is the hottest.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/JamesDanyluk.shtml
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhotflame.html
Temperatures in celcius in a plotted graph.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/SD%20MethaneFlameTemp.gif
At 3500 the water molecule breaks down with little or no external force
beyond temperature itself.
Which completely explains what appears to happen in this video.
http://www.elgersmad.homestead.com/files/h2o/PLSM02.AVI
At first the steam can coexist in the jar with the flame. When the
plasma ball is generated starting from the flaming toothpick, it
superheats the plasma. It goes beyond the 3500 K mark, and as steam
comes into contact with it, the water molecule is brokendown, and
burned. Once, that has happened, the superheated gas escapes, and just
like hot air makes a hot air balloon rise. The superheated gas has
forced the molecules remaining to exist so far appart that the
resulting ball settles to a size that is relative to those seen in
other videos of plasma ball generation in microwave ovens.
As seen here.
http://www.apache.airnet.com.au/~fastinfo/microwave/ball.html
So, that is the reason the amount light produced by the my plasma was
bigger, brighter, and produced a siginificantly larger amount of energy
for that time frame. The only fuel was steam. That means, if you can
keep feeding that plasma ball steam, it will stay a brightly lit as at
it's brightest moment in the video.. There is no injection system, and
everything had to be trapped in the jar. Superheating it, forced to
expand as much as it could. At that point, there wasn't enough to keep
it burning brightly.
Experiments I cannot afford to do. Purchase a high pressure vessel
large enough to hold the microwave. Design an inlet, and trap for the
plasma ball to feed it steam as quickly as it can convert it into
hydrogen and burn it.
Rebuild the engine in this car:
http://www.theaircar.com/
Using metals that can withstand high temperatures to take advantage of
that change in pressure of superheated gases. There's no water
injection system to lower over all temperature and generate steam.
There's been no assement of BTU with the plasma, vs the plasma being
fueled, vs energy in. There's been no assement of the rate at which
steam can be generated. Therefore, it is impossible to determin if it
is, or is not above unity. But, it has all of that potential by
converting water into a burning fuel on Demand.
Ron Purvis
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1141885586....@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
The Flavored Coffee Guy
ain't a chat room. I'm not responding to the old threads because they
are full of chatter that is off topic.
Don Kelly
news:1141885586....@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
Your plasma ball is a dissipation of a small part of the energy input. You
are not "producing" energy but simply converting some to light and heat
(unmeasured) .
If you are hoping for above unity- sorry- you won't even get near breakeven.
So, except for the "show", what's the point?
If you disagree with this assessment - then get some solid independent
measurements regarding energy input and output. The ball is in your court.
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
>
pete
The Flavored Coffee Guy <elge...@rock.com> sez:
` Quit changing the subject, stop the cross talk, quit pretending this
` ain't a chat room.
This ain't a "chat room". This is usenet. It's not Kansas anymore.
` I'm not responding to the old threads because they
` are full of chatter that is off topic.
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
How hard is it for you to keep your mouth shut, when you don't have
PSI, Pressure achievable in a specfic time frame, and do not have any
rate of steam generation in cubic meters to make a decision, statement
or otherwise. If you don't look, you don't know. I do know of real
working over unity devices.
If the inductor's value is changed to 10 mH, and the coil is exchanged
for the primary of a transformer with a inductive value of 10
millihenrys, you do have a device that constantly operates over unity.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/2.html
Any of these circuits could be modified
http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/cflamp2.pdf
http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/cfl2prts.jpg
http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/cflamp1.pdf
This one is closer to ideal by design:
http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/amtac1.gif
But, then you will have a hard time explaining how a fixture produces
20 times more light, than another bulb using 20 times more energy. If
it's over unity, it produces more energy than it uses, right?
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls
http://www.energyguide.com/library/EnergyLibraryTopic.asp?bid=austin&prd=10&TID=17263&SubjectID=8373
The truth is this, the only thing that stands in your way is the FCC.
Higher values of Q are achievable at higher frequencies. None of these
transformer coupled parallel tank circuits are any good unless they are
only used with stable resistive loads. That means, heating, lighting,
electrolysis, battery charging, plasmolysis, plasma heating systems,
etc... The operating frequencies of the highest effeciencies start at
around 100 KHz, and that is within the AM radio bandwidth, and extends
clear into Aircraft, and lower frequency military bands. You are very
simply blocked off by FCC rules, when they need to be adjusted and
moved into the microwave bandwidths that will see no real interferance
from these devices in operation. Nikola Tesla, noted the pair
production theory, and defined, resolved, and explained just how over
unity was and is possible.
First, learn everything you can about parallel tank circuits. Then,
you will truly understand an over unity device that works, and is real,
and in fact, it is the simplest one. I've been able tune these since
I've worked on them breadboarding them in electronics classes in
college. It's all a matter of impedance matching circuit start up, to
XL and XC as if XL and XC were two parallel resistances. The output
impedance of any driver operating any low impedance parallel tank
circuit, or high power output parallel tank circuit, only requires a
large amount of current for the first 2 milliseconds at most. After
that the impedance of the device jumps up and operates over unity as
long as it is on. Anyone tells you differently, never built one.
Bill Ward
<elge...@rock.com> wrote:
That's just nuts. Better leave that flavoring out - it must
be destroying brain cells. Then read up on boost mode
switching power supplies.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
Q depicts the quantity of energy produced over unity, although it isn't
ever written that way in text books. Read the whole paper, and you may
be able to decipher the usefulness of the Q factor, in designing over
unity circuits.
http://my.integritynet.com.au/purdic/electronic-basics.htm
Plug in these values to this calculator
http://qbx6.ltu.edu/s_schneider/physlets/main/rlc_resonance.shtml
120 Volts
R = .001 Ohms
L = 0.0000001 Henries
C = 1 microfarads
f = 503292.121 cycles/second
Q = XL/R
Q = 316
Power in to start circuit = 2 * 7,200,000 WATTS
Power required for continuous operation = 7,200,000/316
22,784.81 Watts.
Do the math fuckhead!
The Flavored Coffee Guy
transformers, I can achieve 36 watts in to 1.5 megawatts out, without
the requirement for any superconductors.
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/ChaosI.html
There is a long list of changes in the way a power transformer would
have to be wound to allow for this. Namely parallel primary windings.
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/Transformers/PWCoil.jpg
That's the only way to get down to the right values of inductance, and
carry enough current to really get useful.
Don Lancaster
Beginning E.E. Student Blunder #002-A.
Confusing power with energy.
Overunity power is utterly trivial.
Also no big deal.
Ask any capacitor.
Resonance is just like a piggy bank. You have to fill it before you can
empty it. And you can only empty it once without refilling.
Correctly calculate your total energy in watthours (being sure not to
confuse average with rms), and you will ALWAYS find that the input
EXCEEDS the output.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Bill Ward
<elge...@rock.com> wrote:
>
>Q depicts the quantity of energy produced over unity, although it isn't
>ever written that way in text books.
Because it's not true. You are confusing voltage gain with
power gain.
>Read the whole paper, and you may
>be able to decipher the usefulness of the Q factor, in designing over
>unity circuits.
>http://my.integritynet.com.au/purdic/electronic-basics.htm
>
>Plug in these values to this calculator
>
>http://qbx6.ltu.edu/s_schneider/physlets/main/rlc_resonance.shtml
>
>120 Volts
>R = .001 Ohms
>L = 0.0000001 Henries
>C = 1 microfarads
>f = 503292.121 cycles/second
>
>Q = XL/R
>Q = 316
>
>Power in to start circuit = 2 * 7,200,000 WATTS
>Power required for continuous operation = 7,200,000/316
>
>22,784.81 Watts.
>
>Do the math fuckhead!
>
I hate to pop your little fantasy bubble, but you forgot to
include the load resistance in your Q calculation. A
transformer output doesn't help, because the load is still
reflected back into the resonant circuit.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice. Avoid the
"calculator" and do the math yourself until you at least get
a tiny glimmer of a clue about what's going on.
TANSTAAFL
You
Oh GOD, Tell us all your not going to rant on about Over Unity Power
Production with some Great SuperDuper, Perpetual Motion, Alien Invented,
Magic Technology.
Please just take you posts off to alt.Kooks.Alien Inventions and
leave the rest of the world in peace......
Rob Dekker
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message news:1141885586....@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
[..4th time explaining how to destroy your microwave...]
>
> Experiments I cannot afford to do.
So you want someone else to pay to validate your wild ideas....??
We are all standing in line to throw money at this...
What is your bank-account number ?
> Purchase a high pressure vessel
> large enough to hold the microwave. Design an inlet, and trap for the
> plasma ball to feed it steam as quickly as it can convert it into
> hydrogen and burn it.
>
The convincing factor is not if you can produce a flame (burning something) in your microwave.
Everyone can do that, and most people do.
The convincing factor is if you can get more energy out then you put in.
So design an experiment where you can show that...
> Rebuild the engine in this car:
> http://www.theaircar.com/
Just show that more energy comes out than you put in.
You don't need to show that you can drive a car with it.
Don Kelly
----------------------------news:1141974238....@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
I suggest that you learn or relearn something about AC theory and resonant
circuits. They are anything but "overunity" Sure a high Q parallel resonant
circuit has a high impedance -that doesn't lead to overunity. In all of the
circuits shown, the source must and does supply all the power delivered to
the load as well as the losses. It's a fact of life.
Don Kelly
Your first reference is a very simple introduction to impedance and
resonance which, in the drive for simplicity, has some errors. Nowhere does
it depict or imply what you claim. The reason is because your claim is not
true.
I note that the calculator is for a SERIES resonant circuit. The power
given by the calculator is correct assuming 120Vrms. This is the steady
state power (not inrush at starting) and such a steady state would not be
reached as the circuit would vaporise first. Note also that with 120Vapplied
the voltage across the capacitor would be about 38Kv -This is where the Q
comes in.
Your tank circuits are parallel resonance.
There is a hell of a great difference. Using the same parameters and taking
R in series with L the input impedance will be 100 ohms with a phase angle
of nearly 0 degrees. The power input will be ((120^2)/100)cos 0 =144 watts
. A check can be found by finding the current through the resistance-this
agrees. The power in from the source is the same as the power dissipated in
the tank circuit. This is the steady state or average power. I haven't
worked out the worst case transient inrush which has nothing to do with the
steady state power . Q doesn't determine the power. Suppose you halve
the resistance to double the Q but then the current through the resistor
will only have a miniscule change and the power dissipated will be halved.
This is contrary to your contention (and to the results for a series
circuit). In fact, if you want the most power through the resistance, get
rid of the R and C.
I suggest that you:
a) Go back and learn or re-learn the basics of AC circuits and resonance-
you apparently don't know them. Get a better reference than the one you
have quoted.
b)Do the math correctly, rather than appl;y an inappropriate calculator.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
and for years, my web pages have been accessed mainly by colleges and
Universities from all over the world. In fact, the majority of my hits
are from colleges and universities.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,709.0.html?PHPSESSID=79bba14bfaad58e47b5472949d9781f6
It's funny, an inductor stores electrical energy, and likewise a
capacitor. But, an inductor is always 90 degrees out of phase with
current lagging. Where a capacitor is always 90 degrees out of phase
with voltage lagging.
120 Volts
R = .001 Ohms
L = 0.0000001 Henries
C = 1 microfarads
f = 503292.121 cycles/second
Don Lancaster, Bill Ward, You, you three don't know jack about what
talking about. You are assuming that what you've heard so many times
is true. But, you haven't worked out a single equation.
Rob Dekker, is the only person who's paid any attention to the subject
line for this thread.
Don Kelly, hasn't really understood impedance matching, or transformer
coupling, and as a result still doesn't know, or hasn't read the whole
thread. Go back to basics, transformer basics. When you change the
load on the secondary, what happens to the load on the primary? When
you really deal with transformers and winding them, you'll find that
the number of turns has absolutely nothing to do with the value of
inductance, and most equations do come close as for how many windings
on what kind of core, as to the approximate value of inductance, but
none are perfect. Well, when working with a sinewave, the step up, or
step down ratio is literally governed strictly by the ratio of the
inductances. L1/L2, if L1>L2, or L2/L1 if L1, is greater than L2.
Which, gives you the generally labled turns ration. Well, if you
mechically take that transformer appart, the actual ratio of turns will
not comply with that ratio. But, as far as response is concerned,
stepping voltages, or stepping down voltages always is a direct result
of nothing else except the ratio of inductances, and no mechanical
ratio of it's construction.
Small transformers that operate at high frequencies, often give that
illusion that it could be a structural mechanical ratio. But, when you
get into higher numbers of turns and lower frequencies, the truth is
only that it is the ratio of inductances, and not the ratio of
mechanically made turns of wire.
So, when the load on the secondary changes, the value of inductance, of
the secondary changes, and it can be measured. You can attach a
potentiometer to the secondary of a household tranformer, and use
inductance meter made by the best company you know of, and the result
will always be the same. Short the secondary, and you have the lowest
value of primary inductance. Leave the secondary open, and you will
have the highest value of primary inductance.
So, you turn on the oscillator, and the primary is tuned to 100khz.
Then you throw a second switch, and what happens to the resonant
frequency? You can use a tuning slug, and change the inductance of a
coil in conjunction with a capacitor and use that as a tuner, or you
can use a variable capacitor and a value of inductance that never
changes, and varactor diodes really only count as capacitors.
So, ham radio operators often use variable inductors over capacitors.
http://www.surplussales.com/Antennas/TransVarInductor.html
http://www.oselectronics.com/ose_p96.htm
So, when you tune the thing, and the load never changes, you don't
loose any power. Pout = Pin * Q * Q for the circuit tutorial found at
this link:
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/ChaosI.html
Those who experiment and build create the tales told of what was seen
working, in blogs like these:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,709.0.html?PHPSESSID=79bba14bfaad58e47b5472949d9781f6
It shows that you never breadboarded the circuit. I have a microwave
to experiment with, and it will take time, as usual.
You can all thank God, for women, because, if wasn't for them I could
care if you all died. There are so few responses from anyone that
isn't overdosing on testosterone to compete for rightness without any
calculations to support what they are voice, or any theory, reference
links. I seem to be able to find plenty of technical reference links
from really reliable sources, not personal web pages, or any blogs.
Blogs, are rumors, opinion, universities, colleges, and educational
resources are built on facts. I don't see anyone who's declared that
the parallel tank circuit won't work, produce a single equation that
proves that it won't. Much less, a lab.
Don Lancaster
> Don Lancaster, Bill Ward, You, you three don't know jack about what
> talking about. You are assuming that what you've heard so many times
> is true. But, you haven't worked out a single equation.
>
You mean like, http://tinaja.com/glib/hack59.pdf ?
Bill Ward
<elge...@rock.com> wrote:
>It's funny that you all act as if it's impossible. Over the internet,
>and for years, my web pages have been accessed mainly by colleges and
>Universities from all over the world. In fact, the majority of my hits
>are from colleges and universities.
>
>http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,709.0.html?PHPSESSID=79bba14bfaad58e47b5472949d9781f6
Thanks for the link. Is that really your website? I
recommend it to anyone who needs a good laugh or two. The
whole site seems to be full of tales of overunity devices
that almost work. That probably explains the school
traffic.
>
>It's funny, an inductor stores electrical energy, and likewise a
>capacitor. But, an inductor is always 90 degrees out of phase with
>current lagging. Where a capacitor is always 90 degrees out of phase
>with voltage lagging.
>
>120 Volts
>R = .001 Ohms
>L = 0.0000001 Henries
>C = 1 microfarads
>f = 503292.121 cycles/second
>
>Don Lancaster, Bill Ward, You, you three don't know jack about what
>talking about. You are assuming that what you've heard so many times
>is true. But, you haven't worked out a single equation.
Well, I know Don's written a few books, and I've designed
several successful products that depend on resonant
circuits, so I kind of take issue with your "haven't worked
out a single equation" bit.
>
<snip mild rant>
I think your problem may be that you are confusing real
power with imaginary, or reactive, power in a resonant
circuit.
It's true that a high Q resonant circuit will trap a
sizeable amount of energy circulating between the cap and
coil. Both the circulating current and voltage can be
higher than the driving current or voltage. The problem for
over-unity fans is that the current and voltage are 90
degrees out of phase.
When the current is maximum, the voltage is zero, and when
the voltage is maximum, the current is zero. The product is
always zero (orthogonal terms), so there is no real power -
it's just circulating energy, with very little being
dissipated.
Think of it as pushing a kid in a swing. As you push gently
at the resonant frequency, the swing goes higher and higher
(voltage), and the speed at the bottom (current) also gets
faster and faster. Soon, with a series of gentle shoves,
you have put enough energy into the system to knock an adult
down. I hope you can see that all the energy that comes out
was originally input from the pushing. No energy was
created.
Resonant circuits can _store_ energy, but they can't _make_
energy. One definition of Q is the total energy stored
divided by the amount dissipated per cycle. As soon as you
start to take energy out, via a resistive load or an unwary
human body, you kill the Q.
Equations are much more concise, but after seeing the
website, I'm afraid they'd be wasted here.
I hope this helps, but I'm not optimistic.
Regards,
Bill Ward
The Flavored Coffee Guy
circuit. If you literally wrote that article, what aren't you doing,
that I've done?
It really is simple. Most parts and components are designed around
small signals in the RF ranges that I've found these results in.
Tesla Coils cannot step down a RF Voltage. A pair matched transformers
of this sort, can only be hand wound, or if you have money coming out
of your ears, for a pretty price. That coil is finished, but I haven't
taken picture of it. It's not even geometrically ideal, even though it
is an air core coil.
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/Transformers/PWCoil.jpg
36 turns per primary, and you should know the parallel inductance
equation, right? So, that really does tone down to about a 5 turn
equivalent, if it were a tesla coil. The real main difference, is that
there is coupling for stepping down. The tube diameter 1.5 inches, and
slightly over a foot long. There is nowhere to buy that, and the only
practical circuits you could possibly test that against would use an
audio transformer, and the 8 ohm coil as the parallel resonant drive
side. Those only go up to about a Q of 5-10 at 45 KHz, then you drop
well below a watt. You should breadboard it.. If you wrote that
article, you should breadboard this
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/ChaosI.html
By following the tutorial. Backwards tuning it from the load, starting
with the resulting inductance on the primary, with the test load
present on the secondary. Then tune up both stages within a fraction
of the decimal.
At the bottom of this page
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/ChaosI.html
I a link labeled phase orientation, and it goes somewhere that the next
link doesn't.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
I have been working to get this out of the small signal zone, and in
order to do that, my lab equipment consists of a signal generator 1Hz
to 20Mhz, and an RF amplifier. 12v 20 Watts. That means XL and XC
cannot be lower considered as parallel DC resistances than 7.5 Ohm at
the resonant frequency applied to it.
Then the phase relationship and resonance will kick in, and the results
of Q show within the circuit. If you have Electronics Workbench,
you'll see that starting the simulation, it draws all of that current.
As it revs up, then the current drops from the signal generator. As
long as the signal source is solid, and sticks to the resonant
frequency of transformer coupled parallel tank circuit, it continues to
hammer the same amount of power through loop.
When the load changes, Q changes, and so does the primary's inductance.
Winding resistance doesn't change. But, when inductance does, Q does.
It's very good for resistive loads. Generating corona discharges, but
not arcs.
Which would refer to the document concerning low temperature plasma's
and the generation of hydrogen gas from water.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
Be very careful, trust your simulations!
Please, start by simulating. I've found that typically, I would have
to work through equations several times before everything balanced out
with the right output, and the right input. What I mean by right, is
that it won't fry the wire. Be very careful, and trust your
simulations, because capacitors do explode when they recieve too much
current, or too much voltage. Current can cause heating, and voltage
causes arcing through the dielectric. Always use the capacitor that is
rated in excess of the power predicted by the model.
Tony Wesley
The Flavored Coffee Guy wrote:
Yeah, Don! Geesh, why don't you ever build a working circuit?
(big grin)
Solar Flare
bag.
Let's face it, syrup, your theories are way off based on a lack of
knowledge of basic resonance theory.
Yes...overunity? The voltage is but power never will be. To remove
some power from the tank circuit you have a load and R changes the Q
of the circuit, doesn't it now?.
Suck it up and get on with your life.
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1142073070.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Don Lancaster
You
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote:
> It's funny that you all act as if it's impossible. Over the internet,
> and for years, my web pages have been accessed mainly by colleges and
> Universities from all over the world. In fact, the majority of my hits
> are from colleges and universities.
that's just because your website url is passed around the college crowd,
as a place to get a few good Laughs before semester finals.
You
"Tony Wesley" <tonyw...@gmail.com> wrote:
wink...wink... wink.... Coffee Guy is just a Johnnie-come-lately to
the real world of electronic systems design......and most certainly
is a .... wait for it .... Moorooooon (Bug Bunny definition)
Solar Flare
Stop bottom feeding. You're too much work
"You" <Y...@shadow.orgs> wrote in message
news:You-01C90E.1...@netnews.att.net...
Scott Nudds
"You" wrote
> wink...wink... wink.... Coffee Guy is just a Johnnie-come-lately to
> the real world of electronic systems design......and most certainly
> is a .... wait for it .... Moorooooon (Bug Bunny definition)
Damnit man, give the guy some respect where respect is do....
The genius can burn steam. BURN S.T.E.A.M...
Can you do any less? I think not.
Snicker...
Duke McMullan N5GAX
news:xY6dnZaTlpB...@golden.net, suggested to "The Flavored Coffee
Guy" <elge...@rock.com>:
> Suck it up and get on with your life.
Allow me to suggest that this IS his life.
d
--
Tortured logic is the funniest kind. Luckily, there's
plenty of it. -- Scott Adams
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429rl(fe) (505)255-4642 mtm...@qwest.net
The Flavored Coffee Guy
vermouth. Still doesn't fix the fact that it's only to plain to me,
with 5 years of college, he still hasn't run the simulations, or been
so precise, let alone even breadboard it with audio transformers.
Screw the idiots and the lazy assed technical writer.
Solar Flare
ones sometimes.
"Duke McMullan N5GAX" <mtm...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:kgIQf.42$4g6....@news.uswest.net...
Solar Flare
Look into this some more before taking on the world that believes
otherwise. Your theories fall down in many places dues to lack of HS
theory, as stated. Calling names and trolling will not get your (or
Waynes's) theories listened to.
At least you are thinking. Many I work with a brain dead alrwady.
Best of luck.
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1142129645.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
The Flavored Coffee Guy
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/ChaosI.html
The irony of all this is, a freeware demo is available. You can use
the audio transformers, prefrom the same test measurements following
all of the same procedures as in my tutorial just using that software.
You can test a single stage, measure the current and voltage supplied
by the signal source, then compare it to the power found on the load.
Change loads, do the primary inductance measurements again, calculate
which frequency the capcitor and primary inductance will place that,
adjust the signal generator, and watch the same thing happen again.
No matter what anyone of these people are saying, they refuse to work
the equations properly, where dilligence will prevail in your
simulations and circuits.
That all remind me of the Cold War Commity of Nuclear is Clean. The
underarm of the US government and their fear of the people petitioning
bills into law, has hired, paid, and profited all of these appearent
professionals sworn to secrecy. Any real clean energy solution is
considered a threat to US National Security, and just like there isn't
one car that won't need maintaince in the next 30 years, the government
cannot foresee any way around having to build new weapons, and still
need more weapons grade radioactive elements to maintain those
stockpiles of weapons. You can get the right answers, but not if you
keep letting your confidence in your results on your calculators, and
in your simulations be broken by these quote unquote professionals.
Propaganda works on a certain set of principals, and if a truly well
educated doctor of psychology told you that you were crazy, and that
was his/her professional opinion, wouldn't you believe that they were
the most likely to be right? Same rule applies here with these
professionals. Keep working, ignore them, save the environment.
Solar Flare
Yes you can measure the power consumption of the resonance circuit as
zero (theoretically) but how would you measure the power inside the
circuit. There is none and any test equipment you inject in there will
stop the tuning of the circuit. This applies to a real load.
You can measure voltages that seem magically high but that isn't
"power". There is no current involved.
I don't know about your calculations. I have not sone them as I am too
lazy on this as it contravenes common physics theories and seems
obvious you are missing some small factors in your excitement.
best of luck.
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1142134849.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
The Flavored Coffee Guy
magnetic field will do the work.
First place 100 ohm load on secondary. Then measure the inductance of
the primary, calculate Q.
Higher frequencies produce a higher value of Q. Not small, just needs
RF shielding. Higher frequency response transformers capable of
stepping up, or stepping down RF frequencies at high Power. Not signal
transformers.
Don Kelly
----------------------------
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1142062448.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> It's funny that you all act as if it's impossible. Over the internet,
> and for years, my web pages have been accessed mainly by colleges and
> Universities from all over the world. In fact, the majority of my hits
> are from colleges and universities.
------------
Laughs- not hits.
-----
>
> http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,709.0.html?PHPSESSID=79bba14bfaad58e47b5472949d9781f6
>
> It's funny, an inductor stores electrical energy, and likewise a
> capacitor. But, an inductor is always 90 degrees out of phase with
> current lagging. Where a capacitor is always 90 degrees out of phase
> with voltage lagging.
----
And over a cycle, the average energy into either is 0 - so what's your
point.?
>
> 120 Volts
> R = .001 Ohms
> L = 0.0000001 Henries
> C = 1 microfarads
> f = 503292.121 cycles/second
---------
>
> Don Lancaster, Bill Ward, You, you three don't know jack about what
> talking about. You are assuming that what you've heard so many times
> is true. But, you haven't worked out a single equation.
>
> Rob Dekker, is the only person who's paid any attention to the subject
> line for this thread.
>
> Don Kelly, hasn't really understood impedance matching, or transformer
> coupling, and as a result still doesn't know, or hasn't read the whole
> thread. Go back to basics, transformer basics. When you change the
> load on the secondary, what happens to the load on the primary?
----------
Actually, I have had considerable experience with transformers and circuits
and do know the theory behind them- in depth -from the fundamentals up. It
is apparent that you do not- both on the basis of what you have claimed
before and on the basis of what you have said below. It also appears that
you do not really understand the difference between inductive reactance and
impedance. That appears to be the problem which underlies the erroneous
crap you dispense below.
One thing is true - the inductance on short circuit is quite different from
the inductance on open circuit. One is the leakage inductance and the
other is the magnetising inductance. This can be seen from a proper
circuit model of a transformer. Neither of which is actually changed by the
load and the rest of what you say is simply wrong. It appears that you
interpret the effect of secondary load reflected back to the primary as
"inductance" It isn't. Altogether a real lack of basic understanding is
shown by your assertions.
I note that you do not have an answer to my correction of your calculations
and blatantly erroneous application of a series RLC "calculator" to a
parallel circuit. I also used your parameters to solve the parallel case. If
I am wrong- show me but be able to back up your contentions with correct
calculations, not hand waving.
BASIC FACT OF LIFE: Resonant circuits do not produce power. Nor does Q have
anything to do with any power "gain". You have given nothing to show
otherwise.
--
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
------
-----
When
> you really deal with transformers and winding them, you'll find that
> the number of turns has absolutely nothing to do with the value of
> inductance, and most equations do come close as for how many windings
> on what kind of core, as to the approximate value of inductance, but
> none are perfect. Well, when working with a sinewave, the step up, or
> step down ratio is literally governed strictly by the ratio of the
> inductances. L1/L2, if L1>L2, or L2/L1 if L1, is greater than L2.
> Which, gives you the generally labled turns ration. Well, if you
> mechically take that transformer appart, the actual ratio of turns will
> not comply with that ratio. But, as far as response is concerned,
> stepping voltages, or stepping down voltages always is a direct result
> of nothing else except the ratio of inductances, and no mechanical
> ratio of it's construction.
----------------------
From the above and what follows
neutr...@gmail.com
The Flavored Coffee Guy wrote:
5 years of college taking what..fine arts? I'm currently in an
electronics engineering program, and have built and measured voltage
boosting circuits...and guess what. That increased voltage comes at
the cost of input current. Sure, you can end up with hundreds of volts
out...you can even end up with negative voltage out if you set it up
right. One thing all these circuits have in common: output power is
lower than input power.
Sure, you can build up a massive charge in a tank circuit, but thats
all you're doing. What you're probably forgetting to include in your
calculations is the resistance of the inductor windings, as well as the
higher impedance at higher frequencies. Power dissipated by the
windings will also increase as the power goes up (P=I^2R), or since
it's AC, P=I^2(R+6.28fL), phase will be arctan(6.28fL/R), and it won't
be 90. A simulation is a simplified version of the real thing. It's
useful, but only when you know how to use it properly.
You're claiming to get more power out of the thing than you put in;
that breaks the first law of thermodynamics. Thats going to require
far more than simplified simulations as proof. Lets see the math.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
winding, low value of resulting winding resistance. The greater the
ratio of inductance to winding resistance, the greater value of Q.
A balancing act, that concerns a 100 watt lightbulb, is quite odd. You
start tuning on the output. Lightbulb voltage requirement 120, current
0.83333 amperes.
The primary inductance varies as a result of the load. You know that
as reflected impedance.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/magnetic/transf.html#c3
Every transformer is absolutely dependant on AC. There is no such
thing as a DC transformer. Effeciency is an attribute to core
materials, none of which are ideal, and coupling the magnetic lines of
flux. The primary can be viewed as the generating magnet in a
generator. Every ounce of energy here, is transferred to the
secondary. The faster the magnet moves, the higher the voltage. The
thicker the coils that the magnet passes, the higher the potential of
current. The combination of current and voltage should a short circuit
occur require the highest horsepower to turn the rotor, and move the
magnet.
When none of the wire moves an ideal situation is in play, that no
mechanical device imply, duplicate, or emulate. Niether the magnet,
nore the coil move. This changes all of the factors involved, and even
self inductance can be of assistance. If I want a higher voltage, and
the inductor is at 1 Henry, I can use a single coil to produce 1000
volts, and with a diode, and capacitor use just one coil to charge that
capacitor to 1000 volts. A ramp current/voltage, slowly builds to a
high current. Instantly stopping that, in 1/100th of second, causes a
self induced voltage of 100 volts, and to halt the current at 1/1000th
of second give me 1000 volts. So, it is possible, even without a
transformer to actually step a voltage using only a single coil. That
also means that same ramp voltage, with that same 1 Henry coil, as the
primary of a 1 to 100 step up transformer, would produce 100,000, even
though a sine wave would only produce 100. Winding ratios only make
this event effecient found to occur in a single coil, by allowing the
current to reverse through a lower value of inductance that retains a
lower value of reactance/impedance/inductive reactance, which is like
saying AC resistance of a coil, AC resistance of a coil, AC resistance
of a coil. The difference is only important with Q factors, resonance,
and effeciency. Consider attempting to use the single 1 henry coil,
and it's self inductance. The circuit that would produce the power
would have to be on for one second, and shut down in 1/1000th of a
second. But, using a primary winding that has a value of .001 Henrys,
I can operate that same coil as a secondary at 1000 times a second,
with the same current that would have only seen so briefly as 1/1000th
of a second the self induced voltage would have been present on the
single coil.
In turn, I could easly justify saying that in producing 1000 volts
starting with 1 volt at 1 ampere, an inductive ratio of 1 to 1000 is
nearly 1000 times more effecient than the self inductance of a single
coil.
Inductance ratios are the only ratios that define the actual induced
voltage produced by the secondary of a coil.
Mainly, voltage from any source, divided by current from any source,
depict impedance of the source. But, with a step up transformer, the
impedance changes. Voltage goes up, Current goes down, and impedance
goes up. With a step down transformer, current goes up, voltage goes
down, and impedance goes down. One thing is always true, a capacitor's
impedance will be equal, to the inductors at resonance. The output
impedance of the secondary to drive the 100 watt is 144 Ohms. There is
a list of numbers that when multiplied will add up to 144 ohms of
impedance. In fact, if impedance is known and frequency is not, or if
impedance is known but voltage is not, there there is no means of
determining power. So, when you work out an equation to find where the
primary is at 120 volts, you wind up needing a different transformer,
or a different frequency, or a different turns ratio, or a different
capacitor. Working out the equations in a simulation is one thing to
pick a voltage, current, or pick output impedance, or the power of the
output. If you adjust the frequency, you change capacitor, or you
change the transformer.
None of you have RF Power Transformers. They don't really make a whole
lot of these. No-one is going to be able to get there hands on
anything except signal transformers in the RF ranges, unless, they wind
their own. I have wound my own coils, and just one can take more than
two weeks by hand. But, unless these people actually make the parts
that can handle the power, all of you people that are full shit, will
seem right, or sound right, because the parts required, are not
marketed, sold, or manufactured in any cost effective form, except for
very expensive prototyping done by major manufacturers, and home
coilers, hobbiests.
You cannot step down a RF voltage with a tesla coil.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~pterren/
Shitty magnetic coupling of the lines of flux only allow it to step up
a voltage.
This is an RF transformer under construction that can step down RF 98%
effecient. The only reason I say 98% effecient, is because, I haven't
found a loss in power. But, it is only right to assume about a
component, because the winding resistance is real.
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/Transformers/PWCoil.jpg
But, not as a part of a transformer coupled parallel tank circuit, and
not as a part of this circuit.
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/ChaosI.html
The laws of momentum and inertia play on the currents and voltages,
which produce the magnetic field. Reflected impedance, is the only
impedance the primary sees. As an isolated inductor, its no different
than a moving slug in a coil changing the inductance than to change the
load on the secondary. One value of coil, with one value of capacitor
will be resonant at one frequency. Change the value of the coil, and
change the resonant frequency, and no point does resonance become
impossible by it.
Therefore, if you want a specific amount of power for a specific load,
you will absolutely be reworking all of these equations over and over
again. I haven't found a way out of that, if it's going to work.
And follow this tutorial myself to get there, and over unity to the
desired output.
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/ChaosI.html
36 watts in 1.5 megawatts out has occured in simulation. Every smaller
low power circuit the used the same math, same configurations all
worked. I'm not going to jail to see 50,000 Watts, or going to be
fined for jamming communications. I really believe that the whole
world will be a better place, if all of you fuck heads, just blow us
up, over kill us slowly by wrecking the air, wrecking the water,
destroying everything for only the nuclear threat you propose.. Some
guy in a Ham Radio shack to pull it off without the FCC blowing fuses,
or fining anyone in an RF shielded room. Some people have a place to
do these things, I don't. I can run low power experiments, and there
is absolutely no results that dicatate any of these jackasses who claim
they know it won't work, are anything except absolutely wrong.
When you build the simplest parallel tank circuit, and plopped that
damn circuit tester in there to measure the current, you've already
proven that you can tap into it, and not kill resonance. The same is
true in measuring voltages.
They just don't make high energy parts that will work. You get a step
transformer, without a step down, and fuckin' tesla coil.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
You wrote:
> In article <1142088988.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tony Wesley" <tonyw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The Flavored Coffee Guy wrote:
> > > So, why don't you build anything?
> >
> > Yeah, Don! Geesh, why don't you ever build a working circuit?
> >
> > (big grin)
> >
>
college taking a class that I was qualified to teach. I have built the
circuits, and I also know that plenty of people will talk shit, and do
nothing. I'm no alien to this planet.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
unity RF circuit every time. Changing the value of the load, only
changes the value of inductance of the primary. You can test this with
a signal generator, a potentiometer, and a capacitor. First measure
the value of capcitance with a capacitance meter. Then use the signal
generator to determin the value of inductance of the primary. use the
f0 = 1/2pi(sqrt LC)
This equation isn't wrong is it?
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/freq.jpg
Changing the load on the secondary, will change the inductance of the
primary, and that will be observed as AC resistance, or a change in
reactance, or considered as reflected impedance, and that will only
change the center frequency found with this equation
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/freq.jpg
FUCK YOU
The Flavored Coffee Guy
problems weren't solved the day it was created. The human race is too
stupid in comparison to God. For every little thing, we have a
specialist and professional, and expert and Ph. D. Genetics, Physics,
Applied Physics, Electronics, Computer Science, Weather, Chemistry,
etc. and in my book that mind was so intellegent, we are all stuck on
stupid in comparison. It's even more fucked up to think that the
problems to our needs weren't resolved that day the Earth was created.
Dumbasses!
Don Lancaster
> Higher frequencies produce a higher value of Q.
The definitions of Q are all independent of frequency.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/hack59.pdf for a detailed tutorial.
Solar Flare
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1142140646.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Solar Flare
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1142155433.2...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Don Lancaster
> Why do the higher frequencies need shielding?
The same reason the lower frequencies do.
Don Lancaster
> Tell me what R (load) does to the Q of the tank circuit.
The R (load) utterly demolishes the Q.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/hack59.pdf for a detailed tutorial
neutr...@gmail.com
> winding, low value of resulting winding resistance. The greater the
> ratio of inductance to winding resistance, the greater value of Q.
And you get a better filter, or a more frequency specific tank; what of
it?
> A balancing act, that concerns a 100 watt lightbulb, is quite odd. You
> start tuning on the output. Lightbulb voltage requirement 120, current
> 0.83333 amperes.
The lightbulb _gets_ anywhere from +170 volts to -170 volts at any
specific time, with a current directly proportional to the voltage.
> The primary inductance varies as a result of the load. You know that
> as reflected impedance.
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/magnetic/transf.html#c3
That points to an _ideal_ transformer calculator. There is no such
thing in the real world. It only exists in the simulated world where
you can pull such tricks as "lets change the permiability of free
space".
> Every transformer is absolutely dependant on AC. There is no such
> thing as a DC transformer. Effeciency is an attribute to core
> materials, none of which are ideal, and coupling the magnetic lines of
> flux. The primary can be viewed as the generating magnet in a
> generator. Every ounce of energy here, is transferred to the
> secondary. The faster the magnet moves, the higher the voltage. The
> thicker the coils that the magnet passes, the higher the potential of
> current. The combination of current and voltage should a short circuit
> occur require the highest horsepower to turn the rotor, and move the
> magnet.
Covered how inductors and transformers worked first quarter, first
year.
> When none of the wire moves an ideal situation is in play, that no
> mechanical device imply, duplicate, or emulate. Niether the magnet,
> nore the coil move. This changes all of the factors involved, and even
> self inductance can be of assistance. If I want a higher voltage, and
> the inductor is at 1 Henry, I can use a single coil to produce 1000
> volts, and with a diode, and capacitor use just one coil to charge that
> capacitor to 1000 volts. A ramp current/voltage, slowly builds to a
> high current. Instantly stopping that, in 1/100th of second, causes a
> self induced voltage of 100 volts, and to halt the current at 1/1000th
> of second give me 1000 volts. So, it is possible, even without a
> transformer to actually step a voltage using only a single coil.
Yah...it's called a boost regulator. As I said, I've built one. I
also measured the current going into and out of it. You aren't getting
something for nothing.
> That
> also means that same ramp voltage, with that same 1 Henry coil, as the
> primary of a 1 to 100 step up transformer, would produce 100,000, even
> though a sine wave would only produce 100. Winding ratios only make
> this event effecient found to occur in a single coil, by allowing the
> current to reverse through a lower value of inductance that retains a
> lower value of reactance/impedance/inductive reactance, which is like
> saying AC resistance of a coil, AC resistance of a coil, AC resistance
> of a coil. The difference is only important with Q factors, resonance,
> and effeciency. Consider attempting to use the single 1 henry coil,
> and it's self inductance. The circuit that would produce the power
> would have to be on for one second, and shut down in 1/1000th of a
> second. But, using a primary winding that has a value of .001 Henrys,
> I can operate that same coil as a secondary at 1000 times a second,
> with the same current that would have only seen so briefly as 1/1000th
> of a second the self induced voltage would have been present on the
> single coil.
Nobody is arguing that you're boosting the voltage here.
> In turn, I could easly justify saying that in producing 1000 volts
> starting with 1 volt at 1 ampere, an inductive ratio of 1 to 1000 is
> nearly 1000 times more effecient than the self inductance of a single
> coil.
Justify with math; lets see it.
> Inductance ratios are the only ratios that define the actual induced
> voltage produced by the secondary of a coil.
>
> Mainly, voltage from any source, divided by current from any source,
> depict impedance of the source. But, with a step up transformer, the
> impedance changes. Voltage goes up, Current goes down, and impedance
> goes up. With a step down transformer, current goes up, voltage goes
> down, and impedance goes down.
Wrong; impedance is a function of frequency. Xc = 1/Cw and Xl = Lw,
where w is the frequency in radians per second. Your increased voltage
comes at the cost of current, and vice versa.
> One thing is always true, a capacitor's
> impedance will be equal, to the inductors at resonance.
It's part of the _definition_ of resonance.
> The output
> impedance of the secondary to drive the 100 watt is 144 Ohms. There is
> a list of numbers that when multiplied will add up to 144 ohms of
> impedance. In fact, if impedance is known and frequency is not,
Then measure the capacitor or inductor.
> or if
> impedance is known but voltage is not,
Then measure the current.
>there there is no means of
> determining power.
P = I^2X = V^2/X
> So, when you work out an equation to find where the
> primary is at 120 volts, you wind up needing a different transformer,
> or a different frequency, or a different turns ratio, or a different
> capacitor. Working out the equations in a simulation is one thing to
> pick a voltage, current, or pick output impedance, or the power of the
> output. If you adjust the frequency, you change capacitor, or you
> change the transformer.
>
> None of you have RF Power Transformers. They don't really make a whole
> lot of these.
Thats because there's not much need for them, the power lost to it's
impedance at RF is disgusting, and there's far easier ways of going
about it.
> No-one is going to be able to get there hands on
> anything except signal transformers in the RF ranges, unless, they wind
> their own. I have wound my own coils, and just one can take more than
> two weeks by hand.
Here's a tip for you. Get two pieces of PVC, nearly the same size so
one will fit into the other. Take them to a motor winding shop and get
them to use their lathe to put a coil around each piece; you choose the
gague and number of turns. Last time I got one done, they weighed the
PVC before and after and charged me by the mass of wire. Put one
inside the other, and you've got a transformer.
> But, unless these people actually make the parts
> that can handle the power, all of you people that are full shit, will
> seem right, or sound right, because the parts required, are not
> marketed, sold, or manufactured in any cost effective form, except for
> very expensive prototyping done by major manufacturers, and home
> coilers, hobbiests.
<sarcasm> Of course..it's all a conspiracy </sarcasm>
You're complaining that high quality parts are expensive, and that they
aren't easy to get because people have found easier and cheaper ways of
doing things, so there's no money in making them.
> You cannot step down a RF voltage with a tesla coil.
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~pterren/
>
> Shitty magnetic coupling of the lines of flux only allow it to step up
> a voltage.
Then redesign it so it works better?
> This is an RF transformer under construction that can step down RF 98%
> effecient. The only reason I say 98% effecient, is because, I haven't
> found a loss in power. But, it is only right to assume about a
> component, because the winding resistance is real.
> http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/Transformers/PWCoil.jpg
>
> But, not as a part of a transformer coupled parallel tank circuit, and
> not as a part of this circuit.
> http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/ChaosI.html
>
> The laws of momentum and inertia play on the currents and voltages,
> which produce the magnetic field. Reflected impedance, is the only
> impedance the primary sees.
Not the only impedance the primary sees.
> As an isolated inductor, its no different
> than a moving slug in a coil changing the inductance than to change the
> load on the secondary. One value of coil, with one value of capacitor
> will be resonant at one frequency. Change the value of the coil, and
> change the resonant frequency, and no point does resonance become
> impossible by it.
And here's why: resonance occurs when Xl = Xc ; Xl = Lw ; Xc = 1/Cw
therefore Lw = 1/Cw ; w^2 = 1/LC ; w = (1/LC)^0.5
w is, of course, the resonant frequency in radians per second
That is, of course, the center frequency for resonance. You can go a
bit higher and lower, depending on the Q of the tank...The higher the
Q, the less you can deviate from the center frequency and still keep it
resonanting.
> Therefore, if you want a specific amount of power for a specific load,
> you will absolutely be reworking all of these equations over and over
> again. I haven't found a way out of that, if it's going to work.
Have fun.
> And follow this tutorial myself to get there, and over unity to the
> desired output.
> http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/ChaosI.html
>
> 36 watts in 1.5 megawatts out has occured in simulation.
Simulation is not reality.
> Every smaller
> low power circuit the used the same math, same configurations all
> worked.
To step up the voltage? I believe you. Put a load on the end, and
measure both the input current and load current.
> I'm not going to jail to see 50,000 Watts, or going to be
> fined for jamming communications. I really believe that the whole
> world will be a better place, if all of you fuck heads, just blow us
> up, over kill us slowly by wrecking the air, wrecking the water,
> destroying everything for only the nuclear threat you propose.. Some
> guy in a Ham Radio shack to pull it off without the FCC blowing fuses,
Wipe the foam off your mouth....
> or fining anyone in an RF shielded room.
IIRC, there are no regulations whatsoever against building a faraday
cage. Just remember to isolate the rooms power supply as well as
ground the thing properly.
> Some people have a place to
> do these things, I don't. I can run low power experiments, and there
> is absolutely no results that dicatate any of these jackasses who claim
> they know it won't work, are anything except absolutely wrong.
Measure the input current and compare to the output current.
> When you build the simplest parallel tank circuit, and plopped that
> damn circuit tester in there to measure the current, you've already
> proven that you can tap into it, and not kill resonance. The same is
> true in measuring voltages.
Thats because measurement instruments are designed to interfere as
little as possible with an active circuit, but they do interfere.
Here's a simple demonstration; charge a good sized capacitor,
disconnect it, and hook it up to a voltmeter...you can watch the charge
decay through the meter.
> They just don't make high energy parts that will work.
They don't make heizenberg compensators either, the bastards....
You
any time you want to compare "Wallpaper", just bring it on....the folks
here are more than happy to see your "stack of stuff".... in the mean
time your still a Johnnie-cum-Lately and decidedly still a ...
wait for it.... Moorooooon ... (still using the Bugs Bunny Definitin}
You
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote:
Yea...well... it must be that 4. High School Gradepoint that
gives him, his Magic Insight into the world of AC Systems Design...
You
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote:
Hmmmm, five years of college, and no "Wallpaper" to show for it...
must be a question n there somewhere....... and I know a few ladies
with 4 years degrees in Music Appreciation too...but that doesn't
qualify them in the Science of "Burning Steam"...... or maybe it
does.....
Tony Wesley
The Flavored Coffee Guy wrote:
> with 5 years of college,
Rookie
neutr...@gmail.com
The Flavored Coffee Guy wrote:
You know, this little barely coherent rant explains it all. Your
overunity device is based on faith, not on science or engineering. You
have faith that God would have set things up so that it will work,
because the alternative is "even more fucked up". Perhaps this comic
will give you a better perspective on the matter...
Solar Flare
And the answer it "it ***LOADS*** down the resonant circuit and lowers
the Q and the resultant voltage falls below the source voltage.
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:47j3a5F...@individual.net...
Solar Flare
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:47j3enF...@individual.net...
R.H. Allen
>
> desired output.
> http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/ChaosI.html
>
> 36 watts in 1.5 megawatts out has occured in simulation.
It wouldn't surprise me if you did, but that says nothing about its
efficiency. I've seen a laser that runs on a few hundred watts and
produces an output of about a terawatt. As I recall, its efficiency was
something like 10%. The point being that you can tell nothing about your
circuit's efficiency from power measurements (or simulations). If you
feed your circuit 36 watts for 100 ms and get 1.5 megawatt pulse for 1
µs then you have an efficiency of 42% -- hardly over unity. If you don't
understand why this is so, look at the definitions of power, energy, and
efficiency.
Don Kelly
practice. .Go back and learn them. Note that the inductance will vary as the
turns squared while the resistance will change proportionally to the turns -
leading to a reduction in L/R. for a given conductor size. This is contrary
to what you say. In addition. What is Q for a coil? it is meaningless
except with reference to resonance and an R-L coil, by itself, cannot
resonate. You are using formulae without thinking about why they apply or
where they apply.
Now as to the changing of the load on the inductance. I suggest that you
review parallel resistances Req =R1*R2/(R1 +R2) as taught in grade 9(?)
If you change R2 , Req changes but R1 doesn't
Now replace R1 by an inductance. Work it out.
Here is an example-numbers chosen for convenience:
Consider an inductance of 10mh at f=159Hz (w=1000 rad/sec) in parallel
with a variable resistance R.
Then Requivalent =100R/(R^2+100) and Xequivalent =(( R^2) *10)/( R^2 +100)
[work it out- it's very simple)
Now we can make a table:
R Requivalent X equivalent
0 0 0
1 0.99 0.1
10 5 5
100 0.99 9.9
1000 0.001 10 (close enough)
The measure R peaks at or near 10 ohms and the inductive reactance rises
from 0 to the reactance of the coil.
This is no big deal.
(if you have problems- let me know- can you handle complex numbers?)
Now consider that the resistance is the equivalent resistance load seen
from the primary [(Rload*(N1/N2)^2 [Yes -the turns ratio is involved- again
basic analysis of a transformer -see your own reference] on the secondary of
a transformer with mutual inductance of 10mh and negligable leakage
reactance (certainly not an RF transformer). The same thing occurs. Your
"chaos" reference fails to realise this but it fails in many other ways as
well. Note that the transformer inductance is unchanged. Again , no big
deal. Parallel impedances-Circuits 101.
Now put an ideal capacitor in parallel with this R-L combo. Suppose that
C=100 microfarad (numbers chosen for convenience. )
The LC combination has a Q =infinity and an impedance of infinity-that is an
open circuit. The source sees only R. It doesn't matter that this is a tank
circuit with the load on the secondary. At resonance, the circuit model
reduces to an ideal transformer supplying a load- just as if the L and C is
not there. This is the best you will get.
Also please note that Q is meaningless for an inductor per se. It does have
meaning in a resonant circuit, but definitely does not lead to violation of
"conservation of energy" or power gain as you imply.
In an RF transformer, there is the problem that leakage inductance is large
and mutual inductance is low. This worsens the situation.
Now, you have a further problem with efficiency. It appears that you do not
really understand this.
You say:
"I graduated with 4.0 from high school electronics in 1984, spent 5 in
college taking a class that I was qualified to teach "
I suggest that you sue your high school and college for malpractice. Either
that or tone down your ego. You have shown observations which are fine- but
your interpretation of these observations is, at best, incredibly asinine
for someone with 5 years college. Your willingness to experiment is an
asset but you have simply avoided obvious explanations in an attempt to
justify a pipe dream. Your better references do not support you and the
others are, to be honest, rather vague to say the least.
One final suggestion: Use what you have supposedly learned and THINK. If
you think that what you have leads to overunity, then you will have to
present good reasons and proof. You haven't even come close. --
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
BSc Distinction (EE),54, U of Alberta, MSc (EE), 56,U of Alberta, PhD (EE),
68,U of Illinois (Champagne-Urbana). Professional Engineer, Senior member
IEEE, Experience in Power systems and machines, both practical and
theoretical. . Now "Professor Emeritus" and well qualified to recognise the
kind of BS that you are propagating because you are not using the tools that
you supposedly have. (dependence on calculators for trivial analysis,
without thinking about the basics behind the calculators (e.g. using a
series circuit calculator for parallel circuits) is a good indication of
that).
P.S. I am top posting as it is really not worth anyones effort to go through
the mix of fact and fiction below.
----------------------------
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1142155433.2...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
The Flavored Coffee Guy
Anyone can use the Demo's of Multisim or Electroinics Workbench to do
construct a simulation and test the circuit above.
Although, you will need your own inductance meter, transformer, and
potentiometer to test the change in inductance of the primary, in
respect to the load on the secondary.
Dear Don,
Q is not independant of frequency, because inductive reactance is not
independant of frequency.
http://www.electronics-tutorials.com/basics/q.htm
The higher the frequency, the higher the inductive reactance. Winding
resistance is a DC value, and does not change at any frequency. Higher
frequencies produce higher values of Q because, inductive reactance
goes up, the number of turns for an effective transformer goes down,
and with that the length of wire used to make the coil is shorter, and
as a result that, winding resistance is lower. Q, has everything to do
with frequency.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
But, if you go up against the school system in Florida, you are
practically going up against the state, and K though Ph.D is covered
there. Attorneys, don't like to fight for some-one that's broke, when
they could get counter sued.
The reason I was qualified to teach, was that I had a job as an
assembler, since high school, some college, and to teach is really only
to quote from a textbook. You only need enough to understand, not
design. Teaching, isn't about problem solving, it's about training
problem solvers.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys3330/PDF/Experiment6.pdf
Use this, all three coils are wound on the same form. The winding
should not be twisted, but bobbin wound one at a time, one on top of
the other. A primary, and two isolated secondarys.
http://www.elgersmad.homestead.com/files/resonance/transformers/tank2.jpg
Use your textbook to bias the transistor, or possibly choose a
darlington configuration.
As the load changes, the resonant frequency of the primary will change.
It's up to you as to whether you choose to use signal transistors or
power transistors. XC and XL should be considered as DC parallel
resistances, or the circuit will not start. If the value of XC and XL
fall below the output impedance of transistor even for a fraction of a
second, it will not work. Other than that, all basic oscillator theory
and math can be applied to the ciruit. It automatically adjust based
upon the load placed on the secondary by nature.
Hey, look it the bird!
The Flavored Coffee Guy
electronics is beyond me.
I can sit here with a model of a parallel tank circuit with just one
coil, and one capacitor, and from the signal source only use 0.017
Amps, or 17 milliamperes to drive the circuit. Meanwhile, between the
coil, and the capcitor measure 14.133 Amperes. So, the input is 240
milliwatts, and the power bucking back and forth between the capcitor
and coil is 200 Watts.
Signal source 10 volts peak AC 159.2KHz .
Capacitor value 1 uf
Inductor value 1 uH
If you have an inductance meter, and a transformer of any kind power
transformer, household whatever, and a 10K ohm potentiometer. Connect
the potentiometer to the secondary so that you can vary the resistance
across the output, and the inductance meter to primary. Now, watch
your inductance meter, and slowly turn down the resistance until it
reaches 0 ohms. Then slowly turn up the resistance until it reaches
10K . Take the potentiometer off, short the secondary wires, and
measure the inductance of the primary. Leave the secondary open, and
write down that reading. Open is very close to the same value of
inductance you will see when the potentiometer is at it highest
resistance, and shorted, is the same when the potentiometer has the
lowest resistance through it.
So, all that will ever change is L in henrys.
Is there anything wrong with this equation?
http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/freq.jpg
Reference material, check bottom of page for credentials.
http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/AC/AC_6.html
Therefore, only the center frequency will change. But, if you operate
a resonant power circuit that is driven by a single frequency that
doesn't vary or keep up with a changing value of inductance, there will
be a significant power loss. As for any resistive load, it can operate
over unity indefinately, if designed properly.
The model of the simple parallel tank cirucit, proves everything.
Using a tranformer instead of an isolated coil, changes nothing, and
that 200 Watts becomes available, but proper tuning and impedance
matching is required.
That is actual second year LC circuits. I've argued with many
teachers. But, you know what I did, instead of arguing, I built the
circuit to see for myself, if it would work. They do, and just was
well as the single coil, and single capacitor in parallel.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
You can also use this to make sure you get the most out of your
transistors when you bias them.
http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_paynter_introduct_6/0,5779,426130-,00.html
But, don't forget to read this, or build your transformer for the job!
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys3330/PDF/Experiment6.pdf
Don Lancaster
>
> Anyone can use the Demo's of Multisim or Electroinics Workbench to do
> construct a simulation and test the circuit above.
>
> Although, you will need your own inductance meter, transformer, and
> potentiometer to test the change in inductance of the primary, in
> respect to the load on the secondary.
>
>
> Dear Don,
>
> Q is not independant of frequency, because inductive reactance is not
> independant of frequency.
>
> http://www.electronics-tutorials.com/basics/q.htm
>
> The higher the frequency, the higher the inductive reactance.
Any real world inductor will have an optimum Q range, peaking at some
broad range of frequencies that depends upon core material performance,
circuit strays, LC ratios, and such.
Q definitely and emphatically does NOT continue to increase with
increasing frequency.
This is one of many reasons why misapplied circuit simulations are
totally worthless.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
I swear, you forget so quickly. Look back on the thread at what I've
already said. I have compared the results of the simulations against
breadboarded circuits. Maybe, you really just don't understand every
component you think you do in electronics, and need to review it. I
took electronics in high school, then I brushed up and went through the
same text books a second time, and finally, I went to college and
recieved a 4.0. I still have questions about how some things are done,
and every new schematic is a work of art all of it's own, and usually,
I'll find something done differently and learn something new..
With all of that time, and time spent working as an assembler, it just
doesn't make sense that you know it all.
What can't you read here?
http://www.electronics-tutorials.com/basics/q.htm
XL = 2*pi*f*L
When you multiply a series of numbers, and any factor becomes a larger
value, the result is larger.
(2 * pi * 1 KHz * 1H) < (2 * pi * 1Mhz * 1H)
Since, Q = (2 * pi * f * L)/Rw{DC resistance of the winding}
Every time your inductance equation produces a higher value of
inductance as the result of an increase in frequency, you wind up with
a higher value of Q because the divisor never changes it's value, and
the inductive reactance increases.
You should be careful that you observe the power output of your circuit
if you have a desired output. The highest value of Q can result in a
very low power output. Balance for a goal, works well enough if you
want a higher level of effeciency at the same output power, then
increase the frequency, reduce the number of turns of the primary
windings, and find the right inductor based upon the impedance required
to limit current to the wattage you desire at the new higher frequency.
But, don't increase frequency not expecting a power drop with an
increase in Q. It won't happen, and you will need a smaller value of
inductance in henrys to achieve the desired output power in watts..
You
"Don Kelly" <dh...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
> remove the X to answer
>
> BSc Distinction (EE),54, U of Alberta, MSc (EE), 56,U of Alberta, PhD (EE),
> 68,U of Illinois (Champagne-Urbana). Professional Engineer, Senior member
> IEEE, Experience in Power systems and machines, both practical and
> theoretical. . Now "Professor Emeritus" and well qualified to recognise the
> kind of BS that you are propagating because you are not using the tools that
> you supposedly have. (dependence on calculators for trivial analysis,
> without thinking about the basics behind the calculators (e.g. using a
> series circuit calculator for parallel circuits) is a good indication of
> that).
Now that is an impressive bit of "WallPaper", there Don ....
I wish Coffee Guy would post his, and we could compare ....
and you don't even claim to be able to "Burn Water".......
daestrom
"Don Kelly" <dh...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ir7Rf.136494$sa3.66885@pd7tw1no...
<snip
>
> Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
> remove the X to answer
>
> BSc Distinction (EE),54, U of Alberta, MSc (EE), 56,U of Alberta, PhD
> (EE), 68,U of Illinois (Champagne-Urbana). Professional Engineer, Senior
> member IEEE, Experience in Power systems and machines, both practical and
> theoretical. . Now "Professor Emeritus" and well qualified to recognise
> the kind of BS that you are propagating because you are not using the
> tools that you supposedly have. (dependence on calculators for trivial
> analysis, without thinking about the basics behind the calculators (e.g.
> using a series circuit calculator for parallel circuits) is a good
> indication of that).
>
Have to agree with 'You' here Don, that is quite a resume. Your 'I love me'
wall must be quite crowded with those accomplishments.
'Flavored Coffee' certainly gets an 'A' for willingness to experiment.
But statements by him like "In turn, I could easly justify saying that in
producing 1000 volts starting with 1 volt at 1 ampere, an inductive ratio of
1 to 1000 is nearly 1000 times more effecient than the self inductance of a
single coil." show misunderstanding of energy efficiency.
Similarly, statements about how reflected impedance from secondary to
primary in a transformer being 'only inductance', and '1000 volts of energy'
show other gaps in basic circuit theory.
Maybe he should have spent less time complaining about some prof that 'just
read from a textbook' and how he was 'qualified to teach the course'; and
more time actually reading the textbook to the point of understanding.
Oh well, you guys can have fun with this guy if you want. I'm moving on....
daestrom
Duke McMullan N5GAX
"Solar Flare" <sf...@hotmale.invalid> wrote in message
news:seWdnf_NT5gJDY7Z...@golden.net...
> "Duke McMullan N5GAX" <mtm...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:kgIQf.42$4g6....@news.uswest.net...
> > "Solar Flare" <sf...@hotmale.invalid>, in message
> > news:xY6dnZaTlpB...@golden.net, suggested to "The Flavored
> Coffee
> > Guy" <elge...@rock.com>:
> >
> > > Suck it up and get on with your life.
> >
> > Allow me to suggest that this IS his life.
> >
> > d
< Top posting properly bottomed>
> He sounds young and headstrong. That is all. This is what makes great
> ones sometimes.
Yeah, great ones. Sometimes. Bozo comes to mind.
d
--
You can't spell "geek" without an EE!
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429rl(fe) (505)255-4642 mtm...@qwest.net
Solar Flare
"Duke McMullan N5GAX" <mtm...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:WUnRf.2032$Sj....@news.uswest.net...
Duke McMullan N5GAX
"Solar Flare" <sf...@hotmale.invalid> wrote in message
>
> "Duke McMullan N5GAX" <mtm...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:WUnRf.2032$Sj....@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > "Solar Flare" <sf...@hotmale.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:seWdnf_NT5gJDY7Z...@golden.net...
> >
> > > "Duke McMullan N5GAX" <mtm...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> > > news:kgIQf.42$4g6....@news.uswest.net...
> > > > "Solar Flare" <sf...@hotmale.invalid>, in message
> > > > news:xY6dnZaTlpB...@golden.net, suggested to "The
> Flavored
> > > Coffee
> > > > Guy" <elge...@rock.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Suck it up and get on with your life.
> > > >
> > > > Allow me to suggest that this IS his life.
> > > >
> > > > d
> >
> > < Top posting properly bottomed>
> >
> > > He sounds young and headstrong. That is all. This is what makes
> great
> > > ones sometimes.
> >
> > Yeah, great ones. Sometimes. Bozo comes to mind.
>
>
> WTF are you trying to say? Nobody can decipher the mess you made.
I'm tempted to cynically suggest that you haven't been on Usenet very long,
but all I did was move your comment to the end of the conversation where it
belongs, so one needn't read the posting bottom-to-top to follow the thread.
Nothing more than this.
As to what the feep I'm trying to say, I'm suggesting (oh, so indirectly)
that I think the Flavored Coffee Guy is a clown. Only a clown, and nothing
more.
I was trying to say only this, and nothing more.
d
--
Look at any good orchestra . . . at least 90 percent of the violinists
are demons. The rest are wannabes. -- Drusilla
Solar Flare
Yeah he sounds young and a little confused. Agressive and thinking
though.
"Duke McMullan N5GAX" <mtm...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:2zqRf.2063$Sj.1...@news.uswest.net...
>
"Solar Flare" <sf...@hotmale.invalid> wrote in message
news:26CdnU8QXLgvsovZ...@golden.net...
> >
> > "Duke McMullan N5GAX" <mtm...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> > news:WUnRf.2032$Sj....@news.uswest.net...
> > >
Don Kelly
> What College, or University would pass you through second year
> electronics is beyond me.
>
> I can sit here with a model of a parallel tank circuit with just one
> coil, and one capacitor, and from the signal source only use 0.017
> Amps, or 17 milliamperes to drive the circuit. Meanwhile, between the
> coil, and the capcitor measure 14.133 Amperes. So, the input is 240
> milliwatts, and the power bucking back and forth between the capcitor
> and coil is 200 Watts.
>
>
> Signal source 10 volts peak AC 159.2KHz .
> Capacitor value 1 uf
> Inductor value 1 uH
Ok: On the basis that the input current is 0.017A rms (not stated) and is
in phase with the voltage(reasonable) then the average input power is 120mw.
Peak instantaneous power is 240mw but this is not generally a useful
measure - average is more meaningful.
Now as to the currrent between coil and capacitor. It would be nice to know
where you get this erroneous figure. At the frequency given the coil X =1
ohm and the capacitive reactance has the same magnitude. The capacitance has
a current of 7.07/ -j1) =-j7.07 A. The coil current will be 0.017-Ic
=0.017-j7.07 A which will correspond to a coil resistance of 2.4milliohms
and Xl=1 ohm. The I^2R loss is 0.120 watts Circulating current has a
magnitude of 7.07 A (rms), not 14.133 A (remember Kirchoff's Laws?). Your
oops!
Peak instantaneous power into L =100 watts and at the same time the peak
power into the capacitor = -100watts. Sum is 0 for the tank circuit. Power
flow into L for a and out of C for a half cycle, then reverses in the next
half cycle so average is 0 over the cycle. (look at v(t)*i(t) over the
cycle- for both the L and C - plot them against time) You say the power
bucking back and forth is 200 watts which is wrong. Peak instantaneous power
doesn't mean much even if you got it right. Your oops again!
Note that the peak energy storage is 50 microjoules. This vast amount of
energy being shuttled back and forth can be dissipated by a 5 watt
nightlight in 10 microseconds. In other words, in this resonant circuit,
there is a small amount of energy shuttling back and forth. This came from
the power supply in the first case and if the supply was disconnected, it
would be dissipated quite quickly in the coil resistance or as an RF burp.
-------
>
>
> If you have an inductance meter, and a transformer of any kind power
> transformer, household whatever, and a 10K ohm potentiometer. Connect
> the potentiometer to the secondary so that you can vary the resistance
> across the output, and the inductance meter to primary. Now, watch
> your inductance meter, and slowly turn down the resistance until it
> reaches 0 ohms. Then slowly turn up the resistance until it reaches
> 10K . Take the potentiometer off, short the secondary wires, and
> measure the inductance of the primary. Leave the secondary open, and
> write down that reading. Open is very close to the same value of
> inductance you will see when the potentiometer is at it highest
> resistance, and shorted, is the same when the potentiometer has the
> lowest resistance through it.
-----------
That is true but what you are reading is not the inductance of the primary
of the transformer except on a true open or short circuit measurement. On
short circuit you are measuring the leakage inductance and on open circuit,
you are measuring the magnetising inductance. Ignoring leakage inductance
(which is itself an error) you are simply looking at the parallel
combination of an inductance and a resistance (load reflected to the
primary) I gave you an example of this. No complicated explanation needed
and no change in the actual coil parameters. Sheesh!
---------
> So, all that will ever change is L in henrys.
You should look at the resistance seen as well- that changes as well. I'll
give you a formula if you have trouble doing the calculations.
R and X in parallel leads to Zeq =[(X^2)R +j(R^2)X]/[(R^2)+(X^2)]
corresponding to an admittance of Yeq =1/R -j(1/X) which is an easier way
to handle it.
--------------------
>
>
> Is there anything wrong with this equation?
> http://elgersmad.homestead.com/files/Resonance/freq.jpg
No and I have not indicated that it is wrong. I used it to check the
resonant frequency with the R and L you gave.
------------
>
>
> Reference material, check bottom of page for credentials.
> http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/AC/AC_6.html
Nothing wrong with this- and nothing in it is contrary to what I have said
above and before. Since coil resistance is so small, the shift in resonant
frequency is negligable so I neglected it.
------------
>
>
> Therefore, only the center frequency will change. But, if you operate
> a resonant power circuit that is driven by a single frequency that
> doesn't vary or keep up with a changing value of inductance, there will
>
> be a significant power loss.
-------
That isn't true. The measured impedance is that of a load resistance in
parallel with an inductance. It is easier to work with admittances in a
parallel case so consider the Yeq above with a capacitor in parallel.
You get Y=jwC -j(1/wL) +1/R (parallel circuit)
Note that at the resonant frequency this reduces to Y=[(j(wo^2LC-1)/ wL ]
+1/R =1/R corresponding to a load, seen by the source of R ohms. At any
other frequency, there will be a reactive component. Why try to find a
complex explanation where a simpler one correctly deals with the situation?
As for any resistive load, it can operate
>
> over unity indefinately, if designed properly.
------------
No- you will not get overunity with a tank circuit (or any other electrical
device). That is wishful thinking. You certainly have presented any evidence
to show this.
--------
> The model of the simple parallel tank cirucit, proves everything.
> Using a tranformer instead of an isolated coil, changes nothing, and
> that 200 Watts becomes available, but proper tuning and impedance
> matching is required.
-------
The (100 watt), instantaneous peak power is not available and you cannot
make it available. See above. The facts of life are that you cannot have it
and the amount of energy actually involved is very small. If you had
understood your second year LC you would have realised this. You might also
have remembered the basic definition of Q (from which the equation that you
use can be found) and the situation where Q is significant and useful.
> That is actual second year LC circuits. I've argued with many
> teachers. But, you know what I did, instead of arguing, I built the
> circuit to see for myself, if it would work. They do, and just was
> well as the single coil, and single capacitor in parallel.
------
You have measurements which show what is obvious from the first introduction
to parallel impedances. However, you seem to prefer a more complex and
illogical explanation. Your faith in overunity has clouded your thinking.
Too bad.
--
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
---------------------------->
Don Kelly
learn to walk on it. Don't hold your breath in anticipation.
--
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
"You" <Y...@shadow.orgs> wrote in message
news:You-0C1D73.1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
The Flavored Coffee Guy
daestrom wrote:
> "Don Kelly" <dh...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:ir7Rf.136494$sa3.66885@pd7tw1no...
> <snip
> >
> > Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
> > remove the X to answer
> >
> > BSc Distinction (EE),54, U of Alberta, MSc (EE), 56,U of Alberta, PhD
> > (EE), 68,U of Illinois (Champagne-Urbana). Professional Engineer, Senior
> > member IEEE, Experience in Power systems and machines, both practical and
> > theoretical. . Now "Professor Emeritus" and well qualified to recognise
> > the kind of BS that you are propagating because you are not using the
> > tools that you supposedly have. (dependence on calculators for trivial
> > analysis, without thinking about the basics behind the calculators (e.g.
> > using a series circuit calculator for parallel circuits) is a good
> > indication of that).
> >
>
> Have to agree with 'You' here Don, that is quite a resume. Your 'I love me'
> wall must be quite crowded with those accomplishments.
>
> 'Flavored Coffee' certainly gets an 'A' for willingness to experiment.
>
> But statements by him like "In turn, I could easly justify saying that in
> producing 1000 volts starting with 1 volt at 1 ampere, an inductive ratio of
> 1 to 1000 is nearly 1000 times more effecient than the self inductance of a
> single coil." show misunderstanding of energy efficiency.
You will never see a single coil used in place of a transformer to step
up voltages.
>
> Similarly, statements about how reflected impedance from secondary to
> primary in a transformer being 'only inductance',
You don't know crap about transformers or theory that concerns them.
> and '1000 volts of energy'
> show other gaps in basic circuit theory.
>
The voltage is the energy level of an electron. Has nothing to do with
the quantity of electrons moving. Current, has everything to do with
the quantity of electrons in motion, and nothing to do with the energy
level. Power has everything to do with the energy level of an
electron{voltage} and the quantity of electrons flowing, current in
Amperes.
Reference link to prove how wrong Don is if you're not too lazy to
read.
http://www.john-a-harper.com/tubes201/
http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/5/physics/particles/partich5pg1.html
neutr...@gmail.com
The Flavored Coffee Guy wrote:
> > 'Flavored Coffee' certainly gets an 'A' for willingness to experiment.
> >
> > But statements by him like "In turn, I could easly justify saying that in
> > producing 1000 volts starting with 1 volt at 1 ampere, an inductive ratio of
> > 1 to 1000 is nearly 1000 times more effecient than the self inductance of a
> > single coil." show misunderstanding of energy efficiency.
>
> You will never see a single coil used in place of a transformer to step
> up voltages.
Whatever you say, coffee boy.
"Designing a Boost-Switching Regulator with the MCP1650"
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/appnotes/00980a.pdf
Bill Ward
<elge...@rock.com> wrote:
How about this?
http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/1705
Or maybe Maxim doesn't know how to step up voltages.
Give it up and go back to your coffee. Everyone knows that
you don't have a clue and is simply laughing at you.
<snip>
Don Lancaster
>
> You will never see a single coil used in place of a transformer to step
> up voltages.
>
Huh?
Single coil voltage stepup is used all the time in virtually all modern
boost style switchmode power supplies.
The main reason you would use a transformer anymore is when you require
safety isolation.
You
"Don Kelly" <dh...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Thanks for the complements, Before I can claim to burn water, I'll have to
> learn to walk on it. Don't hold your breath in anticipation.
Wallking on water is really a very simple operation ....... almost
anyone can learn to do it ....... The real trick is to just ......
.... wait for it ........ to get real STIFF...... below 0C.........
Don Lancaster
> In article <RysRf.139438$sa3.138785@pd7tw1no>,
> "Don Kelly" <dh...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks for the complements, Before I can claim to burn water, I'll have to
>>learn to walk on it. Don't hold your breath in anticipation.
>
All you really have to do is know where the stumps are.
daestrom
Ever see the ignition system of a Model T ?? Folks were using 'single coil'
boxes to boost voltages before your father was born.
>>
>> Similarly, statements about how reflected impedance from secondary to
>> primary in a transformer being 'only inductance',
>
> You don't know crap about transformers or theory that concerns them.
>
Reflected impedance is just that, *impedance*. The exact nature depends on
the load attached to the secondary. It can be resistive, inductive, or
capacitive. Apparently you don't understand the meaning of impedance versus
inductance.
>> and '1000 volts of energy'
>> show other gaps in basic circuit theory.
>>
> The voltage is the energy level of an electron. Has nothing to do with
> the quantity of electrons moving. Current, has everything to do with
> the quantity of electrons in motion, and nothing to do with the energy
> level. Power has everything to do with the energy level of an
> electron{voltage} and the quantity of electrons flowing, current in
> Amperes.
>
> Reference link to prove how wrong Don is if you're not too lazy to
> read.
> http://www.john-a-harper.com/tubes201/
>
> http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/5/physics/particles/partich5pg1.html
>
Neither of which support your more outrageous claims.
Ta, ta...
daestrom
Solar Flare
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:47or8aF...@individual.net...
Don Kelly
Your references deal with electrons in vacuum. Note that in vacuum tubes
the charge flow is in one direction and simply changes magnitude. The
electron ballistics involved are straightforward and have nothing to do with
what goes on in a transformer or a tank circuit.
Are you implying that the mechanism in a metallic conductor is the same as
in vacuum?
How fast do you think electrons in a wire are moving?
Why do you keep throwing up inappropriate references?
Daestrom knows much more about transformers than you do. It is also true
that because of his knowledge, he recognises what you put out as crap.
Somehow, in the course of your studies, you appear to have missed a lot of
fundamentals. Too bad. You are free to try to show where I am wrong. I
love good reasoning but so far you haven't come close to doing that.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
read dozens of specs on their chips.
This one is ideal for an oscillator to drive a class AB Push Pull
Ampifier, or H MOSFET circuit. It covers the widest range, and
produces the nicest output, and in a very power conservative manner.
If you didn't want to waste any power driving the circuit, it's the
most ideal for a resistive load.
http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/1257
But, there is another problem, when the load changes, the inductance of
the primary changes. There is a circuit out there already that is
ideal for the purpose, and will change frequencies as a result of
feedback sensing.
Basically, it's an Armstrong Oscillator designed for power
applications. The tickler is where it would be sensing changes in the
load. The real problem here is that the power output of the transistor
should be applied to the resonant circuit, and by inductance would be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_(tickler)_oscillator
I plan on using their chips.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
be 1 coil on the same form, with the parallel tank circuit, and the
output coil would the be the third.
The trick to getting them to operate over unity, is keeping Xc and XL
at a low value, and around the power output you desire in watts. You
should be using any resistors, or power regulators around that part of
the circuit, and your only real means of current regulation is XL.
>From that point, the amplifier design is centered on not using any
power unless it goes to or through the tickler. It's all a high
impedance switching circuit, and you are pushing for a true AC
sinusoidal wave form as the output from your amplifier. Maxim has the
frequency response, and operational amplifiers that ideal for replacing
the transistors, and adopting the output to an H MOSFET circuit that
feeds the tickler coil. Barkhausen Criteria must be established, and
hopefully using a voltage to current amplification system. Where the
in Armstrong Oscillator, the parallel tank circuit is felt by a high
impedance input amplifier, that controls very high current switches.
When Xc and XL are low, but equal at resonance, you'll see the greatest
power gain in a high Q circuit. At 1 MHz, it is hard to wind a coil
that doesn't retain a high value of Q. You wind up using much shorter
pieces of wire, a few inches or maybe a few feet long, and that greatly
reduces winding resistance. So, if the inductive reactance of the coil
is 2 ohms, it's hard for the wire to get past .001ohms as a result of
the diameter you'll need to handle the power. It gets easy. But, if
you push to where inductive reactance is high, you'll never get the
circuit to operate over unity.
You
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote:
Oh really.....Tell you what, CoffeeGuy, I CHALLENGE YOU to email the
Design Engineering Staff at Maxim, with your theories of how you can get
their chips to produce OVER UNITY power, and then POST their reply here
for the rest of us to see. I can state with absolute certainty that
it will take those guys hours, to pick themselves up off the floor,
after laughing their collective ASS's off, before they could possibly
compose a reply to your email.
there, now you have been challenged..... so PUT up, or
Shut the fuck, UP..........
AZ Nomad
The only reply they will send will be a weasel-worded form letter thanking
him for his interest but otherwise saying nothing. They've delt with
crockpot idiots before.
He might as well send a letter to the president of the United States
with the divine revelation that you don't have to eat lima beans if
you don't want to.
Bill Ward
I thought that was broccoli.
Don Lancaster
broccoli without its stockoli is within an inach of being spinach.
Duke McMullan N5GAX
"Bill Ward" <bward...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4419d5a2.8799541@localhost...
> >He might as well send a letter to the president of the United States
> >with the divine revelation that you don't have to eat lima beans if
> >you don't want to.
> >
> I thought that was broccoli.
Right name, wrong administration.
d
--
I tried sniffing Coke once, but the ice cubes got stuck in my nose.
The Flavored Coffee Guy
Paul Vader
>Oh really.....Tell you what, CoffeeGuy, I CHALLENGE YOU to email the
>Design Engineering Staff at Maxim, with your theories of how you can get
>their chips to produce OVER UNITY power, and then POST their reply here
Actually, he did send a message to Maxim, but they couldn't figure out
where to print it among all the pictures of girls in lingerie. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Don Lancaster
> You <Y...@shadow.orgs> writes:
>
>>Oh really.....Tell you what, CoffeeGuy, I CHALLENGE YOU to email the
>>Design Engineering Staff at Maxim, with your theories of how you can get
>>their chips to produce OVER UNITY power, and then POST their reply here
>
>
> Actually, he did send a message to Maxim, but they couldn't figure out
> where to print it among all the pictures of girls in lingerie. *
Actually, producing overunity power is utterly trivial, and many of
Maxim's chips readily and routinely do this as expected.
Producing overunity energy is the tricky part that ain't gonna happen.
http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu06.asp
The Flavored Coffee Guy
http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm/appnote_number/428
Too bad when you use the search engine you don't type in the keywords
"Maxim Semiconductors"
Don Kelly
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1142931732.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
And why the elementary, idealised, non-existant, tank circuit reference?
It doesn't support your expectations of "overunity"
The Maxim reference also does not support your dream.
--
Don Lancaster
Again, overunity power is utterly trivial and totally routine.
Charge a 1 microfarad capacitor with a 1 megohm resistor from a one volt
source. Discharge the same capacitor with a 1 ohm resistor. Your average
power gain is ONE MILLION to one overunity.
Its energy gain that gets tricky.
Also ain't gonna happen.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf
The Flavored Coffee Guy
http://www.vias.org/feee/resonant_03.html
When power from the source drops to zero, and at resonance the
circuit's impedance approaches infinity, it's using less power.
If XC is equal to XL resonance, and XC and XL both equal 1ohm at
resonance, if the peak voltage is equal to 14 volts, you will have 14
amperes.
Now wait, remember that link at the top of the page? At resonance, the
circuit's impedance approaches infinity....
Oh, look you've been designing your oscillators with a 50 ohm output
impedance. 14 volts divided by 50 ohms only gives you 280 milliamps,
and a total wattage of 3.92 Watts. Well, if you stick with those damn
signal transistors, you'll never get it to work. I know, I've worked
with the circuits, and they do have one quirk. The impedance will not
increase until you have matched the impedance of a resonant circuit,
that is not in resonance, and actually is in a DC state. So, you need
an amplifier with a good high gain, positive feedback, and an output
impedance 0.5 Ohms to replace one transistor in one of the two
schematics of two different versions of the Armstrong Oscillator at the
following link.
http://www.tpub.com/neets/book9/35c.htm
Which would mean, keeping very careful track of the phase of the
signal, to insure that the feedback is postive. Replacing that one
transistor, with an Operational Amplifier, or possibly three to feed an
H MOSFET bridge, to produce true AC from absolute DC.
I have supporting links from reliable sources, you have your mouth, and
opinion. It's old school, second year electronics. Not digital
everything. So, I'm figuring that if you are in the field, you don't
even go near parallel tank circuits, use phase locked loops,
synthesizers, and chips that come with schematics and every part value
you could need or use. You are rusty, a hobbiest, or full of shit that
you even know anything, and if you are just rusty, then you need to go
back and check text book to brush up, or shut up.
Don Kelly
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1143021529....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Read this link:
>
> http://www.vias.org/feee/resonant_03.html
>
> When power from the source drops to zero, and at resonance the
> circuit's impedance approaches infinity, it's using less power.
--------------
So, your reference, as with others that you have presented, gives well known
information that doesn't support your overunity dream.
Note that the only power into the circuit at resonance, is dissipated in the
inevitable resistance of the components. Don't let the previous reference
with the effective negative resistance fool you. You have been told this
before, with numbers for the power in and dissipated as well as the energy
being shuffled back and forth. This energy, which is small, came from the
source in the first place.
Again, a simplified explanation in an ideal case.
>
> If XC is equal to XL resonance, and XC and XL both equal 1ohm at
> resonance, if the peak voltage is equal to 14 volts, you will have 14
> amperes.
----------
So a perfect (and non-existant) LC resonant circuit, at 14 V peak. Lets
see, a circulating current of 14Apeak which is 90 degrees out of phase with
the voltage- power per cycle (actually per half cycle) is ZERO, ZILCH, SFA.
This matches the power input. Again this was explained to you. Now add a
small resistance in the coil or capacitor (as in real life) and determine
the power in this resistance and compare it to the power input -they are the
same. I did this for you. Have you tried it for yourself?
>
> Now wait, remember that link at the top of the page? At resonance, the
> circuit's impedance approaches infinity....
------
So?? No problem there except in your mind.
Reading the stuff below, it appears that you want to match the impedance
in a DC state - OOPS! at DC the impedance of this ideal LC circuit is zero.
>
> Oh, look you've been designing your oscillators with a 50 ohm output
> impedance. 14 volts divided by 50 ohms only gives you 280 milliamps,
> and a total wattage of 3.92 Watts. Well, if you stick with those damn
> signal transistors, you'll never get it to work. I know, I've worked
> with the circuits, and they do have one quirk. The impedance will not
> increase until you have matched the impedance of a resonant circuit,
> that is not in resonance, and actually is in a DC state. So, you need
> an amplifier with a good high gain, positive feedback, and an output
> impedance 0.5 Ohms to replace one transistor in one of the two
> schematics of two different versions of the Armstrong Oscillator at the
> following link.
>
> http://www.tpub.com/neets/book9/35c.htm
>
> Which would mean, keeping very careful track of the phase of the
> signal, to insure that the feedback is postive. Replacing that one
> transistor, with an Operational Amplifier, or possibly three to feed an
> H MOSFET bridge, to produce true AC from absolute DC.
>
>
> I have supporting links from reliable sources, you have your mouth, and
> opinion. It's old school, second year electronics. Not digital
> everything. So, I'm figuring that if you are in the field, you don't
> even go near parallel tank circuits, use phase locked loops,
> synthesizers, and chips that come with schematics and every part value
> you could need or use. You are rusty, a hobbiest, or full of shit that
> you even know anything, and if you are just rusty, then you need to go
> back and check text book to brush up, or shut up.
--------------
Please note that I am not questioning your ability to deal with phase locked
loops synthesisers, etc.
I don't know what you did in second year electronics, and I have no doubt
that you can build an oscillator on a turn the crank and follow the
schematic approach. Whether you really understand one is not readily
apparent.
However, when it comes down to what we have been discussing, the behaviour
of a tank circuit, then we are talking electrical circuit theory, not
"electronics". That is an area where you appear to have little real
understanding- based on what you have said. I don't pretend to be a
designer of electronic circuits although I have done some in the past, but I
do have a good knowledge of circuit analysis - obviously better than yours
judging by your errors in dealing with a simple tank circuit.
Resonance is not an "electronic" condition as can be seen from many
mechanical examples as well as electrical applications where nary a tube,
transistor or integrated circuit is involved.
Somewhere, in your second year electronics, you seem to have skimped on
basic circuit analysis and basic physical concepts. Not my loss but yours.
You are now presenting an oscillator which, lo and behold has an amplifier,
positive feedback and a resonant circuit as well as an energy source. What's
new? Now disconnect the power supply to the oscillator and see how long the
oscillations last.
You have supporting links- good -but the links that you have presented DO
NOT support your dream of overunity but do agree (as far as they go as they
are pretty simplistic) with what I have said rather than what you have
claimed. I also have supporting links which are a bit meatier than what you
have presented.
I have challenged some of your numbers- you haven't risen to the
challenge. I don't expect that you will.
As Don Lancaster has correctly said,
"Again, overunity power is utterly trivial and totally routine.
...
Its energy gain that gets tricky.
Also ain't gonna happen."
--
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
"Don Kelly wrote:
> ----------------------------
> "The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
> news:1142931732.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_circuit#Parallel_LC
>>
>>http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm/appnote_number/428
>>
>>
>>Too bad when you use the search engine you don't type in the keywords
>>"Maxim Semiconductors"
>
> -----------------------
> And why the elementary, idealised, non-existant, tank circuit reference?
> It doesn't support your expectations of "overunity"
>
> The Maxim reference also does not support your dream.
>
>
"> ----------------------------
> "The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elge...@rock.com> wrote in message
> news:1142931732.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_circuit#Parallel_LC
>>
>>http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm/appnote_number/428
>>
>>
>>Too bad when you use the search engine you don't type in the keywords
>>"Maxim Semiconductors"
>
> -----------------------
> And why the elementary, idealised, non-existant, tank circuit reference?
> It doesn't support your expectations of "overunity"
>
> The Maxim reference also does not support your dream.
>
>
Again, overunity power is utterly trivial and totally routine.
Its energy gain that gets tricky.
Also ain't gonna happen."
>
The Flavored Coffee Guy
equal zero. 180 degrees out of phase will make power equal zero. If
you apply a high voltage at a low current to a transformer, you can see
a situation where you can't measure the voltage across the inductor.
If it were step up, it wouldn't step up the voltage. If it were a step
down, there would be a higher current, and there's a potential that the
output voltage would or could be less than the input by a factor
greater than the turns ratio.
Here's the full irony of it all. Looking at the phase relation ship,
if I calculated the intersection point of the two waveforms current
verses voltage, and could actually mulitply the peaks by a factor of
100. I still have more power going into the circuit than coming out of
it.
Moreover, transformers are inductors, and inductors are absolutely
current dependant. Self inductance is only reliant on three factors,
time, current, and inductance in henrys.
Therefore, you should look at the primary coil's self inductance, and
realize that it has everything to do with resonance. Coils, and the
motion of electrons considering induction, is dependant on the number
of magnetic lines. A high current will generate more magnetic lines,
than a high voltage at the same wattage. So, if you look at 10 volts
at 10 amperes, and then move the decimal to the right in volts, and the
left in amps, every time you do that, a transformer becomes more and
more ineffective. But, if you can the decimal point concerning volts
to the left, and the decimal point for amperes to the right, and still
have the same input of 100 watts, the transformer becomes more and more
effecient.
As often as inductors are used, or transformers for that matter, the
phase shift is always there in any application. That's the big deal
about calculating power
http://www.pha.jhu.edu/dept/lecdemo/EM-j2b.html
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_3/3.html
So, when you look at the series RL circuit, the phase shift isn't
really acting like the resistance it would seem to be if it were just
the inductor, or just the resistor, and only a percent of both
contribute to the total power loss. But, never the sum of the two as
you would see with resistors.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_5/2.html
With the AC circuit, why doesn't 5 ohms plus 3.7699 ohms add up to
8.7699 ohms?
Why does the total resistance of this circuit actually the sum of the
resistances?
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_5/2.html
Transformers and inductors are current dependant devices, and induce
voltages based upon a change in current. Then the power transformer is
only 5% effencient. No, transformers can be designed up to 98%
effecient. Somewhere, you go lost buddy.
Don Lancaster
> equal zero.
Yes it does.
Definitely, emphatically, and absolutely.
The full cycle integrated product of a sine and cosine is ZERO.
That is the beauty of sines and cosines in the first place.
Learn some trig before making a further utter and total fool of yourself.
0 to 90 degrees, both positive
90 to 180 degrees, one positive, one negative
180 to 270 degrees, one negative, one positive
270 to 360 degrees, both negative.
Total integrated sum ==== ZERO.
Every time.
Many tutorials on my website.
You smiled, you spoke, and I believed
Wow!, you have balls of brass.
Lecturing don kelly on electrical theory!
you have been often wrong, but never doubtful.
j.
Don Lancaster
Not even wrong, actually.
Hilariously so.
daestrom
> Don Kelly, you are wrong. 90 degrees out of phase does make power
> equal zero. 180 degrees out of phase will make power equal zero. If
> you apply a high voltage at a low current to a transformer, you can see
> a situation where you can't measure the voltage across the inductor.
> If it were step up, it wouldn't step up the voltage. If it were a step
> down, there would be a higher current, and there's a potential that the
> output voltage would or could be less than the input by a factor
> greater than the turns ratio.
>
> Here's the full irony of it all. Looking at the phase relation ship,
> if I calculated the intersection point of the two waveforms current
> verses voltage, and could actually mulitply the peaks by a factor of
> 100. I still have more power going into the circuit than coming out of
> it.
>
> Moreover, transformers are inductors, and inductors are absolutely
> current dependant. Self inductance is only reliant on three factors,
> time, current, and inductance in henrys.
>
'Self inductance' reliant on 'inductance'. Now there's a circular
statement.
> Therefore, you should look at the primary coil's self inductance, and
> realize that it has everything to do with resonance. Coils, and the
> motion of electrons considering induction, is dependant on the number
> of magnetic lines. A high current will generate more magnetic lines,
> than a high voltage at the same wattage. So, if you look at 10 volts
> at 10 amperes, and then move the decimal to the right in volts, and the
> left in amps, every time you do that, a transformer becomes more and
> more ineffective. But, if you can the decimal point concerning volts
> to the left, and the decimal point for amperes to the right, and still
> have the same input of 100 watts, the transformer becomes more and more
> effecient.
How are you defining 'effective' and 'efficient'?? Most folks here would
use 'efficient' as the ratio of power output versus power input. But you
seem to have your own definition.
'Effective' could be used to discuss the amount of power transfered for a
given amount of iron/weight in the transformer, but you seem to freely
exchange this with 'efficient'.
And considering you're keeping the output power the same and the input power
the same, you must not be using 'efficient' in the customary definition.
>
> As often as inductors are used, or transformers for that matter, the
> phase shift is always there in any application. That's the big deal
> about calculating power
> http://www.pha.jhu.edu/dept/lecdemo/EM-j2b.html
> http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_3/3.html
>
Except when the secondary is unloaded or only lightly loaded, the phase
shift between applied voltage and primary current in a transformer is mostly
dictated by the type of load connected to the secondary. If the secondary
load is all resistive, then the primary current for a significantly loaded
transformer will be almost in-phase with the applied voltage. It is quite
simple to show that with a significant capacitive load attached to the
secondary output, the primary current will actually *lead* the applied
voltage.
> So, when you look at the series RL circuit, the phase shift isn't
> really acting like the resistance it would seem to be if it were just
> the inductor, or just the resistor, and only a percent of both
> contribute to the total power loss. But, never the sum of the two as
> you would see with resistors.
>
> http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_5/2.html
>
> With the AC circuit, why doesn't 5 ohms plus 3.7699 ohms add up to
> 8.7699 ohms?
>
Because the two are vectors representing the resistance and inductive
reactance are not parallel. Addition of vectors is more complicated than
just summing their magnitudes. Just because the two properties are measured
in 'ohms' doesn't mean they are the same exact thing. Much like saying the
'width' of the room is measured in 'feet', and so is the 'height' of the
room measured in feet. Yet the distance from the upper left corner by the
ceiling, diaganolly down the wall to the lower right corner by the floor can
not be calculated by just adding 'width' plus 'height'.
In this case, we luck out a bit since the two vectors are orthogonal (at
right angles to each other). Rather than use the general method for summing
vectors, we can use a 'short cut' and simply apply Pythagorean theorum.
> Why does the total resistance of this circuit actually the sum of the
> resistances?
> http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_5/2.html
>
Because all resistance vectors lie along the same line. So again, rather
than using the general method for summing vectors, we can use a 'short cut'
for adding vectors that lie parallel and just sum their magnitudes.
> Transformers and inductors are current dependant devices, and induce
> voltages based upon a change in current. Then the power transformer is
> only 5% effencient. No, transformers can be designed up to 98%
> effecient. Somewhere, you go lost buddy.
>
Again, you seem to have your own definition for 'efficient'. Most large
scale transformers in the world only draw power from their supply that is
between 1.02 and 1.05 times the power being drawn from their secondary. So
the ratio of power out to power in is in the range of 95% to 98%. No point
in arguing this, it is easily confirmed by a wide range of experiments.
Just go find a nice 400 MVA, 24,000V/354000V step up transformer and measure
the power on both sides of it ;-)
For example, one 900MVA 3-phase transformer bank I have access to today is
running 354000V secondary at 1425 amps, while the primary is running 23800V
at 21660amps. When I work out it's efficiency, I get about 97.8%. The
phase shift between voltage and current on the secondary is about 13
electrical degrees, and the primary about the same (i.e. power factor is
0.97). (for others interested, that works out to 850MW with 200 MVAR)
Or, if you don't have access to such equipment, buy yourself a small 1500 VA
120V/120V isolation transformer and put your coffee pot on the secondary as
the load and measure the power in/out of that transformer. I'll bet the
power out is at least 85% of the power in.
Don't go experimenting with the little 'wall-wart' transformer for your
cell-phone charger. Such small transformers are very 'lossy' and not as
efficient (sometimes intentionally designed that way to provide
short-circuit protection to the secondary).
daestrom
P.S. Of course, this assumes you have the slightest idea how to calculate
the power flowing in an AC circuit, which quite frankly, I'm beginning to
doubt.