Statistics
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
| Pages: 1 ... 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 [1040] ??Go Down Something to think about: Eugene Butikov personal page PHYSICS OF OSCILLATIONS Now convert the mechanical pendulum (running on parametric resonance) to an electric one (running also on parametric resonance). What could happen? Either this Kapanadze / Stepanov / Marks stuff runs on parametric resonance or it is fake altogether; there is nothing between (IMHO). Kapanadze said, Melnichenko should develop his idea. So do we. Have some ideas in mind but can't connect the dots. Maybe my IQ is to low, or maybe the stupid 13 on my calendar distracts me too much ...
Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energyNow convert the mechanical pendulum (running on parametric resonance) to an electric one (running also on parametric resonance).The attached screenshot of mechanical resonance simulation would be "parametric" only if the swinging masses or the force of the spring changed periodically. Do they vary in such manner? Analogically, in electric LC resonance, the inductance or capacitance would have to be varied periodically for the resonance to qualify as "parametric". But why limit yourself only to two options: "parametric resonance" or scam ? Can someone please translate the text in this image?Hi, Could you post where I could find that book or pulication? ? Regards, Pix Hi,It was an image from a Russian forum. They didn't post where the image came from. It just looked similar to other schematics I've seen. DonL Everyone thinks that everything is difficult. But Smith did it on a simple principle detector receiver. Although he is not the first There are many other alternative explanations other than them.Namely? The alternative explanation must contain coils, capacitors and transistors/thyristors, because this is what can be seen in all these setups (more or less hidden). Illustrations below, simple in theory: At zero crossing of the pendulum (sine wave) the frequency of the circuit is doubled (mass moves inwards, capacitors in series), at the extreme positions of the pendulum (sine wave) the frequency of the circuit is restored to normal (mass moves outwards, capacitors in parallel). The switching of the capacitors can be done almost at no cost for free, contrary to the movement of the masses against the centrifugal force of the pendulum. In theory (and de facto) the magnetic field in the coil is generated by two capacitors connected in parallel (high capacity, low frequency), whereas the counter current of the coil generates an electric field in two capacitors connected in series (low capacity, high frequency). Nevertheless the capacity of the capacitors in terms of energy storage stays the same (e.g. 2?F/10V versus 0.5?F/20V, each stores 100? Joules). Does this frequency commuting of the (electric) pendulum generate additional (free) energy? No idea yet, but according to the equations in the previously mentioned parametric resonance patent RU-2386207 it should. The main issue here is the time factor. The magnetic field in the coil is build up slowly by the voltage of the parallel connected capacitors, the electric field in the serial connected capacitors is build up quickly by the counter current of the coil. Lower frequency means lower impedance (apparent resistance) and lower resistance means higher current. So the energy transfer from C to L runs with higher current at lower voltage, whereas the the energy transfer from L to C runs with lower current at higher voltage. This consideration leaves us with two possibilities: Either the excitation effect (accumulating of energy in an oscillating device) due to parametric resonance occurs not only in a mechanical pendulum but in an electric LC circuit as well -or- the physics of a mechanical pendulum cannot be applied to an electric circuit. If the first case is true I don't know where this additional electric energy is coming from, but it has to come from somewhere, that's for sure. But the main problem here still is how to synchronize (keep in resonance) the switches (three for C switching or two for L switching) with the natural resonance frequency of the circuit. And maybe that's the deeper meaning of Kapanadze's ?keep resonance? statement. Also Stepanov talks about a transformer in state of resonance and also Marks talks about a 6000Hz oscillation in his TPU. So I have a hard time to imagine that this all has nothing to do with parametric resonance. BTW, also of some interest in this context: Thyristor Theory and Design Considerations And now compare my illustration ?Parametric L Resonance? with the diagram on page 23 of SCR Power Theory Training Manual and then compare the two pairs of SCR's with the two transistors on TK's heat sinks and then envision that these parts could be easily triacs in TO-66 packages (which equals four SCR's) and then replace the fuse in the diagram by a capacitor (like that one on TK's workbench next to the tapped transformer) and then envision someone making a mistake while connecting the tap on a transformer so instead of correcting the power factor the whole thing starts to resonate. Seems we are close but still can't reach the final goal. If someone could follow my trains of thought so far please tell me (it's time to get this thing up and running).
Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energyI agree that all these devices include oscillator (some are synchronized with HV transformer), amplifier, advanced tesla coil, toroid(for more amperage if the core is pre-saturated), help-transformer for self-loop, and capacitors (for transforming one kind of energy into others). My simple idea is on my diagram here (plus excel sheet resonance calculations):
Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energyNamely?For example Beta Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation would have those features. The switching of the capacitors can be done almost at no cost for free,In absence of resistance, such capacitor switching creates large voltage discontinuities resulting in the emission of EM radiation (a loss). Lower frequency means lower impedance (apparent resistance) and lower resistance means higher current.In general this statement is not correct when the inductance is not defined or not constant. So the energy transfer from C to L runs with higher current at lower voltage, whereas the the energy transfer from L to C runs with lower current at higher voltage.Yes, but the integral of their products stays the same. This consideration leaves us with two possibilities: Either the excitation effect (accumulating of energy in an oscillating device) due to parametric resonance occurs not only in a mechanical pendulum but in an electric LC circuit as well -or- the physics of a mechanical pendulum cannot be applied to an electric circuit.The waveforms of the ideal rotary-oscillation pendulum are exactly the same as in a LC circuit. The same is not true about the physical pendulum where a point mass is suspended from an ideal pivot in a gravitational field, because the full solution of angle vs. time in such pendulum is not sinusoidal - it involves elliptic sine (especially for large angles). See here. If the first case is true I don't know where this additional electric energy is coming fromNeither do I. But the main problem here still is how to synchronize (keep in resonance) the switches (three for C switching or two for L switching) with the natural resonance frequency of the circuit.That's just basic electronics and LCR transient analysis. No mystery here. A peak-detector and a PLL will suffice for this purpose. It might appear difficult to those who have never held a soldering iron or cannot bias a transistor and have no idea how an integrator or comparator or op-amp works. For example Beta Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation would have those features.And this gives free energy but parametric resonance does not? In absence of resistance, such capacitor switching creates large voltage discontinuities resulting in the emission of EM radiation (a loss).And what happens in presence of resistance? In general this statement is not correct when the inductance is not defined or not constant.But what if the inductance is defined and constant? Yes, but the integral of their products stays the same.Is this just theory or proven in practice? The waveforms of the ideal rotary-oscillation pendulum are exactly the same as in a LC circuit.But parametric excitation works with both kinds of pendulums, so this slight difference does not really matter. Neither do I.Hence some experiments are badly needed. That's just basic electronics and LCR transient analysis. No mystery here. A peak-detector and a PLL will suffice for this purpose.And that means Kapanadze did it this way (with his sledgehammer)?  And this gives free energy but parametric resonance does not?In theory the magnitude of the beta decay cannot be easily changed, but there are few examples when it happens in practice. In theory changing the capacitance or inductance does not result in gain of energy (only change of voltage and current). So both of these methods do not give free energy according to current theory. Experimentally, the achievement of OU by parametric resonance is less probable than by the BASER. And what happens in presence of resistance?The resistance dissipates energy as heat. But what if the inductance is defined and constant?Then impedance is proportional to the frequency. Is this just theory or proven in practice?Both, but the experimental evidence that I have seen was not rigorous enough to convince me either way. But parametric excitation works with both kinds of pendulums, so this slight difference does not really matter.Yes, the difference between the two types of pendulums is small for small angles, but for the sake of comparison to the LC circuits it is better to compare them to rotary pendulums.? It's just cleaner this way. If you want to discuss the relationship between the mechanical pendulum and the LC circuit please think which magnitudes are equivalent in both systems. Let me get you started: mass in the pendullum is equivalent to inductance in LC circuit... please find equivalents for voltage, tension, capacitance, current. Hence some experiments are badly needed.The is a body of evidence on the parametric LC circuits already. Any new experiment would require the simultaneous measurement of voltage and current in them by an good oscilloscope and switching capacitors/inductors by MOSFETs (because they are the fastest transistors and have much lower on-resistance than thyristors and others).? There is also another way to alter the capacitance and inductance besides switching fixed value elements - namely the insertion and removal of a ferromagnetic core in inductors or dielectric core in capacitors and changing plates' spacing or size. See DNMEC. Not many people on this forum are capable of making such measurements as evidenced by the notorious nonsensical multiplication of average volts and amps to calculate average power. And that means Kapanadze did it this way (with his sledgehammer)?I am not sure Kapanadze has accomplished anything special because those 3 points have not been resolved.
Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energyThen impedance is proportional to the frequency.Interesting! So let's play around with this idea: There is a magic transformer. The iron core of this transformer can change the frequency on its way from the primary to the secondary coil. Input is 50Hz and output is 500Hz (or vice versa). What would happen? Yes, the difference between the two types of pendulums is small for small angles, but for the sake of comparison to the LC circuits it is better to compare them to rotary pendulums.? It's just cleaner this way.Will save this for later. Maybe for the clean drawing of a working OU generator. mass in the pendullum is equivalent to inductance in LC circuit... please find equivalents for voltage, tension, capacitance, current.Could be Kapanadze (and Stepanov and Marks) succeeded with there OU devices just because they had no idea about such things. As a matter of fact since the textbooks deny the existence of free energy, there is no use in trying to build a free energy device according to the textbooks. switching capacitors/inductors by MOSFETs (because they are the fastest transistors and have much lower on-resistance than thyristors and others).Why fast transistors when the frequency is just a few hundred Hertz and why low on-resistance when energy is generated in abundance? I am not sure Kapanadze has accomplished anything special because those 3 points have not been resolved.To the best of my knowledge the TK investigation team has resolved these 3 points (but unfortunately not documented it sufficiently on video). In theory changing the capacitance or inductance does not result in gain of energy (only change of voltage and current).Then either the current theory is wrong or the equations in this patent are wrong, because it states clearly otherwise. By simply switching the inductance of an LC circuit the voltage across the capacitor quadruples just after one complete cycle (see diagram below). And as a side note: The 4 strange connected diodes seen in the TK video next to the transformer are not just by chance the voltage limiter diodes VD1 to VD4? Furthermore I'm still puzzled why the right-hand coil of the transformer looks as if someone might have tampered with it. What was wrong with that coil so TK had to remove and to reattach the insulation foil troublesome? The inductance perhaps? And to add one more ?maybe?: Maybe some readers know already the solution but they left quietly this forum ... Actually there is nothing about resistance in Newton's 1st law. This law only describes motion of mass in the absence of any force. So let's play around with this idea: There is a magic transformer. The iron core of this transformer can change the frequency on its way from the primary to the secondary coil. Input is 50Hz and output is 500Hz (or vice versa). What would happen?That's not a fully defined question, thus it is hard for me to answer it. If you ask about the power dissipated in a resistive load connected to the secondary of this transformer, then my answer would be that it would not change between 50Hz and 500Hz, but I am not sure if this is what you were asking. Could be Kapanadze (and Stepanov and Marks) succeeded with there OU devices just because they had no idea about such things.Ignorance can be bliss in some cases. Theories can be erroneous or misapplied. Also, it is a great service to science if experimental proof is found that invalidates some "law". As a matter of fact since the textbooks deny the existence of free energy, there is no use in trying to build a free energy device according to the textbooks.Yes. Also, current textbooks deny the creation of energy from nothing but they do not deny the conversion of energy (e.g. nuclear to electric). Why fast transistors when the frequency is just a few hundred HertzBecause the less time the switches spend between the "on" and "off" state, the less energy is wasted in that transition and less heat is generated. and why low on-resistance when energy is generated in abundance?If the energy is generated in abundance indeed then the loss of efficiency does not matter, but the heat still can be a problem, as it can lead to the destruction of the silicon switch. Also, thyristors are incapable of interrupting current or conducting current in both directions. MOSFETs are not limited that way. Next, Thyristors are less rugged than MOSFETs and are harder to bias (use), their gate is easier to damage and they are prone to 3rd quadrant turn-on during fast transients. Finaly MOSFET's and IGBTs are generally cheaper due to the economy of scale (more popular). The only thing that thyristors have that MOSFETs or IGBTs do not is the latch-up effect that can be a blessing or a curse depending on application. To the best of my knowledge the TK investigation team has resolved these 3 points (but unfortunately not documented it sufficiently on video).Unfortunately those two eventualities are synonymous to us observers. Then either the current theory is wrong or the equations in this patent are wrong, because it states clearly otherwise. By simply switching the inductance of an LC circuit the voltage across the capacitor quadruples just after one complete cycle (see diagram below).Yes, both cannot be true. The increase of the voltage in a capacitor does not impress me at all because voltage is not energy (neither is current nor frequency). However the increase of voltage across a constant capacitance over an integer number of cycles, impresses me very much because E=0.5*C*V2 If I saw something like the attached LC circuit's I&V waveforms on my scope (starting and ending with zero current, yet starting with some voltage and ending up with 4x higher voltage across the same capacitance) while the LC circuit was isolated from an external power supply during this whole measurement period, than this would be an undeniable evidence of 1600% OU for me and I would go and make some children immediately. And as a side note: The 4 strange connected diodes seen in the TK video next to the transformer are not just by chance the voltage limiter diodes VD1 to VD4?I don't keep track of the construction details of TK's devices thus I cannot even speculate about those diodes. I am still puzzled why people are preoccupied with the unverified TK's devices and the working Yoke device is not given any attention despite much more concrete information being available about it (e.g. scopeshots and better power measurements)
Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energyPages: 1 ... 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 [1040] ??Go Up ?
Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark sitePlease SHARE this topic at: |
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FreeEnergyOverUnitycom/~3/Dq-Z1TdEC0I/
Endeavor shaun white carolina panthers amanda bynes Revolution TV Show bankofamerica revolution
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.