Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Reactive power - Reactive Generator research from GotoLuc - discussion thread  (Read 362021 times)

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Luc,

When I made reference to a "brushed AC gen using EVR", I was referring to the brush type AC heads typical of small AC generator setups that use regulation of DC to the rotor for field voltage regulation (as opposed to brushless cap regulated units), not your new PM alternator.

PW

Okay, I understand. Yes mine is brushless.

Luc

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
I have an idea : maybe the best way to measure input power would be just connecting DC motor as a prime mover of generator ? DC current can be very acurately monitored.

Yes I agree that would be a good way but that is not what is in question here as I did a video demo that show there is no change to the power to the Induction motor when the circuit is on load.
What is in question is, could the power my circuit is pulling out of the gen be coming from the rotor exciter field.

Luc

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
When I prove not only that a probe should be inverted when making power measurements the way we all do, AND that at no time is there a net power returning to the grid when I post my upcoming videos, are you going to simply dismiss it based on your claim that no "apparent" load on the prime mover "proves" otherwise?

Do you already have your mind made up that no matter how convincing I am in demonstrating that the capacitor circuit is nothing more than "conventional", you will still insist that because there is no "apparent" increase in power to the prime mover, I am still wrong?

That certainly is the impression I am getting.

At any rate, I am still going to make the videos. Folks need to know the facts and the truth.

Ralis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
When I prove not only that a probe should be inverted when making power measurements the way we all do, AND that at no time is there a net power returning to the grid when I post my upcoming videos, are you going to simply dismiss it based on your claim that no "apparent" load on the prime mover "proves" otherwise?

Do you already have your mind made up that no matter how convincing I am in demonstrating that the capacitor circuit is nothing more than "conventional", you will still insist that because there is no "apparent" increase in power to the prime mover, I am still wrong?

That certainly is the impression I am getting.

At any rate, I am still going to make the videos. Folks need to know the facts and the truth.
Why are you so determined to prove that gotoluc is wrong? and what is your problem if he is wrong? I know he is right but you try your best to show us all that we should abort researching Reactive Power. this much determination makes us all flow the idea even more, while you are talking to the walls.
Luc, better ignore this guy and use your energy towards improving this technology.

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
I'm assuming you are writing to me!

Please post your findings as I've always encouraged people to test the circuit and do so.

About the probe. You are the only one who ever mentioned it needs to be done. So if you're sure you're right I hope you will take the time to explain it in an audio visual way of how it should be done as I have asked you to do but have not done yet. Even Stefan is unaware of your Scope measuring technique.

Let us see and learn something if we can

Luc


gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Why are you so determined to prove that gotoluc is wrong? and what is your problem if he is wrong? I know he is right but you try your best to show us all that we should abort researching Reactive Power. this much determination makes us all flow the idea even more, while you are talking to the walls.
Luc, better ignore this guy and use your energy towards improving this technology.

Let poynt99 present his finding. We can then decide for ourselves.

Thanks

Luc

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Where is this Ralis guy's post?

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Regarding your moto/gen setup, have you done any load-testing with it at all to determine at what load does the motor rpm begin to decrease an appreciable amount?

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
I'm assuming you are writing to me!

Please post your findings as I've always encouraged people to test the circuit and do so.

About the probe. You are the only one who ever mentioned it needs to be done. So if you're sure you're right I hope you will take the time to explain it in an audio visual way of how it should be done as I have asked you to do but have not done yet. Even Stefan is unaware of your Scope measuring technique.

Let us see and learn something if we can

Luc

I'm not sure that's right. I believe the issue of channel polarity inversion in power measurements has come up several times before, notably in the discussions of the Ainslie affair and also when looking at LTseung's reports of waaaay OU Joule Thiefs. Those may not be exactly the same situations as present, but still the general issue has been discussed before.


As far as "splitting the voltage from the current" or however it was put.... this indicates, to me, an incorrect mental model of what "electricity" is. Can you separate the flow of water from its pressure? I don't think so. The same is true of electrical current. Voltage is "charge pressure", the tendency of packed together unit charges to "want" to spread apart. Current is the rate at which unit charges pass your measurement point. Using this mental model, which has strong empirical support (look around you for numerous examples), it's easy to see that it is voltage which "drives" current and there really isn't any way to "separate" them and send voltage to one part of an apparatus and current to another. Both "parts" must consist of voltage driving current. Certainly one can have stored voltage, as on a capacitor, just as one can have water pressure without flow. However, for any current (flow) to exist there must be a difference in voltage (pressure), with the lower voltage level receiving unit charges from the higher voltage level until the voltage (pressure) is equal at both ends of the conduction pathway, at which point current (flow) has gone to nil.
We are fooled, these days, with our easy high-impedance DMMs and scopes, to believe that we can measure voltage without a corresponding current flow. But this is an illusion: our DMMs do require a tiny current flow in order to read a voltage, if only to fill the gate of a FET input stage. And of course they read current the same way we do: by looking at the voltage _drop_ across a resistive element. Current and voltage together come into play for both types of measurements.


One thing that I've noticed with pulse motors (may not be directly applicable here) is that people are surprised that the peak current draw does not go up when the motor shaft is loaded or even stalled by excessive shaft loading. They don't realize that this is because the pulse motor is _already_ drawing the maximum peak current it can draw during the normal operation!

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
I'm not sure that's right. I believe the issue of channel polarity inversion in power measurements has come up several times before, notably in the discussions of the Ainslie affair and also when looking at LTseung's reports of waaaay OU Joule Thiefs. Those may not be exactly the same situations as present, but still the general issue has been discussed before.

Answers for the record:

I'm sure it has come up in other topics but does not mean I know of it since I would of been part of that topic. The Ainslie topic I was part of at the begining but dropped out in the first few months after replicating and no results. You guys when on for years.
The Ltseung I didn't even follow.
If Stefan who is the moderator of this whole site doesn't know about it, then why would I?

As far as "splitting the voltage from the current" or however it was put.... this indicates, to me, an incorrect mental model of what "electricity" is. Can you separate the flow of water from its pressure? I don't think so. The same is true of electrical current. Voltage is "charge pressure", the tendency of packed together unit charges to "want" to spread apart. Current is the rate at which unit charges pass your measurement point. Using this mental model, which has strong empirical support (look around you for numerous examples), it's easy to see that it is voltage which "drives" current and there really isn't any way to "separate" them and send voltage to one part of an apparatus and current to another. Both "parts" must consist of voltage driving current. Certainly one can have stored voltage, as on a capacitor, just as one can have water pressure without flow. However, for any current (flow) to exist there must be a difference in voltage (pressure), with the lower voltage level receiving unit charges from the higher voltage level until the voltage (pressure) is equal at both ends of the conduction pathway, at which point current (flow) has gone to nil.
We are fooled, these days, with our easy high-impedance DMMs and scopes, to believe that we can measure voltage without a corresponding current flow. But this is an illusion: our DMMs do require a tiny current flow in order to read a voltage, if only to fill the gate of a FET input stage. And of course they read current the same way we do: by looking at the voltage _drop_ across a resistive element. Current and voltage together come into play for both types of measurements.

Your interpretation of me writing that I'm "splitting the voltage from the current" is illusionary. Please show me the post I wrote it this way. I'll be more than happy to correct it, as this is not a correct statement.

One thing that I've noticed with pulse motors (may not be directly applicable here) is that people are surprised that the peak current draw does not go up when the motor shaft is loaded or even stalled by excessive shaft loading. They don't realize that this is because the pulse motor is _already_ drawing the maximum peak current it can draw during the normal operation!

I've been aware of this for many years. Please show me the post where I'm surprised of this condition.


To me the surprise is you writing the above... don't you think I'm taking enough hits from your buddy?... do you feel the need to jump in the ring and hit everything you can?

Even if it ends up there's nothing useful with what I've shared... who do you think has got more chances to loose respect from other researchers?

Please do not justify

Luc

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
I have a question about something that dosnt make sense to me. In Luc's circuit below,why is the voltage being measured on the front side of the cap(across the supply),and the current on the back side of the cap?Should not the voltage and current be measured on the same side of the cap?

Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Tinman I think that is due to the neutral being grounded and scope damage. If the scope is grounded then the two scope grounds need to go to the grounded neutral or buku current might flow through one. I think. Don't take my answer though, I'm no expert on scopes.

When I measured the two currents on my pulse motor I did not realize the scope even had a function to invert a signal so I just showed them one oriented correctly and one inverted and said so in explanation, it worked out for me because it showed the currents difference visually, which is all I wanted. But the pulse motor circuit was isolated and I chose the input rail to place the two probes grounds, the two probes grounds need to be together and if used with the same supply as the scope then they should be on the neutral/ground. An isolated scope like a nano can be used anyhow like a DMM I think if one is careful.

I am guessing it should make no difference, the current should be equal in the entire loop, if not the safety switch should trip or something.

..

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Tinman I think that is due to the neutral being grounded and scope damage. If the scope is grounded then the two scope grounds need to go to the grounded neutral or buku current might flow through one. I think. Don't take my answer though, I'm no expert on scopes.

When I measured the two currents on my pulse motor I did not realize the scope even had a function to invert a signal so I just showed them one oriented correctly and one inverted and said so in explanation, it worked out for me because it showed the currents difference visually, which is all I wanted. But the pulse motor circuit was isolated and I chose the input rail to place the two probes grounds, the two probes grounds need to be together and if used with the same supply as the scope then they should be on the neutral/ground. An isolated scope like a nano can be used anyhow like a DMM I think if one is careful.

I am guessing it should make no difference, the current should be equal in the entire loop, if not the safety switch should trip or something.

..
Yes,well understand the common ground thing with scope's,but in order to measure the power being consumed(disipated) by the MOT and resistor,i believe it should be setup like in the pic below. I know that an ideal cap dosnt disipate power,but no cap that i know of is ideal. as soon as they raise in temp,they are disipating power.There must be some loss through the cap via heat.

rensseak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
Answers for the record:

Your interpretation of me writing that I'm "splitting the voltage from the current" is illusionary. Please show me the post I wrote it this way. I'll be more than happy to correct it, as this is not a correct statement.


Luc be carefull

you may have read that I've been saying this circuit is not creating energy. What I think is going on in this circuit is by separating the TWO components of electricity (voltage & current) you don't destroy the electricity (aka don't kill the dipole) by short circuit like typical everyday circuit we use.
When the electricity components are separated they can go through a circuit, do work and come back out with next to no losses if there is minimal resistance in the circuit.
Luc

ADDED BY GOTOLUC

I agree that using the word Separating is Not a good choice of word on a technical point of view but I'm sure most who have been following the topic knew what I was saying. So below is the edit to replace separating with time delay and 90 degrees out of phase.

you may have read that I've been saying this circuit is not creating energy. What I think is going on in this circuit is by causing a time delay between the TWO electricity components (voltage & current) you don't destroy the electricity (aka don't kill the dipole) by short circuit like typical everyday circuit we use.
When the electricity components are 90 degrees out of phase they can go through a circuit, do work and come back out with next to no losses if there is minimal resistance in the circuit.
Luc
« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 06:12:24 PM by gotoluc »

forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
Yes,well understand the common ground thing with scope's,but in order to measure the power being consumed(disipated) by the MOT and resistor,i believe it should be setup like in the pic below. I know that an ideal cap dosnt disipate power,but no cap that i know of is ideal. as soon as they raise in temp,they are disipating power.There must be some loss through the cap via heat.
I had the same feeling and asked the same question but was unable to recognize why I asked , so thank you  ::)