So AC my last few post have made you wonder and think ..how this may work .. Good .. That is The hypothesis stage !isn't it? You wonder why anyone would want to stop a project before it begins ? Flamiming flaming flaming .. yapping like corgi's around the ankles
How about because it might have credibility ? Despite a very determined effort to prevent any sort of development along the scientific path that's been pointed out to me I intend .. to try and follow it
It isn't enjoyable with your heels being snapped at but they are perhaps being snapped at for the reason suggested which is in its way encouraging.
So to the hypotheses , That means I have to transmit the idea I have to you who are reading .
I need you to understand my idea and help me to test it against any theories or knowledge you have in the area.
In short I ask you to please help test the validity of the theory . I am not writing in the capacity of a teacher or a guru Ive been on forum's long enough to know there are very clever people here many of who have gone out of their way to help me when asked. I need that help now to tear down what I'm going to write here examine it, and see if its feasible. Nodding donkeys and silence won't help me. The way an experiment should be carried out has been highlighted, will you help me try and do it the right way? I'm happy to try.. In order to transmit my hypotheses I propose to divide this machine and explain how and why each piece is tuned . I want to get across the general idea's first so you can grasp what is being done and why in the hope that you will freely help me test and refine. That being the case in this first outline when I talk of resonance for simplicity I will assume 'perfect resonance' although the books say that's impossible ( I'm not so sure) but still it is the idea I want to test not complex computation . (yet) There are (as I see it) four exceptional things happening here beyond the scope of accepted science and maths to get them all right by coincidence .. well its exceptional odds as you'll see! so there are four corners of this jigsaw each is worthy of a thread itself and like any jigsaw each corner needs the other three to present the whole picture. Even so the operation of each corner can be tested . I propose we start with the Battery.Object
… To prove that a lead acid battery may be constantly energised
using little or no 'real power'
I here use the term 'real power' in its accepted electrical position as watts if you are even slightly dubious about that please refresh yourself at this water hole http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_11/2.html
because without a comprehension nothing else will fit in this corner of the jig saw. Apparatus
… your brain and an open mind prepared to try and thread the eye of a needle .
.. Just the battery then ! In theory A lead acid acid battery does not require energy to charge , if you purchase a battery the criteria is amp/ hours nothing else , ( If you need to, go and look at one)The idea it requires energy is fixated in your mind to such an extent its become ridiculous to question it ! Like Galileo Galileo 500 years ago please move the battery(in your mind) to the centre of the field of play. The battery is then the demodulator the surrounding apparatus only supplies copious magnetic current, if What I suggest here is right then you will have the keys to 'all' the cars in the car park . our ambition then would be to provide lots of amps to the battery but no real energy transfer The battery then effectively charges for free . You recall All Canadian was kind enough to describe that simple battery charger and resonance ? It was not the Resonance I had in mind.. he described the swing or the pendulum ( excuse .. I see some things as a picture) and sure its a resonance type, Its very pedestrian regular and always lossy, electrically its called parallel resonance however there is another resonance and its at play here , not the swing 'the whiplash' .. series resonance .. a very different animal,
Consider the simple battery charging circuit you commented on earlier AC I Introduced it for a good reason you could .. if you wished view that simply as a circuit .. being the battery and the bridge rectifier fed by A C and a series capacitor .. and why not ? That's what it is pretty much
since Power = VI cos Φ if cos Φ were to equal 0 no power would be available at the battery . (in this case the battery and the bridge rectifier)
This is the condition better known as resonance neither type of resonance consumes energy
. there are two resonant points as explained one where the voltage lags the current by 90 deg and one where voltage leads the current by 90deg . One produces maximum impedance across the battery and so minimum current flow parallel resonance .. no use to us ! We want amps
The other resonance .. The whiplash, produces minimum impedance and so maximum current flow with no voltage content .. Wow this is what we want to accomplish
as we only require Current x Time to charge the battery and this is doing it with no energy in theory we are in clover ! Because there is no energy transfer there can't possibly be any heat generated
Hence the Iced battery I was lucky enough to see and which muDped has commented on.
Do the bits of the outline start to fit together boys and girls ? Please mull it over
There are obviously lots of rough edges and a further transition / modulation to consider and the battery itself has a constantly changing dielectric but as standard dogma and teaching goes this is the very edge of the Cliff . I would like you to think about the possibility of energising a Lead acid battery whilst holding a series resonant state. I intend to support this with possible test circuits and data which indicate it is so, meanwhile I would like your initial view on this corner if only to make a change from the constant yapping of corgi's who's one and only purpose is to disrupt , here is a picture of a machine with a huge COP >1 to be enjoyed. http://www.interactivearchitecture.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Watermill_2.jpg
why when there is no machine to measure on this thread yet Idiot measurists keep marking in red COP>1 I can't imagine , (well I can but its a bit Dark.)
kind regards Duncan