Today I stubled upon DrStiffler's homepage, as there was two new videos yesterday, which I can not see at home today ???
DrStiffler has put this new stuff up, have a look.
http://67.76.235.52/exoticgens.htm
It looks like a powerful generator with that large toroid.
The cone coils seems bifilar wound.
Anyone here who knows what this is, I have never seen this before.
If the good Doc is right here, we don't have much time left to succeed.
http://67.76.235.52
Eric
Just a general comment or two for those that are doing work with the SEC.
The whole shebang is based on the fact that high frequency AC power in the 10 MHz range will propagate along single wires and do other seemingly magical looking things. Many times small stray capacitance elements in the various circuits will allow the transmission of decent amounts of power due to the fairly high frequencies that are being employed. Even a very small capacitor or a stray capacitance can look like a near short-circuit at very high frequencies. That's why fluorescent light bulbs light up when you are holding them in your hand and aren't touching anything directly. The stray capacitance completes the circuit and allows power to flow into the fluorescent tube.
I take issue with the term "Spatial Energy Coherence." It implies that something special is going on when that's not the case. It's all nothing more than Electromagnetics 101. Certainly it's interesting and you can have fun with it or try to really learn what is going on, but it's not special.
Another comment is that viewing the apparent brightness of a single LED or a bank of LEDs is almost meaningless. You have no idea what the current and voltage waveforms are like and most importantly you don't know what the on-off duty cycle is like. Your eyes can't see the flicker and you simply don't know. Likewise, when you try to make a direct measurement of the power that is used to light up a bank of LEDs by an SEC, it's very difficult if not impossible to do. You would need a super high-end DSO to do it. LEDs are are non-linear devices and therefore you have to know the instantaneous voltage and current values for a full cycle of the very high frequency waveform to do this. For the average experimenter this is an insurmountable challenge.
There is a "Captret" buzz going on on the other forums and I just looked at Dr. Stiffler's response to this. I give him full credit here for trying to set the record straight. The "Captret" concept is silly and a complete waste of time. People are seeing battery voltages increase by 1/100th of a volt and getting all excited. It's the same old story; they are observing a battery that is clearly and unequivocally discharging and going down in energy but getting all excited by the slight increases in the measured battery voltage as it discharges. If only the whole culture of forum experimenters could get over this intellectual hurdle and stop focusing on battery voltages but rather focus on measuring battery energy so much wasted time would be saved which could be put to better use.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.12, 02:22:07
If only the whole culture of forum experimenters could get over this intellectual hurdle and stop focusing on battery voltages but rather focus on measuring battery energy so much wasted time would be saved which could be put to better use.
MileHigh
The problem is even more systemic. A good scientific approach is to try everything possible to disprove one's own theory with careful measurements with many differing methods before presenting it for peer review.
We see the exact opposite in most of forum culture, with a wild claim at the starting gate, and a feeding frenzy of fanatical subscribers (FFFS) and woe betide the voice of reason should it interject.
By the way, what kind of doctor is the good Dr. S? anyone a clue? Like Dr. Lindemann I presume?
The "charge" on that "captret" nearly killed me. LOL
Quote from: ION on 2010.11.12, 03:15:13
The problem is even more systemic. A good scientific approach is to try everything possible to disprove one's own theory with careful measurements with many differing methods before presenting it for peer review.
We see the exact opposite in most of forum culture, with a wild claim at the starting gate, and a feeding frenzy of fanatical subscribers (FFFS) and woe betide the voice of reason should it interject.
I agree 100%. Let's hope that the situation gradually improves over time.
A case in point is that for a while I tried to get experimenters to measure the output impedance of their batteries to gauge their state of health or their state of charge. At the same time this would eliminate the term "fluffy charge." I tried many times but have given up. In my fantasies all of the experimenters are working with battery output impedance measurements, and they get to know different sizes and types of batteries and their associated output impedances. They work together and define standard protocols for measuring the output impedances for different sizes and types of batteries. This would give them a new measurement "currency" and allow them to work with batteries in a more organized and intelligent manner. Unfortunately, I think the concept is beyond the grasp of most of the experimenters and will never reach a critical mass. It's doubly unfortunate because almost everybody works with batteries in one form or another.
MileHigh
Hi,
I totally agree.
There are some that postulate their theories and do a very good job. However more often than required, simple things like the KVA rating on an MCB, aka power supply impedance, fail them miserably.
Many an interesting read has been unfinished by 101 MAJOR mistakes.
The 'doc' has some points of interest but likes his own way of doing things. He may be a little eccentric but has a lot of followers. Stray capcitance, or RF parasitics can explain much including adding a measuring device and 'the effect stops' .....
Otherwise an easy to follow project, maybe an unexpected find will present itself and add another piece in the OU enigma.
Steve.
Another characteristic of the forum culture is many thread postings, which despite being interesting, they are also OT. Sometimes so many it can be hard to figure out the thread subject by just looking at the body text of the reply posts.
Eric
Quote from: ION on 2010.11.12, 03:15:13
We see the exact opposite in most of forum culture, with a wild claim at the starting gate, and a feeding frenzy of fanatical subscribers (FFFS) and woe betide the voice of reason should it interject.
By the way, what kind of doctor is the good Dr. S? anyone a clue? Like Dr. Lindemann I presume?
Fully agree Ion.
Fuel is added to the fire by many forum members that have not even the slightest grasp of science, are not prepared to study or research and who simply jump on the latest bandwagon quite happy to spout totally mindless garbage in support. The uneducated wannabes are a bane of these forums, as are the naive and gullible that accept every word as gospel and serve only to spread the nonsense.
Doc Stiffler has his flaws (and I'm not saying I don't have any), but I tried to point out to him the quite simple science behind his wireless electrolysis via a small signal diode and why he was not getting just hydrogen evolving as he claimed, and he threw a wobbly. Massive tantrum and some bitching ensued. He was really into my territory once he was talking of electrolysis, but would not accept that anyone else might know better than he did.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3934-high-voltage-thin-air-61.html
I'm also no fan of his Spatial Energy Coherence, for the very reasons MH has stated. It is very easy to want to protect your baby at all cost and forever after be blinded by reason or logic. I get the impression that the good Doc only sees what he wants to see. Like Aaron on EF, the Doc likes to be the one in control... and it's not open to debate. I personally find him arrogant and patronising in the extreme.
While I'm at it, I don't particularly rate Lindemann either. Apart from the fact that he seems to be in bed with Aaron in that he endorses these 'I-know-it-all. I-am-the-Greatest-Intellect-in-the-Known-Universe - Just call me God' books of Aarons, I once saw the video of him explaining Meyer's WFC... and it was pants!
Hi Farrah & all,
I also agree with ION and you and would go so far as to say that its now very difficult to see any real attempt being made by the vast majority of mainstream FE forum members to properly measure and understand the observations being made experimentally. There is indeed a woeful lack of technical competence out there leading to the blind leading the blind up dark alleys. I have been openly critical that even John Bedini fails to support his many claims with any real science and gets very agitated as soon as anyone challenges him at a technical level.
Hoppy
There will always be a lack of competence on forums while moderators of the likes of Aaron (self-proclaimed Spiritual Leader) Murakami on EF, bans people for speaking up against utter drivell and challenging unsupported claims. It is my experience that Aaron, and indeed Hartmann on the OU forum, are quite happy to let unscientific clap-trap flourish at the expense of educated and intellectual input. Education aside, sometimes the total lack of everday commonsense is in itself quite bewildering. Remember the IST character on OU, and his 6000+ mindless posts. Hartmann banned me for speaking out about this guy, but happily let that illiterate idiot post garbage to his hearts content! Why?
I think most of us here have been banned from the other forums because we don't conform. Because we fail to readily accept things without question, because we insist on explanations and rationale, because we persist in speaking up against the constant onslaught of nonsensical posts, nonsense claims and utter stupidity. Because we think for ourselves and do not fall in line and follow like the rest of the sheep, we are deemed as trolls and trouble-makers and conveniently removed.
It does rather make you wonder if the powers behind some of these forums have ulterior motives, as real science is often sadly lacking and certainly does not appear to be very high on their agendas.
Thankfully, this forum is different.
Farrah and all:
There is indeed a woeful lack of technical competence as Hoppy said. From watching Aaron closely through his Ainslie replication attempt, and from reading numerous postings by Stefan I know that neither of them is technically competent. They both fail the litmus test. I have had less exposure to Peter Lindemann, but from what I have seen I judge him to not be technically competent either.
IST assumed quite an online character, it became very annoying. I know from watching a few of his clips very carefully that he was totally clueless. That didn't stop the regulars in the Joule Thief threads from taking him seriously and treating him like a peer. A case of the blind leading the blind.
Hoppy made reference to Bedini. Bedini has never explained how an SSG really works. As I said in another posting, that would stop the gravy train.
Among the electronics experimenters, there is another phenomenon in play. Often people simply don't want to openly state their level of competence, knowledge, and experience. They seem to believe that you can run down to Radio Shack and buy some components and start experimenting just like that. They also have a strange self-invented language when it comes to electronic circuits and energy. More than half the time I can't understand it, it's all gobbly-gook. Sometimes I read conversations between experimenters and I am completely baffled. Finally, often when you politely try to help an experimenter out and explain what's going on there is no response from the experimenter and they fall silent. At least a "thank you" once in a while would be nice.
Life in Freedonia!
MileHigh
A bit off topic but as the Bedini SG energiser has been mentioned, I have taken the opportunity to post a 3-part article on how the SG works. This removes much of the myth surrounding the Bedini energiser. I take no credit for this article which was written by a friend of mine who with me has studied the SG and other Bedini devices over the last few years. Part 3 is currently unfinished.
Hoppy
Hoppy:
Thanks for the contribution. I haven't had a chance to look at the docs yet but feel free to post them in the Bedini section of the forum. As an exercise I deconstructed a lot of things Bedini myself and the threads are there. I was hoping to get into some good debates with some Bedini enthusiasts but that didn't really materialize.
MileHigh
@milehigh
QuoteThe whole shebang is based on the fact that high frequency AC power in the 10 MHz range will propagate along single wires and do other seemingly magical looking things. Many times small stray capacitance elements in the various circuits will allow the transmission of decent amounts of power due to the fairly high frequencies that are being employed. Even a very small capacitor or a stray capacitance can look like a near short-circuit at very high frequencies.
Im not sure you fully understand what is really happening, now ask yourself what property does high frequency AC possess that allows it to store energy as an electric field? It has nothing to do with the frequency of the alternating current or the alternating voltages and in fact the property is solely dictated by the rate of change or what we would call "slope" on our oscilloscopes. That is how fast the voltage rises and falls, I think it is quite comical that so many have been completely baffled by something which should be obvious ---- It is not the frequency at all it is the fact that as the frequency increases the voltage rise and fall time must decrease which is also an increase in the rate of change.
Unlike most I have proven this matter by experiment, in fact the same exact phenomena of HF AC can be reproduced with HF DC but you have to understand why it happens. You cannot just rectify HF AC to HF DC as the residual ionization between peaks dampens the rate of change, you must have the AC peaks add as one DC peak at half the frequency but which has the same rate of change or slope. You see the actual AC slope extends from the top of the (+) peak down to the bottom of the (-) peak and this represents the true rate of change per unit time. As well if you want to understand what Dr.Stiffler is really doing all you have to do is google electrostatic induction, he simply uses electrostatic induction to induce a voltage which must then diverge from its source through conduction, the term "Spatial Energy Coherence" is just to impress the girls.
QuoteThat's why fluorescent light bulbs light up when you are holding them in your hand and aren't touching anything directly. The stray capacitance completes the circuit and allows power to flow into the fluorescent tube.
I wonder how the circuit is completed when I light up a flourescent bulb 50 feet away utilizing only a single wire and pulsed DC in an ungrounded circuit? It seems very odd to me that we are told that electric and magnetic fields will always follow the shortest path of least resistance and yet the source is now 50 feet away so why would it return to complete the circuit when it is easier to dissipate completely in the load independent of the source.
While were on the subject of stray capacitance you never did answer my question----
QuotePerhaps you can explain this for me----- what happens if there is no secondary induced current thus no secondary magnetic field to oppose the primary and load it? What happens if the secondary coil acts like an open secondary on induction by the primary but does not discharge the induced open circuit voltage until after all action of the primary magnetic field has ceased?
I don't blame you for not answering it because this is the point where conventional logic and theory tends to fall apart, my area of expertise.
Regards
AC
AC:
With respect to high frequency AC:
Quotewhat property does high frequency AC possess that allows it to store energy as an electric field?
Sorry, your statement doesn't make sense. High frequency AC in and of itself does not store any energy. If you rephrase the question I might be able to answer it.
QuoteIt has nothing to do with the frequency of the alternating current or the alternating voltages and in fact the property is solely dictated by the rate of change or what we would call "slope" on our oscilloscopes. That is how fast the voltage rises and falls, I think it is quite comical that so many have been completely baffled by something which should be obvious ---- It is not the frequency at all it is the fact that as the frequency increases the voltage rise and fall time must decrease which is also an increase in the rate of change.
Yes, if you want to talk about the current through a capacitor then i = C dv/dt, where dv/dt is the slope of the voltage waveform with respect to time. So the higher the frequency where v = sin(omega*t) you indeed get higher currents at higher frequencies. However, frequencies are in fact used to calculate the impedance of a capacitor. The impedance of a capacitor is Z = 1/(j*omega*C), so as omega gets higher the impedance of a capacitor gets lower. The lower impedance will allow AC power to propagate through the capacitor into the load. At very high frequencies the impedance of a capacitor approaches zero.
So you can look at the issue in the time domain where the instantaneous current through a capacitor is proportional to the slew rate of the AC signal. If the AC voltage across the capacitor is sin(omega*t) then the current i = C * omega * cos(omega*t). If you look at the issue in the frequency domain then you have to look at the overall circuit, where the impedance of the capacitor in the circuit is Z = 1/(j*omega*C).
QuoteUnlike most I have proven this matter by experiment, in fact the same exact phenomena of HF AC can be reproduced with HF DC but you have to understand why it happens. You cannot just rectify HF AC to HF DC as the residual ionization between peaks dampens the rate of change, you must have the AC peaks add as one DC peak at half the frequency but which has the same rate of change or slope. You see the actual AC slope extends from the top of the (+) peak down to the bottom of the (-) peak and this represents the true rate of change per unit time.
"HF DC" is an oxymoron so I am not really sure what you mean by that. I have never heard the term "residual ionization between peaks" so I don't understand that either. I don't understand the AC peaks and DC peak at half the frequency either. "You see the actual AC slope extends from the top of the (+) peak down to the bottom of the (-) peak and this represents the true rate of change per unit time." - The rate of change of a sine wave is a cosine wave, so I can't relate that back to your discussion about the positive peak to the negative peak as being the true rate of change per unit time. At the relatively high frequencies encountered in the SEC, you are typically dealing with true sine waves. Therefore the slope of the sine wave is a cosine wave, because d(sin(omega*t))/dt) = omega * cos(omega*t). The fact that the angular frequency omega is multiplied by the cos(omega*t) illustrates how the higher the frequency (and associated slew rate) you go, the higher the current is that flows through the capacitor.
QuoteAs well if you want to understand what Dr.Stiffler is really doing all you have to do is google electrostatic induction, he simply uses electrostatic induction to induce a voltage which must then diverge from its source through conduction, the term "Spatial Energy Coherence" is just to impress the girls.
I am admittedly very rusty at this stuff but I can throw out some of the things that are in play. I think that there are high-frequency electrostatic and magnetic induction phenomena going on, as well as high frequency AC voltage and current flowing through the interconnect wires. At 10 MHz the wavelength in free space is 30 meters, about 100 feet. So there are no transmission line effects going on. Coils can couple magnetically and capacitive coupling takes place for the electrostatic phenomena, like fluorescent tubes lighting in your hand. 10 MHz going down a single wire will find some sort of a capacitive load to ground at the end of the wire to complete the circuit. For the single wire lighting up a bank of LEDs 20 feet away, a simplified model for the the load at the end of the wire is the LEDs in series with a physical or stray capacitance to ground. In some cases some sort of resonator setup will facilitate the transfer of energy through the single wire to make the bank of LEDs light up more brightly. This is all Electromagnetics 101.
QuoteI wonder how the circuit is completed when I light up a flourescent bulb 50 feet away utilizing only a single wire and pulsed DC in an ungrounded circuit? It seems very odd to me that we are told that electric and magnetic fields will always follow the shortest path of least resistance and yet the source is now 50 feet away so why would it return to complete the circuit when it is easier to dissipate completely in the load independent of the source.
Partly answered above. The generating side will have some sort of parasitic capacitance to ground and the terminating side will have some sort of parasitic capacitance to ground. Between the two "grounds" there is some sort of conductive/capacitive link also. The two separate grounds are not directly tied together. Even through the circuit may be tenuous, for the low energy levels typically dealt with in the experiments it all works. Also, "pulsed DC" is really an AC signal.
QuotePerhaps you can explain this for me----- what happens if there is no secondary induced current thus no secondary magnetic field to oppose the primary and load it?
I am assuming that you are taking about a transformer. When there is no secondary load on a transformer the transformer looks like a big inductor with a ferrite core on the primary side.
QuoteWhat happens if the secondary coil acts like an open secondary on induction by the primary but does not discharge the induced open circuit voltage until after all action of the primary magnetic field has ceased?
I don't blame you for not answering it because this is the point where conventional logic and theory tends to fall apart, my area of expertise.
Your question is not making sense. You can't say, "discharge the induced open circuit voltage." If the magnetic field is gone then there is no voltage on the secondary.
MileHigh
QuoteIt has nothing to do with the frequency of the alternating current or the alternating voltages and in fact the property is solely dictated by the rate of change or what we would call "slope" on our oscilloscopes. That is how fast the voltage rises and falls, I think it is quite comical that so many have been completely baffled by something which should be obvious ---- It is not the frequency at all it is the fact that as the frequency increases the voltage rise and fall time must decrease which is also an increase in the rate of change.
There may be some food for thought here. The magnitude of the
excursions will determine how much power is present. High voltage
alternations, even at a relatively low frequency, produce an extended
range of "effect" commensurate with the peak-to-peak amplitude.
QuoteYou cannot just rectify HF AC to HF DC as the residual ionization between peaks dampens the rate of change, you must have the AC peaks add as one DC peak at half the frequency but which has the same rate of change or slope.
As is done in the Half-Wave Voltage Doubler configuration.
Quote...in fact the same exact phenomena of HF AC can be reproduced with HF DC but you have to understand why it happens
.
In the old days we used to call this an "undulating current." It's
the type of signal produced in a carbon microphone telephone circuit
or in any amplifier which is DC operated.
Although, in the Time Domain Reflectometer a pulsed DC signal is used
to measure transient propagation time and hence, distance.
Yes, food for thought...
I am sorry, as I have not read the entire thread yet, but I had to make a comment on something that was stated.
Pulsed DC IS NOT AC, nor are they anything the same. No EE with any knowledge would say such a thing, unless describing something other than standard electron current, as described in the books.
For the simplest terms, DC means One way, whether pulsing or not. AC means BOTH ways. The dV/dt is a separate concept, and these two items cannot be confused, or one is not correctly analyzing the circuitry. Simple example: Pulsing DC going through a cap will only pass until the cap is charged, where AC can "Continuously" pass through. I hope I'm not confusing the issue for those not too involved, and now I'll read the entire thread so I can understand what I have missed.
My apologies for the intrusion, as this must be off-topic.
"Both ways" can be a relative concept.
Every periodic waveform has an "AC component" which is
capable of being separated from any underlying DC.
A pulsed DC signal is very rich in numerous AC harmonics.
To my way of thinking your "intrusion" is most welcome.
If any contribution to a discussion has the potential to add to
further understanding of the principal topic, then I'd say it is "on-topic."
I could never understand the insistence of some to keep a
discussion narrowly focused. People just don't "think" that
way... Our minds are amazingly amazing.
Maybe it's more about "control" than edification...
Loner:
QuotePulsed DC IS NOT AC, nor are they anything the same. No EE with any knowledge would say such a thing, unless describing something other than standard electron current, as described in the books.
Pulsed DC is definitely AC. If you are talking about a square wave type of signal, with the high and low level outputs being at a low output impedance, it can be broken down into a series of AC sine waves at different frequencies with a potential DC bias component in the signal. We are talking about standard electron current.
A pulsed DC source with a low output impedance for the high level and and an open-circuit output impedance for the "low" level is still an AC source but the nature of the waveform would depend on the nature of the load. You can assume that it would still be an AC signal.
The precise nature of the signal was not described so the low output impedance for both high and low output levels was assumed.
MileHigh
Hmm,
I have to agree with Loner here.
Strictly speaking, pulsed-DC is not an alternating current. Assuming the circuit is completely DC-coupled and with no inductive components, the current never changes direction, and therefore never "alternates". It simply "flows" in one direction , then is OFF, ad infinitum.
.99
@dumped
QuoteEvery periodic waveform has an "AC component" which is capable of being separated from any underlying DC.
Does a soliton wave have an AC component? I was under the impression that what separates the soliton wave from others was the fact that it cannot cross the zero boundary nor reverse thus has no AC component. This is the problem with making absolute statements as it only takes one exception to any law or rule to render it invalid.
Regards
AC
I too tend to agree with Loner on this.
Consider a simple series dc circuit. A battery, a switch and a lamp.
Switching the switch on and off simply interrupts the current flow and is surely effectively pulsed dc in its purest form. I see no way that this can be interpreted as AC. It is either on or off, there is no reversal of current flow, hence no AC element.
Just my two-penneth.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.12.04, 21:57:09
@dumped
Does a soliton wave have an AC component? I was under the impression that what separates the soliton wave from others was the fact that it cannot cross the zero boundary nor reverse thus has no AC component. This is the problem with making absolute statements as it only takes one exception to any law or rule to render it invalid.
Regards
AC
By the same token, it could be argued that a soliton is neither a "wave form", nor "periodic".
.99
You folks may not believe this but this argument is relatively new (relative to someone my age ;) ).
If we wish to stand on the shoulders of greater technical gurus then the answer is simple.
Alternating Current refers to current that alternates polarity (zero crossing for the newbies).
Direct Current refers to current 'directly' to the load - or- doesn't detour by changing directions on the way. This isn't very clear unless you consider the following:
If you read through some of the really old IEEE publications and others in the late 1800's there is no question. Early on many still thought of 'current' to be like fluid under pressure travelling through pipes. I remember reading about a presentation of one of the founders of the IEEE describing DC as always between zero and a positive pressure with AC alternating between positive and negative pressure.
The one thing that seems to trip us up is when someone uses Hertz as a description for DC. If it pulses zero to one side of zero it is not CPS or Hz, it is PR or PRF (Pulse Rate [Frequency]).
I think folks started to let the definitions slide about when that nasty little bugger, the switch mode power supply, became common.
Since then, if someone calls DC with an AC component AC... I just let it slide and try to remember their misunderstanding next time I speak to them.
Describing Solitons is another issue for another thread. Folks describe what they see on the scope an' that ain't all of it. That is just the transverse component of a compression wave, using more common terms. I think a better description of what is seen on a scope is actually the acceleration of a velocity wave.
There, that should start a good argument ;D
Pulsed DC is nowhere near AC ! :)
Correct Polarity never changes.
According to mister Dollard it can be divided into FOUR distinct categories:
1. Continuous Currents (DC) Time function = Zero.
2. Alternating Currents (AC) Time function,Radians/Second.
3. Impuse Currents (IC) Time function,Nepers/Second.
4. Oscillating Currents (OC) Time function,Neper-Radians/Second.
The Continuous Currents represent the Continuous time invariant,or scalar,component of the generalized electric wave.
The Alternating Currents represent the Continuous cyclic variation component of the wave.
The Impulse Currents represent the discontinuous or acyclic component of the wave.
The Oscillating Currents represent alternating Currents that grow or decay with respect to time, thus being a combination of cyclic & acyclic variation.
The Continuous Current can be resolved into a pair of superimposed Impulse Currents, one impulse growing in amplitude with respect to time, representing the production of energy, The other impulse decaying in amplitude with respect to time, representing the consumption of electric energy.
If the two rates are equal, The result wave is a Direct or Continuous Current.
Likewise, an Alternating Current can be resolved into a pair of superimposed Oscillating Currents, one oscillation growing in amplitude with respect to time,representing the production of electric energy, The other oscillation decaying in amplitude with respect to time, representing the consumption of electric energy.
If the two rates are equal & opposite, and the two amplitudes unequal,The resulting wave is an Alternating Current.
:)
"Alternating" current does not necessarily mean the current has to change direction. In the same sense "alternating" voltage does not necessarily mean that the voltage has to go above zero and below zero. In both cases the current or voltage is changing with respect to time and that means "AC" from a circuit perspective.
If you feed a pulse train that varies between zero volts and +1 volt, or zero amps and +1 amps, and this is connected to a circuit that includes capacitors and inductors, the capacitors and inductors will react to the AC components in the pulse train.
Any signal, be it a current or voltage signal, can be broken down into a DC component and an AC component(s).
So, however you want to define "pulsed DC" there are going to be AC components in the pulsed DC signal.
For Farah's example:
QuoteSwitching the switch on and off simply interrupts the current flow and is surely effectively pulsed dc in its purest form. I see no way that this can be interpreted as AC. It is either on or off, there is no reversal of current flow, hence no AC element.
I covered the issue of no reversal or current flow, it's still AC if you assume that the load itself pulls the signal towards ground when the switch is off. However, this is a strange "signal" because it is not always there. It appears and then disappears.
Microcontroller:
You should consider what I said, that any signal can be broken down into its DC and AC components. Dollard's view of signals is unnecessarily complicated.
MileHigh
From the "Electrical Engineering Dictionary" by CRC Press, 2000:
alternating current (AC) a periodic current
the average value of which over a period
is zero.
I agree with the above, and "pulsed-DC" current does not fit this definition.
.99
One other from "The Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics" 8th ed.
alternating current Abbreviation, ac.
A current that periodically reverses its direction of flow. In one cycle,
an alternation starts at zero, rises to a maximum
positive level, returns to zero, rises to a
maximum negative level, and again returns to zero.
The number of such cycles completed per second is
termed the ac frequency. Also see CURRENT.
;)
.99
Poynt:
In my view those definitions are taken from an AC mains power perspective. The distribution of AC mains power is all done with transformers and certainly those definitions hold true.
I am looking at it from a generic signal perspective, stuff that people might be experimenting with on their bench. From a generic signal perspective, as long as the signal has components that change with respect to time, then there are AC components in the signal. The term "AC" in this sense does not literally mean "alternating current" it just means that there are are signal components that change with respect to time.
The original example was this:
QuoteI wonder how the circuit is completed when I light up a flourescent bulb 50 feet away utilizing only a single wire and pulsed DC in an ungrounded circuit?
Capacitive AC signal coupling allows energy to flow into the fluorescent light bulb and light it up and the AC signal power comes from the AC components that are in the pulsed DC waveform.
MileHigh
Well what you are describing sounds more like Modulated Direct Current to me.
This in the same light as simple AM or Amplitude Modulation.
Still Alternating Current has to cross zero,reverse,cross zero, and reverse again.
Dollard's view on the generalized electric wave is one of the best i have ever read.
I would not call his work unnecessarily complicated.
Microcontroller:
QuoteWell what you are describing sounds more like Modulated Direct Current to me.
Exactly, "modulated" is an appropriate term in this case. I think the source of the confusion is that the term "AC" has been bastardized to be synonymous "changing with respect to time" or "modulated with respect to time" simply because it is easier and faster to say. So in that sense "AC" has two definitions. Note also that "AC" is a term used to describe a voltage signal where you are not really concerned about the current associated with that voltage, you are just describing a trait associated with the voltage. Nobody says "AV."
MileHigh
@Poynt99
Quotealternating current (AC) a periodic current the average value of which over a period is zero.
I would agree, it is generally understood that the term "alternate" means to change or fluctuate between one state and another. However no matter how great the rate of change or magnitude of change or fluctuations of these properties the fact remains that a Direct Current does not change state and must always proceed forward. It is also interesting to note that an inductive discharge will show a polarity reversal on an oscilloscope but the current remains in the forward direction despite the illusion of a reversal. This is why I posted what I have learned from actual experiments which have been verified with nothing as simplistic as an oscilloscope but also using hall effect and charge detector arrays to measure the fields present. This is also why I consider an oscilloscope in the same light as a multimeter which are crude near sighted instruments at best.
My experiments are related to those performed by Dr.Stiffler in that I have used chokes and diodes as well as other components to ensure that the energy moves in one direction only and that is away from the source with no alternations or reversals as that would be impossible. To be honest I am not sure why my post was taken out of context and the topic of discussion changed, the fact remains that I can send a unidirectional DC impulse down a single wire which produces a change in the fields present not unlike what Dr.Stiffler is doing. The forces have little or nothing to do with the popular conception of "current" as these are electrostatic forces and the change is solely electrical in nature and occurs at right angles to the conductor. In electrostatics this is pre-school but it still confuses the hell out of people who are completely preoccupied with the popular concept of "Current". I understand this puts me at odds with many others beliefs but I have found there are many benefits to avoiding current flow at all costs as the losses are simply unacceptable.
Regards
AC
QuoteAlternating" current does not necessarily mean the current has to change direction. In the same sense "alternating" voltage does not necessarily mean that the voltage has to go above zero and below zero. In both cases the current or voltage is changing with respect to time and that means "AC" from a circuit perspective.
I think this is coming down to semantics really, and what we as individuals understand by a specific term.
As far as I'm concerned AC must go from a +ve to a -ve phase and hence cross the zero. A DC voltage pulsing from say, 2v - 5v, or from 0v - 10v, is simply a fluctuating DC. When a mains DC power supply rectifies the incoming AC supply to give us the required DC, we often talk about the AC ripple as a quality of the output, but in reality it's not an AC ripple, but a DC ripple.
My definition of AC is that the waveform must pass zero from +ve to -ve, or vice-versa. Anything else is just a fluctuating DC.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.12.05, 02:28:36
, the fact remains that I can send a unidirectional DC impulse down a single wire which produces a change in the fields present not unlike what Dr.Stiffler is doing.
Regards
AC
It only looks like you are doing that, in reality you are working with two flows that cross each other somewhere in the circuit.
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.05, 12:19:46
It only looks like you are doing that, in reality you are working with two flows that cross each other somewhere in the circuit.
/quote]
two flows of what?
two flows of electrical energy ?
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.05, 15:28:09
two flows of electrical energy ?
and electrical energy is...?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.05, 17:42:17
and electrical energy is...?
electrostatic potential difference between points but that was not the point.
the point was that his unidirectional DC pulse is made up of two combined flows of electrical energy, one increasing in amplitude representing the production of energy and the other, decreasing in amplitude representing the consumption of energy.
but i already said that yesterday.
Microcontroller:
Sorry, but I'll keep you on the "hot seat." I am saying that in jest, the real point of the exercise is to understand what you are saying.
Quoteelectrostatic potential difference between points but that was not the point.
the point was that his unidirectional DC pulse is made up of two combined flows of electrical energy, one increasing in amplitude representing the production of energy and the other, decreasing in amplitude representing the consumption of energy.
Electrostatic potential difference between what points? Why "electrostatic?" Energy production by whom? Energy consumption by whom? Why does increasing amplitude correspond with production and decreasing amplitude correspond with consumption?
MileHigh
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.05, 17:53:51
electrostatic potential difference between points but that was not the point.
the point was that his unidirectional DC pulse is made up of two combined flows of electrical energy, one increasing in amplitude representing the production of energy and the other, decreasing in amplitude representing the consumption of energy.
but i already said that yesterday.
That is called a divergence (even when it converges) and is opposite ends if the same thing. This constitutes an electric field. Francis Nipher made some very nice photographic plates of his experiments showing the inflow/outflow. I thought you were referring to separate flows of "something" in the circuit.
Could it be that the terms "Direct Current" and
"Alternating Current" are most applicable to the
"Source" of the current? Going back to the origins.
"Signals" can be very complex. They may consist
of virtually any proportion of DC combined with AC
as represented by the waveshape and its absolute
peak to peak amplitude and polarity.
Any non-sinusoidal "AC" waveform can be shown
to consist of a complex mix of sinusoidal waves
with varying frequency and phase relationships.
Pulsed DC when viewed on the Spectrum Analyzer
can be incredibly complex in its "AC" makeup.
Signal Amplifiers are nearly always DC operated
but are fully capable of amplifying an AC input.
Pulsed RF as in Radar consists of a spectrum of
waves (sidebands) which assume an "envelope"
shape similar to pulsed DC when de-modulated.
Fortunately for us DC can be "converted" to AC
and AC can be converted to DC.
Propagating waves in a single circuit can produce
energy movement in two directions - forward (away
from the source) and reverse (reflected back towards
the source).
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.05, 18:19:22
Microcontroller:
Sorry, but I'll keep you on the "hot seat." I am saying that in jest, the real point of the exercise is to understand what you are saying.
Electrostatic potential difference between what points?
is it so hard to understand that energy flows as a result from the balancing action of the universe.
Whenever you have a potential difference between two points in space the universe kicks in and pushes the energy through the created pathway (circuit) untill the charge between the two points is equal again.
The empty battery is a great eample since when it's "empty" the charges are equal there is no flow and so the battery is actually full when it's empty.
Why "electrostatic?"
What else would you call it?
Energy production by whom?
The source.
Energy consumption by whom?
The load.
Why does increasing amplitude correspond with production and decreasing amplitude correspond with consumption?
It does not have to, if either one of them is higher or lower you get an increase or decreasy in amplitude.
You said yesterday that Dollard's work was unnecessarily complicated, but it makes me understand the things you are asking about now...
MileHigh
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.05, 19:43:47
I thought you were referring to separate flows of "something" in the circuit.
i am..
the part that provides the potentail difference in the circuit and the part that oh well.
Microcontroller:
Quoteis it so hard to understand that energy flows as a result from the balancing action of the universe.
Whenever you have a potential difference between two points in space the universe kicks in and pushes the energy through the created pathway (circuit) untill the charge between the two points is equal again.
I see your answers were intentionally generic and not about a specific example. I thought you were still talking about the single-wire setup that lights the fluorescent light. Hence I couldn't figure out what you were talking about.
MileHigh
I was still talking about the single wire transmission as it too involves both flows of energy.
Like you said:
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.12, 02:22:07
Many times small stray capacitance elements in the various circuits will allow the transmission of decent amounts of power due to the fairly high frequencies that are being employed.
It still involves sub-atomic particles as any flow of electric energy does.
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.05, 23:20:33
I was still talking about the single wire transmission as it too involves both flows of energy.
It still involves sub-atomic particles as any flow of electric energy does.
I am not sure what you mean by the sub-atomic particles but I assume that you don't mean electrons.
For the single-wire transmission example your comments about increasing amplitude corresponding to production and decreasing amplitude corresponding with consumption doesn't really make sense. On the rising and falling slopes of the waveform power can be transferred into the fluorescent light load.
The generic way to describe this example is that the power source has some sort of output waveform and associated output impedance. The power flows into a "load" which has an associated input impedance. The load in this case is a length of wire that terminates with some sort of coupling to a fluorescent light. So the power source's waveform flows through the output impedance "black box" and then into the into the load impedance "black box." The output of the system is the lit fluorescent light.
You can assume that the source waveform and the output impedance associated with it are fixed, and the load impedance can be variable. So how much power flows and the waveform of that power flow is all determined by the source waveform and the two impedances. If you physically move the fluorescent light it might change in brightness because you change the load impedance when you do that.
The power that lights up the fluorescent light after all of that impedance talk is still good old fashioned voltage times current. You can call the whole setup a "filter," the input to the filter is the driving waveform and the output of the filter is the lit fluorescent light.
In essence, any type of Stiffler-type circuit you play with is a filter. That's why LEDs change brightness when you play with tunings in the circuit, you are changing the characteristics of the filter.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.06, 00:00:35
I am not sure what you mean by the sub-atomic particles but I assume that you don't mean electrons.
For the single-wire transmission example your comments about increasing amplitude corresponding to production and decreasing amplitude corresponding with consumption doesn't really make sense.
MileHigh
Doesn't really make sense
to you.
On one end you put a potential difference ,and the other end of the circuit will respond to that.
As a result you can watch the circuit from two points in space namely the source, and you can watch the circuit from the fluorescent light load.
That gives you two flows to work with.
Sub-atomic particles are several magnitudes smaller than the electron.
They make up the entire universe and allow waves to propogate through the seemingly "empty" vacuum.
If it was empty waves could not propogate since they need a medium to disturb.
Microcontroller:
Quoting myself:
QuoteOn the rising and falling slopes of the waveform power can be transferred into the fluorescent light load.
When power is being transferred into the fluorescent light bulb load on both the rising and falling slopes of the waveform "production" and "consumption" are both happening at the same time. Would you agree with that?
MileHigh
If they are happening at the same time the result is a stable DC flow.
You give and take an equal amount.
It starts to alternate when either one increases or decreases.
so how can i answer your question?
You talk about the rising and falling slopes of the waveform comparing it to a stable DC flow....which has none.
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.06, 00:53:12
If they are happening at the same time the result is a stable DC flow.
You give and take an equal amount.
It starts to alternate when either one increases or decreases.
so how can i answer your question?
You talk about the rising and falling slopes of the waveform comparing it to a stable DC flow....which has none.
This is an exact account of the electric fields that produce current in a circuit and has been known for over 100 years.
(Sir Joseph Thomson suggested this and also that the aether itself is the vehicle of mechanical momentum. Wheatstone shoed it in his revolving mirror experiment. This all, by the way, proves that a capacitor is charged by currents from each side of the circuit and implies that a capacitive generator could be developed by applying a moving electric field between the opposite ends of the circuit.)
In this thread a while back we were discussing how you can light up a bank of LEDs that are connected to a Stiffler exciter circuit by a single wire and how that appears to be "miraculous" and "unexplainable" and "outside of conventional understanding." I stated that was not the case at all. I said that it was all based on putting a high-frequency AC signal in the wire (in our example it was a pulsed-DC waveform) and using capacitive coupling effects to light the bank of LEDs at the far end of the "single wire."
A good guy on overunity.com is "Exnihiloest" and he knows his stuff. I am just raising this issue again to state that if you read him you should take what he says seriously, he speaks the truth.
Here is his posting #106 on the "GBluer(Slayer) Exiter" thread:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8977.msg266388#new (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8977.msg266388#new)
QuoteWhat is discussed here is not new. It is related to "Avramenko's single wire transmission", known for years.
Whatever conductor, like the terminal of a neon or any piece of metal, possesses its own capacity, i.e it constitutes a capacitor, the other "plate" being the surrounding (ground, earth...)
Even though this capacity is very weak (<< 1pF), it loops the circuit, and the voltage can be enough to light a neon, or to charge a capacitor using a double diode configuration. Current is consumed. I have also experimented this way and measured such a current which obeys conventional Kirchoff's laws.
You can check it by connecting a piece of metal to the free neon terminal. It will change the intensity of light by increasing the parasitic capacity, thus the current.
This setup is typically a trap for newbies in electronics
because they model it by neglecting what makes it to function!
"Light, and no current because the circuit is open! I get free energy
!"
False!
In real life, the components are not punctual and they are not isolated from one another by light years distances. Even simple small pieces of wire are coupled by capacities or by induction and significant current can pass from one to another if the voltage
and/or frequency is high enough.
As you can see, he discusses the same sort of capacitive coupling effects in his example. The same argument applies to touching a neon to the charging battery in a Bedini setup and seeing it light up. It's not a manifestation of "radiant energy," you are just looking at something normal, mundane, and explainable.
Anyway, to repeat, Exnihiloest is a great guy. Somebody should invite him to join here if he is not aware of this site.
MileHigh
You make an excellent point.
"Exnihiloest" provides an excellent explanation.
Unfortunately, very few seem to understand electromagnetic
radiation and radiation currents; the differences between
near field and far field conditions.
You both are absolutely correct. There is no magic involved.
@Dumped
Quote"Exnihiloest" provides an excellent explanation.
I did not think it was all that excellent and I rebutted his post over at overunity.com. I know some have mentioned a "Litmus Test" and in my opinion Exnihiloest has failed it by using statements such as "a neon or any piece of metal, possesses its own capacity"-- which suggest he does not know what capacitance is and "Current is consumed" -- Hmm current is consumed? that is a new one. As well he contradicts his own statements such as "Even though this capacity is very weak (<< 1pF), it loops the circuit" and "any piece of metal, possesses its own capacity, i.e it constitutes a capacitor, the other "plate" being the surrounding (ground, earth...)". Now if this supposed capacity which Exnihiloest uses out of context loops the circuit then how can the earth act as the "other plate"?. As well how can capacity be weak? If capacitance is a measure of a conductors ability to store energy as an electric field then capacitance cannot be weak, how can a measure of something be weak?. The difference in charge density could be low leading to a weak electric field but capacity nor capacitance cannot be weak, that is absurd. It sounds like he just read this out of a textbook and posted a half-assed conventional explanation to make his point, rather poorly in my opinion.
I should note in that I am not unlike Exnihiloest in that I routinely make out of context half-assed attempts at explaining things and this is why I know how poor his post was.
Regards
AC
Whenever you put a high potential on electrodes that are in contact with a noble gas it tends to ionize.
The air being a good insulator makes the voltage required to see any effect very high, but when you touch the neon bulb you actually lower the resistance path to earth and the electrons will start to jump energy bands emitting photons.
This is what makes you see the neon glow.
It's quite simple.
Offcource capacity plays a role we all know capacitors tend to block DC .. however the HF in these types of setups is passed and it creates the pathway needed for the sub-atomic (particle) energy flow.
AC:
I am going to try to give some colour commentary for Exnihiloest's comments.
QuoteWhatever conductor, like the terminal of a neon or any piece of metal, possesses its own capacity, i.e it constitutes a capacitor, the other "plate" being the surrounding (ground, earth...)
I will cite a related example here. He is saying that a piece of metal can have a large surface area. This conductive surface area will exhibit a stray capacitance with it's surroundings. So if you connect one lead of a neon to the metal plate and the other lead is connected to a high-frequency AC source, the metal plate's stray capacitance completes the circuit and acts as an AC earth ground, a.k.a.; "it loops the circuit." (Current flows in "loops")
Make the metal plate larger, the stray capacitance gets larger, and hence the neon gets brighter. You see Lidmotor use a block of aluminum for his "ground." He really means it's his AC ground due to its inherent stray capacitance to earth ground. The stray capacitance to earth ground is large enough to act as a decent AC ground for some of his circuits.
QuoteCurrent is consumed.
For starters, he is French and he is doing a literal translation from "consommation de courant." That actually would normally mean "power consumption." What he is really saying in this particular case is that the AC current flowing to and from the earth ground goes through the stray capacitance. This is real and measurable and indicates that real AC power is flowing through the circuit. That's in contrast to what could be a mistaken impression that no current is flowing because there is no directly obvious means for the current to flow.
QuoteEven though this capacity is very weak (<< 1pF), it loops the circuit
When he says "weak" it is synonymous with "small." It's "weak" because it's ability to pass AC current is very limited because of the very small size of the capacitance.
Granted his posting was not as clear as it could be. Language is a bit of an issue, but a relatively minor one. In my case, I understood exactly what he said and he is dead on. I have been reading him for a while and he really knows his stuff.
MileHigh
Isn't this like the most simple thing in the world?
And if you know this your considered to be the expert?
I guess you ain't seen nothing yet..
:)
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.09, 04:57:51
I guess you ain't seen nothing yet..
That's fer damn sure!
This is the "closing of the loop" from Exnihiloest:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8977.msg266455#msg266455 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8977.msg266455#msg266455)