Reactive Generator Research for everyone to share

[hartiberlin]

Going by the scope shot above, the scope is telling us that the positive portion of the MATH trace is 78W, and the negative portion is 82W. In this case the difference is 4W, which would be the total average power being dissipated by the transformer primary, the bulbs, and the CSR resistor.

So to summarize, 82W is going into the circuit, and 78W is returning, yielding a net 4W (or thereby) dissipated in the circuit components.

poynt99,
you mixed it up !

The upper red math trace above the zero line is the consumption from the grid  , so 78 Watts is consumed and 82 Watts is returned to the Grid, so the circuit seems to produce still 4 Watts of overunity power from the viewpoint of the grid and pumps these 4 Watts  into the grid.

Therewhile the bulbs still produce around 10 to 25 Watts of real active ohmic heating light power and the transformer heats up from hysteresis losses , so the real heating  iron losses !

But still the power company charges you for using around 80 Watts via the mechanical grid power meter measuring the total abolsute current
value and not the complex mathematical value !
They measure, as if the same values of current and voltage would be in phase...

[poynt99]

Let's wait and see if Luc answers my question about inverting one of the scope channels before you jump to conclusions that I mixed it up.

[gotoluc]

poynt99,
you mixed it up !

The upper red math trace above the zero line is the consumption from the grid  , so 78 Watts is consumed and 82 Watts is returned to the Grid, so the circuit seems to produce still 4 Watts of overunity power from the viewpoint of the grid and pumps these 4 Watts  into the grid.

Therewhile the bulbs still produce around 10 to 25 Watts of real active ohmic heating light power and the transformer heats up from hysteresis losses , so the real heating  iron losses !

But still the power company charges you for using around 80 Watts via the mechanical grid power meter measuring the total abolsute current
value and not the complex mathematical value !
They measure, as if the same values of current and voltage would be in phase...

Stefan,

I also agree with you, the upper part of the math is what is used and the lower part is what is returned.
The scope has the ability to set a probe for use as current or voltage. Multiply the current by 10 as CSR is 0.1 Ohm.

I don't agree with you on power factor!
A power factor of Zero cannot be charged and mostly by those old mechanical meters. I have one and the wheel stops turning even before I get to a 90 degrees phase shift.  Even smart meters cannot charge you for a power factor of zero. Anything above they can charge and the mechanical meters start turning when above a PF of 0.13 since they are set for an average PF of 0.87
Smart meters can measure PF form 1 to .01
A PF of 0.5 is the same charge as a PF of 1. A PF of 0.75 is more costly then a PF of 1, so this is where you want to make PF corrections.
A PF of 0.25 will be half the charge of PF of 0.5 and a PF of 0.00 is free of charge as it is considered wattless power and electrical engineers have been educated that you cannot get real power out of anything operating at a power factor of zero. Just ask Farmhand, he even posted that some pages back.

Here is what the expert Farmhand has posted on page 7 of this topic

It is best to try tune for a power factor of 1 not 0.0 a power factor of 0.0 means zero net power is supplied to the load and all reactive power is returned to the supply, none left for the load, so somewhere there is a mistake.

Cheers

From what I now know and have proven to myself and shared with you all is: the only mistake is to believe what they have been teaching in Universities around the world.

The very reason I built a generator turned by an electric motor is to test if a circuit operating on a PF of Zero will have an effect on the Generator prime mover (mini Grid equivalent).
My generator load test is the only one available on the internet which proves you can have a power factor of Zero, output over 20 Watts of Real Power and have Zero effect reflected back to the prime mover. Just that in itself is amazing since engineers like Farmhand an so on say it's impossible to do.

TO EVERYONE
Please note, I feel I have given much and all you need has been written, so I don't care if you don't believe this has value or not. I will stop wasting my time on forums and use it to develop the effect.

All the best in your research

Luc

[gotoluc]

Let's wait and see if Luc answers my question about inverting one of the scope channels before you jump to conclusions that I mixed it up.

Hi poynt,

no channel inverting was done

Luc

[gmeast]

Hi Luc.

This is what I see:

Going by the scope shot above, the scope is telling us that the positive portion of the MATH trace is 78W, and the negative portion is 82W. In this case the difference is 4W, which would be the total average power being dissipated by the transformer primary, the bulbs, and the CSR resistor.

So to summarize, 82W is going into the circuit, and 78W is returning, yielding a net 4W (or thereby) dissipated in the circuit components.

Question: Did you invert either of the channel traces on the scope?

Hi Luc,


This is very interesting. Of course, here goes poynt99 (aka pointy-a_ _) with his irrelevant input. He always ONLY refers to scope shots because he's too narcissistic  to realize that there is OU present in the parts of the circuits that he refuses to examine, or can't examine because they haven't developed instruments (yet) that can measure OU, or he can't put a scope on it.  He's a staunch opponent of ALL over unity systems. 


So, poynt99, what you see is what you want to see ... and it is your wholly unqualified opinion ... that's all. Sorry Luc, but it's the poynt99's and TK's that hold back OU progress. They like to say that it is THEY that protect investors from getting scammed ... how noble of you two!