Reactive power - Reactive Generator research from GotoLuc - discussion thread

[Farmhand]

Thanks LancaIV, I think I found out how to work the site now thanks very much. 

http://www.google.com/patents/WO2011101512A1?cl=es

Yes I see, there seems to be a mishmash of terms used in the patent. It seems the object is to completely eliminate the reactive power of the original load by not allowing the reactive portion to return to the grid supply, but rather the circuit would appear to convert the previously reactive power instead immediately into active power in a load such as another transformer which gives apparent power that can be applied to a load. The patent gives several uses for the previously reactive power which is now apparent power applied to a secondary load as a generator. This use of the previously reactive power is in itself subject to creating more reactive power within that portion of the circuit I think, being that the secondary load utilizing the previously reactive power is also a generator, so any power returned to it from it's load would be reactive power local to that portion of the circuit. Even though all the reactive power is eliminated from the primary load and no reactive power is returned to the grid.

Now that the power factor is 1.0 from the grid all the power is paid for.

This is to the benefit of the power company. They no longer have to deal with reactive power.

In a normal situation, when we run a load of 1000 watts apparent power and only 800 watts is real and dissipated by the load then 200 Watts is returned to the grid supply, therefore we only get charged for the 800 Watts and the power dissipated in the heating of the house wires, the power company pays for the reactive heating losses in the lines outside our home.

We do not pay for reactive power, we only pay for real power. Unless there is a penalty for residential users with bad Power Factor. Businesses with high inductive loads may pay for reactive power "penalties" which reflect the losses and higher kVA required.

Seems like a good and valid patent. I see there is a drawing with a feedback, which is of course possible as well which would lower the input power by the value of the previously reactive power being reapplied as "real power".

One of the uses listed in the patent for utilizing the power previously known as "reactive" is to drive a wireless power transmitter. Another is to split H2O into H and O2.

The setups powering secondary loads/generators-wireless transmitters ect. do not contribute to the primary intended load eg. lets say it is a motor of 1000 Watts with a PF of 0.8. Only the setup in Figure three (if it does feed back the converted reactive power) benefits the user by a decreased input power at power factor 1.0. The other secondary loads would need to be wanted for it to be viable, the power factor changes so the load to use the converted reactive power would need to be variable.

Reducing or eliminating the reactive power returned to the grid is admirable and beneficial, but the reactive portion of the apparent power originates from the supply if it is used it is paid for.

Cheers

P.S. I'm gonna say that Ponty is correct about the probes, it makes sense to me. If I had a question about the use of a scope he would be one of the few I would ask for help.


On a side note I still cannot access the O.U.R. site, it just will not load up, I'm thinking I must be blocked by my provider here on a false bad site hit block or something. It's super frustrating.

..

[Farmhand]

Here's an Easy way to get a Power Factor of 1.0 and an input of a few watts of real power with an active power of many tens of Watts.

Take a FWBR or use an SCR arrangement to rectify the grid AC to DC in a capacitor then draw low power from that to drive a Resonant Air Cored Transformer "Tesla Coil" with a primary tank circuit, the activity will be a lot even though the input is small, the power factor will be 1.0 from the grid. But how much energy is utilized and how much is radiated. If the activity is tapped it will lower the activity or increase the input.

I think basically the patent draws off the reactive power component (making the power factor 1.0) which is then applied as apparent power to a load/generator in a "child or secondary" circuit (such as the Tesla coil) which increases the active power (activity) and some of that activity can be made to do work, but not more work than the input to the secondary circuit can sustain.

...

[poynt99]

Thanks Farmhand.

I don't see any reason why you can't load up OUR. It does show you last active 2013-07-11 though so it's been a while since you logged in. Did you get any email warnings about not logging in for 6 months? Your account is presently still active, but if left for 180 days, the site automatically deletes your account.

[Farmhand]

I'm no expert but in the case of the Rectified input and Tesla coil, if the input is 10 Watts and the activity is 100 Watts with no output then 10 Watts is losses that's 10 Joules per second. If we load the setup we may be able to reduce the losses and get nearly 10 Watts output while maintaining almost 100 Watts activity.

The output should be calculated just like the input, if the input is PF 1.0 and is 10 Watts and the arrangement runs for 10 seconds than that is 100 joules input.

If 10 Watts is taken out of the system in real dissipated power for 10 seconds than that is 100 joules output, the activity within the circuit is irrelevant to the input/output.

I think the best way to measure input output must be to heat a known resistor a known amount from a given temp calibrated with a DC power supply identical resistors should be used on the input and the load circuit at the same time and the heat monitored in real time so that temp over time is graphed. Max temp of the resistor would not tell the entire story. I don't think.

It's all about energy in and energy out, the power is a way to determine that, but not the entire story.

Cheers

  Edit: Corrected typo.

[forest]

Farmhand


Tesla knew how to convert activity into the real active power. He said that even , but not in modern language.
Basically he did what this patent told also : he used inductive circuit of low resistance and high inductance and his oscillator circuit with low inductance primary. Read his interview again.


His words seems cryptic but they are not.....




"The method was this: I had a 550-volt current with which I charged the condensers.  These condensers I discharged through a primary in the form of an arc, sometimes I also introduced in this arc a mechanical break of several thousand per second.  And I obtained a perfectly continuous train of waves as has been described in my patents.  The reason why I show the condenser here [Fig. 83] is that that is synonymous with undamped waves.  If I had shown the whole apparatus as arranged there, then I might still have damped waves;"[/size]

[/size]
"[/size] Then I had a sensibly damped wave because at that time I still was laboring under the same difficulties as some do this day—I had not learned how to produce a circuit which would give me, with very few fundamental impulses, [/size][/size].  That came with the perfection of the devices.  When I came to my experiments in Colorado, I could take my apparatus like that and get a continuous or undamped wave, almost without exception, between individual discharges."[/size]