Grounding question

[citfta]

Hi sm0ky2,


You are very correct about the ground being our reference.  And in the real world that reference is very imortant.


I once worked on a new automated storage and retrieval system.  It had 4 aisles and each aisle had a robot that pulled or stored the parts.  And each aisle had an operator and a PC work station where they put in the part number of the part which told the PC what  to tell the robot so  it would pull the right part.

Shortly after the system was starting to be used they discovered a problem.  The PC's kept going crazy.  They would lock up or restart themselves or even put bad info into the program.  My boss asked me to check it out to see what was going on.  To make a long story shorter I found that when the contractor put in the system they had installed a step down transformer to drop the 440 vac in the building to 120 vac to supply power for the PC's.  The 120 vac was floating in reference to ground because they had not grounded either side of the secondary.  Sometimes the secondary would be as high as 600 volts in reference to ground.


After I installed a ground connection to the secondary all the mysterious problems with the PC's went away.


Carroll

[onepower]

Nix85

"earth is a vast reservoir of negative electricity" (he surely meant cold electricity)
nikola tesla, early 1900s patent on radiant energy

Try googling "atmospheric electricity" which is a very interesting subject and directly related to FE.

In effect, cosmic radiation induces a positive charge in our atmosphere and opposite charges attract therefore the negatively charged electrons always tend to be attracted to the surface of the Earth. So in fact it is a vast reservoir of negative charges as free electrons.

There are many inventors in the past who devised ways to harness the difference in potential between the Earth and atmosphere. Tesla has many lectures on this subject and he talks about using elevated and insulated antennas and a ground connection.

Regards

[nix85]

Nix85
Try googling "atmospheric electricity"...

you are assuming i already didn't. i did and very deeply so. one of favorites is Roy J. Meyers' Absorber

but there are many. potential energy of the ionosphere is hundreds of gwh and that is just ordinary static electrcity.

in fact, most energy hides in usually non-observed spectrum, tesla and others learned how to harness.

this neutral, life energy passes through everything. it also has positive and negative, positive coming from the sun that manifests

light, heat and gravity

negative reflecting from earth to space at 1/3 higher frequency that manifests

darkness (and it's own spectrum of darkness colors), cold and levity...

earth besides being a vast reservoir of electrons, it is charged with negative electrcity (ordinary electrons being positive, hot electricity), of it's nature we don't know too much, but it is what floyd sweet tapped into when he observed that when he drew full power from his device (~1kw) the wires literally froze and it's weight became negative.

[onepower]

It's also helpful to understand what a difference in potential is.

In a battery we could measure 12 volts with a voltmeter however this is only a measure of the difference between two potentials. When I use my electrometer I measure a potential of negative 6 at the negative terminal and a potential of positive 6 at the positive terminal. The difference between -6 and +6 is 12, which is the difference between the two potentials.

The potentials are always equal and opposite discovered by Faraday I believe. Therefore the Earth cannot be at zero potential as shown in your diagram if all potentials are equal and opposite. So when we measure a potential difference of 100 volts around 1 meter above the Earth this means the Earth must be at a potential of -50 and the atmosphere at +50.

So a more accurate diagram would show a rising + potential as we move away from the Earth and also a rising - potential as we move towards the Earth, equal and opposite. Between any two different potentials we have a zero plane or point as negative cannot become positive without passing through or becoming zero. I once built an open battery to test this theory and in fact the electrolyte directly between the positive and negative plates was at zero potential. The potential became more negative as I approached the negative plate and more positive as I approached the positive plate as predicted.

It is amazing how much one can learn from the simplest things many of us take for granted. Many have overlooked and not questioned the fundamental nature of how things work all around us. There is a lot to learn.

Regards

[onepower]

In the past nobody ever responded when I showed the difference between a difference in potential which is Voltage and the individual potentials which constitute the difference. More so once I introduced the concept of the zero point or plane which divides the two equal and opposite potentials. It may have made them think too much.

Let's see how this goes... the two capacitor paradox and moving zero planes, or a ground as many call it.

I have one charged capacitor with +/- potentials and a difference of 10v. Now I connect an uncharged capacitor, they balance and both capacitors then have 5v on each but somehow I have lost 1/2 the energy... where did it go?.

Most say it was dissipated as heat or radiation but that's a weak explanation at best because it does not define the exact cause of how the energy was dissipated. When I did the experiment I found something quite amazing. We started with two +/- potentials at a difference of 10v with one zero plane dividing them however we ended with four +/- potentials and two zero planes over twice the surface area. So when we divided the energy into two distinct elements having twice the surface area the energy density must be 1/2 because the energy is dependent on the amount of electrical pressure per unit of area is it not?.

It's a chicken and egg dilemma, did the energy dissipate because it was flowing into the second capacitor or did the energy dissipate because it was flowing into the second capacitor which doubled the surface area decreasing the energy density by 1/2?. If the surface area did not increase the energy could not flow into the second capacitor but when it did it lowered the energy density so which mechanism caused the dissipation of energy?... exactly.

Contrary to popular belief the two higher potentials in the first capacitor sensing a path to a lower potential or greater surface area is the first cause not a current flow. As well the doubling of the surface area lowering the energy density by 1/2 is how the supposedly missing energy dissipated not the current flow. The current flow is an effect of the cause not the impetus which drives it.

Now the kicker, I have justified how a doubling of the surface area must reduce the energy density by 1/2 in the the two capacitor paradox which constitutes the cause of the dissipation of energy so if the conductor connecting the two capacitors dissipated energy as well ... then where did it come from exactly?.

You see we have to look at the bigger picture with respect to these problems because it is seldom cut and dry. The solution is actually quite easy so I thought I would throw this out as a brain teaser.

Regards