Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[poynt99]

There is something happening on this circuit that points to an anomaly.  This because it is absolutely NOT POSSIBLE in terms of classical paradigms - to find more energy returned than delivered.  And that returned energy would show itself as a NEGATIVE VALUE in power analysis.  Otherwise one would absolutely NEVER find a negative mean average or a negative power value on any circuit EVER.  And it is at precisely this point that we have PROOF of an anomaly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

With the simulations, I showed a negative CSR voltage and negative power returned to the battery as a result. I thought that was one of your goals, and that it would be of interest to you.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Good posts Rosemary!

Unfortunately simulations are only as good as their programing... which follows the dictum, Garbage in equals Garbage Out

Ron

LOL.  Hi Ron.  Indeed.  But I think that if our simulators can show this negative value - then that's pretty cool.  It means that we may not have strayed too far from our inductive laws in the first instance.  And that's really the nub of our argument.  Faraday's IN - Kirchhoff's OUT.  Not a bad conclusion when you think how all that emphasis on stored energy ended us in this energy crisis. 

Take care
Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

With the simulations, I showed a negative CSR voltage and negative power returned to the battery as a result. I thought that was one of your goals, and that it would be of interest to you.

.99

OK Poynty Point.  I'll pretend to forget that comment that you pencilled in which stated 'a negative battery power is normal and indicates a net loss of energy over time'.  I'll also pretend that I never read your forum posts which are sorely in need of moderation.  And while I'm at it - I'll also just pretend that I think you're trying to advance some knowledge here.  How's that?

Rosie-posie

[poynt99]

As I said Rose, I thought that an indication of current flow back to the battery in a simulation would be of interested to you. This IS what I have shown. Are you interested?

If so, where do we go from here?

.99

[poynt99]

THANK YOU FOR THAT DOWNLOAD.  NOW POYNTY POINT.  IF YOUR SIMULATION ANALYSIS IS SHOWING A NEGATIVE WATTAGE WHICH IS A CORRECT REFLECTION OF THE FACT - THEN EXPLAIN IT.  Because there is no way under the sun that this is possible according to the HOST OF EXPERTS that I have spoken to.

We can certainly explore this if you are willing.

At this point you should think this through and come back with an explanation that is not based on the absurdities of saying that this 'represents the net LOSS of the energy from the battery'.  There are enough of us readers here to KNOW that you are NOW TALKING NONSENSE.

Power coming from (as opposed to going to) a source such as a battery, will always compute to a negative number.

In the attached diagram, there is a simple example with one source (Vbat) and some resistive loads, R1, R2, and CSR1.

The electric field across any source is always in opposition to the direction of current through that source.

I have marked the direction of current in RED and the polarity of the potential difference across each component in BLUE. Note that the battery Vbat has a potential difference opposite to that of all three loads? Since power in a component is the voltage across it times the current through it, it's now obvious why a source will have a negative sign associated with its power. At the loads, the potential difference across them and the current through them are in the same direction, and hence the power associated with any load is positive.

Under normal circumstances, any power source loses or gives up energy, and any load gains or receives energy, so this is an easy way to remember what polarity the power should be in each.

SPICE does not do anything unusual by applying a negative polarity to any source power that it plots on its scope, because you can see that this is precisely how the math works out.

.99