Reactive power - Reactive Generator research from GotoLuc - discussion thread

[gotoluc]

Why are you so determined to prove that gotoluc is wrong? and what is your problem if he is wrong? I know he is right but you try your best to show us all that we should abort researching Reactive Power. this much determination makes us all flow the idea even more, while you are talking to the walls.
Luc, better ignore this guy and use your energy towards improving this technology.

Let poynt99 present his finding. We can then decide for ourselves.

Thanks

Luc

[poynt99]

Where is this Ralis guy's post?

[poynt99]

Regarding your moto/gen setup, have you done any load-testing with it at all to determine at what load does the motor rpm begin to decrease an appreciable amount?

[TinselKoala]

I'm assuming you are writing to me!

Please post your findings as I've always encouraged people to test the circuit and do so.

About the probe. You are the only one who ever mentioned it needs to be done. So if you're sure you're right I hope you will take the time to explain it in an audio visual way of how it should be done as I have asked you to do but have not done yet. Even Stefan is unaware of your Scope measuring technique.

Let us see and learn something if we can

Luc

I'm not sure that's right. I believe the issue of channel polarity inversion in power measurements has come up several times before, notably in the discussions of the Ainslie affair and also when looking at LTseung's reports of waaaay OU Joule Thiefs. Those may not be exactly the same situations as present, but still the general issue has been discussed before.


As far as "splitting the voltage from the current" or however it was put.... this indicates, to me, an incorrect mental model of what "electricity" is. Can you separate the flow of water from its pressure? I don't think so. The same is true of electrical current. Voltage is "charge pressure", the tendency of packed together unit charges to "want" to spread apart. Current is the rate at which unit charges pass your measurement point. Using this mental model, which has strong empirical support (look around you for numerous examples), it's easy to see that it is voltage which "drives" current and there really isn't any way to "separate" them and send voltage to one part of an apparatus and current to another. Both "parts" must consist of voltage driving current. Certainly one can have stored voltage, as on a capacitor, just as one can have water pressure without flow. However, for any current (flow) to exist there must be a difference in voltage (pressure), with the lower voltage level receiving unit charges from the higher voltage level until the voltage (pressure) is equal at both ends of the conduction pathway, at which point current (flow) has gone to nil.
We are fooled, these days, with our easy high-impedance DMMs and scopes, to believe that we can measure voltage without a corresponding current flow. But this is an illusion: our DMMs do require a tiny current flow in order to read a voltage, if only to fill the gate of a FET input stage. And of course they read current the same way we do: by looking at the voltage _drop_ across a resistive element. Current and voltage together come into play for both types of measurements.


One thing that I've noticed with pulse motors (may not be directly applicable here) is that people are surprised that the peak current draw does not go up when the motor shaft is loaded or even stalled by excessive shaft loading. They don't realize that this is because the pulse motor is _already_ drawing the maximum peak current it can draw during the normal operation!

[gotoluc]

I'm not sure that's right. I believe the issue of channel polarity inversion in power measurements has come up several times before, notably in the discussions of the Ainslie affair and also when looking at LTseung's reports of waaaay OU Joule Thiefs. Those may not be exactly the same situations as present, but still the general issue has been discussed before.

Answers for the record:

I'm sure it has come up in other topics but does not mean I know of it since I would of been part of that topic. The Ainslie topic I was part of at the begining but dropped out in the first few months after replicating and no results. You guys when on for years.
The Ltseung I didn't even follow.
If Stefan who is the moderator of this whole site doesn't know about it, then why would I?

As far as "splitting the voltage from the current" or however it was put.... this indicates, to me, an incorrect mental model of what "electricity" is. Can you separate the flow of water from its pressure? I don't think so. The same is true of electrical current. Voltage is "charge pressure", the tendency of packed together unit charges to "want" to spread apart. Current is the rate at which unit charges pass your measurement point. Using this mental model, which has strong empirical support (look around you for numerous examples), it's easy to see that it is voltage which "drives" current and there really isn't any way to "separate" them and send voltage to one part of an apparatus and current to another. Both "parts" must consist of voltage driving current. Certainly one can have stored voltage, as on a capacitor, just as one can have water pressure without flow. However, for any current (flow) to exist there must be a difference in voltage (pressure), with the lower voltage level receiving unit charges from the higher voltage level until the voltage (pressure) is equal at both ends of the conduction pathway, at which point current (flow) has gone to nil.
We are fooled, these days, with our easy high-impedance DMMs and scopes, to believe that we can measure voltage without a corresponding current flow. But this is an illusion: our DMMs do require a tiny current flow in order to read a voltage, if only to fill the gate of a FET input stage. And of course they read current the same way we do: by looking at the voltage _drop_ across a resistive element. Current and voltage together come into play for both types of measurements.

Your interpretation of me writing that I'm "splitting the voltage from the current" is illusionary. Please show me the post I wrote it this way. I'll be more than happy to correct it, as this is not a correct statement.

One thing that I've noticed with pulse motors (may not be directly applicable here) is that people are surprised that the peak current draw does not go up when the motor shaft is loaded or even stalled by excessive shaft loading. They don't realize that this is because the pulse motor is _already_ drawing the maximum peak current it can draw during the normal operation!

I've been aware of this for many years. Please show me the post where I'm surprised of this condition.


To me the surprise is you writing the above... don't you think I'm taking enough hits from your buddy?... do you feel the need to jump in the ring and hit everything you can?

Even if it ends up there's nothing useful with what I've shared... who do you think has got more chances to loose respect from other researchers?

Please do not justify

Luc