STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM

[LarryC]

Now, from the discussions I had these days with experts all boiled down to the following far-fetched objection (which in some way was implied in @IceStorm's posts, although he probably didn't even realize it because he was emphasizing on some obviously confused proposition). One of my friends came up with the idea that Ohmic resistance may be frequency dependent. He couldn't cite references to back up that supposition but nevertheless he insisted that that may somehow be the case. The suggestion to solve that problem was to do what our own @Omega_0 was insisting on from the get go.

That is really getting funny, 'experts and far-fetched objection'. So if you and your friends keep at it you may come up with the following formula for an A-C inductive circuits, XL = 2Pi f L, where f is the frequency and L is the inductance and the XL results is in Ohms. Of course this is the previously well established formula for inductive reactance in an A-C inductance circuit. XL is used in the following formula I = E/XL.  Can you guess what value of E has to be used, wait for it ............ Vrms.

Of course, it is more complicated than that as you are dealing with an A-C circuit with inductance and resistance. But I'll be glad to go over that later if you can accept the basics of inductive reactance.


@IceStorm,

Thanks, you have been right in most of your statements, but I have had much experience in the past with Omni world so it is not an issue.

Regards, Larry

   

[broli]

@LarryC two things.

1) Are you paid to debunk? There's nothing rational and open minded about your posts anymore. For every argument you raise omnibus gives more than plenty back and now you are stuck in a repeating loop.

2) Why haven't you repeated omnibus's EXACT experiments before he got the current probe. Or is that not the reason you are here?

@Omnibus again keep up the good work.

The experiments are solid and the numbers are solid and you are extremely open and cooperative. I couldn't ask for more. Just keep it going and don't let a few idiots who aren't willing to at least see it through to the end with an open mind waist your time. OU or not you have got my respect.

[Omnibus]

@LarryC,

Inductive reactance doesn't contribute to the losses when integrated over a full cycle. Read it in every standard book on electriciy and don't continue with this. Also, as @broli says, if you want to reproduce the results I'm presenting please do the experiments at the same conditions. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time.

[LarryC]

@Omnibus,

I downloaded my resistor only test data and started setting up a spreadsheet. Wanted to see how you could possibly get OU with a resistor only circuit. Your error was obvious right away.

Attached picture is showing my spreadsheet and yours. The voltage on mine is in Col C, amperage is in Col D, and Watts in E. Notice the huge difference in watts in the 6.8 volt range. The problem is that you are dividing your amperage by .001 and it should be .01. The proof follows.

Given that I = V/R, then for my test using 6.8/50.5 is .134. My data shows .128, close enough.

Your test using 6.8/61.0425 is .111. Your data of .00096/.001 or .96 is impossible, it should be .098.

I'm hoping that even you can understand this problem and not have one of your usual dismissive fits.


Also, your amperage is bouncing all over the place, how can my much cheaper scope be more stable?
Edit: Your .001 Ohm shut may have been to low for the small amperage in this test. A .1 would be more appropriate.


' Inductive reactance doesn't contribute to the losses when integrated over a full cycle. Read it in every standard book on electricity'

I have 3 books and none of them state this fact, would you please take a picture of the page and list the book.


@Broli,

Thanks for the compliment, that you think I know enough that someone would pay me to waste my time trying to keep you idiots straight.

I can repeat Omni's experiment, but it may not be necessary if he gets his formulas correct.

'@Omnibus again keep up the good work.' Anybody with any common sense would have checked his formulas after getting OU out of a resistive circuit.

'For every argument you raise omnibus gives more than plenty back'
He does, but they are usually so ridicules that it not worth the trouble arguing.


Regards, Larry

[Omnibus]

@LarryC,

Never mind the resistor-only OU. As was seen after I got the current probe the apparent OU I was observing with the resistor was due to problems with the resistors used to measure the current (even the industry-standard precision shunt showed inductance component). Please try to compare the integrated momentary I*V values with I^2R of a no-load transformer in the frequency range between 200kHz and 1.5MHz. As seen in the last figure I posted here (which confirms qualitatively what I posted earlier when using the shunt) that is the frequency region where OU is observed.