Nine Points for Synthesizing Electricity

[Vinyasi]

The earth is both a sinkhole for charge as well as a source for charge provided there is a pump to draw the charges from the earth or else a charge from some source greater than the earth connected to the earth to ground out it’s charge to the earth such as lightning from a cloud!

The charge of the earth may not be so great, but it's capacitance is huge! Or else, we would not be using it for a sinkhole for the excess charges of our appliances.

The discussion by his associate towards the end of his video is very interesting… Because I must confess it is highly suggestive of the possibility that his use of a PVC pipe and cloth does not provide a charge so much as it pumps a charge to his device either from the surrounding air or from earth ground.? Not unlike the behavior of a heat pump moving heat from solar panels during the daytime to the reservoir underground and back up to the home at night.

[Vinyasi]

SparkGap_macro_with_text.jpg

The zero voltage of V1 (in Micro-Cap’s macro for a neon bulb spark gap) is serving as an earth ground (not as a common ground) since it retains its function as a regulator of voltage at that node.

All voltage sources double as regulators of voltage since that is their definition. Earth ground is also a regulator of voltage since it has sufficient capacitance to override any man made voltage connected to it with its own value of electrostatic potential. This is how we can “lose“ an electrostatic potential to an earth ground as well as through a battery (of sufficiently enlarged capacitance for entertaining lots of amp-hours). Since current is nothing more than a mathematical shorthand for a change in voltage over time due to resistance, current is also susceptible to a grounded loss; or, why else would we provide an earth ground port within our electric outlets?

Hint.....as an aside...

Ohm’s Law is normally taught in the form of a shorthand notation in which power equals voltage times current. Yet, current is a variable which substitutes for voltage divided by resistance. This makes the true and correct version of Ohm’s Law rendered as power equals the square of voltage divided by resistance. The first voltage is applied voltage (that which gets applied to the terminals of a component flanking it on either side by two adjacent nodes). The second voltage is the one which changes over time creating the illusion of current which we recognize due to our intellectual tendency for lumping together complex changes as a distinct behavioral pattern. Anything else is a convenience for the technician who wants to measure current occurring as a concept to simplify our conception of electrodynamic time. But this ruins our opportunity to fully understand Ohm’s Law.

Common ground may not be a regulator of voltage since its voltage may rise or fall if it cannot also function as an endless sinkhole for electrostatic charge by entertaining an enlarged capacitance.

Batteries are not perfect regulators of voltage since their voltage drops as they become depleted. A/C voltage sources maintain their voltage more or less within tolerable limits.

This is how to create an artificial earth ground by inserting a very large battery into a circuit and ground one of its terminals to a common ground.

These statements may elicit a yawn from my audience because this is how we construct a conventional circuit. But I do not craft conventional simulations of circuits. So, this elicits a “wow” from me!

[bistander]

Aha!
A common ground!



If the point, or node, in question refers to an earth ground… Then it is lost to the earth because the earth ground is not merely a node...it’s a function.

This sounds like a miscommunication to me…

Please share from where this comes.

earth ground is not merely a node...it’s a function

Also, IIRC, Turion's quote was in a discussion about a battery system. I remember replying that ground was arbitrary at the discretion of the circuit designer, not always the negative, as in Ford model A 6 volt battery positive chassis (body) ground.

The term "ground" in electric circuit context can be a verb in which case it refers to connecting to the common node of the circuit designated as ground, a node, often the chassis or return path when such path is of adequate conductance as to offer negligible potential difference.

I'm pretty sure I asked Turion (and Matt, at the time) for explanation and example but just got insults. So maybe I'll have better luck with you. Please provide technical reference and examples. Thank you.
Regards,
bi

just for reference;

In electrical engineering, ground or earth is a reference point in an electrical circuit from which voltages are measured, a common return path for electric current, or a direct physical connection to the earth. Electrical circuits may be connected to ground for several reasons. Wikipedia

[Vinyasi]

Bingo.

Ground.


Exactly what the definition of electric circuit "ground" is. A reference node.

Aha!
A common ground!

A point. Look it up. Dictionary, or Wikipedia. So how can energy be "lost" in a point?

If the point, or node, in question refers to an earth ground… Then it is lost to the earth because the earth ground is not merely a node...it’s a function.

This sounds like a miscommunication to me…

Regards,
bi

[bistander]

I refer to bystanders page, rather than clutter up the thread with our eternal bickering.

We could give folks a link.

http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/...121#post507232

See ya,
bi

[Turion]

I refer to bystanders page, rather than clutter up the thread with our eternal bickering.

[bistander]

Probably about as many times as I have asked you to put your money where your mouth is or quit hiding in the dark.

Like your big one? Your big mouth. You running away and hiding from the energy conference and your promised reveal. That was so courageous of you, to put your identity and reputation on the line. And then prove to the world you have nothing but a big fat lie.

I'm not hiding in the dark. I'm coming from the light of truth.

You should try the truth.
bi

[Turion]

Probably about as many times as I have asked you to put your money where your mouth is or quit hiding in the dark.

[bistander]

I thought voltage difference was the whole point of the potential for energy to manifest?

I thought ground zeroes out voltage difference?

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say this appears to be an argument of the definition of terms... not for validating the existence of those terms, but merely defining them.

Definitions do not rest on proofs. They rest on clarity of communication.

If a ground cannot zero out a voltage difference, then - by definition - it is not a ground. It’s merely one more node of a circuit.

Bingo.

Ground.

It’s merely one more node of a circuit.

Exactly what the definition of electric circuit "ground" is. A reference node. A point. Look it up. Dictionary, or Wikipedia. So how can energy be "lost" in a point?

I like to use widely, universally accepted, common definitions for the terms discussed here. It has always been a problem with Turion because he doesn't know what he's talking about and won't bother to take the time to use the dictionary or learn the basics of the science which he attempts to use. How many times have I told him to look it up?

Regards,
bi

[Vinyasi]

OK.

You say "ground gets rid of energy".

I'll ask the same of you:


You guys need need to use a science that is grounded in reality, something that does real work, in real time, which can be demonstrated and is useful, not fantasy BS.

So appears I am off-topic here.
bi

I thought voltage difference was the whole point of the potential for energy to manifest?

I thought ground zeroes out voltage difference?

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say this appears to be an argument of the definition of terms... not for validating the existence of those terms, but merely defining them.

Definitions do not rest on proofs. They rest on clarity of communication.

If a ground cannot zero out a voltage difference, then - by definition - it is not a ground. It’s merely one more node of a circuit.

[bistander]

I don’t deal with pulsed D/C because I don’t know how to deal with it from the standpoint of the simulator’s perspective so I don’t go there I only study what the simulator provides me and it readily provides an awareness of oscillating current.

Within that context it is often times apparent that the ground is favorable to the process of generating or I should say synthesizing electricity from the process of electrical reactance because a ground gets rid of energy and that has a Bizzarre consequence of stimulating a greater amount of electrical reactance to create even more energy per unit time then if there had been no ground to throw away the energy to.

One example of increasing electrical reactance is to place two diodes on a grounded branch subcircuit whose anodes are facing each other and an elevated resistance is between them as is illustrated in this Micro-Cap macro for a neon bulb...

http://vinyasi.info/mhoslaw/Parametr...lica_macro.PNG

... which I have taken the liberty of modifying from its standard macro...

http://vinyasi.info/mhoslaw/Parametr..._with_text.bmp

I define the process of throwing away energy to ground in terms of the net result which is a depletion of energy at the node adjacent to or penultimately adjacent to ground as the simulator tells me that this is occurring so I have to assume it is lost to ground.

So I have to agree with Turion in that sense at least from the sense of oscillating current.

I use the term of oscillating current as Eric Dollard would define it.

https://ericdollardfourquadrant.quor...pes-of-Current

OK.

You say "ground gets rid of energy".

I'll ask the same of you:

Will you defend that statement? Define "ground". How is energy "lost"? Has any reputable, creditable source ever agreed with you that energy can be simply "lost" by being "sent to ground"? What evidence do you have that such a thing is possible?

You guys need need to use a science that is grounded in reality, something that does real work, in real time, which can be demonstrated and is useful, not fantasy BS.

So appears I am off-topic here.
bi

[Vinyasi]

Welcome back Turion,

You said "energy is sent to ground and lost.".

Will you defend that statement? Define "ground". How is energy "lost"? Has any reputable, creditable source ever agreed with you that energy can be simply "lost" by being "sent to ground"? What evidence do you have that such a thing is possible?

Again, you don't know what you're talking about and making up BS.

Regards,
bi

I don’t deal with pulsed D/C because I don’t know how to deal with it from the standpoint of the simulator’s perspective so I don’t go there I only study what the simulator provides me and it readily provides an awareness of oscillating current.

Within that context it is often times apparent that the ground is favorable to the process of generating or I should say synthesizing electricity from the process of electrical reactance because a ground gets rid of energy and that has a Bizzarre consequence of stimulating a greater amount of electrical reactance to create even more energy per unit time then if there had been no ground to throw away the energy to.

One example of increasing electrical reactance is to place two diodes on a grounded branch subcircuit whose anodes are facing each other and an elevated resistance is between them as is illustrated in this Micro-Cap macro for a neon bulb...

http://vinyasi.info/mhoslaw/Parametr...lica_macro.PNG

... which I have taken the liberty of modifying from its standard macro...

http://vinyasi.info/mhoslaw/Parametr..._with_text.bmp

I define the process of throwing away energy to ground in terms of the net result which is a depletion of energy at the node adjacent to or penultimately adjacent to ground as the simulator tells me that this is occurring so I have to assume it is lost to ground.

So I have to agree with Turion in that sense at least from the sense of oscillating current.

I use the term of oscillating current as Eric Dollard would define it.

https://ericdollardfourquadrant.quor...pes-of-Current

[bistander]

bi,
I know what I know, and you do not. I'm fine with that. As I have said, it's mind over matter. I don't mind, and YOU don't matter.

Welcome back Turion,

You said "energy is sent to ground and lost.".

Will you defend that statement? Define "ground". How is energy "lost"? Has any reputable, creditable source ever agreed with you that energy can be simply "lost" by being "sent to ground"? What evidence do you have that such a thing is possible?

Again, you don't know what you're talking about and making up BS.

Regards,
bi

[Turion]

bi,
I know what I know, and you do not. I'm fine with that. As I have said, it's mind over matter. I don't mind, and YOU don't matter.

[bistander]

Thanks for sharing these thoughts with me.

A quote which you included in the above post:

Screenshot_20210927-001841-645.png

I am not sure from where you lifted Turion's quote because it is not in the normal format, hence my reason for using a screenshot image. I do recall Turion posting it or similar some while back.

I'd just like to point out that Turion's opinions expressed concerning "ground" and energy are stupid and have no basis in fact or science. I don't know why you included Turion's quote but encourage you to research the scientific definitions of electric circuit ground, earth ground, electric potential, energy, and circuit analysis. When you understand these concepts you'll see that Turion does not.

Regards,
bi