Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #901  
Old 05-10-2017, 01:57 AM
Bob Smith Bob Smith is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 795
Hmm. I'm a little confused. I made the changes as I said I would earlier today. I'll let it sit till the dust settles, and if some nuance needs to be made, I'll change them again.

My thanks to both of you for taking the time to clarify this for me, as it is an issue I'm trying to get a handle on, particularly with the series wound bifi pancake coil.

Ideally, I want to be working at the coil's self-resonant frequency, and my initial inspiration in this is the work of Doc Stiffler and his SEC. I wonder if the swbifi pancake coil can be used in a similar way.

Thanks again for the gentlemanly exchange.
Bob
__________________
 
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #902  
Old 05-10-2017, 07:02 AM
boguslaw's Avatar
boguslaw boguslaw is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,494
Could we have high frequency current and its bemf in the same circuit ?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #903  
Old 05-10-2017, 09:44 AM
gyula gyula is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 820
Hi Carroll,

I included my comments in blue within your post.

Gyula

Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
Hi gyula,

Good to see you posting here. But you have me confused. I admit I didn't take time to look up everything before replying to Bob. Do you agree that inductive reactance goes up as the frequency goes up Yes I do, there is a linear proportion here, the higher the frequency the higher the inductive reactance becomes till the coils self resonance is reached.

and that capacitive reactance goes down as the frequency goes down. No, I do not agree, capacitive reactance goes down as the frequency increases, there is an inverse proportion here to frequency.

In other words if you connect a capacitor to DC as soon as the capacitor is fully charged it is not going to pass any more current so you could say the capacitive reactance is infinity. Yes. And as the frequency goes up the capacitor begins to pass more and more current. Yes and this means that its capacitive reactance goes down at the same time to a lower and lower value to pass more and more current. And of course everything is just the opposite for an inductor. Yes, till reaching self resonance for the coil, beyond that the coil starts behaving as if it were a capacitive reactance.

So I am confused as to why you said below the resonant frequency the reactance would be inductive and above would be capacitive? Can you please explain the reason for you saying that?
Well, try to think of a parallel LC circuit drawn with two rectangular blocks instead of the usual L and C symbols. The two blocks represent impedances that of course change when frequency is varied. Say the resonant frequency be at 1 MHz. Starting from DC and up in frequency, the 'coil' block is a short circuit i.e. a very low Z impedance at DC and at low frequencies while the 'capacitor' block first cannot start charging as it should when it were alone because the coil shorts it out. And as we increase frequency the shunting effect from the coil block reduces i.e. its impedance starts increasing while the capacitor block "slowly" starts charging (and discharging) i.e. its reducing impedance slowly starts take effect as getting able to "conduct" AC current more and more. Notice how this capacitor would 'pass' current at low frequencies: hardly because of its high capacitive reactance at the low frequencies. Impedance-wise we have two impedances in parallel and one of them (the coil block) always "remains" at a lower value than the other till reaching resonance. You may look at this as two paralleled 'resistors', one of them (the coil) has a lower value, hence it dominates the combined resistance value. I include two drawings (I combined into one) taken from a website AC Inductance and Inductive Reactance in an AC Circuit which shows the reactance and current curves for a coil and a capacitor in the function of the frequency. Try to mix the two drawings overlayed in your mind: the crossing point of their reactance curve defines the resonant frequency and consider the curves below and above this point.

Take care,
Carroll

PS: I do totally agree with your description of a parallel resonant circuit.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg inductive and capacitive reactance.jpg (36.4 KB, 8 views)
__________________
 

Last edited by gyula; 05-10-2017 at 09:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #904  
Old 05-10-2017, 11:45 AM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,323
Thanks for your explanation gyula. I do see in my post you quoted that I made a typo. Where I said the capacitive reactance goes down as the frequency goes down I meant to say as the frequency goes up. I was pretty tired when I typed that. Sorry about that.

Ok, so you are saying in a parallel resonant circuit that below the resonant frequency the reactance is inductive and above the resonant frequency the reactance is capacitive because below the resonant frequency the inductor is carrying more of the current and above the resonant frequency the reactance is capacitive because the capacitor is carrying more of the current?

I would consider the part of the circuit that is carrying the lesser amount of current to be the one that is more reactive. So I guess it all depends on how you want to look at it.

Since Bob was asking in reference to a series connected bifilar coil the parallel circuit analysis is more the correct one.

Thanks for your thoughts.
Carroll
__________________
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them your enemy. We can disagree without attacking someone. This means YOU especially BroMikey.
Reply With Quote
  #905  
Old 05-10-2017, 12:24 PM
gyula gyula is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 820
See my comments in blue within your text.

Gyula

Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
Thanks for your explanation gyula. I do see in my post you quoted that I made a typo. Where I said the capacitive reactance goes down as the frequency goes down I meant to say as the frequency goes up. I was pretty tired when I typed that. Sorry about that.

Ok, so you are saying in a parallel resonant circuit that below the resonant frequency the reactance is inductive and above the resonant frequency the reactance is capacitive because below the resonant frequency the inductor is carrying more of the current and above the resonant frequency the reactance is capacitive because the capacitor is carrying more of the current?
Yes, that is okay.

I would consider the part of the circuit that is carrying the lesser amount of current to be the one that is more reactive. So I guess it all depends on how you want to look at it.
Well, in reactive networks I consider a component carrying the lesser current has less overall effect in phase shift than the one carrying the higher current, hence a component with lesser current is less reactive, this is how I see this.

Since Bob was asking in reference to a series connected bifilar coil the parallel circuit analysis is more the correct one.
To be fair, we need to consider a series resonant circuit too (I focused on a parallel one so far). Starting from DC and from low frequencies upwards, the capacitor surely has a huge reactance in this range so a series circuit must behave as a capacitive reactance which decreases as we increase the frequency. The coil in this scenario is a series short ( quasi a piece of wire) at DC and at the low frequency ranges i.e. has very low reactance, then its inductive reactance gradually increases as we increase frequency till we reach resonance. Beyond resonance the effect of the capacitive reactance start diminishing as we go up in frequency because Xc will be lower and lower.

To sum up: a series LC has capacitive reactance below the resonant frequency (input current leads voltage) and a parallel LC has an inductive reactance (input current lags voltage) below the resonant frequency.


Thanks for your thoughts. You are welcome.
Carroll
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #906  
Old 07-05-2017, 03:42 AM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Moved post from Figuera builders thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by marathonman View Post
the standard mechanical rotating generator is a complete waste of time

the people of the Tesla time are true leaders in their field thus making our so called leaders from our time seam like school girls playing with dolls.
Hey MM,

If you like that 19th century technology over our modern version, you could join a Mennonite or other such group and avoid using those generators which you call a "waste of time".

Please excuse me for posting on your special thread but nobody else but you uses it lately.

Do you have any idea when we will see an actual demonstration or proof? It's been a long time and appears most interested parties have given up the discussion.

If you object to this post let me know and I'll move it to citfta's thread.

bi
So MM did object here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by marathonman View Post
That would be a good idea Bistander as your opinion or response is entirely not needed or wanted. thank you kindly though and have a good day.
He goes on to tell his serious builders this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by marathonman View Post
To all:
...

I hope you all understand what i have posted in the last few weeks and have a better mental picture of what is taking place. apparently aligning that up with a working model was a little more difficult then i had originally expected but i or rather we will get there. the two are finally aligning up just nicely. ...

MM
I see three serious builders left, GlenWV, Cornboy555 and Shadow119g. And two interested parties, seaad and myself. It's only been 8 months since he started his serious builders only thread. With all his guidance, preaching and theorizing I don't see anyone close to a working model, except maybe for Ufo. But it seems Ufo stopped pursuing MM's part G design. Wonder why?

I'll go back to the forbidden thread and delete my post as I said. But no answer from MM as to when we might see a demonstration or proof. Back to the sidelines.

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #907  
Old 07-05-2017, 10:12 AM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,323
What was interesting to me was that a couple of months ago if I recall correctly MM admitted that maybe part G wasn't what he thought it was. This was after several people had working part Gs that didn't work like MM kept saying they would. How can that happen if he is being given information from a working device?

I have said all along that part G could not be a device that passed a lot of current, yet MM kept insisting it had to have these large copper bars to work properly. As Ufo found out you can't control anything with that design.

I still think the Figuera device might be a real working device with a properly designed part G. I just don't have any spare time right now to pursue it. What little time I have for experimenting is spent working on a device of my own design that is not for this forum. If it works it will be shared with a small group of serious builders on another forum. These guys understand how things really work and are well qualified to evaluate and approve or disprove any claims. If I am going to make any claims I want them checked by qualified people, not some people that have only gotten their education from YouTube.
__________________
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them your enemy. We can disagree without attacking someone. This means YOU especially BroMikey.
Reply With Quote
  #908  
Old 07-05-2017, 11:39 PM
marathonman marathonman is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 543
Thumbs down Get on with it

You people sound like 80 year old *****es with nothing to do. i've been Very, Very busy with life and i don't have to explain an F-in thing to you loosers. try reading the post instead of running your big fat know NOTHING mouths. better yet why don't you mouth runners leave my name or any thing about my thread out of your pathetic mouths and quite spoiling other threads with your bull **** whining gossip and rhetoric, Grow up and get a life.
How pathetic you people are.

MM
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #909  
Old 07-06-2017, 12:49 AM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by marathonman View Post
You people sound like 80 year old *****es with nothing to do. i've been Very, Very busy with life and i don't have to explain an F-in thing to you loosers. try reading the post instead of running your big fat know NOTHING mouths. better yet why don't you mouth runners leave my name or any thing about my thread out of your pathetic mouths and quite spoiling other threads with your bull **** whining gossip and rhetoric, Grow up and get a life.
How pathetic you people are.

MM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marathonman View Post
try reading the post instead of running your big fat know NOTHING mouths.
I read your posts. Which part do you think I misunderstood?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #910  
Old 07-06-2017, 01:22 AM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by marathonman View Post
You people sound like 80 year old *****es with nothing to do. i've been Very, Very busy with life and i don't have to explain an F-in thing to you loosers. try reading the post instead of running your big fat know NOTHING mouths. better yet why don't you mouth runners leave my name or any thing about my thread out of your pathetic mouths and quite spoiling other threads with your bull **** whining gossip and rhetoric, Grow up and get a life.
How pathetic you people are.

MM
Sounds to me like we hit a sore spot. Sorry MM but this thread is for discussing the technical aspects or lack thereof of any project on this forum or anywhere else. If that bothers you then simply don't read this thread. I have been reading your thread and I do recall very clearly you making the statement that it appears the part G is not quite as you thought it was. So my statement still stands. You will never be able to control the current through the primaries with a part G that has such low resistance. And as built in the pictures I have seen it does not have the proper reactance to control the current through the primaries either.

I don't have any problem at all with it taking several months to get something going as I also have been very busy. But there is no need for your constant bad mouthing of those that disagree with your technical analysis of how the Figuera device and in particular the part G actually works.

So far as I have been able to tell from the two threads, tests done by UFO have confirmed what Bistander and myself have said about the part G.
__________________
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them your enemy. We can disagree without attacking someone. This means YOU especially BroMikey.
Reply With Quote
  #911  
Old 07-06-2017, 09:59 AM
seaad's Avatar
seaad seaad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 260
Hello guys. A tip. Try to squeeze MM gently on his sweet spots. Maybe he will tell you how he made his COP-3 machine. That one he sold. You certainly heard of that on the Re...Figuera thread.

Sorry citfta I couldn't resist writing here.

Summer Regards Arne
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #912  
Old 07-06-2017, 11:04 AM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,323
Feel free to make any posts to this thread you like. It is for open discussion. I do ask that there be no bashing of a personal nature, but technical discussion is great.

If I had a machine that worked I would never sell it until I had at least a couple of more built that also worked. Then I would feel pretty sure I knew what I was doing. A single machine could be one of those times when everything feel into place by accident but can't be duplicated. After building a few more that worked then I would be more comfortable about what I thought I knew. Just seems like common sense to me to not sell the only one I had that worked.
__________________
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them your enemy. We can disagree without attacking someone. This means YOU especially BroMikey.
Reply With Quote
  #913  
Old 07-07-2017, 02:55 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turion View Post
That's what I thought was so ridiculous about
MM in the first place.

My money is on the whole thing being FAKE NEWS. Not the device
itself, but his claim that he ever built one and his ability to replicate
it. I don't think he knows a butt from a biscuit. So watch out if
you see he has some butter!
Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
I am starting this thread for open discussion
for those people who would like to discuss projects that are going
on on this forum.

Please feel free to comment on either one of these projects
or any other project you would like to discuss. Remember this thread
is for technical discussion only, NO NAME CALLING OR FLAMING.

Respectfully,
Carroll
MM is an old guy trying to sound like a professional. He is always
almost gonna and knows how better than anyone else. Maybe we can
awaken him by asking for his hardware pictures. Mad-Mack and MM or MM
might be the same guy. Merry -Go- Round Men, oh hold it don't build
it like that, that is the old one I got a better, hold on a few.

A few what? A few years? I think I'll stick with UFO, he makes sense.

And all of these colorful power-points are worthless if you don't have
an experiment to go with it. How long has it been? Still waiting.

Please send your money to care and someday.

And I didn't even name call the lxxr.

__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 07-07-2017 at 03:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #914  
Old 07-18-2017, 04:37 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Message to Turion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turion View Post
Here is how I look at it.
1. If I have a motor that is free wheeling and under no load, it will consume a certain number of watts per hour of operation.

2. If I place a rotor with magnets on the motor shaft, I have created a load, which will increase the watts consumed per hour. No way to get around that.

3. If I place a coil with an iron, ferrite or metglass core near the rotating magnets, an additional load is placed on the motor because of magnetic drag and more watts are consumed.

4. If the coil is connected to a load, more watts are consumed

As far as I know, there is no way to avoid the additional watts consumed in 1-2 above, so I will only address 3 and 4.

If there is a watts per hour consumption of the motor in number 3, and you can change the core material or the physical configuration of the machine to reduce the watts consumed per hour without decreasing the output of the generator coil, that is significant to me.

If you can take the coil you have in number four, remove the wire, and rewind it so that rather than increasing the watts per hour consumed when the coil is put under load, it reduces the watts consumed per hour by the motor, without decreasing the output of the generator coil, THAT is significant to me.

And always remember, there is going to be a motor speed that is MOST efficient at producing speed and torque for the specific load you have.

I know there are folks out there who DO NOT agree with this view of things, and I can honestly say I do not understand WHY. I would really like to know and understand why the believe I am off on the wrong track here. I would really LIKE to understand their thinking because they could be entirely correct and I could be completely WRONG. But I want to have an intelligent conversation about it, not be given hints and secret clues.

I can significantly reduce the magnetic drag and get the motor to speed up when the coils are under load, so I feel like I am headed in the right direction.
Hello Turion,

I read your post copied and pasted above. I am reluctant to post on a thread started by BM, so I hope you find your way here. I have followed what you post and that recent exchange on another forum which frustrated you. If you'd like to have a civil conversation here, I'll give you my opinions with regard to the underlined statements in the above.

Let me know.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #915  
Old 07-18-2017, 09:16 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turion View Post
I would love to hear what you have to say on this topic. And I DO have an open mind on this subject
OK. First thing which stands out is your use of:
Watts per hour,
Watts consumed per hour,
Watts are consumed,
Watts consumed,
And watts per hour consumption.

Watt is a unit of power. As such, it is the rate which energy is used or converted, or the rate which work is done. Watt is a rate. One watt is equal to one joule per second.

A watt per second or W/s is a nonsensical unit. Just like a watt per hour doesn't make sense. When you use, or misuse, terms or units like this, anybody reading your statements will form an opinion that your grasp of power and energy is lacking.

Lots of folks get it wrong. Watt is the unit for power. Watt hour is a unit for energy. Watts per hour is meaningless (for context like this). Like I said, power (watts or W) is a rate. Similar to how speed (m/s or mph) is a rate. So what would you think of a person who speaks of consuming so many mph per hour? Or how many m/s were consumed? Doesn't make sense, does it?

I mean no offense. I'm trying to help. Got to do some chores around here now. I'll check back later. I also have some suggestions but want to clear this item first so we're on the same page discussing energy and power. Please, by all means, research the subject of energy and power definitions.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #916  
Old 07-18-2017, 10:27 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Energy & power

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turion View Post
So when I plug my watt meter into the wall and plug my fan into the watt meter and come back at the end of one hour and look at the reading on that meter I'm NOT looking at how much energy (watts) were used or consumed by that device during that period of time? If not, what is my watt meter telling me? Don't we pay our electric bill based on killowatt hours (1000 watts) of consumption?
Yes, you pay your electric utility provider for the energy you use and the units are kilowatt hours. A kilowatt hour = 1000 watt hours (not watts). A watt hour = 3600 watt seconds = 3600 Ws = 3600 J ( joules, the basic unit of energy.

If your watt meter is similar to mine, a Killawatt brand name, it reads multiple parameters, like volts, amperes, frequency, power factor, power (watts), energy (watt hours) and time (over which the energy (Wh) were accumulated. When watts are shown it is the instantaneous value of the power so there are no time units associated with that rate.

Difficult to follow and my explanation may not be the best. So I encourage you to check elsewhere. Wikipedia does a decent job.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #917  
Old 07-19-2017, 01:20 AM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Watt

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turion View Post
I think I am starting to understand. I know that volts x amps equals watts and instead of calling usage over time watt hours I am calling it watts per hour.

Watt hours is a unit of energy while watts per hour would be a rate, if there were such a thing. Yet I am still not sure why it isn't appropriate to say that a specific number of watts were used in one hour. I realize it is a little like saying how many gallons of gas were used in an hour rather than how many miles per gallon.
Actually "watts" is already a rate as a watt is a joule per second. So "watts per hour" is an acceleration of joules (energy). The only place I've ever seen such a metric used is the rate at which large utility scale generator stations are brought on line (ie. how quickly they can be brought up to full capacity).

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #918  
Old 07-19-2017, 02:33 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turion View Post
I think I am starting to understand.



I don't mean to interrupt but Bi is not speaking rationally. You are right in all
counts but Bi keeps changing his questions a sort of going nowhere
rambling.

bi thinks a watt second is non sense. Can you believe that? I mean
this is a basic math in electrical engineering. Where are the advanced
students?

A watt minute must be nonsensical too.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #919  
Old 07-19-2017, 02:57 AM
ricards ricards is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 271
Base Dimensions

Eric dollard explains this really well in his video "Origin of Energy Synthesis"

He differentiated the "Substance-tial" or "Quantitive" to "Metrical" dimensions.

basically "Metrical" dimensions are what you use to derive a "Quantitive" in order to define a rate (in case of time) or a density (in case of spacial).

relating to your topic.

"Energy" is defined as how many "Electricity" you use in one second

Electricity per second
Q/s=J
Joule

"Watt" is a unit of how many "Energy" you use in one second.

Energy per second
Joules per second
Electricity per second per second
J/s=W

in a concrete example : you use your TV that consumes a certain amount of Energy in "Watts" same thing as your Refrigerator, and your computer... all consumes a certain amount of "Watts" that is of course different from each other... one consumes more the other consumes less..

now since you don't use your TV,Computer or other appliances all the time, what your utility provider wants to get is the total Energy you consumed "Watt-Hour"...

Watt = Joules/s
W=J/s

Watt Hour = WH
as the name suggest
Watt * Hour

let us derive that

(J/s)* (60min*60s) = (J/s)*3600s = J3600s/s = 3600 J = WH = Watt Hour

so Watt Hour is the total Energy you have consumed using different appliances.

there is a whole misconception (according to EPD) about "Energy"
according to him "Energy" is not something "Primary" or "Substance-tial" its just a derivative of a "Substance" well.. anyway off topic
hope that helps.
__________________
 

Last edited by ricards; 07-19-2017 at 03:52 AM. Reason: removed rofl lol
Reply With Quote
  #920  
Old 07-19-2017, 03:10 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turion View Post
............. people keep telling me I am mixing up terms so now I am just confused. I think I will just go back to my batteries.
At least your batteries are good to you.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #921  
Old 07-19-2017, 10:21 AM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
The difference

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turion View Post
I understood a watt to be a measure of one moment in time of volts x amps, but a watt second, minute or hour to be a measure of a watt over time. In other words a watt second is one volt x one amp for one second, but people keep telling me I am mixing up terms so now I am just confused. I think I will just go back to my batteries.
Do you see the difference between "watt hours" and "watts per hour"? Wh vs W/h? Between Ws (which is a joule) vs W/s (which is nonsense)?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour
Includes sections entitled:
*Confusion of kilowatt hours (energy) and kilowatts (power)*
and
*Misuse of watts per hour*

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt
__________________
 

Last edited by bistander; 07-19-2017 at 02:22 PM. Reason: Added wiki links
Reply With Quote
  #922  
Old 07-19-2017, 10:39 AM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricards View Post
Eric dollard explains this really well in his video "Origin of Energy Synthesis"

He differentiated the "Substance-tial" or "Quantitive" to "Metrical" dimensions.

basically "Metrical" dimensions are what you use to derive a "Quantitive" in order to define a rate (in case of time) or a density (in case of spacial).

relating to your topic.

"Energy" is defined as how many "Electricity" you use in one second

Electricity per second
Q/s=J
Joule

"Watt" is a unit of how many "Energy" you use in one second.

Energy per second
Joules per second
Electricity per second per second
J/s=W

in a concrete example : you use your TV that consumes a certain amount of Energy in "Watts" same thing as your Refrigerator, and your computer... all consumes a certain amount of "Watts" that is of course different from each other... one consumes more the other consumes less..

now since you don't use your TV,Computer or other appliances all the time, what your utility provider wants to get is the total Energy you consumed "Watt-Hour"...

Watt = Joules/s
W=J/s

Watt Hour = WH
as the name suggest
Watt * Hour

let us derive that

(J/s)* (60min*60s) = (J/s)*3600s = J3600s/s = 3600 J = WH = Watt Hour

so Watt Hour is the total Energy you have consumed using different appliances.

there is a whole misconception (according to EPD) about "Energy"
according to him "Energy" is not something "Primary" or "Substance-tial" its just a derivative of a "Substance" well.. anyway off topic
hope that helps.
What you have written contains several contradictions with the standard (classical) definitions. I fail to see why we cannot use a common language, the scientific terminology used by Tesla and millions since his time.

Watts are units of power. Watt hours are units of energy. Q is universally used as the symbol for electric charge. Q/s is current. Coulombs/second = amperes.

When Turion or anybody else writes about power and energy, should he choose to use a nonstandard language, he should state so and define the terms and words. All rational readers assume the standard classical scientific universally accepted definitions, terminology and units unless it is stated otherwise.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #923  
Old 07-19-2017, 11:01 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
What you have written contains several contradictions with the standard (......

When Turion or anybody else writes about power and energy, should
he choose to use a nonstandard language,

........All rational readers assume the standard ............
There you go again repeating what is a known as if you were the
instructor while everyone else failed. Joules and watts are easy
so try to spend less time putting yourself on this imaginary pedestal
of super-hero jot and tittle correctness, quoting guys like Tesla as if you
were his son who deserves all of our attention.

You want attention? Do away with the trifles and show us some
joules you harvested, over and above the standard engineering 66 percent
recovery 33 percent losses.

Where is your black box Tesla JR.? Adding joules up in all of the forms
that have been pointed out to you is not non-sense. Stop wasting
time playing with synonyms and homonyms, then get some clues
about why we are here.

All of your time in post form is spent splitting nonsensical hairs.

A watt minute is easy or watt second, set back and let someone repeat
this again and you will be okay, then catch on.
__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 07-19-2017 at 11:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #924  
Old 07-19-2017, 11:39 AM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,323
BM,

The main person who has added more confusion and mixed up terms to this forum than anyone else is YOU. You have constantly posted videos of faked devices and insisted they were real even after some of us have shown you how they were faked. You attack people personally with name calling and putdowns just because they post something you don't agree with technically. You have absolutely no discernment ability whatsoever. You will believe any YouTube video if the presenter has a good way of presenting it.

bistander and I have both spent many many hours trying to help people on this forum understand some of the technicalities of working with electronics. We have had some of our detractors actually start to listen to what we say because they have found we were actually right when we tried to help them. So you can take your claims against bistander somewhere else as they are clearly not wanted in this thread. If you had any respect for yourself at all you would have noticed he did not intrude on your thread. He came here to have a discussion with Turion. I did not see where you were invited to the discussion.

By the way how is your buddy Gerard doing now days? You continually put down those of us that kept claiming he didn't know what he was doing. So what great discoveries has he made now? You don't need to answer that in this thread. I already know the answer.

So if you want to see who adds the most confusion to this forum just go look in a mirror.

I respectfully request you go back to your thread and leave this one alone. We don't need your nonsense here.

Carroll
__________________
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them your enemy. We can disagree without attacking someone. This means YOU especially BroMikey.

Last edited by citfta; 07-19-2017 at 02:40 PM. Reason: mispelling
Reply With Quote
  #925  
Old 07-19-2017, 02:31 PM
ricards ricards is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
What you have written contains several contradictions with the standard (classical) definitions. I fail to see why we cannot use a common language, the scientific terminology used by Tesla and millions since his time.

Watts are units of power. Watt hours are units of energy. Q is universally used as the symbol for electric charge. Q/s is current. Coulombs/second = amperes.

When Turion or anybody else writes about power and energy, should he choose to use a nonstandard language, he should state so and define the terms and words. All rational readers assume the standard classical scientific universally accepted definitions, terminology and units unless it is stated otherwise.

Regards,

bi
I understand perfectly what you mean.. and did found out the the standard symbol is indeed Q, but Q is defined as "Total Electrification" in Planck according to Eric dollard, (Planck I think is also different in Classical term, speed of light? I'm not sure) you see we are never really gonna use a "Common Language".

"Classical" "Standard" mostly are Einsteinian whilst eric dollard is against him, he even went so far to write a theory of anti-relativity... but thats a whole new discussion that I do not want to get involved with.

I believe we arrived at the same conclusion (Watt Hour is unit of Energy). why go so far to make the underlined statements?

I take it as you really have a bad day..
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #926  
Old 07-19-2017, 03:39 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Communication

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricards View Post
I understand perfectly what you mean.. and did found out the the standard symbol is indeed Q, but Q is defined as "Total Electrification" in Planck according to Eric dollard, (Planck I think is also different in Classical term, speed of light? I'm not sure) you see we are never really gonna use a "Common Language".

"Classical" "Standard" mostly are Einsteinian whilst eric dollard is against him, he even went so far to write a theory of anti-relativity... but thats a whole new discussion that I do not want to get involved with.

I believe we arrived at the same conclusion (Watt Hour is unit of Energy). why go so far to make the underlined statements?

I take it as you really have a bad day..
Hi ricards,

If you and I were having a conversation involving math and I use conventional nomenclature (like plus means addition and minus means subtraction) and you, unknowingly to me, define plus and minus opposite, we could, probably certainly, encounter communication difficulty. However, at the beginning of the conversion, you were to inform me of your unconventional nomenclature, I could account for it and we could have a meaningful discussion. I believe it is the responsibility of, or at least good manners for, the one using unconventional language or terminology to make it known to those with whom he communicates.

Actually today's been good, so far. I hope your day is also. Please don't take offense with my style. I tend to be blunt. Perhaps I should have told you that at the start of my last post.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #927  
Old 07-19-2017, 03:58 PM
ricards ricards is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Hi ricards,

If you and I were having a conversation involving math and I use conventional nomenclature (like plus means addition and minus means subtraction) and you, unknowingly to me, define plus and minus opposite, we could, probably certainly, encounter communication difficulty. However, at the beginning of the conversion, you were to inform me of your unconventional nomenclature, I could account for it and we could have a meaningful discussion. I believe it is the responsibility of, or at least good manners for, the one using unconventional language or terminology to make it known to those with whom he communicates.

Actually today's been good, so far. I hope your day is also. Please don't take offense with my style. I tend to be blunt. Perhaps I should have told you that at the start of my last post.

Regards,

bi
Its been a good day to me as well.. but can't sleep wants to study..

I did state my source Eric Dollard's work, maybe your not familiar with his work?..
I actually did not learn the "Classical" or "Standard" meaning in University.. but I am learning little by little.. everything so far in studying "Dielectricity" make sense.. I'm not even sure that Exist in "Classical".

Glad to encounter a blunt person. (never really bump into one)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #928  
Old 07-19-2017, 06:49 PM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
BM,

The main person who has added more confusion ... is YOU.

You have constantly posted videos of faked devices .........

You have absolutely no discernment ability whatsoever.

You will believe any YouTube video ...........

bistander and I have both spent many many hours trying to help people ...

.........your claims against bistander .............. are clearly not wanted

I did not see where you were invited to the discussion.

By the way how is your buddy Gerard doing now days?


......go back to your thread and leave this one alone.

When you keep calling my name I may or may not respond whether
you agree with the answer or not on your so called "OPEN DISCUSSION"

Yeah right, as long as you agree it is open. I will respect your wishes
and i hope you and your buddies will stop putting my name out there
as some form of validation of how I missed it.

This is your thread so try to keep my name out of it so I don't have
to respond. I don't want to be here other than to answer your claims
against me, along with you pal's.

Also don't belittle others who are friends of mine like people who were
forwarded by John Bedini as leaders. You and your thread attitude of
so called polished jargon are the tools that were used for decades
against all great inventors.

Anyone using this approach to attack, belittle and smear will be
subject to "OPEN DISCUSSION" and corrected in one form or another.

You may have your CLOSED MINDED DISCUSSION thread as long as
you obey the rules.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #929  
Old 07-19-2017, 08:01 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Hogwash

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post
When you keep calling my name I may or may not respond whether
you agree with the answer or not on your so called "OPEN DISCUSSION"
...
All I did was mention the thread where Turion posted something I thought I might be able to help with. I was talking to Turion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Hello Turion,

... I am reluctant to post on a thread started by BM, so I hope you find your way here...
I certainly did not call your name. In fact I thought I made it clear I wanted no interaction with you. However you post up lies and demeaning statements about me. Please leave me alone. I've said that before.

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #930  
Old 07-19-2017, 08:43 PM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post
When you keep calling my name I may or may not respond whether
you agree with the answer or not on your so called "OPEN DISCUSSION"

Yeah right, as long as you agree it is open. I will respect your wishes
and i hope you and your buddies will stop putting my name out there
as some form of validation of how I missed it.

This is your thread so try to keep my name out of it so I don't have
to respond. I don't want to be here other than to answer your claims
against me, along with you pal's.

Also don't belittle others who are friends of mine like people who were
forwarded by John Bedini as leaders. You and your thread attitude of
so called polished jargon are the tools that were used for decades
against all great inventors.

Anyone using this approach to attack, belittle and smear will be
subject to "OPEN DISCUSSION" and corrected in one form or another.

You may have your CLOSED MINDED DISCUSSION thread as long as
you obey the rules.
As usual you run your big mouth without getting any of the facts straight. I did not mention your name until AFTER you butted into a discussion that clearly was NOT directed at you. As bi has already said he came over here to have a discussion without interfering with YOUR thread. But you didn't have the same respect for him. So I called you out on it. It is obvious you can't carry on an intelligent discussion about technical matters but do you have to keep attacking those that actually want to have an intelligent discussion?

So I'll say it again. If you don't want anyone talking about you then don't butt into others people's discussions and start putting them down for trying to have an intelligent discussion.

Carroll
__________________
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them your enemy. We can disagree without attacking someone. This means YOU especially BroMikey.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers