Single-Reference Machines will always disappoint?

[Shanjaq]

Speaking of Inductors as if they are Masses and Capacitors as if they are Elastics, I have a question about Reference, or the Frame against which a circuit may react. The following graphic may serve to illustrate:




There is one mass shown, "M", but there is another mass implied, and that is the Frame itself. If the Frame has finite mass it will move and the oscillation will have an unexpectedly high damping.

Now consider an Inductor/Mass at Quiescence/Rest. Applying a Voltage/Force referenced to the Ground/Frame (as that's pretty much all we can do with a conventional circuit that has switching between V+/- and Gnd) will cause them to React/Accelerate in opposite directions, conserving to a Zero Net Current/Velocity in reference to any outside system or load in its environment.

I have seen countless methods of doing "recovery" from Inductive Charge/Discharge, and the results are always the same: The best you can get back is determined by the Oscillating Attenuation Factor alone (Diode places the Inductor into a temporary LC relation for a single oscillation cycle, what you get back is the reactive power minus the attenuation factor of the pair.) It's always "Just Enough Joules" to push that same Inductor's state of conduction up to the same spot in its Reactive Curve as where it was interrupted when you opened the switch, The smaller the capacitance the faster, but it's always the same Joules.

Although a self-referencing machine is quite interesting, and I have seen them behave as if in a state of Controlled Resonance (nullifying self-inductive impedance!) it will not be "making progress" in any external system or Load in its Environment. My thoughts are that the Load and its Environment must somehow participate in the conservative cycles of such a system, but how can these elements be brought into the Reference Network? I'm open to ideas/musings/anecdotes/etc.

[Shanjaq]

Along the same lines of reasoning, can anyone identify the problem that will prevent the following concept from functioning as depicted?


The original claims associated with this graphic go something like this: C1(fully charged) discharges through the Inductor into C2(fully discharged.) The Inductor is supposed to possess Inertia/Reactance such that the discharge will overshoot the halfway point (where the two caps are at equal charge) at which point the Switch is opened and you will have conserved in C2 some portion of the Strain/Potential that was released from C1 (this is determined by the Attenuation Factor of the oscillator thus configured.)

While this may occur in a Circuit Simulator, you will see quite a different story on the test bench. The parallel to the mechanical problem (Inertial Frame) presented in the first post should become apparent at this point: The wave is damped far more than is predicted by the component values.

There is a method to achieve the above-predicted results but it involves two additional chokes to provide an artificial "inertial frame" for the central inductor to react against thus setting up an oscillation which overshoots the neutral point by an appreciable amount, thus conserving a portion of the Strain/Potential released from C1 and storing it in C2.

[boguslaw]

The only method I see now (with massive morning headache) is to use magnetic field of coil without dampening the oscillation.
Sir, sorry I cannot understand your first comment, are you saying what I'm thinking but with sneaky twisted scientific words ?
I'm thinking there is a lot of energy in oscillations but every cycle is composed on two opposite forces and what we can use is only an unbalanced part (one part of cycle is a bit stronger) ?

With a method of forcing effect in one direction only we could use that energy as a source of bigger POWER. Still energy is conserved but POWER EFFECT created is higher. It's like a controlled explosion.

What we should do is to compare energy of initial "kick" to the TOTAL PATH OF MOVEMENT OF MASS summing (!) each 1/2 of cycle path instead of substracting. Energy effect is amplified if we see that such way but the average energy effect is as described in books because of the balance.

Here is example of unbalanced usage of mechanical oscillation: v8 суперотскок от резинового шарика.avi - YouTube

[ABCStore]

Speaking of Inductors as if they are Masses and Capacitors as if they are Elastics, I have a question about Reference, or the Frame against which a circuit may react.

Hi,

I'd say, frame of reference is not that important. What is important is to be able to accurately map electrical components to their mechanical equivalents.

In my view, capacitors are more like springs and inductors are closer to gyroscopes or flywheels.

But what is even more important is the idea that I've expressed on this forum long time ago - to get some useful work or extra "something" you have to have 2 forces, ideally opposing each other.

Now, let's play a question-answer game and I will show you step-by-step my line of thinking and what the unsolved mystery is. Perhaps, we would be able to solve it.


Question #1: What are two naturally occurring forces that oppose each other? We're talking about us here on Earth, not in outer space (frame of reference!)

ABC

[ABCStore]

Answer #1: Gravity and buoyancy.

They are there for free.

Suppose we has a tall container filled with water. If we had a couple of electrodes near the bottom and we applied some potential to them, what would start to happen? Correct, bubbles will start to appear. Now, each bubble will try to float to the surface, no matter how tall the container is. They will float up for free.

Think about it for a moment.

Now, to create some motion we need a dis-balance. Which one of these two forces we can manipulate with? Not gravity, at least not today.
Buoyancy, on the other hand, is related to density and volume.

In the next post I will attach some pictures to illustrate the idea...

ABC

[boguslaw]

yep, but it would be slow and thus need to be heavy which means costly
I thought about something like that with a piston as empty container. Fill it with water and it will by weight press fluid below piston, once fluid (or water) from below is pushed out of container the piston is near the bottom of container where is a hole and water from inside of piston can flow out. IN meantime the under-pressure from above of the piston will fill empty space from the original reservoir and if this water is allowed to get below piston (by valve) empty piston will rise up due to buoyancy. A small power used to manipulate one or two small valves can make it work plus a bit of power to pump the water expelled from inside of the piston again to reservoir. But for this to create excess power there is a need of genius mind, and the amount of work required is not adequate to the effect obtained.

[ABCStore]

yep, but it would be slow and thus need to be heavy which means costly

Short answer - no.

Let's say the container is 10 meters high filled with water with electrodes at the bottom. When you produce, let's say, 1m^3 of gas via electrolysis when floating up it will do the work equal to 1m^3 of water dropping 10 meters down. Can you calculate yourself?

What if it's turning some turbine in the process? What if you put several turbines above one another? Because that bubble will keep floating up until it reaches the top...

This is only a simple example of working model that can be looped.

But even easier model can be built... Much easier...

ABC

P.S. I'll add pictures when I can

[ABCStore]

Try to think about this picture here.

Black lines - rigid container made of whatever material (plastic, metal, whatever)

Blue lines - one side is replaced with rubber, latex or similar

M - heavy mass, glued to latex side.

Containers are airtight, the whole setup is rotating freely around the center.
Everything is submerged underwater.



What would happen if you let it go?

ABC

[citfta]

If they started out with the same air pressure in each one before they were put in the position they are now which is causing the left one to be expanded and the right one to be compressed then I know what will happen. The left one being expanded is lighter so it will move up and the right one being compressed will move down. When the left one gets to the top and the right one gets to the bottom they will both stop. They will stop because the less water pressure on the top one will allow it to stay expanded and the higher water pressure on the bottom one will keep it compressed. I know this because I am a scuba diver. And when diving you have to constantly be adjusting the air pressure in your buoyancy jacket. As you go down the water pressure increases and compresses the air in your jacket so you lose buoyancy and have to keep adding a little air each time you go deeper. If you don't add some air as you go down soon you will be sinking like a rock. As we go up we have to do the reverse or else we would soon be moving rapidly to the top which is also not good because of the danger of getting the "bends". Does this seem like a reasonable answer?

Carroll

[Peter Lindemann]

More Sections....

Try to think about this picture here.

Black lines - rigid container made of whatever material (plastic, metal, whatever)

Blue lines - one side is replaced with rubber, latex or similar

M - heavy mass, glued to latex side.

Containers are airtight, the whole setup is rotating freely around the center.
Everything is submerged underwater.



What would happen if you let it go?

ABC

Dear ABCStore,

It seems like the side that is displacing more water will tend to rise while the side that is displacing less water will sink. Is this what you believe?

If that is so, what happens if you make a wheel with 8 or more containers, evenly spaced around the perimeter, as you propose? Do you believe that the containers on the sides will produce enough force to allow the containers on the top and bottom to reset the position of the weights, so the wheel will rotate indefinitely?

Is this what you are actually proposing?

Peter

[ABCStore]

Do you believe that the containers on the sides will produce enough force to allow the containers on the top and bottom to reset the position of the weights, so the wheel will rotate indefinitely?

Is this what you are actually proposing?

Peter

Not quite. A vertically positioned conveyor with containers attached to the belt. It will not run forever but it is a simple principal that can be built and used.

What I'm having difficulty with is translating this mechanical model into electric one. I.e. where the "delta" changes it's sign with different phases of the process.

ABC