Body
Hi Mick,
Even though the reactances cancel this doesn't mean that the current or charge is canceled. The energy just changes between being in the capacitor as electric field energy and being in the inductor as magnetic field energy. Each time the energy field (tempic electric and magnetic field at right angle to each other) reaches the end it is reflected back the way it came. That is when the pulse reaches the inductor it is reflected back to the capacitor and when back in the capacitor it is reflected back to the inductor an so on making oscillations. The energy just changes between being a magnetic field and an electric field. If no loss it continues forever. If breaking the connection when the energy is in the capacitor it is stored as an electric field. If shorting the circuit when the energy is in the indictor the energy is stored as a magnetic field. I.e. the coil becomes a permanent magnet. But this only works when the coil has no resistance or a closed iron core to store the energy or if using a hard magnetic material as core.
Regards
Ole
---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> wrote :
Ole,
So if the cap is disconnected at the even multiple harmonic of the resonant root frequency synchronized at the proper 1/2 or 1/4 cycle it is no longer cancelled but carries a charge correct?
On 11/16/2018 9:06 AM, onielsen@... mailto:onielsen@... [EVGRAY] wrote:
Hi Mick,
At resonance (in LC-tank) the capacitive impedance (imaginary part) cancels the inductive impedance (imaginary part) leaving only the resistance of the LC-tank circuit. The reactance of a capacitor is negative while the reactance of an inductor is positive. At resonance they are equal in magnitude but of opposite sign which cancel them out.
LC-tank: https://wiki2.org/en/LC_circuit https://wiki2.org/en/LC_circuit
Reactance: https://wiki2.org/en/Electrical_reactance https://wiki2.org/en/Electrical_reactance
Regards
Ole
---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], <mkjekyll@...> mailto:mkjekyll@... wrote :
Ole,
I have had caps charge much faster in an LC tank than otherwise, but it could also have to do with noise in the core material as I was no using an air inductor.
On 11/16/2018 1:19 AM, onielsen@... mailto:onielsen@... [EVGRAY] wrote:
Hi Mick,
"If a reactive LC tank capacitor is then disconnected from the reactive source then discharged to a resistive load then reconnected energized back to the standing wave modality recharged disconnected discharged etc. If the reactive energy is harvested in this manner are you claiming the same losses will occur as power factor correcting the reactive back into real power?"
Yes that's correct.
Common power factor correction in AC is for eliminating the reactive power that doesn't do any work but just heats the wires between the power plant and the reactive load. This is expensive for the owners of the power transmission lines and thus should be avoided. First storing the energy in a capacitor (or inductor or battery) and then dumping it to an active load will still make the power go in just one direction even though it happens in pulses. The energy is then moving from the source to the load. Reactive power has the energy moving to and from the load and power source. The power moving between the capacitor and inductor in an LC-tank is pure reactive except for the loss because of the parasitic resistance in the components and wires.
Regards
Ole
---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], <mkjekyll@...> mailto:mkjekyll@... wrote :
Ole,
Disregarding the issue at hand with the patent terminology and not concerning ourselves with the patent just a very high Q tank.
If a reactive LC tank capacitor is then disconnected from the reactive source then discharged to a resistive load then reconnected energized back to the standing wave modality recharged disconnected discharged etc. If the reactive energy is harvested in this manner are you claiming the same losses will occur as power factor correcting the reactive back into real power?
On 11/15/2018 5:36 PM, onielsen@... mailto:onielsen@... [EVGRAY] wrote
I have only read to the following paragraph cited below. I wonder if the applicant knows about what he is writing.
Citing paragraph 106 of the patent application (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/7d/29/f7b4bd0194992d/US20070296373A1.pdf https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/7d/29/f7b4bd0194992d/US20070296373A1.pdf):
"[0106] There is voltage across the inductor connected in series to the capacitor and there is voltage across the inductor connected in parallel to the capacitor. Since Power=voltage×current, a single power input produces two branches of electromagnetic power output, increasing the power output. In the alternative, the present disclosure may have one electromagnetic power output with less energy input."
It isn't as simple as this. If using an oscilloscope for measuring the current and voltage it will show some phase displacement between the current and voltage which means reactive power. Look at the following small videos to see how one can be misled if not knowing how the phase between the current and voltage is: Only the the resistive part consumes (transforms) energy like R in figure 8.
0:42
Overunity Device Cop 2,5 ? explanation part 3. 9.5K views5 years ago
1:01
Overunity Device Cop 2,5 ? explanation part 2. 10K views5 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_E0ck3v40Y