| What are smart ways of reducing the amount of fossil fuels we burn, by stopping the supply, or by stopped the demand? |
|---|
| The trick is to eliminate the prohibition against the study of free voltage since free energy can readily arise from voltage by supplying somewhere for voltage to drain to, such as: a ground or a self-short. But deregulating nuclear power will produce more plutonium for more nuclear warheads to defend, what? Our prohibition against free voltage? Yeah, obviously we're maintaining the problem if we go the route which Abdel suggests.[https://www.quora.com/profile/Abdel-Fudadin Abdel Fudadin]'s post in [https://sciencelounge.quora.com/The-trick-IMHO-is-to-reduce-excessive-nuclear-power-regulation-then-get-out-of-the-way-https-www-quora-com-Wha?ch=10&oid=89367178&share=e1d988c2&srid=3zXXZ&target_type=post Science Lounge]. Voltage can be had from anywhere in space by employing the use of an open transmission line concept/approach for its extraction. And reactance can accelerate the duration it will take to accumulate enough potential to run an EV. And a shorted transmission line concept will convert that accumulation of voltage into current giving us watts. Voila! Free energy from freely available voltage derived from empty space making use of severe reactance, ie. the reversal of current, to make it practical. Why aren't we studying this? 'Cuz it ain't good for the economy! Yet, it's good for us. A famous man once said, “Man is not made for the Sabbath; the Sabbath was made for man.” Likewise, ... We are not slaves to money. For if we are, then our goose is cooked! |
''Editor's note: Their only success is proving the concept of imaginary numbers is a valid concept and consistent with the rules of mathematics. They do not prove any analog in the real world which mirrors imaginary numbers in the mathematical world of mental constructs. In fact, they admit that there need not be any analog in the physical world in order to have validity in the world of mathematics. Thus, nothing relevant to a physical proof of imaginary numbers has been offered.Testimonials are merely opinions, demonstrations are mere shadows of an understanding, and arguments are an attempt to promote a concept and all three are outside the jurisdiction of provability. A proof demands an understanding which we fail to possess concerning the existence of imaginary numbers. And rationalizations for their usefulness does not substitute for lack of any proof. Yet, so long as imaginary numbers serve us as a useful tool to temporarily hold an unprovable value, we can continue to use them so long as we never entirely forget that we are assuming the existence of a fantasy for the purposes of practicality. [[w:Rational_root_theorem|Without concrete proof]] for the existence of imaginary numbers (in the world of physicality to which we are born), we will continue to have no physical proof for the existence of free energy, and no physical proof for the existence of electrical reactance since the two are closely related. ''{By the way, Free Energy is a special case of the more generalized topic of electrical reactance.}'' All we know is that the math works out based on over a century of “street-wise” expertise. But the situation gets worse...
This is important, because it is upon this frail basis that the United States Patent Office refuses to peruse any application for patent which purports to export more energy than it imports.
How can the Patent Office have any authority if it utilizes faulty logic?
Answer...
Obviously, a preference is being exercised which favors convention over reason!''
''Suppose that you spend one unit of energy per unit of time, and if you alter the unit of time in which that unit of energy is spent (without altering that quantity of energy per unit, nor alter its number of units), then doesn't this stand to reason that you've altered the rate at which you spend energy and, thus, altered the total quantity of its expenditure per its original unit of time?''For example, ...
== Time Stands Alone. Space cannot Exist without Time. == Electrical reactance exists within the domain of time apart from space.[https://vinyasi.podbean.com/e/free-energy-imaginary-numbers-and-electrical-reactance-all-exist-in-time-apart-from-space/ Free energy, imaginary numbers and electrical reactance all exist in time apart from space.] Electricity exists within the domain of time and space. Space is where Conservation of Energy occurs. Without space, conservation cannot be qualified nor can it be quantified. In fact, the opposite occurs wherein ''reactance must become altered over time when space is not involved,'' because energy does not exist outside of space. So, when energy withdraws itself from space, all that remains is reactance. Thus, reactance exists all along coexistent with energy when both exist in space. But withdraw space from any consideration, and energy fails to justify itself without a spatial framework to give it a definition. Within time, outside of space, reactance continues to exhibit the properties of inductance and capacitance. We would normally associate inductance and capacitance with the spatial phenomena of coils and capacitors which spawns them. But this is due to the inherent property of reactance which exclusively persists within the field of imaginary numbers and whose purveyance is the field of oscillatory time (as measured by the angular momentum of each cycle of oscillation). Thus, inductance and capacitance ''are never required to be real physical properties'' despite the physical causes which we associate with them. Inductance and capacitance are non-physical properties of how time affects these properties and without any regard to space since these properties are not energetic properties; they affect energy without being energy, themselves. Time has that impact upon spatial considerations: it affects spatial considerations without any allegiance to space since time dominates space. The angular momentum of binds the frequency of electrical reactance to time by defining each cycle of oscillation. Inductance and capacitance do not require space to maintain themselves. The oscillations of time remembers them by converting their reactive output (resulting from prior cycles of oscillation) into the inductance and capacitance of subsequent cycles of oscillation. If reactance were somehow retained within the field of space, then this feedback could not occur. Space would, thus, ''conserve'' inductance and capacitance from one cycle of oscillation to the next. And this type of electrical reactance would be complex, rather than imaginary, since inductors and capacitors would be storing this reactance. But – ''in the alternative'' – the imaginary portion of electrical reactance can stand apart from space if the influence of real power is insignificant as to be of nearly zero amplitude. Under these ideal conditions, electrical reactance feeds on itself creating more electrical reactance from less electrical reactance or, in the alternative, shrinks preexistent volumes of reactance (as the case may be) never reaching infinity, nor reaching zero, amplitudes of reactance due to this tendency for reactive feedback to become a multiplicative, or divisional, ''trend'' whenever real power is an insignificant input of apparent power. As an aside ...
'''WARNING — These criteria are intended to garner success ''under simulation'' and usually within the context of the Berkeley SPICE family of simulators[http://bwrcs.eecs.berkeley.edu/Classes/IcBook/SPICE/ The SPICE Page] (but not all the time; other simulators[http://falstad.com/circuit/ Paul Falstad's electronic simulator] are, also, useful depending upon the situation). Although they are supported by standard mathematical criteria describing the conventional engineering of electrodynamic theory, they are not intended to qualify the physics“[https://think.kera.org/2011/12/07/alternative-theories-of-everything/ Physics on the Fringe]: Smoke Rings, Circlons, and Alternative Theories of Everything,” by [[w:Margaret_Wertheim|Margaret Wertheim]] (Walker & Company, 2011). behind these simulated strategies. That implication is left to the reader to vindicate, or not, through verifiable experience at your own risk of safety and success. ''User, beware.'''''
''We spend direct current during one-half of an oscillation and we recharge, or replace a spent charge with a fresh new charge, during each alternate cycle of oscillation. Thus, Direct Current is a subset of Alternating Current in which we casually, and conveniently, ignore the recharge, or replacement, phase of each cycle of Direct Current paying exclusive attention to each half-cycle of Direct Current which '''spends''' energy! But this is a game of make-believe in which we hide ourselves from the whole truth. Never, once, do we bother to seek it. Maybe this is why we encourage a way-of-life in which [[c:File:Capacitors_are_always_placed_in_parallel_across_inductive_loads_to_save_energy_and_stabilize_its_usage.png|we throw away energy after using it merely once]]!? Ugh ...''Space is an extension of time which manifests electrodynamic phenomena in order to derive space from time. Time can withdraw itself from space. When this happens, electricity vanishes leaving reactance in its wake. Likewise, time can extend itself into space. When this happens, electricity manifests out of nowhere since time does not exist as a property of space. Nor is time a consequence of space. Quite the contrary! Space is a consequence of the electrodynamic extension of time. In other words, space exists in time and coexists with time. But time is sufficient unto itself. This is where reactance occurs: in time, whether or not space is participating (and cooperating ;-). But space must participate with time if electricity is to manifest itself. And conservation must participate (as well) within a framework of space cooperating with time in order for electrical energy to materialize. Since energy has its equivalency within matter, one cannot exist without the other. Both energy and matter coexist, simultaneously, as variations of space. In fact, matter can never be lacking of an energetic state anymore than energy could lack matter to materialize energy since both are qualities of space. Hence, massless photons do not exist. Please see, [[v:Draft:Free_Energy_does_not_Exist#Appendix|Appendix]]: [[v:Draft:Free_Energy_does_not_Exist#Photons_do_not_Exist|Photons do not Exist]]. So, ...
| If We Can't Understand ''Energy,'' Then How Can We Possibly Understand ''Free Energy!'' |
''Conservation of Energy is a status symbol confessing allegiance to the herd since it is grounded in physical reality as constituting the ultimate and exclusive verification for any authority while simultaneously ignoring electrical reactance subsisting within the domain of time acting as the trump card (so to speak) giving us the liberty to recycle energy rather than blindly throwing it away (returning it back to its source) after every single use and refusing to pay through the nose for this wasteful method of consuming energy.'' ''Whoever conjured-up this scheme must be a madman!'' '''''It sucks!'''''== Voltage Drop == It stands to reason that electrical voltage drop is a mathematical process which cannot be performed upon the imaginary coefficient of a complex polynomial. It may only be performed upon its real number coefficient. This is a consequence of the assumption that voltage drop is the distribution of a real numbered evaluation of voltage across a circuit resulting from simple resistance rather than from electrical reactance.Jim Phipps answer (on Quora) to: [https://www.quora.com/With-closed-magnetic-coupling-between-primary-and-secondary-what-will-improve-in-a-transformer/answer/Jim-Phipps-1 With closed magnetic coupling between primary and secondary, what will improve in a transformer?] This allows for the accumulation of reactive potential as well as for the accumulation of reactive impedances (both inductive and capacitive). This latter accumulation can occur within the imaginary fields surrounding reactive components only if the distribution of real voltage is kept below useful values amounting to nano watts and pico watts so as to avoid disturbing (suppressing) reactive feedback. This accumulation of reactance serves as feedback for the input of subsequent cycles of oscillation causing reactance to escalate at exponential values. Hence, “free energy” is an incorrect assessment of this peculiar situation. A more rational explanation is to claim “freely available reactance” resulting from an extremely low input of real power. Convention teaches us that the peaks and troughs of voltage and current may oscillate their amplitudes as they travel around the circumference of a circuit. But there is another possibility in which they may echo their peaks and troughs in diametric opposition to each other during each half of an oscillation effectively creating a standing wave of one-half cycle of displacement between their phases (See, Fig. 1a, above). This will only occur if we discourage or prohibit the formation of current while maximizing the accumulation of the imaginary component of reactive power. At some point, the complex enumeration of the real and imaginary portions of electric power will be squared during our mathematical assessment of the electrodynamic behavior of a circuit. If we keep the input voltage extremely low and suppress the flow of current, then we may succeed at developing more reactance than what conventional wisdom would expect. And when, through simple (thermodynamic) conversion when passed through a resistor, the complex result (of the squaring of a complex value) will have its phases of real voltage realigned with its phases of reactive voltage and with its various impedances (voltage realigned with current possessing a power factor of positive unity, ) and, thus, be able to convert the cross-product of: into the squaring of the imaginary portion: , of a complex reactance. = Utilization of Electrical Reactance = [[File:Ammann with solar capacitance, v2c3c3g2 = solder joints, schematic.png|thumb|left|alt=Schematic of a simulation speculated to be the Ammann brothers' Atmospheric Generator.|[https://ufile.io/ptgf7eug Fig. 2 is a schematic] of a simulation speculated to be the [[c:File:Ammann_brothers%27_original_newpaper_photograph.jpg|Ammann brothers' Atmospheric Generator]].]] [[File:Spark gap macro of a neon bulb simulated in Micro-Cap software..png|thumb|alt=Spark gap macro of a neon bulb simulated in Micro-Cap software.|Fig. 3 – The runtime simulation of the schematic of Fig. 2 (on the left) will not achieve overunity without this neon bulb macro from [http://www.spectrum-soft.com/index.shtm Micro-Cap]. There is no conventional source of voltage within this macro, because they are behavioral voltage sources predicated upon logical criteria, i.e.: “if this, then that”.]] [[File:Ammann with solar capacitance, v2c3c3g2 = solder joints, output.png|thumb|Fig. 4 – This illustrates the ON/OFF state of the neon bulb, [[v:Draft:Free_Energy_does_not_Exist#Utilization_of_Electrical_Reactance|in Fig. 2]], and the output of four inductive loads. The escalation of wattage is assisted by an inversion of the polarity of current (relative to voltage) resulting from restricting input and preventing any exit of current.]] Freely available reactive power is never useless, except from a thermodynamic viewpoint, until it is converted (via a resistive heating element) to boil water and rotate a steam turbine to generate electrical energy (as one example of conversion) to do away with nuclear power plants and their byproduct of plutonium. == What's Reversal of Current Good For? == Conventional circuits deplete their voltage source by slowly or quickly equalizing the difference in potential between the two terminals of a fixed voltage source, such as: a battery. They do this by moving a conventional direction of current from higher areas of voltage (occurring at one terminal) towards areas of lower voltage (at the opposing terminal). For example, ...
| ''A typical 12-volt auto battery will have around 12.6 volts when fully charged. It only needs to drop down to around 10.5 volts to be considered fully discharged.''[https://www.batteriesplus.com/blog/power/car-battery-care Everything You Need to Know About the Battery in Your Car or Truck]: What Happens When Your Battery's Charge Gets Too Low?, by Bryan Veldboom @Batteries Plus |
| ''Does someone want to risk their life by testing out my theories? Because these simulations are suggesting the electrical equivalence of a bomb!'' |
|---|
''“While Earl was demonstrating his invention all over the streets of Denver, the power had been cut off in the foothills. In spite of this, when he went to Washington DC shortly afterward to try to obtain a patent on his Cosmo Electric Generator, he found that charges had been filed against him claiming he had a device to steal power from the power lines.”'' K. H. Isselstein, Spokane, WA[https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3520/is-it-possible-to-obtain-current-indirectly-from-power-lines Is it possible to obtain current indirectly from power lines?] Skeptics, StackExchange Instead, I would say that he was “disrupting the grid” since whatever he received from the grid was minimal due to a very weak magnetic coupling existing between the grid and his device. Most of what was “stolen” was lost to the environment benefiting no one. This arrest is why you and I never heard of him until I ran across a few people on [http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/14490-ltspice-simulation-of-electronic-boost-via-the-isolation-of-voltage-current-sources#post435066 EnergeticForum] talking about him. And, now, you know a little of his story. His theft does not mean he was a fraud. Oh, contrair! It means that the grid got in the way since it was available for having its reactance sucked out of it at an alarming rate. So quickly was this magnetic field extracted, that my simulations (Fig. 5a and Fig. 5b) indicate that a lot of current was being taken from transmission lines located nearby and from the wiring of the homes of their neighbors. Yet, their device would have worked nearly just as efficiently without a grid nearby to suck energy from had they located themselves out in the middle of the ocean or the desert or on some lonely mountain top. Yet, as my simulation indicates, up-above, [[v:Draft:Free_Energy_does_not_Exist#Utilization_of_Electrical_Reactance|in Fig. 2]] (which presumes living out in the countryside far away from the electric utility grid), this style of free energy circuitry performs very nicely without any help from energy sources, nearby, getting its reactance from within itself upon its stimulation from external sources, such as: the ambient charge existing in the atmosphere at ground level. This amounts to a mere micro volt which is amply sufficient for stimulating over-reactance in a circuit of appropriate design. [[File:Winnie-the-Pooh 094-1.png|thumb|'''Oh, pooh!''']] Since this style of circuitry does not require an external power source, but does require an external catalyst of stimulation, care must be taken to restrict external sources of power to protect those sources from becoming overloaded with huge demands placed upon them arising from this highly reactive type of circuit. Reactance can become a sponge (of inverted current) sucking energy from out of sources of voltage if allowed to do so without limitation. It is this demand, born of reactance, which broadcasts an inversion of current outwardly towards its environment giving the appearance of making a necessary demand. This imposition is unnecessary. It burdens both the environment and whatever source of power resides there. This is why reactance has been the bane of electrical engineers, for there are two sides of reactance, either: benevolent or demanding. We have to take care to restrict our use of reactance to benefit our appliances without destroying our sources of energy in the course of utilizing them. We do this by becoming mindful of the fact that we no longer need a source of power to fund our devices. All we need is for those sources to catalyze an over-reactance. Once over-reactance takes over (if we let it), it -then- becomes the dominant source for the accumulation of proto-energy (radiant energy; current inversion) which can -then- be converted into real power through mere resistance, alone. Our sociological “motivation for profit” must be restricted to our motive for leading a productive life without allowing this “motive for profit” to unduly burden anyone or anything. So, I am advocating efficiency and the fair treatment of the consumer in the course of pursuing “free energy”. Profit has become the bane of the consumer especially in the wake of inflation in which ''profit becomes inflated'' making its pursuit an automatic infringement upon human decency.
The very foundation of our society has been predicated upon the profit motive. Yet, its pursuit has spawned the inflation of our economy making its continued pursuit a violation of human dignity and welfare. There's no profit to be made from “free energy” if no one can charge us for its consumption. We can avoid being charged for our energy usage by recycling its electrical reactance to such a degree of excessive '''conservation''' that a mere factor of 99% reuse (for instance) constitutes a 100 to 1 gain (of output versus input) without any violation of physics.Through power factor correction, using a capacitor in parallel with an inductive load, we can reuse 99% of our electricity [https://vinyasi.info/ne?startCircuit=powerfactor2.txt in this example]. This spawns ''the appearance of'' a 100 to 1 gain of output relative to input. Yet, this ''appearance'' is a mirage since no law of physics has been violated.== Non-Explosive Simulation == is.gd/noexplode [[File:Now7a3d2b, slightly diff windings on Armature1 vs Armature2, schematic.png|thumb|left|alt=Now7a3d2b, slightly diff windings on Armature1 vs Armature2, schematic.|[https://ufile.io/ks2boanx Stable, non-explosive schematic] fed from a 1½V solar panel (or battery) giving a plateau of 900k Watts, RMS, building up its output over 300ks of run-time (83⅓ hours ≅ 3½ days).]] [[File:Now7a3d2b, slightly diff windings on Armature1 vs Armature2, output, numeric.svg|thumb|alt=File:Now7a3d2b, slightly diff windings on Armature1 vs Armature2, output, numeric.|Stable, non-explosive output.]] It's possible to achieve a [https://ufile.io/ks2boanx non-explosive simulation] of a stable output in [http://www.spectrum-soft.com/index.shtm Micro-Cap 12 electronic simulator]. Power is enhanced if the two ferromagnetic coils, Armature1 and Armature2, possess slightly different number of windings of insulated floral (green) iron wire in contrast to each other. This simulation was hosted on a 64-bit computer. Hosting Micro-Cap 12 on anything less than this, such as: on a 32-bit computer, tends to give (what may be considered) a greater tendency for false positives with regard to [[wikt:over-unity|overunity]] of gainful output. == Conventional vs Non-Conventional Circuits == [[File:Perfect example of explosion of power from current inversion.png|thumb|left|alt=Comparison of two circuit simulations.|Fig. 6a compares two circuits: the output on the bottom graph displays an explosion of gain due to the inversion of current arising from the plasma state of a [[c:File:Spark_gap_macro_of_a_neon_bulb_simulated_in_Micro-Cap_software..png|neon bulb, spark gap]].]] [[File:Efficient example of explosion of power from current inversion.png|thumb|alt=How to flash a neon bulb ON to take advantage of its reversal of current.|Fig. 6b is [https://ufile.io/856ymhga a more efficient method] of flashing a neon bulb ON [[c:File:Perfect_example_of_explosion_of_power_from_current_inversion.png|instead of a conventional method]] which needlessly wastes input.]] ➞ Lest anyone entertain the erroneous opinion that all of this is due to imperfections of simulation due to round-off error,Search terms: [https://search.brave.com/search?q=simulation+round+off+error&source=web simulation round off error] I have discovered that round-off error is a byproduct of our choice of computer which we use for hosting our simulation software. Is it a 64-bit computer? Then, we're in luck! Is it anything less than this? Oops! BTW... Round-off error is ''not'' determined by the simulator, per se. I wrote about this, a little bit with illustrated examples, in my self-published book, entitled: ''Oops! How I Goofed Simulating [[wikt:over-unity|Overunity]] Circuits on a 32-bit Computer...,'' available at [https://a.co/d/2LQxdXr Amazon], [https://payhip.com/b/0zqG4 Payhip] and for free download from [https://vinyasi.info/mhoslaw/Oops.pdf my website]. here are a pair of variations of a conventional circuit (Fig. 6a and Fig. 6b) which costs a conventionally high drainage made upon some batteries. Yet, the magic does not get initiated there. True, they will contribute their excessive drainage of current, but the magical orchestration will originate (not at the batteries, but) at the neon bulb turning ON (arcing into a plasma) when it reaches its breakdown of resistance at, or above, 90 volts (which is what Micro-Cap simulator sets this threshold at). Then, and only then, will the batteries exceed their prior drainage of nearly 450k amperes to achieve an escalation quickly rising to infinity! This demonstrates the magic of the inversion of current (relative to the phase of voltage) arising, here, exclusively from the neon bulb rather than from any fancy arrangement of electrical components (usually: inductances and capacitances). All of the costs of energy to run this simulated circuit are conforming to conventionally high values expected of them so as to minimize the possibility of no one taking this example, seriously. The example on the right is more efficient along a style that I frequently employ of using precharged capacitors and/or voltage sources rated at around 1µ volt (a sine wave generator in this example). In this case, this sine source provides a very important frequency of sufficient pitch to accelerate an opportunity for an explosive gain of amplitude to occur without wasting a whole lot of power to facilitate this opportunity. The power is provided by the 10 Farad capacitors (possessing a maximum of 400 milli Ohms, each, of equivalent series resistance) and each are precharged with 100 volts of opposing polarity to coincide with each other in their circular arrangement. Sometimes, it's important to distinguish between frequency and power and separate them so as to not waste a continuous stream of power to maintain a frequency. This frequency can be very useful in accelerating the time it takes for reactance to explode and yield significant results of amplitude despite the fact that neither formula for electrical reactance (inductive or capacitive) has any factor of kinetic energy, such as: power, amps, or volts, inside of it. Instead, they possess potentialities of power, such as: frequency, inductance, and capacitance per cycle of oscillation defined in terms of angular momentum, or: 2?. Here is another reality to energy which is often overlooked regarding the inherent potential energy already resident within a circuit, namely: its momentum. Thus, if we focus on a circuit's momentum, rather than focusing on giving the circuit any more energy in addition to whatever it already possesses, then we have an opportunity to manipulate this momentum using the potentialities of: frequency, inductance and capacitance. This does not cost us any more energy than what has already been fed into our circuit. Think about it ...
|
''[[w:Moment_of_inertia#Definition|Definition of Moment of Inertia]]''
For a [[w:simple pendulum|simple pendulum]] (an oscillating body/system/circuit), this definition yields a formula for the moment of inertia {{mvar|I}} in terms of the mass {{mvar|m}} of the pendulum and its distance {{mvar|r}} from the pivot point as, Thus, the moment of inertia of the oscillating body (pendulum) depends on both the mass {{mvar|m}} of a body and its geometry, or shape, as defined by the distance {{mvar|r}} to the axis of rotation. |
| ''The energy conservation law is a consequence of the shift [[w:Symmetry in physics|symmetry]] of time; energy conservation is implied by the empirical fact that the [[w:Physical law|laws of physics]] do not change with time itself. Philosophically this can be stated as “nothing depends on time per se”. In other words, if the physical system is invariant under the [[w:continuous symmetry|continuous symmetry]] of [[w:time translation|time translation]] then its energy (which is the [[w:canonical conjugate|canonical conjugate]] quantity to time) is conserved. Conversely, systems that are not invariant under shifts in time (e.g. systems with time-dependent potential energy) do not exhibit conservation of energy – unless we consider them to exchange energy with another, an external system so that the theory of the enlarged system becomes time-invariant again.'' | ||||||||||
|
Editor's note: ''“nothing depends upon time per se”'' – Someone went ''to sleep at the wheel'' while driving their proverbial electrified vessel! ''Apparently,'' physicists could care less about electrodynamics in which electrical reactance depends ''heavily'' upon time as its foundation since reactance (ie, ''“time-dependent potential energy”'') has no dynamic outside of time. Hence, time-frames (ie, cycles and half-cycles of oscillation) ''matter a lot!''
By the way, ... This is not quantum mechanics in which “black holes” and “time travel” needs to be invoked for the reversal of light (acting as current reversal) to occur. Instead, simple electrodynamic theory applies, here. |
| This law, also called '''Kirchhoff's first law''', or '''Kirchhoff's junction rule''', states that, for any node (junction) in an [[w:Electrical_circuit|electrical circuit]], the sum of [[w:Current_(electricity)|current]]s flowing into that node is equal to the sum of currents flowing out of that node; or equivalently: ''The algebraic sum of currents in a network of conductors meeting at a point is zero.'' |
| A fantastic conclusion, that: The Whole is Smaller than Some of its Parts |
|---|
The current of I2 is greater than the total current of I1 due to the negation of I3.
I1 = 2.8A I2 = 5.1A I3 = 2.3A I1 = I2 + I3
2.8A = 5.1A + (–2.3A)
Yet, |I2| > I1 = ''The absolute value of I2 is greater than I1!''
|
|
[https://josephnewman.info/blog/f/inversion-of-voltage-source-for-a-single-phase-induction-motor ''Inversion of Voltage Source for a Single-Phase Induction Motor''] – Newman Motor blog
[https://www.instructables.com/How-to-Make-a-Free-Energy-Device-Which-Clones-More/#step32 How to Make a Free Energy Device Which Clones More Electromagnetic Waves.]
Step 32: Latest Discovery – Instructables.com > Circuits > Electronics [https://vimeo.com/vinyasi/invertedinductionmotor ''Inverted Placement of Source Voltage in a Single Phase Induction Motor''] – a Vimeo video [https://web.archive.org/web/20181210012332/https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Motor_transformer ''Wikimedia Commons: Motor transformer''] – a page at archive.org [https://web.archive.org/web/20181210024110/https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Motor%E2%80%93transformer ''Category:Motor–transformer''] – contains the page, above, at archive.org [https://ufile.io/ubn2jb3b Download a compressed ZIP file] of a Micro-Cap simulation of a variation of Pavel's Shorted Transformer/Generator – archived, Nov. 2022, at ufile.io [https://vinyasi.info/mhoslaw/Parametric%20Transformers/2022/Nov/LTSpice%20-%20Tesla's%20Pierce-Arrow/Inverted%20EV%20Motor%20-%20Micro%20Cap/?C=M;O=D https://is.gd/downloadpavel] – download simulations of Pavel's shorted transformer [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwteYqUouDFCg3VTls0r_HXxHSBJbFBQj https://is.gd/playpavel] is a list of YouTube ''free energy'' slideshows derived from pop tunes |
Play all of the slides within [[c:Category:Growth of electrical non-saturation|Category:Growth of electrical non-saturation]] by hovering your cursor over the dark green square on the far right. It looks like this: ''' > ''' at first. But after you hover over it, it will change into this: '''Show Slideshow > ''' and then you'll be able to click on it to play the slides. Or, in the alternative, [https://www.kapwing.com/videos/638f878184846300b39ebfa3 play this animated GIF] of one minute duration.The sine wave input, which underlies these triangular waves, retains the same frequency and amplitude over time. The sine-shaped, carrier wave represents the “forced oscillations” of voltage input entering into this type of circuit from its sine wave generator. This input source of voltage provides the circuit (to which it is attached) only one terminal (half a network portal) for current to escape, namely: its terminal of entry. Hence, its coils and capacitors are ''forced to generate'' free oscillations of non-saturable, triangular waves of an ever-escalating amplitude (of both voltage and current) in order to free itself of its confinement from within its half-portal network. This is the only way in which voltage buildup may escape confinement: is by reversing its polarity of direction relative to voltage and buildup to the point of explosively exiting the circuit by destroying its host-circuit. Convention dictates that we provide current with a throughput to encourage its natural inclination to flow. But my unconventional approach is intended to thwart that outcome and deny a throughput of current since that would result in a relative synchronicity of positive unity, power factor, and a boring output less than its input satisfying conventional expectations of under-unity. We want a negative unity, power factor or else the generation of free energy will not happen. So, we have to risk destroying the circuit (in pursuit of free energy) if we should fail at regulating its explosive growth of overunity. But that's the price I am willing to risk if I want free energy to manifest. So, we could safely deduce that the forced oscillations have already saturated this type of circuit configuration while the free oscillations will ''never'' saturate this circuit. It's as if this circuit is exhibiting the characteristic behavior of a multiplex network which can accommodate multiple streams of data transfer due to the unique characteristics of each data stream: the forced oscillations remain saturated while the free oscillations do not. Hence, the amplitudes of voltage and current of the forced oscillations remain constant exhibiting their Conservation of Energy while the amplitudes of voltage and current of the free oscillations continue to grow beyond the RMS amplitudes of the forced oscillations. This would violate the Conservation of Energy if these free oscillations were to be considered as the resulting output of their causative input for that would seem to be the case at first glance. But first impressions can be deceiving. If I vary the input voltage of the sine wave generator, not much change occurs at the output. Although some direct relationship exists between the two, it's not an equivalency since the input varies by a fraction (and not linear) to the variation of the output. It's more like an exponential differential (at the very least) barring explosive rates of growth transforming their exponential relationship into an infinite rate of growth. If it be true that Conservation of Energy is a Universal property of all forms of energy and inviolate, then I am left to conclude that reactance is a self-feeding process which contributes to the overall amplitudes of energy. In other words, ...
“You cant boost nothing” [[File:Laughing monkey.jpg|thumb|left|Laughing monkey.]] I wouldn't consider you to be nothing. You are a living, breathing creature capable of running the electrical force in your body at a level of wattage little different than the background wattage of our environment. That is the amount of energy I prefer to feed the simulation of my circuits. True, sometimes slightly more, but no more than about 3V. But that's only under specific and rare circumstances. Usually, I like to keep the voltage down around a microvolt which amounts to nano watts or pico watts which is how much energy you and I run off of. This is also similar to how much power was supplied to crystal radio sets of 100 years ago. But the difference is that you and I are very efficient at how little electrical power we run off of by comparison to crystal radio sets from a bygone era which were far less efficient putting out, at best, a feeble signal to their earpiece. You must've heard stories of grandmothers, in a fit of passion or whatever it was that overtook them at that moment in time, lifted up a car to get one of their grandchildren out from under it defying the laws of physics! How did they do that? Or is it just a lame attempt at wowing us with fantasies? They probably spent a lifetime of devotion in a fraction of a second if I were to take a guess at how they *did not* violate any law of physics any more than spending a battery in a moment by discharging without any resistance would cause that battery to blow up! It's true that energy is forever in a state of being frozen unless acted upon by forces exterior to itself. But that does not mean that electrical reactance is also a fixed condition incapable of flexibility, because electrical reactance is not referenced to its environment. Unlike energy, reactance references to itself. This is why reactance is so readily manipulatable. And since energy and reactance can be converted from one into the other and back again, effectively speaking, energy can be magnified or contracted but in a roundabout fashion via its conversion into electrical reactance and the reactant manipulation which we can perform upon our perception of energy whenever it is being charged and discharged to, or from, its reactive containment. Electrical reactance is more than just a temporary form of storage. It is more than this. It contributes the characteristic of its containment onto the energy stored (inside of it) altering the characteristic of that energy in ways that are determined by the potential characteristics of electrical reactance, namely the characteristic of: frequency, phase shift, capacitance, and inductance, all of which determine the final product of energy which discharges from the temporary phase of storage of reactive energy. Take frequency, for instance ...One more comment of mine from that Quora post ...
A second of a kilowatt is not the same as an hour of a kilowatt. And that's just one example of energy containment affecting how, or to what extent if any, the discharge of that energy is going to have upon its surrounding environment, namely: the other electrical components affiliated with its location within that circuit. It's like a speed skater who gets a boost from a jet pack strapped to his body causing him/her to scoot far ahead of the other speed skaters. Because, if he/she were to time compress their skating to the finish line, it wouldn't matter how much energy, nor would it matter how little energy, they possessed. Nor would it matter how fast or slow they skated. They could be skating slower than everyone else, from their perspective. Yet, due to a contraction of time, they'll still win the race. That's what impact reactance can have upon the outcome. It's a delusion to think that we know how to measure the quantity of energy whenever reactance can override our measurements causing us to think that some law of physics has been violated, which we know cannot be, so we'll bury the data and move on to something else ignoring what our training has taught us all these years: that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. True, but largely not relevant under the circumstances which I am describing and exampling. So, the physic's Conservation law, and the Kirchhoff Laws, which states that energy IN has to equal energy OUT only applies to real power. It does not apply to electrical reactance since there is no such thing as another variety of power called: reactive power. That would be a contradiction in terms allowing for the ability of imaginary numbers having any impact upon real numbers. They can't. That's why we keep them separate from each other and call this a: complex situation! In other words, when energy enters into a condition of electrical reactance, what comes out ... the electrical reactance which comes out ... is not the same as the energy which entered into that reactant condition. It could be more reactance than the energy which entered, or it could be less, but it is never the same. Only energy IN equals energy OUT. Kirchhoff Laws do not designate anything other than the consistency of current and voltage. Kirchhoff Laws ignore reactance. So, there can be no equivalency between reactance IN versus reactance OUT. And if a law of mankind, a legalistic law, fails to prohibit a thing, then you can be sure that that thing is allowed by law. It is a known precept of political law that if something, anything, is not explicitly stated somewhere within the labyrinth of laws, then it cannot be prohibited. The inlet of reactance cannot equal the outlet of reactance because reactance is incapable of maintaining itself since reactance is a mechanism of self-reference unlike energy which always refers to something else other than itself (usually, outside of itself). Energy and reactance are completely different in how they go about "grounding" their reference point. So, your concerns are valid from a simple viewpoint, such as that of a child, but I am addressing you as an adult knowing that you can handle something more complicated than what children are expected to handle. Unfortunately, electrical engineering is so complicated that we are all children on some, or another, or all of the subtopics of electrical engineering. So, it is no surprise that the public is underinformed, and misinformed, riddled with con artists who take advantage of our pandemic ignorance. Electrical engineering taught us the facts of its subject and gave us permission to use its most important feature for purposes outside of the limitations of energy if we ever bother to test conventional wisdom to see if it conforms with whatever we've been taught. Unfortunately, I don't count a lecture as superseding experience. If lab experience should differ from the lecture, then either I don't understand what the teacher is driving at, or the teacher has overlooked the freedom which the experience of laboratory experimentation can offer to anyone who is open to it. Instead, our formal training emphasizes the domain of real power (involving volts and amps) and the Kirchhoff Laws to back up that limited range of usage. We are never taught that the container of energy, namely: reactance, is more powerful than the energy which is laid out by Ohm's Law since reactance manipulates perspective. Only energy is actually "contained" by reactance. Reactance, itself, cannot be contained by anything since it supersedes the influence which energy may have. It's true that reactance can electrocute living creatures. Energy does that; reactance cannot do that. Yet, reactance can alter energy so that its prior state of energy (which could not do any harm) could easily become transformed into harmful energy. To finish off this comment, ...
Imagine, if you will, a king who cannot be a king if he has no subjects to be a king to rule over. And this king has no family to pass his legacy of rulership onto when he dies. This is the dilemma of reactance. If reactance has no energy to count as its subject, then nothing gets done. But once energy comes onto the scene, no matter how small and insignificant that energy may be, it doesn't matter. For, that king will treat that paltry energy as if it were his lost prodigal son giving this adopted son endless banquets in his son's honor. And that king will love and devote his remaining years to the welfare of that adopted son as if nothing else mattered. For, that king must have an heir to his thrown. Nothing else matters. He'll love that son, no matter what, even if that love should kill that king.
''When we manage to boost the energy from solar panels operating at night, such as the manner of boosting input power which my scheme suggests at over 300 times magnification, then well have 24/7 power from solar cells. Using the data from ...2. Here's another criticism, plus my response, to another posting on Quora ...My answer to: [https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-a-reverse-matching-voltage-1-5V-of-high-current-150A-was-sent-through-an-oscillator-fed-by-a-solar-panel-1-5V-150A/answer/Ronald-Williams-176?ch=10&oid=403422417&share=401b6cd1&srid=3zXXZ&target_type=answer What would happen if a reverse matching voltage (-1.5V) of high current (-150A) was sent through an oscillator fed by a solar panel (+1.5V, -150A)?] on Quora [[File:Oscillations of Radiant Energy due to throwing away most of the input..png|alt=Oscillations of Radiant Energy|thumb|Oscillations of Radiant Energy due to throwing away most of the input and prohibiting the formation of current (within this circuit) by disallowing an exit (to avoid satisfying its inlet). For neophyte designers of overunity circuits, there should be only one inlet doubling as its own outlet.]] My response to a critic:
[http://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/radfaq.html#10 Radiometry and photometry in astronomy (stjarnhimlen.se)]
Full sunlight is 130k lux. Starlight with airglow is 2m lux. Thats a ratio difference of 65 million to one. So, The cube root of 65 million is approximately 400. And my electrical boosting scheme delivers a magnification of 320. So, my scheme is capable of boosting nightlight falling upon solar panels if more than three of these setups are daisy-chained so that each output feeds the input for the next module in series.''
“That is a complete load of rubbish, throwing away most of the solar panel voltage throws away most of the available power. Statements talking about current reversals are also quite useless to the job of producing energy, there is no free energy, it is at best an illusion, this author is a charlatan.” Is the author's use of English that confusing? I thought it was clearly about expanding reactance under temporary storage in the complex field in and around reactive components. I thought reactance was for free apart from the initial investment of the circuits design and construction plus a catalyst style of prime mover, not a prime mover with the intention of providing any significant power. A catalyst, by definition, is reusable. But a catalyst, by implication, can also be quantitatively insignificant yet qualitatively very significant enough to overcome its quantitative insignificance and make a valuable contribution towards efficiency. A large part of reactive efficiency is all about its reusage per unit of time so that more reactance can be reused per unit of time rather than less reusage. This boosts coefficience of performance figures closer and closer to unity so that an electrical system which uses one unit of power at its input and yields 100 units of power at its output (all due to the reuse of reactance) will have an efficiency of 99%. That's not overunity of efficiency despite its output gives the appearance of being overunity when it is not, really, despite its appearance. So, maybe the author is being purposefully, or accidentally, vague on what the term of overunity is being attached to: efficiency or output, since it clearly only applies to the latter. But since this is a situation of the reuse of reactance, overunity is not very important – nor is it very significant – since it's not at all accurate, because there is no overunity of power. It merely looks that way at first glance.== Tribulations == * Wikibooks: [[b:Talk:Free_Energy_does_not_Exist#Free_Energy_does_not_Exist_(backup_copy,_here...)|Requests for deletion – Free Energy does not Exist]]
“@[[User:Leaderboard|Leaderboard]], I forgot to mention...* Wikibooks: Reading room, assistance – [[b:Wikibooks:Reading_room/Assistance#How_do_I_improve_my_wikibook,_or_is_it_impossible_to_improve_it?|How do I improve my wikibook, or is it impossible to improve it?]] * Wiktionary: Information desk: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Information_desk/2022/November#Two_very_different_definitions_of_%22perpetual_motion%22_... Two very different definitions of "perpetual motion" ...] = Alternative Explanation of Current Reversal = * [[b:Circuit_Idea/How_to_Reverse_Current_Direction|How to Reverse Current Direction]]: a single page from the WikiBook, entitled: “Circuit Idea”. = For Further Study = * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor#Current_and_voltage_reversal Capacitor: Current and voltage reversal] * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_phase_change#Electrical_transmission_lines Reflection phase change: Electrical transmission lines] ;broken / open line: A [[w:transmission line|transmission line]] terminated with an open circuit is the [[w:Duality (electrical circuits)|dual]] case; the voltage wave is shifted by 0° and the current wave is shifted by 180°. * [[w:Power_gain|Power gain]] * Infinite [[w:Open-loop_gain|Open-loop gain]] * [[w:Inrush_current|Inrush current]] & [[c:File:Inrush_current.gif|File:Inrush current.gif]] * reversed time; reversed or negated damping. * [[w:Two-port_network|Two-port network]] needs a new definition for half-port networks composed of merely one terminal. * [[w:Open-circuit_voltage|Open-circuit voltage]] * [[w:Category:Electrical parameters|Category:Electrical parameters]] * [[w:Admittance|Admittance]] == Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter == * [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbB_l1GqEbY Audio recording] of Eric Dollard reading from his essay, entitled: “[http://ericpdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/theory_of_wireless_power_eric_dollard.pdf Theory of Wireless Power]” (1986) * [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIguoTEGzyw Radiant Energy is the Precursor to Free Energy] (a YouTube video) with parallelisms to Nikola Tesla's [[w:World_Wireless_System|Wireless Transmission theory.]] * [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3GSHRgV9SM Sending electricity through the Earth] (a YouTube video), by Ernst Willem van den Bergh, of [https://www.youtube.com/user/TheMage00000 Wardenclyffe Research] (a YouTube channel). * [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBhVDcZwAls Wardenclyffe] (YouTube video, with my comments and the OP's responses) ...
Electrical engineering has always allowed for ''free energy circuits'' by renaming them: unstable. In other words, "energy IN does not equal energy OUT" defines an ''unstable circuit'' in which you can't predict the output based on the input, alone. ''This is in addition to an allowance for a shift in time due to the frequency component of the formulae for electrical reactance supersedes Conservation of Energy.''Each cycle of oscillation is keeping time for an electrical reactance to continue to occur. If this frequency should change of its own accord, then time has shifted within the domain of that reactance and Conservation is disqualified (under [[w:Conservation_of_energy#Noether's_theorem|Noether's Theorem]]). Thus, Conservation of Energy is not a law so much as it is a yardstick by which circuit topologies are measured to determine a circuit's type. If a circuit's output is unpridictable (based on its input, alone), then it is unstable since its output was not conserved within the boundaries imposed by its input. Type-casting is not disallowance; it is merely prejudice.
“Considering how unstable circuit simulators are (due to their consistent use of matrix algebra as a shortcut for calculating a circuit's outcome), simulating an unstable circuit within the context of an unstable simulator yields "matrix is singular" error messages more often than not. Only stable circuits yield predictable outcomes. Simulators find no fault with these types of circuits.
“Using an inherently unstable simulator to calculate a circuit's behavior is a predisposition (ie, prejudice) towards favoring stable circuits since only stable circuits will pass through this artificial, manmade act of filtration without coughing up and freezing in mid-stride. This is not due to some Law of Nature. It is due to flagrant social engineering. -- [[User:Vinyasi|Vinyasi]] ([[User talk:Vinyasi|discuss]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vinyasi|contribs]]) 03:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)”
Me ...== Ether Theory & Gravity == * [http://www.wakingtimes.com/tesla-vs-einstein-the-ether-the-birth-of-the-new-physics/ Tesla vs. Einstein: The Ether & the Birth of the New Physics] Waking Times * [https://electricalscience.quora.com/Teslas-Dynamic-Theory-of-Gravity Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity] Quora - Electrical Science * [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNrquwHVUPQ Nikola Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity] (YouTube video) * [https://www.netowne.com/technology/important/ Summation of Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity]; An excerpt from: [https://search.brave.com/search?q=occult+ether+physics+william+r+lyne&source=web Occult Ether Physics], by [https://search.brave.com/search?q=william+r+lyne&source=web William R. Lyne]. == [[q:Mahatma_Gandhi#Posthumous_publications_(1950s_and_later)|A Few Quotations from Mahatma Gandhi]] == [[File:See_No_Evil,_Hear_No_Evil,_Speak_No_Evil.jpg|thumb|A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty.]] * '''My life is my message.''' ** Response to a journalist's question about what his message to the world was. [http://www.gandhiserve.org/video/mahatma/commentary13.html ''Mahatma: Life of Gandhi 1869-1948'' (1968) Reel 13] * You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil administration never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil.
''“Could the reversal of current, relative to the polarity of voltage within his Magnifying Transmitter, be a diagnostic check that his Magnifying Transmitter was succeeding at doing its job of collecting atmospheric electricity? In as much as, this reversal of current would be directing the flow of charges into his device (from the atmosphere) in contradistinction, and in counter-opposition, to conventional devices? Convention dictates that our devices must dissipate their potential to do work since they must follow the dictates of thermodynamics such that their current is in phase with their voltage with little or no separation of their phase relations (at least no separation greater than plus or minus one-quarter cycle of oscillations), and -thus- behave in an entropic manner?'' ''“Also to consider, is the fact that his Magnifying Transmitter was orienting its potential in a radial manner, rather than in a circulating manner, since it possessed no return path (it was a monopolar device). Thus, reversal of its current (if this had been the case) would have directed potential inwardly towards itself in the format of a flow of current directed inwardly from the surrounding environment?'' ''“Also, it sounds like a verification that the Ammann brothers' so-called: ''Atmospheric Generator'' may have been patterned off of Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter? Now that I've watched this video, this seems more likely than ever before since I've already considered the possibility that they were using one of his patents for their inspiration. But now, it seems very likely!'' ''“In further confirmation...''
''“It was claimed, by authorities in Washington, D.C., that upon the arrival of C. Earl Ammann with his batteryless EV to demonstrate his technology for the benefit of the U.S. Patent Office, he was promptly arrested on charges of ''stealing energy from the grid'' since his demonstration in Denver, Colorado, in August of 1921 (prior to his arrival in Washington) had the distinct side-effect of putting out the power of the grid's customers in the outskirts of downtown Denver (yet, not within downtown Denver, itself). I suspect that he was messing with the phase relations of the grid across the radius of influence of his device (which he has been quoted as saying that it had a ten-mile broadcast radius). So, I'm guessing that he wasn't stealing energy from the grid so much as he was disturbing it throughout its radius of influence while at the same time supplying it with reversed polarity of the flow of energy towards the center of this range of influence at the location of his device. So, at the outskirts of this circle of influence, his device was too weak to have any influence other than that of disturbing the phase angle (or, power factor) of the grid without being strong enough to suck any current through the grid (and from the atmosphere) towards his device at this periphery of its range of influence. Thus, a more accurate assessment would be to claim that he was a domestic terrorist at the outskirts of town (if we would have created that term back then) while also being a Robin Hood of sorts within downtown Denver!”'' Postscript ...
I have found, with my five years of experience simulating overunity (over-reactive) circuits, that they will usually behave like a glutton and hog energy from a voltage source, but only if the source is provided by way of a hard electrical connection ([https://vinyasi.info/ne?startCircuit=overunity-breakthrough2.txt closed switch] in [[c:File:Escalating_voltage_differences_arising_from_pairs_of_inductive_and_capacitive_reactances_in_an_LMD_formation.png|this example]]), or else by a “soft” connection, such as: a magnetic coupling. ''{Maybe this is what the Ammann brothers' device made use of? A magnetic coupling to the electric utility grid, nearby, and -thus- rightfully warrant the arrest of C. Earl Ammann as noted above?}'' If, on the other hand, the source is quickly disconnected, its drainage (by the overly reactive circuit) will be minimized, and this circuit topology will turn to its own reactance to make up the difference, but only if it is isolated from exterior sources, such as: the grid (which pervades the city landscape). So, one could say that sources of energy ''might'' get in the way of overunity circuits and, thus, block our attempt at reducing our dependency on those sources of energy (for example: the grid, batteries, solar, geothermal, etc.). Yet, sources of energy are necessary to initiate over-reactance. This is why I have learned to use precharged capacitors, of one micro volt or one milli volt mimicking environmental ambient energy at ground level, to initiate over-reactance and quickly dissipate its precharged energy into the circuit so as to avoid suppressing the evolutionary growth of over-reactance (emanating from this unique form of positive feedback).[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9RuDKWbf05CEr6Ss7lWvUQ OP] ...Me ...
No, in my experiments I have not seen a reversal of polarity. What happens is that you receive additional current. This is also what you see in lightning. For example 20 MV is just enough to break through 20 m of air, which it does, but then another 20m step is taken, and another etc. (google “stepped leader”) This builds up a charges channel and when it connects to ground it discharges violently. This final discharge contains charges collected from the atmosphere surrounding the leader (NOT - as most people assume - from the thunder cloud). As for the Ammann brothers, I have never heard of them, so I can't respond to that.
I thought arcing spark gaps exhibit the reversal of current (relabeled: negative resistance), yet, mathematically equivalent? On a different note, and getting back to my question ... I wonder if reversal of current occurs only in the receiver coils? Not in the transmitter?[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9RuDKWbf05CEr6Ss7lWvUQ OP] ...Me ...
Not sure if I understand what you mean. If you have a 100KHz coil resonating, the current through it reverses 200,000 times per second. In a SGTC, when the spark-gap breaks, it triggers a reversal of current in the primary, starting an oscillation.
Then, I can assume there is more than one way to accumulate charge other than by reversal of current? And less explosive since, maybe, it is easier to ... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBhVDcZwAls&t=168s 2:48]
... regulate the magnetic field drawing in charges from the atmosphere when the acceleration of the electrostatic field occurs between the cathode and the anode?[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9RuDKWbf05CEr6Ss7lWvUQ OP] ...
Yes, I think there are more ways. In fact I am working on one that I hope will work on a much smaller scale.