Better than a Hartley oscillator - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / projects

author: Vinyasi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 11:30:14 am
content: ... is this amplification of a resonant circuit--https://is.gd/halleluyahNot only do the oscillations of this circuit never die, but they continue to escalate their amplitude -- not their frequency -- at a pace so small, that it would take a lot of patience to discern the change. Merely a momentary snap of the switch located near the antenna A/C source on the far left is required to immediately output mega amps and giga volts. You could also hold the switch closed for too long and periodically reengage it. The outcome will remain the same at the expense of wasting power.The DPST analog switches are clamped by a 3v DC source to remain in a fixed position without the possibility of toggling. They're Ron=4.5 nano Ohms vs Roff=10 mega Ohms.The spark gaps are modeled to behave as neon bulbs. Normally, they're supposed to act as safety fuses and are attached to one leg of the bulb rated at either 100k or 220k Ohms, but this simulation requires them to be severely reduced to 1p Ohm.This is a non-trapezoidal, approximated simulation tied to a whole, 1s time frame for some weird reason probably due to some inherent idealism which can't possibly be realized on the bench, perhaps? Thus, I offer this for your mild amusement and pleasure.There's not much, if any, wiggle room for varying the values of any of its components. In other words, it's precisely tuned. But who knows? I may have overlooked something.

author: MagicSmoker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 11:35:27 am
content: This reeks of free energy / over-unity...

author: Vinyasi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 11:38:14 am
content: Aren't I a stinker?

author: Vinyasi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 11:48:51 am
content: Maybe the 1s time frame permits resonance to occur at that frequency and at no other due to some odd behavior of the simulator's parsing engine?

author: Vinyasi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 12:16:15 pm
content: The Giga values were one area of this circuit which I kept increasing (during its development) to try and slow down, or put a stop to, its rampant escalation to infinite values within the oscilloscopes. Not until I reduced the neon bulb's fuses to a single pico Ohm did it exhibit these oscillations at a nice steady pace of one second. Otherwise, it would either just sit there and do nothing, or else escalate wildly so fast that I didn't have time enough to turn *off* the JavaScript button (in the upper right-hand corner of the browser window) before it maxed out and died due to overload. In other words, spontaneous combustion was my biggest problem during the initial stages of its development.Of course, spontaneous combustion is probably the single factor that could hamper its actualization -- if actualization is at all possible.I don't know. I just live for the possibility that anything is possible in the realm of the imagination.As it is, I have never recovered from the shock in high school algebra class that anyone could take the square root of negative one seriously. I certainly don't. Yet, according to Eric Dollard, electrical phenomena occurring within the complex number field is the reason why the aether exists and why anyone could err in assuming that energy can be created or destroyed when in fact it can only be converted, albeit, into or out of a non-measurable (non-meter-able) format.

author: Benta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 12:46:19 pm
content: Now we just need a supplier of 1 gigafarad and 1 gigahenry caps and inductors...

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 01:03:32 pm
content: falstads handling of transformers is also pretty broken when your dealing with outside of AC-AC low to mid frequency power transfer,Its not to hard to get it misbehaving where current is flowing through a transformer between 2 disconnected pins, again, this is just a bug in the simulator.

author: Buriedcode
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 01:10:28 pm
content: Simulators have limitations. Just because something has 'odd' behavior in a software simulator doesn't mean to say that will occur in the 'real world'. Simulators are only as good as their algorithms and input data, and can give very odd results depending on the models used.

author: kony
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 01:15:30 pm
content: Quote from: Vinyasi on June 04, 2017, 12:16:15 pmWishful thinking and engineering are two mutually exclusive approaches.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 01:19:12 pm
content: Quote from: Vinyasi on June 04, 2017, 11:48:51 amFor the last time, it's not overunity, that shit doesn't happen IRL, and yes, it's numerical instability in the simulator only, nothing more. What you are doing is not remotely interesting, or relevant, or physical...Tim

author: Vinyasi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 06:53:33 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on June 04, 2017, 01:19:12 pmI beg to differ.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#Positive_and_negative_lightninghttp://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/lightning/positive.htmlQuote--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#Necessary_conditionsSo, I've renamed this simulation more appropriately ...https://is.gd/lightning_oscillator... since the values of its output are not unlike that of lightning except mine are slightly elevated amperage by a factor of 2 or 3 while we (Mother Nature and my simulation) concur on voltage levels in the billions.I am now of the opinion that being bound to a unique time frame for the simulator to succeed does not preclude an opinion of success. Far from it. It merely points out how inferior are our simulators at producing results outside of our prescribed method for studying certain topics.I never tire of repeating that we're taughtphase conjugationamong those pursuing their careers in the field of optical engineering. But it's the electrical engineers who are responsible for our power systems and fail us by not knowing all there is to know about wave mechanics.Wave discontinuityis at the heart of phase conjugation. Yet, it is strongly discredited by Micro Cap, version 11 (see, attachment). Micro Cap is used at Western University for their simulator lab ...I have to agree, because if I were a department head tasked with liability towards the regents of my university, then I'd go with Micro Cap and not use Paul Falstad's. I couldn't have taught myself optical wave mechanics using any simulator other than Paul's which is what I think Paul thinks in terms of when he devised his simulator to operate in real time. Thus, does he think outside the 'box' of conventional wisdom which is both his simulator's weakness and it's strength. Yeah, I wouldn't want to design a car in his simulator that an automobile insurance company will consider underwriting. But I wouldn't or couldn't learn anything about surges unless I stayed away from standard simulators.Thus, it's no small wonder how we marvel in ignorance at Mother Nature's splendor yet fail to understand Her by our own self-induced circumscription and over-specialization within a highly compartmentalized society predicated more or less on the corporate model of minimizing risks by forfeiting cross-fertilization among inter-disciplinary studies.I'm not trying to make money or impress my peers. I'm just trying to learn something from one field of understanding and apply it to another. Because, that is where I see most of our limitations in human growth which is the easiest to make any breakthrough without having to invoke any miraculous explosion of consciousness. Just a little peeping over the fences we've constructed for ourselves to see what my neighbors are doing. Maybe I'll find it fascinating, or maybe I won't.Retroreflectorsare a poignant example of aconsumer devicein which phase conjugation has made it into our social sphere without our even paying any attention to this fact.Thank you for your continued objections. I'm not mocking you. I only work at my peak efficiency if someone pushes against me with something other than appeal to emotion or authority which are two popular errors of logic used so often along with appeal to common sense which could just as easily imply common misunderstanding.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 09:05:36 pm
content: One of the reasons you will get BS results with values like this is the scale of the numbers. Generally, simulators internally use floating point numbers, which by definition have a limited precision - you can have a very large number, but with no decimal points, or you can have a very small number.All bits of numbers that do not 'fit' into the floating point representation are rounded. For instance, the number 100 000 000 000 gets rounded down to 99 999 997 952. An error of 2048.Simulators work by means of representing the circuit as a set of equations. With limited precision errors can start building up, particularly when you divide large numbers (such as a 1GH inductor, or 2.5GV) by very small values (such as your 1pOhm resistor). But this is but ONE of the many reasons you can get BS results.See:https://www.h-schmidt.net/FloatConverter/IEEE754.htmlfor a calculator on how the floating point works.

author: Vinyasi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 12:02:28 am
content: Quote from: daqq on June 04, 2017, 09:05:36 pmGod, that's trivial. An error of 2k out of 100 million. That implies thecascade effectwhich means all of the possible ways that could go wrong must go wrong to build up to a totally wonky result. Which still smacks of the whole subject matter: surges build up simply because nothing stops the cascade from accumulating error or precision - take it as you may: BS or OMG.I'm telling ya, I still think the only real reason none of this sounds legitimate is on account of our hesitation to get naked in public even though the law proscribes, not prevent, how to not do so: don't be lewd and it's still legit. But it takes a nudist who's not hesitant to go there to do just that within the context of electrical surges: the surge of passion we experience whenever we experience something for the first time which elicits either pleasure or repulsive disdain. It takes a certain psychology to be capable of dwelling on this seriously. Science is not apart from the Romantics. They're just two different expressions of the same phenomenon. So, either I'm too jaded to tell the difference between the forest and the trees, or worse, between black and white, or else it simply doesn't bother me one way or another which does not imply lack of realism necessarily, but merely a lack of revulsion to what you call BS I call awesome.Let's break this down...The huge values of the components build up resistance -- or at least they should. But within the behavioral context of negative resistance which this simulation is good at performing, resistance amplifies the results.The negatively resistant, gas discharge tube, spark gaps - equivalent to neon bulbs - positionedin serieswith the two capacitors in the center really help in a very big way. I've tried positioning themin parallelin the past with other incarnations of this style of simulation with neutral results. But in this example, positioning the spark gaps in series with capacitors overcomes the huge values of all of the components in the entire circuit similarly valued in the extreme of largess. So my point is, don't get hung up on the strong possibility of floating point numbers. I went through many, many stages of developing this style of simulation with odd shifts in behavior all coincident with negative resistance. And whenever I stumbled on a regular styled tank circuit of diminishing returns, I backed away to focus on these odd behaviors, instead. I could have remained within the realm of the conventional. Had I done so and come here to present those findings instead of these, my simulations would have easily fit into the conventional model of expected results taken seriously instead of thumbed down.Oddly, you may have a point about a very low valued resistor alongside a heavily weighted component such as a capacitor could severely tweak the approximations. But that smallish resistor is only needed to calm down the rampant escalation towards infinity - which these simulations are so good at performing instantaneously in many instances - and render this thing into a stable oscillator: something I've had a hard time up until now manifesting. Again: a manifestation of negative resistance; avoid large values of resistance in favor of small ones to accelerate a trend. It was the last component to add and the last one to tweak.So, which is it? Floating point skewing, or negative resistance? How do we tell these apart? By what criteria do we double check our perspective so as not to jeopardize our judgement?We can't forget the tendency for Paul's simulator to leak like a sieve. I can separate two parts of a single circuit into the far corners of the screen and not deter them from interacting. So, mutual inductance and mutual capacitance is happening automatically as if the wires and components are not too physical and not too well defined, but are loosely parametered as wave guides allowing for stray behaviors not allowed in other more 'serious' simulators. This disqualifies Paul's simulator as an electrical simulator and requalifies it as a generically inclined, wave mechanical one lying just outside the 'box' of classical electrodynamics.One more point...Your point reminds me of the conundrum I studied in machine language computer programming called one's compliment arithmetic whenever a number was subtracted from itself, it became negative zero. The computer scientists in the early days of computing discarded this result in favor of the more conventional by applying two's compliment at the terminus of computation. If they had studied the I Ching immediately prior to getting involved with their chosen field of focus, they would have discerned that this sort of thing: the equivalence of extreme opposites (something Micro Cap calls computational divergence and should be avoided at all costs) renders the correctly accurate way of modeling the universe: not on monotheistic absolutes, but on absolute dualism of opposites - the fullness of fullness alongside the fullness of emptiness; two fullnesses: infinity vs zero; both are extreme magnitudes of opposed numeric sign; a 32-bit register of all ones or all zeros.So, you're bringing up a translational error that could occur between two different numerical bases, plus two different numerical styles - a double translational possibility for error to occur. If it were not for negative resistance, I would take your opinion more seriously. Negative resistance was my biggest shock from the start and flies against conventional wisdom of diminishing returns. My point is that dampening of a circuit - which could hamper negative resistance - cannot be taken for granted. You have to conscientiously apply clamps on a circuit; they just don't occur by themselves. Proof, yet again, that negative resistance is a common occurrence, or a common problem, within electrical devices regardless of our desire to encourage or discourage these phenomena.

author: Vinyasi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 12:08:52 am
content: Quote from: Buriedcode on June 04, 2017, 01:10:28 pmGas discharge tubes exemplify lightning discharges, but are only one example of results we may judge to be odd. Thus, modeling may preclude odd data by assuming the wrong model yet a model more favorable to consumer driven electronics. Thought experiments need not be realistic to truly validate an idea where real world examples are hard to find. Einstein dabbled in unrealistic thought experiments at times, why can't I?

author: Vinyasi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 12:15:04 am
content: Quote from: kony on June 04, 2017, 01:15:30 pmSo is traveling in opposite directions within a closed loop yield the same target.And I wouldn't want to attempt to travel on both mutually exclusive paths at the same time lest I suffer a psychotic breakdown by attempting to bifurcate myself into two locations - on either path - at the same time.Yet, this inherent duality to reality does not preclude me from choosing a path opposed to anyone else's and still yield interesting results so long as I remain consistent to my chosen path and not make a muddle of my pursuit by attempting to straddle the fence so to speak in an attempt to make everyone happy.

author: Vinyasi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 12:22:30 am
content: Quote from: Rerouter on June 04, 2017, 01:03:32 pmYou say 'bug'. I say wave-guide lying outside of wires and conductive paths of manmade origin. Ionization of air is more closely parallel to what he's doing, but only when high voltage is applied to turn a transverse conventional wave of electrodynamic theory into a shock wave passing through a compressed medium. Herein, Paul's simulator is modeling Newton's Cradle in which longitudinal waves in the center of the cradle are constantly translating into, and out of, transverse waves at either end ...

author: Vinyasi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 12:25:26 am
content: Quote from: Benta on June 04, 2017, 12:46:19 pmI prefer to safely watch thunderstorms and lightning strikes on YouTube. I never intend to build this thing. Not in my wildest dreams. But I mustunderstandits functioning. This gives me pleasure.

author: mdszy
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 12:34:11 am
content: Quote from: Vinyasi on June 05, 2017, 12:25:26 amAll the "understanding" you need is that this is glitchy behavior resulting from using insanely high/low valued components in an online simulator...

author: Vinyasi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 12:49:50 am
content: Quote from: mdszy on June 05, 2017, 12:34:11 amJust what's needed to form a thundercloud: insane extremes online outside the safety of our homes.I find it novel that the image attached below does not exhibit the behavioral characteristics of a lightning strike so much as a continuing series of oscillations resulting from an idealized thundercloud whose relationship with its surroundings has reached a stable state of perpetual buildup alternating with discharge -- something we don't find in the real world of complex interactions, but in the idealized mindset of simplicity for simplicity's sake. A novel thought; not a practical one unless practicality dictates learning at all cost for the sake of learning the concepts apart from their actual manifestations.

author: mdszy
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 01:13:13 am
content: Quote from: Vinyasi on June 05, 2017, 12:49:50 amAt this point you're just stringing along vague terms that have no meaning. Cool your jets.

author: Vinyasi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 02:39:41 am
content: Quote from: mdszy on June 05, 2017, 01:13:13 amI don't mind the work load. But I'm sorry to have lost you in the haze. Maybe someone else, like yourself, will make this more clear at a later date? I don't need to be understood right away.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 01:01:08 pm
content: Quote from: Vinyasi on June 05, 2017, 02:39:41 amGreat!/END OF THREADFYI to anyone looking to 'help': these kind of people look like they're following the rules of logic, but really they're just appropriating the language of logic, of science, for their own arbitrary goals. What those goals are, how their thoughts are structured, is not within the structure of science, of logic. So it doesn't do any good to forge a logical statement directing them towards an explanation within science. As scientists, this is our natural first response, but alas, it is just wind to their ears. (Or even worse, you may inadvertently provide more keywords to fuel their scheme.) No, the solution is psychological, not rational.Cheers,Tim

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 01:24:54 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on June 05, 2017, 01:01:08 pmThe solution is a dose of Haloperidol and a few hundred volts to the frontal lobes.

author: Buriedcode
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 04:21:16 pm
content: I realise its just feeding the thread but I had to reply!Quote from: Vinyasi on June 05, 2017, 12:08:52 amI assumed from the first post that you had dabbled with a circuit simulator, got some strange results, and posted to ask people why this was the case. I even thought that some replies were a little harsh, and that you were simply curious as to why the (rather poor) simulator was apparently amplifying power. But now you've compared an odd circuit in a cheap simulator to an Einstein thought experiment. Anyone and everyone can have 'thought experiment', they are only really valid if they make predictions about events that currently cannot be predicted.You are correct in saying that 'models need not be truely realistic' to validate an idea, but that is when one us *aware* of the models limitations. You clearly are not aware of this. If you already knew that circuit simulators can get funky depending on how they are used, then why post in the forum?

author: David Chamberlain
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 04:49:38 pm
content: I was going to say Ha Ha "Negative Resistance" but turns out it is a thingSo I learnt something new even from this topic.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_resistance That short article has an amazing number of references - 162!!I recommend OP just build it and just see what happens, I doubt a black hole will result.

author: mdszy
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 06:45:26 pm
content: Quote from: David Chamberlain on June 05, 2017, 04:49:38 pmAssuming they'd even be able to find p\$\Omega\$ resistors and GF capacitors, and kH inductors!

author: Vinyasi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 09:53:51 pm
content: Quote from: mdszy on June 05, 2017, 06:45:26 pmI expect Mother Nature to be able to build a thundercloud circuit using similarly sized components. I don't expect us to do this. I consider this to be an overly simplified model of a scaled down global lightning system since it maintains a neutral balance of charges between the Earth and the sky, overall. If projected towards a planetary scale, it's less far fetched. But again, an over simplification to illustrate a global view on two points: it's self-oscillating and it is self-referencing.This brings to mind what almighty implies: there is no need for an outside source to sustain this. Merely an outside source to initiate it. The sun could be this outside source which initiated global lightning long ago.

author: Buriedcode
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 11:37:34 pm
content: Took you nine months to come up with that? IN that time I would have thought that is more than enough time to have a working model by now. Lets see it!

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 11:45:37 pm
content: Quote from: Buriedcode on March 24, 2018, 11:37:34 pmPerhaps it took that long to save up for the GF capacitors and wind the GH inductors.