I believe you already have it in your circuit but it just needs a little clarity.

An AC signal is
dictated by two changing DC half cycles and if a circuit elements instantaneous voltage is higher
it's a generator function and if it's lower it is a motor function. In an AC machine the
instantaneous voltage relates to the rate of change of the expanding/contracting field, ie.. a
moving magnet. A standard inverter cannot work here because energy is dissipated on the DC
primary side regardless of whether the load becomes a source or not.

If you want a true AC source from a periodic alternating DC source then the AC source must be a
series resonant circuit which you already have to some extent with your series capacitor off the
AC generator. Now if we replace the AC generator with a large inductor then we have an AC
generator (kind of) with no expanding/contracting field source other than the reactive current
circulating in the system. Here we should remember that all those silly magnets in our
generators moving past our coils ever did was induce a voltage "higher" than the instantaneous
reactive current voltage which is why we called it a "generator".

Now if we added a large inductor in place of the generator and periodically charged your series
capacitor when it is at peak voltage with a higher DC voltage of the correct polarity then the
alternating current oscillations in the system would be maintained. The reactive current integrity
would also be maintained and the AC system would be allowed to act like a true AC system
should. The most efficient way to periodically charge the series capacitor is from a discharging
inductor.. ie boost converter/joule thief. A voltage source such as a capacitor/battery cannot be
used to charge the series capacitor otherwise you will lose 1/2 the Energy.. ie the parallel
capacitor paradox.

Note: it would be very easy to measure the true input as the input is now DC.

It's just an LC tank with an extra inductor in place of the generator inductance. The capacitor
always charges first as the inductors resist changes in current so why not charge the capacitor?.
I'm not sure how most charge an LC tank circuit but pulsing the capacitor with DC from an
external inductance (an inductive discharge) is the way I have done it because it is the most
efficient way. Think of it as a one way reactive current charging the capacitor every half-cycle
periodically adding to the reactive current already present.

As a general rule nothing moves unless it is LC, inductor to cap or cap to inductor.

You can also "ping" the circuit to find it's natural resonant frequency. Charge the cap, close the
circuit and note the frequency of oscillation which is the natural resonant frequency of the circuit.
Now pulse it at that frequency or use a theshold detector to detect peak voltage and pulse and
your there

another [color=rgb(27, 142, 222) !important]generator[/color]/motor

setuphttp://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:_Nigerian_QMoGen_Plans[/size]U.S. Patent
7,095,126 B2[/size]
I think the patent is a red herring, first there are hundreds of motor/generator patents that
utilize inverters as such they are prior art not disclosed rendering the patent null and void. In
fact nothing new in any way has been disclosed relative to the prior art that already exists
rendering the patent void. As such I have no idea why a patent would be granted however it is
from Nigeria = run away, run away.

AC

@dklyne
small world, I use the Arduino Uno then calibrated voltage dividers/opto-isolation for voltage and
a pair of 50 or 100 amp Allegro hall effect current sensors. No issues no worries , works every
time.

@tim123
Quote

So far you have not proven your initial claims for this thread, and until you have, it looks
like you're leading everyone on a wild-goose-chase...

I wouldn't call it a wild goose chase, Luc claimed he was getting anomalous measurements and
we are trying to determine exactly why... sounds more like science to me. Hence all the concern
over how the variables are measured and where.

We may debate our point in different ways but we all have a common goal which is to know the
truth

@Farmhand
Quote

Then there is the problem of it being connected to the grid, none of these systems that
require connection to the grid will have any future if the power company finds out about it,
just like the guys in Brazil, the power company will not allow other people to make use of
their grid to do work for free. For there to be any uses for this stuff the device needs to be
able to make use of a motor driven AC [color=rgb(27, 142, 222) !
important]generator[/color]/alternator as the [color=rgb(27, 142, 222) !important]power
supply[/color] or some other way of obtaining the AC supply on site, connecting to the grid
takes out the cost of producing the AC power to begin with, it's simply cheating.

Oh I wouldn't worry too much about the power companies anymore than one would worry about
the horses when the automobile came or whale oil companies when the light bulb was invented.
They will be obsolete soon enough and our children will look back on us in the same way we
would back on the pioneers. They will laugh at this nonsense and wonder how such people even
managed to walk upright. This is true as it has always been true throughout our history and your
power companies days are numbered. Nobody... I repeat Nobody has the power to halt progress
and evolution, it marches on as consistently as time itself.

On a side note if all goes well by this time next year I will have the pleasure of demanding the
power company remove all there equipment from my private property. You see the power
companies are nothing more than a simple service provider and I have the right to choose who
provides it or to generate my own power. We are in control of our future not them ... deal with
it.

498
The Aether / Re: Conventional current flow VS Electron current flow
« on: March 15, 2014, 05:29:33 AM »
@Dave45
 
I have used electron flow notation exclusively for over 10 years and can say that everything
makes much more sense and personally I find conventional current flow notation completely
absurd.
 
For instance if a conventional current is said to flow from positive to negative and the only
charges which can actually move in the conductor are the free electrons which have a negative
charge then that would mean the negative electrons must be "flowing" to the negative terminal
which is a problem. You see like charges repel so why would the negative electrons be flowing to
the negative terminal which repels them from the positive terminal which is attracting them?.
 
Let's do a thought experiment, I attach a lightbulb to a battery and conventional current flow
notation say's electrons flow from positive to negative. First the negative terminal has an
abundance of electrons and the positive terminal an equal and opposite lack of electrons. So why
are the electrons flowing from the positive terminal with less electrons attracting the free
electrons to a negative terminal with an abundance of electrons repelling the free electrons?. Lol,
it is without a doubt the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of and contradicts damn near
every know law of science.
 
The fact that this is still being debated in this day and age is a little disturbing in my opinion

I would suggest everyone here with the exception of Milehigh read this webpage including the
links until something makes sense.
 
What is electricity?
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html
 
It is written in plain english even a child could understand and will help you in ways you could
not possibly imagine.
 
I got a kick out of this quote:
 
ELECTRICITY, n.
The power that causes all natural phenomena not known to be caused by something else.
 What is electricity? This question is impossible to answer because the word
"Electricity" has several contradictory meanings. These different meanings are
incompatible, and the contradictions confuse everyone. If you don't understand
electricity, you're not alone. Even teachers, engineers, and scientists have a hard time
grasping the concept.

Obviously "electricity" cannot be several different things at the same time.

Unfortunately we've defined the word Electricity in a crazy way. Because the word
lacks one distinct meaning, we can never pin down the nature of electricity. In the end
we're forced to declare that there's no such stuff as "electricity" at all! Here's a quick
example to illustrate the problem.

Do generators make electricity? To answer this question, consider the household

light bulb. Inside a lamp cord the charges (the electrons) sit in one place and wiggle
back and forth. That's AC or alternating current. At the same time, the waves of
electromagnetic field move rapidly forward. This wave-energy does not wiggle,
instead it races along the wires as it flows from the distant generators and into the
light bulb. OK, now ask yourself this: when "electricity" is flowing, is it called an
Electric Current? Yes? If so, then "electricity" is simply the charges already inside the
wires, where a flow of electricity is a flow of charge. And therefore we must say that
the "electricity" sits inside the wires and vibrates back and forth. Generators do not
create any, and electricity does not flow forward through the wires. Next, ask
yourself if electricity is a form of energy. If it's energy, then electricity is not the
movable charges. Instead, electricity is made of invisible electromagnetic fields, and
it doesn't wiggle back and forth within the AC cables. Instead it can only exist in the
space outside the wires, and not within the metal. Generators do create electricity,
and it races along the wires at high speed. Yet please note that Electricity cannot do
both, it cannot be both the charges and the fields, the electrons and the energy. So
which one is really "the electricity?" Is it the wiggling electrons within the wires? Or
is it the high-speed EM field energy? The experts unfortunately cannot agree on a
narrow definition. The reference books give conflicting answers, so there *is* no
answer.
If someone asks whether generators make electricity, it exposes a great flaw in the
way we talk about "electricity". If we can repair this flaw, perhaps our explanations
will finally make sense.

Below are the five most common meanings of the word Electricity. Which one do you
think is right? Think about this carefully, because if one of these meanings is correct,
all the others must be wrong! After all, no "science term" must ever possess several
conflicting definitions. Unfortunately our dictionaries and encyclopedias contain all of
these contradictions. (Click the links to find out more about each.)

1. The scientist's definition: "Electricity" means only one thing: quantities of

electricity are measured in Coulombs, so "electricity" is the electrons and protons
themselves; the electric charge inside the wires, and not the flow.

Examples: CURRENT OF ELECTRICITY. QUANTITY OF ELECTRICITY. COULOMBS

OF ELECTRICITY.

2. The everyday definition: "Electricity" means only one thing: the electromagnetic
field energy sent out by batteries and generators.

Examples: PRICE OF ELECTRICITY. KILOWATT-HOURS OF ELECTRICITY.

3. The grade-school definition: "Electricity" means only one thing: it refers to the
flow of electrons, the flowing motion of electric charge.

Examples: "CURRENT" ELECTRICITY. AMPERES OF ELECTRICITY.

4. "Electricity" means only one thing: it refers to the amount of imbalance between
quantities of electrons and protons.

Example: "STATIC" ELECTRICITY. DISCHARGE OF ELECTRICITY.

5. "Electricity" is nothing other than the classes of phenomena involving electric

charges.

Examples: BIOELECTRICITY, PIEZOELECTRICITY, TRIBOELECTRICITY,

THERMOELECTRICITY, ATMOSPHERIC ELECTRICITY ...ETC.
6. Other less common definitions:

"Electricity" refers to the flowing motion of electrical energy (electric power,

Watts of electricity)

"Electricity" really means the electric potential or e-field (Volts of electricity)

"Electricity" only means the glowing nitrogen/oxygen plasma (sparks of

electricity)

"Electricity" is nothing but a field of science (Basic Electricity, Advanced

Electricity)

ELECTRICITY, n.
The power that causes all natural phenomena not known to be caused by something
else.< grin!>
(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911)

If we wish to agree on a single correct definition of "electricity," which definition

should we choose? The Scientific version, number one above? But that would mean
that all of our books are wrong, since books insist that electricity is the energy, or that
electricity is the motion of charges: the current. Except for the CRC Handbook and the
NIST SI physics standards, the few textbooks which do use the scientific definition
are all seventy years old, or older.

Well, maybe we don't need to choose just one definition. Could we mix them? Could
we let Electricity be an "elastic term?" Suppose we ignore all these contradictions and
instead pretend that all of the above definitions are true. Below is the "clear" and
"simple" description of electricity which results:

Electricity is quite simple: "electricity" is just the flowing motion of electricity!

Electricity is a mysterious incomprehensible entity which is invisible and visible, both
at the same time. Also, electricity is both a form of energy and a type of matter.
Both. Electricity is a kind of low-frequency radio wave which is made of protons. It's a
mysterious force which cannot be seen, and yet it looks like blue-white fire that arcs
across the clouds. It moves forward at the speed of light... yet it sits and vibrates
inside your AC cord without flowing forwards at all. It's totally weightless, yet it has a
small weight. When electricity flows through a light bulb's filament, it gets changed
entirely into light. Yet not one bit of electricity is ever used up by the light bulb, and
all the electricity flows out of the filament and back down the other wire. College
textbooks are full of electricity, yet they have no electric charge! Electricity is like
sound waves, no no, it's just like wind, no, the electricity is like the air molecules.
Electricity is like cars on a highway, no, the electricity is the speed of the cars, no,
electricity is just like "traffic waves." Electricity is a class of phenomena ...a class of
phenomena which can be stored in batteries! If you want to measure a quantity of
electricity, what units should you use? Why Volts of electricity, of course. And also
Coulombs of electricity. And Amperes of electricity. Watts of electricity and Joules, all
at the same time. Yet "electricity" is definitely a class of phenomena; merely a type
of event. Since we can't have an amount of an event, we can't really measure the
quantity of electricity at all... right? Right?
Heh heh.

Does my description above sound stupid and impossible? You're right. It is. The word
"electricity" has contradictory meanings, and I'm trying to show what happens when
we accept more than one meaning. Electricity is not both slow and fast at the same
time. It is not both visible and invisible. And electricity isn't the flowing motion ...of
electricity.

Instead, approximately ten separate things have the name "electricity." There's no
single stuff called "electricity." electricity does not exist. Franklin, Edison, Thompson,
and millions of science teachers should've had a long talk with Mrs. McCave before
they decided to give one single name to a large variety of independent science
concepts.

Mrs. McCave was invented by Dr. Seuss. She had twenty three sons. She named them
all "Dave."

Whenever we ask "What Is Electricity," that's just like asking Mrs. McCave "who is
dave?" How can she describe her son? There can be no answer since the question
itself is wrong. It's wrong to ask "who is Dave?" because we're silently assuming that
there's only one Dave, when actually there are many different people. They all just
happen to be named Dave. Who is Dave? Mrs. McCave cannot answer us until she
first corrects our misunderstanding. Dave doesn't exist. She wishes she'd given them
all separate names.

For the same reason, we'll never find a simple answer to the question "what is
electricity?" because the question itself is wrong. First we must realize that
"electricity" does not exist. There is no single thing named "electricity." We must
accept the fact that, while several different things do exist inside wires, people
wrongly call all of them by a single name.

So never ask "what is electricity". Instead, discard the word "electricity" and begin
using the correct names for all the separate phenomena. Here are a few of them: