All Over Reactance

[Jones Beene]

If you have shopped around for a new computer lately and have had a look inside the box, you may have wondered about, well... shrinkage....not Costanza-type shrinkage from a cold shower, but - as Jerry might opine "what's the deal with those new power supplies? Did they go on the Atkins diet or something"...[crowd grumbles and someone hollers, "don't quit your day job"]. But anyway... A newer 300-400 watt PS is now a fraction of its former pre-Pentium size, probably a quarter of the volume and weight. But you are not getting cheated... well, at least not any more so than normal. The short answer as to how something as mundane as a power supply can shrink so fast, is not dietary but reactionary in two ways - or at least it can be narrowed down to the electrical term "reactance" which term might also have some bit of relevance to overunity, as well. The other reactionary thing which one might add is that the "mainstream" of engineering pretty much blew it for several decades by not adapting the advantages of higher reactance earlier. The following is both comic ranting with some interesting tidbits about the interaction of *reactance* with emf *frequency* opening perhaps a narrow pathway to overunity. If I didn't promise the OU payoff, would anybody follow the lunatic rant without grumbling or hollering, "don't quit your day job" ? The very mention of those forbidden letters "OU" is sure to bring out the law-abiders. LAWS? Laws, excuse me !!. Laws may not be "meant" to be broken, depending on how much devious-intent can be imputed to the cadre of do-gooders who dream some of them up, but from the number of "correctional institutions" we have scattered around the good old USA, it would seem that many laws aren't very compelling, at least as being self-evident truisms worthy of respect. But most laws are fairly temporal kludges, and no amount of corrective brainwashing will change that. Hey, things change in surprising ways and one of these days, vortex may morph into an ersatz correctional institution for "regrooving" the mainstream physics establishment. Let's just say that it is all but guaranteed that the most immediate thing which many new (particularly tax) laws accomplish is to marginalize a certain segment of society, the ones who believe (apparently erroneously) that they are a better judge of how their own work-rewards are to be allocated than are the sops who do less real work for more rewards, as a rule... not that I am personally a tax-evader or anything like that. Everyone should pay their fair share, agreed, but if Jesus asks no more than 10%, should Sam? END of first rant. The so-called Laws of Thermodynamics may have been put in place by equally self-righteous do-gooders to prevent assorted nonconformist hackers and slackers from wasting valuable time experimenting with magnets et al., when otherwise they could be out converting the unwashed masses to whatever belief structure is in power, or else bravely fighting our Oil-Wars, or whatever ... but the punishment is somewhat similar - to be banned from free association with certain "necessary" others (and most regrettably, R&D funders). But as for most of mainstream do-gooders, as Mark Twain recognized in the larger scheme of things... no one would want to go to Heaven except for the climate as Hell offers the more enjoyable company. Go figure. END of second rant. The Laws of Physics have proven to be tough nuts to crack, so we haven't needed science-prisons thus far, other than the self-imposed ones like Psi-Cops. But being branded as a "perpmo" (perpetual motion advocate) will get you about as much general scorn these says as the average serial killer or Boston Priest. Honestly, I would be extremely reluctant to even mention the phrase "cold fusion" in mixed company... or if I did, be quick to say that it's just the latest music craze in Switzerland, you know Thelonius covers Heidi's yodel. And BTW, is turning off "Days of our Lives" tantamount to being a serial killer. Fortunately, just because such-and-such Law of nature may have been proven right every time up until now doesn't mean it won't be broken tomorrow. Usually it was broken long ago but no one was looking in the right place. Many of today's most mainstream PhD experts on everything will probably end up tomorrow’s laughing stock, just as more than a few of their predecessors from the recent past are viewed....it wouldn't surprise me if the word "luddite" is replaced by the even more obnoxious DIS-word - ta da you guessed it : "parkite" or should that be "parkski" in the next few years....one of these days, he will definitely have to sit in the corner for his vortex regrooving, with a dunce cap, should he hang around that long. Speaking of Laws, as Jerry might quip, what's the deal with Murphy's Law? Why doesn't Murphy's Law take precedence over the Laws of Thermodynamics? Don't tell me perpetual motion does not exist when Terra & Sol have had this circle-dance going on for several billion years. Only square dancers, or squares, could call vortexians - perpmos, given the cosmic ambiance. There is perpetual motion all around us. It's easy to produce more than you take in - ask any Red Sox player (but do it quick). 110% is what the coach always demands, right. The theoretical limit should be 100% but athletes always find a way to do a little more... END of last rant, or getting close Like Joe Newman, I can definitely build a device that will consume 20 watts and generate 500 volt-amperes of AC out - but, unlike Joe, I may be willing to admit that the volts and current are almost 90 degrees out of phase, and the power factor is low. The real power-out of the device would be substantially less than input... unless that is, I was able to put a new *spin* on things. There is no obvious way in traditional physics to have more than a watt out per watt in, magnets or not, but on the other hand, there IS this curious item on the books called "conservation of spin." If the device was extracting energy from magnets, then either the magnets would be depleted soon and loose their spin quality ... or else they would need to be somehow rejuvenated from a hidden source. And magnets have lots of spin. If they (magnets) are stressed to the limit by inducing emf in another system, will spin still be conserved and if so, by what? That is where ZPE comes in, and if Sarfatti and Puthoff would just climb down form the ivory tower for long enough to perhaps enlighten us with something more specific. On to Reactance in overly simplified terms. When you are comparing a high frequency motor with a 60 cycle motor, things start to get out of proportion. Grid AC is a bit of an anachronism, with lots of built-in inefficiency. Sixty cycle was almost a political decision - kind of a terrible choice from the start for any number of reasons, the most evident being that motors using it require a lot of iron to provide enough *reactance.* At least that is one way the situation can be verbalized. Iron was cheap back then and getting high frequency required vacuum tubes which burned out too quickly. But simply changing the frequency changes the amount of iron needed in most of the appliances where AC is used. A great example is take an old fashioned power supply with a 60 cycle transformer of about 300 watts like my old Mac. The transformer will weigh maybe four pounds and get quite hot due to eddy currents. Now compare it to a modern switching mode power supply. They still use an iron core (powdered iron) but less than a pound and it runs much cooler and all that was done by the simple expedient of raising the CPS-ante to the 50,000 and beyond. Isn't is fair to ask why - why did it take till the late 90s to get these into mass production, but let's not embarrass too many EEs. We used 480 cycle power for airplanes 50 years ago and knew then that it was obviously more efficient and lighter in weight for the "system", but even that 480 frequency is far from optimum - way short of optimum. Is the "status quo" of doing something one-way for so long so fundamentally entrenched at every level that it takes this much time to get around to doing the obvious, in very simple items like transformers? Not only is the amount of iron, in cores, needed to provide adequate reactance much less at higher frequency, but this has a far reaching cascading effect. When the core is smaller, the windings can be shorter to reach around a smaller core. Less heat and no fan is needed. Shorter wire means less wire IR squared losses. Now the transformer is smaller than a pack of Luckys (and costs less too) and makes less heat. This is the simple reason 60 cycle power is an anachronism, but what are the limits of going far higher in frequency? Ironically, it is no iron... Recently it was mentioned that at 100 Ghz certain unusual electromagnetic effects can take place in very low resistance conductors, requiring zero iron but can that idea be applied to other systems. Is there anything special with this mid-Ghz level representing the merger of the old electrical technology with the new? I would say yes, and it has to do with geometry. 100 Ghz has an associated wavelength of about a third of centimeter. And when you get your wavelength down to close to being the actual size of the device in which you want to use it, then beneficial things can happen with resonance. Resonance and reactance "go together like"...  like a Wink & a Smile?... ;-) When it gets down to visualization, reactance is kind of like the old tuning fork analogy. If you have been following the alternative energy field for a while, you have no doubt heard of it, but it is surely urban myth. My first remembrance of hearing about the concept of "overunity" (at least at the level of it being taken seriously by non-gullible educated people) was on the old Keeley net (yes, I know, many of them don't qualify for the previous standard). There used to be some claim by Keeley or ilk that if you assembled 1000 tuning forks and struck the one in the middle, and totaled up the work accomplished by all of them, the system would be mechanical overunity. I have never actually seen this claim being disproved in experiment, and though I will buy into may strange claims, this is one which is not very compelling....but it does make a good analogy for what can happen when reactance meets resonance. So how would reactance fit into an overunity scheme? Well, it all gets back to spin and conservation of spin - and there's resonance in there as well. More on those details when I put together another batch of fringe-lunatic-rants. Jones