If they are creating power from nothing then, no, it's not possible. See the first law of thermodynamics.
I wouldn't call it the creation of power. They're increasing the work which reuse would imply. "Nothing" is not applicable since they measured some input from the wall outlet.
I think the problem here is whether or not imaginary power can clone itself? Or put another way, whether or not reactive impedances can continuously create imaginary power at a rate which does not obey conservation since imaginary power does not exist without a time-shift having occurred in the format of a lagging or a leading power factor. This time-shift invalidates calling imaginary power, power, or affiliating it with energy (power over a duration of time) according to Emmy Nother's theorem which defines energy in terms of its conservation so long as time never shifts.
This puts into doubt whether all reactive impedances involve some form of time-shift and whether a pure power factor of positive one is the only restricted case of the non-shifting of time?
In any case, reactive power is already "recycled", since it is, by definition, not "real power". Any charge admitted to a capacitor in the positive half wave is returned when the voltage falls. Likewise, for an inductor, ...
Yet, since the refractive index of prismatic materials, such as: glass, is the square root of the dielectric constant of dielectric materials or dielectric mediums, such as: a vacuum, then a capacitance which is of a low enough value no longer functions as such, but becomes prismatic in which the current passes through the so-called dielectric medium of capacitance while the voltage reflects and both occur simultaneously creating a phase displacement of exactly one-half cycle between current and voltage satisfying the definition of the generation of power.
Coils cannot accept this format of power any more than capacitors can exercise a time-delay for its absorption or discharge (since capacitors are doing neither), and so the coils receiving this type of power refuse to become saturated.
We have not created power. We've merely converted the consumption of power into its generation.
But what this implies is that the generation of power can merely accumulate. It cannot be lost nor spent except through a resistor or anything else similar (such as: a heating coil of very high resistance) since this format of negative watts is not consumptive power. Am I right in assuming that only (and exclusively) power which is undergoing its consumption can be lost or spent when that power possesses a power factor of *positive* one, but must accumulate if the power factor is *negative* one?
...phase shifted by 180 degrees. There's no free lunch:
Some of the major factors of a "cost" to a non-free lunch are the "costs" of: duration (for having to wait for the accumulation of negative watts to amass enough momentum (ie, amplitude) to amount to something useful when exclusively converted by a resistor into positive watts (or concerted by the elevated resistance within heating coils), and frequency (since this is a race against entropy wherein both the frequency of negative watts and the amplitude of entropic losses are counter-opposing forces).
...net power is zero. Add a load in series with the capacitor and it will dissipate power, but you will pay for that.
Yes, a capacitor corrects for a lagging power factor for the entire circuit. But a resistor will dissipate reactive power as heat, without the ability to benefit the overall power factor of the entire circuit. A hot resistor is an indication of real power being converted into its dissipation which implies that a resistor can only correct for power factor within itself for its own dissipation into the format of heat.
No. First, you assume voltage is the important factor.
It is the only factor worth considering since Watt's Law can safely live without any mention, or occurrence, of current by substituting voltage divided by resistance in place of current. Since voltage squared doesn't say much, I would venture to guess that Watt's Law is an over-simplification.
The true definition of Watt's Law is to recognize that it is a fantasy since it ignores time. And if it included time, then it would have to be renamed Joules' Law or something other than Watt's Law since it would no longer be a relationship involving power. Instead, it would be a relationship concerning energy.
Since the squaring of voltage suggests a certain degree of ignorance, the proper manner of rephrasing Watt's Law would be to say that...
The application of voltage (its input) times the resultant voltage (its output) divided by any and all impedances plus resistances -- and all of this placed within a frame-work of time, namely: per unit of time, only then will it amount to a more accurate depiction of what Watt's Law is merely alluding to without Watt's Law specifying this discretely nor accurately.
... It is not. I could make a Model S drive with an 8V battery if I wanted to and wouldn't violate any physical law. I'd just require a very large, high current 8V battery, and some way to boost the voltage up to the level the car required to run its inverter and other systems.
This is an unfortunate side-effect of assuming that the only place wherein we can get current is from a voltage source such as a battery. I would much rather borrow voltage, or reuse it, and get the current from somewhere else by making use of reactive impedance in a manner analogous to heat pumps.
Heat pumps transfer heat from solar collectors to reservoirs at a cost of energy far less than the energy coming from the Sun. Like that, "reactive pumps" are capable of transferring current from potential sources of current, such as the Earth through ground rods. And if this transference of current is not DC, then the increase of the alternating frequency of its transfer will perform more work per unit of time without requiring excessive quantities of amp-hours (as you suggest, up-above).
.... Such boost converters are occasionally used, e.g. the Prius contains a 200V to 400V boost converter to allow for peak acceleration from a lower voltage battery. But from as little as 8V, this would be an impractical, expensive way to move the vehicle. Electric vehicles use high voltage batteries because if you need a car to have even 100 hp, that is about 80,000W. Providing that at 8V would require conductors, power transistors, motors, etc. capable of 10,000A. That would give the car comparable performance to a Nissan Leaf. Instead, Tesla use a 400V battery with a 1/10th that peak current capacity, which allows them to output around 400kW peak, or 500hp. In the second error, you assume even if such an 8V battery was used instead of a 400V battery, it could be much smaller. No, it would, if anything, be considerably larger due to the inefficiencies of such high currents being required. Energy is always conserved though, and the batteries would have similar kWh capacity. I am sure you could configure the nearly 7,000 lithium ion cells into a 2S3500P battery pack if you wanted to, but it would make no sense for the reasons above.
Thank you for articulating a well-versed response!
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
