@aburr, on the contrary, the video clearly explains that voltage offset (not DC component) does matter for the power calculation but not as a part of the momentary voltage.
The creator of this video is stumbling towards the rediscovery an aspect of AC power that has been well understood for a long time, generally described under the notion of Power Factor.
When conditions in a circuit cause a phase shift or other distortion between the voltage and current, their product produces "Apparent Power", which is different from the amount of "Real Power" available to do work. It's not a phantom, though: the induced phase difference increases the size of generators, conductors, and costs of power conditioning equipment required by the power supplier to deliver a given amount of real power.
0
judicoAuthor Commented:
@jmcg, it doesn't seem like this is the problem. I'm looking at 15:37 and I see that the creator of the video makes a distinction between the known Power Factor cos ϕ, involving the natural phase shift ϕ, and the cos ϕ', involving a so far unknown phase shift ϕ' which must be used to calculate the input power correctly. Doesn't the use of this new ϕ' lead to violation of energy conservation? It seems also that the method with integrals, as is done in the video, is more accurate for calculating input power rather than by using RMS values and Power Factor, which is only applicable for sinusoidal signals.
Energy conservation is as much bookkeeping advice as it is a law of nature.
If you are presented with an apparent violation of energy conservation, your best bet is to keep looking for the energy that you haven't accounted for.
The RMS calculation makes use of a shortcut - a sort of symmetry argument - based on the capacitor's net energy change, when integrated over a full cycle, results in zero.
Using the integral method to calculate power, without accounting for the energy stored in the capacitor, is an error.
But you have to do the math. From your doggedness in pursuing this question, I have to guess that you are either: a) a believer, perhaps even the creator of the video, or b) a student who has been assigned this problem as homework. When I was a grad student, my advisor often received earnest letters from laypeople with "breakthrough" insights in chemistry or physics. He would farm these out to us grad students with instructions to "find the flaw". It was good training: it gave us practice at criticizing our own arguments and conclusions.
0
judicoAuthor Commented:
@jmcg, I think you should refrain from making these generalized guesses regarding my background. Rather focus on the scientific issues. You said "Using the integral method to calculate power, without accounting for the energy stored in the capacitor, is an error." However, the integral method used does account for the energy stored in the capacitor. It is obvious from the video without "doggedness" that math has been done. It is now for you "to find the flaw", as you supervisor advised but without just assuming that there's a flaw. In other words, seek the truth. Please understand first what has been done and then post a reply.
Sorry, I'm not taking up this challenge. If your attitude was "I realize this must be wrong, but I need help figuring out why", I'd be there for you. What I'd require is a written-out version of the argument presented in the video. Watching the video once was bad enough, I'm unwilling to go through it again.
I agree completely with jmcg, who has analyzed this question from at least two views with great insight and has expressed his conclusions in more detail than i would have. I particularly like his last sentence.
0
judicoAuthor Commented:
I'm beginning to form a conclusion that probably the arguments in the video are correct and conservation of energy indeed can be violated. The arguments presented here do not convince me. One participant says that "If you are presented with an apparent violation of energy conservation, your best bet is to keep looking for the energy that you haven't accounted for.". Apparently, there is no such energy to be accounted for, additional to what the video shows. If there was such additional energy he would have stated what this energy is and where it is. So, his open ended question is not answered. I won't even touch on the RMS calculations again because, as he said it himself, they are a shortcut, while the method with the integrals is what's really the accurate method. The integral method to calculate power accounts also for the energy stored in the capacitor. To think otherwise is a misunderstanding. In closing, based on the exchange at hand, I again am still unconvinced that the video is in error when claiming disobeying energy conservation. Perhaps, I should consider closing this question without awarding points.
You are certainly welcome to do that. If you're right, you should immediately start looking for investors to help you build this energy device. The world needs it!
On the other hand, the question asked what we thought about the video. We've told you what we thought.
As you advised me to not make guesses about your background, I won't say that your response proves my guesses - which had nothing to do with your background - to be correct. I did look at all of your participation on Experts Exchange and I must say that it is a remarkable record of answering your own questions and disputing with people who try to help.
You're also welcome to leave the question open for a while longer to see if any other experts are willing to take up your challenge.
0
judicoAuthor Commented:
I've requested that this question be deleted for the following reason:
The reason for deleting the question is that the answers given are not convincing and there is no indication that acceptable answers can be offered if the exchange continues.
Rather than deleting the question, I'd prefer to see it closed with no points.
A considerable amount of work went into these answers and they should remain available on Experts Exchange for others to see, even if Judico was unpersuaded.
>> Perhaps, I should consider closing this question without awarding points.
>> Do You Think This Video ...
I think they think so points should be awarded.
The data in the patent application looks remarkably similar to some questions Judico has asked on EE before: how to tweak his HP device's output to get a better waveform and how to do an FFT calculation on a non-power-of-2 dataset: specifically 1253 data points. Remarkable coincidence!
0
judicoAuthor Commented:
Agreed. Let the question be closed without awarding points so others can read the exchange.
It's too bad the Google Patents rendition of the math and figures is not quite good enough to make a more precise critique. I can see the integral of V(t)I(t) being talked about, but I don't see any place where the energy of the capacitor is being taken into consideration.
0
judicoAuthor Commented:
I should make it very clear that I completely object to awarding points for any of the answers given. The explanations given do not answer the question by acceptable scientific standards. They were incorrect. Awarding points to such explanations is misleading.
Doing a search on the patent applicant, V C Noninski, you can find some chemistry lectures, involvement with electrochemistry, cold fusion, and a number of papers that challenge conventional interpretations of quantum mechanics and relativity.
Did this patent actually get issued?
0
Featured Post
In their most recent webinar, Skyport Systems explores ways to isolate and protect critical databases to keep the core of your company safe from harm.