Behavior of two hypothetical generators in parallel powering the same circuit?

Recommended Posts

Hi,

We can't mathematically describe what happens when two generators(simple batteries ) in parallel power the same component with two different voltages, as anomalies arise in the study of this circuit(example U1=1v et U2=2v anomalie 1v=2v).

In reality, one or both generators will stop functioning, and this circuit is forbidden in electronics because it can destroy the generators.

But imagine that we replace the exact voltages of the two generators with two isolated moving magnets.

What would happen to the magnets?

Can we study the real behavior of a circuit powered by two different voltages in parallel from two moving magnets in this case, without risk?

Here is an explanatory diagram. The orange outline represents the area where the two magnets move; we can even add a resistor if a short circuit is observed. The rectangle in the middle is the light bulb. We assume that the two magnets are very far apart and apply different voltages at each end.

Share on other sites

This is an interesting thought experiment! When you’re dealing with two different voltages powering the same circuit in parallel, things can get pretty tricky. Normally, in an electrical circuit with two generators at different voltages, you'd run into serious issues like one generator trying to drive current into the other, which could cause damage or malfunction.

Now, if we replace the generators with moving magnets, it becomes a bit more abstract, but the same principles would generally apply. The interaction between the magnetic fields and the induced voltages could create some unpredictable behaviors. If the magnets are far enough apart, their effects might not interfere with each other as much, but the overall system is still likely to be unstable, just like with different voltage sources.

In real circuits, this setup would be avoided because of the risks, but in your hypothetical scenario, it’s a fascinating way to explore the complexities of electromagnetic induction and the challenges of parallel circuits with differing inputs. Just remember, even though it’s a thought experiment, the underlying physics doesn’t change—different voltages in parallel typically lead to complications, whether they’re coming from batteries or magnets.

Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Z.10.46 said:

We can't mathematically describe what happens when two generators(simple batteries ) in parallel power the same component with two different voltages, as anomalies arise in the study of this circuit(example U1=1v et U2=2v anomalie 1v=2v).

We most certainly can.

I posted the mathematics of this a couple of years ago, last time this was asked.

I will try to find it for you, when I have time.

Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Z.10.46 said:

But imagine that we replace the exact voltages of the two generators with two isolated moving magnets

What is that meant to mean?

Anyway, the power supply grid connects many generators together. They have to make sure the frequency and phase are correct, as well as the voltage.
But small errors don't matter much. One generator will act as a motor if it's running to slow.
Not good, but not the end of the world.

Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

What is that meant to mean?

Anyway, the power supply grid connects many generators together. They have to make sure the frequency and phase are correct, as well as the voltage.
But small errors don't matter much. One generator will act as a motor if it's running to slow.
Not good, but not the end of the world.

In this diagram, normally, the voltages U1, U2, and U3 should be equal. If the generators have different U1 and U3 voltages, one of the generators will stop functioning as a generator in order to equalize the voltages to U1=U2=U3. However, if we replace U1 with a coil and a rotating magnet, for example, and do the same for U3, then U1 and U3 will be different, but the magnet would still act as a generator. What would be the characteristics of this diagram in that case?

Share on other sites

You were asked what your diagram meant.

What you have drawn is meaningless.

If you want help say so and cooperate with others.

Otherwise please stop wasting their time.

Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I thank everyone who engages in conversation with me. I do not intend to waste anyone's time, but rather to have a pleasant discussion with respect and knowledge sharing.

For further explanations, here is the block diagram. Block 1 and Block 5 each represent a coil with a magnet rotating around it, which generates an alternating voltage, u1 and u3.

Block 2 and Block 4 represent a rectifier that converts the alternating voltage u1 and u3 into direct current U1 and U3.

Block 3 is a light bulb where the voltage is U2.

Here, I would like to know the characteristics of this diagram if U1 and U3 are different.

I hope I am clearer now; if you didn't understand, I can explain further.

Edited by Z.10.46
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

I hope I am clearer now; if you didn't understand, I can explain further.

I can understand the question you have asked, but I don't know where to start with an answer to a standard electrical engineering problem, faced  and solved every day all over the world.

That is because your diagram is flawed.

How can we proceed since I don't know your level of electrical circuit knowledge?

But this shows a misunderstanding of rectification.

43 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

Block 2 and Block 4 represent a rectifier that converts the alternating voltage u1 and u3 into direct current U1 and U3.

Share on other sites

I am still waiting for your link since you have already solved this problem. Please share your knowledge in this field with us, even if it is advanced—I will understand.🙂

Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Z.10.46 said:

I am still waiting for your link since you have already solved this problem. Please share your knowledge in this field with us, even if it is advanced—I will understand.🙂

Here is a long discussion, from 2009,  started by someone else who wanted to either not do the work or hide the fact that he could not do it.

It started off with parallel ac generators and ended with parallel DC batteries.

I'm sure we have had this same question here at SF since 2009, but I haven't been able to find it at the moment.

Edited by studiot
Share on other sites

I will explain to you the real reasons behind my discussion. I came across a conversation on the dark web claiming that electricity companies are hiding a method of generating free energy. According to this principle, there are circuits based on this method that, when connected to an electrical installation, can deceive the energy meter. However, it is not really cheating, as the free energy comes from the mass. By making this connection, one could obtain a surplus of energy from the mass without being detected by the energy meter.

Thank you for the link. Even in this link, it is evident that there is a surplus of energy resulting from this type of connection, which seems to defy the laws of energy conservation. However, the person on the dark web claims that this additional energy comes from the mass and not from an energy source within the circuit.

Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Z.10.46 said:

I will explain to you the real reasons behind my discussion. I came across a conversation on the dark web claiming that electricity companies are hiding a method of generating free energy. According to this principle, there are circuits based on this method that, when connected to an electrical installation, can deceive the energy meter. However, it is not really cheating, as the free energy comes from the mass. By making this connection, one could obtain a surplus of energy from the mass without being detected by the energy meter.

Thank you for the link. Even in this link, it is evident that there is a surplus of energy resulting from this type of connection, which seems to defy the laws of energy conservation. However, the person on the dark web claims that this additional energy comes from the mass and not from an energy source within the circuit.

Well that is obviously a ballocks conspiracy theory. But what on earth are you talking about when you say “mass”? Mass of what?

Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, exchemist said:

Well that is obviously a ballocks conspiracy theory. But what on earth are you talking about when you say “mass”? Mass of what?

I mean Electrical Ground, which in French is referred to as 'Masse.' He says that implementing this circuit causes anomalies where a generator becomes a motor, and a resistor becomes conductive. In the end, for the circuit to stabilize, the ground won't have a 0V potential but rather a non-zero voltage, which allows for more energy coming from the electrical ground.

He says that energy companies hide the existence of this energy principle, and any engineer or person who implements it risks their life...

Edited by Z.10.46
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

I mean Electrical Ground, which in French is referred to as 'Masse.' He says that implementing this circuit causes anomalies where a generator becomes a motor, and a resistor becomes conductive. In the end, for the circuit to stabilize, the ground won't have a 0V potential but rather a non-zero voltage, which allows for more energy coming from the ground.

He says that energy companies hide the existence of this energy principle, and any engineer or person who implements it risks their life...

Bon, d'accord. I did not know "masse" means ground, or earth, in French electrical terminology. Next time I'm at the house in France I'll try to remember that, in case we have any electrical problems.🙂

It makes sense that if 2 generators are connected in parallel and one is generating a lower voltage than the other, then it will run as a motor until the 2 voltages match. But it will do so by taking energy from the higher voltage generator, not from the ground. The ground is not a reservoir of energy. When you speak of the the "voltages" of the 2 generators, you are implicitly stating their voltage relative to a ground voltage of zero. The ground is zero by definition.

You have not drawn a circuit diagram, so it is a bit unclear what is earthed or grounded in your scenario and why anyone might (misguidedly) think energy can be extracted from the ground. But the notion of energy companies "hiding" some "principle" does not make sense. It's a mature technology and there are plenty of electrical engineers who don't work for energy companies, so it's a bit ridiculous to imagine there is some secret principle that they would not know about.

Could this story be part of some scam that the writer is trying to sell to people?

Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't know if it's a scam or not, but in this link, on an energy level, it’s clear that there is no conservation of energy. He simply says that the anomaly will affect the grounding so that it’s not zero and will provide the missing part of the energy, regardless of the load.

Our world is influenced by those who have the most money, and energy companies have a lot of money. They can do anything to keep the secret.

Edited by Z.10.46
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Z.10.46 said:

I mean Electrical Ground, which in French is referred to as 'Masse.'

43 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Bon, d'accord. I did not know "masse" means ground, or earth, in French electrical terminology.

Really ?

Quote

Votre sécurité contre les défauts d'isolement

La mise à la terre consiste à relier à une prise de terre via un fil conducteur toutes les masses métalliques qui risquent d'être mises en contact avec le courant électrique par suite d'un défaut d'isolement d'un appareil. La mise à la terre permet d'écouler les courants de fuite sans danger et en association avec un dispositif de protection différentielle (disjoncteur différentiel ou interrupteur différentiel), assurer la mise hors tension de votre installation électrique.

Translation

Your safety against insulation faults

Earthing consists of connecting to an earth socket via a conductive wire all the metal masses which risk being brought into contact with the electric current following an insulation fault in a device. Earthing allows leakage currents to flow away without danger and, in combination with a differential protection device (differential circuit breaker or differential switch), ensures that your electrical installation is de-energized.

I think masse means bulk or lump of or body of.

46 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Could this story be part of some scam that the writer is trying to sell to people?

I think I understand the process being referred to and it is illegal in most, if not all, countries.

Every year in the UK a handful of farmers think they can get away with it and are prosecuted.

It certainly does work, but as you say the energy comes from the supply, not from the ground, although the ground is involved in the theft.

Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think masse means bulk or lump of or body of.

I think I understand the process being referred to and it is illegal in most, if not all, countries.

Every year in the UK a handful of farmers think they can get away with it and are prosecuted.

It certainly does work, but as you say the energy comes from the supply, not from the ground, although the ground is involved in the theft.

How can we know that it comes from the source, even if we can't detect where this energy comes from? In fact, energy companies cannot detect any lack of energy; they just make comparisons to identify a supposed lack of energy.

Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

Really ?

I think masse means bulk or lump of or body of.

I think I understand the process being referred to and it is illegal in most, if not all, countries.

Every year in the UK a handful of farmers think they can get away with it and are prosecuted.

It certainly does work, but as you say the energy comes from the supply, not from the ground, although the ground is involved in the theft.

(La) masse does in fact appear in my Cassell French/English dictionary as having an additional electrical meaning of ground.

Does this rely on using the earth to complete the circuit so that the return bypasses the meter, or something?

Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, exchemist said:

(La) masse does in fact appear in my Cassell French/English dictionary as having an additional electrical meaning of ground.

Does this rely on using the earth to complete the circuit so that the return bypasses the meter, or something?

If you are an occupier of land that is crossed by the higher voltage power grid you can physically obtain a'free' supply of electricity by running a cable in or on the ground beneath a phase wire.

Doing this with the standard mains supply will not yield much power.

29 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

How can we know that it comes from the source, even if we can't detect where this energy comes from? In fact, energy companies cannot detect any lack of energy; they just make comparisons to identify a supposed lack of energy.

Of course this quibble comes from thinking that grid engineers are fools.

Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

If you are an occupier of land that is crossed by the higher voltage power grid you can physically obtain a'free' supply of electricity by running a cable in or on the ground beneath a phase wire.

Doing this with the standard mains supply will not yield much power.

Of course this quibble comes from thinking that grid engineers are fools.

OK but presumably that is "parasitic" induction in the wire, from the alternating magnetic field around the transmission line. This is about running a generator as a motor, and also in some way involving a non-zero Earth voltage, allegedly. The only way I can envisage that is via a large enough earth current for the grounds's natural resistance to cause a potential difference along the ground.

(From what I read, livestock can be electrocuted this way, due to PD between back and front legs! So bit of an own goal for any farmer who tries it).

Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, exchemist said:

OK but presumably that is "parasitic" induction in the wire, from the alternating magnetic field around the transmission line. This is about running a generator as a motor, and also in some way involving a non-zero Earth voltage, allegedly. The only way I can envisage that is via a large enough earth current for the grounds's natural resistance to cause a potential difference along the ground.

(From what I read, livestock can be electrocuted this way, due to PD between back and front legs! So bit of an own goal for any farmer who tries it).

Indeed so.

But the OP has chosen to pour scorn on my explanations and the engineering community in general and gone searching the dark web for free electricity.

Yes I have already said I would expect a much lower yield when operating at low voltage.

When i was first at University it was all the rage to contruct one's own HI Fi amplifier.

This endeavour demonstrates two separate effects mentioned.

Firstly the dreaded 'earth loop' reducing the output from HIFi to unlistenable.

Secondly in the detailed layout of the amps the requirement that the low power input signals did not use the same supply return path as the signals in the high power output stages, leading to significant signal quality degradation as the supply zero shifted up an down with the heavy currents.

Share on other sites

On 8/22/2024 at 6:52 PM, Z.10.46 said:

I do not intend to waste anyone's time,

Then answer when people seek clarification like this

On 8/22/2024 at 10:43 AM, John Cuthber said:
On 8/22/2024 at 3:00 AM, Z.10.46 said:

But imagine that we replace the exact voltages of the two generators with two isolated moving magnets

What is that meant to mean?

Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Then answer when people seek clarification like this

Here is the functional diagram:

Block 1 and Block 5 each represent a coil with a magnet rotating around it, generating an alternating voltage, u1 and u3 (complex numbers).

Block 2 and Block 4 represent a rectifier that converts the alternating voltage u1 and u3 into direct current U1 and U3 (integers).

Block 3 is a light bulb whose voltage is U2, connected to the ground.

Here, I would like to understand the mathematical and phyisical characteristics of this diagram if U1 and U3 are different.

20 hours ago, studiot said:

Indeed so.

But the OP has chosen to pour scorn on my explanations and the engineering community in general and gone searching the dark web for free electricity.

Yes I have already said I would expect a much lower yield when operating at low voltage.

When i was first at University it was all the rage to contruct one's own HI Fi amplifier.

This endeavour demonstrates two separate effects mentioned.

Firstly the dreaded 'earth loop' reducing the output from HIFi to unlistenable.

Secondly in the detailed layout of the amps the requirement that the low power input signals did not use the same supply return path as the signals in the high power output stages, leading to significant signal quality degradation as the supply zero shifted up an down with the heavy currents.

I have no hatred towards electrical engineers, and I thank you for your explanation in the link you posted. Could you please provide more clarification on the energy balance of this diagram and why, in your discussion on the link, there is no conservation of energy?

Edited by Z.10.46
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Z.10.46 said:

I have no hatred towards electrical engineers, and I thank you for your explanation in the link you posted. Could you please provide more clarification on the energy balance of this diagram and why, in your discussion on the link, there is no conservation of energy?

Of course there is overall conservation of energy, so I don't know what you mean, or why you are speaking of energy, conservation or otherwise.

But more to the point neither I nor anone else can understand you so  called diagrams.

You have been asked by others to clarify these and write them properly.

I have asked you to clarify your wording since it suggests you don't know or understand enough electrical theory to  pose the questions properly.

On 8/22/2024 at 7:15 PM, studiot said:

But this shows a misunderstanding of rectification.

On 8/22/2024 at 6:52 PM, Z.10.46 said:

Block 2 and Block 4 represent a rectifier that converts the alternating voltage u1 and u3 into direct current U1 and U3.

What do you know about voltage sources and internal resistance ?

Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A voltage source is a component that creates a potential difference between two points in a circuit, meaning it drives a certain amount of electrons to move from one point to another in a specific direction according to a time frequency. The internal resistance depends on the properties of the voltage source. In the quantum world, a small portion of electrons might even choose to move in the opposite direction of others, which can slightly reduce the voltage, and some electrons might go elsewhere, leaving the circuit and dissipating as heat. The quantum world is indeed strange, with some electrons following the rules, others doing the opposite of the rules, and some having no rules to follow at all...

But this shows a misunderstanding of rectification.

Yes, sorry, you should use diodes for rectification to keep only the positive sinusoidal signal, followed by filtering with capacitors to smooth the signal. You might also consider adding a regulator at the end. In any case, blocks 2 and 4 correspond to a device that transforms a sinusoidal signal into a constant signal. I wasn't sure how to say this in English.

Are there any other points that need to be clarified in the schematic as well?

Edited by Z.10.46

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account