Russian voltage multiplier stacking

Thread Starter

Nikša

Joined Mar 26, 2018
86
All I can do at this point is to just drop the microphone and walk away. The simulation is really not misleading, it's not I promise, but I don't know how to break it down any further for you to see what's going on. ... best regards, I'm out.
Once more..

You have not broken down or explained anything. Your simulation shows only the side opposite to "ground" oscillating and you promise it's not misleading :D but you never said even a single word WHY is it so. Funny.

There is no need for branching, we can simplify this circuit to just AC source and two conductors like this. Each side can be "ground" since ground is just a reference point, according to your simulation, only the side opposite to "ground" is oscillating. Do you see this is nonsense and not realistic situation. Even if ground was actual, earthed ground, both sides are still oscillating relative to both measuring points.

You are wrong.

1.jpg
 

Beau Schwabe

Joined Nov 7, 2019
155
Each side can be "ground" since ground is just a reference point, according to your simulation, only the side opposite to "ground" is oscillating
I do understand what you are saying. If I were to shrink myself and stand on the bottom leg of the image in post #82, relative to me the simulator would see that as a steady stable signal and I would "see" the top leg as oscillating. The opposite would be true If I were standing on the top leg. The simulator would see where I am standing as a steady stable signal and I would "see" the bottom leg as oscillating. That is conventional thinking and how we measure things from a known "relative" reference point allowing us to quantify our surroundings. In reality I would be somewhere in the ocean during a storm ... the leg that I am standing on is moving just as much as the one I am observing (or would it be half as much?) ... it boils down to any reference no matter what, is always relative to the observer. In this case "ground" is my observation point.
 

djsfantasi

Joined Apr 11, 2010
9,156
I do understand what you are saying. If I were to shrink myself and stand on the bottom leg of the image in post #82, relative to me the simulator would see that as a steady stable signal and I would "see" the top leg as oscillating. The opposite would be true If I were standing on the top leg. The simulator would see where I am standing as a steady stable signal and I would "see" the bottom leg as oscillating. That is conventional thinking and how we measure things from a known "relative" reference point allowing us to quantify our surroundings. In reality I would be somewhere in the ocean during a storm ... the leg that I am standing on is moving just as much as the one I am observing (or would it be half as much?) ... it boils down to any reference no matter what, is always relative to the observer. In this case "ground" is my observation point.
Just like my car example. But, you know that is wrong, because your observation point has no effect on what you observe. The TS has stated that many times.
 

Thread Starter

Nikša

Joined Mar 26, 2018
86
I do understand what you are saying. If I were to shrink myself and stand on the bottom leg of the image in post #82, relative to me the simulator would see that as a steady stable signal and I would "see" the top leg as oscillating. The opposite would be true If I were standing on the top leg. The simulator would see where I am standing as a steady stable signal and I would "see" the bottom leg as oscillating. That is conventional thinking and how we measure things from a known "relative" reference point allowing us to quantify our surroundings. In reality I would be somewhere in the ocean during a storm ... the leg that I am standing on is moving just as much as the one I am observing (or would it be half as much?) ... it boils down to any reference no matter what, is always relative to the observer. In this case "ground" is my observation point.
I thought in those terms right away and that is why i called it misleading. Simulator makes the whole "ground" side a 0 reference instead of just a point where you measure. Let's take your example, you are a tiny observer at the bottom leg, you would see the bottom and the top side oscillating, you are a point remember, waves are coming to and from you. But the simulator makes the whole side 0 as if you perceive the waves only on the other side of the storm which is not realistic.
 

Thread Starter

Nikša

Joined Mar 26, 2018
86
Sorry guys, it's time to:

The steady sea state is your reference.
Let's say boat is causing the waves (AC source), let's say the guy who fell out is "ground" and there is another guy on the other side of the boat. So altho ground guy is going up and down, we say he is steady and everything else is moving relative to him. Now, from his point of view the sea between him and the boat is oscillating, just like the other side is. That is the whole point.
 
Top