The secret to Overunity

[sm0ky2]

@Chet


It's much easier to obtain/produce graphite
Cheaper too. They do pretty much the same thing.
The advantages that come from graphene are tiny.
The real advantage is economic profitability.
That's why research gets funding in this area.


Graphite batteries,capacitors, inductors, semiconductors,peltier's etc.
perform almost as well in any situation we would use them for.

There are self-organizing carbon structures that out perform
graphene, but are increasingly more difficult to create.


We 'can' make graphene in the kitchen, as I and others have shown
But my experience tells me it's not worth the investment.

[sm0ky2]

To Void:


Your difference in opinion sounds like it is derived from the
difference between the technician point of view and the engineer
viewpoint.


I'll try to explain:


A technician will tell you that to charge a capacitor, you must do it
through a load. Such as a resistor or a lightbulb, etc.
As this applies to the application (in our modern circuitry)


An Engineer will tell you that a capacitor charges inductively.
A charge on one plate induces an equal and opposite charge on
the other plate.
As this pertains to the science.


Both statements are true, and in fact both occur in modern circuitry.
Simultaneously


However, the prior is not inherent of capacitors, only of our circuits.


Capacitor science is derived from condenser study.


Capacitor technical data is derived from modern application.
(done almost 2 centuries later)


What you are claiming to be "false" only applies to the modern application.
We can also charge a capacitor inductively by applying a potential to one
plate.
The other will induce an equal and opposite charge
as a function of the distance between them and change in voltage.


Charging a capacitor without a load has no measurable current.
it is so small it can only be calculated,
You can scope it with an adequately high-frequency oscilloscope.
and we see a sharp spike at the front, and a decrease in current
inversely proportionate to the voltage.
Current at 0 charge is 'infinite', current at max charge is 0.
Internal resistance to a single capacitor plate increases with charge.


The large spike (across a the charging time) of current is overwhelmed
by the increasingly low current as it approaches max charge.
This will continue until the potential between the charged plate and the
induced plate equals the potential between the source and our reference.
Resulting in almost no current at all.
Current is a function of time.
The time is so short it destroys the equation.
It is approximately 0 current.


Hope this helps you understand.

[ramset]

Smokey
as usual I did not explain myself well
its in my head but doesn't always make it to the paper


no I was referring to Roberts path, sourcing already made products from vendors

However
I know others are making it and experimenting with solutions and materials [Mwah]
and its nice to show the really young members of the planet [Children]
what they can do with their own hands[under supervision of course]

to make a change in the world , IMO too much button pressing and not enuff dirty hands
with the Children.

and for Clarity the energy density claimed by Robert is on a par or better than Li

and for additional clarity
we hope to qualify that claim independently here.

ps
gotta log out [storm heading this way

[Void]

For those who want to claim overunity on something, I suggest they first prove by experiment that their system can perpetually run or self-run.
Proving that the output is greater than the input is not enough. Measurement errors always exist.
We have already seen many discussion threads on overunity spark gaps, overunity capacitors, overunity inductors, OU resistors, 100kW systems, 5MW systems, etc, etc.
I am not ruling out the possibility that self-running systems exist.

Hi blueplanet. Yes, being able to demonstrate a self-sustaining setup is pretty much the
benchmark for OU claims now, given all the many false claims and setups showing
very obvious improper measurements over the years. It is easy to make claims, but it is
a whole different kettle of fish to be able to back up those claims with a self-sustaining setup. 
This quickly separates the real from the fantasy.

P.S. If someone can show that they get a very much larger output power than input power
then that is not anything to sneeze at, but the next logical step would be to try to loop it and
make it self-sustaining if possible, as a truly self-sustaining setup is something that is pretty
hard to argue against, outside of the possibility of plain fraud.

All the best...

[Void]

Hi sm0ky2. I have already explained to you that my comments were to Tajerek,
and are in response to the specific circuit diagram he posted and the specific comments
he has made here.  I understand well that there is something called electrostatic induction, but
my comments are in direct relation to specific things Tajerek has been saying, not on other
approaches or other possibilities.

I have spent many years doing my own experimenting in this area, and my approach has been to start
with very basic concepts and do various tests so I understand well how things really work, and then
to move step by step into different variations and observe how things really work in those different
variations. After a person has done many hours of experimentation along these lines over many years,
they can often quickly see where people are going wrong who do not actually try things out and who
just make statements based on assumptions and incorrect understanding and that sort of thing.
Again, my comments have been in direct response to specific things that Tajerek was saying here.

The unfortunate reality is there are a lot of very 'mistaken' people (to be kind about it) in the OU research area.
A common pattern you see from these people is they typically just can't back up what they are saying with an actual
sound test setup. They often make excuses why they can't demonstrate anything to back up what they are saying,
or may show some shoddy setup along with improper measurements to try to back up what they are saying, or insist the
problem is with other people for not blindly accepting what they are saying.

In reality, the only realistic way to be sure about something related to OU being authentic or not is
to test the heck out of it and to always be on the watch for things that you might have overlooked or
places where you may be making an error or incorrect assumption. If a person doesn't have that mindset when
they are doing OU experimenting then I think they are lost before they have even started. You must be willing to
closely examine and question everything, and be willing to check things over many times to try to find places where you
could have gone wrong, etc. IMO, this is the difference between someone who is truly open to trying to get a real
understanding of things, and someone who is just looking to promote some pet ideas or beliefs they may have
without being willing or capable to do the work to see if there really may be anything to it or not or to accept
feedback on what they are saying or doing as well.

Anyway, enough on this, what I am saying should really be old hat to anyone who has been at this
for any length of time anyway. Newcomers to the topic should consider what I am saying here though
if you want to try to avoid being lead down the garden path and end up wasting a lot of time.

All the best...