Electricity Amplification by Neo Magnet

[tinu]

Thanks again for your efforts (additional experiments and second movie).

I?d like to stress that ?electricity amplification? may not be the most appropriate name as it implies a huge Eureka, if real. Observation is not intended to be caustic in any way but just posted here to get one real. It is not directed to you, Luc, either, so please don?t take it personally. But it?s just the fair post it should be read here and maybe in a lot of other threads where one can find about ?self running micro TPU?, ?self running cold electricity from ?.? etc., etc. Well, all of them should be firstly proved and only then announced, not the other way.
Ok, no that I?ve let it out, lets get back to current experiments.

In order to prove ?electricity amplification?, one has to get close to the following case:
- 330microF at 200V stores about 6.6J (1/2CU2);
- an electric source at 17.6V and 120mA will charge the above cap at 200V in 3.125s, at 100% efficiency;
- in practice, in raising the voltage (additional electronics etc) one may easily attain a 70-75% efficiency. I did it, using regular/cheap components; there is nothing spectacular about it.
- by considering an efficiency of 0.7, the time needed to charge the cap would be 4.46s;
- so far, in the last movie 35s were needed for doing it (from 4:39 to 5:14);
Considering the above, in order to speak about electricity amplification, the setup shall be improved by at least a factor of 7.7 (35/4.5). Until then, it unfortunately remains a DC-DC step-up converter.
In reality things are much worst than 7.7 because, as one knows, a rate of 120mA for an adapter is just a nominal (long-run) rate. The adapter is usually containing an electrolytic, thus able of providing quite large initial current but, even besides that electrolytic, the transformer and electronics usually sustain 10x as rated for short periods.

That being said, I look forward for further evolution and improvements.

Cheers,
Tinu

[AhuraMazda]

Camster's video may be relevant: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=qII_gsz-7ec

@tinu,
I believe gotoluc has presented a very interesting observation.
Think of the possibilities: A "C" shaped magnet and the wire oscillating back and forth in the open end using some kind of relay contact and cradle.
Of course all Heath Robinson.
On another thread of thought, could this idea lead to some sort of home brewed "Firestorm" spark plug?


Regards

AM

[hartiberlin]

Hi Luc,
you really have to measure,
how much input power you draw during the
sparking.

One easy method would be to use a big capacitor,
say 100.000 uF charged up to 12 Volts and then use this
as the power supply.

Then make a few sparks until the cap is maybe at 6 Volts and
then see, how high the voltage is at the output cap.

Now compare the energy levels of the caps via
0.5x C x voltage^2

Then you know,if you have more energy at the output cap
versus the difference energy drawn from the input cap.

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

[abassign]

I don't think that it deals with an interesting experiment, at least that other elements don't intervene his favor. The motive for my consideration is simple and is born from a simple observation:

The rule of the energy of the condensers is the following:
E = 1/2*C*V^2

I have noticed a great regularity in to rub the metal with the copper wire,  it is obvious that this produces elevated spike of tension, that is accumulated by the condenser (I don't know with how much energy is used for this work...).

I have built a chart with the following columns:
Col A: Time from the experiment start
Col B: Voltage displayed by multimeter
Col C: Condenser energy E = 1/2*C*V^2 (For example 333 microF, but this value is not important)
Col D: Q Energy (Q es quantum), this is the quantity of energy (J/s) that I must accumulate every second to get a certain increase of voltage. Varying this quantity I must reduce the sum of voltage difference (Col. F), the most correct value is when the sum is zero
Col E: calculated voltage ( V = radq(2 * E / C))
Col F: voltage diference

At this point I observe the diagram (red curve) and known that it is very similar to the original (blue curve).

The tension increase is caused by the due accumulation to the spikes of tension. Don't seem me a very particular phenomenon!

If the phenomenon is great with the coin for two motives:
1. The coin is wrinkled and therefore it favors the sparks.
2. The coin has a greater area than the magnets, therefore during the movement of the hand there is more time of contact.

The only way to understand in more correct way the phenomenon is that to measure, through an oscilloscope, the real quantity of energy absorbed by the device.
To understand if the magnets influence the phenomenon all it takes is replacing them with a piece of metal, that has however the same superficial characteristics.

Excuse me however if I keep on doubting on this way to conduct the experiment, but I find it too much inaccurate.

Best regards,
Adriano

[hartiberlin]

Hi Adriano,
I don?t understand.
Are these your own measurements with your own device ?

What are you exactly calculating there ?
Many thanks.