OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

[nul-points]

hi AC

it gets better


i understand that because BF adopted that labelling for the direction of current, we've ended up with a labelling for energy which is also inverted

the situation is now so ingrained we're taught that there is only one kind of energy: positive

in fact energy has symmetry of polarity (as do Charge and Matter) and can be either 'binding' or 'releasing' - ie. it can hold matter together or it can force matter apart

eg.  the strong nuclear force, gravity and the force between unlike charges are binding forces; and the force between like charges is a 'releasing' or 'freeing' force

unfortunately, we now think of energy as being able to vary only between some positive level and the 'zero-point' level whereas in fact it can vary between 'positive' and 'negative'

if Ben had got his signs correct, what we think of as 'positive' energy would in fact today have a negative sign

this would hopefully have acted as a wake-up call to science to realise that there was likely to be energy with the opposite sign also

this understanding follows naturally from Dirac's equations which now make sense where the 'binding' energy is the all-pervasive quantum-medium (the intangible energy levels which we can't presently sense) and the 'releasing' levels (which include tangible things we can sense) such as mass

what WE label as energy, and which gives form to our 'physical' environment, is actually negative energy - it has been been 'borrowed' from the universe which has an infinite store of (positive) energy


it's a shame that Mr Franklin didn't flip the coin just a bit harder - but he couldn't have known in his scientific era that the key he was said to have threaded on his kite-string would turn out to be the 'key' to the universe


all the best
s.

[allcanadian]

@nul-points
I would agree with everything you have said, I learned of this mis-labelling of current flow almost 16 years ago and it still irritates me to this day, LOL. Personally I find electron flow notation to be much more intuitive in regards to the mechanical aspects of current, now if they could just change the direction of the arrows on those damn diodes I would be a happy man. As well I have found that this incorrect notation has not been around forever, I bought some books at a garage sale for 50 cents one day called "Direct Current Fundamentals", Delmar publishers 1963 which appears to be a textbook and the notation is correct (electron flow notation). It was also interesting that they use the "left hand rule" to understand the magnetic field around a current carrying wire. I am not usually one to give advice but I would suggest to other people reading this to look into electron flow notation, I know it made my life easier once I switched over.
Regards
AC

[nul-points]

good call, AC


your experiences just reminded me that one of our lecturers in the EE dept at college, back in the '70s, used to use electron flow polarity instead of conventional current in all his equations

the other lecturers would make good-natured fun out of his "V = -IR" type working but actually, looking back, i think 'good for him' in making a stand for the truth in the face of unquestioning, 'don't-rock-the-boat' mentality

science will only make the best possible progress if people are allowed to ask & discuss awkward questions about the differences between how the real-world behaves and how we're told it behaves

all the best
s.

[nul-points]

hi honey, i'm home...


it's been a manic year for a number of reasons and, apart from  some long-term datalogging of an interesting influence on a particular type of electrical component, i haven't had much time for any OU-related experiments

however, i recently re-visited some of the result data for my switched-cap experiments mentioned earlier, to see if it's possible to get a better understanding of what is going on

as we've already seen, the results don't appear to match the teaching of conventional science

one fact is clear: the examples shown above (and in other peoples' experiments), which transfer charge from one capacitor to another via pulses of energy, result in a net gain of the total (capacitively-stored) charge in a closed system

this appears to be in contradiction of Kirchoff's Laws, which require that the net sum of current leaving a node in the circuit must equal the net sum of current entering that node (the charge on a cap being a function of the current leaving or entering the cap)

my circuit was entirely powered by the initial charge on one of the capacitors - no connection to any other equipment was needed to run the experiment - the results were easily confirmed by simple DVM measurement of capacitor voltage before and after the test

one of my experiments resulted in an extra 0.9 Coulombs to the original 2C in the circuit - a net gain of around 50%

this extra charge effect can be seen as higher-than-expected final voltages on the capacitors in the circuit

according to conventional Elec teaching - as seen, for example, in the course notes of an Associate Professor at Texas University:   
    http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node47.html    (cf eqn. #120)

the amount of energy used VIA A LOAD to charge a capacitor will equal the amount of energy which finally gets stored

ie. to store 2Joules in a cap  you must convert an additional 2Joules, in the load, to achieve it; a total energy conversion of 4J

IF this is true, then you can just double the final energy of the output cap and compare that with the energy lost from the input cap to calculate the efficiency of the circuit

in my experiments, this method gave COP values somewhere in the region of 110% - 130%

BUT - are the textbooks correct?   read on....

[nul-points]

they appear to have got it wrong about the net charge in the circuit

have they also got it wrong about the charging energy?

it wasn't easy to capture the full sequence of pulse data on the load for the duration of these test but eventually i appeared to get some consistent results

the experimental data eventually confirmed two things:

a) the circuit efficiency was close to, but didn't appear to be greater than, 100%

b) the ratio of charging to stored energy varied with different experiments - it didn't appear to be a regular 1:1 ratio


i revisited my result data and, using an Excel spreadsheet, i was able to show the accumulated value of energy transferred from input to output

the graph clearly shows now that the conventional explanation is not correct - it's just an approximation!

the input energy flow is exponential approaching a maximum value, whilst the output shows a close approximation to a linear increase

the energy consumed by the load to charge the output capacitor is effectively the difference between Ein and Ec2

the third line on the graph shows the half-value (Ein/2) of energy input

If the textbook teaching was correct then the Ec2 curve should closely follow the Ein/2 curve

what ACTUALLY happens in the results shown, is that the load dissipation energy is greater than half up to a certain point and then the output energy becomes greater than half the input

SO - apart from one single (non-zero) point on the graph, it's not valid to use the textbook statement as a rule and double the output energy on the cap to find the total energy used

Apparently there is no OU in the previous experiments, then - but there appear to be some serious discrepancies in what are supposed to be the 'rules' for how this small part of the universe operates

OK, WHAT'S NEXT?