The Young Effect, my gift to the free energy movement!

[MeltDown]

Actually, no, I knew exactly what you were getting at.  Like your other posts in the past, your intention was to show that there is no "free energy" in my circuit.  Your point in your simulation was trying to show how "inefficient" my circuit is and how it seems to loose lot's of energy.  I saw no point in reading it as a tear down, and I looked for valuable information that may be there, as I always do.  If someone can show me how to split 18v into 2 12.5v caps, I'm all for it.  That just makes it even better.  In fact, I think Stefan read it the same way I did.

So, even though I think you wanted to make it look like there is no chance of free energy in my system, thanks for trying to prove it wrong.  I did try your advice.  Actually, I kinda wish it worked!

I think what people try to tell you is that you lost energy
when you charged the first cap from the battery. This is the part
you do not include but is what proves that there is no free
energy in your invention.

What do you think can make the capacitor voltage go up just wondering?

[captainpecan]

I think what people try to tell you is that you lost energy
when you charged the first cap from the battery. This is the part
you do not include but is what proves that there is no free
energy in your invention.

What do you think can make the capacitor voltage go up just wondering?

Ah...  So because you "think" I lost energy charging the first cap from the battery, that "proves" there is no free energy in the system.  Energy loss, no matter how great or small from charging the first cap with the battery, has absolutely nothing to do with what is tested. Energy from one cap to another does. Is it a consideration if trying to make a self runner using batteries, definitely, I agree.  I dont see how you can draw a conclusion that "proves" there is no free energy because of the battery, when I never even checked the voltage on the battery to start with because it was not even part of the experiment.  There is not enough information to "prove" one way or another in these videos.  Energy from the rotation was not added either.  The video's are just experimental, and raising thought process.  A true self runner is where the proof is.

[MeltDown]

Ah...  So because you "think" I lost energy charging the first cap from the battery, that "proves" there is no free energy in the system.  Energy loss, no matter how great or small from charging the first cap with the battery, has absolutely nothing to do with what is tested. Energy from one cap to another does. Is it a consideration if trying to make a self runner using batteries, definitely, I agree.  I dont see how you can draw a conclusion that "proves" there is no free energy because of the battery, when I never even checked the voltage on the battery to start with because it was not even part of the experiment.  There is not enough information to "prove" one way or another in these videos.  Energy from the rotation was not added either.  The video's are just experimental, and raising thought process.  A true self runner is where the proof is.

It is impossible to charge a cap at 100% efficiency,
that is not in question by anyone that know electronics
and physics and that is fine that you do not care or
test that.

My question was where does the energy gain come from
when you short the caps together?

[Koen1]

@CaptainPecan: good to see you're back in full action again
Ok, I have had a few interesting discussions with friends of mine
about this too, and just looking at your basic setup of the initial
experiment you posted, this is the general consensus:
- yes, we can switch a starting charge on cap1 that measures X volts
to a parallel arrangement using cap1 and cap2, where all caps have
the same capacitance (farads).
- yes, if we only look at the charges and the very basics of capacitor
theory and we omit the capacitance (farads) of the caps, then
one would assume we would end up with a parallel arrangement
where each cap contains 0,5 X volts.
- BUT, if we do take the capacitance into account, we can see that
the parallel arrangement of 2 capacitors with a capacitance Y (farads)
per cap, is NOT identical to one single capacitor with capacitance Y.
- and this in part explains how the voltage on such a parallel cap
setup can measure higher than the 0,5 X volts. Because the volts
alone are not the only measure of the energy contained in a capacitor,
but rather the combination of farads and volts. If you only measure the volts
without taking the farads into account, you can get higher volt readings
even though the actual energy contained in the caps may in fact have decreased.

Now, that said, that's only the general consensus in the group of friends
that I discussed it with on my side here, and you may not be interested in hearing
about that, but in case you are, there you have it.
If you look up similar examples in electrodynamics books, they will descibe
similar voltage gain while energy drops situations.
(And please don't think I'm trying to put your idea down or anything, I was hoping
for a real energy increase too, but what they say seems to accord with theory
and calculations so it would seem they're correct.... )

Of course it does not discuss the possibility that pulsing a monopole motor
may indeed be achieved by switching the charges between caps, which I feel
you have shown pretty clearly and is very Bediniesque in my opinion
nor does it immediately discount the possibility that you might be getting
fairly large "back emf" spikes in the pulsing of the coil setup. Very Bedini
again, but hey
And of course using cool switches like reed couplers may have very interesting effects.

Keep it up bud!

[MeltDown]

- BUT, if we do take the capacitance into account, we can see that
the parallel arrangement of 2 capacitors with a capacitance Y (farads)
per cap, is NOT identical to one single capacitor with capacitance Y.
- and this in part explains how the voltage on such a parallel cap
setup can measure higher than the 0,5 X volts. Because the volts
alone are not the only measure of the energy contained in a capacitor,
but rather the combination of farads and volts. If you only measure the volts
without taking the farads into account, you can get higher volt readings
even though the actual energy contained in the caps may in fact have decreased.


This is a good point that keon1 makes and he is lucky to have smart friends.
You could switch the caps around and prove or not this point he makes.

It is like pouring 10mm of water from a wide bucket into thin pipe and filling
it up 100mm. Looks like a gain but is the same amount of water.