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

[alan]

If discharging one capacitor into another produces more voltage across the 2 caps.
Then what about discharging one cap into many caps.

Doing this will result in dilation of charge or V-pressure.
But what will happen when a charged cap is being discharged through a (bifi) transformer using techniques regularly shown here, of which the secondary is connected to multiple caps? ie. Can high voltage spikes (high dV/dt) alone charge caps ?

[Koen1]

Well I'm not entirely sure about that AbbaRue...
I have the feeling you consider me to be one of the "mockers",
but really I don't feel that I am. In fact, I feel the "mockers" originally
did and still do have a point, which is structurally ignored by
CaptPecan and IST in favour of their own interpretation.
As I see it, the point made by CaptPecan was that there might be
energy gain in the circuit. The point made by the opposing party
was that yes CP did show voltage increase on the meter, but no,
that is not energy increase, and there is good theory to support that
point of view. So they did go along with CP's observation of voltage
increase, but they pointed out that is not immediately the same
as energy increase.
Now CP's reply was and basically still is "Yes it does."
And the other side's reply to that is and was "No it isn't."
And that's basically where things got stuck.

But there's a way to test it.

I have suggested a way to measure and compare the charges and energy
contained in the capacitors before and after the dischage,
and for some reason nobody wants to do that.
It's really simple: Whether or not there may be issues with the capacitors
and the different capacitance of parallelled caps, and whether or not those
differences give rise to apparent voltage gain in the parallel cap arrangement
while the actual energy contained in the system is decreased, all of that would
not matter to the comparative measurement if only the "output" charge were
dumped into a capacitor that is exactly identical to the capacitor we first started with.
So we take an x farad cap rated to say 35V and charge it with 9V from a battery,
then perform the CaptainPecan pulse trick, and then dump all of the charge on the
parallel cap arrangement into a properly connected transformer primary, and hook
the secondary to a fresh and uncharged x farad cap rated to 35V again.
If that second cap now measures more than 9V, it can now be compared to the
initial 9V cap and we may conclude that somehow some energy was gained.

If, on the other hand, the apparent voltage increase is not really an energy
gain at all, like the "antagonists" of the CaptPecan interpretation have
been saying all along, but merely an apparent voltage gain due to the
differences in capacitance of the parallel cap arrangement in contrast
to the single starting cap, then this simple test should clearly show
a lower voltage on the ouput capacitor.

Why the "hands on" guys refuse to try that simple variation is beyond me.
It could resolve the bickering over calculations and simply give them two
"hands on" caps with actual charge in them, and that should show the
energy increase if there really is any.

But I guess it's much more enjoyable to keep bickering and to keep posting
vague but very enthousiastic remarks about a very simple circuit. Isn't it?
Sure it is... Why do any conclusive and comparative tests if we can fuel
the thread by not doing it?

So really I don't care if it is CaptainPecan who is right or if it is
"the mockers" who are right,
I just want to see someone do that test and show us the difference
in charge between the energy in and the energy out, when
stored on identical capacitors.
That should be perfectly well comparable, and should show once and
for all if there is energy gain or energy loss.
Test done => end of debate => next step in developing a device.
Test positive => let's desgin and build a version that prodces maximum OU.
Test negative => no cigar, go back to start, do not collect $2000.

[BEP]

Want a cap to work like a transformer?

Try this....

Want a cap that varies in value?

Use 3M VHB tape as the dielectric.

The charge is store in the dielectric not the plates. They only convert charge to current and current to charge.

Greets from the peanut gallery...

BEP

[innovation_station]

i like to let the train chugg along the tracks ....

i will do the cap tests 

i will try my start caps first 2 identical caps 1 pulse  and we will see.....

then i will try 1 start cap and 1 run cap 

i gave what i have cuz im sick and tired of people not posting constructive results

ist

KEEPING IT SIMPLE 

[captainpecan]

So they did go along with CP's observation of voltage
increase, but they pointed out that is not immediately the same
as energy increase.
Now CP's reply was and basically still is "Yes it does."
And the other side's reply to that is and was "No it isn't."
And that's basically where things got stuck.

Sorry, that is not how it is.  From the beginning, I acknowledged the physics equation showing the loss in energy, but a gain in voltage.  My argument was that I was still getting the work out of the caps, "AS IF" the actual energy contained in them followed the same trend as the voltage alone. This was almost totally ignored by physics books being jammed up my butt quoting equations that I was very well aware of to begin with. I showed what "appeared" to be an interesting effect, where work done discharging both caps in parallel at the exact same time, did almost half as much work, as when they were discharged seperately.  Even though the work done appeared to be totally different amounts, the equations state the energy was supposed to be identical in both scenarios. I noted an interesting result that I tested, and I clearly stated my intentions on the very first post of this entire thread, where I stated that I did understand the proper use of the equations, but I felt I had a good argument as to why they may not apply.

Then of course not many seemed to even notice the point of the video's.  The fact that when you connect two caps together, directly in parallel, then record the "Energy" not just the voltage.  Then do the same test hooking a motor between the two and record the "Energy" not just the voltage.  When I do that, I show more energy in the caps in scenario 2 than in scenario 1.  Indicating I gained energy running it through the motor, forcing it to do work, and catching it on the otherside, as opposed to just dumping from one cap to another.  This I also felt was a good point worth noting, but seemed to be ignored.

Not to mention, if you look back a few pages in the thread, it was suggested that to show NO ENERGY LOST from cap to cap transfer, I needed to actually catch "something close to" 75% of the original VOLTAGE, in each of the caps and not 50% in each as I did in the video's.  I then followed the suggestions as to how to do that that were posted for me to follow.  I did not get the results as the simulation had planned and still was only catching 50% of the original VOLTAGE on each cap showing a loss by the equations in energy.  I am working on better ways to transfer the energy between two caps to recover 90% or more energy following the equations, and then still be able to show the work done being greater by the motor.  Unfortunately, there are very few suggestions that help move in the right direction when it comes to this.

So I do not feel it is fair to say by any means, that I am just ignoring what everyone is saying.  It appears to me that I am following what is being said, doing what I can to utilize as much of the info as I can, and moving forward.

But there's a way to test it.

I have suggested a way to measure and compare the charges and energy
contained in the capacitors before and after the dischage,
and for some reason nobody wants to do that.
It's really simple: Whether or not there may be issues with the capacitors
and the different capacitance of parallelled caps, and whether or not those
differences give rise to apparent voltage gain in the parallel cap arrangement
while the actual energy contained in the system is decreased, all of that would
not matter to the comparative measurement if only the "output" charge were
dumped into a capacitor that is exactly identical to the capacitor we first started with.
So we take an x farad cap rated to say 35V and charge it with 9V from a battery,
then perform the CaptainPecan pulse trick, and then dump all of the charge on the
parallel cap arrangement into a properly connected transformer primary, and hook
the secondary to a fresh and uncharged x farad cap rated to 35V again.
If that second cap now measures more than 9V, it can now be compared to the
initial 9V cap and we may conclude that somehow some energy was gained.

If, on the other hand, the apparent voltage increase is not really an energy
gain at all, like the "antagonists" of the CaptPecan interpretation have
been saying all along, but merely an apparent voltage gain due to the
differences in capacitance of the parallel cap arrangement in contrast
to the single starting cap, then this simple test should clearly show
a lower voltage on the ouput capacitor.

Why the "hands on" guys refuse to try that simple variation is beyond me.
It could resolve the bickering over calculations and simply give them two
"hands on" caps with actual charge in them, and that should show the
energy increase if there really is any.

But I guess it's much more enjoyable to keep bickering and to keep posting
vague but very enthousiastic remarks about a very simple circuit. Isn't it?
Sure it is... Why do any conclusive and comparative tests if we can fuel
the thread by not doing it?

So really I don't care if it is CaptainPecan who is right or if it is
"the mockers" who are right,
I just want to see someone do that test and show us the difference
in charge between the energy in and the energy out, when
stored on identical capacitors.
That should be perfectly well comparable, and should show once and
for all if there is energy gain or energy loss.
Test done => end of debate => next step in developing a device.
Test positive => let's desgin and build a version that prodces maximum OU.
Test negative => no cigar, go back to start, do not collect $2000.

I wish I could say that the test you feel should be done, would prove or disprove this work.  Unfortunately, It appears that all it would prove would be how efficient the transformer is.  That's about it, unless I'm reading your post incorrectly.  By all means, please run the test. If it gets people back at the bench working, then I'm all for it.  Unfortunately, I do not feel it would be an accurate test.  I am working on a test that Pointz99 suggested a few pages ago with his simulation, as I feel that if I can still show work done, and get the results the simulation says I should, then it would be proven.

Back to work.  Thanks for your comment though, this was not meant to spit dirty words at you, as you have been much less disrespectful in your responses to this thread than many others have been.