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

[spinner]

@captainpecan,
Your experiments were always in accordance with classical physics/electrotechnics understandings... OK?

The point is, your idea of reusing the "drained through or already used" energy is not viable. While it may seems so, the energy "used" (transformed) cannot be used again by the same methods or in the same circuit. (because of the 'potential' energy losses)

I think the same was pointed out by many members (!) since the beginning of your thread.

There is no mystery. If you think that we're just narrow minded, please, fell free to correct us.... By any (reasonable) means...

Thanks!

[captainpecan]

@captainpecan,
Your experiments were always in accordance with classical physics/electrotechnics understandings... OK?

The point is, your idea of reusing the "drained through or already used" energy is not viable. While it may seems so, the energy "used" (transformed) cannot be used again by the same methods or in the same circuit. (because of the 'potential' energy losses)

I think the same was pointed out by many members (!) since the beginning of your thread.

There is no mystery. If you think that we're just narrow minded, please, fell free to correct us.... By any (reasonable) means...

Thanks!

So, you are saying the motor in my circuit has transformed the energy into something that cannot be used anymore. So basically, all the energy that was transformed, never left the other terminal continuing through the circuit? So if I added a second motor to the circuit, even more will be "transformed" and even less will make it through the circuit, which would cause a noticeable loss I would guess. Well, I've added two motors now, and I am getting almost identical results with both motors, still leaving the same amount of energy in the caps. Even though everything says I should be losing a lot, I'm lifting weight with these motors, and both are doing work, and not showing any noticeable loss in ending energy, as apposed to them not even being in the circuit.  Thanks for your opinion, I think I will keep working on it, and I never called anyone narrow minded.

[spinner]

So, you are saying the motor in my circuit has transformed the energy into something that cannot be used anymore. So basically, all the energy that was transformed, never left the other terminal continuing through the circuit? So if I added a second motor to the circuit, even more will be "transformed" and even less will make it through the circuit, which would cause a noticeable loss I would guess.

Basically yes.. Even though it's not obvious at the first sight... Your measurements/experiments were not correctly made, or not in accordance with what is known... - You dismissed a lot of loss mechanisms like thermal / Ohmic (inevitable resistance, electrolyte chemistry losses), EM energy radiation, ), etc... It seems your motor is doing a real (usefull work)...

Yes, if you add additional motors, your end result should (and would!) differ (if measurements are made carefully), but because the energy conversions are not very obvious (there's a minuscule mechanical energy conversion involved), you would hardly notice it....

Needless to say, your experiment is a "very high tolerance" one... So the data gained can be interpreted as such....

Well, I've added two motors now, and I am getting almost identical results with both motors, still leaving the same amount of energy in the caps. Even though everything says I should be losing a lot, I'm lifting weight with these motors, and both are doing work, and not showing any noticeable loss in ending energy, as apposed to them not even being in the circuit.  Thanks for your opinion, I think I will keep working on it, and I never called anyone narrow minded.

Your motors are producing an energy conversion which is still for at least (a few) orders of the magnitude below all the "missing" or unaccounted energy...

This is a classical misunderstanding (where most of the 'FE'electronic devices fails)...

The Measurement's errors... This is the most obvious mistake made by the nowadays FE explorers...

Did you know the claims for "electrotechnical origin FE" raised by the factor of +20 in the last 2 decades... Partially by the wide use of internet, and partially by the wide use of digitall V/I-meters....

The phenomenon... ?

[Bennyboy]

@captainpecan

Ignore the naysayers, keep at it mate and please continue to share the results.  If indeed nothing comes of it, both you and a fair portion of the forum will have learnt some valuable lessons.

If something does come of it....well, you know the rest...

Regards,
Ben.

[poynt99]

What we know so far:

1) In order to increase the efficiency of energy transfer between two capacitors above 50%, an inductance needs to be placed in series between them.

2) This series inductance needs to exhibit a certain minimum inductance-to-resistance (L/R) ratio in order for this scheme to achieve positive results, that is to achieve n > 50%.

3) Using an inductance that exhibits a L/R ratio below this minimum will limit energy transfer efficiencies to about 50%. About 50% of the remaining energy is lost/dissipated in the inductor's DC resistance.

4) Using a small DC motor as the inductor does not meet the minimum L/R ratio to achieve n > 50%, however work can be done by this motor while energy is being lost and transferred through it.

5) Using 3 (for eg.) of the same small DC motors in series maintains the same L/R ratio and therefore the efficiency remains at  50%. Work can still be done by each motor, but Ohm's law must be taken into account as the available current has been reduced or limited to 1/3 compared to when only a single motor was used (66 Ohms compared to 22 Ohms). In theory the available power is equally divided among the 3 motors.

6) Each motor has it's own mechanical losses due to bearing friction etc. so to maximize the use of the available power, a single motor is probably best. There is no gain in using 3 motors in series as explained in 5).

.99