Ultracaps tested for excess energy

[MileHigh]

Paul:

My impression is that the capacitance is affected by the voltage much more than the temperature.  When you did your tests I am assuming that the cap temperature was more or less constant but the voltage was changing.  Certainly there may be an effect from temperature, I am not doubting this, but I guess that it would be at least two orders of magnitude lower than the effects from voltage.  Perhaps you will be doing more tests where you vary the temperature and then you can look at the data.

If I am right, it would be nice to see you come back and post a small acknowledgment that I was right.  I am truly trying to help you with some ideas and suggestions.

"Closed mindedness" is a relative thing Paul.  It can just as easily be argued that learning how capacitors actually work first before you speculate on their behaviour would be the first thing that you should do.  I mean "you" in a general sense here.  For sure there are people here that are "open minded" about capacitors that don't understand how they work.  So they are making speculations from a position of relative ignorance.  I would argue that it's those people that are the closed minded ones.  Opening your mind requires that you be prepared to learn.  Once you learn enough about car engines, you know that you can't put diesel fuel in a gasoline engine and you know that it is futile to do so.

What I don't want is to be bashed or harassed for expressing my thoughts around here.  Not only for this thread but in a general sense.  I know that you tend to stay out of the fray and this statement is not directed at you.

MileHigh

[PaulLowrance]

Paul:

My impression is that the capacitance is affected by the voltage much more than the temperature.  When you did your tests I am assuming that the cap temperature was more or less constant but the voltage was changing.  Certainly there may be an effect from temperature, I am not doubting this, but I guess that it would be at least two orders of magnitude lower than the effects from voltage.  Perhaps you will be doing more tests where you vary the temperature and then you can look at the data.

I already gave you the measurements that disproved it's the main effect. It's your right to ignore data.

"Closed mindedness" is a relative thing Paul.  It can just as easily be argued that learning how capacitors actually work first before you speculate on their behaviour would be the first thing that you should do.  I mean "you" in a general sense here.  For sure there are people here that are "open minded" about capacitors that don't understand how they work.  So they are making speculations from a position of relative ignorance.  I would argue that it's those people that are the closed minded ones.  Opening your mind requires that you be prepared to learn.  Once you learn enough about car engines, you know that you can't put diesel fuel in a gasoline engine and you know that it is futile to do so.

I made good contribution at WikiPedia on kTC noise. Do you even know what kTC noise is? Hurry up, go run over to wikipedia so you can pretend that you knew.


I stand by my statement that you are closed minded to claims that go against convention physics.


Paul

[Pirate88179]

Bill:

The "testing" argument is nothing more than an attempt by the "believers" to put up a protective shield and pretend that they should not listen to someone else's input because they are going to hear things that they don't want to hear.  Hearing other viewpoints "breaks" their fantasy, they only want to read postings that are in line with their own train of thought.

For example, I stated in one of the JT threads that there is nothing special about supercapacitors and you deleted the posts.  You were so sure of the "research" done in the JT threads that you had to hit the delete buttton because what I stated was "upsetting."  Meanwhile in reading some of your posts I can see that you are a beginner in electronics.  Another example:  I looked at Paul's data and speculated that the capacitance of a supercap increases as the voltage across the cap is increased.  Then the next day I found an IEEE paper that confirmed my speculation.  Broli calls that "utter and complete trash."  Go figure.

I am not stopping Paul from doing his testing and I tried making some suggestions to him for doing his tests.

With respect to supercapacitors, I can think of a crazy but applicable story for you.  You have a high-end Intel i7 gaming machine.  The Intel i8 chip comes out and you say to your friends, "The first thing I am going to do is see if I can get free energy out of the i8 chip.  After all, it's a new Intel chip so you never know it might be a free energy device."  It is as crazy as that with respect to looking for a source of free energy with a supercapacitor.

MileHigh

MH:

With all due respect, this post is way off of the mark.  Yes, you did state in the JT topic that super caps or B-caps were "nothing special" and that you could predict what would or would not happen.  That was fine.  That was your opinion and you did have the right to express it.  What you left out of this scenario was that you posted the same thing, over and over.  You were warned not to keep doing that, but, yet, somehow, you felt it necessary to do so.  We all got your point from your original post.  The folks there can actually read.

The problem is that you were telling many folks that supercaps were no different, to the same folks that have already proved to themselves, and others, that they are.  They posted their experimental results, you again posted what it is that you have "learned".  I posted many videos about how supercaps are different, you posted that "I would expect that from what I have learned".  Great.  Good for you.  What I did not see, and no one has seen, is your experiments and videos substantiating your proclaimed position on the matter.  Where are they?

The good folks you are preaching to have already seen the difference and have moved on to newer and better things.  And here you are saying that we are all wrong and did not see the results we have seen with our own eyes.  This would be funny if it were not so sad.

For the last time, if supercaps or b-caps are no different than ordinary caps, post your own results backing this up.  If Paul is not capable of ever measuring these devices, post you own test results.  If you can't do this, or won't do this, then I say, move out of the way and let real science and new discoveries take over.

Saying the same thing over and over without backing it up is not productive, and is really counterproductive.  Show me your devices and test results and I will be glad to look at them.

Bill

[MileHigh]

Paul:

I think that we would all agree that on face value one would conclude that supercapacitors are not a source of free energy.  Then someone comes up with a proposition that supercapacitors are a possible source of free energy.  That's fine, but let's not loose sight of the fact that the burden of proof lies with those that are making the proposition, and not with those that state capacitors are not a source of free energy.

So you are doing some tests to see if the proposition is true.  Great and more power to you.  The debate should be open to both schools of thought with respect to the proposition, for and against, with the burden of proof clearly on the "for" side.  It's a logical fallacy to accuse me of being closed minded because I am on the "against" side.  I can just as easily accuse the people on the "for" side of being closed minded for different reasons.  The burden of proof rests with the "for" side.

Just for the heck of it, a little thought experiment for you:

Suppose that your tests show the capacitance goes up with temperature.  So you charge a supercap to 1 volt at room temperature of 20 C.  You then put the charged supercap into a thermal chamber and bring the temperature of the supercap up to 30 C.  You know from previous testing that the capacitance will increase by 10% when you do this.

I am not sure if you think that when you take the cap out of the thermal chamber if you can then get more energy out of it.  In fact you will not.  When you take the cap out of the thermal chamber you will observe that its voltage has dropped such that it stores the same amount of energy in it from the start of the test.  The voltage in the cap will drop as the temperature increases.  I am assuming that there are some people reading this that did not realize this simple fact.

The same thing effectively happens when you increase the voltage across the capacitor.  As the capacitor voltage goes up, the capacitance increases, such that the observed voltage increase on the cap will be progressively lesser and lesser than you would normally expect because of the dC/dV phenomenon associated with supercapacitors.

What I speculated earlier was that dC/dV may be at least 100 times a greater effect than dC/dTemp.  Either effect can not possibly produce any form of free energy.  We know that V = Q/C.  We also know that Q is a constant.  Therefore if C increases and Q is a constant, then V has to decrease for increasing C.  We also know that E = 1/2*C*V-squared.  When you punch in the numbers for any combination of C and V, and knowing that there is a fixed relationship between C and V where V = Q/C, then you will find that the solution for the amount of energy in the capacitor will remain constant as C and V vary for a fixed Q.

All of the above relationships apply just as much to supercapacitors as they apply to any other form of capacitor.  There is no rational reason as far as I am concerned to believe that supercapacitors might be a source of free energy.

If you are going to try to be scientific, shouldn't someone be able to suggest a model or a rational explanation for the proposed free energy effect as the basis for their proposition?  I don't think one exists, it is based on hearsay from Gadgetmail.  May I suggest that you qualify Gadget for his electronics knowledge also by reading his postings so you can attach a "confidence grading" to Gadget's hearsay.  "Hearsay" is a fairly tough word to attach to this information and in this case in my opinion it is justified.

Good luck with your testing.

MileHigh

[Pirate88179]

Milehigh:

Did you even read your post?

"I think that we would all agree that on face value one would conclude that supercapacitors are not a source of free energy."

A lot of suppositions here.  "I think".  "We would all agree".  "Face value."  "Supercaps are not a source of free energy."

I posit that you are incorrect on all of these.  Why do you do this?   Where is your proof?  Experiments?  Why do you feel the need to keep posting this over and over?

Prove us wrong.  Do a single experiment or test that backs up your repeated statements.  Where do you come up with this "I think we would all agree...."

I will say, for the record, that "I don't think we all agree.  if we did there would be no discussion.  Paul would not have to do any tests.  These are the tests that you "KNOW" the results beforehand so, to me, this means you are not the guy to do the tests.  But, please feel free to do them anyway.  We would all love to see something that backs up all of your suppositions. 

Please do that or please refrain from posting the same diatribe over and over with nothing to back it up.

Bill