Ultracaps tested for excess energy

[Pirate88179]

Milehigh:

Yes, Paul's research.  His results will answer your question.  I am willing to wait for the results....are you?

I never said don't speak.  I did politely ask you, again and again, not to keep positing the same things over and over and over, with nothing to back them up.  No experiments, no research,...nothing. I do believe everyone on this forum knows where you stand.  I also say that, you might be right.  We just do not need you to keep repeating yourself over and over, the same thing with nothing to back it up.

We now officially have your opinion MH. (for like the 300th time)   Let's see what the experimenters and testers results show.  Fair enough?  OK?  if you do not like the outcome...again I say, do your own testing!!!!!!!!!!

Bill

[electricme]

@ MileHigh,

I have been quietly reading the posts from the beginning, I don't want to get into a flame war, as it won't achieve anything constructive.
As an off sider, I "can" see both points of view.

In this day and age there are remarkable discoveries made, and many more will be made in all different sciences, and it so happens that a "new" type of capacitor has been discovered, to add to the range of capacitors.

This capacitor is able to hold a lot more energy than what has been able to be crambed into the humble aluminium canister.
I have read on the internet stories of some of the older generations (valve generation) who when confronted with this new technology who say it is impossible.

Well, fair enough, I also read somewhere in a school book back in the early 60s that man said if a car went faster than 100 miles an hour, then he would be squashed flat, Malcolm Campbell in his bluebird was able to do it and lived to tell the tale, and he went a lot faster.

We also were told that the aeroplane couldn't fly faster than the speed of sound, ha ha, look at the BlackBird, doesn't it go faster than mack 3.

So we in this day and age hear there is a new thingi-what-cha-a-ma-call it that can store more energy than a battery, I say wacko, lets see it and lets see it tested.

If someone makes a claim for overunity, then you can be assured this super cap willed be grilled over like a shrimp on a barbie, it will be tested and tested over and over again and again.

Mile High, I live in another country, in Australia, and you can bet I will have my eyes glued to the screen to see the outcome of these tests that Paul is doing.

We have an Electronics magazine out here called Silicon Chipp, they have heard of the super cap, and they have done a story on it, you can read the beginning of it here   http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_110327/article.html

To test them here is a link to a circuit that someone has made (not I), but it mentions super capacitors http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_30372/article.html browse down almost to the end and you will see it.

Then there is the Super Super Capacitor, these people are taking it seriously   http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/super-super-capacitor_1220.htm then scroll down to the end to a link for further reading.

MileHigh, it is a new technology, and with a doubt, there isn't a single sole here who knows all there is to know about it, it is exciting stuff, so lets all work together to try and understand it.

jim

[PaulLowrance]

I think that we would all agree that on face value one would conclude that supercapacitors are not a source of free energy. [snip] It's a logical fallacy to accuse me of being closed minded because I am on the "against" side.

Once again you demonstrate closed mindedness. You keep saying the main effect is due to voltage, when I've presented data that contradicts your claim. And you ignore my statement, time after time you keep using that false claim to back up your claim that it's not excess energy.

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.

It is illogical to say that people who are doing the experiments are being closed minded. You might want to rethink your stance.

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.

One has to assume, give your above quote, that you are unaware of an irreversible effect, or your mind simply did not see the obvious. There are reasons for it could be an irreversible effect. Charging the UC could producing microscopic temperature changes, which in turn could cause increase the electrolytes effectiveness. You are aware of the inner workings of a UC, hopefully. The UC consists of a material with high surface density. Anyhow, it's a waste of time explaining this to you. You cannot replicate all of the microscopic effects by applying a macro temperature change.

I'm afraid this is a waste of time. IMO you have clearly demonstrated your closed mindedness.

In my next post I'll re-outline my thoughts on what might be occurring in the UC.

Paul

[PaulLowrance]

This is pretty much a re-post of what I've already said because the thread is getting cluttered up.

Existing measurements have show how the UC (ultracap) measured capacitance varies with UC usage. That  is, usage in terms of the amount of current for a given per time period. When the UC is used, measured capacitance increases by a noticeable amount. As seen in the measurements, which were posted, this effect was seen at various voltage levels, and therefore this effect is not due to the non-linearities of the UC, which are far less noticeable.

The two possible explanations that I'm aware of are,

1. Excess energy (yes, that is still a possibility).

2. Dielectric absorption. Also know as dielectric hysteresis, or dielectric relaxation, and sometimes as dielectric soakage.

3. An unknown effect.


The only logical conclusion, if one wants to know the above answer, is to do the experiments.

Regards.
Paul

[PaulLowrance]

In case a few people are wondering, an example of an irreversible effect is when a DC voltage is applied to a resistor where the resistor heats up, but the opposite does not occur. When we heat up the resistor, a DC voltage is not produce.

It's safe to say there are a lot of irreversible effects within an ultracap. UC current would produce microscopic, actually it's probably closer to nanoscopic temperatures on the surfaces of the micro globular structures within the UC.

Paul