Hi,
My name is Milan Mancic,
I am working in new energy research over 15 years. Here are my recent "drawing energy from parallel realities"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfLlAApIkys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLmCnAa1_Ks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwRoWt6eGJU
All the Best,
Milan
Well... you got one thing right. As you say in the first video... this has nothing to do with Tesla. So one wonders... why do you call it "Tesla Physics" ?
There have been many threads here discussing energy transfer in capacitors, parallel charging series discharging and and the other way around. None of them seem to have mentioned alternate or parallel realities though. SO maybe you've got something new.
What phenomena can you demonstrate that are predicted and explained by your Tesla Physics theory that are not handled as well or better by ordinary "Non Tesla Physics" whatever that might be?
So Pathetically SAD. 47 MINUTES of videos and
1. No evidence of overunity.
2. No circuit demonstrated.
3. No voltage readings.
4. No Schematics.
5. No bulbs lit.
What a very sad waste of time.
.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 13, 2014, 08:13:12 AM
Well... you got one thing right. As you say in the first video... this has nothing to do with Tesla. So one wonders... why do you call it "Tesla Physics" ?
The following text was translated by google
Well, as I said the people close to me, or I am close to them use this term for new and different approach in energy research
In the next following videos on my youtube channel I will describe strange effects which have been noticed in our lab. Some of them are repeatable, some of them are not. I have no problem to give diagram or more details if someone will ask it from me.
There have been many threads here discussing energy transfer in capacitors, parallel charging series discharging and and the other way around. None of them seem to have mentioned alternate or parallel realities though. SO maybe you've got something new.
I like the threads which you mentioned, but they are old ideas without positive results.
What phenomena can you demonstrate that are predicted and explained by your Tesla Physics theory that are not handled as well or better by ordinary "Non Tesla Physics" whatever that might be?
I already demonstrated it in second video with voltage readings and explanation. The plan was to find experimental proof about existence of period of time where both (or more) realities can be detectable . Maybe it lose a bit (or lot) by translation, or maybe it needs to hear few times more OR maybe it is wasting of time like FatBird said. It depends on you
Thanks, Milan
Milan, I am looking forward to your subsequent posts. Thank you.
Hello Milan!
I just want to say, that when you work with capacitors you have to calculate the energy stored in them to see what you actually have.
If I see correct, in your second video you have in the source capacitor 24.156V (291.756m Joules), in the second capacitor 18.003V (162.054m Joules) and in the third capacitor 15.393V (118.472m Joules).
The sum of the energy in the second and third capacitor is 280.526m Joules which is lower that the initial energy in the source capacitor 291.756m Joules.
So there Is no overunity or free energy in this setup as I see it.
Once I saw a similar circuit on Youtube and replicated it, but only after I figured out that you have to look at the stored energy in the capacitors and not the voltage, I saw that there was no gain in that circuit.
Sorry but no free lunch today, but keep up the out of the box thinking and good luck to you sir!
Thx for the interesting video and theory about the uncertainty state, Mancha.
Thx for the explanation, madddman.
Now I can go back to sleep.
Hi Milan. This is very interesting. Yes, as was pointed out by madddann, you appear to have overlooked that the
relationship between energy on a capacitor and the corresponding voltage on the same capacitor is not a linear relationship.
To properly compare how energy is transferring on the capacitors, you should compare with Joules.
In your second video, this is how the energy transferred (assuming that the cap values are close to 1000 uF each):
I may have got some of the digits wrong as I was having a hard time seeing the difference between 0 and 8 on your
computer screen. I hope I didn't make a calculation error below.
Starting state at 22:08:45:
================================
Cs = 24.156V = 291.756 mJ
C1 = 0.037V = 684.5 nJ
Total energy on the two capacitors = 291.756 mJ + 684.5 nJ = 292.441 mJ
At the first measured transition state at 22:08:46:
======================================================
Cs = 18.083V = 163.497 mJ
Energy drop is 291.756 mJ - 163.497 mJ = 128.259 mJ drop
C1 = 18.032V = 162.577 mJ
Energy gain is 162.577 mJ - 684.5 nJ = 161.893 mJ gain
Total energy on the two capacitors = 163.497 mJ + 162.577 mJ = 326.074 mJ (an apparent total energy gain)
This discrepancy in energy drop and energy gain is very interesting if it is not due to a time delay
in microcontroller measuring and processing of voltage measurements for Cs and C1.
At the second measured transition state at 22:08:56:
======================================================
Cs = 15.393V = 118.472 mJ
C1 = 15.366 = 118.057 mJ
Total energy on the two capacitors = 118.472 mJ + 118.057 mJ = 236.529 mJ
Even when results are compared using energy stored on the capacitors,
it is still potentially very interesting results. Just to make sure I understand correctly,
how long are the source capacitor and C1 (or C2) left connected together as you are taking
these voltage measurements?
P.S. Have you tried putting an oscilloscope in single shot mode and capturing
the voltages on the two caps at the same time you are measuring the voltages with your microcontroller?
It would be nice if you could confirm those voltage measurements with a half decent quality scope.
See my example below.
All the best...
OK, I just noticed that I've taken the wrong numbers for the calculation, looks like I've not paid enough attention at the computer screen... sorry everyone.
Looks like Void have done it right. THX Void!
Now it just got interesting! :)
I just tried a quick test with two 1000 uF nominal value electrolytic caps,
with the source cap charged to approx. 24VDC, and the second cap discharged to 0 VDC.
I used my scope in 'single shot' mode to capture the waveforms on both caps
when I connected the source cap in parallel to the second cap. Interesting result. Even though
I was using alligator clip leads, the voltage on both caps pretty much instantly goes to 12VDC
as soon as the charged source cap is connected to it, and both caps stay perfectly at 12VDC for
several seconds after.
Maybe someone can help explain this, as this is a bit of a head scratcher for me.
24 VDC on a 1000 uF cap = 288 mJ of stored energy.
After the discharge into the second 1000uF cap, (both caps are left connected) both caps are now pretty
much immediately exactly at 12 VDC (according to my scope).
12 VDC on a 1000 uF cap = 72 mJ of stored energy.
I tried this test several times, and each time I do the discharge test each cap immediately jumps to pretty close to 12 VDC.
72 mJ x 2 = 144 mJ of energy remaining on the caps in total, but I started with 288 mJ of stored energy on the source cap.
Each time I do this test the total energy is pretty much instantly cut to one half of the original energy
stored in the source cap; i.e., the source cap was holding 288 mJ of energy, and then with a sudden
discharge to the second cap, both caps are instantly forced to holding only 72 mJ of energy each for a total of 144 mJ of stored energy.
It would appear by my calculations here that pretty much one half the energy on the source cap immediately vanishes
when I do a sudden discharge to the second cap. Am I missing something that should be obvious here? ???
All the best...
Yellow trace is the source cap.
Blue trace is the second cap that is being charged by the source cap.
Missing something obvious? No, you are simply confirming a well-known fact of capacitor charging-discharging. Many people before you have done the same experiment and obtained the same result: you lose half the energy in unrecoverable losses. But many people will do the same experiment in the future, too, hoping to get a different result.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 14, 2014, 12:06:34 AM
Missing something obvious? No, you are simply confirming a well-known fact of capacitor charging-discharging. Many people before you have done the same experiment and obtained the same result: you lose half the energy in unrecoverable losses. But many people will do the same experiment in the future, too, hoping to get a different result.
Ok, thanks. Just making sure I am was not overlooking something.
Thinking it through further, it is a redistribution of the charge. The stored energy ends up being one half
of the original stored energy. I still find this odd. ;)
All the best...
Hi all,
I said clear that there is a gain in charge, not in energy.
It is not simple charging discharging like someone said. As many of you knows that with two the same capacitor where one is source, another is target there will be 1/2 voltage in both capacitor than it was initial voltage in source capacitor. Which means if initial voltage was 24 V, on the end of charging/discharging process will be 12 V in both of them as you know, but we got 18 V without using inductors, diodes etc. no nothing, just "simple" on/off switch. From where 12 V (18 x2=36) difference came ?
I did not get this result without plan. I created this experiment to prove theory of parallel realities.
This experiment is not simple on/off , it is experiment with ZERO STATE where random choice was included. In ordinary on/off switching where we have C source and C target, the total amount of charge will be the same before and after test. When we insert random choice we are creating parallel realities and both of them will happen, but we will remember just one. There is a transition period of time when we can detect(and draw) both of them. We have too draw energy from parallel reality during this period of time, otherwise it will gone.
It works like this :
Step 1 charging C-source from external source and discharging C1 and C2
step2 disconnecting C- source from external source
step 3 Discharging C-source to randomly chosen target capacitor C1 or C2.
It is very important. without random choice extra charge will not appears.
It works in every aspect or our life, not only with capacitors. It works in everyday situation.
There are not only 3 capacitors and micro controller , there is observer playing his role too.
Observer could be simple observer, but observer could me initiator and creator of this test too.
This test can be done on different way with two capacitors only or with other devices.
thanks that you spend your time with this.
Milan
You really got me with the "parallel realities" thing :D
Wouldn't it deliver even more charge when having multiple caps? Say 8 caps, and then it would create 8 parallel realities, therefore afterwards the sum of all 8 charged caps must be even higher. Or does it only work while between a maximum of 2 choices?
The more I think about it the more interesting it gets. Especially since you are saying that it happens in real-life choices as well. I recall that when I have to decide how to go on in life between path A and B - and I am not certain which is the better one - it can really heat up my mind, or even make my face glow, if remaining longer in this state. You could also say, that at this point double the amount of charge is used by the brain. The same happens when you are under pressure to buy 1 out of 2 similar products. The longer you are in indecisive state, the more it makes your mind spin around, heats up the mind. It therefore seems correct, that at the indecisive state a larger portion of energy is active. Actually that could be a reason why shopping makes tired.
To Gauschor:
It is unknown to me in this moment. I am working on it.
By theory there will be 8 parallel realities where we will remember just one. How much we could draw from other 7 to existing one ? there are few possible answers .
Let is back to splitting realities in two to try to find conclusion.
Sorurce capacitor is charged to 24 V. target capacitors C1 and C2 are not charged.
So we have binary state ONE, now next what is needed is binary state ZERO which means random choice to charge C1 or to C2. This period of time is STATE ZERO until we do not know which one will be charged. This period of time is the time for action because we have access for two realities for awhile. If we draw all charge from reality which appears , then it reality can not happen. It tell us that we can not take all charge from parallel reality or many of them (depends of how many we are producing). So something must stay there and make it to happen as well.
there was logic that we could draw from parallel reality only 1/2 of its charge. By this logic results which I saw in my video that 24V source capacitor divided in two 12 +6=18V
We could speculate that 12V is form reality which we existing now and half of it is from another reality which is existing beside us , but we have no connection anymore.
In that way it means that we could draw from 8 parallel realities 1/8 from each of them.
But, but, but.. there was test results where we detected more than 18V on the end of test.
So everything is still open.
Another question appears here.
As we know that from 24V to 12 in each means that 1/2 of energy was radiated through the wire or resistor, another is collected and stays in capacitors.
The test which we conducted did not show how much energy is radiated.
Let ask the simple question.
We have moving body where X amount of energy move it. With some reason this reality is split in two. We remember just one and we can measure that the same amount of energy moves this body. So no extra energy can be detected. But from where is energy which moves the same moving body in parallel reality next to us ?
STATE ZERO produces parallel realities , but inside of it is time frame for action , because it si the link between parallel realities. After STATE ZERO is STATE ONE where is no link with parallel realities.
I hope it could help to understand this better.
All the Best,
Milan
Ah, yes thanks. Thought I understood already, but now even better. Was hung up at the 18V for a while, but now I got it. The source C has 24V. It can either discharge to C1 or C2, but not both together. After it discharges, the source cap and one of the two discharge caps have 12V (in a circuit without random choice).
However when having 2 discharge caps, it requires a random choice. A choice between 2 future realities:
1) The reality where it discharges only to C1
2) The reality where it discharges only to C2
Each one of these caps would have 12V, but only one reality can come true. One of these two realities is inevitable. If one reality appears, the other ceases to exist. But both realities exist together at a point in a very short time frame. While the one reality comes true, the other reality must vanish - however - where should the energy (12V) go from the second reality? -> It is added onto the reality which comes true. Therefore the voltage (12V) from the ceasing parallel reality is split in half between the source cap and the discharge cap (each one gets additionally 6V).
So basically in the end, the source cap must have 18V and the C1 or C2 must have 18V. And this only works in a circuit where a "choice" is required.
Quote from: Mancha on August 14, 2014, 03:14:22 AM
This experiment is not simple on/off , it is experiment with ZERO STATE where random choice was included. In ordinary on/off switching where we have C source and C target, the total amount of charge will be the same before and after test. When we insert random choice we are creating parallel realities and both of them will happen, but we will remember just one. There is a transition period of time when we can detect(and draw) both of them. We have too draw energy from parallel reality during this period of time, otherwise it will gone.
It works like this :
Step 1 charging C-source from external source and discharging C1 and C2
step2 disconnecting C- source from external source
step 3 Discharging C-source to randomly chosen target capacitor C1 or C2.
It is very important. without random choice extra charge will not appears.
I understood this difference Milan. I was just trying a quick test with my scope to see what
a 'normal' capacitor discharge from one capacitor to another of the same nominal value looks like,
as I wasn't sure if it was normal for there to be voltage increases over time due to small inductances in
the connecting wires or whatever. My test showed that even with using alligator clip leads that there were no
unexpected voltage increases detected. Again, I was just trying to see for myself what should happen in a
normal situation with this type of setup. It is nice to have a clear idea of what the normal 'baseline' is to compare to. :)
I still would like to know if in your test setup if the source capacitor is left connected to the
second capacitor throughout the 10 seconds or so that you are doing your voltage measurements?
Also, have you tried connecting a high sample rate scope to each capacitor to capture the voltage waveforms
in your test? The most likely possible cause of your higher than expected voltage measurements
would be issues with the devices you are using to measure the voltage. Connecting a scope with a
high sampling rate (for example I used a 100 MHz scope in my test in my previous reply) to both C1 and C2
and using one shot mode on the scope to capture the waveforms would be one way to double check the
voltage measurements being done by the microcontroller and whichever analog to digital converter you are using.
If the high sample rate scope also catches the higher than expected voltages in the captured waveforms in your
random test scenario, then that would be a good double check. You also have the advantage of being able to view the
voltage changes continuously over time on the capacitors during the measurement period.
All the best...
Here's a couple more scope shots of a 'normal' capacitor discharge test from a charged source capacitor to another
capacitor of the same nominal value. The first scope shot is with the time base set to 1 ms/div, and the
second scope shot is with the time base set to 50us/div. You can see there is some bounce happening in
there due to me connecting to the second capacitor by hand with an alligator clip, and also possibly due to the sparking as well.
All the best...
The yellow trace is the source capacitor.
The blue trace is the second capacitor which is being charged.
Hi all,
i think C value need to be measured first, it appear that C-source has bigger value than C1, try swap C-source as C1 and C1 as C-source and repeat the process, wait about 5 second, if still show 18 volt, then there must be anomaly to be investigated.
and about parallel realities, i don't understand :)
..
Quote from: Marsing on August 14, 2014, 11:26:39 AM
Hi all,
i think C value need to be measured first, it appear that C-source has bigger value than C1, try swap C-source as C1 and C1 as C-source and repeat the process, wait about 5 second, if still show 18 volt, then there must be anomaly to be investigated.
and about parallel realities, i don't understand :)
..
Hi Marsing. Milan stated in his video that he is swapping the capacitors around from test to test to take into account
small differences in capacitance values compared to the nominal values.
All the best...
to Void:
I have asked man from our team who made program for micro controller.
He told me that during 8440 nano seconds micro controller makes 10 measurements and gives out average value.
Beside that, let me remind you that we got very often charge gain with simple spark gap version which i described on video.
Also have been noticed strange effect that sometimes we got sparks jumping across both spark gaps in the same time, but just one capacitor collected charge.
But we left this version, because it was too slow and so violent discharge.
The violent discharge is much better to get this effect, but so difficult to measure properly, because time frame to do that is short.
If inductance will take place here, when C1 or C2 will has 18V, then source capacitor will has 6V only, but this has not been measured
On the end.... yeas we are ready to accept if we made some mistake in our approach and measurements.
All the best,
Milan
I forgot to say that next voltage reading after 10 s also shows gain in charge, which tell us two things
1. the voltage is reading is correct (easy to check with digital voltmeter)
2. the time frame for detection parallel reality ( and consume this charge gain) is running out
In some of our test we did not have charge gain after 10 seconds
The time frame depends of total energy movement, capacity, initial voltage etc. Like in other fileds of classic physics.
All The Best,
Milan
you can see my new video about very strange affect which I have noticed in 2005.
http://youtu.be/GE5xUdoERtA
Here are short footage which I was lucky to catch in 2011.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2mBUZmXjA
All the Best,
Milan
Hello Milan,
thank you for presenting your experiments.
I was wondering what would happen to C1 test results if you replaced C2 with a 100 Ohm Resistor?... could you test this and report the results?
Thank you
Luc
For ' Parallel reality ' you have to use Antimatter.
Positrons.
Quote from: Void on August 14, 2014, 11:31:46 AM
Hi Marsing. Milan stated in his video that he is swapping the capacitors around from test to test to take into account
small differences in capacitance values compared to the nominal values.
All the best...
Hi all,
i didn't watch the video yet, and the steps described by milan are not so clear to me (step 2). so i assume it just charge/discharge between 2 caps. :)
when trying to decode the steps with condition all caps have same capacitance, i have :
Step 1 charging C-source from external source and discharging C1 and C2
--> charge C-source then discharge to C1, charge C-source discharge to C2, here C1 and C2 will have 12volt
step 2 disconnecting C- source from external source
--> after step 1 complete, C-source was still connected to PowerSpply and then disconnecting, means C-source has 24 Volt.
step 3 Discharging C-source to randomly chosen target capacitor C1 or C2.
--> say C1 win, differences C1 and Cs --> 24v(Cs) - 12v(C1):= 12v, then divided by 2 (because we play with 2 caps):= 6v, finally lower voltage + 6v := 18 volt. or with simple way, CS,C1 voltage := Cs + C1 / 2 = (24 + 12)/2 = 18 volt.
Say in other case C-source will be discarged to both C1 and C2 ( Cs,C1,C2 are in parallel), Cs+C1+C2 /3 = (24+ 12+12)/3 = 16v , final result CS, C1,C2 := 16 volt.
i see no free ticket, with this steps we will always get 18 volt.
but again, i did not yet watch video, so please someone explain step 2.
All the best too.
..
[
step 3 Discharging C-source to randomly chosen target capacitor C1 or C2.
--> say C1 win, differences C1 and Cs --> 24v(Cs) - 12v(C1):= 12v, then divided by 2 (because we play with 2 caps):= 6v, finally lower voltage + 6v := 18 volt. or with simple way, CS,C1 voltage := Cs + C1 / 2 = (24 + 12)/2 = 18 volt.
Say in other case C-source will be discarged to both C1 and C2 ( Cs,C1,C2 are in parallel), Cs+C1+C2 /3 = (24+ 12+12)/3 = 16v , final result CS, C1,C2 := 16 volt.
i see no free ticket, with this steps we will always get 18 volt.
but again, i did not yet watch video, so please someone explain step 2.
Hi Marsing,
you made complete wrong calculation.
Before random discharging to C1 or C2 there is Cs=24 V and C1= 0 V ; C2 =0 V.
Let say C1 wins, then will be Cs =12V ; C1 =12V ; C2= 0 V
But we are getting Cs=18V ; C1=18V ; C2= 0V
Cheers,
Milan
..
[/quote]
Quote from: Mancha on August 15, 2014, 04:34:45 AM
Hi Marsing,
you made complete wrong calculation.
Before random discharging to C1 or C2 there is Cs=24 V and C1= 0 V ; C2 =0 V.
Let say C1 wins, then will be Cs =12V ; C1 =12V ; C2= 0 V
But we are getting Cs=18V ; C1=18V ; C2= 0V
Cheers,
Milan
..
Hi Milan,
Like i said before, i didn't watch your vid, and the steps description are not so clear. So that was a calculation.
Explanation above is better and easy to understand what you want to express :), and yes that is an anomaly.
what if with 3 or 4 C-target, is the voltage after discharging still 18 volt or what?
All the best
..
what if with 3 or 4 C-target, is the voltage after discharging still 18 volt or what?
Hi Marsing,
I do not know the answer yet. We are busy with other projects. We are R&D Lab funded from outside for some energy research. But some of them we are doing alone (this project is funded by me)
We did not make test yet, by logic I beileve that we can draw 1/n charge from other realities where "n" is the number of created realities. but it is not proven with experiments yet.
All the Best,
Let me see if I am understanding you, and can work through some example math.
Let us assume that all three capacitors are 1 Farad caps. This makes the example calculations easier but the results should hold true no matter the actual capacitances.
So we have Cs = Cr = 1 F, and Vcs init = 24 V and Vcr init = 0 V.
Computing energy, we have E(Cs init) = CV2/2 = 288 Joules. Then after discharging into Cr, we have both caps at 18 V so E(each cap) = CV2/2 = 162 Joules.
But only E(Cs init) - E(Cs final) = 126 Joules have been removed from Cs. Yet apparently 162 Joules have been added to Cr.
Right so far? Please check my work and let me know if I've made any errors so that I can correct them (and my understanding) right away.
However.... the "unaccounted for" difference of 36 Joules is a bit over 20 percent of the total measured value on each cap, or 10 percent of the total on both caps, after the discharge. Yet most ordinary electrolytic capactors have 20 percent tolerance in their nominal values. IOW it would only take a relatively small difference between the _actual capacitances_ and the nominal capacitances of the caps involved, to account for the entire discrepancy in the measurements of energy on the capacitors. A difference that is small enough to be within the tolerances of ordinary electrolytic capacitors.
So I think one thing that is definitely needed is an accurate, separate, determination of the exact capacitance values of the caps used in the experiment. Then the experiment should be repeated a dozen times, with accurate recording of the start and finish voltages, then some statistical tests can be applied to the data to see what is _really_ going on. But first and foremost we need to be using _exact_ actual capacitor values, not the nominal label values, in the energy calculations.
"We did not make test yet, by logic I beileve that we can draw 1/n charge from other realities where "n" is the number of created realities. but it is not proven with experiments yet."
By logic... you have no data that should cause you to believe anything at all about "other created realities", and proper experiments cannot "prove" but only disprove hypotheses.
TO TinselKoala
It is why we built this driver to repeat test dozen times and record data.
Like I said in video we swapped capacitors often with this reason to prevent difference in capacitance. also we have tested so many types of capacitors, even 70 uF filled with oil.
the first version of driver was with mosfets, but we was not sure that maybe some current leakage could happen from gates etc. Later we changed to Relays , but we changed the timing between steps to prevent possible leakage by vibration of relays contacts etc.
All the best,
Quote from: Mancha on August 15, 2014, 08:23:54 AM
TO TinselKoala
It is why we built this driver to repeat test dozen times and record data.
Like I said in video we swapped capacitors often with this reason to prevent difference in capacitance. also we have tested so many types of capacitors, even 70 uF filled with oil.
the first version of driver was with mosfets, but we was not sure that maybe some current leakage could happen from gates etc. Later we changed to Relays , but we changed the timing between steps to prevent possible leakage by vibration of relays contacts etc.
All the best,
Yes... but have you actually precisely measured the values of your capacitors?
How did you do this, what were your results, how did the measured values differ from the nominal, nameplate values, are some types or some manufacturers more precise than others, etc etc.
I find your swapping capacitor controls unconvincing. Surely you did not get _exactly_ the same results each time. I would like to see the raw data if it is available.
I am less worried about the details of the switching (although of course I would not use bipolar transistors!) Mosfets should be OK if the cap value is large, as there should be no significant gate leakage in a one-shot experiment like this. But this too is an empirical question that can only be answered by proper experimentation.
For example I am now working with a circuit that uses 6 each, 10000 picoFarad precision poly film capacitors of 5 percent tolerance in a tight parallel array. These are expensive caps! But the total measurement of the stack is 64.5 nanoFarads (64500 pF) and I know this measurement is accurate because I have confirmed it several different ways.
ETA: Of course if mosfets are used their internal resistance and switching times must be taken into consideration. Good relays should have very low resistance contacts but will have much more "jitter" in timing.
Take a look at my new video about MIXING REALITIES
http://youtu.be/rz2JDsCNsOk
All the best,
Milan
Hi Milan. I am still not clear on something. Is the source capacitor kept connected to the second capacitor (C1 or C2) for the entire 10 seconds
or so that you are recording your voltage measurements on the second capacitor, or is the source capacitor only briefly connected to the second capacitor?
All the best...
Hi Void,
Yes, the source capacitor is connected all the time (10 seconds) to C1 or C2.
Program gives two voltage readings in all capacitors after few seconds and 10 seconds after.
All the Best,
Quote from: Mancha on August 15, 2014, 01:55:34 PM
Hi Void,
Yes, the source capacitor is connected all the time (10 seconds) to C1 or C2.
Program gives two voltage readings in all capacitors after few seconds and 10 seconds after.
All the Best,
Thanks for the clarification Milan. That is a very interesting experiment indeed, however it seems
at least possible to me that maybe sometimes the supply voltage is momentarily connecting to the source
capacitor during the discharge phase and adding some extra energy to the capacitors. I am not sure
if you are using a relay between the 24V power supply and the source capacitor or some other method
to switch the supply voltage in and out. If I get the chance at some point I may try replicating your setup
and do some testing with this.
All the best...
Hi guys,
I added new video about drawing energy from parallel realities. There are shown 3 experiments.
https://youtu.be/_Najs_FcjdA
Also I made the playlist with that subject on my youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuBJCvG-Vgd7AcHrd065g0Zkk7647tlBq
These are my works ten years ago when I wanted to find some practical application on that principle. Looking from this distance, I have corrected and evolved in some views, but in general I still think similarly.
Mancha