[EDIT - update]
well, my lack of posting here hasn't been due to lack of developments!!
i replaced the transistor switch circuitry with MOSFETs and reduced a lot of the 'lumped' losses - it became clear that the 'Tesla switch' action was severely limited by the I^2*R losses in the circuit inter-connects - not enough Inductance!
i realised that i needed to introduce a load into the energy 'shuttling' path & allow the system to make TWO passes of the energy, not just ONE as i had originally - now we're cooking!!
before the OU COP>1 action was limited to just the 1st pass of energy to the load - but there were 50% losses before the energy even got to the switching cap!
now that i've added the load into both the charging & discharging phases of the output, the OU behaviour has been extended to the whole circuit and i'm getting COP = 1.1 (EnergyOutput-to-EnergyInput) &
COP =1.2 (UsefulEnergy-to-EnergyInput) and there are still some additional losses taking total Energy-handled further above input
i'm hoping to update these old posts with my recent results, but in the meantime you can check out the results at the website i've created for these experiments:
http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
i think the things i've learned about this type of circuit operation also apply to the other threads like 'Tesla Switch', & David Bowling's & Capn_Z_ro's energy-shuttling circuits - energy can be 're-used' whilst being shuttled backwards & forwards, but it must be done between no-loss or low-loss energy-stores like caps (or batteries?) and the energy needed to do the work of STORAGE must also be dissipated thro' a (probably low-impedance) load each pass, before either using or re-shuttling the energy which has just BEEN STORED
the system also has to make use of some operation which doesn't return all the power temporarily injected into the circuit by the vacuum medium ('Aether') - in my case, i guess it's the magnet-biased inductance with air-gap - in these other recent threads it looks like either the motor BEMF or the carbon-brushes/spark-gap action - if the Aether-provided energy can be spent before the Aether expects it back, who's it going to call? the ambient environment gets a visit from 'Uncle Luigi & the boys' and the local temperature drops!
ok, i'm done - checkout the site above for supporting evidence
[EDIT - previous posts outdated by recent developments!]
i recently responded to some developments in the 'Telsa Switch - need help' thread and started discussing energy storage switching with NerzhDishual & allcanadian and we all agreed that in order to minimise power loss when moving the energy around it's necessary to have reactive components in
the energy path... [EDIT]
[EDIT - see post above for recent developments]
[EDIT - see 1st post above for recent developments]
[EDIT - see 1st post above for recent developments]
[EDIT - see 1st post above for recent developments]
[EDIT - see 1st post above for recent developments]
Hi Nul-Points,
I'm still on line...
Your results sound promissing.
I have printed out your posts and your pictures. I'm just trying to figure out
what it is all about. I'm far from an electronics specialist and I must confess
that I'm lost notably with you acronyms... :P
What do you mean by CCT? CirCuiT, I guess and not "Cortical Collecting Tubule"
or "Canadian College of Teachers". ;D (http://www.acronymfinder.com/)
Your (HEF?)4093B IC (Integrated Circuit) is a "Quadruple 2-input NAND Schmitt trigger"?
More to come ASP.
Best
@nul-points
You have some serious math skills! This will take some time to understand.
thanks for the encouragement, guys
sorry about the acronyms - i'm a software engineer like you ND (not yet retired tho') but i trained in Elec Eng many decades ago so i got used to writing cct for 'circuit'
yes, 4093 is quad Schmidt NAND, two gates used as astable oscillator with two outputs, regular & inverted - one switches 1st Darlington pair Trs to charge 4u7 switching cap from input cap (or battery), then second switches 2nd Darlington pair Trs to discharge 4u7 cap into load
i think my maths has improved as i've got older, Feynman - which just shows how bad it must have been when i was a student!
ok, the bad news is that my 15R series measurement resistor definitely limits the charging of the switched cap in the cct - so, although the scoped input appeared to confirm the meter reading, the output would definitely not still have been providing the power previously measured
i've rerun the tests using just the input 0.25F cap stack starting at 8V, stopping at 7V - this supplies a total of 1.875 Joules (= 1875mWseconds)
so i divide that by the time it takes to discharge from 8 to 7V and that gives me the average Pin in mW for each test
i've measured the load resistance - in these latest tests it's 468R - and i've smoothed the output with a 1000uF cap so i can scope the load volts and then calc the load mA & mW
the reactance-free circuit handled 18.9mW av. & the input was 34.2 av. so the actual COP was 0.55 - close to the predicted 50% loss
so i repeated the test with a coil of copper wire, as supplied on its reel, as an inductor feeding the 4u7 cap, and this enabled the circuit to retain about 30% more energy - a COP of 0.82
it seemed to me that the output smoothing cap was producing a Vout value lower than the area under the graph would - i might try comparing them sometime - it's easier & much faster.to read the smoothed value direct with a meter, but if its altering the cct efficiency it would be better to go back to the Excel method
i guess the next step for the cct is to see if the additional inductance(s) need to be tuned to the value of switching cap used & also see if the losses can be reduced - some more thinking to do there
@ND
i tried that idea you mentioned in Tesla Switch thread, of charging 2nd cap thro a dc motor in series:
- if i connected input cap stack at 8V thro a CD load-tray motor direct to empty 2nd cap stack & discharged input to 7V then the motor ran and also the 2nd cap charged to 1V - charge was conserved but we get the motor running too
- if i used my switching cct, same start volts on caps, then motor runs but this time 2nd cap charges to 1.2V - charge conservation has been violated, as you and i have found before, and we still get to power the motor too!
i'll get back here when i have some new results - or to follow up any comments or questions
sandy
i was abit over optimistic in thinking that i could account for all relevant losses just by taking an offload power reading - the onload currents cause significant volts drops within the circuit
the true COP value of the circuit should be greatly improved by including the onload losses in the charging branch, the load branch, the switch drive resistors and the switch circuit itself
i've run a new test, again using a charged cap stack as supply, and taking the extra readings and doing the calcs, i've measured 53mW supplied as input, 30mW drawn by load, and a total of 36mW 'losses' (losses only in the sense that they are not output to the load - they represent useful power in making the circuit work!)
COP = (30 + 36)/53 = 1.24
so, the full picture now shows that the switch-charged capacitor does indeed handle more power than is supplied!
could this be related to the fact that charge is not conserved in this type of circut, as i reported in the Tesla Switch thread?
i used the front-end of this circuit to discharge one cap into a 2nd cap: initial charge 2 Coulombs; final charge approx 2.9 Coulombs - an increase in charge of over 1.4 and a clear violation of Conservation of Charge(checkout Wikipedia for the implications of breaking this 'law')
considered comments - and verifications!! - welcome
sandy
(measurements & calcs shown below...)
0.25F supply cap;
discharged from 9V to 8V
time taken = 40.04s
9V 10.125Joules;
8V 8.0J
Input supplied:
Ein 2.125J = 2125mWs over 40.04s
Pin 53.07mW av.
Vin 8.5V av.
Iin 6.24mA av.
Output to load:
Vout 3.77V av.
Iout 8.06mA av.
Pout 30.37mW av.
Losses:
Switch cct
Vin 8.5V av.
Is 0.35mA av.
Ps 3mW av.
Switch drive
duty = 1/9 (0.1 charge; 0.9 load)
12k R drive-charge
Vin 8.5V av.
Irc 0.71mA x 0.1 av.
Prc 0.64mW av
12k R drive-load
Vrl 4.82V av.
Irl 0.40mA x 0.9 av.
Prl 1.74mW av.
charge-branch
Iin (6.24mA - (0.35+0.007)) = 5.88 mA av.
Vdrop 8.5-4.82 = 3.68V av.
Ploss 21.64mW av.
load-branch
Vdrop 4.82-3.77 = 1.05V av.
Iout 8.06mA av.
Ploss 8.46mW av.
Totals:
Power in 53.1mW av.
Load power out 30.4mW av.
Losses 21.6 + 8.5 + 2.4 + 3 = 35.5mW av.
COP = (power handled/power supplied)
= 65.9/53.1 = 1.24
Wow, again , great calculations my friend.
I will try to understand this and maybe comment... perhaps someone understands this better at the moment?
thanks Feynman, the calcs are mostly Ohms Law & V * I power - i'm just trying to compare the Energy in against the Energy out in my switched-cap Power Supply test circuit and hopefully be as thorough as possible in covering the main gains and losses
the operation of the circuit itself is pretty simple - a small amount of charge is switched from an input source (eg battery, wall-wart or charged super-cap) and used to rapidly charge a small cap
this charge is then switched to an output load as required - lamp, battery, motor - whatever (i'm just using a resistor in these tests here, to make measurement easier, but i've also run the usual LEDs & motors as output loads, too)
the whole process is repeated at some frequency (in my test circuit here it cycles at a few hundred Hz)
the way the circuit switches charge from input to output makes it operate like one branch of a 'Tesla Switch'
i've also had the circuit operating with a small DC motor connected between the input source and the switched capacitor so the motor was running from the charge that was being switched into the cap and the circuit was still providing output to the load
i think i saw in a thread here in Overunity that someone said something like "it would be cool if we could just produce a self-powered OU equivalent of a wall-wart / power-brick PSU"
although the values for this circut are now showing OU operation it's a long way from being self-powered at the moment - but it'll be interesting to see how much it can be improved and whether it's possible to increase output efficiency & reduce losses enough to try for a self-runner
more experiments to follow, watch this space...
Wow, I hadn't visited this thread for a while...
did you actually manage to get a Tesla/Brand/Bedini switch circuit "battery back-popper"
to work with only capacitors?? :o
Yep, that's what I seem to be reading here... wowsers!
Great stuff man! :D
I've been waiting for people to finally do away with the batteries in such types of systems,
and this may finally be it! ;D
Keep it up!
The worlds very first gridless and batteryless power socket is coming up, I can feel it! :) ;D
thanks Koen, i think it's early days yet before we see some cool stuff like that, but there's a lot of good work being done here at OverUnity, pushing back the frontiers
at the moment, the circuit is switching charge like the Tesla Switch but it's unidirectional - it's transferring charge from an input supply (of whatever kind) to the output load - which could be another capacitor, if required - but the charge doesn't get reflected back to the input again
i just made the circuit to test the relative energy transfer of capacitors when charging & discharging - it was only after i started running some tests, & looking for background info on the web, that i discovered i had effectively made a switched-mode power supply
i don't know if it will be possible to improve the efficiency to the point where the loop can be closed to self-sustain - or even if the aether/zpe/vacuum-medium will allow such a paradox
it may be that we'll find that we always need to apply some power ourselves in order to 'maintain' the flow of 'free energy' - in other words we might always have to pay a little in order to get a lot of free stuff back
the values i'm getting for this circuit suggest that although it appears to be truly OU (considering total energy expended for energy input) the efficiency ratio of the 'intended output' to the input is currently in the 0.6-0.8 region
of course, if you want to warm your house as well as power the load then you'll get full benefit of its COP > 1 operation! :)
there's been an unexpected development today - i wanted to get a measured reading for the current in the charging branch, rather than just derive it from the energy difference on the input cap, so i added a 1R resistor in series with the switched cap and the measured value from the scope is so unexpected that i want to try & get an old research friend to review what seems to be happening
i've confirmed the measurement with different value resistors so it's either something weird & interesting - or i've got a conversion factor wrong somewhere
... i realise the odds are against 'weird & interesting'! ;)
well, the 'weird & interesting' measurement isn't resolved - measuring the input current drawn using a 1R resistor didn't agree (like a factor of around two) with the current drawn using the energy-in from capacitor voltage levels divided by the average volts-in & time - i think the cap volts-energy-in method is the more reliable, so i've gone back to that & stuck with Energy measurements & comparisons
however, the good news is that by adding a series load resistor inline with the output cap i've been able to reclaim the automatic 50% input energy losses into the load, so now the whole circuit is OU - not just the switched cap to output section
i'm hoping to update my earlier posts in this thread with the results, but in the meantime i've created a website with the relevant details about the whole Charge & Energy Conservation violation results:-
http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
@NerzhDishual
using a DC motor between energy stores works but (at least with my motor) an inductance with air-gap seems to give better results - i'm now getting COP =1.2 on whole circuit - ie. (switching + output energy)/energy in
This is really really interesting, considering latest measured COP is 1.2
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fringcomps.co.uk%2Fdoc%2Fimages%2Fmodified_cct.jpg&hash=41a6c52a8144e262c375cba471cad789f39fadee)
Input supply: 8.0V on 0.299F cap (2.392Coulombs; 9.568Joules)
discharged to: 7.0V (2.093C; 7.326J) in 45.8s
Energy supplied: 2242mWs(milliJoules)
(Power in: 2242/45.8 = 49mW av.)
Switched osc.
(cycle: 0.85ms; charge/cycle duty: 0.17/0.85 = 0.2)
power: 0.73mA*7.5V = 5.5mW av.
Energy drawn by Switch osc.: 5.5*45.8 = 251mWs
Output cap: charged from 0 to 2.67V on 0.342F (0.913C; 1219mWs)
Total start charge: 2.392C
Total end charge: (2.093+0.913) = 3.006C
(charge on 0.0005F switching cap can be ignored)
Energy stored into Output cap via 10R load: 1219mWs
= Energy discharged via 10R load
total energy thro' Rload = 2*1219 = 2438mWs
unquantified losses:
dissipation by MOSFETS;
sound/vibration from inductor-magnet
Load Energy/Energy supplied = 2438/2242 = 1.09
Co-efficient of Performance (COP)
= Useful energy/Energy supplied = (251+2438)/2242 = 1.2
:) Yes, riveting stuff. :D
Finally a non-battery based, solid state backpopper ;D
Go Ringwood, go ringwood! :D
thanks for the encouraging words, guys!
this is not a sexy motor or light-show, so the thread's likely to just get dumped in a side-street and have it's wheels removed :)
but i hope that these experiments might help a few of the people doing the right stuff to take advantage of these anomalies and see if we can learn the secrets of unlocking 'vacuum' energy
@Feynman
thanks for uploading my website data - i'm hoping to edit it all in to the early posts in the thread so that the latest results will always be at the beginning
Hi Guys,
Thanks a lot for your 'feedback'.
Sorry, I was "out of this 'topic'" for a while.
I was 'playing' with LEDs (Zon circuits).
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4223.0/topicseen.html (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4223.0/topicseen.html)
It works pretty well. Is my reproduction really 'OU' is another question...
I was also 'playing' with the "DallasGoldBug" electrodes.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4302.0/topicseen.html (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4302.0/topicseen.html)
They also work well...
As I'm far from a specialist, I wish you were providing more 'newbie-oriented'
explanations and circuits. Anyway, nice basic(breakthrough) results.
Best
QuoteInput supply: 8.0V on 0.299F cap (2.392Coulombs; 9.568Joules)
discharged to: 7.0V (2.093C; 7.326J) in 45.8s
Energy supplied: 2242mWs(milliJoules)
(Power in: 2242/45.8 = 49mW av.)
Switched osc.
(cycle: 0.85ms; charge/cycle duty: 0.17/0.85 = 0.2)
power: 0.73mA*7.5V = 5.5mW av.
Energy drawn by Switch osc.: 5.5*45.8 = 251mWs
Output cap: charged from 0 to 2.67V on 0.342F (0.913C; 1219mWs)
Total start charge: 2.392C
Total end charge: (2.093+0.913) = 3.006C
(charge on 0.0005F switching cap can be ignored)
Energy stored into Output cap via 10R load: 1219mWs
= Energy discharged via 10R load
total energy thro' Rload = 2*1219 = 2438mWs
unquantified losses:
dissipation by MOSFETS;
sound/vibration from inductor-magnet
Load Energy/Energy supplied = 2438/2242 = 1.09
Co-efficient of Performance (COP)
= Useful energy/Energy supplied = (251+2438)/2242 = 1.2
@ nul-points
Your calculations are very impressive. But I have to ask: Did you check if the capacitators have really the capacitance mentioned on the labels ?
@ NerzhDishual
no problem, i also try to look in on the zon thread from time to time, too - i'll also have a look at that electrodes thread you mention too, thanks
i'm happy to post more info about the experiment if you'ld like - i didn't want to tire people with too much info, since there is already quite a lot of calcs, but i've been able to simplify the amount of measuring i've had to do because the output is now charging a cap then discharging it, so i can keep my calcs in energy form & compare directly with energy supplied
have you done any more experiments with your very cool-looking test cap-to-cap discharge rig?
@ Frederic2k1
good question - and very important!
you'll see that the values shown in my calcs for the two stacks of supercaps are 0.299F and 0.342F not the nominal value for 4x1F in series (0.25F)
the values shown were measured using the time taken to discharge to 37% from any preset voltage (the amount of discharge which takes one RC time constant) using a measured R for load resistor
Quote@ Frederic2k1
good question - and very important!
you'll see that the values shown in my calcs for the two stacks of supercaps are 0.299F and 0.342F not the nominal value for 4x1F in series (0.25F)
the values shown were measured using the time taken to discharge to 37% from any preset voltage (the amount of discharge which takes one RC time constant) using a measured R for load resistor
Ok, when you have measured the time for one rc-constant exactly, then you are my hero :D .
I'm very happy, that you has verified the values ;)
Hopefully you make some other experiments in future :)
@Nul-Points,
No, I have not made any more experiments with my caps.
You know what?
I tend to spread myself too thinly and little is achieved... :-\
I'm interrested in a lot of things and this very forum is getting so huge that
I'm lost... :)
Best
@ND
i agree, it is difficult to stay focussed when there are so many interesting experiments going on
i find it is actually helpful to have one's own experiment(s) to maintain (from the French? 'to hold'?) a focus and follow up a related thread in OU.COM to which you can contribute some understanding and also,from time to time, look in on different threads which look interesting or perhaps are completely different to one's own interests just to learn something new maybe, or have a wider feel for what is going on elsewhere
your own experiments can give you some specialist knowledge and the rest of the forum can give you general knowledge
don't give up on those experiments! :)
@Nul-Points
you've got my attention with this one :o I'd like to replicate your experiment with the
idea of confirming the results and adding in another couple of ideas I have. would you
say between your posts here and your website there is enough info to go parts shopping?
or have you learned enough now to suggest different components or values? if it's not
too much to ask could you post a suggested component list? thanks.
tak
@tak
thanks for the interest
i'd welcome attempts at replication
my intention here is not aimed at a end-user device yet (although hopefully, if this is really an example of free energy, then we may be able to build on these results to develop useful devices)
what i'm hoping to learn from these experiments is easily-repeatable methods for interacting with the Quantum Vacuum to divert some of its 'background energy' into conventional loads
i'm assuming at the moment that the excess charge & energy are somehow supplied by the combination of capacitance & inductance, other possible influencing factors being an air-gap (& maybe the magnetic biasing) on the inductor and also charge-switching with 'flyback' diode energy recovery
now that we're see real evidence of free energy i'm hoping we can try varying some of the circuit elements to see if we can identify more closely which are the key parts and actions which are causing the energy imbalance in our favour
i'm on leave now in the West of England until next weekend and won't be able to confirm some of the details until then
i'll see if i can get a more up-to-date schematic to you via PM in the next few days with MOSFETs replacing transistor switches
i'm not using any nonstandard parts apart from winding my own inductor - the circuit is built on a couple of breadboards, one with the super-cap stacks on, & one with remaining components - the inductor stands free next to component board
super-caps are 1F, 2.3V; switching caps are regular 2x1000uF (16V?) in series; load R is nominal 10R, 1/4W carbon; MOSFETs are 1xIRF540N (load switch) & 1xFDN304P (input switch); flyback diode(s) gen. purpose germanium signal diodes (connected reverse-biased from 'hot' end of inductor to ground); switching oscillator is CMOS 4093B quad schmitt NAND using two gates as astable feedback oscillator (unused gates grounded input) with independent feedback for +ve -ve pulse widths - cycle period doesn't seem critical but i get best results currently around 1 - 2ms cycle and approx 0.1 - 0.2 charge pulse
i hand-wound the inductor as windings on two separate tubular ferrite cores (approx 1" long; 1/2" od & 1" od) where i can insert one inside the other to make a simple transformer (for variations of my experiment), roughly 1:1 turns; wire diam. to be confirmed when i return home (but gauge thick enough to plug into breadboard connections without bending); total resistance of a few ohms; - in the current results posted, both windings are connected in series as one inductor (choose config for best output)
i don't think the inductor construction is critical but the air-gap between inner & outer ferrites may be helping - also, i place the ferrite vertically in the centre of a ceramic ring magnet from an old speaker - again, not sure yet if this helps
changing Rload & inductor still produces the anomalies & then you can tune values to increase output
hope this helps to get started - more to follow when i get home
sandy
schematic for circuit giving results posted above & currently on website...
i mentioned on the website and in earlier posts but not in the parts list,a couple of posts above, that the input and output capacitors, C1 & C3, are each a stack of 4x1F super-caps in series
there's another interesting effect i see when running tests:-
i usually discharge a fixed amount of energy from the input cap (eg start at 8V & discharge down to 7V) and finally i discharge the resulting volts on the output cap ready to run the next test
well, after both these discharges, when the previous test has finished, both caps re-charge a certain amount, over the next minute or two, without any further input to the circuit!
the input cap volts rise back to approx 7.1V and the output cap volts have risen to as much as 0.3V after being completely discharged by a short across the terminals (ie. about 10% of the volts i've just discharged from it!)
so it looks like the whole OU behaviour we're seeing with this type of circuit operation is connected with an 'inertia' type effect:-
eg. the switched uni-directional pulses start the aether/Quantum Vacuum framework 'spinning' with a 'momentum-like' property and when the input energy is removed (by stopping the pulses, or discharging the cap) the aether spin continues for a while and goes on adding a little more energy even after the test energy has been stopped
this type of action might also explain the OU effect: once the aether is caused to spin it starts to add energy of its own to that provided by the circuit
...this is spooky, even as i'm writing-up this sort of 'aha' moment, i just realised this might also explain another weird behaviour i saw:-
i usually let the experiment run to completion at a fixed oscillator frequency - but during one test run i adjusted the cycle time as the test ran - i ended up over & undershooting the cycle time i wanted a few times before the final 7V level was reached
when i looked at the volts on the output cap it was a few percent in excess of the usual level i was achieving! (i repeated the operation to confirm this really happened - it did - something to be investigated further)
at the time, i thought maybe the small +ve & -ve changes in charging slope i was causing were acting like some kind of amplitude modulation and that this was causing the increase in output, but now i've written this about the 'inertia' idea, i'm wondering if what was actually happening was that i was giving the aether spin a few small 'kicks' along the way which increased its spin even more and therefore increased the amount of energy it was added to the overall result
has anyone else seen this kind of external 'inertia' behaviour feeding back into a system?
Hi Sandy,
I think this phenomena comes from the dielectric material inside the electrolytic capacitor: when you discharge it the dielectricum tries to "remember" and scrolling back towards the initial electric field strength. Any capacitor behaves like that but those stuffed with much dielectic material like electrolytic ones manifest this the most. I found this with electrolytic capacitors when discharging them to zero from 200-300V, after a few minutes they "regained" any value between 0.5 ? 0.8 ? 1V or so.
I have no info if this is connected with aether effects or not, it is possible to certain degree.
You can avoid evaluating problems that may come from this by reading the meters quickly and simultaneously?
rgds, Gyula
hi Gyula
thanks for the feedback
interested to hear that you've experienced the same effect in a different situation
i note that the effect seen here is a higher percentage of the previous voltage before discharge than the re-charge you experienced - so i'm going to take a wild guess that you weren't generating the volts on those caps by charge-switching, right?
Aspden mentions research he knows where caps have shown re-charge immediately after sharp discharge - the caps were concentric tubes filled with electrolyte
he predicts that concentric caps will show the best input by aether energy (this is the reason i chose tubular electrolytics for these experiments - standard tubular electrolytics have a rolled 'spiral' construction which is close to concentric tubes)
i've also placed small Neo mags on the tubular electrolytics, with the mag field axis in line with the cap tube axis, to create a mag field at right-angles to the elec charge across the cap 'plates'
i haven't checked this for effect on current test output yet - but i did see a visible increase in switched-charge waveform pk-pk once when placing a strong Neo on top of a 100uF Tantalum electrolytic i was using as the switched cap
the re-charging of the caps isn't a problem for me because they show this effect after discharge - and that is after the end of my experiment - i just need to make sure that i keep the output cap shorted until the moment i start the next test!
interesting stuff, eh?
regards
sandy
Quote from: nul-points on May 18, 2008, 08:13:12 PM
interested to hear that you've experienced the same effect in a different situation
i note that the effect seen here is a higher percentage of the previous voltage before discharge than the re-charge you experienced - so i'm going to take a wild guess that you weren't generating the volts on those caps by charge-switching, right?
Hi Sandy,
Right. The caps I discharged was included in television receivers power supply functioning as puffer capacitors on the mains primary side.
I think this phenomena in the capacitors is kind of electret effect in a small percentage when materials of high dielectric constans are exposed to strong electric fields and their molecules/atomic structures retain charge or dipole polarization for a certain periode of time.
There are some good links on making "durable" electrets that are said to retain even some hundred voltage difference for years, this is another topic to explore and I have on my to-do lists... See these:
http://www.icestuff.com/~energy21/eguchi.htm
http://only1egg-productions.org/AltSci/ElectrostaticMotors/Electrets/Electret.html and also a practical approach is here: http://www.courtiestown.co.uk/batteries/electret/electret.htm
Sorry for this off topic in your thread but it is indeed interesting stuff!
Later I would like to hear a sentence from you on the effect of the magnets placed near the capacitor(s) on the output yield if you feel like sharing it. ;)
Thanks, Gyula
Hi nul-points,
did you include in your calculation the input power into
your Schmitt trigger IC ?
These ICs can input power via the capacitive gate electrodes
into the circuit.
So it might just be, that you pump
energy via the gate capacitance into the circuit.
I had simular effects in earlier test circuits..
but the "OU power" came mostly from
gate capacitance input from the switching driver..
Please measure this again and let us know
what your IC driver circuit uses as power input..
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Stefan,
As far as I can see from his schematics http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4419.0;attach=23544 if he uses this shematics, the Schmitt trigger IC's input power is also taken from capacitor C1 which is the MAIN power supply for his total circuit, right?
Gyula
So then ,
is this already a selfrunning circuit ?
Once charged up and then permanently running ?
Please answer.
Many thanks.
Stefan,
No it is not connected as a selfrunning circuit, Sandy clearly states a COP of about 1.2 in his first and later posts but the schematics disclosed is not looped back.
He first charges up the input cap to 8V from an outside source and let it discharge by the total circuit to 7V for taking the measurements and then he switches off the circuit.
Please read this thread again, not so long, I understand there are other exciting topics going on but take your time also here to be fully in the picture.
rgds, Gyula
@all
apologies for the delay in replying, i am on holiday, away from home at the moment - so, tourist by day & experimentor by night ...hmmm, sounds a bit like 'Dr Jeckyl & Mr Hyde' :)
@Gyula
good observations about electrets! Thanks for the links (i've often wondered about the possibility of 'home-brewing' electrets)
...and not off-topic at all...
a little while back i was thinking about the different behaviour of inductance & capacitance and wondering how the behaviour of each could possibly be contributing to the charge/energy anomalies which are happening in these experiments
at first i thought that an inductance was special and different from a capacitor because it is possible to have 'permanent solenoid/inductance' (ie. a permanent magnet) and there didn't seem to be an equivalent for the capacitor - but then i realised that there is a similar component which acts like a 'permanent capacitor' - an electret!
i believe that, although the inductor and capacitor operate with different fields, they have similar sorts of mechanisms which operate in their total behaviour:
eg. if you try to stop the current in an inductor, the aether automatically tries to adjust the voltage so the same current continues - and my idea is now that if you try to discharge a capacitor then the aether automatically tries to adjust the charge so that the same voltage continues!
so we already understand that there is a 'current inertia' with an energised inductor but possibly also we are seeing in this experiment evidence of a 'charge inertia' with an energised capacitor
it would be fascinating to experiment with combinations of PMs and electrets swapped into some of our circuits in place of inductors and capacitors and see if we start getting 'free energy' directly from their action together
yes, i aim to look in more detail at the difference between caps with and without magnet 'biasing' - i will post any positive or negative results i find (so many things to try, and so few hours between 11:00pm and 8:00am !! :)
@Stefan
thanks for the interest - my results already contain measured power to the switching circuitry
i've had two different types of switching so far: transistor Darlington pairs first, and now MOSFET - the power drawn in both cases has been a few mA (about 1/10th of the power supplied to the whole circut, in these tests)
as Gyula correctly mentions, all the power for the experiment (for both switching and load) is supplied by discharging the input capacitor - there is no external supply or Signal Genrs.
so if there is really more charge gained, or more energy being converted here than is being supplied, then the extra is not being 'stolen' from a different part of the circuit - it has to come from 'outside' the conventional circuit!
no, the circuit is not being self-run, the loop has not yet been closed - at the moment, these experiments are just looking at anomalies in charge & energy conservation in capacitor charge switching and trying to learn why they produce results which indicate OU behaviour
hopefully the things we learn from making variations in these experiments will show us how to go forward and make the best use of the key principles working here and apply them in real-world applications like OU Power Supply devices, etc
one or two members have shown interest in trying to replicate these effects - and in fact, NerzhDishual has already seen a similar charge anomaly just discharging cap-to-cap without switching
i'm hoping i can support these replication attempts with further detail from my setup, if required
regards
sandy
isn't Synchronicity a wonderful thing?
i'd just read a message from NerzhDisual where he mentioned about the need for taking a break occasionally from things like computers - and yes ...even overunity.com (sorry, Stefan!) :)
and here i am taking a break to go on vacation (ok, so i cheated & brought my PC, but i had to leave the experiment hardware behind, didn't i?)
so, now i have more time to read than i usually give myself
and, what do i choose to read? well, papers relating to free energy, of course
(you think just because i'm on holiday i'm going to relax? get real!)
so here i am, 'randomly' choosing a paper by Aspden where he reviews the known features of Tesla's electric car and suggests that the 'mysterious' power source may have been an over-unity system similar to something Aspden had outlined in an earlier patent or paper
and as i read the following quotes, i thought to myself: "he's not just describing a possible power source for Tesla's car - he's also describing this experiment i've been doing, down to actual observed behaviour!"
the following are quotes from Aspden's writings about Tesla's Pierce-Arrow Car;
my comments about the switched cap experiment are shown in { } braces:-
"...there must be a retardation effect in setting up the aether spin within the capacitor (because the induction of the spin is not spontaneous in response to the setting up of the radial electric field...but involves delay and this precludes operation at 100kHz)..."
{switched cap experiment: cycle = 0.5 to 1kHz; test duration = 45-100s}
"...operation at much lower frequency means the need for much higher capacitance to achieve the required power output...whereas capacitance of the order of a nanofarad was what i had in mind with 100kHz operation, it seems that i now must think in terms of hundreds of microfarads..."
{experiment: switched cap. 2x1000uF in series = 500uF}
"...the spin condition [implies] import of kinetic energy from the aether to augment the electric energy priming the capacitor, with that kinetic energy being non-recoverable by the aether external to the capacitor during electric discharge and so being shed by augmenting the output voltage to deliver more energy than was supplied as input..."
{experiment: output energy/input energy = 1.1}
"...there is much to be gained by pulsing the capacitor with unidirectional current rather than the normal sinusoidal current we associate with a.c. operation. this would keep the aether spin ongoing in the same direction but oscillating about a mean level..."
{experiment: DC charge pulse-switched to 500uF cap}
"...concerning how a capacitor can deliver more output energy on discharge than during the charging stage, given the inherent power source ... whereas charge input occurs in the normal way, it is desirable for the input voltage to be switched off before discharge begins and also desirable to force the current out in a controlled manner during discharge. Excess energy delivery can only be by virtue of an excess voltage in the output phase..."
{experiment: charge switched-in to cap for 1 time unit; off for 9 units}
"...maybe [Tesla's capacitors] incorporated a special kind of dielectric and here, i recall reading somewhere in connection with more recent over-unity energy claims, about experiments using barium titanate as dielectric, it having a very high dielectric constant..."
{experiment: 500u cap dielectric is likely 800-1000 -due to extremely thin, electrochem. etched, foil}
"...as to the stress now placed on d.c. operation i can further add that, after publishing my first proposals concerning a concentric capacitor having potential for anomalous energy effects...an engineer experienced in d.c. power supply via co-axial cables, as used by underground railways, [reported] that he had observed that in servicing such power lines it was not sufficient merely to short-circuit the cable to discharge it once power had been switched off. experience had shown that the cable could surprise one by recovering its voltage and it took quite a while for the energy stored in the cable capacitance to discharge fully, far longer than one might expect..."
{experiment: the caps show auto recharge after discharge}
i believe that the processes and behaviour mentioned in these quotes strongly suggest that the switched capacitor experiment described in this thread has achieved a small-scale verification of Mr Aspden's predictions for transferring excess energy from the Quantum Vacuum medium (previously known as the 'Aether') into a conventional load
...didn't someone once say "if it walks like a duck ...and it talks like a duck - then it probably IS a duck!"?
@all
i've moved this thread away from 'Super Capacitors' because it appears that the charge/energy anomalies i'm seeing in these experiments are not related to either the input or output capacitors (which are SuperCap stacks) - i believe the OU effect is taking place in the switching cap (which is not a SuperCap) moving charge from the input cap to the output
i realise that the 'Tesla Switch' referred to in this thread's title is a modern circuit and not in itself strictly a Tesla technology - BUT - i have read in some of Tesla's writings that he had discovered a way to 'siphon' charge from a generator using frequent, small amounts of charge via a capacitor in such a way that he could extract as much energy as he liked and it wouldn't affect the source
that sounds to me suspiciously like a description of 'free energy' - and his general approach, described above, is exactly what is going on in these experiments
so for these reasons i believe that the 'Tesla Technology' forum is a better location for this thread
i've now updated the 'Doc Ringwood' site to summarise various observations about the anomalies and also my conclusions about the OU nature of the experiments:
Doc Ringwood's 'Free Energy' website http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
If there really is something, then this experiment has the potential to proof it.
good luck!
@alan
sorry, i must have started my update post here before your reply, so i didn't see it until editing my typos!
thanks - yes, i'm hoping there will be some replication tests soon to confirm one way or the other
@All
interesting update on the cap self-recharge effect....
i just checked the circuit after being on vacation for 7 days
after the last test run (Sat 17 May) i discharged the output cap to 0V tho' Rload and then shorted the cap for a few seconds and when i left, after about an hour, it's voltage had risen from 0V to 0.29V
the circuit has been disconnected from the input cap and any test-gear for 7 days - but on checking the output cap this morning, the voltage is at 0.64V
(if this isn't evidence of 'capacitive inertia' i want to know what is!)
i presume that it actually peaked higher than this last weekend and then in the remaining days it has fallen to 0.64 with the natural low-leakage of the SuperCaps
this self-recharge is around 25% of the original voltage!
so, i've already had OU from the output - leave it awhile and it wants to give me some more!
Quote from: nul-points on May 24, 2008, 06:39:32 AM
- i have read in some of Tesla's writings that he had discovered a way to 'siphon' charge from a generator using frequent, small amounts of charge via a capacitor in such a way that he could extract as much energy as he liked and it wouldn't affect the source
that sounds to me suspiciously like a description of 'free energy' - and his general approach, described above, is exactly what is going on in these experiments
Hi Sandy,
I would like to learn about those Tesla writings you read, in fact I remember a conversation where Tesla was questioned on his capacitive discharging experiments and in fact questioned on doing the first wireless transmissions (earlier than Marconi,) but in those capacitor discharge tests the bottom line is that the (discharge) time involved is what counts.
You can charge up a cap to many thousands of volts and then the available energy from that cap depends only on how quickly or slowly you discharge it. This is what I remember and this in itself does not sound free energy because you fed in that particular amount of energy from a generator (or whatever source) in advance during a certain time periode and if you use up this same amount of energy in much shorter time then you seem to "consume more" but in fact you do not...
A similar example is a battery, say a capacity of 50Ah battery., normally it can provide 1A current for 50 hours but it certainly can provide 25A for 2 hours (this latter is an abuse for such battery I know) so I think this is how the capacitor discharge above is understood...
Quote from: nul-points on May 24, 2008, 09:17:48 AM
interesting update on the cap self-recharge effect....
i just checked the circuit after being on vacation for 7 days
after the last test run (Sat 17 May) i discharged the output cap to 0V tho' Rload and then shorted the cap for a few seconds and when i left, after about an hour, it's voltage had risen from 0V to 0.29V
the circuit has been disconnected from the input cap and any test-gear for 7 days - but on checking the output cap this morning, the voltage is at 0.64V
(if this isn't evidence of 'capacitive inertia' i want to know what is!)
i presume that it actually peaked higher than this last weekend and then in the remaining days it has fallen to 0.64 with the natural low-leakage of the SuperCaps
this self-recharge is around 25% of the original voltage!
so, i've already had OU from the output - leave it awhile and it wants to give me some more!
Yes, as I mentioned, the atoms/molecules of the dielectric material inside the capacitor try to arrange back to their 'position' where they were all forced to 'setup' by the earlier electric field stress of the 2.7V (or whatever) value. This is what I think...
By the way, my elder co-workers used to mention that certain high voltage transmitter type capacitors were stored with short-circuited connections when not in use because charge tended to accumulate in them beyond 'nasty' values and gave shockes when accidentaly the unshorted connections were touched. (And charge in them did not come about due to the closeness of RF or other transmitter near field effects for sure but the explanation pondered on was the cap 'remembered' the manufacturer's high voltage tests... )
-------------------------------
You may have thought on making the L inductance resonant with C2 (500uF) at the switching frequency? What if you match them to be at series resonant? then you may benefit from the resonant voltage up transformation? would be an interesting test...
Thanks, Gyula
Hi Gyulasan.
>By the way, my elder co-workers used to mention that certain high voltage transmitter >type capacitors were stored with short-circuited connections when not in use because >charge tended to accumulate in them beyond 'nasty' values
I can also add to strange capacitor effects.
I built 4 small leyden jars a while ago (1.5? x 4? glass spice jars).
Aluminum sticky tape inside and outside, shredded aluminum foil stuffed inside,
Electrical tape wrapped around outside, and then multi dipped in wax/hot glue
To seal the whole thing.
(25% melted hot glue (through glue gun) mixed
Into melted paraffin wax and stirred together, makes a great non-brittle dielectric sealant)
They worked very well as leyden jars. (> 125,000 volts)
I had put them (non-shorted) into my parts box and left them for several months.
When I went to use them again I was having problems, they would not hold a charge.
I removed the outer tape/wax layers and ran them (to my 30 cm wimshurst) to see what was happening to the jars.
They were now all arcing through the glass dielectric at low voltage!
The dielectric had broken down just from being in storage, there was no charge noticed
On them when taken out of storage btw.
Cliff,
@Gyula
you've raised 3 important observations/questions! Thank you for mentioning these
> I remember a conversation where Tesla was questioned on his capacitive discharging experiments ... in those capacitor discharge tests the bottom line is that the (discharge) time involved is what counts... this in itself does not sound free energy because you fed in that particular amount of energy from a generator (or whatever source) in advance during a certain time periode and if you use up this same amount of energy in much shorter time then you seem to "consume more" but in fact you do not...
- i'm trying to find again the Tesla reference i read some time ago - but it was not about his large-scale capacitor discharges
if i remember correctly, he was definitely saying that he could 'collect' (which i describe as 'siphoning') small and frequent amounts of charge from a generator, or other source, by means of a capacitor, i believe, and that he could extract as much power as he liked without depleting the source
it was this last statement that i was saying sounded like 'free energy'
> Yes, as I mentioned, the atoms/molecules of the dielectric material inside the capacitor try to arrange back to their 'position' where they were all forced to 'setup' by the earlier electric field stress of the 2.7V (or whatever) value. This is what I think...
i agree that there is a long history of evidence of self-recharge of capacitors and that the dielectric must be involved - because the energy in a charged capacitor is understood to be actually stored in the dielectric, not the cap plates - but i am thinking that this description is still an effect, not a cause - the recharge seen this last week could provide 10mW of power for 7 seconds
firstly, i'm not sure that a purely 'electret' effect could provide this sort of power when the cap was only charged to 2.7V to begin with - i understand that electrets usually need a high voltage stress as part of their creation
secondly, when creating an electret, the stress voltage has to be maintained continously whilst the polarity alignment becomes 'fixed' - but in these cap recharges the voltage has been completely discharged first and then also shorted before the voltage builds up again
to 'force' the atoms/molecules in the dielectric to return to a previous 'setup' we would need to perform some electrical work on them - the only work on a capacitor which conventional physics recognises is to apply a voltage across the plates
where is the power coming from to do this work? i say it is not coming from anwhere conventional!!
well, i think we can both agree that, whatever the cause of the recharge, 'electret' or 'aether spin', it is completely 'free energy' because after the full amount (1219mWs in this experiment) of conventional stored energy has been discharged thro' Rload then another 70mWs has become available from the self-recharge - nearly 6% extra energy!
i think a lot of people (me included) would be happy to get a COP of 1.06 from a simple capacitor! :)
> You may have thought on making the L inductance resonant with C2 (500uF) at the switching frequency?
yes, this is a very good question - is it possible to increase the switched charge voltage thro' resonance (by 'tuning' the peak voltage to occur at the moment of switching)?
i haven't tried matching L & switched C for resonance - i'd considered adjusting the cycle period above & below the existing rate to see if the COP increases either way - but it would be an excellent test to try resonance directly
i hope that one of us gets to try this resonance test soon
@argona
> The dielectric had broken down just from being in storage
do you have any theories as to how the dielectric (just glass?) degraded to that extent?
> there was no charge noticed on them when taken out of storage btw.
i guess not, if the dielectric had failed! ;)
>i guess not, if the dielectric had failed!
Lol.
Low voltage was maybe (guess) 1,000 volts.
(Arc discharges seen though glass dielectric)
There might have been some voltage on the jars but I never noticed it.
(before and after storage).
Disassembled to look for bubbles or cracks and there was none.
>do you have any theories as to how the dielectric (just glass?) degraded to that extent?
None whatsoever, and it was just plain glass jars.
I also noticed that when my wimshurst (?thumper?) was first run,
It produced 10x more ozone at first which diminished after say 5 hours
of operation (motor driven).
I always felt that at first running it had pulled electrons out of the plexi disks,
And ?ran out? or could not pull anymore latter on (depleted something).
Cliff,
Hi Sandy,
Was it this text here: http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm
.....
Counsel
Speaking of your not having perfectly undamped waves at that time, you were referring to that character of circuit?
Tesla
Yes, but with another kind of circuit I could, of course. The advantage of this apparatus was the delivering of energy at short intervals whereby one could increase activity, and with this scheme I was able to perform all of those wonderful experiments which have been reprinted from time to time in the technical papers. I would take energy out of a circuit at rates of hundreds or thousands of horsepower. In Colorado, I reached 18 million horsepower activities, but that was always by this device: Energy stored in the condenser and discharged in an inconceivably small interval of time. You could not produce that activity with an undamped wave. The damped wave is of advantage because it gives you, with a generator of 1 kilowatt, an activity of 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 kilowatts; whereas, if you have a continuous or undamped wave, 1 kilowatt gives you only wave energy at the rate of 1 kilowatt and nothing more. That is the reason why the system with a quenched gap has become popular.
I have refined this so that I have been able to take energy out of engines by drawing on their momentum. For instance, if the engine is of 200 horsepower, I take the energy out for a minute interval of time, at a rate of 5,000 or 6,000 horsepower, then I store [it] in a condenser and discharge the same at the rate of several millions of horsepower. That is how these wonderful effects are produced. The condenser is the most wonderful instrument, as I have stated in my writings, because it enables us to attain greater activities than are practical with explosives. There is no limit to the energy which you can develop with a condenser. There is a limit to the energy which you can develop with an explosive.
....
@argona
it's a funny old world - you run your 'thumper' and onlly get 1000V on your cap and its a disaster - if i got 1000V i'd be ordering the champagne
on the other hand, if you were getting 25% (of 125kV) self-recharge volts on your caps you might have stored them away with a shorting strap in place!
@Gyula
yes, some of that wording looks familiar - however, the rest of the wording looks new, so i'm thinking that what i read was either a highly-edited version of that interview, or else someone had taken a selection of the statements and made their own 'quote' of Tesla out-of-context
thanks for finding that - i'm glad i've seen the full version now!
@tak22 & NerzhDishual
more detail on inductor, as promised:-
- 0.45mm diam. laquered copper wire (solderable)
- wound in two sections, one each on two tubular ferrites:
a)3cm long x 1.8cm o/diam., 0.7cm i/diam. approx
b)2.2cm long x 3.2cm o/diam., 2cm i/diam. approx
- approx 2 full layers wound tightly on ferrite (a) so that it can just slide inside ferrite (b);
- approx 3 full layers wound tightly on ferrite (b)
- 2R total resistance (approx), connected in series, sequence selected for highest C3 volts
to begin with, i would suggest just using the type (b) ferrite with all the turns in one winding
i'll try that also and confirm here if it is really necessary to use type (a) and type (b) together
the biasing ring-magnet is not needed - it makes no visible difference in the current experiment
however, placing the inductor in between additional type (b) ferrites at each end does increase the output by a visible amount (a few %?)
i've tried some alternative diodes and found that Silicon signal diodes are ok
they increased the total time taken to charge C3 and reduced the output slightly but i was able to adjust the switching on/off periods to bring the total voltage back to 2.67V over an approx 45s period
so, types 1N914 and 1N4148 should be ok to use (can try others too, if you don't have these)
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site: http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
horsepower = watt = energy / second. Tesla is not talking about overunity but about increasing power by decreasing discharge time. When this time decreases and energy stays the same, power increases (P = E / s).
@alan
Quotehorsepower = watt = energy / second. Tesla is not talking about overunity but about increasing power by decreasing discharge time. When this time decreases and energy stays the same, power increases (P = E / s).
Yes the energy is the same, however the properties and qualities of the current discharged in 1/10000th of a second versus 1 second cannot be compared. Nor can the effects produced be compared, a near instantaneous discharge produces electrostatic fields while a slow discharge produces heat. One discharge can utilize electrical inertia to its advantage in an inductance while the other produces heat. When you understand this you will understand that nul-points has just touched the tip of an iceberg and at this rate he may just see the rest of it.
hi alan, thanks for the comment - yes, i think we're all agreed that in Gyula's quote, Tesla is talking about magnification of power by adjusting the period in which a constant amount of energy is discharged
i thought i'd seen a reference to Tesla stating that he could draw energy from a source by means of a capacitance transferring a small amount at a fast rate and that this didn't deplete the source
this is what i was saying sounded like 'free energy' or OU
however, having seen Gyula's quote above, i have to say either i saw that same quote originally, misunderstood it at the time & then misremebered it later - or i saw an edited quote which had wrongly summarised Tesla's words
whichever of these possibilities is true, it doesn't alter the fact that using a similar technique to Tesla (ie. switching charge from input to output via a capacitor, changing the periiod on the way) there is a definte Charge Anomaly in the experiment:
total start charge: 2.4 Coulombs
total end charge: 3.0 Coulombs
the results of this experiment are showing that the charge anomaly is accompanied by an Energy Anomaly:
the circuit is handling more than 120% of the energy drawn from the input capacitor
this is true, whether or not it matches Tesla's description of his experience
hi again AC!
thanks for your input here (things have moved on a little since that charge anomaly discussion at the 'Tesla Switch, need help' thread!)
in the power/duration trade-off, i guess we're seeing inertia acts like a 'gate' to the properties of a system:
- tap the aether slow & light and a little energy is lent & then taken back, just a ripple in equilibrium, soon restored
- hit the aether hard & fast and all hell breaks loose - inertia doesn't allow it to keep up and it's very fabric tears temporarily - interesting behaviour follows until it all finally snaps back into sync
any thoughts on the 'capacitive/charge inertia' parallel to 'inductive/current inertia' in reply#36 page 1?
@nul-points
Quoteany thoughts on the 'capacitive/charge inertia' parallel to 'inductive/current inertia' in reply#36 page 1?
I could say many things, but not nearly as well as the people I have come to respect in this field.
Henry T Moray had a very interesting though found here----http://www.rexresearch.com/beyond/beyond.htm
QuoteWith the use of these oscillators and the oscillating effect of condensers which I have sometimes explained in the following way to those who are not acquainted with the back-rush effect of condensers, and which may serve to make my point now. When an elastic substance is subjected to strain and then set free, one of two things happens. The substance may slowly recover from the strain and gradually attain its natural state, or the elastic recoil may carry it past its position of equilibrium and cause it to execute a series of oscillations. Something of the same sort may also occur when an electrified condenser is discharged. In ordinary language there may be a continous flow of electricity in one direction until the discharge is completed, or if proper use of the condensers are made an oscillating discharge may occur. That is, the first flow may be succeeded by a back-rush, as if the first discharge had over run itself and something like a recoil set in. The condensers thus become more or less charged again in the opposite sense, and a second discharge occurs accompanied by a second back-rush, the oscillations going on until the energy is either radiated or used up in the heating of the conductors.
I think it is easier to see things as being mechanical in nature thus any motion must contain energy as momentum or inertia---but this inertia can only be utilized through a change in acceleration, prefferably in a load.
Hi guys,
I'm still here (from time to time).
Thanks to Sandy for his explanations about his coil(s).
I have just ordered six 5_Volts/1_Farad small caps
(7,10 Euros each) and other stuff. These FE experiments are not really 'free'... :-\
As soon as I receive my things and if my neuron is working, I test Sandy's CCT.
(CCT= CirCuiT). :P
>>>>> Have you checked this .doc file? It is from a German guy.
I do not remember where this file comes from. It must be from overunity.com... :)
http://freenrg.info/Condos/The_Condenser_Problem.doc (http://freenrg.info/Condos/The_Condenser_Problem.doc)
(10 pages - pages 7-10 are the most important).
Best
hi allcanadian and NerzhDishual
@AC
very interesting to read in more detail about Moray's work - containing first-hand accounts too. strangely, i'd never seen any of his writings or such detail of his devices before; i guess originally i saw a collection of similar sites with what looked like re-hashed newspaper articles and thought there was nothing more to be found, so i didn't follow it up - shame on me!
reading these accounts makes me wonder if all our talk of 'closing the loop' might be misleading us in our attempts to get self-sustaining operation in our various devices - i'm wondering if the 'loop' we should be closing should rather be a 'feedback' loop to sustain oscillation of energy between the 'aether'/vacuum medium and our own circuits
this approach would mean that we don't need to achieve large COP values >>1 in order to loop back, say, 1 unit of power to sustain our circuit and provide X units of power to our load
instead the initial COP would only need to be just slightly greater than 1 and the whole system would oscillate and start to handle greater amounts of energy - of course, this would also mean that we would need to provide some self-limiting capability at a defined power level of operation to prevent 'runaway'
@ND
yes, the cost of those 1F, 5V caps is a concern to me (i recently bought 3) - i guess i was too late in my email to suggest that you could probably use your 0.1F 'condos' instead?
it seems to me from your http://freenrg.info website that you have managed to achieve a great many things for a man with only one neuron :)
that Condenser .doc file is very interesting - it supports what we have both found about the charge anomaly when discharging one cap into another & using also about using inductance to achieve 'lossless' transfer (although i seem to remember it also says that by using large value caps you may not need inductance)
it questions where the extra charge could have been sourced, but unfortunately doesn't go on to look at the implications of the anomaly
allcanadian's quote from the Moray account talks of the 'backrush' oscillation of energy when discharging a cap and i'm wondering if what we've been able to achieve is a very slow oscillatory exchange of energy with the 'aether' (substitute name of favourite medium!), because of the very large values (hence large inertia) of our caps and what we're actually doing, at some point then, is 'decoupling' our output reservoir of energy obtained in the oscillation in such a way that it is then unable to flow back into the aether to restore equilibrium - we're stopping the energy 'pendulum', as it were, when it's over on our side of the balance position
as Aspden said, when describing the Adam's motor, we're 'taking out a loan from the universe's energy bank and refusing to pay it back!'
looking forward to seeing how your experiment goes!
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
@nul-points
Quoteinstead the initial COP would only need to be just slightly greater than 1 and the whole system would oscillate and start to handle greater amounts of energy - of course, this would also mean that we would need to provide some self-limiting capability at a defined power level of operation to prevent 'runaway'
Now your on the right track ;) each cycle provides a small input therefore by increasing the frequency of the cycles more energy is moved over a given time(watts), this also decreases the losses in the system. OU was never about massive COP's, it's about a circle, input becomes output---output is the next input. Have you noticed that all our conventional systems have the load terminating on the source, in which case what we consider a load has no choice but to discharge the source.
What if we did something like in the picture posted below?
@allcanadian
> Have you noticed that all our conventional systems have the load terminating on the source, in which case what we consider a load has no choice but to discharge the source.
i'd never noticed before i got into FE & started studying people like Bearden - but, as you can see from the schematic, i sometimes manage to stay awake in class ;)
so - er, that would be just the arrow symbol <== to go, then?
@Nul-Points
Quote from: nul-points on May 26, 2008, 03:58:01 AM
@tak22 & NerzhDishual
more detail on inductor, as promised:-
- 0.45mm diam................................
- wound in two sections, one each on two tubular ferrites:
a)3cm long x 1.8cm o/diam., 0.7cm i/diam. approx
b)2.2cm long x 3.2cm o/diam., 2cm i/diam. approx
...................................................
This is very accurate and clear....Thanks for you patience.
But, where the heck could I find these 'huge' tubular ferrites?
In England, I guess. I have never seen these kind of things in any of my French
catalogs, nor I also could find any Germanium diodes that seem 'usual' in England.. :-\
BTW: could we also find Tunnel (Esaki) diodes In England ???
And old friend of mine is craving about these 'late things'. I'm not kidding.
---------------------------------------------------------------
@AllCanadian
Quote from: allcanadian on May 28, 2008, 10:20:17 AM
...............................................
Have you noticed that all our conventional systems have the load terminating on the
source, in which case what we consider a load has no choice but to discharge the
source.
..............................................................
I was vaguely aware of something wrong about source vs load and 'electrons' that
should not be depleted/consumed after having done some usefull work. Is the stream
of water wasted/exhausted with/in/by a watermill?
So, thanks for your very enlighting accurate and concise statement.
Best
hey NerzhDishual
i get those ferrites from Maplin - consumer/hobbyist electronics supplies - about 50(?) stores around the UK
is there nothing like this in France? (Tandy/Archer/RadioShack) how are you expected to spend your Euros??!?
of course, it is easy for us to buy huge ferrites & Germanium diodes in England because we still use steam valves in our wireless sets here ;)
but you have beaten us with the challenge of finding Tunnel diodes - for these i think you would need to order from professional component suppliers - possibly RS (formerly RadioSpares), Farnell, etc
what size ferrites do you have? (i'm not trying to start a macho, 'size-matters', thing here!) maybe the same length (or resistance) of similar wire wound as a single coil on an 8mm diam. rod ferrite would be ok to start experimenting?
otherwise, if you really want to have some fat ugly ferrites to make your friends jealous, i could send you a 'Red Cross' parcel with a selection of ferrites & some germanium diodes to an address of your choosing (Bureau de Poste?)
i hope you saw the info where i said that Silicon diodes should be fine?
Hi Hello Nul-Points,
I do like English technology (especially cars). No kidding!
You, English people, definitely do (did?) not build things the way others country do...
Do you remember the Seagull ourboard motor? A masterpiece of simplicity and robustness.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreenrg.info%2FPic%2FSeagull_Outboard_Motor.gif&hash=9252a8dfd5b9c4f7b71127083753343c1c29136e)
When I was in my 30th I had a blue TR3-TRIUMPH with an amazing 'Overdrive':
For example:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreenrg.info%2FPic%2FTriumph-TR3.jpg&hash=56c4fd6358a44e197f7d789d71472f628f944a72)
A friend of mine had an Austin Frog Eyes: For example:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreenrg.info%2FPic%2FAustin_Frog_Eyes.jpg&hash=b18193a4b00f145968839ba31a8aba38c2e5fd04)
And my brother had an (almost dead) TR6-TRIUMPH. For example:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreenrg.info%2FPic%2FTR6-Trihump.jpg&hash=61365e762988cdf3ae94049703dc377ef165aef1)
-------------------------------------------------------
But this is completely off topic. Is it not? ;D
About Tunnel diodes: please, lets drop them... It is not the point.
About the others parts:
Yes, I noticed that you already told me that the silicium diodes were OK. :P
I just wanted to play with these germanim gizmo's.
There is no more such companies in France like Tandy and RadioShack.
They disappeared a lot of time ago.
Archer? It sold arrows bows and quivers?
I can only find very small tubular ferrites. So small I dare not to give you more precisions.
About you 'Emergency Kit': I'm game. You will be my supplier.
But, could we discuss 'business' in a private email as I want to pay you
for these stuffs? No kidding.
Best
LOL @ "hi hello" - bonsoir Mr Dishual
so .... the entire output of the English automobile industry was bought up by just 3 gentlemen from France, eh? ;D
in their time, they were all cool cars - still classics now - i think many countries used to make quality items, but not so much now, perhaps
...and the seagull outboard - what a legionnaire! - you have to admire a company who admit their product is so noisy by actually advising in their user manual that you be careful not to talk about people in other boats nearby because you won't be able to hear them but they'll be able to hearing you shouting to each other over the noise of the engine :)
i don't know if Archer produced arrows - but i'm sure they could have supplied you with some diodes which had point-contacts!
maybe you could tape many small ferrites together to make one big fat one? actually, that would be an interesting experiment sometime...
i'm happy to help with sourcing the difficult-to-get parts if i can - i'm thinking that maybe the postage & import tax will cost more than the parts themselves? perhaps we can do an exchange - i'll send you some parts & you can send me an Alan Stivell CD? ;D
a bientot
sandy
Bonsoir Sandy
The noise of the Seagull outboard motor. LOL!
Alan Stivell. OK. Do you know Denez Pigent?
The postage tax are sometimes not so huge.
I already have purchased some things from USA.
Notably a very nice and efficient Stirling Engine.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stirlingengine.com%2Fgraphics%2Fmm7_handslg.jpg&hash=c30f7c21b901412a98c68a84aeab01cbbc495f4d)
I will send soon you a personal email.
This evening I'm "snowed under" (according to my dictionary!),
However the weather if fine here in Brittany . ;D
Cordialement,
Quote from: nul-points on May 24, 2008, 09:17:48 AM
interesting update on the cap self-recharge effect....
i just checked the circuit after being on vacation for 7 days
after the last test run (Sat 17 May) i discharged the output cap to 0V tho' Rload and then shorted the cap for a few seconds and when i left, after about an hour, it's voltage had risen from 0V to 0.29V
the circuit has been disconnected from the input cap and any test-gear for 7 days - but on checking the output cap this morning, the voltage is at 0.64V
(if this isn't evidence of 'capacitive inertia' i want to know what is!)
Hi Sandy,
Have you noticed this letter here? http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4124.msg101296.html#msg101296
User zaydana also experienced electrolytic capacitor self-recharge effect...
@NerzhDishual you have got a very nice piece of Stirling engine! Maybe it is able to work with a few degree of temperature difference?
Cheers, Gyula
@NerzhDishual
that's one neat machine! did you buy it to replace the seagull?!? ;D
seriously, i'd be interested to hear about any experiments you have planned for it
no, i hadn't heard of Denez Pigent (Prigent?) before - did he fall out of another Breton tree? i found a YouTube song "Son Alma Ata" of his - nice fusion of traditional melody & modern rhythm
the Celtic music certainly stirs my blood - i guess being 1/4 Scottish helps!
look forward to hearing from you when the snow clears :)
@Gyulasun
thanks for the link, interesting to read of other reports of the self-recharge - i also found an old 1920s (i think) paper about 'condenser re-charge' using Rochelle salts as dielectric - so the effect has quite a history
Hello Nul-Points,
I have received my expensive one Farad/5 Volts caps and other stuffs.
For the moment I'm playing with my Dallas_Gold_Bug electrodes.
So, the snow is no still so clear 4 me "switched-cap-wise". :)
Yes, this Stirling Engine is very silent but of any help in any rowing boat. :)
Actually, I do not use it. I sometimes buy things only because they are good-looking,
nice and charming (paintings for example). :P
I however managed to have it slowly running with a glass fulled of few ice cubes
on his top. I'm wondering if Sadi Carnot were OK ???
This Denez Prigent music is sometimes weird, sad and the lyrics full of
'funereal' stories. He is a real Breton! Yes, he should have fallen from some
bewitched hanged men Breton tree.
As a matter of fact being 1/4 Scottish helps when listening this music.
BTW: as I can see you have carefully gone through my web site...
I will send you a CD of Denez. (Whois is indiscreet). ;)
Very Best
@NerzhDishual
bonsoir mon ami
> I have received my expensive one Farad/5 Volts caps and other stuffs. For the moment I'm playing with my Dallas_Gold_Bug electrodes. So, the snow is no still so clear 4 me 'switched-cap-wise'
- i'm pleased to hear that your 'less-than-free' energy components have arrived; i hope we can amplify their value soon and give you some return on your investment!
i am thinking that i will do some tests with converting my existing CirCuiT to use opto-isolating switches in preparation for the new developments i mentioned in my recent email this weekend (i hope you received it ok? let me know if not)
if i can get the circuit operating with the same results using opto-isolation then i'm pretty confident to move on to the next phase of experiments
i'll be busy with this for a few days - so, no need to stop the winter sports yet - enjoy!
> Yes, this Stirling Engine is very silent but of any help in any rowing boat. I however managed to have it slowly running with a glass fulled of few ice cubes
- i was wondering - how feasible would it be to close the loop using one? how much heat would you need to be able to generate from using a small DC motor as generator with a heater as load?
a homopolar generator is supposed not to load the source! i have some ideas on this - maybe we can discuss sometime?
...but don't sell the oars from your rowing boat yet! ;)
> I sometimes buy things only because they are good-looking
- that is usually the ONLY reason i buy something ;D
> This Denez Prigent music is sometimes weird, sad and the lyrics full of
'funereal' stories. He is a real Breton!
- weird, sad & funereal? yes, that would be why i liked it then! early Pink Floyd is also a favourite
> as I can see you have carefully gone through my web site...
- aha - i forgot you are a computeriste! ;)
> I will send you a CD of Denez
- that is very kind - but it must be an exchange for a consignment of ferrite and germanium!
(Whois the daddy?!)
did you know that the vocalist in Swampfish il parle Francais? i feel some Breton Blues coming on!!
cordialement
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
you should get you hands on this paper:
P.T. Pappas, Energy Creation in Electrical Sparks and Discharges : Theory and Direct Experimental Evidence
Pappas' website:
http://www.papimi.gr/
hi alan
thanks for the info on pappas - i had quite an extensive trawl of his site - i haven't find the paper you mentioned yet but there's some fascinating work detailed there
all the best
sandy
Also couldnt find it anywhere, maybe he'll send it if you contact him.
hi alan
June 04 > you should get you hands on this paper: P.T. Pappas, Energy Creation in Electrical Sparks and Discharges....
June 06 > Also couldnt find it anywhere, maybe he'll send it if you contact him
ah, ok - i misunderstood - i thought you were recommending it because you'd read it & decided it was relevant to my experiment! :)
all the best
sandy
My apology for the confusion :)
I think the paper is relevant because of its title and it is mentioned in some books like beardens and moray's (I thought).
I requested the paper and he said I should contact him by phone,but I didn't.
"Energy Creation in Electrical Sparks and Discharges".... thats an interesting topic I had some thoughts on recently. A man named Victor Schauberger once said---- We should always consider things in there opposite sense as well. In this case we could say a high potential ionizing force(energy) has jumped the gap between two wires ------ Or we could say a high potential ionizing force simply manifested the energy that was always present in latent form within a space between two wires. I think it's important to remember that Tesla, Moray,Shappeller and others considered an electric current and heat to be the "lowest" forms of energy and unfortunately these are the only forms of energy we presently understand and use to perform work.
hi allcanadian
if these ideas of electrical 'inertia', due to the characteristics of the aether/vacuum medium, mentioned above, are correct then i would see electric discharges/sparks as the logical outcome of over-stressing the medium
in the case where we setup an electric 'dipole' using our own wires & electric charge, the aether responds by deforming it's 'crystal lattice' type energy structure to flow around the wires (read 'wave-guides') and diverge a little of it's energy into our circuit
break the circuit and, if the conditions are right (eg aether power temporarily stored thro' component operation, like inductance, etc), the 'inertia' characteristic of the aether will try & keep the energy flowing - when the 'wave-guide' (our wire) is broken then the aether is able to sustain the energy flow, whilst the dipole still exists, by creating its own 'wave-guide' thro' air, space, etc
this aether-created 'wave-guide'/replacement for wire is what we call a spark or electrical discharge
it can also happen in the case of stressing the medium with an electrical dipole without prior wire connection - the stress is large enough for the aether to form its own 'wave-guide' across the nearest points with greatest stress
perhaps the best-recognised natural example of this is the lightning-strike - a 'thread' of aether 'wave-guide' grows from an earth-point, up thro' the sky to a storm cloud and then, when the 'connection' is complete, there is a massive discharge of current back down the 'wave-guide' from the sky to the ground
i would say that the first type above is 'inertia' induced - caused by a rapid discontinuity of an existing man-made 'connection' where energy is already flowing - and the second type results from the massive stress itself creating a dipole directly into the structure of the aether 'crystal lattice'
...thinks, i wonder if any of this is actually making sense?
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Hello Sandy,
I found this in a bearden paper:
[2] For proof that you can charge an ordinary capacitor almost without
entropy, see I. Fundaun, C. Reese, and H. H. Soonpaa, "Charging a Capacitor,"
_American Journal of Physics_, 60(11), pp. 1047-1048 (1992). A capacitor can
be step-charged in small steps to dramatically reduce the entropy required to
charge it. In the limit, a theoretically perfect capacitor can be fully
charged without any electrical current or work at all, i.e., you can simply
transport the excess energy density (the potential gradient) of the open
circuit voltage of the source to the collector, and couple that {del-phi} to
the electrons trapped in the capacitor plates, without electric current from
or through the source.
Now where to find this research paper?
hi Alan,
Here is link to the American Journal of Physics but can be received by paying for it.
http://www.kzoo.edu/ajp/online.html
I think it is worth visiting a local university or college library and ask for a copy of the article even via inter-library service.
What I understand by step charge referred to by Bearden, this method may reduce the inrush current into a capacitor when you start charging it the usual way but I am doubtful on a possible "free lunch" from the proposed process. Of course, reading the full article would be the best to judge the benefit of step charging.
Re. on P.T. Pappas, Energy Creation in Electrical Sparks and Discharges, here is a link but also involves money to get it, unfortunately: http://www.theriac.org/riacapps/library/?found=26420-368 In this case it seems also the best to turn to a library service.
rgds, Gyula
hi Alan
further to Gyula's help for you in tracking down those papers, Bearden has actually published a schematic for a cap 'step-charge' circuit:
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Final%20Secret%20of%2015%20Feb%201994/index.html
hope this proves helpful, too
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Quote from: nul-points on June 13, 2008, 01:13:05 AM
h http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Final%20Secret%20of%2015%20Feb%201994/index.html
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
This cant work!
Belive it.
Gustav Pese
About Step-Charging
===============
It does work indeed, the step charging idea: patents exist on using noisy current for charging, also using less voltage near the end of the charging cycle, in order not tu buck too much against the charge of the capacitor/cell.... one can monitor coltage using indepedent and generic cell monitors, with let say a light detector to enable sylcell(tm)/pacemaker functionality&reliability, let say mission critical systems would double those control cells, would hook many dormant fail-safe counter-meausre in the mix.
Anyway! Not simply a second order system.... one can "move" charges using only voltage, egg before the chicken when thinking about the control mecanism, but the smaller scale can make it appear an insignificant energy loss... what makes life great, high-level feedback mecanisms on the physical/dead world, on other living beings, or would those be only interfaces... one looses weight when "disconnecting" :o|
So much more out there, biological signals: Benveniste, Co-Operative Healing, chinese guys @ quantumbrain.org, lots of examples, the chi....
'Dead Energy" and you get taken away, too frightful for the economy?! Worse law is an absence of laws, one has to think, to design before hand. The single most simplest layer at the bottom of it all... efficient solar panels from the 60's, even higher than 70% documented on Rex Research for example, it's known. We can do it, only one must not exagerate, one has ti be responsible with this kind of technology at his fingertip, no drone army nor autonomous drone armies ;o)
Sorry for the previous, inspired late night post :O)
As for newelectromagnetism.com, have a look at this
http://www.distinti.com/docs/cap_anom.pdf
Also, this patent is dead simple, great idea, pretty interesting:
US7085123 @ pat2pdf.org
One lets the capacitor do the work, not the battery, the graphs speak for themselves!
hi all
i don't have any first-hand experience of Bearden's step-charge circuit - i've referenced it above only because alan was looking for a paper, quoted by Bearden, relating to that process
having said that, the basic mechanism of transferring charge from a voltage source to a load via a 'collector' is similar to the circuit i use to switch charge - and of course, i can confirm that my switch-charge circuit does produce results which indicate OU operation :)
one notable difference is that i force both the final charging & discharging current of the output capacitor to flow through a load resistor to avoid the automatic 50% energy loss which would occur otherwise
MinEth3r, thanks for the links - i'll go & check them out
all the best
sandy
Very old paper, thanks anyway :)
http://www.newelectromagnetism.com/ is also very interesting, found it following the site in the pdf posted by minether, great find.
Alan, here's my current take on Distinti's work:
If one fuses the three formulas in one "Master Equation", one immediately see the speed vectors become normalised over C, they become Betas automagically, it gets interesting.
Regarding Ke and Km, the point was made by Elliott a while ago about being in fact a single parameter conversion factor for currents, enough said :O)
The first two terms from the v3 Magnetic Laws are in fact one, the relative radial speed, from relative electrodynamics ?la Weber and more recently Assis,- the relative radial acceleration (read: its mathematical expression) isn't mentionned per se in Distinti's work, as with basic rational trig (NJWildberger), basic Geometric/Clifford Algebra and some more advanced retardation calculation techniques such as in the work of Jaume Gin? (http://web.udl.es/usuaris/t4088454/ssd/index.htm , PERIHEL4.pdf ) that I would love to see, along with less Einsteinish propanganda BS - nobody has to give in - and more euclidenrelativity.com-kinda work, more like-minded math. A Newer&Better , albeit the Final entry-level Electromagnetism, it's just around the corner, really, should be done in our spare time by the end of the Summer, what do you all think :O) glafreniere.com and al. are well on the way themselves. I'll be handing over some time, will naturally post a link to it somewhere on this forum, when the time comes!
Lots of good reading material available on retardation, inertial drive, interesting canadian patents... lots and lots out there, albeit almost a shame we're still in the standstill. We could achieve throughout experiment simulation, the map would not be the territory, but a close to 100% virtual one perhaps? Would invite to design on-board components, like caps and inductors, stack them and them stack boards, maybe build the whole thing out of clay and ice? :O) No seriously, PCB embedded homemade components, just think Spark Bang Buzz @ http://home.earthlink.net/~lenyr/index.html if you doubt Merlinesque technology is far beyond your reach...
Finally I feel the need to reiterate, http://drspark.com/idea003.php and it's graphs - entry point in your current effort - , graphs from the patent on switched Ultraconductors, it all speak very loudly! Nowadays a lot is possible on the electrical/dead energy front, a Lot! In fact, it always were that way, tremendous shame on us all :P
@MinEth3r
QuoteAlso, this patent is dead simple, great idea, pretty interesting:
US7085123 @ pat2pdf.org
Yes, that is a very interesting patent ------ but can anyone here explain why it has a COP of 2 or 200% efficiency?. This looks like a standard charge pump but there is more here than meets the eye.
Quote from: MinEth3r on June 13, 2008, 12:27:04 PM
Sorry for the previous, inspired late night post :O)
right-o Mr Minerva
i want half-a-dozen bottles of whatever you've been drinking these last couple of evenings - and i want them NOW!!!
Quote from: MinEth3r on June 13, 2008, 12:27:04 PM
As for newelectromagnetism.com, have a look at this
http://www.distinti.com/docs/cap_anom.pdf
most excellent, dude - someone, somewhere (Distinti) - finally - has paid serious attention to the cap re-charge issue
unfortunately, they know only its relationships - not what suckles it and gives it breath - ah, well....
time and tide waits for no man - but the aether - wow, that's just been sitting there waiting for us for aeons
Quote from: MinEth3r on June 13, 2008, 12:27:04 PM
Also, this patent is dead simple, great idea, pretty interesting:
US7085123 @ pat2pdf.org
One lets the capacitor do the work, not the battery, the graphs speak for themselves!
now we're cooking ...wait, this looks familiar...
...a capacitor charged via a load - then - re-connected and discharged thro' the load with opposite polarity - sure an' didn't i see a circuity-thing that looked the spit o' that on my website?
dayum - is there nuthin new under the sun?!?
greetings, MinEth3r
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Quote from: allcanadian on June 13, 2008, 04:52:04 PM
@MinEth3rYes, that is a very interesting patent ------ but can anyone here explain why it has a COP of 2 or 200% efficiency?. This looks like a standard charge pump but there is more here than meets the eye.
hi AC
if it really & truly is 200%, then i suspect that it's because - not only does the cap charge get passed across the load twice, once for each polarity, but also, the original voltage source gets added back into the series circuit with that now-inverted charge
of course, i only believe this at the moment because i'm 200% the way through an inverted bottle of whatever Minerva has been drinking...etc, etc
and, in the cold light of the morning after the night before, i shall publically deny any knowledge of ever having made such a statement - even tho' it will be indelibly typed across my very own corner of thread-dom
goodnight Canada (is there a drunken smiley?!)
sandy
Hi All!
I am a mechanical engineer with little experience in ECE, but a long time enthusiast of Tesla's work. I find this device very interesting and plan on building it on my breadboard at home. But with everything I do, I like to understand what is happening and why.
Could someone explain what is going here and how this circuit works?
Now I understand the basics of circuitry, so dont dumb it down too much.
Many thanks!
-PurePower
hi purepower
...boy you had a rough ride with Archer - you must be ready for some R&R ;)
Quote from: purepower on June 14, 2008, 11:56:03 PM
I am a mechanical engineer with little experience in ECE, but a long time enthusiast of Tesla's work. I find this device very interesting and plan on building it on my breadboard at home. But with everything I do, I like to understand what is happening and why.
Could someone explain what is going here and how this circuit works?
...hmmm - well, i wish someone would tell
me what is going on here!!!!
the results indicate that this simple circuit:
- firstly, introduces extra charge into a closed circuit - which, unless someone is able to explain otherwise, appears to be in violation of Conservation of Charge
- secondly, expends more energy than is supplied - which, unless someone is able to explain etc, etc, appears to be in violation of Conservation of Energy
ok, let me just give a quick overview of what i
think is 'going on' - at a fundamental level, first...
now, i'm an (elec) engineer, not an astrophysicist, so what do i know?
well, actually, i know that when a
0.3 Coulomb charge is removed from one capacitor in a self-contained circuit and it
re-appears as a 0.9 Coulomb charge on a second capacitor of similar value in that circuit, and there are no other voltage sources, then
any existing model of the physics involved, which can't explain that, "ain't up to the job!"of course, if the boundary conditions for electromagnetic activity were to be extended to include its root cause (eg. all 'electricity' is obtained by diverging energy from the vacuum medium {VM}, the underlying fabric of the universe), not just the currently-perceived side-effects (eg. the associated electric and magnetic fields), then these two basic principles would not have to be violated to achieve these results
the explanation would then be that this circuit operates by the expected exchange of energy between the VM (the updated, Quantum, concept of the old material 'aether') and the capacitive & inductive components of the circuit, in the usual 'ebb and flow' of energy stored and released
however, since the circuit is switched in such a way as to prevent temporary net gains of charge & energy from flowing back to the VM to complete a cycle of energy exchange - our macro perception of this being that we 'gained energy' - what happens at the micro level is that the VM draws on the surrounding ambient energy (eg heat) and restores the local energy balance (eg something local gets colder to 'pay' for our 'energy gain')
now, i suspect that the second part of your question was more along the lines of "how does this circuit work - at a component level?"
well, small packets of charge are switched rapidly (currently around 1kHz, but i don't think this is critical to the operation of the circuit) from a charged, large-value input capacitor, via a much smaller-valued switching-capacitor, to a discharged, large-value output capacitor in series with a resistive load
current entering the switching-cap is passed thro' an inductance to help reduce switching losses - and since the inductance is getting switched too, then i've included a 'flyback' diode to recover some of the inductor's field-collapse energy
when the input cap has discharged a known amount of energy then the switching is stopped and the output cap is discharged back thro' the same resistive load - ie. the energy initially used to charge the output cap passes thro' the resistive load twice
somewhere along the charge transfer path between the input & output caps, the switching process captures energy temporarily in the state of being 'borrowed' from the VM, and prevents it from being returned, so it gets added to the charge being stored in the output cap
(i see two possible interactions with the VM where this imbalance might be occurring)
i think that covers its operation
let me know if & when you're ready to go ahead with a replication and i'll send you some more details (eg inductor winding example, basic test steps, etc)
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Ya, Archer and I have bumped heads to say the least. Im done with all that and its now time to consider a real FE device...
Ive done extensive Tesla research, mostly relating to his wireless transfer of electricity and the device in the Pierce-Arrow, and all his work leading up to those previously mentioned. One thing I have noticed in many, many of his devices is the use of resonance frequency.
For this reason, I wouldnt be so quick to dismiss the "1 kHz" as insignificant to the operation. Tesla was very keen on the power of resonance (google "tesla earthquake machine"). When you read the reports relating to the device in the car, you see that he took a moment to make some "adjustments" to that machine.
In my opinion, he was tuning it to the resonance frequency of the aether.
I could be wrong, but I defiantly think its something to consider.
Id love to see some schematics. I can read a diagram (for the most part), but would you mind clearly labeling the individual components. Start me off small so I can chip away at its function one piece at a time.
-PurePower
PS I have a pretty good idea on how to duplicate the device in the PA. There are a few functions/components I am missing, and this should fill in the gaps. I dont want to be another AQ and make promises prematurely, but this sounds promising...
PPS Ever look into Morray? He's another individual I have put extensive research into. Ive pretty much figured out his device, the key is in his "pellets." They were slightly radio-active and ionized the air in his partially-evacuated vacuum tubes. The freed ions were then "siphoned" into the circuit by the rest of the device for use.
@Sandy
Maybe, just maybe it can be explained with the new electromanetics models posted earlier in this thread.
It could mean a huge step forward.
I'm still reading them, but I have never learned CED so it is pretty tough. Someone who understands it should give it a go. 8)
hi guys
@purepower
yes, i understand what you're saying about resonance - and i need to do further tests to see where i am currently on the 'bandwidth' of my circuit's operation
i have varied the switch rate within approx *2 & /2 and there didn't appear to be any significant difference in the end-voltage achieved for 1V input discharge
however, i do take your point (and as mentioned by others, eg allcanadian) that resonance is definitely a factor to investigate - it's possible i could be operating way out on the edge of the bandwidth 'skirt' where small (relative to bandwidth) frequency changes might appear to have little effect
this variation of test parameters will have to wait a while, though, as i have other tests planned (and these may open the way to varying more test parameters in general, including frequency)
when i noted Aspden's comments about the possible linking of anomalous capacitor activity and Tesla's car, i'd only seen a few of the reports - since then, i've seen a report by a relation who claimed to have been present - i don't know how reliable it is but it didn't seem to have much indication about capacitor involvement as i recall,
so i may backtrack a bit on the way i comment in my website on possible alignment between my circuit conditions/results and Aspden's comments about Tesla's car
i believe Aspden's general comments about possible anomalies in cap charge still apply though
the full schematic & parts for the circuit are given in replies #25 & #26 on page 1 of this thread - let me know if & when you want to try a replication and i'll send you example winding details for a suitable inductor and some notes on test steps
yes, i have looked into Moray - only recently found a lot more detail though
i have a few concerns about some aspects of his claims: he appeared to be claiming compatibility of his output with regular household mains - at the same time as claiming that his circuits responded to very high input frequencies
however, when i looked at circuits claiming to relate to his 'free energy' system i saw possible transformation of voltage levels - but no indication of frequency translation
also, he made one particular claim that he had developed a special motor arrangement which would work with his energy 'receiver'- this says to me that the output of his 'receiver' was NOT compatible with household mains
and so now i wonder if all the loads he used (eg lamps, irons, etc) were being operated at high frequency, possibly also high voltage, low current (there seemed to be some question from one of his witnesses as to how his matrix of load lamps were wired: eg. 'was it series, parallel, or series-parallel?')
i'm not saying the other aspects of his systems weren't valid - as you say, radio-active initiated ionisation seems to be a strong contender - very interesting guy, multi-skilled!
@alan
yes, the new electromagnetics looks very interesting doesn't it? i'm working my way through the extensive list of PDFs
unfortunately, MinEth3r's special bottles of night-medication are running out and my synapses are starting to disconnect from the meaning again ;)
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Let's try it once again:
If there's a magnet biaising the ferrite, maybe another type of biaising is in action,
much like the magnet being near the coil, thus imparting more energy?! Didn't read
the whole thread, and I ask it, maybe it's because its really worth mentioning at this point.
Halbach Arrays and biaising
====================
One can cook ceramics than can be magnetized in only one direction, lots of mecanisms possible, but if one does magnetize a Halbach magnet array made of those, by using a motor stator with poles as the fluxapplication mecanism, one can cook very fast ou devices.
Patents are around and readly available, deemed not too dangerous. One can build delivery robots going at 400 km/h on asphalt in between normal traffic with a 4000fps+ AI on board on top of magnetic bearings, using maybe an impulse drive to steer the thing?
Hodowanec has written about bringing a mass near a charged capacitor to create a spike, one should read about the things, as in Distinti's sayings : Inertia is mass and is electromagnetic, think here about glafreniere's model of the electron, a stationary 3d spherical standing wave in a 4D positive definite reality. One can use Conformal embeddings with vectors squaring to zero, special points/vectors at infinity and beyond to algebraically encode space and its inner, separate geometrical quentities - <= no better word, really, a new one while we're at it :O) - into coordinate-less transformation of information: you can kick tensors in the nuts and never look back.
Let's cite the most recent paper on euclideanrelativity, on what actually happens, supposedly:
This momentum is orthogonal to the 4-momentum vector of particles in rest. When the particle begins accelerating, its momentum vector rotates towards space so that the momentum vector that is added by the electromagnetic field is no longer orthogonal. This decreases the efficiency of the particle's acceleration. After all, the total magnitude of the particle's 4-momentum vector remains $ m_0 c$ at all times, so vectorially adding momentum can only be accomplished if the resulting momentum vector again has magnitude $ m_0 c$ .
Pfffff.... :O) I'll come back later with more tied up stuff for sure, hey its only my level but who cares :O) I'll try to find stuff on what we're looking at, if any avail. Rectification of Heat with small diodes, No NOOO, just, hmmm what else could do the trick to show how a sham this whole energy thing is. From every side; I hope people are reading this, total switch in values, in one own's global intepretal anisotopy, one's mind eye. Mau He heard in the distance, from all those distant, rising friends. (big japanese pun, if any)
***
In this day and age, we need more digital citizen warfare. http://ultratechnology.com , to get the spirit right on a part of the mecanics of these things :O) If you play with resonance, then let's try a bifilar coil instead, UsualVperTurn = V/n becomes = to V/2 instead, so you get distributed capacitance, and thus get with special(ly coated) wire very subtle impedance matching fun going on (resistance of void/air, around 377ohms anyone? http://www.classictesla.com/download/emfields.pdf for details, notice the BS thrown there and there, in light of Distinti's work), if you want of course. Thanks for your time everyone, I'm delighted at the response, lets try to keep this going towards something :O)
"-." = .
Reality P0rn, its what science is all about. At least in the first fun stages of reading a maximum number of papers to get a grip on how things are done in this world :O) after that one has to be responsible, due dilligence of the rightous -? someone, somewhere?.
For your viewing (and groking) pleasure:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Aquino_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
Pease post more links you find relevant! ;D
Important to note is that Distinti proves longitudinal waves by experiment. If he really got it right, then who are too?
He perhaps: http://home.wanadoo.nl/raccoon/
Found this: http://www.scribd.com/word/full/4445?access_key=4vugu5b3zvfo8
@alan,
great stuff, here's at first sight what I know about that might interest you.
The best *full, complete, selfsufficient* EM theories are from Andre Gsponer and Sameed Ahmed Kahn on Arxiv:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Khan_S/0/1/0/all/0/1 , Full matrix theory of wavelength-dependant optics
http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+gsponer/0/1/0/all/0/1 , some of Best math around using Generalised Functions! Derives lots of elementary results and correct them. They probably have holes.... one need to look carefully.
Notice in Gsponer and al. 's work, inspired straight from Cornelius Lanczos, the need to take the the third time derivative into account. One needs to alter acceleration with an in-system entity, and then meta-magically manipulate its formula for stuff to happen, not play with the acceleration equation directly. Here's why retardation and stress not linear to strain can bring in the mix:
http://www.rexresearch.com/dean/davis4.htm
taken from the file on the Dean Drive @ rexresearch, material up on Halexandria too. Jaume Gin?'s efforts on the matter of retardation
are to me the most Distinti-esque of what's available on the subject, his Mercury's perihelion precession paper is the best one overall IMHO.
Those would be the most relevant to me, thanks for the quaternionic EM reference by Saint Alban, didn't have it in my archives, snatched the pdf version, will probably read it by the end of today.
As for geometric algebra, and even higher, yet nicer and simpler math, read Douglas Lundholm on Arxiv.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Lundholm_D/0/1/0/all/0/1
His writtings will help you navigate through Geometric Algebra most powerful ideas more simply and explore some pretty advanced physics head on with a fresh approach, at least in my neophyte amateur point of view.
Guay, Alexandre (2008) A Partial Elucidation of the Gauge Principle on PhilSci is worth the read for those in need of answers about this particular subject, pretty clearly states that classical EM with U1 symmetry is wrongly so, and lots of other interesting stuff. His other articles are great too. Very proud he's working in Quebec :O)
* * *
Thanks have a great day and a great read too while you're at it c:O)
hi alan
by now, you're probably wondering "what are the practical implications of all this?"
...and the answer is...
if you need to catch a train in an unfamiliar town....
...don't ask a mathematician or a physicist for directions to the station! ;)
have a good day all
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
::)
Half read through the Alban manual, as a complementary read look at
http://www.math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html and check paper 73, 72 and 67 among others :O)
Pythagorean triples are one of my research area, superb articles on them on Arxiv, in the Advances in Applied Clifford Algebra academic journal too, it points to an indexable parametrization of quadratic space, of the circle/plane. But *that* would be the kind of thing that would lead us astray for now, much needed when tackling the CAD/Simulation part of things, IMHO once again.
I'll try to tidy things up (can't always rely on others to do this for me, eh ;p) and put in online in English format in a concise page/pdf maybe. The Ivor Catt way of thinking about a capacitor might be of interest, if not already mentionned. Can't find the link to the step-charging picture of his mecanism of ping-pong energy shuffle between plates of a capacitor, anyway, might just be so wrong :P.
Good luck with the experimenting, I'm over and out for a short while, t'il I get something really useful for you guys groked out. Cheers!
Information overload ;D many thanks
Couldn't resist...
With stuff like this:
http://ltamer.sf.net , found at lamdba-the-ultimate.org
... my job as an amateur Physicist/Mathematician/ActivityPlanner - hahaha, how could someone read through me so heavenly :-X - would be a lot easier! I'm pretty excited right now :o
Let's take an example first hand: in the trade previously mentionned one must put all his or her acquired mathematical/mechanical machinery towards groking work from the likes of Florentin Smarandache at Al., that seem to only take slighlty tortuous roads and don't name 'em in the right lexical field :P One has to be sure it's genuine math, so to speak? It probably is, most certainly though: it's was our own previous mathematical judgement as fellow competent technicians on Earth that has taken a decisive blow in its legs. So many years astray...
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2847
Also recently their Super-Mathematics of Exctentered stuff is quite appealing, I only get like 15 % of what they're saying. Recently it has been proven that a plane perpendicular and slighlty perpendicular to the revolving axe cutting a torus (the Cross product part of the sphere in 3D, as a shabby example, think dividing by fractions, near the center/zero )is always a quartic. A Lot of math in Rational Trigonometry is Quartic.
Can't you see the bias, that everything around you is terribly wrong? Take this one here, most fascinating work, along with other great NT paper down that ArXiv pitt...
Number Theory: Square Root Spiral
==========================
http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Hahn_H/0/1/0/all/0/1
When one *knows beforehand* about NJWildberger's ?NonUni/Bi/?Linear? Math, in fact being truly *basic math anyone could have uncovered, always there for the taking, the understanding by each and every school children, that's the size of the shared shame I'm talking about sometimes*, one knows it's simply the most simple spiral possible, and it does take full sense when one does work quadratically. Wonderful exercice, PI squared pops in. Prime numbers are wondefully investigated. Each one is a color, one could say, a scalar color.
Now, after a while...
after even just glancing at the pictures and material, pythagorean triples will take their meaning head-on. Color in Physics most of the time means three elements in a ring, not bits but trits, fields of three elements; as Wildberger noted, base/modulo 2 is degenerate, 1=-1 modulo 2 ! It is sub-classification, degenerate in some pointy aspects, since a lot's still working and even with shortcuts, very efficiently, still pointy to me after all this time, yet the fun continues... thinking about Nico Benschop's crucial work on the matter, his multiplier patent... lots of great people out there, let me tell you 8) ;) Here's the Abstract of one of his Arxiv paper, to give you a taste... of the tiem we're wasting every second we don't know this kind of stuff! :PPP:
A new Binary Number Code and a Multiplier, based on 3 as semi-primitive root of 1 mod 2^k
Authors: N.F. Benschop
(Submitted on 3 May 2001)
Abstract: The powers of 3 generate half of the odd residues mod 2^k (k>2), and a sign change yields the other half. In other words: 3 is a semi-primitive root of 1 mod 2^k (k>2). Hence each k-bit residue is n = +/- 3^i.2^j mod 2^k, with unique non-neg exponent pair: i<2^{k-2} and j<k. -- A new "dual base logarithmic" binary number code (bases 2 and 3) employs this property. This (binary) log-code [s,i,j] - where s is the corresponding sign, simplifies binary multiplication by translating it to addition of the exponents of 2 and 3, and XOR of the signs involved. -- Patent US-5923888 (13jul99)
Hi everyone,
I'm way too taken over by the mathematical opportunities out there, let me summarize where a quick glance at the recent columns ArXiV took me, truly on the topic we started to explore, really!, maybe a thread change, but we can steer it back whenever we have the correct theory of inertia/energy ;O) it's dead anyway, isn't, genuinely wondering here:
Regarding Maxwell equations, and evaluating Distinti's and other's work, along with what follows, one of the single best modern treatments around:
Ulrich Gerlach's Linear Mathematics in IUnfinite Dimensions
Partial Differential Equations,
System of Partial Differential Equations: How to Solve Maxwell's Equations Using Linear Algebra
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~gerlach/math/BVtypset/BVtypset.html
One can then criticize current em/physical theories on solid ground, with a couple such good standpoints in the backpack as Cliffordian biquaternions (read: 8x8 matrices) as used by Lanczos and later Gsponer, or 8x8 matrices as by Sammeed Ahmed Khan and al. (using Foldy-Whothuysen iterative diagonalization technique, such as pushed as "Quantum Harmonic Oscillator: the Third Way" by Marsiglio from UEdmonton!). Pretty interesting already, this old stuff... (yeah old, as in: should be already known everywhere!)
BUT!,
nowadays one has under the belt papers such as those, on the mathematical side:
0803_3782v2 - SCHWARTZ, Charles - Analytic Functions of a Quaternionic Variable
0804_2869v1 - SCHWARTZ, Charles - Analytic Functions of a General Matrix Variable
0806_3411v1 - HANS, Jochen - N-th Root
0805_0311v1 - GALLIER, Jean - Clifford Algebras, Clifford Groups and a Generalization of the Quaternions,, The Pin and Spin Groups
(already in the delightful Clifford Algebra Master Thesis previously mentionned!)
0407032v1 - SUZUKI, Alfredo Takashi - Evaluating residues and integrals through Negative Dimensional Integration Method (NDIM)
and on the Physics side
0805_3859v1 - SOBCZYK, YARMAN - Principle of Local Conservation of Energy-Momentum
(marvelous paper, right on topic!!! :D)
euclideanrelativity.com's papers
www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/xh9theor.htm
(The constant speed EM/everything Ivor Catt theory!)
* * *
I think we (highly fuzzy we) can build together a good enough EM theory relating current and light, induced/Eddy-/Foucault's currents while encompassing shape contraction and a mechanical explanation of kinetic energy, a correct accounting of mass changes... if we manage to unite a lot of disparate papers and work, perhaps it would be so great we would have to feedback every one the referenced authors, to show where their work fits in a coherent picture, and spark something powerful.
Would start with something one can explain to kids any age and work from there! The No-Bullshit Linear Algebra course by G. Sobczyk
The endeavour isn't entirely off-topic, it's in fact the utmost continuation of an effort to understand what's going on in there; some of our current scientific achievements are leaving the real world far behind, with us in it. We can do better, don't you think?! :O)
Still handing some time here and there to the Mission 8) ,
MnEt3hr
Still wondering about the Doc Ringwood montage's ferrite bias, about the small but powerful magnet and it's stationed position, too close to the coilmaybe.. just asking again, didn't get the answer yet, or any picture of the working circuit, layout wise sometimes one get screwed, although especially notifiable when working in low-power megacycleperseconds range with a o'scope power supply nearby, which isnt the case here! :O) If one is to measure energy propagation one has to know approximate dimensions and relative placement. Perhaps I could give a hand too, but I lack supplies, money and space in my cramped apartment, sorry :O)
absolutely
'still rivers run deep'
...i think you may have missed the boat, Min, the practical stuff has moved on to the PM phase now
Lol,
Put this into Stifflers thread and it was edited out.
(i should have known better )
So lets try here. DC-DC switch.
????.
Might be similar to what everyone is doing here?
just PSpice sim though,
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/message/31597
Cliff,
hi Cliff
i've seriously thought about starting a thread just for people who've had their posts 'Stifled' - so everyone can still get to read them - i think it would actually make for a more interesting read
anyway, thanks for the post - IIRC Dr Spark was able to get Spice (or similar) to sim OU behaviour with his version of the 'Tesla switch' - the 'circuit' would start up & increase output until limited by regulating 'components'
i followed your link and read the posts but didn't try the torrent link - i'll have to leave the Spice evaluation to someone with that App
would be interesting to compare the Spice circuit behaviour with a real build and see if/where the two diverge
all the best with the experiments
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
The drspark simulations showed OU, because a setting was incorrect. He said so in his thread.
>i've seriously thought about starting a thread just for people who've had their posts 'Stifled'
That?s ok, lol :D
Thought it was ?similar? I guess I should be following that thread closer.
I guess I don?t ?get it? on that one, which is ok.
>anyway, thanks for the post - IIRC Dr Spark was able to get Spice (or similar) to sim
>OU behaviour with his version of the 'Tesla switch' - the 'circuit' would start up &
>increase output until limited by regulating 'components'
yes, I?ve seem some spice circuit posts which defied reality before.
(which turned out to be artifacts)
I don?t have spice either, so I?m not clear on this schematic
Other than DC-DC.
And, it?s probably a software error, but you never know.
Thought someone would like to look it over.
>would be interesting to compare the Spice circuit behavior with a real build and see
>if/where the two diverge.
Ya, really. If someone has the time, space and spice :)
>all the best with the experiments
thanks,
Cliff,
Experiments in electrostatics, as slow as molasses in winter.
Hi guys (and especially Sandy alias Dr R. the Bass Hero).
I had gave up reading this thread since June 03. One Month. Good gracious! ;D
Why? Just a matter of not spreading myself too thin....
IMHO, this overunity dot com forum is getting crazy.
My one farad caps are dozing in some plastic box. :'(
As I can quickly figure out there are very interesting posts that I have missed.
About "Capacitor Anomaly":
Huge capacitors (5-10.000 uf) shorted with an 1Megohm resistor show
a real and variable voltage. I made these measurements a 'couple' of years ago.
According to Gregory Hodowanec this is a very simple gravity wave detector.
A more elaborated one would need some op-amps.
Just google Greg(ory) Hodowanec, gravity, capacitor, should you be interested in...
Best
@All
Came across this article titled
Mysterious Self Charging by Peter Lay in the Jul-Aug issue of Elector mag.
Quote
Here we take a light-hearted, exploring yet purposely unscientific look at one of the
fundamental effects of physics, namely contact voltage. When two dissimilar
materials come into contact an exchange of (negatively charged) electrons occurs
so that the donor material losing electrons takes on a net positive charge while the
material receiving electrons takes on a negative charge, the overall effect giving rise to
a contact potential. This effect occurs to a greater of lesser extent in all materials, the
most common examples are the production of static electricity produced by rubbing
two different materials together and also the thermo-voltaic effect. So much for
the theory, now to practice...
To take what at first sight may seem like a mistaken example of this phenomenon
we will need a discharged capacitor and a DVM (digital voltmeter) with a high input
impedance. Connect the capacitor terminals to the DVM and short together the
capacitor terminals using a length of wire and two crocodile clips. If all is in order the
DVM display will read 0 (zero) volts. Now remove the short circuit and closely watch
the DVM display as the voltage, microvolt by microvolt slowly rises. The capacitor is
gaining charge from somewhere…
This effect is the result of the contact voltage (see diagram). In the capacitor there
are two boundaries: (1) the metal electrode and the dielectric and (2) the dielectric and
second electrode. At both boundaries free electrons pass from one material to the
other. The two contact voltage sources are connected back to back in series which
should cancel out the contact potential. So much for theory, in practice the boundary
structure is not entirely homogeneous so that tiny potential differences are present.
This produces the small potential difference that we can measure at the terminals.
Aluminium electrolytic capacitors are a little more complex; one terminal is connected
to aluminium foil which has an insulating oxide layer; next comes a layer of liquid
electrolyte and finally another aluminium foil connected to the other terminal.
This structure gives rise to three potential boundaries. In addition, when the capacitor
is charged, free electrons from the terminal electrode store energy by producing electrochemical
reactions within the electrolyte (a process known as dielectric absorption
or ‘soakage’). These effects are more pronounced in electrolytics compared to
other types of capacitor.
Experimental results indicate that the measured voltage is higher with larger
value capacitors. It has also been shown that the voltage exhibits a temperature
coefficient; the higher the temperature, the greater the measured voltage.
To explore this characteristic further, a capacitor was carefully heated in a controlled
manner. It is important not to use a naked flame or microwave oven; not just
to prevent the possible melting or combustion of the external plastic casing, but
more importantly to guard against the possible production and release of poisonous
fumes. Once an electrolytic capacitor has been heated up in this way it will
be irreversibly damaged so that it will no longer be suitable for use in a circuit. Having
said that, sometimes it’s necessary to sacrifice a few capacitors for the sake of
experimentation.
Measurement with a DVM (Ri = 1 Mohm) of a radially leaded electrolytic capacitor with a
rated capacitance of 100 uF gave a terminal voltage of 5 mV at 20 ?C. At a temperature
of 120 ?C the potential had risen to 230 mV and the short circuit current was 0.5uA.
More precise measurements of the capacitor indicated that the voltage source had a
source impedance of 852 kohm and a source voltage of 426 mV. As a first approximation
we can say that the correspondence between the terminal voltage and temperature
is approximately linear. Using the measurements from the example above we
therefore get a temperature coefficient of 2.25 mV/K.
Tests with other capacitors have produced a no-load terminal voltage of over 0.9 V.
Several capacitors could be connected in series, not as a potential power source but
as a sensor.
Two final notes:
1. The term ‘no-load voltage’ ignores the 1 Mohm input impedance of the voltmeter,
which in series with the 852 kohm source impedance loads the measured potential.
2. All of the measurements were made using discharged capacitors with no external
voltage source.
tak
@ND (NrgDrummer)
yes, GH is a seriously cool dude - he can switch between regular electronic circuit design and communicating with life-forms on Mars using his Gravitational Anomaly sensor - i've enjoyed reading through his development & assessment of the MRA & Gravity detectors
i suspect that one day i will morph into him!
@tak22
thanks for the share of the Elektor article - an interesting take on a 'well-known effect'
if the results given in this article are correct then it certainly looks like there is a temperature-dependent voltage-generation function which can exist in some capacitors
however, there are some aspects of the article which don't seem to be consistent with some of the evidence:
1) there seems to be some confusion in the article between thermovoltaic behaviour at the boundary between two metals and electrostatic behaviour at the boundary between an insulator (dielectric) and a conductor - or another insulator
2) the measured impedance of the proposed 'voltage source' in the article is given as nearly 1 megohm - it can only produce pico- or microWatts of power
i've found some text-book info which seems relevant:
Below a certain temperature it is found that some materials spontaneously acquire an electric dipole moment....
The transition to the ferroelectric state is a cooperative phenomenon which is accompanied by specific heat anomaly and it appears that at the transition temperature the crystal lattice spontaneously distorts to a more complicated structure which possesses a permanent electric dipole moment.
There are three main types of crystal structure which exhibit ferroelectricity:
1) Rochelle salt structure...
2) the perovskite group...mainly titanates & niobates..of which Barium Titanate ...has been the most extensively studied...and
3) the dihydrogen phosphates...
In ferroelectric materials the electric flux density D is not determined uniquely by the applied field but depends upon the previous history of the material
the charge of a condenser is increased the same number of times when a ferroelectric is used instead of air
if the Elektor article is correct then the usual capacitor model needs to be revised to add a parallel branch across the terminals which act as a temperature-dependent voltage source with its own high-impedance 'equivalent series resistor'
if, however, this is an effect which is polarising the lattice-structure of the dielectric itself, then it is truly causing energy to be stored within the capacitor as effectively as if it had been applied externally - a kind of 'variable-electret'
additional load measurements will show which of these effects are most likely to be occurring in this switched-cap experiment
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
@nul-points
Quotehowever, there are some aspects of the article which don't seem to be consistent with some of the evidence:
1) there seems to be some confusion in the article between thermovoltaic behaviour at the boundary between two metals and electrostatic behaviour at the boundary between an insulator (dielectric) and a conductor - or another insulator
I think one thing that should be considered is the fact that heat is not "something" it is a condition placed upon "something". In this case thermovoltaic behaviour can be considered as electrostatic in nature thus is an electrostatic behaviour as most everything is on the fundamental level. The question I would ask is why does an increase in energy(heat) produce a larger voltage across the conductors of a capacitor when the capacitor is considered neutral or discharged. I think the answer should be obvious---- the capacitor has two conductors seperated by a space or dielectric thus any energy at a wavelength corresponding to the capacitor conductor spacing will induce a potential difference in the conductors and excitation through heating would amplify this process. But this would mean one would have to believe that all space contains energy as a full spektrum of wavelengths and that this energy could be manifested in a circuit through some process ;)
Hello Everybody,
Quote from: allcanadian on July 04, 2008, 10:22:42 AM
.....................;
But this would mean one would have to believe that all space contains energy as a
full spektrum of wavelengths and that this energy could be manifested in a circuit
through some process ;)
Yes, but Space is Empty ore more precisely "Full of Void". Is it not ?
Or I'm I missing something ??? ;D ;D
----------------------------------------
I have an old DOS laptop computer with an RS232 interface. I also have a digital
multi meter with this same RS232 interface.
In my "things to be done before I die list" I'm planing to wire this 2 apparatus
and to record, saying every minute, the voltage of one huge (shorted with an 1 Meg resistor)
cap into the computer.
During eclipses we should see interesting voltage variations not depending upon the
temperature. Yes, eclipses are not so frequent. The next one (Total Solar) is
forecasted for 1 August 2008.
For the moment, this very digital multi meter is dozing (and depleting his bat.) in
some cupboard not far from some one farad caps.
I'm just wondering wether I should not consult any Doctor for "immoderate
casualness/nonchalance"? Perhaps, Doctor Ringwood is the very one (would he had
not yet perpetrated any morphing)?
Do you home consult, Dr Ringwood? Brittany is not so far from west of England.
Best
@NerzhDishual
QuoteYes, but Space is Empty ore more precisely "Full of Void". Is it not ?
Or I'm I missing something
Lets consider the space in our solar system :) Our sun radiates light, alpha,beta,gamma radiation it radiates microwaves and ultraviolet light as well as infrared and everything inbetween and probably walengths we have yet to measure. Some of these radiations pass right through our planet while some are absorbed, some are absorbed and re-radiated at different frequencies. This is only "our" sun, the fact that you can see a night sky full of stars(other suns) should tell you each one of them is filling all the space inbetween you and it with an infinite range of wavelengths of radiations, as the energy is radiated away from a point in space. So what we consider "empty" space can be no such thing----it is full of energy(radiations) as energy is conserved ie..it cannot be created or destroyed. As well if this energy is moving from place to place then it is kinetic in nature, and the fact that you cannot see this energy does not mean it is not there, it can be measured. I think the most confusion revolves around Matter and energy, matter has energy intrinsic in its components but so must space as it carries energy from place to place otherwise you would never "see" our sun nor the stars, our planet would be cold and dark. As well to imply space is "full of void or nothing" is to say it has no energy, if this is the case then space would be a energy sink of infinite proportions. Motion is based on a potential difference so basically "empty" space would tear all matter apart at the speed of light if this were the case. Thankfully our universe is about balance, energy moves and is moved always seeking balance, all space whether matter is present or not contains energy seeking balance.
Recent Inductor Current and Capacitor Charge Measurement Patents
==================================================
Both of them "Posted" 2008-07-01
1 Device for non-dissipative measurement of the current in an inductor US7394264
2 Total charge measurement US7394230
Very interesting read IMHO, and *to the point regarding the current thread* :)
Which from my comprehension is
Dieletric Kickback / Inertia / Leftover Polarization using positive-definite square pulses
Interesting article from Elektor on the cap issue, but there should be at least an order of magnitude calculation with/or references cited... now we ought to search for them ourselves to close the debate, *sigh* :O)
About the Gregory Hodowanec stuff, the mass approached rapidly from a charged capacitor causing a pulse seems like a wonderful effect, predicted/outlined by Distinti when he discusses Potential force per charge. Once again, simple order of magnitude calculations should be attempted before going even a step in this direction. Chemical reactions can be affected by the moon and eclipses, capilarity and/or precipitation reactions affected IIRC.
@allcanadian
Look into plasmas in-between stars (have you ever seen those beams at night?! optical illusion? one has to look carefully) and the Electrical Universe theory, now think about how the longitudinal part (missing even in Andre Gsponer's recently revisited work on generalized functions applied to the classical electron formalism! after all he's after known good results...) of magnetism plays it's role when this electrified gas is shaken by Constantinesco/Tesla/Avramenko-like sonic pulses. The supermathematics circular ex-centric functions from Romania - it's Constantinescu in fact, see page 7 of http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.4023 - are still bugging me, can't make head or tail of them... anyway!
@alan
Thanks for the notification about drspark's rectification :'( Would have been too easy, it's a given... Charge pump researchers/designers would have stumbled upon it! Or maybe they have :O)
***
Main ideas in the patents up there are worth a look; Truly, dielectric kickback should now be easily verifiable/measurable with those cutting-edge ;) circuit ideas ! As of me, still on the theoretical megalomaniac side of things, will try to keep my half-edited posts on the subject out of the thread :O)
Best wishes, Min
@MinEth3r,
Thanks for your posts and your patents mentions.
For my part I'm not a scientist. Most of your stuff are far over my (small) mind... :P
Anyway, after some experiments, I just can said that capacitors seem not to behave
the way I was taught.. ???
------------------------------------------
@Allcanadian,
I was kidding about the space "full of void"...
The "Just Kidding" smiley is still to be invented.
Perhaps some drawer could design it.
BTW: the "No Kidding" smiley could also be imagined.
You are one of my favorite OU member.
I mean: one of the more informative, wise and clear person.
<No Kidding Smiley>
Of course, I do agree with you about space and NRG conservation.
"Over Unity" does not mean "Efficiency Greater Than One"...
We cannot create energy but we can tap this kinetic stream.
You know what?
I'm convinced that your 'OU' knowledge is far more extended that what you say in your post.
<No Kidding Smiley>
Best
@NerzhDishual
QuoteI was kidding about the space "full of void"...
The "Just Kidding" smiley is still to be invented.
Perhaps some drawer could design it.
BTW: the "No Kidding" smiley could also be imagined.
LOL, now I feel like the pompous ass I think I come across as in my posts :P Honestly I think Im a little slow in the head, this free energy stuff does not come easy in any way, shape or form. Many times I think it would be so much easier to just do my job and take it easy and then I come here and see people struggling with something I struggled with a few years ago and understand we have to help each other, its not about any kind of success really-- it's that the effort was made to help another person when others may not have. For me this is success :)
Hi AllCanadian,
LOL.
Slow in the head? Just the contrary, IMHO.
I perceive you as a serious, knowledgeable and helping fellow.
Do your job, avoid thinking and questioning, buy a new car, cheat you wife,
take the right pill, get back into the Matrix etc.. Are ephemeral 'intellections'
we all can have. But is is just no more possible. Is it not?
You were talking about struggles. Did you achieve anything?
Very best
as always, guys, it's great having you all on the case
when i die, and go to the great pub in the sky, i hope that someday i'll meet you at the bar and be able to buy you all a drink! maybe not the size of glasses that Nerzh uses, however ;) (nearest 'just kidding' smiley)
@allcanadian
how can someone have so much insight? inspired discussion on induced energy capture from the vacuum medium by the dielectric geometry of the caps - and what a discourse on energy distribution in the universe - pure poetry!
@Mr Dishual
i really hope you get to try the 'gravity sensor' - would you have some means of logging the data to your PC for a day or so, either side of the eclipse?
loved the smiley suggestions - please forward copies to me when someone creates them for you!!
@Min
that was more digestible!
a) the magnet-biasing of the inductance does not appear to be necessary to produce the energy anomaly
b) at the moment, dielectric kickback is a just an observed side-phenomenon occurring after the experiment has run
c) the experiment centres around the charge gain anomaly which occurs with the switched transfer of charge from an input to an output capacitor load - and, as an extension to that, the energy gain anomaly which accompanies the charge imbalance
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Hit a coil with BEMF. Tune your load to resonance.
Status Update
===========
Hi everyone, late here, thought I should nevertheless drop a line, been a while and lots happened!
Immediate Relenvency, even to previous post
================================
[..; Short Extract From a recent ArXiv Paper by a Doubochinski, 808.1205 ]
The argumental pendulum and the argumental analog of Planck?s elementary oscillator are
only special cases of a much more general type of coupling of mechanical and
electromagnetic oscillations. In the same period as the initial investigations of the
Macroscopic Quantum Effect, the Doubochinskis and their collaborators discovered a second
fundamental phenomenon connected with this more general form of interaction: the tendency
of electrical oscillators, coupled by more than one form of electrodynamic coupling and
allowed to move freely in space under the influence of ponderomotive forces between them, to
spontaneously assemble themselves into stable configurations [19-24]. The significance of
this discovery can be seen from the following remarks:
The intimate interrelationship of ponderomotive and electromotive forces has been recognized
for nearly two centuries and lies at the heart of electrodynamics. But as far as the authors have
been able to ascertain, the implications of that ponderomotive/electromotive dualism for the
interaction and coupling between oscillatory systems, have never been explored in a
systematic and comprehensive manner.
It is well known that inductive, capacitative and resistive couplings between the components
of electrical oscillating circuits give rise to mechanical forces between them, and hence also to
various sorts of mechanical vibrations. In this way electrical and mechanical oscillations
never exist in isolation, but are always present simultaneously. It had not been realized,
however, that the interplay of these two types of oscillations leads to self-organizing behavior
in oscillating systems.
=================
As you can see, this is the basic physical fact that has been missing in my research thus far IMHO.
One has to keep in mind unquantum.com, in fact the whole body of knowledge should be cross-related.
Ab initio ether lab anyone? Longitudinal term in magnetism anyone? Is Distinti's material relevant here?
NIA1 and subsequent fit reallly well. A more solid theoretical background (*Full* complex numbers, aka
quaternions, with units having length 1/2, kinda a parity bit, a beyond bit 0, a bit -1... mandatory, talking
about rotations, they are even positive number of reflections in odd d), anyway. I'm on it, the mathematical beefing up.
On ArXiv's and others' pace, but growing steadly stronger by the minute.
The parity can go nside the glyph systems, let say write in base 16 with 0 1234567 8/H GFEDCBA, readable as
1234567
0 8/H
ABCDEFG
So A=-1 in any base, in fact base 16 is determined by H=8. In this simple scheme every letter is signed, has its MSB = to 1. With good stuff out there, Spectral Linear Algebra (G. Sobczyk and its no-nonsense linear algebra course!) in *-algebras (big 200+ pages manual landed on the ArXiv recently, extension and generalisation and forward-putting of results explicilty linking "geometric algebra"-esque power with hilbert spaces strucure requirement elsewhere (hard to phrase for me non mathematician sorry)
From there, general theory of tensors (invariants between coordinate change) of general order, 3, 4, 5 and up! New algorithms to change base and do a lot of math on truncated power series that where not that efficient before, on arxiv again. Really easy to all work with, now If i can tie in a Pythagorean Triple parametrization of the circle (of the sphere, solid pythagorean triple, ?la 3(3)+4(4)+5(5)=6(6) maybe, the product of the four radii squared of the 4 circles of a triangle/anysetofthreedifferentpoints yielding the square of the area of the triangle aka Archimedes formula aka Heron's formula), of the geometric product... Struggling to take into account the flatten geometric square root spiral as they call it, the 4th euclidean dimension, how to manifest all those in a plane, map them out and their possible intractions...
Carl Brannen is moving big, steady progress and work done great stuff at carlbrannen.wordpress.com You might be delighted by his August, 12 post.
***
Thinking about the Gun engine (80-90% efficient), and also momentarily about the back-to-back Fogal Transistor/Semiconductor junction, ?la McKie PodMod; anything to not waste that longitudinal energy. Compressible or incompressible ether? great case made by Carl on his WP blog about ethereal elasticity with four euclidean dimensions...
Argumental theory coupling, have still to double check against Eric's Trigometric Identity if they're both amenable to the same point. Shuffling of mass/inertia energy, trying to tie in DeAquino's antigrav theory, explained in another way, a 10um distance between source and target of a ryddberg blockade experiment speaks a lot, atoms can interact over large distance, and best of all our current theory account for everything, supposedly. Yet the magnetic Soviet Kicker speaks volume for the effort I'm undertaking. Symplectic constraints view Quantum Theory is another paper linking it all with work from Carl to unitary motion with boundary conditions in special spaces of eigenenergies, others too are marvelous, so much information out nowadays, hard to follow let me tell you :O)
Intend to keep you informed on anything relating to this, hahaha maybe plans for cheap wireless power modules for the house and garage :O) Maybe with something like this http://rexresearch.com/seike/seike.htm or the Two-Stage Milkovic Mechanical Oscillator, both obeying maybe to the very same physics (oscillatory systems, longitudinal term exposed in the JLN data plot regarding the seike inverter clock?! nah... must be something else.) Induction must play a role, since very near the source it (measurements) doesn't agree well with Maxwell, as per the original NI paper by Distinti.
Pretty excited and fried over by the overcoming novelty this world faces, aside from its immediate challenges,
AdM
Welcome back Min
...did you forget 'sonoluminescence' (/cavitation, perhaps?) in your list above? ;)
all the best sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Hehehe good call,
cavitation is mentionned in every good book on hydraulics e.g. in the DoE nuclear power plant maintenance manuals for diesel engines, heat exchangers, hydraulic pumps, etc. Didn't think about it, but it is an argumentally-coupled oscillator system, at least I think.
There's a beacon effect around 3 Cycles/second IIRC inside a ultrasonically driven water sonoluminescence bubble.
There's also the sonoluminescence of MegaCpS waves used to clean and even etch silicon wafers, lots of small light flashes, great pictures available somewhere... can't recall sorry.
Yep, pretty good call, sonoluminescence.
The stable configuration (lattice? some of the usual trigonometry ought to be recast in this setting, with some stochastic math thrown in, hmmm) of oscillators left to themselves and the longitudinal energy exchange inbetween systems, in fact beats between two waves, anyway pretty solid description in the work by the Doubochinski. Superb papers on ArXiv - again! - called Computing with almost periodic functions, http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0808.1814 really interesting in light of Symplectic view on Quantum Constraints, http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0808.1068 . More in line with what I had in mind (hehe up to a point, of course :P) in this one: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0806.2464, Symplectic Deformations, Non Commutative Scalar Fields and Fractional Quantum Hall Effect.
Fractional Quantum Hall Effect is the world wide standard of the Ohm, hence the Volt. Lots of paper about this very exprimental setup.
And Distinti is getting his Ethereal Mechanics ready for the end of the year... :O) Gotta get care of the aglebra right, nilpotents, idempotents, geometric product and *-algebras, all combined into a megaultragiga 4D, maybe nul-5D as Jose Almeida did pretty powerfully.
Will probably write something in Javascript for the thread, to enable people to participate and me to continue working on it, I'm almost ready, so I'll just rush it and start writing code to do some of the required mostly symbolic math to simulate second-order (Advance action paper by Boozer on Arxiv yields interesting food for thought on the "waves from the future" in second order differo-integral systems) quaternionic systems, will be fun :O) ...once I get how the 24 Hurwitz Units of Quaternions play their role symmetry-wise, (all in a bought but lost John Conway book AKPeters about Quaternions and Octonions, sigh) will try to get it working, a circuit simulator with the integration scheme of GLafreniere.com? Something along this line. *Still babbling, sigh*
Gotta move, all the best,
MinEth3r
Min
at the risk of continuing to add information here (which really ought now to have its own thread in the 'Theory of overunity and free energy' forum http://www.overunity.com/index.php/board,27.0.html to get the full exposure to as many members as possible) - what is your considered view of ECE theory (Evans et al)? points for - and points against?
thanks
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
hahaha... not much here risk here... thanks for the tip about the thread, will post there if an idea pops out of my effort.
IMHO Evans and al. 's ECE isn't viable.
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Beware/MyronEvansCensorship/Rodregues/index.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0703116 and 117 go hand in hand with the previously mentioned "non sequitur" paper.
Argumentally-coupled oscillators - atomic or otherwise - are the newest step forward for me, it does make sense, maybe even related to your charge anomaly phenomena! As to what I had in mind, a quick and dirty simulator with part implemented as equivalent-circuit equations all thrown together and reduced, pfff.... Still wrapping my brain around quasiperiodic systems, sooo still some way to go. Will try nevertheless to code something interesting by the end of next week. And Eric's unquantum theory to associate with ACOs... That's what I'm working at, sorry for being a bit aloof :O)
All the best,
MinEth3r
thanks for looking Min
i don't think i've identified any particular resonance in my switched-charge experiments so far, but interestingly, i zoomed in on the voltage trace of the charging output cap recently and saw a low-level ripple around 7 or 8Hz - this doesn't appear to be related to anything in the switching regime (approx 200uS charge pulse and approx 2mS repetition rate)
i tried decreasing switching repetition rate to around 8Hz but the circuit didn't achieve usual overunity mode
the inductor 'sings' slightly during switching but i don't think this is unusual - except for it being another dissipation of energy even whilst the whole system is overunity
will be interested to see what you serve up for us simulation-wise soon
regards
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Thanks for speaking some mind (in)to me, Sandy.
I'll try to dwelve deaper into what I'm doing while I'm at it, on your thread. :O) hehe
This phenomena of low level ripple although the frequency isnt high, might be significant. Frequency's interplay on the coupling, as clearly and cleanly defined in NIA1 from Distinti, is an inversely proportional relationship. So high frequency ripple can and will shuttle around more energy as also seen in Distinti's work, with scope traces to demonstrate it.
My athemoment highest hope is almost wrapped up: use the Doubochinsky/Reiter beat even/odd wave principle (once its fully understood, for that copule more things to digest, since I'm aimaing at the full Quaternionic Treatment from the start) to simulate large numbers of atoms (bus bars, touch switches/half capacitors, full capacitors - so maybe the effect is in the spiral construction of an electrolytic cap - effortlessly from first principle from a seed upwards, not from zero, as per Distinti. I understand it's a hard problem, but I'll bring my input in the mix.'
First geometry wise, from Wildberger one can (and almost must!) work in a quadratic modular space -space of geometrical entity such as lines, area, volumes, being in fact products of n-1 differences, n points but n vectors, from n+1 projective point matrices to n matrices f vectors - , a modular space being a vector space but with rings (litterally, algebraically, much like a finite size number/variable/register (macro-)mechanical or (micro-mechanical)electrical ); at the coefficients. All thos only to say: even our actual formal definition of a vector space (not vector space ?la Smarandache!, the classic one on top of a field instead of a ring) is missing the vector product completely. Once one will do this and use this power, much more doors will open at a far less cost in time and money spent on the damn things :O)
So I have to recast Distinti excellent theoretical results into a more algebraically geometric form (with squared areas and distances all over; as NJWildeberger found out, one must do it to get instantly the four possible (one being equality, so in fact _three_; up to scaling factors) symmetric forms, the blue, the red, the green; blue = red + green) There will lies the Gems, new theorems, advanced findings in easy, overlooked places. After they are found, one must do some historical research (Jefimenko's work, Riemann force law Vs Distinti, in fact how does it all plug up in the old litterature, lots of interesting but disparate paper, a review should be written in fact, about point charges/objects and forces acting on them. Not one has been thorough enough, not even ATK De Assis' one on relative electrodynamics!
Second, third time derivatives are supposedly not needed, but in fact they are, instead of magically changing the acceleration through a formula, one can physically augment the pure math saying acceleration of position is enough with one that says on do acceleration of speed, the control/jerk of position hehe to get a third time derivative and change _these_ values with magical coordinate formulas.
Parametrization of third time derivatives..., in fact since every force lags, every force isn't instantaneous, one to second order approximation has to consider third derivatives and fourth time derivative if time can change direction :O)
Third, with the correct theory/roadmap (mechanical doppler with own frequency affected, beating waves exchanging energy between systems naturally, no gapping geometrical hole in the theory) associated with correct math (maybe fourth time derivative, third for sure; with a lot of geometric algebra thrown in, G. Sobczyck's no-nonsense linear algebra, U. Gerlach's Linear Mathematics in Infinite Dimensions, both free, Gsponer's work too, so much out there :O)
****
Sorry, gotta go! When it was getting interesting, A. Gsponer's work is so massive I'm in awe.
got to do other stuff, shall be enough t'il then, will be working on simulating something part time, so overjoiced by this...
and your input on the phenomenology, thanks again. Next post will hopefully have some code.
All the best,
MinETh3r
Hi there everyone, Sandy,
here's a status report on my previously exposed undertaking.
As of code, look no further, the only code I wrote was in the TryIt W3School Javascript prototyping engine, experimental array-based math on finite fields using my "A=-1 mod n" scheme, nothing worth posting here came out of it, really. Got my mul and addition table generation okay, but more pressing matters came right in front of my eyes with albeit perfect timing :O) First ought to learn what to program and then try to model passage of time in it.
Here's recent, exciting material related to my current effort.
* WildTrig23 Video, on Youtube
* 0808.2496 Gogberashvili - Rotations of Split-Octonions, on the ArXiv.
Those two are really on topic, they both show something essential!
What I have to do
* Get rid of Sin and Cos (one could say floating point math) in the modeling of an Harmonic or otherwise Oscillator.
* Get a clear picture of the algebra of 3D space, scalar + 3 unit vectors + 3 bivectors (planes)+ volume.
It isn't associative, but with the modified/geometric Fano Plane it is much clearer now. Still murky to me, since a couple of notions not entirely understood yet, but still great leap toward understanding non-associativity. It is my hope that non-commutativity and non-associativity can be tackled at the same time.
* Apply the previously outlined math to Distinti's work.
While investing how to tackle non-associativity in the split-octonions/?Geometric Algebra?, this too came to light: Generators for finite simple Moufang loops, math/0701701 . Also other workers published on the ArXiv explicitly about wave equations on the octonions, using a Dyon-based formalism, probably worth adapting to Distinti's correct force equations. BTW the Saint Alban Quaternionic book doesn't come up with the correct force equation between moving charges, see page 30-31 for the crux of the matter, top of p.31 is wrong, but the other one need a more definitive look, maybe, after a closer look haha :O)
On the numerical front, the ArXiv paper 0808.1883 entitled "High-order low-storage explicit Runge-Kutta schemes for equations with quadratic nonlinearities" ought to be useful, when the above homework is done. Just discovered this one too: "An iterative method for numerical integration of rational functions", 0808.2748, just from the title sounds useful :O) Didn't read it yet, gotta go to work!
All the Best,
MinEth3r
Lost a post from an error, wll be brief and dense.
0 12345678abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvw x yzZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
F_61, being finite field modulo 61 is marvelous, 4-wise, 7-wise- 5-wise 3-wise
its beautiful with some of the gems like this
http://primes.utm.edu/curios/page.php/61.html
in mind.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0807.2047 Mandatory read! ;O) : Symplectic geometry is there in the null trace matrix; hello, rational trig to the rescue, wonder what it can really do :O),
The Five Points Pose Problem : A New and Accurate Solution Adapted to any Geometric Configuration
The goal of this paper is to estimate directly the rotation and translation between two stereoscopic images with the help of five homologous points. The methodology presented does not mix the rotation and translation parameters, which is comparably an important advantage over the methods using the well-known essential matrix. This results in correct behavior and accuracy for situations otherwise known as quite unfavorable, such as planar scenes, or panoramic sets of images (with a null base length), while providing quite comparable results for more "standard" cases. The resolution of the algebraic polynomials resulting from the modeling of the coplanarity constraint is made with the help of powerful algebraic solver tools (the Gr?bner bases and
the Rational Univariate Representation).
[...]
This constraint has been often used by the community of computer vision since three decades. As pictured in the Fig. 1, the condition of coplanarity between
two images expresses the fact that the vector âˆ'â†' V1, the vector âˆ'â†' V2(expressed in the reference of âˆ'â†' V1), and the vector of the translation âˆ'â†' T are in the same plane, called the epipolar plane. One can translate this condition by a null value for the triple product between these 3 vectors. In other words: [volume of geometric product V1V2T = 0]
=-=-=-=-=-=
Briefly, whoah, gotta sleep, good night everyone, best atyourmmnt dreams to all :O)
Min, i think your meds are wearing off! ;)
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
MinEth3r,
I'm not sure to understand you fully... ??? ??? ???
Best
As for the magnet previously mentionne in the thread,,
Semi-circular - spiral - eddy currents inside a capacitor, is leak current enough to get that 1.2+losses OU result?
A magnet over concentric cylinders capacitor, a magnet being a loop of n amperes, might get some inductive
kickback through currents flowing through the cap at discharge or charging time. Transient analysis anyone? Got myself free pdf-ed books on the very matter :O)
My fun now, as I'm not losing it, as it may appear to the non-initiated mouhahaha :PPP; is to think that a really good full 3D theory of the electron is possible. Maybe its even 4D with a parametrized 4thD being proper time over universal time, itself coming from the null 5D postulate, maybe pertubing this null condition would yield something like functional equations to model finite speed of forces?! In the 1 over RRR, in the near-field/bound fields it might be faster than the speed of light, in fact it ought to be etheric pressure having its toll I guess. I know, I know, a full 3D theory of the Electron has been attempted before, really complicated topic, lots of work already done by minds far greater than mine, but I got lots of modern information source that those guys didn't have, G. Lafreni?re, A. Gsponer, R. Distinti, Reiter, Brannen that all point to a new understanding of micro-phenomena, of etheric phenomena.
Maybe leftover spin gets racheted/rectified somehwere? I ought to model spin of an electron, when the spin changes speed, etc... ought to get it right from the start. Some would call my effort a mere reformulation. Lots of it is simply unifying notation, but what we might discover in the process is truly worth it;
E.g. the Geometric Fano plane is really amazing IMHO! Always wanted to see it.
Someone expounded my lack of consideration of the Hestenes and al. Conformal model of 3d Geometry. What it all boils down to is Geometric Algebra with the square of vectors being one of the four symmetric bilinear forms, one of them being the equality, the norm of the vector squared being 0, which leads one straight to the 5D Conformal model, the ultimate 3D algebra I know.
Five points to analyze translation+rotation means that 4 vectors/point differences are necessary :O) The nul 5d space popping up, this time with a correct introduction to powerful algebraic apparatus. Other parametrization possible, pythagorean hodograph curves, square root spiral, the Hurwitz quaternions, lots of
things to plug together. Geometric Norms as outlined by Douglas Lundholm, lots of stuff....
* * *
So don't worry Nerzh, I don't understand it fully yet, either!, only know its really close to a wonderful breakthrough, perhaps fame awaits, who knows :PPP
From the lost post, I said in there that the base 61 modular math might answer what a friend of mine asked: what is the value of x? The context is missing, but the answer is right what I would love to answer back right away :O)
Thus one has to: get the proper math framework, rational polynomials should be enough, since its algebraic. Geometry and everythig has to be accounted for,
next one defines the experiment/simulation in the aforemnetionned mathematical framework, then one simplify the algebraic model and articulate it, calculate it. Still at step 0, although working on all the steps at once, wondering every now and then if my particular approach to physics research will yield what's hoped for....
Still hammering at it,
MinEth3r
Quick close-up...
I will migrate my ramblings on on-going research on a dedicated thread, as suggested, this is not getting somewhere fast enough. Fame will have to wait ;O)
Base 61 is interesting, one the largest one one can explore with our unpunctuated latin glyph set, but other stuff to master first. *duh* :O)
Basically, 4D Geometry is essential, for a lot of reasons.
To get one of the best available glimpse, no less, on 4D geometry and stereographic projection,
http://dimensions-math.org
is excellent. Hopf fibration, lots covered in there, marvelous. Really wanted to close it up on the thread with this.
Some supplementary material, a lot more available, lets be brief:
808.2730 on conformal transformation through history i.e more on the stereographic projection.
Latest paper from Almeida, 0807.3668, on 5D Nul Space Physics in different algebras show how to move amongst them.
0808_3169v1 uses 2x2 invertible quaternionic matrices to talk about (1+4) nul 5d space, great stuff but still murky; still struggling here to get the significance of Geodetic Angles by Conway et al... grrr! Potential applications in Rational Trigonometry & Chromogeometry comes instantly to mind.
Also last week found out about Finite Harmonic Oscillators on Finite Fields through the work of Gurevich et al. and Algebraic Signal Processing Theory as exposed by P?schel and Moura. Definitely interesting, lots of interplay between them, still murky for me at best, but still, one can smell the goodness.
So lots of work, sorry for the bothersome format of my intermission, over and out on this thread! (*finally*:PP),
MinEth3r
hi Min
thanks for the update - looking forward to following your investigations in your new thread - hoping to throw a few new papers your way from time to time for evaluation
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
hi all
i've now automated the capacitor charge/discharge sequence and run some further tests which use a different method to measure and calculate the energies involved in the switched-charge process
full result details, with test schematic, are posted in the 'Latest' section of my 'Doc Ringwood' website (linked below)
my first energy tests relied entirely on measurements of the initial and final voltage on input and output capacitors
these results have prompted some discussion, with some forum members and visitors to my website, about the energy needed to charge the output capacitor
the surprise finding is that the text-books appear to be wrong in stating that the amount of energy converted as work in storing energy into a capacitor is the same as the amount of energy which gets stored
for the example test shown on the website, the work required to transfer charge to the output capacitor was only 77% of the final energy actually stored (scope trace shown below)
this finding suggests that the energy calaculations can't assume a doubling of energy converted, based on the final value stored in the output capacitor - however, there is still sufficient energy being converted in the resistive load during charging which gets added to energy discharged through it from the output capacitor to bring the efficiency over 100%
the new measurement test shows a total circuit efficiency of 127% and a (resistive-load energy) / (input energy) of 106%, supporting the results of my previous 'energy anomaly' experiments with switching charge into a capacitor
next step for me, hopefully, will be heat tests
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
...i should have identified the scope traces: Red is the voltage charging up on C2; Blue is the voltage across the 10 ohm resistor in series with C2
the burst of 24 pulses show that charging current is passing thro' the 10 ohm resistor to charge C2; the larger single negative pulse shows the discharge of the final stored energy from C2, again passing as current thro' the 10 ohm resistor
full details in the 'Latest' section at the link below
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Hi again,
you can try to do this experiment at different temperatures and see if it is temperature dependent.
oh, wait, that's your next step ;)
hi all
as i understand it, the official line on fly-back energy is that you only get back what you put in
the measurements i'm making on this switched-charge circuit show something different!
the traces below show just the first and last pulses, as examples, in the switched-charge burst used to charge C2 - the applied pulse across the RLC branch (in Red) and the voltage across the 10 ohm resistor (in Blue)
fly-back energy is returned to the RLC branch, after the pulse, via the diode at the positive end of the coil (see the negative portion of each Red trace)
you can see that, at the point that the pulses switch off, the current through the RLC branch was still rising, so the coil field was still being 'charged'
the energy gain can be seen on the 'load' waveform (Blue trace) - the traces clearly show that energy input to the RLC branch during the pulse is a fraction of the energy input which continues after the pulse stops
the left-hand side of the triangle waveform (representing energy input pulse) is smaller than the right-hand side of the triangle waveform (representing additional energy gained from the flyback)
Energy input to the load for the first pulse:
57.6uJoules
16.0uJ from the pulse
41.6uJ from flyback
Energy input to the load for the last pulse:
20.2uJoules
8.9uJ from the pulse
11.3uJ from flyback
the proportion of flyback energy to pulse energy reduced with each pulse between the first and last, as the stored voltage across the capacitor increased, but the ratio was always > 1
compared to the energy provided by the pulse to the load:
an additional 260% energy was returned to the load by flyback after the first pulse
an additional 127% energy was returned to the load by flyback after the last pulse
this gives further support to the overunity results i'm seeing on the switched-charge experiment - until now i couldn't see where the additional energy was entering the system - it appears now that it's being supplied from the coil field collapse as flyback energy, extra to that supplied from the input capacitor
-----------------------------------------------
some more details on test setup:-
the coil used for these tests was approx 2.5mH, 0.5 ohm DC resistance, so the I^2*R loss in the coil was only 1/20th of the power developed across the load
pulse width as shown here was approx 77us, but this is not a critical value** - it's just an example
the first pulse peak-voltage shown was 8.3V approx (the initial voltage on my input cap) and the final pulse peak-voltage was 7.8V approx
**the pulse width could be increased until the RLC current, as monitored by the load resistor, is limited by the supply
(this assumes the core doesn't get saturated before this point)
any more width on the pulse, after that point, will not increase the coil field, it will just result in increasing energy lost in the coil thro' I^2*R loss
to achieve most benefit from flyback, the pulse width should always be less than the value which limits the RLC current (or saturates the core)
it also appears that the geometry of the waveform is important: the gain of returned coil energy to pulse input energy is better when the rising and falling sides of the 'triangle' waveform approximate straight lines
if the coil charge current increases too much then the rising side curves 'positively', raising the area of energy under the left-hand side of the triangle, while the falling side curves 'negatively' (like a discharging capacitor), reducing the area of energy under the right-hand side of the triangle - the net result would be to reduce the energy gain and instead produce an energy loss
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
You rock!
Which digital osc. are you using?
"you can see that, at the point that the pulses switch off, the current through the RLC branch was still rising, so the coil field was still being 'charged'"
I don't see this :-[
Do you mean the red damped waveform on the right?
"the left-hand side of the triangle waveform (representing energy input pulse) is smaller than the right-hand side of the triangle waveform (representing additional energy gained from the flyback)"
You mean the area beneath the blue curve?
What does simulation show
(maybe I ask obvious stuff, but I am trying to understand)
hi alan
thanks for the interest
@your previous comment re: the heat tests - my plan is to measure the heat output from the Rload & compare with heat output from same Rload with equivalent DC supply
> Which digital osc. are you using?
i'm using a PC to drive 2 optos which get shaped via 4093B Schmitt NAND gates & then feed the MOSFET gates
the optos are powered by the PC; the 4093 is powered from the input cap, so my Efficiencies are actually slightly greater than i show
>> "you can see that, at the point that the pulses switch off, the current through the RLC branch was still rising, so the coil field was still being 'charged'"
> I don't see this
> Do you mean the red damped waveform on the right?
the current through the RLC branch is proportional to the voltage across the 10 ohm load res (Blue trace) - just divide a particular voltage on the Blue trace by 10 to get the current
the applied pulses are shown on the Red traces - you can see where a pulse ends - if you look at a blue trace you'll see it increasing from 0V at the start of a pulse up to some voltage at the end of a pulse
the current through the coil (& load & into the cap) is increasing all thro' both pulses shown, hence the coil still being charged when the pulse ends
the pulse start edges are slightly obscured by the first of each pair of time markers
the time markers are set at +/- 77us wrt end of each pulse to show that the energy thro' the load due to the pulse is less than the energy thro' the load due to the flyback action
>> "the left-hand side of the triangle waveform (representing energy input pulse) is smaller than the right-hand side of the triangle waveform (representing additional energy gained from the flyback)"
> You mean the area beneath the blue curve?
well, both the left- and right-hand sides of each blue triangle waveform have the same height, so they both cover the same voltage range and their average voltage is the same - hence the average current is the same - and therefore the average power is the same
but because they have different periods the energy of each side will differ - the load energy from the flyback, relating to the right-hand side of each triangle is greater than the load energy from the pulse, relating to the left-hand side of each triangle
so, the area isn't directly proportional to energy on that trace but you can see that one side represents a greater energy than the other
i've calculated the energy for each side of both triangle waveforms using Excel on the trace data files - the results are shown in my post above
> What does simulation show
i haven't been able to get simulation to give results which look very much like reality - the simulator in CircuitMaker seems to like making circuits greatly overunity!
since these are such simple circuits, i'm finding it quicker just to connect a real circuit and test it
> maybe I ask obvious stuff, but I am trying to understand
me too ! :)
but i think these overunity flyback energy gain results have started to provide an answer
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Thanks for taking the time to explain!
With digital osc., I meant oscilloscope connected to the pc :)
If I understand correctly, the charge and discharge period should be the same, hence RLC constant is the same.
Are you familiar with applying Laplace Tansform and feeding it a stepresponse?
Maybe that could be a good basis to show that experiment doesnt comply to theory.
hi alan
> With digital osc., I meant oscilloscope connected to the pc
apologies, i thought your 'osc.' meant oscillator
i'm using PicoScope 6 software supplied with PicoScope 2203 2-channel PC scope
> If I understand correctly, the charge and discharge period should be the same, hence RLC constant is the same.
my understanding is that the energy recovered from coil field-collapse (aka 'flyback' energy) 'should be' equal to the energy used to establish the field
also, that the energy stored by the coil field is proportional to the current squared - if the av. input current = av. returned current (as noted earlier) then equal energies should require the same periods (all else being equal)
the input & returned periods shown in each trace are different - my interpretation of this is that more energy is being returned than was stored
> Are you familiar with applying Laplace Tansform and feeding it a stepresponse?
Maybe that could be a good basis to show that experiment doesnt comply to theory.
i think i could only just manage to spell Laplace Transform now - it is many decades since i saw one swimming across a 'whiteboard' at college!
if you feel you have the time, capability & interest to carry out such a procedure... go for it! :)
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
What is the value of the diode D1?
The diagram is that of a zener diode, or is this just a drawing mistake?
A regular diode has a straight line, a zener uses the "Z".
g'day AbbaRue
diode D1 is a 1A Schottky barrier rectifier 1N5817
the diagram is a generic Schottky device - the line has folded-back ends to denote an 'S'
a Zener has slanting ends to denote a 'Z', as shown below
hope this helps
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Good stuff Sandy, keep it up and rising :O)
Monitoring your effort, waiting for Distinti's ether mechanics paper, waiting also for time to play ArXiv cacthup, been so busy lately, my summer research's on hold for almost two months now... Can't think of anything to add right now, will keep lurking and my notify box checked. :O)
All the best,
Min
hi Min
thanks for your interest
i looked for a new thread by MinEth3r a while back but couldn't see anything, so i hope it's because you've been partying hard! ;)
yes, i feel progress is being made here, slowly - an alternative method of confirming similar levels of overunity results and a possible ID of the source of the charge/energy imbalance (at a macro level) are very encouraging developments for me
now that the scope traces confirm energy efficiency levels > 100% actually at the resistive load (not just on the circuit as a whole) i'm encouraged to move on to comparative heat measurements on the load resistor when powered first by the circuit and then by equivalent direct DC drive
all the best with the research
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
hi all
interesting developments with the switched charge experiments in the last week...
i'm in the process of using the circuit to perform work which can be measured - rather than just rely on the scope & meter readings which have recently been showing efficiencies for the test circuit around 140 - 150%
the first type of work (details to be posted when the testing is complete) is so far reliably showing efficiencies around 280% - and because work has been done this is very tangible evidence of overunity action
the circuit hasn't changed (apart from the load) so this suggests that waveform capturing and quantification techniques aren't telling the whole story
some more equipment to test the circuit with a completely different type of load - and work - should be arriving this week, so hopefully i'll have some more news soon
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Found some interesting articles, didn't know where else to post :)
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9708394
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0307126v1
Looking forward to your new tests, Sandy.
hi alan
thanks for the links - i've just downloaded the PDFs & i'll check them out
sadly, i messed up with these most recent load-test results and the flyback energy interpretation (thanks to David C for a replication which showed the flyback error!)
i left out a factor in the latest calcs and ended up not comparing the same measure of input and output energies - and in the flyback energy calcs i've found i used the average current in the calc, not the peak!
so my best system efficiency so far still stands at around 150% - and corrected flyback calc confirms that energy returned from flyback = energy input to coil field
one positive thing to come out of the latest test though was to get results, with an actual physical measurement of work, which confirmed that the energy stored within a capacitor is equal to the same amount of work energy that it took to store it
this is a second and different confirmation of my original assumption that if you want a quick guide to how much energy has been output from the system you can just double the value of the energy in the output capacitor
so - i don't feel quite so stupid for my mess-up with the calc :-[
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
These results bring me to my same old saying.
"Don't try to build a self running unit, instead try building 2 or 3 identical units
and use the output from one to run the other."
This will solve the technical issues of running one unit off another,
as well as proving the results are reproducible.
This is a very cheap and easy to build device.
Try building 5 of them and use the output from one to run the other.
At the output of the 5th one you should have so much more output then input
that all doubt of over unity will be gone.
My calculations show that the 5th unit should be putting out over 750% of the input.
That's 7.5 times the input, now if you get that, there will be no more doubt of over unity.
And with that much output it would be very easy to feed it back into the 1st unit to run it,
and have a self running system. plus power to spare for other uses.
One can measure a device to death and post miles of graphs, but herein lies the real proof.
If this works then it's just a matter of connecting multiple units to get as much output as one wants.
hi AbbaRue
thanks for your suggestion
the input to the test circuit is 8V DC
as you can see from the latest test-run results i posted, the output from the test circuit is a mix of bipolar pulses with peak voltages decreasing from around 3V down to about 1.5V
just feeding the output into the input of itself or any other similar circuit obviously won't work
the output waveform has to be converted back to a unipolar state and its voltage level increased to 8V or more
the results of these tests show that when you store a charge on a capacitor, 1 Joule for example, then you also do 1 Joule of work outside of the capacitor to get the internal charge stored
ie. charging a capacitor always results in only 50% of the supplied energy getting stored in the capacitor
the disappointing conclusion is that feeding the output through a transformer to increase the voltage, rectifying through a FWBR to make it unipolar again, and then storing the result in a reservoir capacitor is at best only going to give us half of our 150% energy output
so, until we learn the way to convert the output form back to the input form, with less than 33% loss, i'm going to continue with a variety of load tests which aim to give tangible proof of whether this circuit arrangement can do up to 50% more work from its output than the equivalent energy in DC form - eg. more heat; more mechanical load moved; etc
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cUS03yNl40
Maybe this is a bit way off from your experiments, but it supposedly also show a charge anomaly. Pretty impressive, even though no real (quantitative) measurements have been done.
@alan
That video is very interesting, and I can see a way it might be useful here.
We need to design a switching circuit that does the same thing as shorting the terminals together does.
Then we could use the output from this to charge the first capacitor of the Tesla circuit.
That may give use the edge we need to get usable power.
Is anyone able to draw up a quick schematic that will replace the wire shorting concept with solid state?
What Tesla circuit do you mean? Or is the circuit in the video a Tesla circuit?
I think a relay switch can work well to get the shorting effect.
Instead of using a battery as 'the dipole', I'd simulate the battery by recharging (high C, low V) caps, so it is known exactly how much energy is put in the circuit, using standard formula's (1/2CV^2), exactly the same way as Sandy did.
If OU is confirmed, we'd consider putting it in cascade to amplify the energy.
It's time for real results, seen too much special effects and almost no numbers, except for here and drstiffler :)
@alan
I'm refering to the "Tesla Charge Siphoning" that this thread is about.
I tested the circuit on my electronic simulator and I found a hookup that works just like in the video.
Using a SPDT relay switch.
Connect the "common" terminal of a relay to the Coil's terminal.
Connect the "normally on" terminal to the Battery's terminal.
Connect the "normally off" terminal to the Capacitor's terminal.
Place a light bulb between the battery negative and the coil to act as a limiting resistor. (20 ohms)
Then each time you briefly pulse the relay the capacitor receives a high voltage charge from the coil.
Using a 20 ohm resistor the simulator measures 224 volts.
The lower the resistor the higher the voltage so when building this watch you don't exceed the voltage of your capacitor.
You can get thousands of volts.
The internal resistance of the coil and it's saturation point will determine the maximum voltage.
Dear Sandy and all,
This morning I have been able to perform some tests.
Basically I have transferred some charge from one cap to another via an inductor which is pulsed. I have used two 1 Farad caps with a programmable uC to control the pulse duty and number of pulses. There is also a flyback diode. It is the same circuit as posted by Sandy except I replaced the oscillator with uC and opto-coupler so as to ensure no energy enters the circuit here.
So far a very low eff has been found. However I have used a very high inductance coil which also has a very high DC resistance in which energy can also be dissipated. So it will be necessary to use a very low resistance, high inductance coil. Something with low turns on a ferrite rod so that mostly all the energy dissipated will be in R1 only. I do not wish to measure energy in the coil due to reactive power issues complicating the measurements???
So far the figures are:
START ENERGY C1: 78.25 Joules
END ENERGY C2: 74.29 Joules
ENERGY INPUT: 3.96 Joules
ENERGY USED IN R1: 629mJ
ENERGY STORED IN C2: 075mJ
ENERGY OUT: 704mJ
COP = 0.704 / 3.96 = 0.177
Some further figures:
Start coloumbs C1 12.51
Start coloumbs C1 0
End Coloumbs C1 = 12.19
End Coloumbs C2 = 0.389
Charge conservation is maintained in this test, thus energy will also be!
By the way, as you can see I did not drop the voltage by 1v, but this was only because using 1F caps and a large coil, the time constant was so long that it would go outside the data recording time of my equipment and I would not have been able to export all the data to excel for analysis :(
Regards,
Dave.
@ Dave, all.
This may be of some help, maybe not.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item207
.99
hi Dave
great you're able to start some measured testing now - thanks for the post
yes - you definitely need to attend to the load-to-loss ratio to see the overunity effect at the load (otherwise too much I^2*R energy gets dissipated in the coil)
my load is 10R and the coil DC resistance is 0.5R
also, since you have uC control you don't need such large valued caps - this makes it easier to get a more accurate measure of input energy when dealing with single cycles of charge pulse-train & discharge
i use PC control & opto-isolation and i can use 200uF caps for C1 & C2, coil can be a few mH and fraction of an ohm DC res
you should see approx 0.75 input energy stored in C2 & around the same dissipated in Rload whilst charging
so when you discharge C2 back thro' the load after being charged you get the other 0.75 input energy released
total output energy will be approx 140-150% of input energy
good luck!
hi Poynt
thanks for the link - it wouldn't allow me to access it, but maybe i followed the link before i was logged in - i'll try again
all the best
sandy
________________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc ...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08
hi Poynt
amazing amount of work you put into that document - i think, sadly, it will be wasted on the Capn
this thread (which was able to start reporting measured OU results back in May of this year, whilst the Capn was still knee-high to a Cabin Boy) is looking at the same capacitor-to-capacitor charge anomaly from a slightly different perspective - switched charge operation
in addition, the test circuit has been used to look at the effect of including other loads, such as motors, in series with the output capacitor
it appears that the classical electrodynamic equations for charge (and therefore energy) do not hold true when pulses of energy are switched from capacitor to capacitor via an inductor
oscilloscope measurements at the resistive load (recorded digitally & processed by Excel spreadsheet) show that the circuit is operating with an efficiency of approx 140-150% at the load, eg input from C1: 1.43mJoules; output on 10ohm load: 2.09mJ
these results are over and above the usual losses which occur: vibration, noise & heat from coil, heat from wiring & switch components, power supplied to opto-isolator outputs & CMOS switching gates, etc
i think these results, and all the work involved in achieving them, help put the good Capn's magnanimous "gift to the free energy movement!" (referring to the very same phenomenon, half a year later) in perspective ;)
all the best
sandy
______________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08
hi alan
if you're around...
you made the following suggestion to the owner of another thread relating to the same phenomenon as we're considering on this thread:
> try this: Load the motor by coupling it to a second motor, which then acts as a dynamo, and connect the dynamo to a capacitor.
i'll be interested to hear if he actually bothers to follow up your suggestion - but it caught my eye because i've just been doing exactly that test - and related ones - with the switched charge test circuit
i've been looking at the effect of using different loads (apart from resistive), such as batteries and motors
i believe the results have given me a better insight into some of the unusual behavior of this type of circuit - but just to give you one answer, at least, to your suggested test...
i wanted to compare the drive output from a motor as load - when powered by the test circuit; when powered by the equivalent DC drive; and when powered by a PWM drive equivalent to the DC drive
the results were very interesting and - initially, to me - unexpected
when using the same scheme which you suggested on the other thread - drive a motor, couple to another motor as dynamo, feed dynamo o/p to cap (initially, i used a series diode into the output cap):
the test circuit was approx 140% as efficient as the PWM drive - ok, as expected so far
however, when the motor was driven using DC, with the same input energy, the test circuit was only about 70% as efficient as the DC!
so, i decided that maybe the dynamo o/p should feed into a cap with a load in parallel and measure the total energy supplied at the load, rather than the total energy stored in the cap
for this second round of tests, both the test circuit and the PWM circuit gave approx the same energy output level (1.4Joules approx) whilst the DC drive produced 1.9J
i could get slightly better output from the test circuit (1.5J) if i used the motor to replace the series inductor, L
i think i understand, now, the implications of these results but it was a bit disappointing, at first, to see efficiencies around 140% getting reduced to 70% just by changing the load type to a motor
hope you found these results interesting!
all the best
sandy
______________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08
@.99. Thanks for the document, you obviously spent sometime on this. I totally agree with everything you said. This is normal action that we should see. However, what Sandy is saying is something else. He claims that the total energy dissipated in R1 and left over in C2 is more than was taken from C1. So far I could not verify this, until now...
@ Sandy. I just wound a coil on some ferrite rod, so it basically has zero DC resistance. I also changed the caps to 100,000uF.
With further tuning of the microcontroller timing I have been able to produce the results you describe, with an apparent COP=2.079!
Without further a do, here are the figures!
C1 START VOLTS = 12.60v
C1 START ENERGY = 7.938j
C1 START Q = 1.26q
C2 START VOLTS = 0
C1 END VOLTS = 11.42v
C1 END Q = 1.142q
C1 END ENERGY = 6.52j
INPUT ENERGY = 1.418j
C2 END VOLTS = 2.53v
C2 END Q = 0.253q
C2 STORED ENERGY = 0.1265j
ENERGY USED IN R1 = 2.822j
OUTPUT ENERGY = R1 ENERGY + ENERGY LEFT IN C2 = 2.948j
COP = OUTPUT / INPUT
COP = 2.948 / 1.418 = 2.079
Seeing as C2 is left with less energy that was taken from C1, then any mistake will be found in the measurement of energy used in R1.
Also of note, if we start with 7.938 joules in C1 then we took 15.876 joules from the battery which charged C1 prior to the test. Mind you, if you keep repeating it until C1 is empty and getting COP=2 then...
So overall we do not have COP>1. But we do have something very interesting, since we start with 1.26q and end with 1.395q total stored charge. Conservation of charge has been violated and it has been accompanied by an energy gain????!!!
So the question is, is there a better way to measure energy used in R1. I have exported data to excel from my scope and done a manual integration of the waveform using an averaging method, I think Sandy has done the same.
Regards,
Dave.
Just for comparison I did another run but with the circuit just turned on and then off, no pulsing. This time I get expected results.
INPUT CHARGE 1.263q
INPUT ENERGY 4.167j
OUTPUT CHARGE 1.273q
OUTPUT ENERGY 2.234j (R1 and C2)
This time we see much less energy used in R1 and left over in C2 than was taken from C1. The remainder must be used in the transistor, coil resistance, etc.
The effect only appears when we pulse the coil with a specific timing. Now the question, is it a scope error from pulsed data or a real effect?
Regards,
Dave.
Ok, just to be sure...
I adjust the "single pulse" discharge period so that the voltage dropped from C1 was again the same as the end result as successful test no 1.
(so no pulsing this time, just one pulse that drops voltage to the same drop).
Again this test now shows what we would expect to see, no charge gain or any excess energy seen.
Rapid pulsing is either causing a strange effect, or messing with my scope. But, on the successful test, a DC meter measuring end voltages on the caps doesn't lie. There is more stored "charge" in C1 and C2 than we started with in C1.
D.
hi Dave
great to hear you've been able to duplicate the effect & see anomalous charge & energy gains
i'd expect to see a greater proportion of the output energy getting stored in C2 - do you have an approx value for your coil? you say 'zero ohms DC' so i guess it's either not many turns or its a heavy guage?
in most of my results i'm seeing approx 1:1 ratio of energy in R1 & C2 - and each of these two energies are around 70-75% of the input energy
i agree about the overall efficiency when taking the initial charge of C1 from the battery - i think we'll find that C1 can be replaced with another type of energy source
could you confirm your Rload value & your approx pulse-width please? also, have you measured your C1 & C2 values, or are you using their nominal values? and lastly, do you discharge C2 back thro the load resistor to measure & confirm the stored energy value?
thanks
s
Hi Sandy,
Yes, I also thought that the proportions were not the same.
The resistance of the coil is 0.5ohms and 1.886H.
I am currently using the printed values and will have to measure their capacitance, they are too large for my Digital LCR meter so I will have to do it the old fashion way.
I do not discharge C2 back through R1 (10 ohms), but simply calculate the energy stored in it. So it could be "slightly off" as I used the nominal capacitance value.
The pulse on time is 50uS, off time 300uS and there are 10,000 repetitions, which drop from about 12.60v to 11.40v in 3.6 seconds.
During this time, the scope samples 1784 times, so there is a sample once every 2mS, hmm, this is no where near the sampling time specific for this scope >:(
Regards,
Dave.
PS. I can also hear the coil "sing", guess its around 3khz.
hi Dave
thanks for the info
your coil value of 1.9H seems very large for a 0.5ohm winding - approx how many turns with what diam wire is it?
my coil is 0.5ohm DC with approx 60-80 turns of .5mm wire
or is it a typo for mH?
measuring the discharge energy of C2 isn't critical - i usually find there's a good correspondance with the calculated value from the final stored voltage - it's just a cross-check of one of the results
as a quick check of the relative cap values you could swap C1 & C2 & see if you still get a similar efficiency result - if you do, then the cap values aren't out too much - if the efficiency values changes significantly then it would be a good idea to measure them (old method = time to discharge to 37% of Vstart, with a measured shunt R?)
might be worth trying a longer 'off'' time - see if you're starting each new pulse before the flyback energy from previous one is all returned to C2
if your coil really is 1.9H, then 50us may be on the short side - you could probably increase the pulse width significantly & reduce the number of cycles - you might reduce some switching loss overheads this way?
very encouraging!
regards
s.
Hi Sandy,
Sorry for confusion! The inductance is around 1milliHenry, measured on a digital LCR meter, the resistance 0.4ohms measured on a Fluke 177.
I hear what you are saying about matching the pulse duration to the rise time, I fine tuned this on the scope.
Regards,
Dave.
Hi Sandy and all,
I have now tested the capacitors using timed discharge method. They are different to the labeled value (of course), but the overall result leaves with around the same apparent COP.
Same calculations taking in to account measured capacitances:
C1: 111,201uF
START: 12.60v, 1.4q, 8.827j
END: 11.42v, 1.27q, 7.251j
INPUT ENERGY: 1.576j
C2: 108,961uF
END: 2.53v, 0.275q, 0.348j
R1: 2.822j
OUTPUT ENERGY: 2.822 + 0.348 = 3.170j
COP = 3.170 / 1.576 = 2.011
So, I don't think cap values being off at this level will cause much of an overall error given the large apparent amount of extra energy. If we were seeing say COP = 1.1 then it could very well tip the balance.
I am still not seeing the equal share of energy in R1 and C2 though like you show.
How are you intending to prove the energy in R1? This is not big enough to perform any heat tests? I thought about the motor example but that is also flawed.
Regards,
Dave.
ERM>.... Time for me to have a big red face, I messed up the energy calculation for R1. In fact R1 has only 0.223j, so even with this test the over all COP is: 0.360. There was an error on my excel sheet, after adding all the voltage samples and then finding an average voltage, I neglected to square the voltage over the load resistance before mulitplying that by the time to get the energy. So of course the figure was much larger. This is my fault for staying up so late and posting too early.
hi Dave
> after adding all the voltage samples and then finding an average voltage, I neglected to square the voltage over the load resistance before mulitplying that by the time to get the energy
i'm relieved to learn that i'm not the only one who sometimes finds that a set of good results were only achieved by 'creative accounting'! ;)
before looking more closely at possible losses in the system, i think you'll also need to alter your Excel calcs to average the sum of the instantaneous powers - not the instantaneous voltages (ie. calc the power for each reading first, then sum all, then average)
you can confirm this if you performed the same calcs on the discharge from C2 as you do on the charging energy in R
here's an example from my results:
Average of the Sum of the Instantaneous Power readings:
0.119W
duration:
7.81ms
Energy in discharge:
0.119 * 7.81 = 0.929mJ
Vmax C2:
3.07V
E stored in C2 (196uF):
0.924mJ
so the above calcs from the scope measurements match the stored energy calc for Vmax on C2
however, if we used the average of the instantaneous voltage readings we'd get:
Vav:
-0.809V
P:
-0.809 * -0.809 / 10 = 0.0654W
E:
0.511mJ
so getting Excel to calc the Av volts & THEN squaring will give you an answer approx 50% of the actual
i think the next thing to do is to look for possible losses in your setup
i notice that your results show a charge gain imbalance around 10% - it should be possible to achieve values nearer 30-50%
before attempting to do a raft of calcs, i usually confirm that i'm getting a sufficiently high output voltage on C2 - if i keep to a set input volt drop with a known input energy then i can very quickly calc & compare the energy on C2
i check & modify my circuit parameters until the max volts on C2 represent a stored energy around 70% or more of the input - then i make a fully measured test-run
your switching schedule gives 10000 charge pulses - could this be reducing the efficiency due to switching-loss overheads?
your coil has a relatively low inductance which will limit the max pulse 'on'-time you can use before you start getting additional I^2*R loss per pulse in the coil - maybe you could try doubling the inductance? (additional ferrite packing might help here?)
hope these suggestions help
all the best
sandy
________________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc ...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08
Sandy, you have done a lot of hard work on the capacitor charging issue, but I would like to respectfully agree and disagree with a few statements you have made on your Doc Ringwood website in the "latest" section. Quote"text-book explanations of 'energy used' and 'energy stored' when charging a capacitor give equations which indicate that the external work done in charging a capacitor has the same value as the energy which gets stored in the capacitor as a result - NB. it is not the 'same' energy - it is just the same 'value' of energy."
Quote"if a capacitor has just been charged, from empty, with 2 Joules of energy (for example) then the text-books state that an additional 2 Joules of energy must have been used as work to transfer the other 2 Joules into the capacitor - this means that a circuit has to convert 4 Joules of input energy to end up with 2 Joules of energy in the output capacitor"
(this is only true for a resistor feeding the capacitor from a voltage source. In this case one half the energy is spent in the resistor)Quote"it follows from this statement that a simple capacitor-charging arrangement cannot be more than 50% efficient."
(yes, a simple resistor from a voltage source cannot be more than 50% efficient in charging a capacitor, we agree this far)Quote"BTW this limit is not dependent on any series resistance in the charge path - larger resistances just reduce current and increase charge time, and smaller resistances do the opposite"
"it seems to be common knowledge, however - in the power-supply design industry, at least - that it's possible to achieve efficiencies > 50% if a series inductor is included in the capacitor charge-path, theoretically up to 100% efficiency"
(yes, I have worked in this industry and designed switchmode power supplies. The above phrase is correct, so far so good!)Quote"so are we now saying that a physical process which previously required us to do work to overcome the increasing internal polarisation producing the capacitor field has suddenly changed to NOT needing to overcome the increasing internal polarisation, just because an inductor has been added in the external current path?"
(here is the conceptual error and non-sequeter. No, the textbooks are not saying this, that is an assumption you have made. When using an inductor, it is a reactive component and in it's ideal form does not dissipate any power, just stores it and returns it to the source in the form of a pure current source. This is very different than a resistor and voltage source, hence the resistor looks really bad in comparison wasting 50% of the energy. This has nothing to do with your assumed "extra" work to overcome increasing internal polarization).I would like to add that I believe there is a math error in your calculations of power dissipated in the resistor and inductor. I will point this out at a later time and give someone else a chance to find it.
Respectfully, HD
Where did the notion that Tesla "shuttled" energy back and forth originate? Does this come from conceptions of resonant circuits?
If you wanted to use energy over and over, why not rotate it in a circle?
Eric Dollard seemed pretty convinced that the Tesla Transformer is a magnifier of transient impulses - nothing to do with shuttling.
Bedini seems to get good results charging and discharging caps - not sure why he does not see the losses that everyone else sees - perhaps he is polarizing the dielectric in an additional way - yeah that must be what he is doing. ;)
@HD
How many ways are there to polarize a dielectric?
hi guys, thanks for the interest
@Grumpy, ...a quick answer which may help:
look for T. W Barrett's paper (PDF format): Tesla's nonlinear oscillator-shuttle-circuit (OSC) theory
@HD
thanks for the review of the results - they're a bit of a moving target for readers, as i'm continually investigating new aspects of the setup and my conclusions on the website aren't always up to date with my latest findings
i've tried to present what i understand to be the 'official' line on the operation of such a circuit, but it's emerging that the equations appear to match the steady-state and the continuous current-flow cases better than they do the actual measured behaviour of the switched charge circuit
for example: i've just run some tests with a 30uF capacitor as C2 (C1 is 200uF; L is 2.5mH; R is 10ohm) - the results from this most recent test show a charging-to-stored energy ratio of approx 4:1 compared with the 'official' value of 1:1
> here is the conceptual error and non-sequeter. No, the textbooks are not saying this, that is an assumption you have made. When using an inductor, it is a reactive component and in it's ideal form does not dissipate any power, just stores it and returns it to the source in the form of a pure current source. This is very different than a resistor and voltage source, hence the resistor looks really bad in comparison wasting 50% of the energy. This has nothing to do with your assumed "extra" work to overcome increasing internal polarization
i think you misunderstand my statement about adding the inductor - i'm not talking about REPLACING the resistor with the inductor - i'm talking about ADDING an inductor to the existing C2 & Rload
the statement about extra work required to overcome increasing internal polarization is not mine - it is the official explanation about work being necessary to store charge in a capacitor, as given in a University text on the subject
my question is aimed at testing the statement, often repeated, that the inherent 50% efficiency achieved when charging a capacitor is changed by ADDING an inductor
i don't believe this is true
i believe my original question still holds - if work is needed to store charge in a capacitor (using an external series resistor and voltage source), then ADDING an inductor to these three components does not obviate the need to overcome the increasing internal polarisation within the capacitor as it charges
i agree totally that the energy stored in the inductor gets returned to the circuit when the switched charge pulse ends - it shows up clearly on my scope shots & in my measurements - you can see the current continues after the pulse ends (decreasing from the maximum value it reached at the final moment of the pulse, discharging down to zero)
i believe the I^2*R losses are still very much present - because external current is flowing into the capacitor - therefore external energy WILL be dissipated, either in an intentional resistive load, as in this test circuit, or else in the ESR of the capacitor, and the wiring, and the internal equivalent resistance of the voltage source
No - my results are showing that adding an inductor is not reducing dissipated loss (it actually increases it with the coil DC resistance) - it is also causing an excess of energy in the system - witness the charge gain anomaly in the circuit
the assumed boundary of influence for (at least) this circuit is incorrect - approximately 50% MORE energy is being converted (at the resistive load) than is being supplied by the input energy source
this energy is not being created out of nothing - i have to assume that Maxwell was correct in thinking that there is an energetic medium which is the ultimate source of energy in the Universe (call it: ZPE, aether, vacuum medium, etc) and we need to redraw the system boundaries to show that it should be included in our 'closed-systems' to allow the energy account to balance for circuits such as these
i look forward to hearing your thoughts on the error in the calculations
all the best
sandy
______________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc ...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08
Hi Sandy
Agreed, we have a slight communication problem. Indeed it takes additional energy for each incremental volt stored in a capacitor. That is why the equation is 0.5CV^2. The internal polarization does indeed resist further increases and more work must be done for each increment of voltage compared to the prior increment. However this work is all released upon discharge.
If this were not the case dual slope integrating type A/D convertors would not work or be extremely innacurate. I have designed these and have never had to take into account an "extra" work function because of polarization effects. The only real problem with these seems to be dielectric absorption phenomena causing slight errors around the "zero phase" on the order of fractions of a percent.
When charging the capacitor from an ideal lossless inductor (no DCR, no eddy losses) that has been priorly charged from a voltage source, it now becomes a pure (lossless) current source and the magnetic energy in joules stored in the inductor, when released into the capacitor will charge it to the same quantity of joules. There is no "extra" amount of joules required to do this.
I have a whole stack of university level textbooks cluttering my desk, but common sense will tell you that the 50% loss is attributed to the non-ideal current source comprised of the voltage source plus charging resistor. This is the culprit and what the textbooks base the "simple charge equation" on. The 50% energy is lost as heat in the resistor, because in this case all of the current must flow through the resistor and it is a lossy device by nature.
In your latest test you might want to examine how you arrive at your power dissipated in the resistor and inductor DCR. The duty cycle is 0.12mS on time, 0.28mS off time and 0.4mS cycle time. It appears you are taking the entire time (9.16 mS) to arrive at your power dissipated in the resistor and inductor DCR. It should be closer to 2.64mS.
You state there are 22 cycles of 0.12mS on time. This equals 2.64 mS. total on time, not 9.16
The total off time is then 0.4mS-0.12mS x 22 cycles = 6.16mS off time.
Also it is difficult to compute the actual RMS current per cycle due to the irregular waveform. You might also want to examine the actual power per cycle based on a changing amplitude over 22 cycles.
Kind regards HD
Quote from: Grumpy on December 11, 2008, 05:57:50 PM
@HD
How many ways are there to polarize a dielectric?
hi HD
you're right - there does seem to be a slight communication problem! ;)
in my statement which you quote, there's no mention of an 'extra' amount of joules required to do the work
> Quote from nul-points
"so are we now saying that a physical process which previously required us to do work to overcome the increasing internal polarisation producing the capacitor field has suddenly changed to NOT needing to overcome the increasing internal polarisation, just because an inductor has been added in the external current path?"
at that point i am merely discussing what difference would adding an *inductor* make to the regular charging work function
references to excess energy relate to the results i'm measuring at the resistive load compared to the energy supplied from the input source
> common sense will tell you that the 50% loss is attributed to the non-ideal current source comprised of the voltage source plus charging resistor. This is the culprit and what the textbooks base the "simple charge equation" on. The 50% energy is lost as heat in the resistor, because in this case all of the current must flow through the resistor and it is a lossy device by nature.
i think we're both saying the same thing here
> In your latest test you might want to examine how you arrive at your power dissipated in the resistor and inductor DCR. The duty cycle is 0.12mS on time, 0.28mS off time and 0.4mS cycle time. It appears you are taking the entire time (9.16 mS) to arrive at your power dissipated in the resistor and inductor DCR. It should be closer to 2.64mS.
i think you're assuming that my calculations don't account for the pulse and cyclic nature of the measured waveform
the voltage waveform across the load resistor is recorded digitally and input to a spreadsheet; the instantaneous power for each reading is calculated; the instantaneous powers are summed for the duration of the relevant section of the waveform; the Sum is divided by the number of cycles to give a value for the Average Power; the energy value is obtained by multiplying the Average Power by the period of the relevant section
> Also it is difficult to compute the actual RMS current per cycle due to the irregular waveform. You might also want to examine the actual power per cycle based on a changing amplitude over 22 cycles.
i think we covered this in the previous answer - the same method is used for obtaining values for all the charging and discharging energy converted by the 10ohm load
there is a way of checking which of us is correct in our assumptions relating to these result calculations:
the final energy discharged from C2 can be found by using the method i just described above - the same energy value stored on C2, prior to discharge, can also be found by noting its terminal voltage and using the regular stored-energy equation
A) Spreadsheet method:
Average Power discharging C2 through 10ohm load: 0.093W
discharge period: 10.44ms
measured Discharge Energy on 10ohm load: 0.093 * 10.44 = 0.97mJoules
B) Stored Terminal Voltage method:
final stored voltage on C2(196uF): 3.12V
stored energy in C2: 0.95mJoules
the two values are in close agreement
the results i posted on my website show both these values
all the best
sandy
________________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc ...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08
If what you are saying is true, and you have not made any measurement errors, you should scale this up to the kW range and apply for the OU prize. Should not be hard to do. All energy gains will show up as extra heat and can be easily measured, as the excess energy you claim has nowhere to hide.
Once scaled up to the kW range you will certainly have the few extra watts to win the prize.
Just design a suitable flyback converter to keep C1 topped up.
Would make a great house heater once scaled up. And if the COP's claimed are true, will beat out pure resistive heaters.
What is keeping you from doing this?
Best of luck in your work.....HD
@Grumpy: I'm sure you didn't really mean your question like this,
but on the subject of polarising dielectrics, there's a few ways.
A dielectric can obviously be polarised by electrostatic means,
but there's still differences in the type and material phase of
the dielectric. Liquid dielectrics don't polarise in exactly the
same way as solid dielectrics do.
Assuming you're talking about solid dielectric materials, there's
still different ways to polarise those, although it depends on the
material. Some dielectric materials can be melted and polarising
potentials can be applied during the cooling and solidification phase,
which causes the solid dielectric material end product to have a
permanent polarisation. These are generally referred to as "electrets".
Basically these are "self-charging" or "eternally charged" capacitors
(well not exactly but it helps to get the idea across ;)).
Then, there's also "ferro-electric" dielectric materials. The "ferro-electric"
should be understood as analogous to "ferro-magnetic", in that the
solid and stable material itself gains a specific polarisation when such
a specific polarising charge is applied. Depending on the exact type
of material used, this "ferro-electric" polarisation can be remanent
just like some ferromagnetic metals remain very slightly magnetised
after having been exposed to a magnetic field. However, much like
these magnetic materials, heating or shocking or exposure to
opposing fields will destroy the remanent polarisation and make the
material behave much more like a true dielectric.
And then, there's even "magnetic" dielectrics, which can really be magnetically
"polarised" and the magnetic polarisation and its effects on the structure of the
material have direct influence on the dielectric constant of the material.
These are not generally used for dielectric purposes unless interaction with
magnetic fields is desired, andusually it is not. This is also why not very much
is known about them (outside of very specific research).
So there's a few different ways in which dielectric material can be polarised.
But like I said, I suspect you did not really mean it like this, did you?
Hope it's of some use... ;)
Regards,
Koen
Quote from: HEYDUDE on December 12, 2008, 10:20:47 AM
you should scale this up to the kW range and apply for the OU prize.
as Crocodile Dundee *might* have said:
"
That's not a prize!...." ;)
sorry, couldn't resist the flippant response there!
If (and i think this has to be a pretty BIG 'If'!) this phenomenon allows itself to be translated from a bizarre Laboratory refutation of the understandably skeptical "Ya cannae change the Laws of Physics, Cap'n" point of view, to find a useful place in the home and industry, then i think everyone will agree that this, in itself, is a prize worth having
personally, i suspect the odds of achieving this aren't favourable or someone would have done it by now
the excess energy is manifesting both in the capacitor's stored energy and the charging energy of the associated work done in storing it - it appears that both energies need to be utilised to achieve efficiencies > 100%
the charging energy appears at present to be confined to dissipative material, ie resistive, not inductive or capacitive
this poses an interesting challenge in converting a 'spiky', low-voltage, AC waveform back into something we all know and love - try and do this efficiently, without using an inductor or capacitor (i include transformers under the heading 'inductor')
so, my best bet for now, if we can achieve anything useful at all, is an overunity fan heater! ;)
all the best
s.
"the excess energy is manifesting both in the capacitor's stored energy and the charging energy of the associated work done in storing it - it appears that both energies need to be utilised to achieve efficiencies > 100%"
stored and work done, arent these exactly the same? :P (excluding resistive losses)
Sandy,
Would you mind posting your spreadsheet?
Thanks,
.99
QuoteSandy,
Would you mind posting your spreadsheet?
Thanks,
.99
Could be where the "Overunity" is hiding !
Quote from: alan on December 13, 2008, 10:27:30 AM
"the excess energy is manifesting both in the capacitor's stored energy and the charging energy of the associated work done in storing it - it appears that both energies need to be utilised to achieve efficiencies > 100%"
stored and work done, arent these exactly the same? :P (excluding resistive losses)
hi alan
no, they're not - in two senses...
the text book treatment of cap charging says they should both be the same VALUE - but not the same physical energy
eg. text book would say that to store 2 Joules in a cap requires a total of 4 Joules - 2 end up stored in the cap, 2 get dissipated as work - therefore, the efficiency of charging cap: 50%
however, i've found from experiment that although the two energies are SEPARATE they are not necessarily the same value as claimed by the text books
eg. from experiment,
charging 196uF cap thro' 2.5mH inductor and 10ohm load:-
(component values all measured)
charging energy (charging pulses thro' load):
1.12mJoules
stored energy (final discharge thro' load):
0.97mJ
both values measured & calculated from voltage waveform across the 10ohm load resistor
discharge energy confirmed by C2 final stored voltage, 3.12V:
0.95mJ
ratio of charging to stored energy: 1.15 to 1
which is CLOSE to the same value - however, tests with a smaller C2 cap value show a value for this ratio of approx 4 to 1
so - i think the answer to your question is - no - not the SAME energy - and no - not necessarily even the same VALUE of energy
to be fair to the text books... the equations they quote are possibly correct for continuous current flow between charged & non-charged caps
my results are showing anomalies for switched (ie pulsed) charge transfer - and adding series inductance in the CR output path
i believe the 'classical' equations are incomplete/insufficient for these switched charge experiments - we're seeing anomalous charge gain - and therefore a charge gain MUST be accompanied by an energy gain
the measured results confirm this last statement
hi Poynt
yep, i'll send you a .XLS file (Excel 97 version, i think) with data from the results posted on the 'Latest' page on my website
all the best
sandy
______________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc ...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08
"eg. text book would say that to store 2 Joules in a cap requires a total of 4 Joules - 2 end up stored in the cap, 2 get dissipated as work - therefore, the efficiency of charging cap: 50%"
hmm, never realized this, thanks for pointing out.
Quote"eg. text book would say that to store 2 Joules in a cap requires a total of 4 Joules - 2 end up stored in the cap, 2 get dissipated as work - therefore, the efficiency of charging cap: 50%"
hmm, never realized this, thanks for pointing out.
This statement holds true only for a voltage source doing the charging.
it should read:
"eg. text book would say that to store 2 Joules in a cap requires a total of 4 Joules - 2 end up stored in the cap, 2 get dissipated as work
in the external resistance- therefore, the efficiency of charging cap: 50%"
hi alan
i'm sure you're aware by now, having followed this thread with your customary attention to detail, that our recent discussion, on relative energy conversion between charging a cap and the resultant stored energy achieved by it, applies to the test circuits shown in the thread - ie. circuits supplied by voltage source (constant or capacitive)
the 50% efficiency stated by text books, under the context we've been considering, is stated as being regardless of whether the dissipation occurs in external resistance or internal
what if there's absolutely no external DC resistance (improbable)? Then we'd still get 50% energy loss in the internal ESR of the cap
of course, in the real world we'd always get at least some loss in the wiring resistance as well
however, as shown in the schematics of the test setups here, this is an RLC circuit with an intentional external resistive load whose value is chosen to ensure that a significant majority of the output energy gets converted in the load, not lost in wiring or the cap ESR
of course, you're well aware of all the above, so i only need to answer:
"eg. text book would say that to store 2 Joules in a cap requires a total of 4 Joules - 2 end up stored in the cap, 2 get dissipated as work - therefore, the efficiency of charging cap: 50%"
shorter - to the point - and still true ;)
all the best
s.
External resistance includes ESR and wiring.......textbook considerations of capacitors are usually as "ideal" with ESR modeled as a external series resistor. Same for Spice models of capacitors.
a real capacitor has real internal ESR - dissipation of real energy in its internal ESR can contribute to temperature increase in the capacitor
i'm sure each of us is aware of this
all the best
s.
Doc Ringwood Analysis
The biggest problem facing all FE enthusiasts (of which I am one) is obtaining accurate and reliable measurements. Even with the simulations I've been running lately, a fair bit of "eye-balling" is necessary to perform energy calculations. Not being happy or satisfied with this, I set out today to solve this problem once and for all.
In SPICE I have developed a Joule/Watt meter that can be used to directly measure the energy dissipated in any device by measuring the voltage across it, and the current through it to obtain instantaneous power. Then the result is sent through an ideal integrator to provide direct readout of Watt-seconds, or Joules. Sampling before the integrator shows power in Watts if desired.
With this handy new tool in my arsenal, I set out to perform my own simulation test of Sandy's charging setup to see what gives. See the three attachments for the voltage wave forms, the Joule readouts, and the circuit diagram.
From the scope shot "voltages.gif" it's evident that the sim wave form results are very close to Sandy's as posted on his website. The C2 end voltage was very close as well. The time in interest is from 0s to about 9.12ms.
The Joule Meter outputs are shown in "Joules.gif". All dissipative elements are accounted for (except losses in the caps themselves). The green trace is R1 (948uJ), red is D1 (104uJ), and purple/blue is the small coil resistance R2 (47uJ) (in my diagram). The sum of all three losses from the Joules scope shot is 1.1mJ.
The final voltage on C2 is about 3.28V, which computes to 1.05mJ for a 196uF capacitor.
The sum of the total dissipated energy and that left in C2 is 1.1mJ + 1.05mJ = 2.16mJ.
The energy used from C1:
Starting Voltage = 8V; E= 6.08mJ
Ending Voltage after 9.12ms = 6.42V; E= 3.916mJ
Energy used = 2.16mJ
So the energy used equals the energy dissipated and transferred.
Sandy has stated that in his test C1 was discharged from 8V down to 7V, but from my test this seems unlikely if C1 really was 190uF. In order to achieve the same results in the sim, C1 had to be increased a full 50% to 300uF.
As we don't have the scope wave form of C1 discharging in Sandy's test, I have to assume that this is where the error lies. 7V to 6.42V may not seem like a significant difference, but because these voltages are squared to compute energy, it DOES make quite a significant difference, and emphasizes the need to perform careful measurements.
Regards,
.99
PS. Many may be thinking that this Joule Meter would be a great tool to have on their bench ;) Well, I hope to have a design done in the new year for all to build :)
hi Poynt
great work on the 'Simmed' Joule meters - we could all really do with some accurate real-world equivalents!!!
i'm pleased to see that your simmed energy readings, within the circuit, match the values i measured on my latest test circuit (data & calculations as per the Excel spreadsheet i provided for you)
if i understand the sim results correctly, they're saying that there is too much output energy for C1 to be a 196uF capacitor
your explanation of what is happening in my tests is that either i'm misreading 7v as 6.42v in my experiments (for those which use a 1v input drop from 8v on C1) - or that my C1 is actually 300uF
i usually run my tests by adjusting pulse timing parameters and then monitoring the C1 terminal voltage on a DVM before and after the pulse-train - sometimes i monitor the C1 volts drop on one of the scope traces - both methods show the start voltage to be 8v and the final voltage to be 7v (both voltage readings to within approx 2%)
i can provide a scope trace of the input volt drop on C1 if you wish
i think we agree that the final voltage on C2 indicates a stored energy which matches the discharge through the 10ohm resistive load
the measured readings for this energy closely match the 'stored energy' calcs for a 196uF cap
i can swap C1 & C2 and still get equivalent measurements of excess efficiency - this would not be true if C1 was 300uF and C2 is 196uF
it should also be noted that capacitors C1 & C2 are nominal 220uF capacitors with +/- 20% tolerance spec
300uF would be +36%, well outside the spec
C1 & C2 were measured initially using the regular 'discharge time' method: ie. find time T for the discharge of a cap thro' a measured resistor R to 37% of start volts, then C = T / R
my measurements give both cap values within their spec tolerance - and within a few % of each other
the measured values for C1 & C2 have subsequently been confirmed by separate measurements of the inductor value (derived from voltage rise, period & current measurements) to get a cross-check from the measured resonant frequency of the LC combination
it seems to me that there is a third explanation for your sim results (assuming i'm not lying about my results)
this other explanation is that your sim results are confirming that the real circuit is showing greater output than we would expect from the input conditions - ie. overunity behaviour , with efficiences around 145% at the load
kudos for the sim work - i think many of us will be looking forward to the actual circuits!
all the best
sandy
______________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc ...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08
Hi Sandy.
I take your word that the caps are the values you say they are ;). I have no problem there really.
I also take your word for it that you believe you've measured 7V for C1. However, I believe that this is where the error is because 1) there is no scope shot showing C1 and C2 together exchanging charge at the rate you stated, and 2) it's more likely that an error will occur measuring this 7V threshold where timing is critical, as opposed to simply measuring a capacitor value.
I would very much like to see a scope shot of both C1 and C2 voltages as they discharge/charge respectively. That seems to be the most likely place for an error to occur.
It should be quite obvious because there seems to be a factor of 2 involved in the differences between your results and the sim. In the sim C1 discharges down to 7V after only about 4.5ms.
Regards,
.99
hi Poynt
it's important to question everything - that's not a problem
as you can see on my website, i've run a previous series of tests with 0.25F (nominal) supercap stacks for the input & output - test runtimes were in the range 40 - 80 seconds - plenty of time to take readings - similar level of overunity efficiency results
there's no real critical timing on the current tests either since C1 self-discharges slowly towards 8v, at which point i start the run - at the end of the run i get a few seconds to confirm that the final input cap voltage is at least 7v
i'll run a new test tonight (UK time) to record volts on C1 & C2 simultaneously, with timing & load parameters similar to the data i gave you
in the meantime you can see the input voltage decrease i use, on the attached trace from a different test run with the 190 & 196uF caps - red trace is Vin on C1, blue trace is Vout on C2
(scope readings are slightly under 1% higher than the DVM readings, which itself is within 1% of national calibrated eqpt.)
(ignore the the timing & output voltage because there are a different number of pulse cycles and different load conditions on this test - the trace is given just to show typical input levels)
more later
all the best
s.
Quote from: nul-points on December 20, 2008, 10:46:51 PM
hi Poynt
it's important to question everything - that's not a problem
I try only to question that which hasn't yet been answered or shown/proven.
Quote
i'll run a new test tonight (UK time) to record volts on C1 & C2 simultaneously, with timing & load parameters similar to the data i gave you
Great, thanks.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on December 21, 2008, 12:58:12 AM
>> Quote from: nul-points on Today at 03:46:51 AM
>> it's important to question everything - that's not a problem
I try only to question that which hasn't yet been answered or shown/proven.
i understand what you're saying
i'm speaking for all of us: we need to test all our assumptions and, if possible, find cross-checks for the various measurements or calcs we produce
i try to do this to satisfy myself that any results i generate are valid
the information i post is intended mainly to pass information on to others to encourage them to look into the switched charge anomaly themselves - i leave it to scientists operating under full controlled conditions to provide the rigourous testing and explanations which will be needed ultimately if this anomaly bears fruit
i hope you'll find that the information on my website and in this thread provides more complete and more quantifiable results than a great many which claim to be reporting overunity
all the best
s.
Quote from: nul-points on December 21, 2008, 05:43:13 AM
i understand what you're saying
i'm speaking for all of us: we need to test all our assumptions and, if possible, find cross-checks for the various measurements or calcs we produce
i hope you'll find that the information on my website and in this thread provides more complete and more quantifiable results than a great many which claim to be reporting overunity
all the best
s.
Sandy,
Absolutely. I like your style, and with a minor tweak here and there, you present a good model for others to follow.
It would be a great boon to the FE community if more people would strive to perform good basic Measurements as you have done. False alarms would be reduced to near zero, and credibility would soar. I'm all for learning, but most would gain "building-block" knowledge and learn faster if they took the time to understand what they are seeing before jumping to the next unfounded conclusion. Chances are excellent that if a "conventional explanation" exists for what one is observing, then that is more than likely what is really taking place.
This is not to say there are no "unknowns" left to explore, but it should be realized that they may not come along so easily. Being able to recognize what's normal and what's worth investigating in terms of FE research has its advantages. We are always able to satisfy ourselves much more easily that we've observed something anomalous, but we need to go a few steps further to be convincing to someone that is not so closely "attached" to the experiment. We must be our own scrutinizing skeptic.
Regards,
.99
Hey, look at my schematics:
@Magnethos
interesting to see how you envision positive and negative resistance - thanks for posting your diagrams - comments anyone?
Quote from: poynt99 on December 20, 2008, 09:46:19 PM
I also take your word for it that you believe you've measured 7V for C1. However, I believe that this is where the error is because 1) there is no scope shot showing C1 and C2 together exchanging charge at the rate you stated, and 2) it's more likely that an error will occur measuring this 7V threshold where timing is critical, as opposed to simply measuring a capacitor value.
I would very much like to see a scope shot of both C1 and C2 voltages as they discharge/charge respectively. That seems to be the most likely place for an error to occur.
It should be quite obvious because there seems to be a factor of 2 involved in the differences between your results and the sim. In the sim C1 discharges down to 7V after only about 4.5ms.
i'm posting a scope trace of voltage on C1 & C2 during a test run - this relates to the measured results for energy converted by the 10ohm load resistor, as given in the 'Latest' section of my website
you should note that the trace levels shown here are approx 1% less accurate (higher) than my DVM readings - closer values are:-
C1 initial voltage: 8.00v (measured value on DVM at which i started this test run)
C1 final voltage: 7.01v (measured value on DVM at which this test run ended)
C2 final voltage: 3.17v (adjusted by -1.25% from 3.21v, final C2 voltage on trace)
as you can see, the input voltage on C1 decreases from 8V to 7V in approx 9ms, as stated in the results posted for the test on my website
all the best
sandy
______________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc ...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08
Very good article about negative resistance
Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_resistance
Gabriel Kro's Negative Resistor
Quotehttp://www.cheniere.org/images/meg/f6.jpg
Sandy Thanks,
You may have something there then. In theory C1 should discharge at twice the rate it is in your setup. If you can figure out how it's doing this (I take it you haven't yet), then perhaps you can close the loop somehow. I don't know if it will be that easy in this setup however. Will have to think a bit on that.
I wonder why Dave was not able to get similar results? I'd say in general it's got to remain fairly inconclusive until another has achieved the same results with your guidance. Guess I will have to try this myself. Do you have coil construction specs?
On a side note; there are hundreds of SMPS designs out there, and none are ou. How could the development of these designs over all these years not have revealed any anomalies such as what you're seeing?
I can't help feeling that we're missing something.
Regards,
.99
@Magnethos
thanks for the Neg. Res. links
hi Poynt
thanks for your interest in these switched charge experiments
Quote from: poynt99 on December 21, 2008, 04:18:37 PM
perhaps you can close the loop somehow.
i've shared my thoughts on the limitations and conditionals for the OU behaviour of the switched charge circuit - my experiments continue
Quote from: poynt99
I wonder why Dave was not able to get similar results?
if Cap'n P can achieve the basic charge anomaly then
anybody can ;)
Quote from: poynt99
Do you have coil construction specs?
i don't believe the coil construction is critical - i usually use a few tens of turns of 0.45mm magnet wire random wound, solenoid-style, on a tubular ferrite core, approx 12mm OD x 30mm, inductance around a few mH, DC resistance probably best between 0.5 - 1ohm, plenty of additional ferrite
home in on the charge anomaly first; then inspect the circuit to reduce losses and maximise energy conversion at the load
Quote from: poynt99
On a side note; there are hundreds of SMPS designs out there, and none are ou. How could the development of these designs over all these years not have revealed any anomalies such as what you're seeing?
I can't help feeling that we're missing something.
look at the efficiency of charging a cap, then look at the claimed efficiencies of SMPS systems - something doesn't add up!
BTW i think your Joules Meter is going to revolutionise OU experimentation - you'll probably bring this forum to a standstill :)
all the best
s.
Quote from: nul-points on December 21, 2008, 05:54:26 PM
look at the efficiency of charging a cap, then look at the claimed efficiencies of SMPS systems - something doesn't add up!
Could you elaborate?
I see no irregularity in this comparison.
Claimed SMPS efficiencies are around 95%.
I just ran a sim test with your coil (2.5mH, 0.5 Ohm) and two 4.7uF capacitors. Energy transfer
n is
93.7%.
Regards,
.99
[Edit]
Actually, the stated efficiency of 93.7% is not quite correct. This would be only for voltage transfer, not energy transfer. The energy transfer efficiency in this case computes to
87.8%.
hi Poynt
Quote from: poynt99 on December 21, 2008, 07:46:22 PM
> Quote from: nul-points on December 21, 2008, 10:54:26 PM
> look at the efficiency of charging a cap, then look at the claimed efficiencies of SMPS systems - something doesn't add up!
Could you elaborate?
I see no irregularity in this comparison.
Claimed SMPS efficiencies are around 95%.
yes - claimed efficiency for charging a cap (ie. just that - nothing fancy) is 50%
Quote from: poynt99
I just ran a sim test with your coil (2.5mH, 0.5 Ohm) and two 4.7uF capacitors. Energy transfer n is 93.7%.
interesting sim results - is the sim really saying that one cap discharges from 18V to 1V while the second cap charges from 0 to 17V?
all the best
s.
Sandy,
Yes, the voltages are as denoted in the scope shot.
On an equal playing field (i.e. using an inductor in each case as I stated), the SMPS and simple cap to cap transfer are about the same efficiency, if the values are set correctly. I used 4.7uF caps and your 2.5mH inductor. Transfer is done through a diode in one shot as you can see from the scope shot.
.99
hi Poynt
your latest sim run very eloquently illustrates my point earlier about the comparison between the claimed efficiency for SMPS and that claimed for charging a capacitor:
when using a series coil & some means of rectifying the charge transfer (eg. diode or switch) to a cap, an SMPS manufacturer can claim 90+% energy efficiency
when supplying current direct to the capacitor (no coils or rectification), the text books claim 50% energy efficiency
as you've seen from the results of the switched charge tests here, it appears that its possible to refine the coil/rectification approach to get up to 150% energy efficiency on a resistive load
all the best
s.
Quote from: nul-points on December 22, 2008, 08:30:51 PM
when supplying current direct to the capacitor (no coils or rectification), the text books claim 50% energy efficiency
The text books are correct in this regard. I have proven this to myself with a test of my own here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6090.msg143650#msg143650
Quote from: nul-points on December 22, 2008, 08:30:51 PM
as you've seen from the results of the switched charge tests here, it appears that its possible to refine the coil/rectification approach to get up to 150% energy efficiency on a resistive load
At the moment I must reserve judgment on whether in fact it is possible or not. So far there are only two independent experiments using your circuit configuration; yours which seems to indicate overunity, and Dave's which seems to indicate underunity. Until more independent tests are done (including my own), for me the jury is still out on this one.
Regards,
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on December 22, 2008, 11:41:20 PM
> Quote from: nul-points on Today at 01:30:51 AM
> when supplying current direct to the capacitor (no coils or rectification), the text books claim 50% energy efficiency
The text books are correct in this regard. I have proven this to myself with a test of my own here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6090.msg143650#msg143650
ok, i think we're getting to the heart of this anomaly now...
you see, either a capacitor inherently always needs 50% external work performed in charging it or not
the text books say 'yes it does - a work function is required to over come the increasing polarisation of the dielectric as the cap contains increasing charge' - the energy losses, L, are around 50% of the input energy, E
eg. E - L >= 50% of E
in which case, improving the overall efficiency with an LC arrangement, like your sim and my tests show, must be adding excess energy, X, to the system - in addition to the inherent losses, L, of charging the cap
eg. X + E - L > 90% of E
if this is not the case, then the text books are wrong and it is possible, with a suitable arrangement, to charge a cap with minimal external work
eg. L < 10% of E
this is the point of my earlier statement comparing the claimed efficiencies of SMPS and inherent cap charging
interesting, then, that your testing confirms that L is around 50%, don't you think?
all the best
s.
...correcting typo above:-
E - L = 50% of E
Quote from: nul-points on December 23, 2008, 03:21:51 AM
ok, i think we're getting to the heart of this anomaly now...
you see, either a capacitor inherently always needs 50% external work performed in charging it or not
the text books say 'yes it does - a work function is required to over come the increasing polarisation of the dielectric as the cap contains increasing charge' - the energy losses, L, are around 50% of the input energy, E
eg. E - L >= 50% of E
in which case, improving the overall efficiency with an LC arrangement, like your sim and my tests show, must be adding excess energy, X, to the system - in addition to the inherent losses, L, of charging the cap
eg. X + E - L > 90% of E
if this is not the case, then the text books are wrong and it is possible, with a suitable arrangement, to charge a cap with minimal external work
eg. L < 10% of E
this is the point of my earlier statement comparing the claimed efficiencies of SMPS and inherent cap charging
interesting, then, that your testing confirms that L is around 50%, don't you think?
all the best
s.
I sense a fundamental misunderstanding of how and where the losses occur, and how and why with the addition of a proper inductor one can increase the efficiency substantially, theoretically to 100%
If we assume the simple case without any inductors, the text books are correct and 50% of the energy used to charge a capacitor is lost mainly due to dissipation in the resistive elements in the circuit. This limits the energy transfer efficiency to 50%. We also know that it makes no difference at all how small or large the value is for the resistance in the circuit, the total energy lost will always be 50%.
With the addition of a properly selected inductor to the circuit, the energy transfer efficiency can be increased to a theoretical maximum of 100%, although in practice due to various resistive elements, some loss is exhibited and practical limits are 95% to 97%.
So the addition of the inductor
promotes the reduction of losses. It
does not add excess energy to the circuit.
How does the inductor accomplish this feat?
It's really quite simple and it comes down to resistance, resistance, resistance.
A superconductor does not dissipate any energy whence power flows through it. For all intents and purposes, it has zero resistance
R and hence P=I
2R = 0 Watts. If no power is dissipated in this superconductor, then it is also true that no energy is lost in it.
Unfortunately, superconductors are still hard to come by in a practical sense, so for now we will have some finite resistances and their associated losses to deal with in our circuits. There is hope however.
By introducing an inductance into the circuit, we now have a storage element as well as a dissipative element (our finite resistances) in series. What we want to do is make the ratio between the inductance and resistance as high as possible. This offsets the balance between the dissipative element and storage element to the point where the storage element largely dominates. Remember a resistive element can only dissipate energy, it can not store it. The higher we can make this ratio, the higher will be the energy transfer efficiency (maxing out at 100%).
So now we have 3 storage elements in series; C1-L1-C2. Capacitors store energy in the form of charge, and inductors in the form of magnetic flux. Assuming ideal components, C1 dumps 100% of its energy to L1 where it is stored as magnetic flux, and after the switch opens L1 transfers 100% of this energy to C2 where the energy is once again stored in the form of charge. In this lossless process, 100% the energy has been transferred from C1 to C2 and it has changed form twice. L1 acted as the lossless transfer medium. L1 is ideal so it did not lose any of the energy in the process. It was charged, then discharged of its magnetic flux.
To be fair, we must re-introduce a tiny bit of resistance (r), because in reality that is what we have: C1-r-L1-r-C2. Because of this tiny resistance, the balance sways back a little to the lossy side, and the process becomes imperfect. The "r" is where the loss occurs (as small as it may be) and it's one we can't escape at the moment.
If we go back to the beginning scenario without any significant inductance we have C1-R-C2. The "lossless" storage element is gone and we are left only with a dissipative one that consumes half of our applied energy, the ubiquitous circuit resistance!
.99
hi Poynt
Quote from: poynt99 on December 23, 2008, 11:08:19 PM
I sense a fundamental misunderstanding of how and where the losses occur
that's the nicest way i've seen of saying that someone doesn't know what they're talking about :)
nice lecture, BTW
let's get back to the original point: i commented that there's a discrepancy between the energy efficiency claimed for SMPS operation (>90%) and that claimed by text-books for the fundamental process of getting charge stored in a capacitor (50%)
we're told by text-books that external work has to be done to charge a capacitor because, as it charges, the polarisation of the dielectric increases and the applied source has to do work to overcome this increasing opposition
the same text-books do not appear to offer exceptions to this inherent behaviour - so IF this WERE a fundamental truth about the work function involved in charging a capacitor then it OUGHT TO apply in whatever circumstances a capacitor gets charged
i am not saying that the text-books are correct or incorrect on this - i am pointing out an inconsistency between their explanation of why work needs to be done in charging a capacitor (side effect: 50% efficiency) and our experience of real-world circuits, like some SMPS systems (90+% energy efficiencies), which may involve the frequent repetitive charging of a capacitor
IF the text-book justification for work expended in charging a capacitor is INCOMPLETE or INCORRECT then we can expect to be able, with a suitable circuit arrangement, to charge a capacitor with little penalty of energy loss
IF HOWEVER the text-books are CORRECT and COMPLETE in their statement about cap charging requiring work to be expended, then this is not consistent with the system efficiencies, >50%, we see when we include inductance and rectification or switching into the charge path
our experience does not tie-in with the text-book
my point is that either there is excess energy available or it IS possible to charge a cap without increasing work required - either way, the text-books need to be updated
all the best - happy holidays, all
s.
Quote from: nul-points on December 24, 2008, 03:31:16 AM
let's get back to the original point: i commented that there's a discrepancy between the energy efficiency claimed for SMPS operation (>90%) and that claimed by text-books for the fundamental process of getting charge stored in a capacitor (50%)
The comparison is between apples and oranges. I see no descrepancy as each is correct in its own right.
Quote
we're told by text-books that external work has to be done to charge a capacitor because, as it charges, the polarisation of the dielectric increases and the applied source has to do work to overcome this increasing opposition
This of course assumes they are referring to the scenario where only a piece of wire or resistor is connecting the source to the capacitor in question. In this case half of the work is lost. This is well known and generally accepted. Caution needs to be exercised in interpreting what the text book is actually saying. Please post the exact quote from the textbook being referred to. It might help clear things up.
Quote
the same text-books do not appear to offer exceptions to this inherent behaviour - so IF this WERE a fundamental truth about the work function involved in charging a capacitor then it OUGHT TO apply in whatever circumstances a capacitor gets charged
Again, this comes down to interpreting what the book is saying, and what the intent of their message is. It would also be a very good idea to obtain more than one source for this type of information and compare.
Quote
i am not saying that the text-books are correct or incorrect on this - i am pointing out an inconsistency between their explanation of why work needs to be done in charging a capacitor (side effect: 50% efficiency) and our experience of real-world circuits, like some SMPS systems (90+% energy efficiencies), which may involve the frequent repetitive charging of a capacitor
The "why" of the fact that work needs to be done is inherent in that charging is being done through a resistance. If the text book does not state otherwise, this must be assumed and the lesson being conveyed is therefore correct.
Quote
IF the text-book justification for work expended in charging a capacitor is INCOMPLETE or INCORRECT then we can expect to be able, with a suitable circuit arrangement, to charge a capacitor with little penalty of energy loss
If the textbook does not give reasons for the energy loss, then I would say it is incomplete. This is why I suggest posting the exact quotes from the book here. I suspect the text book does state where the energy is being lost however at some point, and in this sense would be complete and correct based on the intent of the lesson being conveyed.
Quote
IF HOWEVER the text-books are CORRECT and COMPLETE in their statement about cap charging requiring work to be expended, then this is not consistent with the system efficiencies, >50%, we see when we include inductance and rectification or switching into the charge path
our experience does not tie-in with the text-book
Again this comes down to the intent of the message in the text book. Chances are it's a lesson in the basic physics of charging a capacitor, not one in basic SMPS theory. Also, text books are like anythng else that is produced; some are good quality, and some not so good.
Quote
my point is that either there is excess energy available or it IS possible to charge a cap without increasing work required - either way, the text-books need to be updated
The "excess energy" theory is unproven and unlikely as I showed in my previous post, and yes it's been shown and proven that it's possible to charge a capacitor in a near lossless manner. If the text book does not mention "inductors" or "constant current charging" in the same lesson regarding the charging of capacitors, then the intention is not to express ways to increase the efficiency of such, and there is no need to correct or update it.
Merry Christmas all!
.99
A footnote to my post #203 above:
It should be noted that no work is done in the process of transferring the energy of a pre-charged ideal capacitor through an ideal inductor, through to another ideal capacitor. With 0-Ohm wiring of course.
Regards,
.99
hi Poynt
thanks for sharing your opinions with us all over the last few days, much appreciated
time to let any visitors to the thread who are interested in these matters go 'into the lab' and test them to their own satisfaction
all the best
s.
@Poynt99
What is you aim?
"Nul-Points" is a very serious, accurate experimenter and also a very polite, nice,
attentive, friendly and patient person.
I'm not so patient!
Are you another 'OU' Luminary Nitpicker?
IMHO, You sound heavily pontificative. Sound you not?
Did you ever make any experiments or just maths and mainstream text books parroting?
Souffrez Monsieur "Je m'la pète grave", que je vous suggérasse, d'aller vous faire empapahouter
chez les Héllènes.
Jean-Yves
Quote from: NerzhDishual on December 24, 2008, 10:08:16 PM
@Poynt99
What is you aim?
"Nul-Points" is a very serious, accurate experimenter and also a very polite, nice,
attentive, friendly and patient person.
I'm not so patient!
Are you another 'OU' Luminary Nitpicker?
IMHO, You sound heavily pontificative. Sound you not?
Did you ever make any experiments or just maths and mainstream text books parroting?
Souffrez Monsieur "Je m'la pète grave", que je vous suggérasse, d'aller vous faire empapahouter
chez les Héllènes.
Jean-Yves
NerzhDishual,
I would suggest that if you take issue with anything I've posted, that you express your concerns through facts, figures and empirical results. Otherwise you're not likely to drag me into any pointless and time-wasting discussions. Let's keep the focus on the facts please. It's been a productive discussion so far, let's try to keep it that way.
Regards,
.99
In the "Free Energy Guide" FEG 5-9 on the Tesla Switch it states that free energy can be tapped from a battery
because of the delay in the Lead Ions reacting to the drain on the battery,.
By switching the direction of current flow at just the right time an increase in energy is experienced.
FEG 5-9 explains it quite well so I won't try to.
The question is does a capacitor have a similar state to a battery?
If not this would explain why capacitors won't work in a Tesla Switch.
Quote from: NerzhDishual on December 24, 2008, 10:08:16 PM
@Poynt99
What is you aim?
"Nul-Points" is a very serious, accurate experimenter and also a very polite, nice,
attentive, friendly and patient person.
I'm not so patient!
Are you another 'OU' Luminary Nitpicker?
IMHO, You sound heavily pontificative.
merci bien, Mr Dishual
c'est de la gnognotte! ;)
tres cordialement et Joyeux Noel
sandy
______________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc ...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08
Quote from: AbbaRue on December 25, 2008, 01:07:36 PM
In the "Free Energy Guide" FEG 5-9 on the Tesla Switch it states that free energy can be tapped from a battery
because of the delay in the Lead Ions reacting to the drain on the battery,.
By switching the direction of current flow at just the right time an increase in energy is experienced.
FEG 5-9 explains it quite well so I won't try to.
The question is does a capacitor have a similar state to a battery?
If not this would explain why capacitors won't work in a Tesla Switch.
depends how the capacitor is constructed as to whether it can support any ionic flow in addition to electron flow - suggest you direct this question to a thread which has a 'Tesla Switch' focus
thanks
s.
@poynt99
QuoteThe text books are correct in this regard. I have proven this to myself with a test of my own here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6090.msg143650#msg143650
I think it should be clarified that the capacitor 50% rule only applies in one circumstance, this does not mean it applies in every circumstance-----there is a very big difference. For instance using an large self-inductance coil and a switch I can charge a capacitor to 400v from a 12v source battery in one single pulse, now how can this 50% rule apply when I have charged the capacitor 388v above the source voltage?. Now what do you think the system efficiency is when you consider the fact that 376v on the capacitor can be returned back to the source? Your rules only apply if you keep doing the same thing over and over, thankfully many here no longer subscribe to that kind of mentality---- we do things a little different ;D.
Quote from: nul-points on December 25, 2008, 06:45:41 PM
depends how the capacitor is constructed as to whether it can support any ionic flow in addition to electron flow - suggest you direct this question to a thread which has a 'Tesla Switch' focus
thanks
s.
Sandy, how does the construction of a capacitor determine this?
Quote from: allcanadian on December 25, 2008, 08:50:57 PM
@poynt99I think it should be clarified that the capacitor 50% rule only applies in one circumstance, this does not mean it applies in every circumstance-----there is a very big difference. For instance using an large self-inductance coil and a switch I can charge a capacitor to 400v from a 12v source battery in one single pulse, now how can this 50% rule apply when I have charged the capacitor 388v above the source voltage?. Now what do you think the system efficiency is when you consider the fact that 376v on the capacitor can be returned back to the source? Your rules only apply if you keep doing the same thing over and over, thankfully many here no longer subscribe to that kind of mentality---- we do things a little different ;D.
is more "energy" delivered to the capacitor?
I mentioned the Tesla Switch on this thread because the first few pages mentioned it.
On page 2 the title was: Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like half 'Tesla Switch'
Sorry I didn't mean to get anyone off topic, I guess it evolved past the Tesla Switch concept.
In case anyone missed it I posted a link to a Free Energy Guide you can download.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6394.msg146005;topicseen#msg146005
This guide covers most of the devices on this forum.
@Grumpy
Quoteis more "energy" delivered to the capacitor?
If E=CVsquared then yes more energy is "transfered" to the capacitor---and more energy is conserved within the system by utilizing a minimum of components. The faster the voltage is stepped up the faster losses can be reduced, everyone seems to want free energy ----I just want to conserve the energy I have first and then I will worry about the "free stuff" ;D.
Quote from: Grumpy on December 25, 2008, 08:52:14 PM
Sandy, how does the construction of a capacitor determine this?
if you construct it with a dielectric which can support ion flow, not just electron polarisation
eg. water in its liquid phase can exhibit both these properties - in its solid phase the ion flow reduces significantly
all the best
s.
Quote from: nul-points on December 26, 2008, 07:48:56 AM
if you construct it with a dielectric which can support ion flow, not just electron polarisation
eg. water in its liquid phase can exhibit both these properties - in its solid phase the ion flow reduces significantly
all the best
s.
pretty sure it can't work that way, but good luck with that
Quote from: Grumpy on December 26, 2008, 11:22:37 AM
pretty sure it can't work that way, but good luck with that
what are you referring to here? Abba Rue's question about ionic flow? my answer?
good luck with what?
hey, i want some of what you've been drinking this holiday!! ;)
all the best
s.
Quote from: allcanadian on December 25, 2008, 08:50:57 PM
@poynt99I think it should be clarified that the capacitor 50% rule only applies in one circumstance, this does not mean it applies in every circumstance-----there is a very big difference. For instance using an large self-inductance coil and a switch I can charge a capacitor to 400v from a 12v source battery in one single pulse, now how can this 50% rule apply when I have charged the capacitor 388v above the source voltage?. Now what do you think the system efficiency is when you consider the fact that 376v on the capacitor can be returned back to the source? Your rules only apply if you keep doing the same thing over and over, thankfully many here no longer subscribe to that kind of mentality---- we do things a little different ;D.
From this response it doesn't appear you've been reading or maybe not understanding what's been posted previously here.
Also, with a coil and battery,
anyone can easily charge a capacitor to a voltage much higher than the starting voltage, and in one shot. Is this really a novel feat? No. Is this overunity? No. Have I done it? Yes. Does this mean an efficiency greater than 100% has been achieved? No. Is it an efficiency greater than 50%? In most cases, Yes.
Quote from: allcanadian on December 25, 2008, 09:33:04 PM
@Grumpy If E=CV2 then yes more energy is "transferred" to the capacitor---and more energy is conserved within the system by utilizing a minimum of components. The faster the voltage is stepped up the faster losses can be reduced, everyone seems to want free energy ----I just want to conserve the energy I have first and then I will worry about the "free stuff" ;D.
In all cases, does a higher end-voltage on the capacitor really mean higher energy than what you started with? Could you give an example with numbers? Thanks.
.99
Quote from: nul-points on December 26, 2008, 06:27:01 PM
what are you referring to here? Abba Rue's question about ionic flow? my answer?
good luck with what?
hey, i want some of what you've been drinking this holiday!! ;)
all the best
s.
You previously posted:
Quote from: nul-points on December 26, 2008, 07:48:56 AM
if you construct it with a dielectric which can support ion flow, not just electron polarisation
eg. water in its liquid phase can exhibit both these properties - in its solid phase the ion flow reduces significantly
all the best
s.
You may want to read up on dielectrics and ions.
If a dielectric supports ion flow but not electron flow - it is a simi-conductor and not a true dielectric. Dielectrics do not permit electron or ion flow unless the undergo breakdown and become conductive then they are no longer dielectrics.
Quote from: allcanadian on December 25, 2008, 08:50:57 PM
@poynt99I think it should be clarified that the capacitor 50% rule only applies in one circumstance, this does not mean it applies in every circumstance-----there is a very big difference. For instance using an large self-inductance coil and a switch I can charge a capacitor to 400v from a 12v source battery in one single pulse, now how can this 50% rule apply when I have charged the capacitor 388v above the source voltage?. Now what do you think the system efficiency is when you consider the fact that 376v on the capacitor can be returned back to the source? Your rules only apply if you keep doing the same thing over and over, thankfully many here no longer subscribe to that kind of mentality---- we do things a little different ;D.
Doing this, you st ill have not increased the voltage applied to the capacitor - which was 400v not 12v.
I'm sure everyone is getting tired of the "we do things different" babble when it is wrong.
@ EVERYONE
What is a capacitor? and how does it work?
I always remember that a capacitor exchanges time for energy.
If a capacitor takes 10 s to charge and you discharge it in 1 s you have about 10x the energy.
Now if we can find a way to slow time down for the capacitor while keeping our selves in a regular time flow. ;D ;D
As for ionic flow in a capacitor maybe this does happen in electrolytic capacitors to some extent.
In an electrolytic capacitor one of the plates is a liquid Aluminum hydroxide used to be used.
I don't know if they still use it in the modern ones. Easy to find out though just google it.
As far as dielectrics go: I always wondered what would happen if you used a semiconductor in place of it in a capacitor.
I mean using the opposite semiconductor to the charge on a plate, so current wants to flow towards each plate.
Quote from: AbbaRue on December 27, 2008, 02:13:48 PM
I always remember that a capacitor exchanges time for energy.
If a capacitor takes 10 s to charge and you discharge it in 1 s you have about 10x the energy.
Work through an example and see if this is in fact true.
Recalling that Energy=Joules=Watt-seconds, wouldn't the energy in both above cases be equal?
.99
Quote from: Grumpy on December 27, 2008, 12:40:14 PM
You [nul-points] previously posted:
> ...a dielectric which can support ion flow, not just electron polarisation
eg. water in its liquid phase can exhibit both these properties...
If a dielectric supports ion flow but not electron flow - it is a simi-conductor and not a true dielectric.
as you can see from my post you just quoted, i didn't say 'supports ion flow but not electron flow'
Quote from: Grumpy
Dielectrics do not permit electron or ion flow unless the undergo breakdown and become conductive then they are no longer dielectrics.
you appear to know quite a lot about this subject - more than Cornell Dubilier Electronics**, it seems ;)
(** CDE Inc., once the world's largest capacitor company)
Quote from: Grumpy
You may want to read up on dielectrics and ions.
not really, looking at my library of stored webpages on the subject, i see i already did some reading around the subject this summer
here's just a couple quotes (because i like you)
eg., stored 28/07/08
The Perreault Capacitor has more than twenty times the capacitance density of conventional capacitors, essentially unlimited cycle life, and stable operating performance. Unlike many batteries, the Perreault Capacitor can be safely and reliably operated throughout the -55° to +85°C temperature range.
The high capacitance of the capture capacitor results from an electrostatic charge stored at the interface between activated carbon and an aqueous electrolyte in the so-called electric double layer.
Since ions are physically stored rather than through chemical reactions, extremely long cycle life results.
and these, stored 29/07/08, from Cornell Dubilier Electronics, not quite as knowledgable as you admittedly, but still interesting :)
"Electrolytes have lower conductivity than metals, so are only used in capacitors when metallic plate is not practical, such as when the dielectric surface is fragile or rough in shape or
when ionic current is required to maintain the dielectric integrity"
"The disadvantage of electrolytic capacitors is the non-ideal, lossy
characteristics which arise from the semiconductive oxide properties"
"The primary purpose of the electrolyte is to serve as a "plate" on the outer anode oxide surface and also to connect to the cathode plate. The electrolyte is a high-resistivity, high-dielectric-constant, high dielectric-strength organic liquid solvent with one or more dissolved,
ionically conductive solutes."
all the best
s.
Quote from: AbbaRue on December 27, 2008, 02:13:48 PM
I always remember that a capacitor exchanges time for energy.
If a capacitor takes 10 s to charge and you discharge it in 1 s you have about 10x the energy.
hi Abba
i think you mean 10x the power, not energy: Energy = Av Power x Time
all the best
s.
Quote from: nul-points on December 27, 2008, 06:48:00 PM
as you can see from my post you just quoted, i didn't say 'supports ion flow but not electron flow'
you appear to know quite a lot about this subject - more than Cornell Dubilier Electronics**, it seems ;)
(** CDE Inc., once the world's largest capacitor company)
not really, looking at my library of stored webpages on the subject, i see i already did some reading around the subject this summer
here's just a couple quotes (because i like you)
eg., stored 28/07/08
The Perreault Capacitor has more than twenty times the capacitance density of conventional capacitors, essentially unlimited cycle life, and stable operating performance. Unlike many batteries, the Perreault Capacitor can be safely and reliably operated throughout the -55° to +85°C temperature range. The high capacitance of the capture capacitor results from an electrostatic charge stored at the interface between activated carbon and an aqueous electrolyte in the so-called electric double layer. Since ions are physically stored rather than through chemical reactions, extremely long cycle life results.
and these, stored 29/07/08, from Cornell Dubilier Electronics, not quite as knowledgable as you admittedly, but still interesting :)
"Electrolytes have lower conductivity than metals, so are only used in capacitors when metallic plate is not practical, such as when the dielectric surface is fragile or rough in shape or when ionic current is required to maintain the dielectric integrity"
"The disadvantage of electrolytic capacitors is the non-ideal, lossy characteristics which arise from the semiconductive oxide properties"
"The primary purpose of the electrolyte is to serve as a "plate" on the outer anode oxide surface and also to connect to the cathode plate. The electrolyte is a high-resistivity, high-dielectric-constant, high dielectric-strength organic liquid solvent with one or more dissolved, ionically conductive solutes."
all the best
s.
Sandy,
You apparently have absolutely no understanding of the information you have quoted, so don't go around spouting off with stuff you do not even understand.
A dielectric that can support ion flow is either in a state of breakdown or has otherwise been rendered conductive - like they say in the info you just post where they add stuff to the dielectric fluid to make it an electrolyte.
The "Perreault Capacitor" sounds like a bunch of hype about a water capacitor.
Heydude said this before I did and deserves credit. I concur 100%. Well said and succinctly put.
Quote from: HEYDUDE on December 11, 2008, 09:57:51 PM
When charging the capacitor from an ideal lossless inductor (no DCR, no eddy losses) that has been priorly charged from a voltage source, it now becomes a pure (lossless) current source and the magnetic energy in joules stored in the inductor, when released into the capacitor will charge it to the same quantity of joules. There is no "extra" amount of joules required to do this.
I have a whole stack of university level textbooks cluttering my desk, but common sense will tell you that the 50% loss is attributed to the non-ideal current source comprised of the voltage source plus charging resistor. This is the culprit and what the textbooks base the "simple charge equation" on. The 50% energy is lost as heat in the resistor, because in this case all of the current must flow through the resistor and it is a lossy device by nature.
Kind regards HD
There are yet no rebuttals?
See also: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg145766#msg145766
.99
Hi all,
This thread has gone a bit scew wiff?
Sandy has said that from the energy used from C1, there is more in total stored in C2 and used in R1 than was taken from C1.
So this is not about mis-understandings of 50% loss during charging with no inductive parts or differences with Switched Mode Power Supplies which can have theoretical efficiency up to %99. Sandys test shows in the region of %147.
It is purely that according to his measurements there is more energy used in R1 and stored in C2 than was taken from C1 in the first place, but everyone is skirting around that and trying to pick out other things.
Measuring the starting energy in C1 and the energy taken from C1 cannot be at fault beacuse that is straight forward DC measurement and application of simple energy formula. The energy stored in C2 after the test run is also a simple DC measurement and simple formula. Just these two do not show any excess energy.
The excess shows up when you add the energy used in R1 to the energy left over in C2 and compare that to the energy taken from C1. So the key lies in the scope measurement and calculation for energy used in R1.
It is an irregular waveform and Sandy has taken the average of the instantaneuous power in R1 over the complete test cycle. In average measurements this may be perfectly acceptable, but here it could could be the difference between champagne and a red face.
.99 did a very nice PDF which showed how efficiency can increase (although it does not explain why the need to use more energy to charge a capacictor the more it is charged, can be over come (according to Sandy)). But it does not explain how more energy can be used in total than was taken from the first capacitor.
The energy measurement in R1 must be confirmed. I have performed a few tests and so far I cannot see any excess energy let alone confirm the measurement. I have been very busy over the last few weeks but will try a few more tests before moving on. We must not ignore things like the sampling rate of our digital scopes and the data we then exported to Excel which could give us different figures for the same test?
@.99, you mentioned that if you can charge a capacitor to a higher voltage it doesn't mean you have excess energy? I am not sure of the circumstances, but if I have a circuit running off a cap that starts with say 10v and the circuit is able to use the energy stored in that cap and increase the stored voltage to 100v in the same cap and the capacitance value has not changed, then that would surely be excess energy would it not? I am sure this is not what you meant when you said you had done that many times?
Regards,
Dave.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 27, 2008, 10:52:22 PM
Quote from: HEYDUDE on December 12, 2008, 02:57:51 AM
> ...There is no "extra" amount of joules required to do this...
> ...50% energy is lost as heat in the resistor, because in this case all of the current must flow through the resistor..
Heydude said this before I did and deserves credit. I concur 100%. Well said and succinctly put.
There are yet no rebuttals?
you concur 100%?
interesting
HD's 1st para is addressing something which hadn't been stated in the thread**
- and HD´s 2nd para was just a repeat of what i've previously been saying in the thread
so the first point was a non-issue and the second wasn't in dispute
no 'rebuttal', as you put it, necessary
all the best
s.
** i'd mentioned that the textbook position on charging a capacitor claims that, in order to do this, work is required as the cap charges, to overcome the increasing polarisation of the dielectric
HD appeared to have misread my statement as if i was saying that somehow an "extra amount of joules" were required
Quote from: Grumpy on December 27, 2008, 07:31:03 PM
Sandy,
You apparently have absolutely no understanding of the information you have quoted, so don't go around spouting off with stuff you do not even understand.
...
The "Perreault Capacitor" sounds like a bunch of hype about a water capacitor.
i'm pleased to see that your sense of humour is as well-developed as your knowledge of hybrid capacitors ;)
well, gentlemen, much as i'd like to sit down with you guys, chewing the fat, the holiday is over and i've got experiments to run
all the best
s.
Quote from: CTG Labs on December 28, 2008, 04:51:09 AM
Hi all,
This thread has gone a bit scew wiff?
...
The excess shows up when you add the energy used in R1 to the energy left over in C2 and compare that to the energy taken from C1. So the key lies in the scope measurement and calculation for energy used in R1.
It is an irregular waveform and Sandy has taken the average of the instantaneuous power in R1 over the complete test cycle. In average measurements this may be perfectly acceptable, but here it could could be the difference between champagne and a red face.
welcome back Dave - as always, an incisive and apposite contribution to bring the thread back on track! good to see
...testing continues...
all the best
s.
Quote from: nul-points on December 28, 2008, 07:48:14 AM
i'm pleased to see that your sense of humour is as well-developed as your knowledge of hybrid capacitors ;)
well, gentlemen, much as i'd like to sit down with you guys, chewing the fat, the holiday is over and i've got experiments to run
all the best
s.
You missed my point, but you are correct - I know nothing about hybrid capacitors.
Good luck with you experiments.
appreciated, thanks
Quote from: CTG Labs on December 28, 2008, 04:51:09 AM
Sandy has said that from the energy used from C1, there is more in total stored in C2 and used in R1 than was taken from C1.
No dispute here.
Quote
So this is not about mis-understandings of 50% loss during charging with no inductive parts or differences with Switched Mode Power Supplies which can have theoretical efficiency up to %99. Sandys test shows in the region of %147.
I have no issue with this. If you check back a few pages (see link below) you will see that it was not I that brought up the discrepancy issue between normal capacitor charging efficiency vs. the efficiency of SMPS's. My response was to point out that there is no discrepancy. Both are as they should be. At any rate, I hardly think this is too off topic. It is all related and educational to reiterate.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg145191#msg145191 (bottom of post)
Quote
It is purely that according to his measurements there is more energy used in R1 and stored in C2 than was taken from C1 in the first place, but everyone is skirting around that and trying to pick out other things.
Measuring the starting energy in C1 and the energy taken from C1 cannot be at fault because that is straight forward DC measurement and application of simple energy formula. The energy stored in C2 after the test run is also a simple DC measurement and simple formula. Just these two do not show any excess energy.
The excess shows up when you add the energy used in R1 to the energy left over in C2 and compare that to the energy taken from C1. So the key lies in the scope measurement and calculation for energy used in R1.
If you check here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg145134#msg145134 you'll see that the anomaly is actually in how quickly C1 gets discharged in the process. There is no dispute as to how much energy is dissipated in R1and left over in C2. Mine and Sandy's numbers agree quite closely on this. The question is why C1 discharges at only 1/2 the rate it should be in Sandy's case. In your case Dave, it may be discharging according to theory.
So Sandy either has a strange pair of capacitors (which could be possible), or his 2.5mH inductor is in fact tapping energy in the process and using it to partially power R1 and charge C2.
Quote
It is an irregular waveform and Sandy has taken the average of the instantaneous power in R1 over the complete test cycle. In average measurements this may be perfectly acceptable, but here it could could be the difference between champagne and a red face.
As I stated above, the numbers all add up correctly, except for the C1 end voltage. There is no issue with the power in R1.
Quote
.99 did a very nice PDF which showed how efficiency can increase (although it does not explain why the need to use more energy to charge a capacitor the more it is charged, can be over come (according to Sandy)).
I have made subsequent posts that do in fact address this:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg145897#msg145897
With ideal components (L and C), no work is required to charge a capacitor.The only work performed in this entire process, is the work required to create the battery that charged the original capacitor. After this the energy can be transferred from capacitor to capacitor 1000 times and not a single bit of "work" will be done in the process.
When one understands this, it becomes quite clear why in the real world more energy is required to charge a capacitor.
Quote
But it does not explain how more energy can be used in total than was taken from the first capacitor.
As I explained above, there is some kind of anomaly occurring here, and it is related to either a strange capacitor effect, or an ou effect from the pulsing coil. I seem to recall there is a thread and video showing a Bedini type window motor running with only a large capacitor as its source of energy. It is this that allows me to believe that something odd may be happening in Sandy's setup, as shown by his C1/C2 discharge/charge scope shot. I have shown that his C1's discharge rate is 1/2 of theoretical, and this is where the mystery lies.
Quote
@.99, you mentioned that if you can charge a capacitor to a higher voltage it doesn't mean you have excess energy? I am not sure of the circumstances, but if I have a circuit running off a cap that starts with say 10v and the circuit is able to use the energy stored in that cap and increase the stored voltage to 100v in the same cap and the capacitance value has not changed, then that would surely be excess energy would it not? I am sure this is not what you meant when you said you had done that many times?
Mr. allcanadian is using a 12V battery, an inductor, and a charging capacitor. In your scenario, yes that would indicate excess energy entering the system, but what allcanadian is doing is using the inductive kickback to charge a capacitor to a voltage higher than 12V. The same can be done with a capacitor as the source rather than a battery, as long as the source capacitor is larger in value than the charging capacitor. A battery can be viewed as a capacitor with a huge value of capacitance and so almost any capacitor value used for the charging capacitor can be charged to a higher voltage than the battery. The final end voltage of the charging capacitor will be a function of the circuit LCR values.
Regards,
.99
Sandy,
Could you post your exact schematic of your latest setup as per the dwg from your website please.
I want to see how your oscillator logic and P-Channel MOSFET are used in the circuit. Is the oscillator logic powered from C1 or from a separate DC supply?
Is it as per the "enfolded_L_cct.jpg" perhaps?
.99
A Simpler and More Reliable Way to Test for Overunity
Sandy,
The overunity you are currently seeing is either a result of some unknown capacitor effect or from extra energy being tapped by the inductor and added to the circuit, agreed?
If you agree, then the resistor R1 should have no effect on the net energy gain.
By eliminating R1, most of the net energy gain should be evident in C2's final voltage. Instead of losing energy in R1, we're now capturing it in C2.
So the proposed test involves removing R1 and just letting the circuit free-run so that C1 discharges, and C2 charges through L1. At some point the voltage on C1 and C2 will equalize, i.e. will be the same. There will still be some loss in the diode, but with 50% apparent excess energy, the relatively small loss in D1 will not kill the effect.
Use a scope on both C1 and C2 as you did before, and note the final voltage where they equalize. I figure it will take about 100ms to do so, but I would recommend you run it for about 200ms.
A final voltage of about 5.6 Volts is close to unity. If the final voltage of C1 and C2 is above about 5.6V, then that would indicate overunity. If you've got overunity, then I've got an idea how to extract the excess energy and use it to power a load in a continuous mode.
An excess of 50% energy would correspond with a C1,C2 final voltage of about 6.9V.
.99
hi Poynt
will be using DPA for net access for a while & only have limited selection of files with me
yes, removing R1 does increase max stored voltage achieved - did a trial run, couple months back i think, to see if worth following up & decided it will be
think efficiency was high but dissipation was focussed in DC res of L and therefore inaccessible, so just parked that for future test & continued with full RLC branches
will look thro' files when back at PC to see what info i kept for that - pretty sure i have scope trace to remind me to follow up, but won't have full details of setup
due to recent responses here i decided to revert back to my original test setup and retrace my steps, adding in the newer eqpmt. i started using with my single-stage tests over the last 2 or 3 months: additional PC, 2 channel PC scope and PC control of switching, in case any of these have skewed the results
original tests (using my handdrawn schematic you just re-posted) were showing efficiencies round 125% - BUT - this was on the assumption that the external energy converted in R whilst charging was equivalent to the final stored energy in the output cap, as claimed by textbook treatment
my subsequent tests showed this relationship was not constant - though for my particular tests it didn't reduce the overall efficiencies below 100%
latest switching control uses PC parallel port o/p thro' SFH618 opto-isolators, re-shaping test-side signals thro' CMOS Schmitt devices, driving straight into MOSFET Gates
opto i/p LEDs powered by PC port drive; all isolated test circuitry powered by C1, as you noted from earlier tests
most recent change to test circuit is replacement of P-chan MOSFETS (caution: partnos. from memory!) FDN304P replaced with IRF5305(?) because circuit chewed up the P-chan every month or so & wiped out my stock (i'd salvaged a few from scrap I/O boards)
i think i have copy of new switch-drive schematic on this DPA so will try and upload with this post
[EDIT: 'Choose attachment' isn't allowing me to browse my Filesystem; pretty sure i've uploaded here from this device before. Can't remember if i already posted an opto drive schematic - not going to try checking back-pages on this: the forum pages take forever to load!]
i'm not getting notified of posts on threads i've subscribed to at present - just logged on anyway late last night and found your post, will try to login each day while on DPA
all the best
s.
Hi Sandy.
Quote from: nul-points on December 31, 2008, 06:00:08 AM
hi Poynt
yes, removing R1 does increase max stored voltage achieved - did a trial run, couple months back i think, to see if worth following up & decided it will be
think efficiency was high but dissipation was focussed in DC res of L and therefore inaccessible, so just parked that for future test & continued with full RLC branches
It makes sense that there will be some losses in the inductor itself, although removing R1 will shift the total circuit impedance largely back to a reactive one so most of the energy should be transferred into C2 from C1. Hopefully most (if any) excess energy tapped in the process will end up in C2 as well.
In my sim, C1,C2 settle at a voltage of 5V with R1 present. Without R1, they settle at about 5.4V. In both cases, the presence of the inductor is bringing the transfer efficiency above 50%, because without it, the final C1,C2 voltage would be 4V.
Quote
original tests (using my handdrawn schematic you just re-posted) were showing efficiencies round 125% - BUT - this was on the assumption that the external energy converted in R whilst charging was equivalent to the final stored energy in the output cap, as claimed by textbook treatment
my subsequent tests showed this relationship was not constant - though for my particular tests it didn't reduce the overall efficiencies below 100%
latest switching control uses PC parallel port o/p thro' SFH618 opto-isolators, re-shaping test-side signals thro' CMOS Schmitt devices, driving straight into MOSFET Gates
opto i/p LEDs powered by PC port drive; all isolated test circuitry powered by C1, as you noted from earlier tests
most recent change to test circuit is replacement of P-chan MOSFETS (caution: partnos. from memory!) FDN304P replaced with IRF5305(?) because circuit chewed up the P-chan every month or so & wiped out my stock (i'd salvaged a few from scrap I/O boards)
all the best
s.
Thanks for the info and the circuit. I'll maybe draw something up showing the whole or most of the complete circuit.
Regards,
.99
One point that causes confusion when dealing with capacitor charge and discharge times.
A capacitor charges to two thirds the input voltage in the first time constant.
Then it charges to two thirds the remaining voltage in the second time constant.
eg. If a capacitor takes 5 seconds to charge to 99.6 volts from a 100 volt source
It will charge to 66.6 volts in the 1st second
Then to 88.8 Volts in the 2nd second.
Then to 96.2 Volts in the 3rd second. (This is considered fully charge for most circuit applications.)
And when you discharge that same capacitor it follows the same scheme.
It will discharge two thirds it's stored voltage within the first time constant.
So a capacitor charged to 100 volts will discharge to 33.3 volts within the 1st time constant.
Then to 11.1 Volts in the 2nd time constant.
Then to 3.7 Volts in the 3rd time constant.
thanks for the TC info, Abba - useful for measuring the cap values in these circuits - the switching operation between caps in these circuits is mostly taking place at a very small fraction of the circuit TC
hi Poynt
Quote from: poynt99 on January 01, 2009, 11:00:55 AM
In my sim, C1,C2 settle at a voltage of 5V with R1 present. Without R1, they settle at about 5.4V. In both cases, the presence of the inductor is bringing the transfer efficiency above 50%, because without it, the final C1,C2 voltage would be 4V.
i found i had a copy of the reduced Rload test run i mentioned - not exactly fitting your suggested variation but possibly enough of a pointer to see if it's going in the right direction - i can try a closer test when i get access to my setup again
input power was being provided by my original C1 (0.31F) so the test run covered approx 430 charge/discharge cycles of C2 (196uF) to discharge C1 from 8V to 7V
i need to confirm this following aspect when i can retest, but i believe the trace shows the voltages on Rload (1ohm) and C2 at the point of mid-energy input (approx 7.53V on C1)
the max stored voltage achieved on C2 is 5.33V
the results show slightly higher Rload energy dissipated in charging C2 than in discharging it - DC res of L is 0.5ohm so the total dissipated energy is at least 50% higher than that recorded on Rload
hope this is useful
all the best
s.
Perform the testing you would like Sandy.
I recommend however simplifying as much as possible, which is why I suggested ( http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg146734#msg146734 ) the simple C1 to C2 discharge/charge test through L1, and sticking with your 190u and 196u capacitors. The circuit is operated until VC1=VC2, and the voltage noted.
I don't think it can get much easier or simpler. If you get higher than about 5.6V then chances are you got it ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on January 02, 2009, 11:45:45 AM
Perform the testing you would like Sandy.
I recommend however simplifying as much as possible, which is why I suggested ( http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg146734#msg146734 ) the simple C1 to C2 discharge/charge test through L1, and sticking with your 190u and 196u capacitors. The circuit is operated until VC1=VC2, and the voltage noted.
I don't think it can get much easier or simpler. If you get higher than about 5.6V then chances are you got it ;)
hi Poynt
yes, i was just mentioning some values from that previous test since i'm not able to try your suggested test for a few days 'til i get back at my setup and my previous test was close to your suggestion of removing the Rload
i thought this test might give you some idea if it's in the right ballpark - it appears that the average input energy was approx 5.4mJ per charge/discharge pulse train and the associated total output energy converted was around 6mJ on the 1ohm Rload (with around 1.6mJ extra charging energy lost on DC res of L)
i'll let you know as soon as i've been able to run your suggested test
all the best
s.
hi Poynt
what level of energy dissipation will you be expecting to occur in the DC resistance (mostly sum of ESRs for L, Cs & D) of the circuit when i run your proposed test?
thanks
s.
Quote from: nul-points on January 03, 2009, 06:29:12 PM
hi Poynt
what level of energy dissipation will you be expecting to occur in the DC resistance (mostly sum of ESRs for L, Cs & D) of the circuit when i run your proposed test?
thanks
s.
Sandy,
I ran a sim to get some numbers.
First it is difficult to find numbers for capacitor ESR so I used 100m Ohms total for both. This seems to jive with data I was able to find on the web. I also added 50m Ohms for the switch resistance. Total circuit R then I used is
0.65 Ohms, which includes 0.5 Ohms for the inductor. The 10 Ohm R1 is removed.
From the scope shot you'll see that the diode appears to continually use energy throughout the switching process and uses 268uJ after 100ms (blue). The energy lost in the total circuit resistance of 0.65 Ohms levels off quickly at 208uJ (yellow).
The total energy loss after 100ms run time is about
476uJ.
C1 (red), C2 (green) final voltage is about 5.39V.
After about 80ms, the capacitor voltage begins to slowly decrease due to the continual switching loss in D1. From this the optimal run time would be about 80ms, which is about where the two capacitor voltages appear to level off. The total Joule loss in this case decreases a little from 476uJ down to 460uJ.
Regards,
.99
thanks, Poynt, that's an interesting prediction from the sim
in the past test where i removed the 10ohm Rload and replaced it with a 1ohm current sensing resistance the measured results showed a charging current which resulted in an energy dissipation in the inductor and sensing resistance around 2x that stored in C2, 196uF (which was 2.8mJ approx)
this division of output energy between stored and dissipated has been a common feature of the results for these tests, as Dave (CTG Labs) mentioned previously
so, on a previous test, the effective removal of Rload didn't cause a greater proportion of the output energy to accumulate in the o/p cap
it reduced the effective load resistance on C1, which increased the peak pulse current, but the dissipated energy was still several times greater than that stored in C2
so unfortunately i don't think this proposed test is going to provide the simple, single-value measure we'd hoped for
i can still go ahead with the test but obviously the dissipation will also have to be monitored, we can't just note the final stored energy
nailing jell-o to a tree must be a breeze :)
all the best
s.
Sandy.
I'm not sure what else I can say.
Removing R1 will significantly increase the transfer efficiency of energy from C1 to C2. I don't think you would disagree with that. If you want to do the same test but with the 10 Ohm load present, then go ahead. It makes no difference really because you will account for all the energies in the circuit anyway. All that will happen with R1 present is more of the energy will get wasted as heat instead of being transferred to C2. The final capacitor voltage will be lower with R1 present.
At the end of the day you would measure the voltage on the two capacitors when they level off (they will be the same voltage) and add up all the losses and see how it all comes out. All the energies should equal (or better) that which started in C1.
.99
hi Poynt
i was just following-up on your original intention for a simple test which relied on reading only the single final voltage on the two caps:
> "The circuit is operated until VC1=VC2, and the voltage noted.
> I don't think it can get much easier or simpler."
i agree this test idea is easy & simple, i'm just noting it also appears from previous results that this single measurement won't be sufficient on its own:
ie. we'll still need to try and get a measure of any dissipation - that doesn't mean we need to use a 10ohm load to do it - and hopefully my previous post doesn't suggest that we should (i mentioned using a 1ohm current-sensing resistance previously for this purpose)
all the best
s.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2009, 01:14:17 AM
I'm not sure what else I can say.
.99
Hey .99, question for you: will a capacitor store a displacement current?
Grumpy.
I don't know. This is one subject that gets debated from time to time.
Do you mean "flow through" vs. 'store"?
The DC theory does make sense, but I do not know if it has ever been proven one way or the other.
Why do you ask?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2009, 09:27:42 AM
Grumpy.
I don't know. This is one subject that gets debated from time to time.
Do you mean "flow through" vs. 'store"?
The DC theory does make sense, but I do not know if it has ever been proven one way or the other.
Why do you ask?
.99
Let's say it can. What would this imply? What might one be able to do if this is the case?
Come on .99, have a drink with ol' Grumpy!
I can only guess at what you may be thinking, so my guess is that if a capacitor can store displacement current, it does so in the form of electric charge (or flux), whereas our beloved inductor stores conduction current in the form of magnetic flux.
This might imply that the capacitor can be treated as an exact inverse of the inductor, such that a collapsing electric flux results in the reversal of built up displacement current, just as the collapsing of the magnetic field (built up current) around an inductor results in the reversal of the voltage across it.
Not sure if this is the parallel you were looking for...probably not.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2009, 03:53:51 PM
I can only guess at what you may be thinking, so my guess is that if a capacitor can store displacement current, it does so in the form of electric charge (or flux), whereas our beloved inductor stores conduction current in the form of magnetic flux.
.99
Come on .99 - work with me here.
If a capacitor can store displacement current, when you send a very sudden impulse to a capacitor, you are applying the miniscule current in the wire plus the enormous displacement current produced by the sudden change.
Might this result in greater energy stored in the capacitor than you initially applied?
I'm having trouble even understanding how current could be stored in a capacitor. but...
I would think that the displacement current (from plate to plate) although having the potential to be of large magnitude, would be limited by the conduction current in the wires leading to the plates. An equal number of charges flow in from the wire and settle on the plates as does that which polarizes in the dielectric.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2009, 08:36:28 PM
I'm having trouble even understanding how current could be stored in a capacitor. but...
I would think that the displacement current (from plate to plate) although having the potential to be of large magnitude, would be limited by the conduction current in the wires leading to the plates. An equal number of charges flow in from the wire and settle on the plates as does that which polarizes in the dielectric.
.99
Come on .99 -
the currents sum - per Maxwell.
Recently, I was working with a pulser of 10kv - two spark gaps, one main with magnetic quench, the other a sharpening gap. Coax of arbitrary length before each gap, resistance on the first coax to control charge rate. While tuning the gap, sometimes it would fail to fire, but the second coax, which is after the first gap, will still "jump" as it is "polarized?". After the jumping coax, the discharge across the second gap was like a leakage of energy sizzling across the empty space of the gap. Quite surreal actually.
No one that I have spoken to about this will tell me what is occurring. If they know, they will not say. I suspect that the impulse produced a displacement current that went through the second coax and left it polarized. Coax is RG-58 and doesn't hold much more than 2kv very well, so 10kv is asking a little much of it.
I brought it up in this thread as there may be a way to deposit more energy in the cap than is consumed in the circuit. Apologies to nul-points if I am pissing in his front yard.
Quote from: Grumpy on January 05, 2009, 10:52:50 PM
Apologies to nul-points if I am pissing in his front yard.
LOL ...you call that pissing?
Quote from: nul-points on January 06, 2009, 12:05:39 PM
LOL ...you call that pissing?
Sorry. I do not know if you are being sarcastic or not.
If you believe my post are not helpful to your thread, then let me know and I will remove them. I have already proved my suspicions to myself and have no deflated ego that requires me to prove them to anyone else. I was just trying to share with others and your thread seemed like a good conduit for that.
Extra charge in a capacitor for free is good, but it stores energy not power, so charging a battery for free is a much better power source and you can charge batteries the same way.
John Bedini actually charges enormous batteries with this method and they become more efficient at retaining the charged condition. The way he explains it sucks, but the results are good.
Sure beats windmills and solar cells.
Quote from: Grumpy on January 06, 2009, 12:50:54 PM
Sorry. I do not know if you are being sarcastic or not.
hi Grumpy
no sarcasm intended - was thinking more along the lines of the "that's not a knife, THIS is a knife" scene in Crocodile Dundee
Ivor Catt (inventor of the wafer-scale self-'repairing' memory chip back in the 80s?) had some interesting things to say about the nature of caps, co-ax, and transmission lines (TL)
seem to remember he used co-ax to demonstrate that a cap is a special case of a TL, in which case it's possible that a cap may not be the static mechanism generally thought, but instead the applied voltage could be continually being 'reflected' across each plate
also believe i read somewhere that a cap actually appears to charge in discrete micro-quantised steps - this would fit in with Catt's ideas as newly arriving 'charge' would sometimes get slightly 'opposed' by reflections of existing 'stored charge'
Catt sadly discredited by mainstream now, due to long-running dispute with EE establishment, but some ideas have been given credence by more open-minded physicists (cf Nigel Bryan Cook)
sorry - using my DPA at present & don't have access to my stored links & ref. library for more source details
wonder if the energy 'jump' effect you've seen in your co-ax 'cap' fits in at all with the TL energy 'reflection' ideas?
hope this was of some interest/relevance
all the best
s.
I am familiar with some of Catt's ideas and he has some good ones.
I don't suspect that the energy is reflecting back and forth, but I have heard of charging in discrete steps and tend to agree with that.
I think what the jumping coax shows is that the displacement current is real and that it exists just after initial connection of the circuit to a dipole - even if the circuit is "open". So, one could say that displacement current is induced when a dipole (i.e. having an energy source - transformer in this case) circuit is "changed" - in this case, the switch was the "change" and the diplacement current went right across the gap since the displacement current resides in the dielectric which is continuous even though the gap is open (as if the gap were a cap).
There are several things I have not verified such as what sort of energy, if any, remained in the coax after the displacement pulse, and what relationship "current density" has to the energy stored in a capacitor. In any even. if you can store a large amount of energy than you apply then you can discharge this energy to your advantage.
However, even if you can store 10x the energy you apply, a battery is still a better power source, so charging batteries looks interesting too.
ALL RIGHT EVERYBODY!!!!
I HAVE A STUPID QUESTION TO ASK EVERYONE! i have a crane that is currently recieving 59 volts and recieving over 11 amps off of a radio station next door, stupid question is how do i stop this?
lol
sam
Quote from: supersam on January 06, 2009, 11:10:35 PM
i have a crane that is currently recieving 59 volts and recieving over 11 amps off of a radio station next door, stupid question is how do i stop this?
2 pounds of sugar in their generator fuel-tank should do the trick
Quote from: supersam on January 06, 2009, 11:10:35 PM
ALL RIGHT EVERYBODY!!!!
I HAVE A STUPID QUESTION TO ASK EVERYONE!
...y'see Grumpy, THAT'S what i call a knife! ;)
nul points and grumpy,
i don't know where else to turn! i know this may seem a little weird, and i can guarantee you this is very strange to me as well. all i want to do is stop this effect so we can han iron. we have a job that has a am radio station right beside it, and the load line of the crane is "HOT" . what can we do to stop this problem? we can light two 40 watt florescent tubes, taped to the load line, and still have 59 volts at the ground point.
we know that it is the radio station because we hooked a speaker up to the headache ball and you can hear the broadcast. that is without a radio. just curious if this could help you guys or if you could help me? no pun intended!
lol
sam
ps: that was a five watt speaker that we were using for the test and we are at least 1000 yards from the transmition towers. last hope thanks for any info!
Quote from: nul-points on January 07, 2009, 08:29:26 AM
2 pounds of sugar in their generator fuel-tank should do the trick
...y'see Grumpy, THAT'S what i call a knife! ;)
What holds the polarization of the dielectric? What force keeps the material stressed?
I know it is not electrons on the plates because I can remove the plates and replace them with other plates and the energy is still stored in the dielectric. Most dielectrics will not hold a state of compression so spare me the mechanical explanation if you think of it.
There is something very subtle going on in a dielectric.
Quote from: Grumpy on January 07, 2009, 10:15:05 PM
What holds the polarization of the dielectric? What force keeps the material stressed?
I know it is not electrons on the plates because I can remove the plates and replace them with other plates and the energy is still stored in the dielectric. Most dielectrics will not hold a state of compression so spare me the mechanical explanation if you think of it.
There is something very subtle going on in a dielectric.
yes, indeed
here's a supporting quote, from Aspden:
"...my physics master introduced us to the properties of a Leyden jar by demonstrating an experiment with two concentric electrodes and a removable cylindrical dielectric spacer element. He charged the assembly as a capacitor and then removed the dielectric element before (I believe - if my memory serves me well) then connecting the electrodes to discharge any energy they might have. Then he reassembled the capacitor with its dielectric spacer element and showed us that the capacitor did, indeed, still have some electric charge. His message was that there was energy stored in that dielectric spacer element..."
...and a different take on the same experiment, from Beaty:
"Whenever you take apart a Leyden jar or other high voltage capacitor, there is a corona effect which makes very strange things occur. When you electrify a Leyden jar, and then you pull the inner metal cylinder out of the jar, the capacitance value drops, and this makes the potential difference skyrocket to enormous levels. The potential tries to become huge but it cannot, because instead it creates corona along the metal edges, and and it leaks the excess charge into the air. This corona allows the opposite electrical charges to "paint" themselves onto both sides of the dielectric "jar" surface. So, if you pull a leyden jar apart, the sharp edges of the metal plates sweep along and transfer a large percentage of the separated charges from the metal plates to the glass surfaces. The energy is still there! It's still stored as a field in the dielectric, but those separated charges are not on the mental plates anymore. Instead they are now TRAPPED ON THE GLASS SURFACE! Strange idea, huh? A capacitor with no plates, just a dielectric"
all the best
s.
An electret:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electret
.99
Thanks. Those answers are interesting, but don't answer the question.
What holds the polarization of the dielectric? What force keeps the material stressed?
If the dielectric consists of "dipole molecules" - what "dipole molecule" is in a vacuum capacitor?
If the energy stored in the dielctirc is stored by a stretching and/or alignement of the dipole molecules of the dielectric, then what force keeps these dipole aligned? It's not a "charge" on the plates as the plates only serve to deliever the energy and to recover it.
What if their is something else within the space between the plates of a capacitor either along with or in place of the material dielectric? What role would this entity play in capacitance?
Quote from: Grumpy on January 08, 2009, 09:19:55 AM
Thanks. Those answers are interesting, but don't answer the question.
yes, the two links i gave were intended to show that Aspden and Beaty arrived at opposing views from the same experimental results
Aspden, relying on memory of a physics demonstration early in his life, assumed that the mechanism of energy storage was at least partly due to an inherent property of the dielectric
Beaty however, presumably with the benefit of the decades of experimentation which have occurred since Aspden's encounter with the experiment, is now able to state that the energy transfers from plate to dielectric (in this particular experiment) resulting from a corona discharge as the dielectric is removed from between the plates
eg. do the experiment in oil, or at lower voltage tension and the effect (energy stored by the dielectric) doesn't happen
the neat twist to Beaty's account is that finally the energy from the corona discharge does get stored by the dielectric - but on it's surface
Poynt's mention of electret gives an interesting comparison with 'standard' capacitor action - impose a dipole stress across a material which is usually a good insulator, whilst enabling alignment mobility of its constituent charge-elements and then 'lock-down' the mobility again to store the resultant dipole - even after the external influence is removed (albeit at reduced strength)
if this alignment of internal dipoles is a close-relative of what's happening in a conventional cap containing a dielectric - and also in a cap where the dielectric is replaced by a vacuum - it begs the question "what is acting as the dielectric in the case of the vacuum cap?", as you say
the answer for me is some kind of aetheric medium which forms the basis of all manifestations of energy (incl matter) - the effect of which can be concentrated both for capacitive action, eg by dielectrics - and for inductive action, eg by ferro-magnetic materials
so, from an aetheric point of view, an electret is like an 'embalmed' capacitor - and a magnet is like an 'embalmed' inductor
all the best
s.
Quote from: nul-points on January 08, 2009, 10:22:13 AM
the answer for me is some kind of aetheric medium which forms the basis of all manifestations of energy (incl matter) - the effect of which can be concentrated both for capacitive action, eg by dielectrics - and for inductive action, eg by ferro-magnetic materials
Exactly.
This being the case, how might it be exploited?
Can we incorporate additional strain the the "medium" by prepolarizing it? For example, if we made a cylindrical capacitor consiting of a tube within a tube, not rolled, and magnetized the space it occupies by wrapping a toroidal coil around the two tubes - or make a plate cap with a magentic field perpendiculat to the side of the cap - can we increase our return? You may notice that this arrangement is similar to the "Wilson Effect" in which a plate cap is charged by moving the dielectric between the plates perpendicular to a magnetic field.
(I just read over an extensive experiment performed by a Professor L. T. More around 1905 to ascertain if a dieletric indeed changes dimensions when poalrized and the result was a definite "NO".)
Quote from: Grumpy on January 08, 2009, 10:37:16 AM
For example, if we made a cylindrical capacitor consiting of a tube within a tube, not rolled, and magnetized the space it occupies by wrapping a toroidal coil around the two tubes - or make a plate cap with a magentic field perpendiculat to the side of the cap - can we increase our return?
Aspden's view is that (for greatest 'aether-spin' effect) the cap plates should interact with a radial electric field, and apply a magnetic field at right-angles to that - so he definitely supports a cylindrical (ie co-axial) format for the cap
i seem to remember that he proposed a dual cap arrangement with a series inductor between - and although he suggested this should also be co-axial with the caps, i believe his preferred arrangement was to have a cap-inductor-cap setup inline - possibly with perm. mags having poles aligned co-axially also
he suggested that the caps be biased with HT DC, hoping to promote angular displacement of the 'aether' between the cap plates, leading to self-oscillation
i think his intention for power draw was by means of either inductive or resistive load between the caps - if inductive, then the series inductor could be a transformer
sorry - going from memory on these details
[EDIT: actually, having posted, i've a feeling the two caps may have been co-axial with each-other - ie, a multi-layer, concentric arrangement - anyway, all the info is in one of his ESR reports ('Berlin Lecture', perhaps?)]
i've seen some recent experiment reports which describe rotated caps (possibly unpowered externally?), generating anomalous output - but i don't think i've seen the Wilson experiment so far - will Google around
all the best
s.
Quote from: nul-points on January 08, 2009, 11:27:55 AM
Aspden's view is that (for greatest 'aether-spin' effect) the cap plates should interact with a radial electric field, and apply a magnetic field at right-angles to that - so he definitely supports a cylindrical (ie co-axial) format for the cap
i seem to remember that he proposed a dual cap arrangement with a series inductor between - and although he suggested this should also be co-axial with the caps, i believe his preferred arrangement was to have a cap-inductor-cap setup inline - possibly with perm. mags having poles aligned co-axially also
he suggested that the caps be biased with HT DC, hoping to promote angular displacement of the 'aether' between the cap plates, leading to self-oscillation
i think his intention for power draw was by means of either inductive or resistive load between the caps - if inductive, then the series inductor could be a transformer
sorry - going from memory on these details
[EDIT: actually, having posted, i've a feeling the two caps may have been co-axial with each-other - ie, a multi-layer, concentric arrangement - anyway, all the info is in one of his ESR reports ('Berlin Lecture', perhaps?)]
i've seen some recent experiment reports which describe rotated caps (possibly unpowered externally?), generating anomalous output - but i don't think i've seen the Wilson experiment so far - will Google around
all the best
s.
Not self oscillation in this one - that would be like the Hazelton Device and it purportedly put out some serious power when it was replicated. Many many watts. I have tried it twice with no luck.
quick test would be a homemade plate cap and wrap a coil ariound it - DC to the coil and see if there are changes to the cap
@ Grumpy and nul-points
Wow! Double Karma for you both for your last few posts. Great dialog and very useful insights
revealed. I already had a couple capacitor experiments waiting to be tried, and now you've given
me even more to work with. Thank you!
tak
Quote from: tak22 on January 08, 2009, 01:09:23 PM
@ Grumpy and nul-points
Double Karma for you both for your last few posts.
hey tak - back at ya! :)
have i missed a new thread about your LG work?
all the best
s.
@all
i have a couple of tests lined up:-
first - repeat tests using the original 2-stage circuit - this time with PC switching control - measuring the circuit performance with a 2-channel PC scope
the object of this test is to check the validity of the textbook position on capacitor charging (which claims the energy used by the work which has to be done in charging the capacitor has the same value as the final energy which gets stored)
the indications from testing with the 1-stage circuit suggested that the charging energy dissipated was not limited to be the same value as the final energy stored on the capacitor
second - run the test proposed by Poynt99: ie. allow the switched charge transfer to continue until both input & output capacitor have the same terminal voltage, noting that final voltage
(and, additionally, i'll attempt to get a measure of the total dissipated energy)
i'm intending to use a capacitor value of 4700uF for i/p & o/p caps in these tests - i'm hoping this value will give a reasonable compromise between being able to measure total dissipation for the duration of the test and maximising the ratio of transferred energy to that needed for the switching circuitry
more later
all the best
s.
You would do better to charge batteries if you want power.
Better to charge caps if you want energy.
Quote from: Grumpy on January 09, 2009, 05:11:25 PM
You would do better to charge batteries if you want power.
Better to charge caps if you want energy.
at the moment, i just want answers! :)
here's an example of what i've been referring to as the 'textbook' position on the work expended in charging a capacitor:
"once we have transferred some charge, an electric field is set up between the plates which opposes any further charge transfer. In order to fully charge the capacitor, we must do work against this field, and this work becomes energy stored in the capacitor"
...
"The work we do in transferring an infinitesimal amount of charge from the negative to the positive plate is simply.."
...
"In order to evaluate the total work done in transferring the total charge from one plate to the other, we can divide this charge into many small increments, find the incremental work done in transferring this incremental charge, using the above formula, and then sum all of these works..."
...
"Note, again, that the work done in charging the capacitor is the same as the energy stored in the capacitor."
...
"...this represents the work done on the constituent molecules of the dielectric in order to polarize them"
(excerpts from lecture notes published by Associate Professor of Physics at Texas University)
all the best
s.
When they abolished the aether, they had to cover it's purpose so they added charges to the plates, which was have already determined do not exist.
Like I said before if the energy is stored in the dielectric because if you remove the plates the energy stays in the dielectric, then where does this energy reside in a vacuum capacitor? See first sentence above.
Quote from: Grumpy on January 08, 2009, 09:19:55 AM
Thanks. Those answers are interesting, but don't answer the question.
What holds the polarization of the dielectric? What force keeps the material stressed?
If the dielectric consists of "dipole molecules" - what "dipole molecule" is in a vacuum capacitor?
If the energy stored in the dielctirc is stored by a stretching and/or alignement of the dipole molecules of the dielectric, then what force keeps these dipole aligned? It's not a "charge" on the plates as the plates only serve to deliever the energy and to recover it.
What if their is something else within the space between the plates of a capacitor either along with or in place of the material dielectric? What role would this entity play in capacitance?
A dielectric between the plates of a capacitor is analogous to the "core" material used within an inductor. The dielectric and ferromagnetic cores both increase the concentration of "flux" within the component. The ability of a dielectric core to "concentrate" electric flux is the permittivity of the material, and for ferromagnetic cores it's the permeability.
A "vacuum capacitor" still has a dielectric at its core. There is no perfect vacuum and there will always be molecules floating around near the plates. In fact it you built a simple plate capacitor within a vacuum chamber and removed as much air as possible, then took a capacitance measurement, the value of its capacitance should increase in proportion to the pressure in the chamber as you reversed the process and pressurized it as much as safety would allow.
What keeps the polarization in the dielectric is equal but opposite charge matching from within the plate itself (shortage or excess of electrons) at the surface junction with the vacuum. If you could remove the plates without disturbing the vacuum molecules in their precarious state (we also have to imagine that either other vacuum charges will back-fill where the plates once were, or charge is stripped off the plates as they're removed) ), there would still be two polarized, but invisible walls/regions present. This of course would be much easier to do if the dielectric core was a solid one, but the principle is the same.
No force is necessary to keep things polarized. Net charge is always zero. It's simply charge separation, and since the net charge has neither increased nor decreased in the charging process, no net work has been done to charge the capacitor's dielectric.
.99
How is charge separation maintained in the dielectric? I have found experiments to determine if their are physical changes to the dielectric and there are none detected. So, the mechanism is not the same as say a piezo crystal and that is mechanical anyway.
I know what is going on, but haven't figured out how to prove it.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 09, 2009, 08:58:57 PM
What keeps the polarization in the dielectric is equal but opposite charge matching from within the plate itself (shortage or excess of electrons) at the surface junction with the vacuum. If you could remove the plates without disturbing the vacuum molecules in their precarious state (we also have to imagine that either other vacuum charges will back-fill where the plates once were, or charge is stripped off the plates as they're removed) ), there would still be two polarized, but invisible walls/regions present. This of course would be much easier to do if the dielectric core was a solid one, but the principle is the same.
No Physical change.
There will be a shortage of electrons on the negative capacitor plate (which is in close contact with the dielectric), and an excess of electrons on the positive plate of the capacitor (also in close contact with the dielectric). The metal capacitor plates themselves will be polarized as a result of this electron migration. Opposite charges attract, and it is this that retains the polarization of the dielectric.
Remove the metal plates and either charges from the surrounding vacuum spill in to fill the void, or they are stripped off the metal plates via electrostatics (charge exchange, triboelectric effect, charge induction) just as the plates are removed, or a combination of both.
.99
and equal charges repel, also the reason for the separation in/over a cap.
hi all
results of the first test are in - here's some context to the test...
the 2-stage test circuit transfers charges by first connecting the low-value switching capacitor, C2 to the input capacitor C1 via inductance L
as is well-known in SMPS design, this is a high-efficiency configuration, so we'd expect a high proportion of the charge removed from C1 to transfer into C2 for each pulse
charge from C2 is then switched to C3 via Rload (in this case 10ohm)
this is the point being tested: the regular 'textbook' treatment of capacitor charging (cf. example in quotes above from Texas Uni lecture notes) states that the amount of energy stored in a capacitor is equal in value to the amount of energy expended as work against the increasing polarisation of the capacitor dielectric
IF this claim were true, then we could note the final stored voltage on C3 and double it to find the total energy converted by the system in the whole process
this was the basis for the original conclusions relating to my early tests with the 2-stage circuit: ie. since the final energy stored in C3 was greater than half the total input energy then double that amount would represent a net energy gain in the system - ie. overunity
the limited equipment i had available at that time only allowed for measurement of the final stored voltage on C3
so now that i'm able to measure both the input and output simultaneously i've repeated my earlier test to see if the 'textbook' claim is true
i've been able to replicate the situation where the final stored energy on C3, 21.5mJ, is greater than half the total input energy, 36.7mJ
so what's happening at Rload?
i measured the load waveform at the mid-point of input energy conversion - ie. 50% had been discharged, 50% still to go
the average power on Rload at this point was 4.9mW, giving a total charging power draw of 5.15mW when including dissipation from the 0.5 ohm DC resistance of L
the duration of the test run was 3.25s so the total charging energy was approx 16.7mJ
IF it was true that the final energy on C3 represented 50% of the total converted output energy, then the total WOULD HAVE BEEN 43mJ, representing an efficiency of 117%
however, i only got a value of 16.7mJ for the charging energy - so IF the 50% work relationship WAS true then there was still approx 5mJ** of energy unaccounted for
as the sum of the measured output energies, 38.2mJ, was so close to the input energy, 36.7mJ, i believe it's MORE LIKELY that the efficiency of the total system was just close to 100% (within experimental limits)
these results suggest that the 'textbook' claim is NOT a general rule - the work done in charging a capacitor DOES NOT have to equal the final energy stored - that's even WITHOUT a series inductor between C2 & C3
so - if there's NO 50:50 split in charging:stored output energy then it's likely there's NO OU here either - it's efficient - but probably not over 100%
all the best
s.
[EDIT: ** it's JUST possible that the 'missing' 5mJ could be accounted for in the noise produced by the coil and ferrite cores (an easily audible buzz during test) but since i can't measure that, i can't include it in the results]
[...continued...]
whilst running these most recent tests, i've uncovered a bug in the PC scope timebase software
running the test on one timebase shows a period of 95ms from start to reach approx 0.57v volt drop on C1; monitoring the same signal using a different timebase, supposedly displaying the same period from start, the C1 volt drop is only 0.39v
using a stopwatch & DVM readings i've been able to confirm that the PC scope timing is out by a factor of over 2x, when changing between medium and slow timebase ranges
the time values in question were displayed as the delta time between the sampling cursors, so they're being incorrectly displayed rather than misread!
you can see this in the Vin/Vout trace in the results just posted above - the actual duration of the test run was 3.25s - its displayed as approx 1.3s on the trace
happy days!
all the best
s.
hi all
apologies for the recent lack of updates, i'm currently involved in a collaborative test on another project and my test equipment has been in use 24/7 since mid-Jan, prior to the last full eclipse
there has been some question as to the possible contribution of dielectric adsorption and capacitor ESR to the test results
as you can see from the first scope trace, the effect of dielectric adsorption on the 4700uF input & output capacitors, over a period several seconds longer than the test, is negligable
the terminal voltage drop of the 4700uF under load to a 1 ohm resistor for a pulse-width of approx 0.25ms and cycle period of approx 1ms is 0.9V from an initial voltage of approx 7.8V
the voltage rise across the 1 ohm resistor for the same series current is approx 5.5V, giving a current pulse magnitude of 5.5A
this gives a measured ESR for the capacitor of 0.9 / 5.5 = 0.16 ohm
the ESR is approx 1/60th of the Rload value
therefore this effect can be ignored in these results
the more astute members among us will have already realised this, since the initial and final voltages of the capacitors are read off-load ;)
all the best
s.
hello, this is slightly off topic as this is a different project, but take it as a suggestion for future exploration as my data maybe incomplete
i am a newbie and really like to simplify and cheapify stuff, and i had obtained this pdf and i got some ideas (the pdf is now hard to find on the net, when i found it it was on a few places).
after going through a few ideas i finally got to this solution:
(not sure about starting a thread, wouldn't be able to keep adding to it...)
the idea is to use isolated power supplies to do siphoning. using:
12v to 230v inverters
and
240v to 12v computer power supplies
since computer power supplies are common and inverters are cheap, alot of power should be able to be obtained for little money and modification, the min 12v output on the PSU needs only to be the calculated efficiency loss of the inverter, at 70% this is probably half the OU output, so find a 90% eff inverter.
the 12v psu output is to provide a power source for the power coming out to reference to.
because of the high switching frequency the caps need only be small, the inverter is a lightweight one, not a huge heavy transformer in it. the power gets converted at 100kHz or so and then made into mains frequency (50Hz is the only output of the heavy ones and is unusable). the 230v dc is taken out before the final conversion.
so far no go as i am lacking caps (i think that's the only prob), i predict i need 1500uf on the 230v side (using a 110-150w inverter). (output is 218v as 230v-12v is 218, efficiency is higher than using 110v psus as there is a 98v remnant and there is more watts if there is a bigger difference - i think). the input cap in the inverter exceeds the requirement for the low volt cap so no extra needed..
connecting the wires after the bridge on the inverter and onto the PSU (suggest removing the bridge to put wires and remove components that would connect the input power that to the chassis because a risk of shorting the PSU 12v exists)
note: if the inverter input rises above 12v it becomes more efficient (and switches off at 15v) but also the PSU power will not input so much and so keeping the inverter in safe operating zones.
hi Charlie
thanks for the post
> hello, this is slightly off topic as this is a different project, ...
> ... not sure about starting a thread, wouldn't be able to keep adding to it...)
i believe there is an existing thread which has addressed the same info as in this PDF - i remember some of the same diagrams, at least - this version of the PDF could be more recent
might be worth looking through the DC motor threads for it & get some feedback from other people's experience with the ideas contained in this doc
all the best
s.
ok i will try "Tesla Switch need help"
@poynt99
QuoteThere will be a shortage of electrons on the negative capacitor plate (which is in close contact with the dielectric), and an excess of electrons on the positive plate of the capacitor (also in close contact with the dielectric). The metal capacitor plates themselves will be polarized as a result of this electron migration. Opposite charges attract, and it is this that retains the polarization of the dielectric.
LOL, You may want to read this-----
QuoteWhen Benjamin Franklin made his conjecture regarding the direction of charge flow (from the smooth wax to the rough wool), he set a precedent for electrical notation that exists to this day, despite the fact that we know electrons are the constituent units of charge, and that they are displaced from the wool to the wax -- not from the wax to the wool -- when those two substances are rubbed together. This is why electrons are said to have a negative charge: because Franklin assumed electric charge moved in the opposite direction that it actually does, and so objects he called "negative" (representing a deficiency of charge) actually have a surplus of electrons.
By the time the true direction of electron flow was discovered, the nomenclature of "positive" and "negative" had already been so well established in the scientific community that no effort was made to change it, although calling electrons "positive" would make more sense in referring to "excess" charge. You see, the terms "positive" and "negative" are human inventions, and as such have no absolute meaning beyond our own conventions of language and scientific description. Franklin could have just as easily referred to a surplus of charge as "black" and a deficiency as "white," in which case scientists would speak of electrons having a "white" charge (assuming the same incorrect conjecture of charge position between wax and wool).
However, because we tend to associate the word "positive" with "surplus" and "negative" with "deficiency," the standard label for electron charge does seem backward. Because of this, many engineers decided to retain the old concept of electricity with "positive" referring to a surplus of charge, and label charge flow (current) accordingly. This became known as conventional flow notation:
A big problem I see is that many people claim to understand many things but in reality do not even understand the basics. The negative is the source(excess electrons) and the positive is the sink(a shortage of electrons), So here is a question------ Why didn't they correct it? If the conventional flow notation that everyone uses is backwards and quite frankly a load of BS------Then why is it this way in every textbook our children are taught from? Why would they propagate a LIE? Science talks about the truth and resists all change unless it is a well proven fact but here we have a proven fact that is still propagated as a lie----Hmmmm.When you understand this you may also understand a great many things in regards to what we call electricity and what it really is.
Regards
AC
hi AC
it gets better
i understand that because BF adopted that labelling for the direction of current, we've ended up with a labelling for energy which is also inverted
the situation is now so ingrained we're taught that there is only one kind of energy: positive
in fact energy has symmetry of polarity (as do Charge and Matter) and can be either 'binding' or 'releasing' - ie. it can hold matter together or it can force matter apart
eg. the strong nuclear force, gravity and the force between unlike charges are binding forces; and the force between like charges is a 'releasing' or 'freeing' force
unfortunately, we now think of energy as being able to vary only between some positive level and the 'zero-point' level whereas in fact it can vary between 'positive' and 'negative'
if Ben had got his signs correct, what we think of as 'positive' energy would in fact today have a negative sign
this would hopefully have acted as a wake-up call to science to realise that there was likely to be energy with the opposite sign also
this understanding follows naturally from Dirac's equations which now make sense where the 'binding' energy is the all-pervasive quantum-medium (the intangible energy levels which we can't presently sense) and the 'releasing' levels (which include tangible things we can sense) such as mass
what WE label as energy, and which gives form to our 'physical' environment, is actually negative energy - it has been been 'borrowed' from the universe which has an infinite store of (positive) energy
it's a shame that Mr Franklin didn't flip the coin just a bit harder - but he couldn't have known in his scientific era that the key he was said to have threaded on his kite-string would turn out to be the 'key' to the universe
all the best
s.
@nul-points
I would agree with everything you have said, I learned of this mis-labelling of current flow almost 16 years ago and it still irritates me to this day, LOL. Personally I find electron flow notation to be much more intuitive in regards to the mechanical aspects of current, now if they could just change the direction of the arrows on those damn diodes I would be a happy man. As well I have found that this incorrect notation has not been around forever, I bought some books at a garage sale for 50 cents one day called "Direct Current Fundamentals", Delmar publishers 1963 which appears to be a textbook and the notation is correct (electron flow notation). It was also interesting that they use the "left hand rule" to understand the magnetic field around a current carrying wire. I am not usually one to give advice but I would suggest to other people reading this to look into electron flow notation, I know it made my life easier once I switched over.
Regards
AC
good call, AC
your experiences just reminded me that one of our lecturers in the EE dept at college, back in the '70s, used to use electron flow polarity instead of conventional current in all his equations
the other lecturers would make good-natured fun out of his "V = -IR" type working but actually, looking back, i think 'good for him' in making a stand for the truth in the face of unquestioning, 'don't-rock-the-boat' mentality
science will only make the best possible progress if people are allowed to ask & discuss awkward questions about the differences between how the real-world behaves and how we're told it behaves
all the best
s.
hi honey, i'm home...
it's been a manic year for a number of reasons and, apart from some long-term datalogging of an interesting influence on a particular type of electrical component, i haven't had much time for any OU-related experiments
however, i recently re-visited some of the result data for my switched-cap experiments mentioned earlier, to see if it's possible to get a better understanding of what is going on
as we've already seen, the results don't appear to match the teaching of conventional science
one fact is clear: the examples shown above (and in other peoples' experiments), which transfer charge from one capacitor to another via pulses of energy, result in a net gain of the total (capacitively-stored) charge in a closed system
this appears to be in contradiction of Kirchoff's Laws, which require that the net sum of current leaving a node in the circuit must equal the net sum of current entering that node (the charge on a cap being a function of the current leaving or entering the cap)
my circuit was entirely powered by the initial charge on one of the capacitors - no connection to any other equipment was needed to run the experiment - the results were easily confirmed by simple DVM measurement of capacitor voltage before and after the test
one of my experiments resulted in an extra 0.9 Coulombs to the original 2C in the circuit - a net gain of around 50%
this extra charge effect can be seen as higher-than-expected final voltages on the capacitors in the circuit
according to conventional Elec teaching - as seen, for example, in the course notes of an Associate Professor at Texas University:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node47.html (cf eqn. #120)
the amount of energy used VIA A LOAD to charge a capacitor will equal the amount of energy which finally gets stored
ie. to store 2Joules in a cap you must convert an additional 2Joules, in the load, to achieve it; a total energy conversion of 4J
IF this is true, then you can just double the final energy of the output cap and compare that with the energy lost from the input cap to calculate the efficiency of the circuit
in my experiments, this method gave COP values somewhere in the region of 110% - 130%
BUT - are the textbooks correct? read on....
they appear to have got it wrong about the net charge in the circuit
have they also got it wrong about the charging energy?
it wasn't easy to capture the full sequence of pulse data on the load for the duration of these test but eventually i appeared to get some consistent results
the experimental data eventually confirmed two things:
a) the circuit efficiency was close to, but didn't appear to be greater than, 100%
b) the ratio of charging to stored energy varied with different experiments - it didn't appear to be a regular 1:1 ratio
i revisited my result data and, using an Excel spreadsheet, i was able to show the accumulated value of energy transferred from input to output
the graph clearly shows now that the conventional explanation is not correct - it's just an approximation!
the input energy flow is exponential approaching a maximum value, whilst the output shows a close approximation to a linear increase
the energy consumed by the load to charge the output capacitor is effectively the difference between Ein and Ec2
the third line on the graph shows the half-value (Ein/2) of energy input
If the textbook teaching was correct then the Ec2 curve should closely follow the Ein/2 curve
what ACTUALLY happens in the results shown, is that the load dissipation energy is greater than half up to a certain point and then the output energy becomes greater than half the input
SO - apart from one single (non-zero) point on the graph, it's not valid to use the textbook statement as a rule and double the output energy on the cap to find the total energy used
Apparently there is no OU in the previous experiments, then - but there appear to be some serious discrepancies in what are supposed to be the 'rules' for how this small part of the universe operates
OK, WHAT'S NEXT?
if you can make use of the energy dissipated in charging the capacitor, the switched-charge circuit is very efficient
is there any way of drawing on energy from the 'environment' to achieve a COP > 1?
i have another long-term experiment running which builds on some of the principles learned from the switched-cap experiment
it's looking hopeful at the moment, but it's very early days yet:-
a) the test circuit is VERY low-powered in order to gain sufficient relative influence by the environment
b) due to the low-power nature of the experiment it will probably need months of elapsed time to confirm if the total energy in the system is increasing or decreasing
the circuit charges a small capacitor from a very large cap; then a discrete SCR cct (for Nerzh!) triggers a current pulse which flashes some LEDs which feedback the current to the rechargeable battery (any flyback current from the Xfr also gets fed back to the battery)
the question is: can this circuit cause the battery to stay charged at the same (or greater) level - or will it discharge? i can tell you now that with NO battery, the input cap just discharges - so no pressure! ;)
here's the circuit...
if the circuit 'captures' sufficient environmental energy then the battery voltage will not decrease
preliminary results look interesting:
the graph below compares 8-minute long traces of the off-load voltage (blue) of the battery with two other conditions:
- battery loaded with the operating pulse circuit but with feedback disconnected (red)
- battery loaded with the operating pulse circuit and with feedback connected (yellow)
as expected, the battery voltage falls from its no-load value to its 'loaded, no feedback' value
(the start of the 'offload' and 'onload with no f/b' traces actually capture the slight fall in battery voltage when disconnecting the relevant part(s) of the circuit whilst running)
however, when the onload circuit has its feedback connected to the battery, then the battery voltage rises
results so far show a very slight increase of battery voltage from offload to 'onload with feedback'
at the moment the DVM reading for the battery is 1.260V (with the final digit occasionally flicking to '1')
place your bets now, ladies & gentlemen...will we be in the Red - or in the Black? ;)
for you guys who get as excited as i do by the sight of a bunch of wires sticking out of 'breadboards', here's a photo of the setup...
Quote from: poynt99 on January 09, 2009, 08:58:57 PM
...
It's simply charge separation, and since the net charge has neither increased nor decreased in the charging process, no net work has been done to charge the capacitor's dielectric.
Not exact. Before charging a dielectric, the electric dipoles are randomly distributed. When you "charge" a dielectric, positive charges are attracted to the negative plate and negative charges are attracted to the positive plate. Therefore there is a torque that globally separates positive from negative charges inside the dielectric, at the cost of a work (W=1/2*C*U²).
hi all
there's been an interesting development with the latest version of my low-power experiments here...
the simplified circuit config. at present looks like this:
<<see simplified schematic below>>
(in case it's not obvious from the schematic, this is a fully-looped circuit - energy from the LED pulses is fed back into C2 and Vb1//C1)
the supply battery is an old rechargeable 8.4V NiCad which has been used occasionally, over a period of several months without recharge, to supply low-powered experiments - the off-load voltage has gradually reduced to approx 7.5V
after connecting the battery to this pulse circuit the terminal voltage increases by approx. 1 volt! (so the on-load voltage across Vb1//C1 is approx 8.5V)
<<see graph below>>
(graph shows voltage across Vb1//C1 against hours of operation)
usually, when a load is connected to a battery, the terminal voltage will fall as current flows through its own 'internal resistance' first before entering the load
this effect is more evident when the battery is discharged because its internal resistance increases significantly
however, this experiment is definitely showing the opposite effect - the voltage across the battery is rising
somehow this circuit is operating at a higher steady voltage than the off-load battery voltage - the battery/circuit combination 'appear' to be in some kind of high-impedance 'self-sustaining' operation mode
please note that i'm NOT saying that the battery has become fully charged to 8.5V (if i connect a scope probe across Vb1//C1 the voltage starts to decrease, so the battery obviously still has high internal resistance)
BUT - if i let the circuit run and take 'spot' readings (say every 30 minutes), with scope or DVM, then the voltage across the battery terminals is being sustained at a higher value than its off-load voltage
this circuit is providing a 15us pulse (off-period approx 30s) to some LEDs, so one possible explanation might be:
"just for the duration of the pulse, the battery voltage drops to an 'on-load' value (which is less than its off-load value)"
this pulsed 'on-load' voltage drop on the battery WAS happening with a previous config. of this circuit but NOW the input is filtered by Q1 and C2, where C2 is approx 0.3 of a Farad - and close inspection with a 'scope confirms that the pulse energy does not produce any significant voltage or current spikes at the battery terminals
<<see trace below>>
(trace shows voltage across Vb1//C1 (RED channel, 0.4V/div);
and input to LED1 (BLUE channel, 2V/div))
i believe that the immmediately previous load history on this battery can rule out that this effect is just 'battery relaxation' - and i've been able to repeat this 7+V to 8+V increase several times over the last week just by stopping, waiting and then re-starting the experiment
the voltage increase measurements have been recorded from both a DVM and PC-based scope/datalogger, which would rule out one of the usual explanations behind this sort of result: ie. that the DVM battery needs replacing
i've also run tests with the circuit operating inside a shielded container (aka. a powered-off, grounded, MWO) - the same battery voltage increase still occurs
something unusual is happening here - comments welcome (conventional explanations, or otherwise!)
thanks
sandy
(i'm in the process of gathering the experiment/circuit details together which i'll post here when ready)
Nice work! I have missed seeing this message thread until now but it looks like you have hit on a magic combination there. A couple thoughts and questions. What is a 'discrete' SCR in the schematic? I know basically what an SCR is but am not clear what the 'discrete' means. Sounds like it would be good to get a couple replications of this effect. I may try it if I have most of the parts. One thing I've noticed with NiCD's and NiMH is they can be down in charge for example a 1.2 volt AA can be down to 1.1 volt or so where they need a charge and when you put them on even a slow charger the voltage will pop up to around 1.4 volts in just a matter of seconds. While it is obviously not a full charge in terms of having current available for some reason the voltage goes high quickly. Normal AA full charge will be around 1.42 to 1.45 volts for the ones I have but it takes a couple hours before they have a full usable charge. I'm not sure if this might be coming into play here but just wanted to mention it. Perhaps check your battery to test the runtime of something when it gets to full voltage in your circuit versus the runtime when it is put on a regular charger and charged up to the same voltage. Compare the two runtimes and if they are close then it sounds like you have a winner.
Can you give some circuit details as far as the values for the caps, SCR number, diode type etc.? I see you also have magnets on the battery? And doped silicon transistor that is being only used as a diode? What is used to dope the transistor? If it is something like radium or thorium that could explain where the excess energy might be coming from. Sorry if you've posted these details earlier but I spend way too much time reading here as it is and 20 pages would probably take me most of the day. Prefer to spend more time building :)
hi e2m, thanks for the comments and interest
the 'discrete' SCR is a small sub-circuit which operates like an SCR but is constructed from individual components: it has a 'trigger' made up of 2 transistors, a zener and two ceramic caps and a 'switch' using another transistor
in this circuit the 'doped silicon' is just the regular doped Emitter to Collector path in a transistor to supply a very small leakage current from the battery to C2 - a reversed diode arrangement with suitable leakage current should be ok also
i've tried to minimise the resistive current path between +ve & -ve battery terminals
as you can see, there are no resistors in the circuit - the only current paths which discharge the supply 'dipole' are through a series of high-impedance transistor/reversed diode connections and also some residual capacitor leakage
i've arranged a magnetic field at right-angles to the battery's electric field - i don't know yet if this has any significant effect - this is something i want to explore
i'll post all the details i can think of relating to the circuit and the experiment as soon as possible
i appreciate your suggestions about the charging characteristics of NiCD & NiMH rechargeables
as i mentioned in my post, i'm not intending to suggest that the battery is receiving real charge when the voltage rises by a volt so quickly
there seems to be something more unusual than just conventional charging happening here
if the battery DOES happen to charge, i'd expect it take a very very long time, since there are only a few pulses per minute as input
my reason for experimenting with the circuit is to see if it's possible first to get a circuit to 'self-sustain' its own operation with some simple components
i didn't mention it in my earlier post but i've built two of these circuits - one using a NiCad 8.4V, the second using a NiMH 8.4V
the two circuits both show a voltage increase on-load but the NiCad is more dramatic at around a volt - the NiMH has risen more slowly to about 60mV above off-load voltage
both battery off-load voltages are approximately 7.5V at the moment
i'd like to understand what is happening in the batteries (or the circuits?) which is enabling the battery to continue to supply power to a circuit when that circuit has lifted the 'input' voltage significantly above the existing battery off-load voltage - ie. how can current be flowing OUT of the battery under those conditions, to sustain the circuit operation?
i understand about not wanting to read all 20 pages of the thread - its only these last few posts where i'm describing the 'evolution' of earlier switched-charge experiments into a looped-back config.
more soon
all the best
sandy
hi all
i've prepared a PDF with full circuit details, photo, assembly info & updated results
the PDF is 700Kb and it won't upload to OU.com, so i've posted it on my website for download:
http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc (http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc)
select 'Latest' from the sidebar menu and the PDF link is near the top of the 'Latest' page
thanks
sandy
Nul-Points
I noticed that the schematic you posted here is simpler with less switches (transistors) compared to the one posted on your website. Is this single SCR version as efficient??
Thanks for posting.
Regards
E-Goose
hi E-G
the 'single SCR' is a slightly-generalised presentation of the actual circuit because the substituted parts are just functioning as a voltage-triggered switch
so, to allow people to focus on the 'meat' of the circuit, i showed the switch as a '(discrete) SCR' (ie. it has a similar function to an SCR but it's constructed from discrete components)
the PDF linked from my website gives the actual circuit and parts list
the trigger function is actually achieved with two transistors, a zener and a cap and they drive a 2N2222A Tr as the switch
the combined parts form a silicon switch with a high-impedance off-state and a trigger level of approx. one volt
thanks for the interest, hope this helps!
sandy
details of my successful charge-anomaly experiment transferred from here to my new Blogspot site:
click link to view: http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/ (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/)
full circuit details given on "Switched-charge experiment setup..." page;
results given on "Charge Anomaly..." page;
(self-sustaining DIY cell experiments posted as blog entries)
...Blogs: - concentrated info - fully editable - zero cr@p from trolls! ;)
all the best
np
This is interesting -- thanks for compiling the PDF.
This is definitely the way to go in terms of 'open-sourcing' idea of replicable free energy.
-Feynman
Quote from: Feynman on March 20, 2011, 02:09:50 PM
This is interesting -- thanks for compiling the PDF.
This is definitely the way to go in terms of 'open-sourcing' idea of replicable free energy.
-Feynman
you're welcome - good to see you back at 'the bench'!
all the best with your replications, looking forward to seeing some hard data from your findings
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/ (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/)