Here we go guys! Here is a good piece of my work. Enjoy!
Some will still not believe this is free energy. Some will finally realize what free energy is, and how to use it. And then some, already know most of this, and will be able to help the rest understand other ways!
I only ask, that before you debate my use of equations, please view all the videos. I do understand the proper use of them, but I do have a very good argument as to why they are not being applied correctly.
You will now know the true meaning of "Conservation of Energy"! I hope my work inspires many of you to move forward. The video's are still not great quality, but the content is real.
Part 1 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1kK6WIslRNs
Part 2 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=x1mq3NKCX9k
Part 3 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ckqdguUvD2Y
Part 4 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WQEqvvkWnNg
[Edit -- update 12/8 --]
Poynt99 has done some impressive work explaining the voltage and energy transfer shown in these video's.
The following is his addition to this thread.
Capacitor Energy Transfer Experiments V1.0
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item207
awsome bro! 8)
great discovery!!!
do you mind if i add this ;) ;D
ist
0 i think a magnet is still needed to start this unit... to cause the first dump of the cap 8) after 1 reveloution it is on its own .... :o
was some one looking for the cat chaseing its tale.... ;)
Looks good IST... Cant wait to see the progress!
captainpecan, you are not recording the amps and voltage is not good with out amperage.
The first video you showed running the motor on 18 volts and then it stopped running but yet you showed have 19 volts still left. If it ran off 18 volts, it should have continued to run off the 19 that was still left. The reason why it didn't is because you used the amps and even though you ended with 19 volts, there was not enough amperage and therefore you really didn't gain anything and still had a loss.
Calculate out the total charges.
Like you properly gave: 1/2(.0047x V2)
Start cap C1: .5(.0047x19.35x19.35)= 0.8799
after run
C1= 10.35 : 1/2(.0047x10.35x10.35)= 0.2517
C2= 9.57 : 1/2(.0047x9.57x9.57)= 0.2152
C3= 4.62 : 1/2(.0047x4.62x4.62)= 0.0502
C1+C2+C3= 0.5171
Net loss: .8799 (start cap) - .5171 (total of C1+C2+C3) = 0.3628
So you have a net LOSS of .3628. About a 40% loss.
Just adding the voltages up on the caps doesn't work...
Thanks for the vids though!
Quote from: capthook on November 17, 2008, 12:32:47 AM
Calculate out the total charges.
Like you properly gave: 1/2(.0047x V2)
Start cap C1: .5(.0047x19.35x19.35)= 0.8799
after run
C1= 10.35 : 1/2(.0047x10.35x10.35)= 0.2517
C2= 9.57 : 1/2(.0047x9.57x9.57)= 0.2152
C3= 4.62 : 1/2(.0047x4.62x4.62)= 0.0502
C1+C2+C3= 0.5171
Net loss: .8799 (start cap) - .5171 (total of C1+C2+C3) = 0.3628
So you have a net LOSS of .3628. About a 40% loss.
Just adding the voltages up on the caps doesn't work...
Thanks for the vids though!
I understand exactly what you are saying... but I did not compare it to the energy of the first cap alone. That was the point of the first of the video. At the first of the video, I took C1, and discharged it into three caps parallel, with no leads or components. That is the energy that I compared the end experiment to.
The question is, why is there more energy left in the 3 caps running it through the circuit, than there was without the circuit, directly draining them in parallel.
In the last video, I did not compare one cap to 3... I compared 3 caps to 3 caps.. all in parallel the entire time.
Quote from: nightlife on November 17, 2008, 12:28:26 AM
captainpecan, you are not recording the amps and voltage is not good with out amperage.
The first video you showed running the motor on 18 volts and then it stopped running but yet you showed have 19 volts still left. If it ran off 18 volts, it should have continued to run off the 19 that was still left. The reason why it didn't is because you used the amps and even though you ended with 19 volts, there was not enough amperage and therefore you really didn't gain anything and still had a loss.
The question is not amps. It's the total energy. And I know the equation says I have lost half my energy. The point is that I am getting the full amount of work on the motor, from each cap individually... After I already used the energy once to run the motor the first time.
By the way. It stopped running because it is a pulse motor and I only delivered 1 pulse. It was not supposed to keep running. The fact that the energy was left over for me to use again tells the tale. Equations true or false. This energy was recycled.
@captainpecan,
Nice work. I enjoyed the videos very much. Thanks.
Take care,
Michel
Voltage with amps = watts. Voltage without amps = no watts. Power is based on watts or joules per second. You must have a watt gain to have any gain at all.
Quote from: captainpecan on November 17, 2008, 12:53:55 AM
The question is, why is there more energy left in the 3 caps running it through the circuit, than there was without the circuit, directly draining them in parallel.
So you are thinking the 'circuit' is creating extra power you can harness? Free energy?
Well - you commented on the (1) large spark when connecting the 3 capacitors in parrallel to "equalize" their charges.
There was (2) no such spark in the later test running it through the circuit.
So you lost more energy in the spark of (1) than you did running it throught the circuit (2).
Again - you need to measure (and fully calculate) energy in and then energy out.
No matter how you setup what you are doing - getting more out than in will never happen.
Quote from: nightlife on November 17, 2008, 01:15:53 AM
Voltage with amps = watts. Voltage without amps = no watts. Power is based on watts or joules per second. You must have a watt gain to have any gain at all.
You must not have worked much with capacitors. It's not the same. You would be correct, most cases I agree. But with capacitors, you measure total energy. Which is 1/2 * Capacitance * Voltage^2. Yes, I mention only voltage early. But later I show what your concern is about. The total energy.
Thanks for your input though.
captainpecan; thank you.
Still trying to figure out how you got 2 to = (1.1 * 2) plus do a little work on the side.
Thanks again.
nap
Quote from: Michelinho on November 17, 2008, 01:03:59 AM
@captainpecan,
Nice work. I enjoyed the videos very much. Thanks.
Take care,
Michel
Thank you! It's not easy trying to go head to head with 100's of years of physics. I did my best.
Quote from: slapper on November 17, 2008, 01:25:15 AM
captainpecan; thank you.
Still trying to figure out how you got 2 to = (1.1 * 2) plus do a little work on the side.
Thanks again.
nap
Lol... I knew someone would be able to look past the equation crap and see the whole point of these video's... Good work...
Watched vid 4 again: your process is flawed
At the start you touch the leads of 3 capacitors together in hopes of getting a "control" figure.
You say "connecting them in parrallel with the least possible losses"
Again - I say the sparks flying when you do this is VERY lossy.
So comparing the 2nd test through the circuit - that is LESS lossy without all the sparks flying - as showing an energy gain is a flawed conclusion.
And you say "if you add the voltages together, which I say you can even though the equations say you can't"
That's your 2nd problem.
The equations are to determine an actual value of energy (joules : watts/second) - just adding the voltages to show a gain is wrong.
@captainpecan,
Attached is my first idea for an implementation of your system.
The idea is to run the energy into capacitors is steps and then
discharge the last capacitor into the load for a new cycle.
Very good work done, you have showed something that I have suspected for a long time,
that the capacitor loss is only occurring for a parallel draining scheme. Great work.
Groundloop.
Quote from: nightlife on November 17, 2008, 01:15:53 AM
Voltage with amps = watts. Voltage without amps = no watts. Power is based on watts or joules per second. You must have a watt gain to have any gain at all.
This was very interesting, but nightlife is correct. Think of a dead car battery.. remove the cables and the voltmeter will still show 12+ volts even though there isn't any juice left. I bet if you measure the current after the caps are hooked up that you will find very little there.
Great work though!
Jason
Quote from: Groundloop on November 17, 2008, 02:09:18 AM
@captainpecan,
Attached is my first idea for an implementation of your system.
The idea is to run the energy into capacitors is steps and then
discharge the last capacitor into the load for a new cycle.
Very good work done, you have showed something that I have suspected for a long time,
that the capacitor loss is only occurring for a parallel draining scheme. Great work.
Groundloop.
I'm glad you see what I'm trying to get across. And you took the thoughts right out of my head with your schematics... Good work.
In vid 1: you claim a gain of 'free energy'
Again - adding cap voltages doesn't equal total energy.
Plug the voltages into the formula to get joules: watt/sec
.5(.0047xV2)
C1 start: 18.22 =0.7801
after run
C1: 9.7 = 0.2211
C2: 9.29 = 0.2028
C1+C2 = 0.4239
System loss: .7801 - .4239 = 0.4239
No energy gain. Do you see??
- -
4Tesla - a capacitor is joules - total amount of energy. The amps will depend on the resistance (ohms) of the circuit you are discharging it into.
Quote from: 4Tesla on November 17, 2008, 02:17:32 AM
This was very interesting, but nightlife is correct. Think of a dead car battery.. remove the cables and the voltmeter will still show 12+ volts even though there isn't any juice left. I bet if you measure the current after the caps are hooked up that you will find very little there.
Great work though!
Jason
Thanks for checking it out. And yes, I do talk voltage, without talking amps. This is only because we are dealing with capacitors and not batteries, and because I really have no better way to make comparisons of the work I am seeing, compared to the energy the formulas say is in those caps after they are split. I am seeing the same work done with the caps individually, "AS IF" the actual energy in the capacitors follows the same trend that the voltage does. The point is, work is done... energy is recycled, and then work is done once again with each of the caps. Then adding the work done from each cap individually, shows that the first discharge, gave me free work. The second and third discharge gave me the work I paid for.. in a sense...
@4Tesla,
You relly can't compare a capacitor with a battery! The VOLTAGE over a capacitor terminals is directly related to the total WORK a capacitor
can do when discharged into a load.
Work must be done by an external influence to move charge between the plates in a capacitor. When the external influence is removed, the charge separation persists and energy is stored in the electric field. If charge is later allowed to return to its equilibrium position, the energy is released. The work done in establishing the electric field, and hence the amount of energy stored, is given by (See image attachment).
Groundloop.
Okay, but he isn't measuring joules.. he is measuring volts.. if the energy is still there when the caps are disconnected from the circuit.. then why did the motor stop?
Jason
Quote from: capthook on November 17, 2008, 02:36:42 AM
In vid 1: you claim a gain of 'free energy'
Again - adding cap voltages doesn't equal total energy.
Plug the voltages into the formula to get joules: watt/sec
.5(.0047xV2)
C1 start: 18.22 =0.7801
after run
C1: 9.7 = 0.2211
C2: 9.29 = 0.2028
C1+C2 = 0.4239
System loss: .7801 - .4239 = 0.4239
No energy gain. Do you see??
- -
4Tesla - a capacitor is joules - total amount of energy. The amps will depend on the resistance (ohms) of the circuit you are discharging it into.
Yes... I understand EXACTLY what you are saying. I have been through this many times, believe me. Just for 1 second, forget what that equation is saying to you. Compare the work that is done. See if it matches what the equation says. I'm not supposed to be able to get that much work out of the caps after they are split.
You know what, it really doesn't matter. Thank you for your comments. I'm not saying your figures are wrong. As you are figuring it EXACTLY like it has been taught forever. I'm questioning what has been taught, not your figures. What is taught does not seem to match the work I'm seeing.
And the spark... You may be right, or you may be wrong. Honestly, after doing the exact experiment over a 100 times and still getting the same results, I know there is energy entering the system. The only question is where from. Possibly RF, in that case, any gains I receive would not be there if the project moved... lol... I simply showed an interesting effect I noticed.
Like I said, there is no point in arguing this.
@4Tesla,
The motor did stop because it is NOT a complete motor. He has no switching to let the motor run.
What he is doing is charging up ONE capacitor, run it through the coils and INTO a second capacitor.
The energy is moving the magnets away from the coils (thus creating work). Now the first capacitor
is discharged until the voltage in the second capacitor reach the 1/2 of the start voltage. The math
says that we should lose 50% in the process. Now he measure both capacitors and find that the
total voltages combined is greater than the start voltage. Voltage over a capacitor is in direct relationship
with the total work a capacitor can do. So if you discharge both capacitor into a load, one at the time,
then you will find that the work those two capacitors can do is greater than the work the first capacitor can do.
The 50% loss formula only applies when discharging a capacitor into a parallel load. When we discharge a capacitor
through a load and into another capacitor then it seems that the formula is wrong.
This is how I understand what he is doing.
Groundloop.
Quote from: 4Tesla on November 17, 2008, 02:44:56 AM
Okay, but he isn't measuring joules.. he is measuring volts.. if the energy is still there when the caps are disconnected from the circuit.. then why did the motor stop?
Jason
And this is the point of these videos. This is where you need to try and put what you have learned about how a motor uses up the energy fed to it. And for just a minute, think what would happen if the energy did not get used up. What if it just passed right through to the other side and you caught it? Then you could use it again. The true meaning of "Conservation of energy".
Two capacitors in paralel... 1 at 18v, and 1 at 0v. A capacitor will simply try to balance the energy between the two. Hence, that is why half the energy flowed through the motor and landed in the second cap, and the other half, never left the first cap. When the capacitors are balanced, they will not do any more work until there is a place of lower voltage to flow to.
I hope I explained that well enough.
@Groundloop
I couldnt say it better myself! That is exactly what I am saying.
Quote from: captainpecan on November 17, 2008, 02:56:16 AM
after doing the exact experiment over a 100 times and still getting the same results, I know there is energy entering the system.
I watched the vids before commenting, as you requested, and gave my brief review of your work - with supporting data behind my comments.
As such, I 100% disagree with your statement that energy is entering the system, and it is my opinion that what you are doing has a 0% chance of creating free energy.
When you refine your methods and contemplate it some more - you
should come to the same conclusion.
Of course you are free to disregard my comments and disregard the numerical results of your processes if you choose. The question is - how much time and $$ are you willing to invest to get to the inevitable dead-end?
Thanks for sharing and for trying. All the best to you........
I understand the formula part.. but I don't understand how you are getting OU out of this.. I believe the motor would spin 1 1/2 turns on a cap charged at 9 volts directly from the battery.. so after the cap is charged by 18 volts by the battery and you run the motor with 2 caps and have split the 18 volts, into 2 caps and each has 9 volts.. can you hook one of the 9 volt caps to the motor and get it to spin another 1 1/2 turns? I don't think you can.
Jason
Quote from: 4Tesla on November 17, 2008, 03:16:59 AM
I understand the formula part.. but I don't understand how you are getting OU out of this.. I believe the motor would spin 1 1/2 turns on a cap charged at 9 volts directly from the battery.. so after the cap is charged by 18 volts by the battery and you run the motor with 2 caps and have split the 18 volts, into 2 caps and each has 9 volts.. can you hook one of the 9 volt caps to the motor and get it to spin another 1 1/2 turns? I don't think you can.
Jason
Your catching on. Keep watching the videos and watch closely. You will see me hook each cap back up and get those extra turns. The OU is not necessarily the voltage, or the energy in the caps... Yes it appears there is extra, whether it be an illusion or not... The Free Energy comes from the fact that the motor span the first time for free, while the energy passed right through it and was recovered.. Then I used the energy again from each cap, and got the motor spinning again for each... Do you see it now? The FE is the FIRST spin... Not necessarily what ends up in the caps. The other spins in the test finally "uses" the energy, because I hooked them directly in a dead short fashion.
I watched all four videos.. and didn't see it.. can you do another that clearly shows this.. this would be like what Groundloop is describing but manually switching the capacitors.
Thanks,
Jason
Quote from: 4Tesla on November 17, 2008, 03:37:00 AM
I watched all four videos.. and didn't see it.. can you do another that clearly shows this.. this would be like what Groundloop is describing but manually switching the capacitors.
Thanks,
Jason
Yes, it is just like what Groundloop is suggesting with his schematic, I just did it manually for the tests. I apologize, the reason you are having a problem seeing the results I'm speaking of, is partially due to the video's not being very good quality. The video was recorded with a cellphone, it was all I had at the time.
The effect you are looking for is shown in Pt3. I first discharge 1 cap at 18v and measure the work done. Next, I recharge the first cap to 18v, then split it into 2 caps for 9v each. I then hook them both up in parallel and discharge, taking note that when used in that manor, the work done does in fact follow the equation. I then recharge the capacitors and split them again. Next I discharge each one individually (This is what your asking about) and note the amount of work I got out of each. This now shows that the work I get from each 9v cap, adds together to still give the work of the original 18v cap and then a little more.
Hope that helps.
@4Tesla,
Look at the attached drawing. It may explain it better than words alone.
Groundloop.
Captain, Good work. I tried the same experiements and get the same results using an old DC Heat Sink motor from a computer. I marked one of the fan blades to count the revs. The Young Effect is truly there. Now is time for more experiments with Groundloops type ideas.
Bill
Is it just simple that? Where extra energy come from?
Thanks captainpecan. You did as promised, you gained a lot of respect from me sir. Thanks to Groundloop for your swift illustrations to help out even more. Today is really a good day.
To summarize. Is this what you're doing?:
Charge one.
Split in two.
Discharge individually.
hi all
a very enthusiastic demo by the Captain of the cap-to-cap charge and energy anomaly!
my only disappointment is that we had to wait through all the hype of peoples' speculations on the "I've got it, now what do i do?" thread, only to hear that the Captain's mysterious new discovery was in fact an 'old friend'
the anomalous gain of charge and energy when discharging one capacitor into another, through an inductor (either solid-state or motor winding) and do some useful work on the way has been investigated by several members that i know of: NerzhDishual; Dr Spark; AllCanadian, Groundloop, myself and i'm sure many others
YouTube user Introvertebrate posted a similar vid titled something like "Overunity: 12V + 0V = 15V" using a Solid-state Bedini-like setup with a coil discharging one cap into another and finding the same unexpected voltage gain
in the "Igors switcher" thread, Dr Spark showed a circuit & simulation of a circuit doing the same sort of thing using a coil and capacitors switched between parallel on charge and series on discharge back and forth through the inductor and load:-
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1942.msg23197#msg23197
Groundloop developed one of his many example circuits in the "Tesla Switch need help" thread, here:-
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3316.msg70159#msg70159
NerzhDishual suggested that i test the effect he'd seen previously on cap-to-cap discharges, as here:-
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3316.160
but using a motor between the capacitors - result discussed here:-
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg88079#msg88079
and i've since been able to develop the effect to the extent where a resistive load is showing around 145% efficiency using charge switched between capacitors, as on the 'Latest' page from my website, here:-
http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
using the schematic attached below
so, the effect is not in dispute - it exists!
unfortunately, the Captain is not the first to observe it - it has spawned a healthy amount of experimentation already
it's great that the Captain has shown further supporting evidence for this anomaly - but i feel, to be truthful, this thread shouldn't be titled the "Young Effect" but rather the "Old Effect"! ;)
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
[double post removed]
wow what can i say ....
many of u are wrong .... lol
but im a gonna let a bunch of you look like fools b4 you are corrected lol
ist
keep playing ... the TRUTH WILL BE CLEAR~~
;D
ist
you can argue the truth but you will be WRONG!! ;)
CP,
Thanks for publishing, its a great effort on your part.
Its an interesting effect though the science is against you on this one :(
Best of luck with future ideas.
Apologies for the butt head comment ;)
Dean
I think you should short out the coils between each test to get rid of the charge they are holding so that you get a more realistic reading on what is happening. The same goes for the DC motor. Or at least add the voltage stored in the coils or DC motor to your over all results.
It would be nice if this did work to gain power.
But I will put forth a theory of what is really happening using an example.
You charged a 4000 microfarad cap to 20 V.
You then transfer half the voltage through the motor to another 4000 MFD. cap.
When you take measures and add up the voltages you get say 21 volts total.
Say it is an even 10.5V and 10.5V.
Looks like you gained one volt and thus more energy.
I put forth this theory.
The energy stored in each cap is less then 2000 MFD worth of power.
But this theory is easy to prove or disprove.
Charge each cap up to 10V and then discharge each one across a
known resistance and measure the time it takes to reach exactly 5 Volts,
which is half the charge.
Then carry out the above experiment charge one cap up to 20 volts,
then transfer half the voltage through the motor to the other cap.
Again you get say 10.5 Volts in each cap.
Now discharge each cap to 5 volts into the same resistor you used before.
If you really have gained energy it should take longer to discharge each cap to 5 volts then it took before.
But if my theory is correct it will take less then half as long to discharge each cap to 5 volts.
Proving that each cap is storing 10.5 volts at 2000 MFDs or less.
Even though the caps are 4000 MFD caps.
I hope you are correct about the gain, that would be awsome.
Then it is just a matter of designing the right switching circuit.
Could you measure the inductance of your 3 coils and post the value
so we can try equal inductors to check this for ourselves.
I tried a quick test using a small DC motor and I keep getting exactly the same voltage across the caps.
I used two 12.2 volt gel cells for a total of 24.4 volts,
and I always measure a total between the 2 caps of 24.3 to 24.4 volts.
Which is impressive. But of coarse when you run a motor off a battery
for a few seconds the voltage of the battery doesn't go down by a measureable amount either.
So I can see having the same voltage left after running the motor for 1 second off a capacitor too.
Provided the capacitor has a large enough value.
Another experiment would be to use the capacitor to pulse a step up transformer,
that steps it up 2X. And feed this into a third capacitor.
Then you would have the 2 capacitors at half the voltage and the 3rd capacitor would be twice the value.
Anyway these are my thought on this concept and I will be testing it some more.
I am using 5600 MFD 100V caps for my tests.
Maybe the higher voltage value makes there internal resistance higher so I loose some voltage.
FOR ALL THE FOOLS!
that choose to argue.... lol
i have but 1 question.... how can you argue the work done by the motor lol.... 1 charged cap to 18 volts... by the time we decide to use it all up the motor has done over 3 times the work... lol
what if we never used it up!!! EVER..... lol lol ;) ;D :D
ha!
ist ;D
WHERE ARE YOU NOW! ;D
hey i didnt call it THE BOUNCE COIL for nuttin lol ;)
When you transfer between capacitors you are transferring charge, that is, energy, not "just" voltage. The energy on a capacitor goes as the square of the voltage. E=(1/2)(C*V*V) where E is in Joules, C is in Farads, and V is in Volts. SO a capacitor charged to 12 volts has much less than half the energy of the same capacitor charged to 24 volts.
Capacitors do NOT store power, they store energy. Power is the rate at which energy is released over time. Energy is expressed in Joules, which are equivalent to Watt-Seconds. That is, one Joule of energy is one watt of power expended over one second of time. If you scrunch that same one Joule of ENERGY into a tenth of a second, then you have 10 watts of power, for a tenth of a second. And so forth.
Also, capacitance of a capacitor is almost always going to be different than what the label says, sometimes by 10 percent or more.
Hmm thank you TK for reciting my physics book.
Fools?
First of all I do not take kindly to being called names, secondly you must take in to account the energy stored in the coils which has not been done here.
He first supplies the coils with energy and the coils will store that energy like a battery does, he then adds more energy adding to the coils which is charging the coils even more. The coils he is using are rather large coils capable of holding a lot of energy. The energy in the coils have not been discharged although they will leak down.
All the readings have not taken and included in the mix. You have to remember that energy is vibrant and the coils will resonate from the vibrance holding that vibrance longer then a straight wire will.
hi Dean
> "CP... Its an interesting effect though the science is against you on this one"
Science is mankind's attempt at modelling Reality
Reality gets it right 100% of the time ...
...mankind doesn't have such a good track record! ;)
all the best
sandy
____________________________________________________________________________
THIS is what 'Science' says about a cap-to-cap discharge:-
eg. take two 200uF capacitors, C1 charged to 5V, C2 empty
=========================================================
initial 'Coulomb charge' in C1: 1mCoulombs
initial energy in C1: 2.5mJoules
initial charge on C2: 0mC
initial energy in C2: 0mJ
total initial charge in system: 1mC
total initial energy in system: 2.5mJ
now join C1 & C2 in parallel until steady-state reached
=======================================
combined capacitance now 400uF
voltage on (C1+C2): 2.5V
'charge' in (C1+C2): 1mC
energy in (C1+C2): 1.25mJoules
now separate C1 & C2 again
============================
voltage on C1: 2.5V
'charge' in C1: 0.5mC
energy in C1: 0.625mJoules
voltage on C2: 2.5V
'charge' in C2: 0.5mC
energy in C2: 0.625mJoules
total initial charge in system: 1mC
total initial energy in system: 1.25mJ
charge is conserved;
energy is also conserved (50% stored; 50% expended in heat, radiation, etc, as charging work)
*******************************************
*******************************************
and THIS is what 'Science' predicts for a partial discharge of C1 from 8V to 7V through an inductor L and resistor Rload:
initial condition
=================
energy in C1 at 8V: 6.4mJ
charge in C1 at 8V: 1.6mC
discharge C1 by 1V
==================
energy in C1 at 7V: 4.9mJ
charge in C1 at 7V: 1.4mC
total energy input: 6.4 - 4.9 = 1.5mJ
50% energy expended in Rload: 0.75mJ
50% energy stored in C2: 0.75mJ
final voltage on C2 to store 0.75mJ: 2.74V
final stored charge in C1: 1.4mC
final stored charge in C2: 0.55mC
total final charge: 1.95mC
net charge gain: +0.36mC
total final energy: 1.5mJ
overall system efficiency: 1.5 * 100 / 1.5 = 100%
(including 'losses' in Rload)
so - NOW - according to 'Science', energy is still conserved, but charge is not
*******************************************
*******************************************
but this is what ACTUALLY happens in a real experiment using the previous setup:-
initial condition
=================
energy in C1 at 8V: 6.4mJ
charge in C1 at 8V: 1.6mC
discharge C1 by 1V
==================
energy in C1 at 7V: 4.9mJ
charge in C1 at 7V: 1.4mC
total energy input: 6.4 - 4.9 = 1.5mJ
final measured voltage on C2: 3.1V
(NOTE: voltage is higher than predicted)
final stored charge in C1: 1.4mC
final stored charge in C2: 0.62mC
total final charge: 2.02mC
net charge gain: +0.42mC
energy stored in C2: 0.96mJ
energy dissipated in Rload: 0.96mJ
total energy converted: 1.92mJ
efficiency at Rload: 1.92 * 100 / 1.5 = 128%
so experiments confirm charge gain - BUT greater than expected - AND a net energy gain!
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Quote from: AbbaRue on November 17, 2008, 08:06:02 AM
I hope you are correct about the gain, that would be awsome.
Then it is just a matter of designing the right switching circuit.
it's already been done Abba ;)
...and it works
the charge gain anomaly produces around 50% extra energy for 'Free'
half of the extra energy increases the stored energy in the capacitor by 25%
the other half increases the work expended in charging the capacitor by 25%
you need to ensure that you have a load which can use BOTH the output charging energy AND the discharge of the output stored energy - otherwise you end up with an efficiency of only approx 75%
use both sets of energy and you've got yourself Overunity - approching 150% efficiency!
all the best
sandy
...sheesh, this is like pulling teeth... :)
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Quote from: nul-points on November 17, 2008, 10:12:03 AM
it's already been done Abba ;)
...and it works
use both sets of energy and you've got yourself Overunity - approching 150% efficiency!
all the best
sandy
...sheesh, this is like pulling teeth... :)
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
lol yea the WISDOM TEETH :D
sandy you rock bro 8)
;D
ist!
ARE YOU READY!!....... READY..... READY...... READY....... READY ;) WHAT resosance?!?!?!?! 8)
what
TESLAS WHEELS WITH IN WHEELS ;)
lol
hey think we can searl effect? this?? ;)
what if there were wheels with in wheels in opssite dirrections slaming the hemf - and + togather at once inside a crystalline core....
LIKE MULLER but just a wee bit more advanced ;D 8)
yea i thought so...... ;D
@captainpecan
What do you think about mixing your circuit with the circuit of the selfrunning motor on this thread:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6064.0;topicseen
Jesus
For those of us who are not experts in this field...if this works...then why can't someone close the loop and create a self-power device which will quickly end the debate?
Freddy
cuz thats your job.... ;)
ist
@ gorundloop i must say .... wow !!!
time to apply this all ...
i think if allcanadin will post his circuit we got the real deal.... like 4 irf 840s mosfets....and drop the second caps if u want :)
dont for get the triggers.... and yes it will still start from 1 swipe .. but how to control this beast ..... i beleave if the caps are wired correctly they will not over charge..
the hemf is your out put .... but from 4 coils spun fast.... ;) this is why hi amparage can be mesured... and as near as i can tell right now the out put is based upon the input voltage only..... well never mind the coil and the tuned cap
also if you do not want to close the loop for safty issues then dont just keep flicking the thing 8) really there many ways....
:)
now watch this.... if you wind your motor coils like this .... you will have much love :) wind biffillar coils identical wire gages.. and lengths ... polorized .... IMPORTANT .... 1 wind is your input ... the other your kick back output... hey im sure you get the idea
I never claimed to be first person to ever notice any of this effect. I simply claim to be one person who has done the best I could to make sure EVERYONE ELSE notices it too! After these video's, I'm quite sure some who have suspected that this effect is all true, will begin moving forward with the idea, instead of just thinking that it "might" work, but not worth the argument to go against the equations. This is the true reason I compiled my work to share. I know there are many who are already thinking differently, and are working on adaptations to other projects, and totally designing new ones to finally take advantage of what many have suspected to be true for a long time.
Not to mention, many do not yet understand that energy does not have to be lost. If I can broaden everyone's awareness that energy can flow THROUGH, and be caught coming out the other side, then I have done what I wanted.
Over all, who deserves the credit! Well Tesla of course, as he is the reason almost all of our projects are even thought about!
Quote from: Fred Flintstone on November 17, 2008, 12:19:42 PM
For those of us who are not experts in this field...if this works...then why can't someone close the loop and create a self-power device which will quickly end the debate?
Freddy
Don't mention the LOOP !!
Its a bad topic around here ;)
Yabba Dabba LOOOOOP!!
@ captainpecan:
Nice job on the videos! I think you have explained this very well. Also, I have seen Groundloop's work and posts in other topics and I am convinced he knows of what he speaks so, you have some good back up from him as well as from others on here.
Most folks forget that caps are not batteries and perform differently even though now, some are replacing batteries with supercaps for some applications.
Thank you for allowing me to be on this from the beginning. This is exactly what I think this site is for. Some of the really smart guys on here may be able to take this to the next level.
The Young Effect Really great name for it. I wonder what smart guy suggested that? (ha ha)
I look forward to replicating this and also to see where you take this now that others back your line of thinking.
Bill
How about loop as in coils which everyone seems to be forgetting about. Where are the coils energy recordings at? Why are they not included?
@captainpecan,
For being a man of word, hat off, although the intro&teasing was way too long!
The sole issue is here:
Quote from: captainpecan on November 16, 2008, 11:02:42 PM
...my use of equations, please view all the videos. I do understand the proper use of them, but I do have a very good argument as to why they are not being applied correctly.
Sorry for bad news and no offense: there is no effect at all but just misuse of logic and lack of proper understanding.
As a side note, you already know (and you acknowledged as a result of sufficient failed experiments) that magnetic motors can not possibly work. Until further developments, my word about it (as per Maxwell) is that electro-magnetic (EM) motors can not possibly work either, unless they tap a source of energy (battery/chemical, external sources etc). By EM I mean electric, magnetic or their combination. You’ve just experimented EM but there is no difference, really â€" although equations are more complex.
Cheers,
Tinu
I’ll add two final notes, as I’ve noticed a common error among several members in understanding some basics:
1. An ideal capacitor does not ‘lose’ energy when discharging but ONLY when charging. After contemplating the issue and finding it true, please thoroughly review your conclusions accordingly, since it is the root of many false deductions.
2. The fact that when dumping a capacitor into another one leads to a theoretical efficiency of 50% (and a practical one close to it) does not mean that there are no better ways. Dumping is not the best way and it is certainly not the one with least loses! For the real best way, theoretical attainable efficiency is 100% and practical (our days) is 94% or better. The key word you may start with is ‘isentropic’ but in practice it is much simpler that it sounds…
Some have asked why the motor doesn't keep spinning.
I hope you finally understand why.
The motor is replacing the other wire used to connect the 2 caps together in parallel.
Once the 2 caps have reached equilibrium the current stops flowing through the motor and it stops.
The most interesting point is how the caps have more energy in them after running the motor
then they had when connected directly in parallel. Actually more then twice the energy.
And then there is the extra energy gained from the back emf through the bridge rectifier.
When I have the time I will try some tests with step up transformers in place of the motor.
Send pulses to the transformer until the two caps are at equilibrium and see how much
voltage I can store in a High Voltage cap on the other side of the transformer.
A 6 volt transformer connected in reverse to act as a step up transformer would do just fine.
Should get a nice voltage stored up.
Quote from: nightlife on November 17, 2008, 02:11:03 PM
How about loop as in coils which everyone seems to be forgetting about. Where are the coils energy recordings at? Why are they not included?
the coils engery is your out put.... more so the colpase of the coils engery ;) cap it or diode it or bridge rectify it
to make it more mesure able ....
thats it you all get 1 more drawing ...
first i must draw it ... i guess we need trigger coils in this one for the fets...
ist
naw im just kidding the ball is already in your lap ;)
you can figure the rest i have well more than done my part ...
Quote from: tinu on November 17, 2008, 02:16:17 PM
@captainpecan,
For being a man of word, hat off, although the intro&teasing was way too long!
Honestly, I never wanted to build suspense... lol... I simply opened my big mouth to soon, before I was comfortable enough to release it and to take the criticism of my work! It's never easy to know everyone wants to prove you wrong. I was trying to get my ducks in a row before I reopened a very controversial topic. Did I prove it? Some say yes, some say no. I guess it really doesn't matter, because the real proof is going to happen when the self runners start popping up out of the woodwork! Which is exactly what Stefan's reply was when I shared it with him. He is not convinced I proved anything, and said he will follow the equations until he see's a self runner. No matter what, I did what I had hoped. The people who are open minded, and ready, are already starting to capitalize on the info!
I tried to be completely honest with my findings. I tried to explain it as simply as possible. Those who can benefit from my work, fantastic! Those who still do not believe, well thanks for checking it out anyway.
Quote from: captainpecan on November 17, 2008, 04:12:43 AM
Yes, it is just like what Groundloop is suggesting with his schematic, I just did it manually for the tests. I apologize, the reason you are having a problem seeing the results I'm speaking of, is partially due to the video's not being very good quality. The video was recorded with a cellphone, it was all I had at the time.
The effect you are looking for is shown in Pt3. I first discharge 1 cap at 18v and measure the work done. Next, I recharge the first cap to 18v, then split it into 2 caps for 9v each. I then hook them both up in parallel and discharge, taking note that when used in that manor, the work done does in fact follow the equation. I then recharge the capacitors and split them again. Next I discharge each one individually (This is what your asking about) and note the amount of work I got out of each. This now shows that the work I get from each 9v cap, adds together to still give the work of the original 18v cap and then a little more.
Hope that helps.
That is not the same as you don't run the motor in the video.. show a video of what is described here:
Quote
Quote from: 4Tesla on Today at 08:16:59 AM
I understand the formula part.. but I don't understand how you are getting OU out of this.. I believe the motor would spin 1 1/2 turns on a cap charged at 9 volts directly from the battery.. so after the cap is charged by 18 volts by the battery and you run the motor with 2 caps and have split the 18 volts, into 2 caps and each has 9 volts.. can you hook one of the 9 volt caps to the motor and get it to spin another 1 1/2 turns? I don't think you can.
Jason
Your catching on. Keep watching the videos and watch closely. You will see me hook each cap back up and get those extra turns. The OU is not necessarily the voltage, or the energy in the caps... Yes it appears there is extra, whether it be an illusion or not... The Free Energy comes from the fact that the motor span the first time for free, while the energy passed right through it and was recovered.. Then I used the energy again from each cap, and got the motor spinning again for each... Do you see it now? The FE is the FIRST spin... Not necessarily what ends up in the caps. The other spins in the test finally "uses" the energy, because I hooked them directly in a dead short fashion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until I see this done.. I don't believe there is free energy.
Jason
I do think that you did great work and not trying to prove you wrong.. I just want proof that you are right and I don't see it.
Jason
@innovation_station,
Maybe you can use the attached high voltage switch? I have designed this simple DC switch with coils in mind
because I use the Darlington BU931T high voltage ignition switch transistor. The optocoupler H11D1 may be hard
to find, but I think there is a few on Ebay? You must use a high voltage optocoupler in this circuit. A low voltage
type such as 4N35 will not survive. This switch can be used anywhere in a circuit since it is "floating" by the
use of a optocoupled input. The switch is designed to be in series with a load. The BU931T has an internal
diode over the collector emitter leads so the transistor can handle inductive loads such as a coil or transformer.
Groundloop.
@captainpecan
Good work ;D I have yet to see your video's but I am looking forward to it. My thoughts on this technology are quite simple, take a 12v battery and connect it to a imaginary 1 million Farad capacitor then place a loaded electric motor in the circuit. The battery will power the motor at full voltage and amps (watts) because the capacitor will always be at a very low voltage, the only problem is how to get the energy out of the capacitor. The thing to remember is that from a more popularized perspective of the conservation of energy the capacitor can have no energy in it if the motor was 100% efficient when it is obvious this cannot be the case.
Now what would happen if the motor at 90% efficiency was driving a generator at 90% efficiency which was recharging the battery? LOL
Quote from: allcanadian on November 17, 2008, 03:55:35 PM
@captainpecan
Good work ;D I have yet to see your video's but I am looking forward to it. My thoughts on this technology are quite simple, take a 12v battery and connect it to a imaginary 1 million Farad capacitor then place a loaded electric motor in the circuit. The battery will power the motor at full voltage and amps (watts) because the capacitor will always be at a very low voltage, the only problem is how to get the energy out of the capacitor. The thing to remember is that from a more popularized perspective of the conservation of energy the capacitor can have no energy in it if the motor was 100% efficient when it is obvious this cannot be the case.
LOL ;D
I've looked but don't see it.....
Has anyone considered there may be one changing variable that could (if true) explain the variation? That is if the deduction from the experiments is correct.
Speed/Time
If the speed of charge flow is different when dumping from one cap to the next then you have the answer. BorderLands has done the theoretical work on this (among others). If applicable then 128% is expected.
I'm sure you needed another two cents ;D
EDIT>>>
To the best of my knowledge charge and current are normally considered the same thing. However, I think of charge as a bidirectional flow that happens only with an electrolyte. In metal it is said only the negative charge actually flows and the positive charge remains fixed. So my thoughts are there could be twice as much 'volume' of charge movement happening from capacitor to capacitor. This whole idea blows up in my face if you consider charge/spin invariant with change of speed. Maybe it isn't change of speed. Perhaps it is a fact that both charges are moving and the charge per unit of time is higher.
Quote from: captainpecan on November 17, 2008, 03:04:05 PM
I tried to be completely honest with my findings. I tried to explain it as simply as possible. Those who can benefit from my work, fantastic! Those who still do not believe, well thanks for checking it out anyway.
The only way to prove you have free energy is demonstrate a self-running/self-accelerating prototype, and show people how to build it... It's that simple, everything else is smoke and mirrors (whether you have working FE or not).
I bet if you try a little harder to prove yourself wrong, you would find a flaw.
Quote from: newbie123 on November 17, 2008, 04:09:02 PM
The only way to prove you have free energy is demonstrate a self-running/self-accelerating prototype... It's that simple, everything else is smoke and mirrors (whether you have working FE or not).
I bet if you try a little harder to prove yourself wrong, you would find a flaw.
15 minutes is up ;)
@captainpecan,
Attached is a proposal on how to test your motor.
I have not built this circuit, it is just an idea for further study.
Groundloop.
nice groundloop :)
nice n simple ;)
if we can just get rid of the mechanical ..... and start it with 1 swipe....
ist
@Groundloop
That is just like the cascade converter circuit I have been testing only mine has no rotor, and I can't get mine to work LOL.
@CaptainPecan
Great work and videos.
But I think a cap with half the voltage has less than half the stored energy:
0.5 * C * V * V seems to hold in my experiments discharging caps through resistors and integrating the discharge curve on a storage scope. When I double the voltage in the cap I see approx quadruple energy out.
Here´s an analogy of your experiment using water:
Take two identical water storage tanks. Connect the tanks using a hose at the bottom of each with a tap in the middle. Have one tank empty, fill one tank to the top. Now open the tap....
A current will flow in the pipe as the tanks equalise, you could use this flow to drive a turbine etc. or you could just leave it and let it flow.
After settling the two tanks will both be half full, if you take the total amount of water in both tanks then it is the same as what was in the previously full tank. If you take the individual water head heights and sum them then they are the same as a full tank.
One could be forgiven for thinking that the 2 half tanks have the same potential energy in them as the one full tank, but unfortunately that is not the case. One full tank is like two half tanks, BUT you must stand one half ontop of the other (lift it up) to make the same potential energy as one full tank.
If you can work out a way to take two 9V charged caps and make the charge all go back into one cap to make one 18V cap then you´ve cracked it.
Having said all this, I don´t think you should stop your research in this area, caps are good for making fast transients and I think that´s where it´s at.
Yucca.
edit:
Your work has inspired me to try and get hold of some very low ESR caps for investigating fast cap to cap discharges through different materials.
Quote from: Yucca on November 17, 2008, 05:56:17 PM
@CaptainPecan
Great work and videos.
If you can work out a way to take two 9V charged caps and make the charge all go back into one cap to make one 18V cap then you´ve cracked it.
Yucca.
i think this is verry easly done.. ;)
im sure it has been done!!! ;D
what about 1v to 70 v :) with out a cap.....
lol oh btw i know this has been done as i have DONE IT LOL!!
ist!
Quote from: 4Tesla on November 17, 2008, 03:30:24 PM
Quote from: 4Tesla on Today at 08:16:59 AM
I understand the formula part.. but I don't understand how you are getting OU out of this.. I believe the motor would spin 1 1/2 turns on a cap charged at 9 volts directly from the battery.. so after the cap is charged by 18 volts by the battery and you run the motor with 2 caps and have split the 18 volts, into 2 caps and each has 9 volts.. can you hook one of the 9 volt caps to the motor and get it to spin another 1 1/2 turns? I don't think you can.
Until I see this done.. I don't believe there is free energy.
I do think that you did great work and not trying to prove you wrong.. I just want proof that you are right and I don't see it.
Jason
Here you go, I tried to make it as simple as I could, and did pretty much exactly as you asked. Does it prove more "Energy", that's still a huge debate. But it does prove that I get more "Work" out of it, whether the energy is really there or not!
Part 5 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FC-RBlZ2jTA
Quote from: innovation_station on November 17, 2008, 06:05:41 PM
i think this is verry easly done.. ;)
im sure it has been done!!! ;D
what about 1v to 70 v :) with out a cap.....
lol oh btw i know this has been done as i have DONE IT LOL!!
ist!
LOL, you crack me up ist :D, always with the crpytic carrots on the stick :D
So how do you do this asymetric charge transport? I´m eager to learn!
Yucca.
i like your new vid...
and thats the point im trying to make.... lol
you have done just a fine job of it 8)
ist!
@ Yucca
Thanks for your input. I do wish I had a better way of testing the total energy, unfortunately, I only have what is available to me right now. Part 5 which I just uploaded does show the increase in work a little more clearly that I am able to get out of this setup, regardless of whether the "Energy" is accurately being measured. Even if, I have not been successful in proving more energy, and "IF" it is not possible to send that energy back to the first cap to start the cycle again, the gain in work from this will make it possible. In other words, keep splitting it up as much as is feasible until you must finally use it up. Then use the work done by all that to generate the energy needed to top off the first cap again.
The reason I'm so confident that this is in fact a feasible answer is very simple. When I began this testing, I first started with only 1 coil, and a magnet. I was immediately showing slightly more "Voltage" when it was split. I added a second coil... I got the same results, with more rotation, and a little more voltage left in the caps. Adding the 3rd coil did even better... I added more magnets, it did even better with more rotation... I added still more magnets, and it did even better still.
The moral of this story is that the work done, using this method, is isolated. It took the less input, to multiply the output work. I was able to get more work done, by adding coils and magnets, without adding more energy to the system.
I get the same results as the Captain with my setup.
Vid5 was great!!!!!
One other way of providing a control to the experiment is too use a cap that is known to only hold about 1/2 the charge and compare it to the same set-up. I did this by comparing a 2200uf cap charged to 9v (the closest I could find) and running my DC Fan motor.
I counted the revolutions to be less than 1/2 of what you get with the a 4700uf cap that was charged as C2 to about 8.7v after going through the Captain's circuit. The test proved to me that the 4700uf caps as shown in the videos were obtaining a full charge not 1/2 as the formulas may lead you to believe. Why the overall voltage and work done (when run seperate) may increase I have no idea.
One major thing that I have to say....This is really easy to replicate. Most of the posts that I have seen lately on other projects have been very difficult if not impossible to replicate. You can get these caps at Radio Shack. Easy to test and does not take much time. I suggest you try this one to get an understanding of what is going on.
Thanks again Captain
Bill
Quote from: captainpecan on November 17, 2008, 06:44:18 PM
@ Yucca
Thanks for your input. I do wish I had a better way of testing the total energy, unfortunately, I only have what is available to me right now. Part 5 which I just uploaded does show the increase in work a little more clearly that I am able to get out of this setup, regardless of whether the "Energy" is accurately being measured. Even if, I have not been successful in proving more energy, and "IF" it is not possible to send that energy back to the first cap to start the cycle again, the gain in work from this will make it possible. In other words, keep splitting it up as much as is feasible until you must finally use it up. Then use the work done by all that to generate the energy needed to top off the first cap again.
The reason I'm so confident that this is in fact a feasible answer is very simple. When I began this testing, I first started with only 1 coil, and a magnet. I was immediately showing slightly more "Voltage" when it was split. I added a second coil... I got the same results, with more rotation, and a little more voltage left in the caps. Adding the 3rd coil did even better... I added more magnets, it did even better with more rotation... I added still more magnets, and it did even better still.
The moral of this story is that the work done, using this method, is isolated. It took the less input, to multiply the output work. I was able to get more work done, by adding coils and magnets, without adding more energy to the system.
I will try and make a rough copy of your solid state setup tomorrow using one big coreless coil and two identical caps from an old PSU: 470 microfarad 200V.
I´ll switch the charged input cap by manual switch as you have and collect the through flow using a diode on the coil output feeding into the second cap.
If I put a 1 ohm 4 watt series resistor in the circuit then I can scope across it and measure work done during charge transfer. If I integrate the resistors curve and then square the result it should yield total joules burnt in the resistor ( i think? someone PM and correct me if that´s not right).
edit:
I should also be able to roughly calculate total energy burnt in whole circuit if I also scope at the same time accross both cap +vs. although the coil makes things tricky :-\
Anyway, maybe the sum of the energy burnt and the energy left in both caps will be greater than the energy in the single start cap.
Yucca.
Captain:
Excellent video!!! I don't see how you, or anyone, could have explained it any better than that. That is a great representation of what you have been saying in the earlier videos. I hope Stefan takes a look at this one too. I really believe there is something here, it is right in front of us.
Bill
@ Yucca
I agree, further testing to show actual energy would be great. I do not have any better means than what I have shown available right now. Next question is this: If the energy is greater, then it's proven further. If the energy happens to actually show less, then what is causing the extra work to be performed? Either way, the extra work being performed is happening every single time, without fail. And is easily duplicated. So one way or another, there is definitely something here!
Remember that old funny story... "Hey, let's hook a motor to a generator! Then the generator will run the motor, and we will have all kinds of free energy!"
Hmmmm.... ;)
Quote from: captainpecan on November 17, 2008, 06:23:12 PM
Here you go, I tried to make it as simple as I could, and did pretty much exactly as you asked. Does it prove more "Energy", that's still a huge debate. But it does prove that I get more "Work" out of it, whether the energy is really there or not!
Part 5 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FC-RBlZ2jTA
Thank you.. that is exactly what I needed to see.. great work! Now I see your discovery clearly! Two thumbs up! 8)
Jason
Quote from: Groundloop on November 17, 2008, 04:30:17 PM
@captainpecan,
Attached is a proposal on how to test your motor.
I have not built this circuit, it is just an idea for further study.
Groundloop.
Looks like a bedini positive splitter
Surely it cant be that simple
nice drawing
Quote from: captainpecan on November 17, 2008, 07:41:16 PM
@ Yucca
I agree, further testing to show actual energy would be great. I do not have any better means than what I have shown available right now. Next question is this: If the energy is greater, then it's proven further. If the energy happens to actually show less, then what is causing the extra work to be performed? Either way, the extra work being performed is happening every single time, without fail. And is easily duplicated. So one way or another, there is definitely something here!
Well, my thoughts on cap to cap discharge are this (only thoughts mind you), when you parallel two caps as you are doing they will equalise. During this equalisation there is a current flow through the joining wire. You can either use that current to do work or you can lose it. I think that as you are adding more drive coils then you are using that current more efficiently. Also with a diode on the end of the coil it will catch any coil ringing and dump it into the second cap, this is a way of recovering some of the energy that would otherwise be lost to wire heating during the equalisation flow. You could probably recover a little more by putting a non polarised cap accross the coil to encourage the coil to ring.
Yucca.
@captainpecan
Saw your 5 videos and no I did not read the hole thread due to devoting most of my time with my present experiments.
I have one observation to make.
The capacitor when connected to the three coil with 3 magnet rotor (I'll call it a 3C3MR for brevity) will give one impulse to the coils that will give one push to the magnets. As soon as those magnets start turning in the 3C3MR, the magnet/coil combo now becomes a generator. Aha. Think about why there is energy returning.
Now when you positioned the magnets so they at center between each coil so they would not turn during your other test, don't forget one thing. The magnet field is elastic. When the coils received the impulse, the magnets did not move, but their surrounding fields did move even you cannot see it. When the impulse on the coil was stopped, the magnetic fields returned to their original positions and this FREE return also moved the magnetic fields over the coils, thus again charging your capacitor #3 but this time it was only at around 4 volts.
What I am trying to say is if you want to do such an experiment, the chosen device should not be a coil with moving magnets.
I do not want to discount what you have shown here because it does in fact open ones eyes. My only problem is that such displays must take all the players into account including the fact that a moving magnet over a coil = a standard generator.
wattsup
Anyone have some fuel cells available to play with? I am curious how well this concept could apply, please post info if someone is interested in testing it out.
i beleave when this is set up correctly and tunned properly you can take the magnets right away and your out put will be huge there for rejecting the standard generator theory this may be the case in the presented vids
altho this all changes when in resosance ....
ist
Quote from: captainpecan on November 17, 2008, 07:45:07 PM
Remember that old funny story... "Hey, let's hook a motor to a generator! Then the generator will run the motor, and we will have all kinds of free energy!"
Hmmmm.... ;)
Here is the honest version of it:
http://www.hp-gramatke.net/perpetuum/english/page0120.htm see Don Martin
http://www.evert.de/eft722e.htm Don Martin
Quote from: wattsup on November 17, 2008, 08:11:49 PM
@captainpecan
Saw your 5 videos and no I did not read the hole thread due to devoting most of my time with my present experiments.
I have one observation to make.
The capacitor when connected to the three coil with 3 magnet rotor (I'll call it a 3C3MR for brevity) will give one impulse to the coils that will give one push to the magnets. As soon as those magnets start turning in the 3C3MR, the magnet/coil combo now becomes a generator. Aha. Think about why there is energy returning.
Now when you positioned the magnets so they at center between each coil so they would not turn during your other test, don't forget one thing. The magnet field is elastic. When the coils received the impulse, the magnets did not move, but their surrounding fields did move even you cannot see it. When the impulse on the coil was stopped, the magnetic fields returned to their original positions and this FREE return also moved the magnetic fields over the coils, thus again charging your capacitor #3 but this time it was only at around 4 volts.
What I am trying to say is if you want to do such an experiment, the chosen device should not be a coil with moving magnets.
I do not want to discount what you have shown here because it does in fact open ones eyes. My only problem is that such displays must take all the players into account including the fact that a moving magnet over a coil = a standard generator.
wattsup
Actually, I know exactly what you are saying. When I noticed the effect happening, I did not even have the coils near the magnets. I just dont have a video of it, but I did do the exact same test, completely without the motor even on the same table. You did notice one thing though... That motor turned into a generator as soon as it moved.. In the test, I don't even have anything setup to generate energy from that rotation... that's a bonus that is easily tapped!
I just watched vid5, the results seem impressive when you sum up the work done by splitting the charge and then using the splits seperately.
I just had a thought that your work measuring device maybe highly non linear: because it is a one shot repulsion motor (no commutator) it will only generate motion for a short time (when mag is next to coil) regardless of the applied pulse length. When the 18V cap is discharged it will be giving a longer pulse length to the coils which may not get expressed as a longer wind down because during the latter half of the pulse the mags are between coils and thus not effected.
If you could find a low current commutated motor like a pager motor out of an old mobile phone etc. and use it to lift a small weight on cotton then this would probably give you a better Idea of work done by each discharge.
Yucca.
Very nice video, captainpecan! My hat's off to you.
It does seem like a puzzle, the way you present it. But you are sort of adding your apples to your oranges, aren't you.
In my opinion, what is needed is some good oscilloscope traces, done with a DSO that has a single-shot mode and integration math. Unfortunately, for various reasons, the spin of the rotor is not a good measure of the "work" as you call it developed by your system. The only way to really quantify what's going on is to monitor the voltage and the current waveforms as the capacitors discharge into the coils and spin the rotor. This can be done without disturbing your circuit (much), if you have a good scope. The voltage can be monitored directly and the current can come from a current probe, Rogowski coil, or voltage drop across a current-monitoring resistor. By multiplying these waveforms (instantaneous power) and integrating over the time of the discharge (total energy) , you will know exactly how much charge is sloshing around in your system, and where it's going, and, even, if any is showing up in there from some unknown source.
Without doing these measurements and calculations, you are pretty much just hand-waving.
If you take one capacitor of 200 mFd, charged at 10 volts, and another identical capacitor 200 mFd at 10 volts, and somehow you stuff ALL the charge from both capacitors into a third 200 mFd capacitor, what will the resultant voltage be on the third cap?
See what I mean?
But still and again, very nice work. I do hope you can get your hands on a good scope and repeat the experiment with waveform data.
@captainpecan,
I enjoyed your video experiments. Humble beginnings. Simple, clear and thought provoking. Thank you.
How do we take the next step: automate the process into some sort of a cycle?
Use the battery just like a car, only to start the 'cap-engine.'
I suppose we would need to make sure that one of the caps in the system always returned to maximum voltage once per 'cycle.' Maybe work in a step-up x-former of some suitable type?
Maybe two caps take turns, returning to maximum charge every other 'cycle?'
Maybe use twin caps and twin coils to resonate in a 180 degree phase difference?
Perhaps control the phase difference with the exposed coils; winding them and arranging them in space to have opposing currents yet share the same field polarity?
Please allow no one here to distract or dissuade you. Stay focused. Keep up the good work.
If it's a dragon you've waken, see if you can feed him his tail. 8)
@Yucca
QuoteI just watched vid5, the results seem impressive when you sum up the work done by splitting the charge and then using the splits seperately.
When I first heard of this effect while studying Tesla patents and others a year ago it was called "distillation of an electric current", another term was a "transforming generator" and also Tesla called it his "transformer", all refering to the seperation of EMF and voltage in an inductive winding. I do not think it is splitting "charge" persay but splitting the EMF(magnetic induced) component from the voltage which induced it. It's a two for one boy's woohoo ;D
The best device I have heard about which uses this effect was--switched energy resonant power supply,LOL it always sounds so easy after the fact.
Regards
AC
rosphere nice to hear your 10 cents 8) ;D well worth the listen.... i might add....
now you ALL KNOW how i felt so long ago.... ;D
this is only the start of what is to come... ;)
@AC WOOOHOOO! ALRIGHT lol
just try to find this from the beer as a good friend of mine said not so long ago....
where the hell are you now bro? 8)
ist
OPEN SOURCE!! YEA BABY!!! 8)
@IS
The best part is it's public domain as the heart of the process was patented 100 years ago by Tesla, we can build a hundred variants of this and sell them but the patent is teslas.
@ Allcanadian
Sure looks like a good candidate for your tesla transformer interpretation I just viewed the other day from your work elsewhere! Actually, it seems that most of your work I have seen recently, looks like we have been on very similar paths, with slightly different twists! ;D
Quote from: allcanadian on November 17, 2008, 09:26:55 PM
@Yucca
When I first heard of this effect while studying Tesla patents and others a year ago it was called "distillation of an electric current", another term was a "transforming generator" and also Tesla called it his "transformer", all refering to the seperation of EMF and voltage in an inductive winding. I do not think it is splitting "charge" persay but splitting the EMF(magnetic induced) component from the voltage which induced it. It's a two for one boy's woohoo ;D
The best device I have heard about which uses this effect was--switched energy resonant power supply,LOL it always sounds so easy after the fact.
Regards
AC
Hi allcanadian,
I tried googling "switched energy resonant power supply" and came accross this page describing how to minimise losses when transferring charge between caps:
http://www.smpstech.com/charge.htm
it was a good read for me! :)
Yucca.
@ captin and all who are intrested .....
i make this offer
lets togather design a simple do it yourself kit .... we can list thease on my site FOR SALE..... HUMMMM
any takers...?
as well im sure stephen could list kits if he wanted or at the LEAST supply FREE ADD SPACE......... EH STEPHEN.....
im sure that you could do .... no?
ist
You guys crack me up. You all are wasting time. The energy in the coils have not been accounted for, the energy in the room has not been accounted for and the energy that accumulates back in the caps after they are shorted has not been accounted for nor has the energy created by the free movement of the magnets past the coils been recorded.
There is no gain! You can not create a bigger vibration then the vibration used and all energy is, is a vibration and all the vibrations are not accounted for in the total so stop kidding yourselves.
Take the cap and discharge it and then check the voltage. You will see that it slowly rises back up. I just tested a 1000uf 35v cap and added 8.85 volts to it then shorted it out and watched the voltage climb back up to 24.5 mv. It is hard to measure the voltage in the coils because they have very little capacitance and any resistance will drain the energy out of them faster then the meter can detect depending on the size of the coil and the amount of energy it has been supplied with. Regardless of the energy that has been supplied to them, they will drop down to level of energy that is in the room. The more energy in the room, the higher the energy level will be in the coil when no power is supplied to the coil. Caps will collect and hold much more then the coils will because they have a higher capacity level and a battery will collect and hold more then a cap because they have a higher capacity level.
As for the caps not being a battery you all are wrong, the only difference is the capacitance levels and their abilities to charge and discharge faster do to the low capacitance level they have. Anything that holds a charge can be considered as a battery. Even the electric motor he used holds a charge and the one I tested held .5 volts after the power was disconnected.
I have been trying to find a video I came across a while back that shows what I am talking about and as soon as I find it, I will post it.
Lets please keep some common sense in mind while we are searching for cheaper ways to collect, tap and or create energy and remember that energy is nothing more then a vibration. The only way we can create energy is to do work which takes energy to do but we can utilize a magnetic field to produce free work which in return would give us free energy. Bedini was the closest to achieving that but he did not utilize his designs components properly and I proved that in a thread I started. And if you have followed my threads or read my comments on other threads about pulse motors you should know what I am talking about in thread that follows.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6050.msg137502#msg137502
I have not played with the Newman designs because he is a fake and I do not trust him and I want no part in his scams to get money. Bedini may be a scam too but I think he just did not realize what happened and that is why his designs have not proven to work as he thought they did.
As for Tesla, he had gave up on trying to use energy to create more energy then what was used and that is why in his later years he got in to trying to tap the natural flows of energy that are all around us and I believe he achieved that but his work has been either suppressed and or lost. John Hutchinson has made some head way with it but I believe he hasn’t learned the formula’s needed to split up the accumulation of natural vibrations in to separate vibrant flows as like I believe that Tesla has by using special tubes. It was said that he used 12 tubes and a receiver with a 6 foot antenna to power a electric car. I don’t know if that is true or not but considering we can use a fox hole radio to collect power from radio transmissions, I believe it could be possible.
Captainpecan, all,
I've watched all the videos and read through all the posts and not yet seen what I believe to be the correct analysis of where the apparent excess juice is coming from.
Everyone has overlooked this extremely simple but no-so-obvious procedural nuance that is affecting the results. No fancy equations, calculations or hocus pocus is required to fully understand what is going on here__Read carefully:
First, a pulse motor is not a good method of measuring work that is being done, but nevertheless does not take away from the efficacy of the following explanation.
In the case of your CONTROL test, you are discharging the 18V cap directly across the coils. Final cap voltage is 0.36V.
In the second case you are again discharging the 18V cap across the coils, but this time the coils are in series with another identical capacitor (and series diode). The final result (neglecting diode drop) is 9V on both capacitors. This is explained at about 5:17 in the 5th or last video, and there you state that "the cap actually only sent about 9 volts through instead of the full 18 like the original". And also that "you should get less... actually about half as much", refering to the number of rotations.
This is where the logic falters and the oversight occurs. Let me explain.
In case 2 it is not important how much voltage goes through the coil to the other capacitor, what IS important is the starting voltage. And because of this, the work done in each case should be the same. In fact if you factor in the diode drop, the results should be slightly less in case 2 which is what your results do show.
In the CONTROL case, you are applying almost a dead short (the coils' DC resistance) across the capacitor for at least 3 seconds. This is enough time to drain the cap down to 0.36 volts. In case 2 again there is almost a dead short across the source capacitor, but this time for a much shorter duration (AC coupling), and the impedance seen by the source cap increases exponentially with time, that time being a factor of the capacitance/2 and series DC resistance of the coils.
In both cases, power is being dissipated or wasted, but in the control case it is a much worse scenario. In the CONTROL case almost all the energy is being wasted in the coils, and none of that wasted energy goes toward propelling the rotor of that motor, it is wasted away in heat only.
So case 2 shows an apparent increase of energy from "somewhere", only by the virtue of the energy in case 1 being almost totaly wasted. Case 1 is unwittingly made to look "bad" so that case 2 looks "good", when in fact case two is "normal". In fact case 1 is "normal" too if one realizes what is going on there.
Do the very same experiment again, but instead of your pulse motor use a resistor and monitor the temperature rise in each case. What you will find in each and every attempt, is the single 18V cap discharging into the resistor will heat the resistor more than the sum of heat from splitting the voltage between two caps (through the resistor) then discharging them a second and third time into the resistor.
I hope what I have said is clear. If not I'll try my best to answer any specifics.
Regards,
Poynt99
Agree Pony - a flawed process results in flawed conclusions.
I commented earlier on some of the flawed processes like just adding up the voltages or comparing a sparked circuit with a clean one etc.
But I didn't comment on Vid 3 - which seems to now be forming the basis of your conclusions.
As Pony says - a pulse motor is a crude and in no way even close to accurate way to determine work done. One example: you haven't considered the discharge time constant of capacitor into your circuit.
A larger voltage will mean a longer time constant. And when you pulse the motor, the magnet moves away quickly, meaning a large portion of your power is not doing work but is wasted as the magnet has already moved beyond the coil. So using a larger voltage means you are wasting an even larger % of the power sending flux through empty space than the % wasted with a smaller voltage.
What you are showing is like saying "I can drive further on a 1/2 a gallon of gas with a small hole in my gas tank than I can with 1 gallon of gas and a large hole in my gas tank"
And your conclusion from the test with just the wires and the rectifier is showing the same 'free energy' gain should tell you something! So just hook up a capacitor with another capacitor via a wire and 'poof' - magic?
If you have accepted without doubt that your conclusions are valid and that you have 'discovered' a way to create 'free energy' that can be harnessed to 'self-run' a device, you need to rethink things! (or more like 'discover' that you are mistaken)
no need for self accelerating crap or any of that PEROID!!! TO PROVE OU ......
poyntt you know better....
ist
lit from 1 pulse ;)
the picture really does not do this justice the bulb is extreamly birght ..... 8)
do the test lol it really is that simple.....
Captainpecan, thanks for presenting your work (you hold your promise)!
And I'm glad we can discuss it without bad feelings...
I'm sorry to say, but no OU can be found with such circuits. It's a long known territory, a classical electrotechnics. Volts are not energy, Coulombs are not energy,.. Voltage, Power, Energy misconceptions...
Pouring charges from one capacitor to another is always a lossy business.
Read this post, it describes the crux of the matter...
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 17, 2008, 09:35:38 AM
When you transfer between capacitors you are transferring charge, that is, energy, not "just" voltage. The energy on a capacitor goes as the square of the voltage. E=(1/2)(C*V*V) where E is in Joules, C is in Farads, and V is in Volts. SO a capacitor charged to 12 volts has much less than half the energy of the same capacitor charged to 24 volts.
Capacitors do NOT store power, they store energy. Power is the rate at which energy is released over time. Energy is expressed in Joules, which are equivalent to Watt-Seconds. That is, one Joule of energy is one watt of power expended over one second of time. If you scrunch that same one Joule of ENERGY into a tenth of a second, then you have 10 watts of power, for a tenth of a second. And so forth.
Also, capacitance of a capacitor is almost always going to be different than what the label says, sometimes by 10 percent or more.
So, Nightlife, Capthook, 4tesla, Poynt99,.. are correct. Look at the Groundloop's equation...
As people already mentioned before, if your theory is correct and your experiments are really showing an anomaly (what the hell is "The Young effect"?), it would be a piece of cake to build a self-charging / sustaining (even solid state!) circuit.
Cheers!
does this ring a bell?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=903.0
i could be wrong ;)
Quote from: spinner on November 18, 2008, 03:54:12 AM
Pouring charges from one capacitor to another is always a lossy business.
The usual losses of cap to cap charge transfer can be almost removed by switching through an LC tank, you need to switch at the zero crossing points, the method is used in switch mode PSUs:
This page gives a nice simple description of cap to cap transfers, the problems and the solutions:
http://www.smpstech.com/charge.htm
I don't know much about this stuff, but I did notice one thing that no-one seemed to mention
Your capacitors in vid 5 are NOT in parallel as stated.
2 experiments you should try is 1: run the test without allowing the rotor to spin,
and 2: hook meter to motor and spin rotor by hand and measure voltage.
also your math is wrong ;) 176+160=336 (not that it matters)
Quote from: Yucca on November 18, 2008, 04:58:40 AM
The usual losses of cap to cap charge transfer can be almost removed by switching through an LC tank, you need to switch at the zero crossing points, the method is used in switch mode PSUs:
This page gives a nice simple description of cap to cap transfers, the problems and the solutions:
http://www.smpstech.com/charge.htm
Yes, a good practical setup leads to a high-efficiency (but not OU) switching capability. Zero-cross circuits are widely acceptable when you deal with AC to DC switcher concepts. But when someone discharges a "Coulombs" charge into load, the already mentioned equation (Cap energy) is valid (there is no zero-cross circuits when discharging a DC... )
The normal losses with discharge a charged capacitor are mostly ohmic (for instance, leads/wires cannot deal with a multi-kiloamperes of theoretical Coulomb current, then there is a radiated EM pulse (dI/dt), an electrochemical (dielectric) process, heat dissipation,electromotive force stresses, U/I phase power losses, etc...)
So, a C to C discharge is certainly >95% efficient.
But not OU. OK?
The overall energy left in any of the circuit capacitors after discharging a prime capacitor through the (multiple) drains is "less" than the original, stored energy in that same cap. Perfectly CoE.
After all, the E=CV^2/2 is suggesting a non-linear, exponential energy vs. voltage respond....
Or, in other words, a C with a half of the original Voltage holds much LESS than half of the starting energy...
I do hope you understand that CP's motor is not actually doing any (useful) work. In fact, a 3-coil PM rotor gets it's impetus only in the beginning, when the discharge starts... If one connects such "motor" to a "uniform"/stabilized voltage (batt) supply, it wouldn't be able to spin at all (because of the symmetry of all the forces )... The reason that rotor turns (at least for a while) is that the opposing force diminishes with time...
So, the real mechanical work showed is minuscule, in fact if the rotor is removed, the results of the cap discharge overunity are "almost" the same...
etc..
Hi all,
This subject of splitting charge between capacitors seems to come up again and again with much confusion between voltage, charge, energy and power.
With reference to video no 5.
This is not a full reed/hall ic activated pulse motor. The magnets receive only one pulse to spin the disc around. The energy from just a single cap is discharged, there is just one pulse and the energy is used all in one go, most of it waisted. Ie, as the field grows the magnets are repelled, then after that the rest of the discharge is just waisted.
When the original capacitor is split with a second one via the motor coils and then each cap discharged seperately in to the motor coils after that, then the magnets receive 3 seperate pulses to spin it round instead of one (a better use of the available energy than just discharging one cap which wiastes most the energy).
This could give rise to an apparent excess energy but it is not. It is simply a better way to use the same available energy is it not?
Regards,
D.
the problem here is there only a HAND FULL of you that know how this works....
stop trying to disprove .....it has already been PROVEN!! TRUE
HELLO!!?????
you all think my last finished tpu dont work!!! lol
ist
you all just thought it was harder than it was LOL!! you were wrong!
the facts say it is extreamly simple ..... ;D
I was thinking more about this thread and must say I am sorry for telling you all you are wasting your time because if we could collect a majority of the energy in a room, we could store it and reuse it. It would be recycling which would make the over all energy use more efficient which would mean it would take less of a outside energy source for our energy needs.
Just don't think of it as free energy, think of it as recycling energy and stay focused on efficient ways to recycle the energy in a room because that is what has been done here and that in it's self is a need and a big benefit for us all to have the ability to do.
to PROVE THIS BEOND ANY DOUBT...
get a MOT..
put a charged cap on the primary discharge it ....
mesure the engery in the FIRST CAP
... record it .... dump it ... collect it.....
in a bigger cap....what is your out put?
??
now take your out put do it agin .... lol to a bigger transformer ... lol charge a BIGGER CAP ON YOUR OUT PUT from phase 2 .... do it agin
... and agin .... now mesure your stored engery in a cap and DISCOVER THAT you have more than you started with .....
this is my HEMF CASCADE AMP ..... JUST INCASE YOU MISSED THAT INVENTION.... ;D
IST!
BTW you are not only chalangeing my words lol but TESLAS AS WELL .... i know i can prove beond any doubt in teslas own words... from over 100 years ago... i have done this many times ....
just read my damm sig.... lol
never mind the orbit ... engery ... i have not even hardly spoke of it lol ...
and when i do ... it will make almost all of this look like kids play...... ;D
if u think the cat chaseing its tale is it...... your worng agin....
ist
@poynt99
QuoteDo the very same experiment again, but instead of your pulse motor use a resistor and monitor the temperature rise in each case. What you will find in each and every attempt, is the single 18V cap discharging into the resistor will heat the resistor more than the sum of heat from splitting the voltage between two caps (through the resistor) then discharging them a second and third time into the resistor.
LOL, DO NOT put a resistor in the circuit---ever! , Do you know why Tesla NEVER put a resistance in his circuit? Because it serves no purpose other than to dissipate energy, it also destroys any of the effects noted by captainpecan. Not once have I used one single resistor in any of my circuits because it skews the results in every case. Innovation_station is perfectly right---you are trying to disprove something innovation_station and myself have been doing for the last year, LOL.
Energy is conservative ;D
As well the apparent energy gain should be obvious, each capacitor gains energy by extending its surface area, it also induces charge in the next foil wrap ahead of itself then compresses it like teslas patent 512340-coil for electromagnets. Here is a concept all of you should know--multiplicity through division, a human cell divides itself so it may multiply and grow--in doing so it has extended its surface area . Where does all this energy to divide and multiply come from? A capacitor is no different, in dividing its charge into two parts it has multiplied itself and it's energy.
Quote from: allcanadian on November 18, 2008, 09:46:01 AM
@poynt99LOL, DO NOT put a resistor in the circuit---ever! , Do you know why Tesla NEVER put a resistance in his circuit? Because it serves no purpose other than to dissipate energy, it also destroys any of the effects noted by captainpecan. Not once have I used one single resistor in any of my circuits because it skews the results in every case. Innovation_station is perfectly right---you are trying to disprove something innovation_station and myself have been doing for the last year, LOL.
Energy is conservative ;D
As well the apparent energy gain should be obvious, each capacitor gains energy by extending its surface area, it also induces charge in the next foil wrap ahead of itself then compresses it like teslas patent 512340-coil for electromagnets. Here is a concept all of you should know--multiplicity through division, a human cell divides itself so it may multiply and grow--in doing so it has extended its surface area . Where does all this energy to divide and multiply come from? A capacitor is no different, in dividing its charge into two parts it has multiplied itself and it's energy.
@allcanadian,
Please, try to understand what poynt99 said.... You're way off...
"...
Where does all this energy to divide and multiply come from? A capacitor is no different, in dividing its charge into two parts it has multiplied itself and it's energy..."
:D
Okay, first of all credit where credit is due, thank you Captainpecan for posting your thing
and for cranking up this discussion thread. :)
Second, @IST, yes we may have missed certain points in your invention development
as you tend to be extremely unclear and very cryptic in your posts.
However, I and I assume a number of others, would really like to learn more about those
setups/experiments so if you would be so kind to formulate some clear and less cryptic
descriptions of what your setup consists of and what in your opinion is happening,
preferably even with some very clear schematics so that the less whizzy of us here
on the forum would also be able to build a version and test it for ourselves, if only just
to confirm what you describe, that would certainly be a HUGE help.
Some things are just not easy to figure out when you're not on the same wavelength yet,
and when the bursts that we do manage to pick up come in FM while we're still tuning
in on AM. If you get my drift. ?
What I hear here in "the Young effect" seems to be very similar to what Bedini describes
in the front section of his "Free Energy Generation" booklet, which seems to come down
to the fact that a current pulse can be used twice, once to power the motor or load, running
the pulse from the battery to a capacitor, and then once again to get it "pumped" back into
the battery, which results in a total energy output from the system in the form of the powered load
plus the recharged battery, while the input remains the same. Or something like that. ;)
Innovation Station's "Tesla diode" shows another neat trick with pulsing.
Could someone, perhaps Captainpecan, or InnovaionStation, or AllCanadian,
design a relatively simple circuit, preferably solid state with no moving parts,
which uses these highly interesting effects to effectively charge 2 "normal"
rechargeable batteries while it runs off one full battery? (Or actually, one that
would charge as many as possible, of course.)
A relatively simple circuit that any idiot with a soldering iron and the ability
to visit the radioshack can build?
PLEASE?
Thanks, and kind regards,
Koen
@spinner
QuotePlease, try to understand what poynt99 said.... You're way off...
"...Where does all this energy to divide and multiply come from? A capacitor is no different, in dividing its charge into two parts it has multiplied itself and it's energy..."
poynt99 said to use a resistor in place of the coils---do you honestly think a resistor has the same properties as an air core coil? ;D. A resistor will compress and dissipate energy into the lowest form of energy--heat, and this energy is lost from the circuit. We are talking about conserving all energy within the circuit--a very simple process everyone wants to complicate for some reason.
innovation_station is the most underestimated inventor on here. He's the tesla of this forum ;D. Any electrical concept that is brought up, he has experimented some variation of it already :P. IST, you only need to work on your presentation skills ;). I bet the following days will be interesting.
Here's another little effect you can do. Take a short length of garden hose and place it on a table and let one end hang over the edge of the table. Fill the hose with water to get all the air out then connect it to the spigot. Open the valve. The end of the hose should move defying gravity. Did the water going into the hose at the faucet end have to go all the way to the other end of the hose to move it? Nope just the pressure wave. Now if the water company drops all it's pressure doing work somewhere else and we open the valve again. We get a second motion on the hose end and the water company gets some of it's pressure back. Now if this is done at a high rate of change or frequency and each time the hose lifts or falls it rings a bell. Things are going to get real loud from the reflection of the pressure wave. Just a matter of timing.
QuoteWe are talking about conserving all energy within the circuit--a very simple process everyone wants to complicate for some reason.
Then just leave the cap charged and don't do anything with it.!!! If I can's extract power to a heater or a real resistive load, I have not done any useful work. If I can't extract any useful horsepower from the motor what good is it?.
This experiment is so flawed and lacking credulity, I won't even bother to get caught up in the circular and pretzel logic arguments.
But I'm sure IST will be able to explain it all for ya..yada... yada.......Aerobine anyone?
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 17, 2008, 09:35:38 AM
When you transfer between capacitors you are transferring charge, that is, energy, not "just" voltage. The energy on a capacitor goes as the square of the voltage. E=(1/2)(C*V*V) where E is in Joules, C is in Farads, and V is in Volts. SO a capacitor charged to 12 volts has much less than half the energy of the same capacitor charged to 24 volts.
Capacitors do NOT store power, they store energy. Power is the rate at which energy is released over time. Energy is expressed in Joules, which are equivalent to Watt-Seconds. That is, one Joule of energy is one watt of power expended over one second of time. If you scrunch that same one Joule of ENERGY into a tenth of a second, then you have 10 watts of power, for a tenth of a second. And so forth.
Also, capacitance of a capacitor is almost always going to be different than what the label says, sometimes by 10 percent or more.
E=0.5CV^2 only tells how much energy it'd cost to transfer charge to the plates, since action = - reaction, it also equals the energy stored in the cap.
Why does it cost energy? Because voltage-force on the charge works against the stored charge, like loading a spring: the further you press, the more energy is stored, but you have to exert more force to store more and not to be pushed back.
or something like that. :)
so, since we are dealing with something else than conventional, does E=0.5CVV still apply? Maybe we should consider second field over time derivatives to come up with an extended energy formula?
Quote from: broli on November 18, 2008, 11:07:21 AM
innovation_station is the most underestimated inventor on here. He's the tesla of this forum ;D. Any electrical concept that is brought up, he has experimented some variation of it already :P. IST, you only need to work on your presentation skills ;). I bet the following days will be interesting.
Yeah my thoughts exactly, he need to post more video's which show his findings.
Quote from: allcanadian on November 17, 2008, 09:45:46 PM
@IS
The best part is it's public domain as the heart of the process was patented 100 years ago by Tesla, we can build a hundred variants of this and sell them but the patent is teslas.
I really like to know in which of Tesla's patent(s) :)
@sparks
QuoteHere's another little effect you can do. Take a short length of garden hose and place it on a table and let one end hang over the edge of the table. Fill the hose with water to get all the air out then connect it to the spigot. Open the valve. The end of the hose should move defying gravity. Did the water going into the hose at the faucet end have to go all the way to the other end of the hose to move it? Nope just the pressure wave. Now if the water company drops all it's pressure doing work somewhere else and we open the valve again. We get a second motion on the hose end and the water company gets some of it's pressure back. Now if this is done at a high rate of change or frequency and each time the hose lifts or falls it rings a bell. Things are going to get real loud from the reflection of the pressure wave. Just a matter of timing.
LOL, your right on the money ;D.
We had a pump in a dugout 1/2 mile away and the pipe was 2" diameter and 1/2 mile long, the pressure guage read 45 psi at the house. I could crack (open-close) a ball valve at the house and a few ounces of water would spurt out then the pressure guage would pin at 120 psi then down to 8 psi and I timed these oscillations for 5 minutes. Inertia and oscillations are a very powerful force, I could have generated 200psi if i wanted.
Quoteinnovation_station is the most underestimated inventor on here. He's the tesla of this forum
This forum is in deep deep trouble if the above is true.
Quote from: allcanadian on November 18, 2008, 12:48:19 PM
@sparks
LOL, your right on the money ;D.
We had a pump in a dugout 1/2 mile away and the pipe was 2" diameter and 1/2 mile long, the pressure guage read 45 psi at the house. I could crack (open-close) a ball valve at the house and a few ounces of water would spurt out then the pressure guage would pin at 120 psi then down to 8 psi and I timed these oscillations for 5 minutes. Inertia and oscillations are a very powerful force, I could have generated 200psi if i wanted.
kinda like the STERLING ENGINE lol and dale pond does a good job explaining this....... this is all covered in the threds....
@ sparks i wondered how long it would be b4 you droped in ;D
i bet there are a few more friends that could drop a few more words.... lol
eh guys!!!!
ist
the ozone pattend has been named 100's of times..... what other pattends does he mention in those pattends and WHY?? lol
i studied 2 so far .... lol there still is 1 more and the rest of the puzzel .... come on guys ....
tesla was quite posiblly the smartest man on the plannet ever.... and i am not tesla ... by any means ..
he left this for us..... i will NOT LET THIS MAN DOWN!!! THANK YOU TESLA I KNOW YOUR WATCHING OUR EVERY MOVE...
Nothing special in the ozone patent.
@innovation_station
Quotethis is my HEMF CASCADE AMP ..... JUST INCASE YOU MISSED THAT INVENTION....
IST!
What the--------- :o, I invented that a few months ago LOL. Using exactly the same process, talk about Deja Vu. Im going to have to pull up my pants and put my thinking cap on, I thought I was one step ahead of you ------ but maybe Im one step behind, LOL.
@Yucca
QuoteI tried googling "switched energy resonant power supply" and came accross this page describing how to minimise losses when transferring charge between caps:
http://www.smpstech.com/charge.htm
it was a good read for me!
Yes, who would have though that adding an inductance to a capacitance could ensure a lossless transfer of energy between two capacitors. Another example of why what we call science is nothing more than a religion of repetition---they do the same thing over and over and then delare it law.LOL
It's a good thing Im a bit of a trouble-maker----- make no mistake I mean to misbehave ;D.
Quote from: HEYDUDE on November 18, 2008, 12:57:35 PM
This forum is in deep deep trouble if the above is true.
ROTFL!
Sad thing: it may already be in deep trouble with so many webers and maxwells around.
(Hint: 1 Weber = 1 Tesla square meter = 10E8 Maxwells ;D )
Quote from: captainpecan on November 17, 2008, 07:41:16 PM
@ Yucca
I agree, further testing to show actual energy would be great. I do not have any better means than what I have shown available right now. Next question is this: If the energy is greater, then it's proven further. If the energy happens to actually show less, then what is causing the extra work to be performed? Either way, the extra work being performed is happening every single time, without fail. And is easily duplicated. So one way or another, there is definitely something here!
@captainpecan,
It goes deeper and deeper with movie #5 and everything…
Several flaws:
1. Inserting a diode does not mean ‘one shot from one capacitor to the other’. Whoever told you that is wrong. That diode will open and close many times (so there are actually many shots) in what you call ‘one shot’! It will indeed prevent current to flow in one direction but that’s another story. Think about it.
2. When you turn the switch on, your motor does indeed do some work but that’s not the ‘work that has been done’ (your words). That’s just the work that has been done BY THE MOTOR ONLY, which incidentally has nothing to do with the work done by the capacitor because:
a) your motor is of very low efficiency (I have a motor that should easily run about 1.5min-2min on 4700microF at 9V and still that wouldn’t mean anything relevant here. You may as well put a 380 V motor in between caps and say the work is zero; so what?!)
b) your motor is not linear in voltage and it actually may, at its best, give only an inaccurate indication of the strength of an initial kick (dI/dt).
What extra work?!! There is none! (but so far it is not even guestimated; as per above something else than work is measured, although improperly)
Cheers,
Tinu
Quote from: innovation_station on November 18, 2008, 08:59:21 AM
you all think my last finished tpu dont work!!! lol
@IST
Just how many OU devices do you want to make?
In fact, have you ever thought of sharing your TPU technology with the rest of us?
Fatal flaw: the motor is not a motor in that it will not run freely if connected to a steady source of current. In this case, the coils will initially repel the magnets and create motion, but then the magnets will also find a null point between the coils, since there is no commutation circuit the rotor will lock at an in between position.
What you have is a short pulse detector: i.e. a short pulse will give an initial kick to the rotor then decay away quickly and there will be no repulsion left as phase two is entered by the magnets. A longer pulse will initially kick the rotor but as phase two is entered by the rotor, the rotor is repelled again, but in the opposing direction and actually produce faster decay of the rotation.
Because of this the numbers will add up in favor of shorter pulses. A longer higher energy pulse results in an initial acceleration, and braking in phase two. This is easy to see.
The experiment needs to be run with a real load.
@Alan
QuoteI really like to know in which of Tesla's patent(s)
I like this one ;D
QuoteTesla Patent #454622
Page1,Line52--"I do not mean by the term "excesively small period" and similar expressions herein to imply that I contemplate any number of pulsations or vibrations per second"
Hmmm--- frequency is waves per second but wave period is Time, in seconds, between the passage of consecutive wave crests past a fixed point, ergo--wave speed ;D
QuotePage1,Line73--"To produce a current of very high frequency and very high potential, certain well know devices may be employed. For instance as the primary source of current or electrical energy a countinous current generator may be used, the circuit of which may be interrupted with extreme rapidity by mechanical devices or a electro-magnetic machine specially designed to yeild alternating currents of very small wave period"
Hmmm---When a current is "disrupted" waves of small period and high potential are produced
QuotePage1Line86--"before the best results are reached, the principal of the disrruptive discharge must be utilized"
It seems to be pretty straight forward, disrupt a direct current in an inductance and very very fast waves of high potential are discharged, which explains why an inductive discharge will "increase" it's potential when encountering a resistance where conventional current will fall in potential.
Too easy ;D LOL--I could go on all day
Captain:
Hey, you are famous now. I just found a video of your video on youtube. It was made by this crazy de-bunking guy who seems about as bright (or as dumb) as the Myth Buster guys. He claims this is just RF and everyone knows it. What a moron. I just thought you might like to see it if you have not already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC68qT6T5Dw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC68qT6T5Dw)
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 18, 2008, 05:26:06 PM
Ah, ... you mean desertpile? ;D I believe that guy is a paid debunker. I'm gonna make a video to smear him one of these days...
desertphool... lol, he and his sycophants have nothing better to do. the guy eschews society to go live in the desert but makes, whats he at now, 600+ youtube vids in less than 2 years. a cry for attention.
Freezer:
Yes, that's the guy. When you make that vid, let me know, I would love to see it.
Bill
That sounds like so much fun ya gotta do it!Sickem!!! Make sure you mention his "dream catchers" he has hanging behind him.. "Its the magic of the gods" RF! Lmao. I dont think this guy is a paid debunker, He's just a small minded know it all type, with a bad attitude liveing in a shack with far too much time to spend cruzeing You-tube, and maybe a few too many hits from the old piese-pipe. ;)
Nice vides BTW. .M.
Quote from: Freezer on November 18, 2008, 06:52:29 PM
Ah, ... you mean desertpile? ;D I believe that guy is a paid debunker. I'm gonna make a video to smear him one of these days...
Yeah, he jumped right on it within an hour of posting. Honestly, I'm kinda flattered! Pissed him off when I wouldn't let him post comments on the videos. Everyone here knows where to comment.
@captainpecan
Can you post detail of your setup. What's size of wire did you use in your coils? How many turns? What is diameter of coil core?
At least someone will make replication of your experiment to stop endless arguments
@ Peacan,
Keep up the work, do your research, post your vids under somthing like "123abc", describe them as "123abc" and post the links here to this discussion, that way you keep the likes of Desertphile and all the other assholes out of the loop. Then delete them after a couple of days. Anyone seriously interested in what you have to say and show will subscribe to your channel and check it periodically. As far as the vids go, top notch compared to what the naysayer brains have to say. As far as the build goes, using a larger disc for the neos will give you better results i believe (just kidding, I now for a fact). An old laser disc player from ebay would do just fine. Those neos are a bitch, they reach very far ( 3 feet i'm estimating on your config), and with a 6 inch disc its bad news. Especially with a tri config like yours. Think about the fields and there reach. (vizmag demo). Or, do vid 5 over again with thread and a weight (load) fishing sinker. Tie the thread to the spindle with the sinker and instead of measuring spins, measure how far the load is pulled or dragged on the table. And if you dont feel like doing that because your thinking about the water, air pressure analogy previously mentioned, forget about that stuff, all that is subject to gravity. Electricity is not. Or is it? I believe if your experiment was conducted on a linear (mag coil setup) that was vertical, the results would ........be nice :)
im no genius but even i can see this is a wrong idea that is done wrong and is just wrong
but all the sheep believers just like the archer quinn thread are full of bluster saying the naysayers are wrong and we are right and soon the selfrunners will be popping out of the woodwork
get a clue and stop drinking the koolaid and use your little brains and see that this idea is nonsence and save your time and money and find something real to spend your time and money on
of course it will be shown to be silly and wrong but then all the blustery idiots calling the ones telling the truth morons will disappear back into the woodwork waiting until next month to hook their cart up to the next savior
it is good of u to show your try but you need to listen to the guys telling u the right stuff that u r wrong and confused and accept it its not religion where u can argue if God exists but science and the numbers tell all and your numbers are wrong and your trys are wrong and its just all wrong
or just yell at me that im the moron and wrong and we believe so that is enough and then in a month or two when u get the truth to filter into your tiny brain sulk back off into the forest without a peep
yoyo:
Wow, what a constructive guy. I especially like the part where you say it is wrong, and offer no reasons for it but yet call people names for thinking it is right. At least most here that disagree offer formulas, explanations, etc. that support their beliefs. You, on the other hand, offer us nothing except to say you are right and everyone else that does not agree with you is wrong just because they are. I have not seen logic like this since my ex-wife.
Thank you for enlightening all of us little, ignorant folks out here. Even if it were to turn out down the road that you are correct, you would not even know why. Such a shame. I really feel sorry for folks like you.
Bill
hello bill i have no other formulas to add some people have already said many reasons why its wrong and why and i agree with them
my comment was why do so many people ignore the good information its like people know enough to fiddle around but dont know enough to know that they dont know enough
so i get frustrated i used to think this site was 90% people with a good understanding and i can learn from them and 10% not but more and more i think it is the opposite
and so when smart people say u r wrong and here is why and then the other people say well i know the old math but im using archurian physics so ur math doesnt count
it adds to the population thinking the free energy people are a bunch of uneducated ignorant kooks
i mean if u were pursing science wouldnt u take the good advice offered and apply it and see if maybe they actually r right and know what they r saying or r u just ignoring it and going on about it the same way and saying i have the answer and thanks for the comment but u r wrong so i will ignore your good advice
:-\
The "young" fox walks out on the ice and does not hear it cracking, therefore he gets his tail wet...no blame
The fatal flaws have all been revealed in earlier posts by Poynt99, Tinu, myself and others. They are glossed over by the "blind faithful"
A truly scientific experiment demands a proper test set, not a pinball machine or roulette wheel.
There is no relation of DC power input to rotation of this particular motor since it has no means for commutation of the DC source.
This stepper will lock up at a position between coils with continuous DC power applied.
Plot the curve. Greater power eventually equals stalled rotor. An inverse function which will yield faulty test results with longer duration pulses.
I would recommend removing two of the coils and magnet arrays, they are interfering with longer pulse measurement. Still not a perfect solution but it will reveal the problem
A simple linear motor comprising a coil, a magnet, a ramp and a small weight will yield surprisingly more accurate results of applied short duration pulses of varying pulse width or amplitude than the stepper type motor.
Best to get your hands on a ballistic galvanometer or oscilloscope.
Bill if you and the captain can't understand this, I feel really bad for you so.....
Gloss over this one too!
Quote from: spinner on November 18, 2008, 06:07:34 AM
Yes, a good practical setup leads to a high-efficiency (but not OU) switching capability. Zero-cross circuits are widely acceptable when you deal with AC to DC switcher concepts. But when someone discharges a "Coulombs" charge into load, the already mentioned equation (Cap energy) is valid (there is no zero-cross circuits when discharging a DC... )
The normal losses with discharge a charged capacitor are mostly ohmic (for instance, leads/wires cannot deal with a multi-kiloamperes of theoretical Coulomb current, then there is a radiated EM pulse (dI/dt), an electrochemical (dielectric) process, heat dissipation,electromotive force stresses, U/I phase power losses, etc...)
So, a C to C discharge is certainly >95% efficient.
But not OU. OK?
The overall energy left in any of the circuit capacitors after discharging a prime capacitor through the (multiple) drains is "less" than the original, stored energy in that same cap. Perfectly CoE.
After all, the E=CV^2/2 is suggesting a non-linear, exponential energy vs. voltage respond....
Or, in other words, a C with a half of the original Voltage holds much LESS than half of the starting energy...
You say
(there is no zero-cross circuits when discharging a DC... )
If you put a tank circuit between two caps and discharge DC through it, the DC impulse will create an AC freq in the tank, you then switch on zero crosses of these oscillations, this gives the ability to transfer charge from one static (DC) cap to the other with few losses. Admittedly you would need a large tank to do it in one shot, more likely you would need to perform many seperate shots until the caps were equal. You could also put a load in series with the tank, obviously work done in the load would still cost but energy not used by the load could be harvested and saved by the tank instead of just being lost as EMI and circuit heating.
Of couse its more involved than just putting LC tank between caps, you need to have zero cross detectors to trigger switching fets etc.
If captainpecan employed this method of cap to cap discharge then the 18V + 0V caps would end up as approx 13V + 13V instead of 9V + 9V. Of course it still wouldn´t be OU. We are in basic agreement.
Quote from: spinner on November 18, 2008, 06:07:34 AM
I do hope you understand that CP's motor is not actually doing any (useful) work. In fact, a 3-coil PM rotor gets it's impetus only in the beginning, when the discharge starts... If one connects such "motor" to a "uniform"/stabilized voltage (batt) supply, it wouldn't be able to spin at all (because of the symmetry of all the forces )... The reason that rotor turns (at least for a while) is that the opposing force diminishes with time... So, the real mechanical work showed is minuscule, in fact if the rotor is removed, the results of the cap discharge overunity are "almost" the same...
etc..
I mentioned the inadequecies of the one shot pulse motor as a work measuring device in an earlier post (#89) on this thread.
Yucca.
Wow... It's no wonder nobody has claimed that overunity prize! If anyone ever tries to do something different for a change, my god, let's do whatever we can to trash and call them names. It would be such a shame if people started viewing things a little different, and just maybe had a chance to move another forward to what we all seek. Well, most of us seek anyway. It seems there is an amazing amount of people planted on this forum that have no purpose but to tear people down, and make sure nobody ever progresses.
Since you know it all, where's your fabulous overunity machines? Let's see your videos! Oh... that's right, you seem to be stuck doing things exactly like everyone else has always done them. Oh well, since you cant figure out anything new that way, I guess the only thing left is to tear everyone else down to make sure nobody else figures anything out either. Well, your wasting your time. Those who want to see what's going on here are going to see it, whether you like it or not. So deal with it.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing. There is nothing wrong with stating your opinions. And there is nothing wrong with suggesting better ways of doing things. But it is absolutely childish, and ignorant to keep ranting, raving, kicking, screaming, and throwing your little fits because others wish to contribute here. You've given your opinions, now move on, some of us are trying to get some work done, and make a positive influence. We dont have time to baby sit.
@ Yucca
Last comment was not meant for you... It just landed right after your post... I have heard your disagreements, and if I remember correctly, they were respectable to say the least. People seem to think I'm ignoring every negative comment. That is not true, some are well warranted, and those I am working on. I am definitely picking up some tips to use. It's just to bad people dont seem to have the tact to offer a disagreement in a way that is not demeaning and disrespectful.
Quote from: HEYDUDE on November 19, 2008, 02:47:14 AM
The fatal flaws have all been revealed in earlier posts by Poynt99, Tinu, myself and others. They are glossed over by the "blind faithful"
I bet you, the one that calles himself the "HEYDUDE" have crossed the overunity borders many, and i do mean many times in your life.
It is just that in this moment, you did not realize it.
Yep that's right, it is right under his ass but he doesn't see.
This is normal you cannot recognise something if you did not see it before.
That's the human brain always searching for familiar things to execute the "where have i seen this before" files.
In order to see something new you need something else.
So who is the blind man again ?
Marco.
Captainpecan I couldn't have said it better...baby sitting ;D. It's actually a familiar pattern. Experiments haven't even been started on a serious level and you already have a hoard of naysayers.
Yes.
Naysayers and bandwagon hoppers. It never ends.
Be careful to not include all the scientific method purists into the naysayer group. Become a purist yourself - it is needed by all.
Also don't go so far as to close your mind and repeat the same mistakes again. These are fine lines we all walk and I think each of our groups make this mistake.
Earlier someone made mention of one example:
Tesla / high frequency current. --- Why do we read like followers of Hertz when reading a Tesla patent. In Tesla's mind a hertzian wave was secondary and a waste. When he says frequency why are we thinking cycles per second? Wouldn't Tesla think in number peaks passing a point in a given time. In other words - SPEED and distance covered like a compression wave? It is not exactly the same thing.
So even the wannabees and bandwagon hoppers should consider their ideas from the perspective of almost any commentor and beleive neither side until it proves true on your bench.
--- "It is just that in this moment, you did not realize it." --- Ahmen, [marco].
I still kick myself in the ass for things I've missed!
Quote from: -[marco]- on November 19, 2008, 05:39:50 AM
I bet you, the one that calles himself the "HEYDUDE" have crossed the overunity borders many, and i do mean many times in your life.
It is just that in this moment, you did not realize it.
Yep that's right, it is right under his ass but he doesn't see.
This is normal you cannot recognise something if you did not see it before.
That's the human brain always searching for familiar things to execute the "where have i seen this before" files.
In order to see something new you need something else.
So who is the blind man again ?
Marco.
well marco we ALL KNOW YOU are not blind...
but you sure can be an ass sometimes ;D lol
ist
so wheres that other old grumpy fart that likes to piss on peoples faces..... ???
i thought you would have miles to wright .....
Quote from: captainpecan on November 19, 2008, 05:35:33 AM
@ Yucca
Last comment was not meant for you... It just landed right after your post... I have heard your disagreements, and if I remember correctly, they were respectable to say the least. People seem to think I'm ignoring every negative comment. That is not true, some are well warranted, and those I am working on. I am definitely picking up some tips to use. It's just to bad people dont seem to have the tact to offer a disagreement in a way that is not demeaning and disrespectful.
Don´t worry, I understand why you´re a little ticked off with people being untactful after you have been nothing but respectful throughout. Do not let anyone get you down, that would be exactly what they want.
I like your work and presentation style, what you are learning through hands on experimenting will be set fast in your mind, you discovered on your own the effect of lowering cap switching losses by putting the diode after the coils and also realised that the more coils you put in the system the more charge you ended up with in the end, I think this is because you increased the oscillation amplitude and thus the diode could catch more overshoot.
This morning I did a crude mockup of your experiment using smaller caps and a dismembered speaker aircoil with a fast signal diode after it, I saw that a little more charge landed in cap 2 (approx 5% more V) with the coil in place. The coil rings a little because of the coils own capacitance (can see on scope) and a little of the ringing +v overshoot is captured by the diode.
Your work has caused me to learn more about cap charge transfers, I think the tricky thing about it is that when you parallel caps through what would appear to be low loss connectors that you lose half your original energy, where does it go??? This page helped me understand it all better: http://www.smpstech.com/charge.htm
I´m sure I don´t need to say it but... Keep experimenting! There are still of course things to discover that aren´t in the books.
All the best Yucca.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 18, 2008, 05:26:06 PM
Captain:
Hey, you are famous now. I just found a video of your video on youtube. It was made by this crazy de-bunking guy who seems about as bright (or as dumb) as the Myth Buster guys. He claims this is just RF and everyone knows it. What a moron. I just thought you might like to see it if you have not already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC68qT6T5Dw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC68qT6T5Dw)
Bill
Lol, he is a clown, BUT, he doesnt say that no energy is entering the system., so debunk him using a simple faraday cage, if you feel like to.
I'm sure I don't really need to post this, but still;
@Captainpecan: Nil illegitimi carborundum my friend! ;D
You know who the guys are that are for real, you know
what you've got, and you know you can safely ignore all naysayers
and debunkers that think their physics school books can
overrule empirical test.
It is obvious one may ignore the comments of people who bring up
totally irrelevant arguments, like the nonsense arguments that
measuring only voltage in a capacitor would not be sufficient to
determine the energy contained in them, or the silly remark
that your increased output doesn't count because your pulse motor
is a pulse motor and not a DC motor, etc.
You don't even use the pulse motor in all the experiments you
posted on youtube, while you do show the charge increase...
Just goes to show that some people seem to be more interested
in contradicting you than they are in replicating the charge gain.
May I ask if you, or any of the confirmations you got from others,
have seen indications regarding the energy gain in respect to the
initial voltage used?
I ask because Bearden and Bedini mention that higher voltage
discharges result in much higher "back spikes", so it seems
possible that using a much higher voltage may result in a much
larger energy gain... ?
I was thinking of this: determine the initial voltage needed to produce
energy gain of sufficient energy to maintain a 12V DC current (either
via capacitive coupling and rectifier bridge, or perhaps directly via
a cap, etc) which can then be fed into a normal inverter and produce
normal grid-style AC for direct use in home appliances.
A transformer could be used to pump all of the charge in the seperate
capacitors back into one cap, and this third cap could then be switched
with the cap that was initially used to store the startup voltage.
This way, the initial charge could be cycled through the setup
several times untill the voltage has increased to he point where we can
"tap" some of it for use in the output part of the circuit...
Quote from: Koen1 on November 19, 2008, 08:16:07 AM
I'm sure I don't really need to post this, but still;
@Captainpecan: Nil illegitimi carborundum my friend! ;D
You know who the guys are that are for real, you know
what you've got, and you know you can safely ignore all naysayers
and debunkers that think their physics school books can
overrule empirical test.
It is obvious one may ignore the comments of people who bring up
totally irrelevant arguments, like the nonsense arguments that
measuring only voltage in a capacitor would not be sufficient to
determine the energy contained in them, or the silly remark
that your increased output doesn't count because your pulse motor
is a pulse motor and not a DC motor, etc.
You don't even use the pulse motor in all the experiments you
posted on youtube, while you do show the charge increase...
Just goes to show that some people seem to be more interested
in contradicting you than they are in replicating the charge gain.
May I ask if you, or any of the confirmations you got from others,
have seen indications regarding the energy gain in respect to the
initial voltage used?
I ask because Bearden and Bedini mention that higher voltage
discharges result in much higher "back spikes", so it seems
possible that using a much higher voltage may result in a much
larger energy gain... ?
I was thinking of this: determine the initial voltage needed to produce
energy gain of sufficient energy to maintain a 12V DC current (either
via capacitive coupling and rectifier bridge, or perhaps directly via
a cap, etc) which can then be fed into a normal inverter and produce
normal grid-style AC for direct use in home appliances.
A transformer could be used to pump all of the charge in the seperate
capacitors back into one cap, and this third cap could then be switched
with the cap that was initially used to store the startup voltage.
This way, the initial charge could be cycled through the setup
several times untill the voltage has increased to he point where we can
"tap" some of it for use in the output part of the circuit...
you make great points i just wish you knew how and where to tap the output ....
8)
it is TOTALLY INDEPENDENT FROM THE INPUT .... menanig the inputted engery is ONLY used to ACCESS this HIDDEN ENGERY!!
and i said it was HEMF... THIS IS OUTPUT just as i said of the jt ....
ist
One interesting point is that after the first time you charge cap #1 with 18 volts,
You only need half as much power to recharge the cap back to 18 volts.
Because 9 volts or more is still left in the capacitor after it has done work with the motor.
It would be nice to find a way of using the 9 volts in cap #2 to aid in restoring energy to cap #1 again.
Right now I see the best way to use it is to discharge C2 into the motor.
So the motor gets 2 pulses of energy each time you do this.
But just think about this a moment!!!
;D ;D ;D "C1 STILL HAS 9 VOLTS IN IT" ;D ;D ;D
You only need to put another 9 volts into C1 to get it back to 18 volts.
Then you get 2 shots of 9 volts across the motor again.
One while discharging C1 to C2, and the other when discharging C2 directly across the motor.
That's almost double the output.
I tried a different experiment, I tried using 4 capacitors of equal value. (5600 MFD), and two 12 Volt gel cells.
I set up 2 pairs. Each with it's own diode. And instead of running a motor I put charge back into the batteries.
I charged C1 of the 1st pair with 24 volts and discharged it through battery #1 to C2 of 1st pair.
I then charged up C1 of the 2nd pair with 24 volts and discharged it through battery #2 to C2 of the 2nd pair.
I measured the voltage across each battery before and after discharging the cap through it
I noticed a slight increase in voltage in each battery right after I did this but the voltage increase dissipated.
It was like when you connect a battery charger across a battery, right after you remove the charger
you notice the battery voltage is higher and then goes down again after the battery sits.
It would be interesting to set up a circuit that does this continuously and see if you can charge a set of batteries this way.
And the voltage stored in both C2's could be utilized to run an external circuit.
This way you can draw a current from a battery and restore the current you draw at the same time.
So the energy you use in the external circuit is completely free.
My first test was with another gel cell that was quite run down. it was a 10.9 volts. (Instead of 12.6 V)
After discharging C1 to C2 through it, I measured 11.2 volts across it.
This voltage increase dropped to 11.0 volts in about 20 seconds and seemed to stay there.
That is what prompted me to set up the 4 caps in 2 pairs that I mentioned above.
theres your curcuit .... lol ::) ::) ::)
ist
and hear is the vid to make it....
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gTAqGKt64WM
this is how all my shit works so far till i go sine and 3 freq as I DID WITH AUDIO HENGE a long time ago....
this is the basic concept of my toys .... bigger is just beefed up and portected with a neon spark gap....
so we got now recycleing pre cycleing and self sustaining?? hummmm
got a song 4 u all agin ...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dP8AGLgt6dQ :)
show the world ....they were wrong ......teach then all to sing along..... :) ;) 8)
now inagine what the world can be !!!
there is no more could be that is now past tents ;)
and a small group JUST CHANGED THIS CRAZY WORLD
get THE HELL TO WORK!!!! NOW!!!
@innovation_station
Wow blow my mind. I was just thinking of you and your Joule Thief setup.
And as I was editing my last post which took me a while to compile and post.
Here you are presenting the Joule Thief at the very same time.
I think the Joule Thief circuit might be able to boost the caps output and make a self runner possible.
We get two 9 volt pulses each time and if we boost one of them to 18 volts
we could use it to restore C1 from 9 volts back to 18 volts again.
Pass the charge left on C2 through the Joule Thief back to C1.
Awsome Stuff.
Quote from: Koen1 on November 19, 2008, 08:16:07 AM
I'm sure I don't really need to post this, but still;
@Captainpecan: Nil illegitimi carborundum my friend! ;D
You know who the guys are that are for real, you know
what you've got, and you know you can safely ignore all naysayers
and debunkers that think their physics school books can
overrule empirical test.
It is obvious one may ignore the comments of people who bring up
totally irrelevant arguments, like the nonsense arguments that
measuring only voltage in a capacitor would not be sufficient to
determine the energy contained in them, or the silly remark
that your increased output doesn't count because your pulse motor
is a pulse motor and not a DC motor, etc.
You don't even use the pulse motor in all the experiments you
posted on youtube, while you do show the charge increase...
Just goes to show that some people seem to be more interested
in contradicting you than they are in replicating the charge gain.
May I ask if you, or any of the confirmations you got from others,
have seen indications regarding the energy gain in respect to the
initial voltage used?
I ask because Bearden and Bedini mention that higher voltage
discharges result in much higher "back spikes", so it seems
possible that using a much higher voltage may result in a much
larger energy gain... ?
I was thinking of this: determine the initial voltage needed to produce
energy gain of sufficient energy to maintain a 12V DC current (either
via capacitive coupling and rectifier bridge, or perhaps directly via
a cap, etc) which can then be fed into a normal inverter and produce
normal grid-style AC for direct use in home appliances.
A transformer could be used to pump all of the charge in the seperate
capacitors back into one cap, and this third cap could then be switched
with the cap that was initially used to store the startup voltage.
This way, the initial charge could be cycled through the setup
several times untill the voltage has increased to he point where we can
"tap" some of it for use in the output part of the circuit...
I ask you this then ..
what is greater ... 9.1
2 + 9.1
2or 18
2then read ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance
QED
dean_mcgowan is correct, to achieve unity (COP=1) you would need to see ~12.5V on each cap at the end, this would be almost achievable with a switched resonant charge transfer mechanism like that used in switch mode PSUs. This is not conjecture, this is truth that can be repeated on the bench and is probably being repeated many times per second inside your computers PSU right now.
Plus the argument that the one shot pulse motor is an accurate way of measuring work is flawed. The further the mag is repulsed from the coil the less effect the repulsion will have, in fact if the excitation pulse exists for long enough then the mag will be approaching the next coil and the repulsion will be working against rotation. Thus the pulse motor will favor shorter pulses and rotate the most efficiently when excited by them.
It is the non linear work measuring device (one shot repulsive pulse motor) that has caused all of the misunderstanding in this thread, it was the axiom of CaptainPecans assertions, but unfortunately this device does not express through rotation the energy that is consumed by it.
I'm all ears for a logical rebuttal of my above statements but simply starting an us against them mob like polarised situation is not conducive for proper research. I don't expect a structured logical argument against this but I might receive an ego driven expulsion of gas, I shall smell that gas gladly, I have a strong stomach!
I must add here that I think CaptainPecan is a great guy and I'm looking forward to reading about his further experiments, in this area or others.
Recap on this rediculous thread:
- IST has nothing that actually works but basks in the eyes of the blind faithful. Give it a rest, dude!
- The Young Effect is "false", based on misinterpretations which have now been revealed.
- All of the Tesla quoters have it wrong and continue to misquote and misinterpret his work, probably pissing Tesla off to the point that he will resurect himself and hunt you all down and kick your asses.
- Logic and truth are absolutely not tolerated and are to be ignored in this thread, at all costs.
[/li]
[/list]
I think people are totally missing the main point.
Captainpecan consider this please:
A single cap discharged directly into a coil vs. the same capacitor discharged into another identical capacitor through the same coil is not comparing apples to apples.
These are two totally different tests and can not be used to compare the work done in each when using the pulse motor as your measurement tool.
You either need to change the test procedure or the measurement tool so that you can compare apples to apples. You need a measurement tool that measures the dissipated energy for the entire time the capacitor is connected across the coil. So if the coil is connected for 3 seconds, you need to be measuring the the work being done for 3 seconds.
Counting the number of rotations of that rotor is not indicating how much current is being wasted in the coil after the initial impulse. What is needed is a way to measure the energy dissipated for the full duration of time that the capacitor is connected to its load. At present time you do not have one.
I urge you to stop and seriously consider what I have said. These are facts, not opinion or speculation.
Allow me to illustrate something that may add clarity to the above. If you were to incorporate a voltage sensor that monitored the capacitor voltage in the first case where it is being discharged directly across the coil, and you set the monitor to drive a switch that cut out the capacitor from the circuit, leaving considerable voltage in the capacitor, you would see that it takes substantially less energy to propel that rotor the same number of revolutions you already measured. This means you could use the capacitor again. Do you see?
Poynt99
What's with you guys and the pulse motor??
Haven't you watched the videos?
Captainpecan showed that it also works without the pulse motor.
The pulse motor is not what this is about at all.
It is only about the difference between the charge in cap1 in the beginning
and the charge in cap1+cap2 at the end.
And yes, please do explain why we may not compare those?
After all, we're just taling about charge on a capacitor, aren't we?
Since when is it not correct to conclude that there is voltage gain,
when the voltage in the end is higher than the voltage in the beginning?
Why would 9+9 not be 18?
After all, we're not talking about current here, we're only talking about charge...
If you measure the voltage on a cpacitor, why the heck would you square that?
Surely if you simply want to measure voltage, you just put your meter on it and
measure the static voltage?
Or do you guys do it differently??
Koen1 you don't understand. Let me explain. We can't have free energy. Oh btw I don't know what this thread is even about.
Yes there are three things wrong in cap'pecan's video.
#1 - One must use the electronics equations for capacitors in series when capacitors
are being used in series. So; 18Vdc at 4500uf in series with 18Vdc at 4500uf equals
36Vdc at 2250uf. 18Vdc at 4500uf in parallel with 18Vdc at 4500uf is 18Vdc at 9000uf.
It doesn't matter whether the connections are FET's or fingers. It's obvious that the
some of the charge energy on the "lower" cap is going to have to be used to support
the discharge of the "upper" cap. So I don't think you can dispute that some
sort of capacitive de-rate-tion is going to have to occur with capacitors in series.
#2 - You have got to consider resonance and 'Q' when you connect inductors and capacitors
in series especially big L's and C's. depending on Q you could definitely get some inconsistency
based in the timing of connections.
One needs to understand how #1 and #2 interacts with the mechanical resonance of the rotor
before one can say too much about rotor pulse power.
#3 - A motor with no load is not necessarily doing work simply because it's rotor is turning.
---
I have this problem about partial completion of this. One of the problems is that defective
methods of analysis always lead to defective answers.
That is why you need to close an instrumentation loop to prove whether this is overunity
or not. To show others how to do it right...So they can avoid these kinds of problems in the future.
You also *can* also prove me or my apparent direction wrong, but you really should close the loop
rather then have so many people come to wrong conclusion due to faulty analysis.
What you are doing as well as many known names in this so called industry is running
faulty analysis up the flagpole and see who salutes (or believes in the same faulty analytical
methods too.) It proves nothing and gets everyone stirred up and miseducates most. You
should not present stuff until one has this done.
Numbers mean nothing and insturmentation displays are only indicators, not proof.
All you need to do; is make instrumentation loop closure the basis of your decision as to whether
something is overunity or not! It's not that expensive and it's same loop for any system. You can
use it to *prove* overunity on you-tube, which is really what is needed.
:S:MarkSCoffman
@poynt99
QuoteYou either need to change the test procedure or the measurement tool so that you can compare apples to apples. You need a measurement tool that measures the dissipated energy for the entire time the capacitor is connected across the coil. So if the coil is connected for 3 seconds, you need to be measuring the the work being done for 3 seconds.
Im not sure I would agree, you are assuming energy is dissipated----- where?
The fact remains that Force=mass x acceleration--- this force is supplied by the coil to accelerate the rotor, Work=force x distance---the rotor has moved a distance against friction relative to the applied force. Whatever happens with the capacitors or coils for that matter is completely irrelevant to these facts.
I think all these tests and measurements you propose are kind of pointless because the results are all that matters in this case, the rotor has been accelerated by a force(where,when and how are irrelevant) because the distance travelled by the rotor constitutes work against friction and is proportional to the applied force. The energy in the capacitors before this happens and after constitutes an energy transfer, it does not constitute work. You cannot compare electrical energy and power to work, because if and when energy is recycled that same energy can do more work. The amount of work a given amount of energy can perform is not based on the transfer of energy it is based on the losses incurred during the transfer, reduce the losses and efficiency rises. There are two things that matter-----
1)Initial energy in one cap
2)how much work this energy can perform irregarless of the context
All these measurements and calculations proposed mean absolutely nothing in light of these two conditions.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Koen1 on November 19, 2008, 08:16:07 AM
I'm sure I don't really need to post this, but still;
ignore all naysayers
and debunkers that think their physics school books can
overrule empirical test.
And listen to those who want to help, by trying to show that perhaps the effects can be explained using 'school books'.
It is foolish to not think outside the box, but it is more foolish to ignore all estabilished physics. :)
Doctor HEYDUDE and Doctor Poynt99 are summoned to the operating room. There they are informed that the patient's condition is worse than first believed and that the logic hang-up is permanent. The only solution is a complete controller transplant and swift kick in the ass to get it going.
@mscoffman
Quote#1 - One must use the electronics equations for capacitors in series when capacitors
are being used in series. So; 18Vdc at 4500uf in series with 18Vdc at 4500uf equals
36Vdc at 2250uf. 18Vdc at 4500uf in parallel with 18Vdc at 4500uf is 18Vdc at 9000uf.
It doesn't matter whether the connections are FET's or fingers. It's obvious that the
some of the charge energy on the "lower" cap is going to have to be used to support
the discharge of the "upper" cap. So I don't think you can dispute that some
sort of capacitive de-rate-tion is going to have to occur with capacitors in series.
WRONG----the total work performed by the energy initially present is all that matters.
Quote#2 - You have got to consider resonance and 'Q' when you connect inductors and capacitors
in series especially big L's and C's. depending on Q you could definitely get some inconsistency
based in the timing of connections.
One needs to understand how #1 and #2 interacts with the mechanical resonance of the rotor
before one can say too much about rotor pulse power.
WRONG----the total work performed by the energy initially present is all that matters, the context of what happens in the circuit is irrelevant.
Quote#3 - A motor with no load is not necessarily doing work simply because it's rotor is turning.
WRONG----Force=mass x acceleration----things do not accelerate for no apparent reason ;D, Work=force x distance. Friction is a force in opposion to motion, these include air friction rising as the square of velocity, eddy currents induced in the copper metal of the coils by the rotor magnets and bearing friction. This friction requires real work to overcome and this work must come from "somewhere".
I'm just getting into electronics and all. But doesn't this circuit defy what you think what will happen if you look at the basic circuit. I don't think anyone would have even predicted what would have happened if captainpecan only has given the circuit.
I'm talking about the below circuit...
Quote from: Koen1 on November 19, 2008, 11:44:47 AM
What's with you guys and the pulse motor??
Haven't you watched the videos?
Captainpecan showed that it also works without the pulse motor.
The pulse motor is not what this is about at all.
It is only about the difference between the charge in cap1 in the beginning
and the charge in cap1+cap2 at the end.
And yes, please do explain why we may not compare those?
After all, we're just taling about charge on a capacitor, aren't we?
Since when is it not correct to conclude that there is voltage gain,
when the voltage in the end is higher than the voltage in the beginning?
Why would 9+9 not be 18?
After all, we're not talking about current here, we're only talking about charge...
If you measure the voltage on a cpacitor, why the heck would you square that?
Surely if you simply want to measure voltage, you just put your meter on it and
measure the static voltage?
Or do you guys do it differently??
Hi Koen1,
I've watched every vid from beginning to end, If my concentration lapsed or I was distracted I would rewind and replay. The vids are great and CaptainPecans delivery is good and easy to follow.
However, if the system were to even show unity then the static charge on both caps would need to be about 12.5 volts on each cap after settling. This can in fact be achieved by zero crossing switching over a resonant tank circuit, no magic involved. Even 10V on each cap is still way under unity. In fact CaptainPecan touched on this very effect (resonant zero crossing switching) when he used a diode to capture coil ring overshoot in cap 2.
You ask why is 9+9 not 18. Well in this case it's not because we're not counting on a linear scale (its a power of 2 scale), it takes more energy to raise a cap from 2V to 3V than it does to raise it from 1V to 2V even though you raise it by 1V in each case. It's like blowing up a balloon, the more pressure within the more work is involved in putting one more CC of gas in because the balloon gets more taught.
Yucca.
@alan, according to that reasoning, Einsteins theory of relativity is
worthless because Aristotle already offered an "explanation" for gravity:
it is because the nature or the rock consists largely of the element Earth,
that the rock wants to move closer to the Earth.
It was in a great many school books for centuries.
Despite that, we have found Einsteins theory to be very usefull.
@Yucca: I see what you're saying, although I'm still a bit confused now...
So you're saying that two caps with 10V in each do not add up to 20V
when we connect them in parallel?
And you're saying that discharging 9V through a circuit and ending up
with a measurable and usable total of 10V does not qualify
as a voltage gain, because somehow 10V - 9V does not equal 1V ???
I mean, just looking at the volts here, it sure looks like a voltage gain of 1V
in that situation...
@Koen1
QuoteUsing a measurement device to do measurements? How absurd! Obviously we must not
measure it but calculate it, and then claim this is a measurement.
LOL, ----- brilliant ;D You hit the nail on the head perfectly, people claiming a calculation is a measurement is sheer delusion and insulting to anyone who has actually built circuits to prove the facts for themselves.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on November 19, 2008, 01:11:15 PM
@Koen1LOL, ----- brilliant ;D You hit the nail on the head perfectly, people claiming a calculation is a measurement is sheer delusion and insulting to anyone who has actually built circuits to prove the facts for themselves.
Regards
AC
AC,
I agree with you, seeing for oneself is always much better than just reading a book and assuming you then have the "knowledge".
BUT... the measuring device used to measure work in this case is not a very good measuring device. It responds well to short pulses and does not respond well to longer pulses, it's like using a tape measure that shrinks as you unwind it more.
If you look at the pulse motor in question it has coils that produce a field that repulses the rotor mags. Obviously it has a greater effect upon the mags when the mags are near to the coils. When the mags are further away from the coils then the force is less and in fact when the mags pass the halfway point between adjacent coils then the pulse will work against the rotation as the following coil will push the mag backwards, so if you just read off total rotation after impulse then shorter pulses will appear to be doing more relative work than longer pulses.
Yucca.
Quote from: AbbaRue on November 19, 2008, 08:56:53 AM
...
You only need half as much power to recharge the cap back to 18 volts.
Because 9 volts or more is still left in the capacitor after it has done work with the motor.
Wrong! Please revise and corect, as follows:
1. In (re)charging a cap you don't need a certain power but a certain energy.
2. You don't need half as much energy but you need 3 times more!
OK?
Cheers,
Tinu
Quote from: Koen1 on November 19, 2008, 12:50:46 PM
@alan, according to that reasoning, Einsteins theory of relativity is
worthless because Aristotle already offered an "explanation" for gravity:
it is because the nature or the rock consists largely of the element Earth,
that the rock wants to move closer to the Earth.
It was in a great many school books for centuries.
Despite that, we have found Einsteins theory to be very usefull.
lol@that theory ;D estabilished, but discarded later on.
Maybe we will consider string theory as the same in the future, as nonsense. But both he and this theory are original.
But isn't it true that scientists build on each others findings and insights?
Einstein didn't build directly on Aristotle's, but on what was already estabilished, like on Newton's
and Maxwell's, and Maxwell on Faraday's and Ampere's etc. ofzo.
I meant to say "foolish to
completely ignore estabilished physics, which has been proven very much", if it was incorrect,
then we wouldn't have come so far as we are now, the models have proven to be consistent, I guess.
@allcanadian
The tesla patent nr you posted, doesn't seem very special to me (though it does prove his genius),
the lights can be lit from a distance of a single electrode of the sec. coil, but it is, like he said
in his patent, inductively coupled, which manifests itself by the displacement current due to the voltage spikes, I think.
see: "the scalar value of displacement current"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current
But please correct me if I am wrong.
Quote from: Koen1 on November 19, 2008, 12:50:46 PM
@Yucca: I see what you're saying, although I'm still a bit confused now...
So you're saying that two caps with 10V in each do not add up to 20V
when we connect them in parallel?
And you're saying that discharging 9V through a circuit and ending up
with a measurable and usable total of 10V does not qualify
as a voltage gain, because somehow 10V - 9V does not equal 1V ???
I mean, just looking at the volts here, it sure looks like a voltage gain of 1V
in that situation...
Yucca is crrect
place two batteries with the same voltage in parallel, what voltage do you get? No put them in series (that would add).
Place two caps with same voltage in parallel: the surface of the plates double (you can just add the capacitance), the voltage stays the same.
More capacitance = more area = more space to spread the
same charge = less tension = less energy.
Place 'em in series, the capacitance is reversely added (1/C1+1/C2=1/Ctotal), and the voltage is summed, like batteries in series.
(But feel free to correct me)
an increase in voltage is not an increase in energy.
Quote from: dean_mcgowan on November 19, 2008, 09:49:21 AM
I ask you this then ..
what is greater ... 9.1 2 + 9.1 2
or 18 2
then read ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance
QED
please read the above carefully and follow the link and equations it contains.
I cannot read it for you !!
There is just a basic flaw in the understanding of some here about what a volt is and what it means with regards a capacitor relating to the amount of ENERGY (yup thats what we are here for) it contains :D
Cheers,
Dean
QuoteDoctor HEYDUDE and Doctor Poynt99 are summoned to the operating room. There they are informed that the patient's condition is worse than first believed and that the logic hang-up is permanent. The only solution is a complete controller transplant and swift kick in the ass to get it going.
Looks like we arrived too late. The patient is in a coma. There is some REM (rapid eye movement) signifying there are dreams occurring. I'm afraid the temporary loss of oxygen to the brain caused the condition. Whats that twitching?
Just the death throes of an idea that has been tried numerous times before and always fallen flat on its face....without fail.
Very few patients recover from this condition. I give this thread about 40 pages before sobering reality sets in. Meanwhile have fun in the sandbox.
Quote from: Koen1 on November 19, 2008, 12:50:46 PM
@Yucca: I see what you're saying, although I'm still a bit confused now...
So you're saying that two caps with 10V in each do not add up to 20V
when we connect them in parallel?
And you're saying that discharging 9V through a circuit and ending up
with a measurable and usable total of 10V does not qualify
as a voltage gain, because somehow 10V - 9V does not equal 1V ???
I mean, just looking at the volts here, it sure looks like a voltage gain of 1V
in that situation...
If you take one cap and charge it to 10V it will take a certain amount of work to achieve that charge, conversely when you discharge that cap you can get that work back (obviously not quite all of it due to real world ohmic losses etc.) But it takes alot more work to raise a cap from 10V to 20V
It's like filling a water tank, the higher you fill it the more static pressure (water head) it will assume. So to fill a water tank from 1m high to 2m high will take more work than to fill it from 0m to 1m, even though you've only raised the water level by 1m in each case. Conversely if you take that water tank and run a turbine as the level drops from 2m to 1m you will be able to recover alot more energy then when you run it from 1m to 0m.
In the case of caps you can't assume that contained energy is proportional to the voltage within. It's not... a higher voltage is like a higher pressure.
Besides if you think that taking two caps, one with 18V and one with 0V and then you parallel them and then you end up with 9.5V and 9.5V that this is somehow OU then you must should get really excited about the prospect of obtaining 12V in each cap... This is achievable and is done and known of already in the books, it is the priciple on which intercap charge transport within switch mode PSUs operate. But even then it's not OU, just very efficient charge transport.
To see OU in 18V and 0V cap after equalisation you would need to see greater than:
Square Root of (18 x 18 / 2) = 12.73V (in each cap)
I am sorry if some people (not your good self) think that the mention of squares or roots makes a person a bookworm with no practical skills, I assure you that in my case the books are secondary and in fact I am sure that the books do not cover many things out there, for example I am sure that fusion is achievable on the bench.
Yucca.
Quote from: HEYDUDE on November 19, 2008, 01:59:42 PM
Looks like we arrived too late. The patient is in a coma. There is some REM (rapid eye movement) signifying there are dreams occurring. I'm afraid the temporary loss of oxygen to the brain caused the condition. Whats that twitching?
Just the death throes of an idea that has been tried numerous times before and always fallen flat on its face....without fail.
Very few patients recover from this condition. I give this thread about 40 pages before sobering reality sets in. Meanwhile have fun in the sandbox.
At least 40, just add blinking LED's and maybe something that spins and this could be a record breaker :P
Dean
@ Yucca
I see where you are coming from about the pulse motor. But the effect you mention that are making the results invalid, is not actually as invalid as you may realize. With your theory, if I'm reading you correctly, is that with the higher energy flowing, the other coils are "putting the brakes on the motor" due to the magnetic field not collapsed yet, thus showing less work done. Actually, in a sense, it is a good comparison to the conventional "short out the battery" circuit that is "putting on the brakes" to every electric motor we are using now. Hey, if not causing a direct short to battery, will release the brakes on the motor, and make them run more efficient, that's a bonus!
While I agree to some extent the experiments are not perfect by any means, and there could be more ideal methods than I used. I find it quite false to say it was all worthless by any means. There are some good points made no matter how it was tested. Many readers here had no idea you could even pass energy THROUGH a motor and use it again. Forgetting all the equations, sparks, bridge rectifiers, magnets, coils, wires, who cares... There is info in these video's that will make many people grab some materials and hit the bench again. I think that is a success if you ask me. Even if it only to prove me wrong! Hands on is where the discoveries happen, not in a book. ;)
captainpecan you are right. You showed the basic idea now it's up to the rest to go hardcore. There could be so much done electronic wise. Also what are the specs on those coils?
@all
This circuit I had on my hardisk is related to what captainpecan is doing with a motor added. I tried to replicate it but in the replication I made the motor did not spin, I think beause there are two positives going to the motor.
I think so, because when I added a ground to the small motor, the motor spinned.
Jesus
Quote from: captainpecan on November 19, 2008, 02:23:06 PM
@ Yucca
I see where you are coming from about the pulse motor. But the effect you mention that are making the results invalid, is not actually as invalid as you may realize. With your theory, if I'm reading you correctly, is that with the higher energy flowing, the other coils are "putting the brakes on the motor" due to the magnetic field not collapsed yet, thus showing less work done. Actually, in a sense, it is a good comparison to the conventional "short out the battery" circuit that is "putting on the brakes" to every electric motor we are using now. Hey, if not causing a direct short to battery, will release the brakes on the motor, and make them run more efficient, that's a bonus!
While I agree to some extent the experiments are not perfect by any means, and there could be more ideal methods than I used. I find it quite false to say it was all worthless by any means. There are some good points made no matter how it was tested. Many readers here had no idea you could even pass energy THROUGH a motor and use it again. Forgetting all the equations, sparks, bridge rectifiers, magnets, coils, wires, who cares... There is info in these video's that will make many people grab some materials and hit the bench again. I think that is a success if you ask me. Even if it only to prove me wrong! Hands on is where the discoveries happen, not in a book. ;)
I would definitely NOT say it was worthless! I think you are causing many people to learn more about capacitance and charge. But when I see people saying one thing when I am pretty certain it is incorrect I find it difficult to bite my tongue, admitedly it has made me unpopular in various situations throughout my life but nontheless I will always ascribe to the truth no matter what.
If you could achieve work via the motor whilst at the same time conserving your original charge (i.e. end up with 12.73V in each cap) then you would have done it and if you built the 1 watt output device and qualified for the prize then I would gladly pay over my $500 that I have promised to do should the OU prize ever be claimed.
If you think that 9V in two caps is the same as 18V in one cap then you are entitled to that opinion and I won't force my opinion on you any more.
Out of curiosity though what do you think about resonant zero crossing switching circuits to transfer charge, they can achieve quite low loss transfers, like you would end up with 12V or more on each cap, these are not hearsay they are used by switch mode PSUs, would you consider these to be OU?
Yucca.
Sorry CP I forgot to address your point about the pulse motor in my last reply.
You are correct, for any pulse motor there will be an optimum pulse duration for the most efficient running of that motor. And I agree many motors nowadays are not optimised in this sense, in fact many times in electromechanical design efficiency takes second place to manufacturing costs after all it's the consumer who pays to run the device wheras the manufacturer only has to think about manufacturing costs so they can retail for a lower cost and thus be competitive. Capitalism does NOT breed optimal solutions, of that we can agree.
But you have to agree that if the pulse length is long enough in your motor then the rotor mag will see a braking force during the latter part of the pulse due to repulsion from the approaching coil. You could negate that by having only one coil and one rotor mag but then you would still have a non linear measure of power used by the coil because as the rotor mag departs from the coil the force exerted upon it diminishes over distance.
If you can't afford an oscope and you're serious about seeing the real readings then you could make a chart recorder like device using a lightly sprung arm that gets deflected by an electromag, you could gut a hard drive to get all you need. Then have that sprung arm carry an inked firm fibre over a steadily rotating drum (can use use technical lego to make geared steadily rotating drum) . I did a similar thing when investigating mechanical movements of thin nitinol wire (muscle wire) when electricaly heated.
Yucca.
Captainpecan:
Well, your work has inspired me to finally make a joule thief. (Thanks Innovation Station for posting that video link, most simple plans I have seen thus far) I am going to play with the thief and a few super caps and see what happens. That is how I learn. I am already getting free energy out of my earth batteries in which I use a super cap in my circuit and I think the joule thief will help there also.
As a reader of this topic, I enjoy reading and learning from those respectful enough to present their arguments in a decent way, backed up with real world examples. You would not believe how many folks we have had on our earth battery topics that say it can't work, does not work, and will never work. Some still said this after I posted several videos to youtube showing them working and lighting LEDs for free. With a little luck, and some money, I hope to run my outside Christmas lights (LEDs) using nothing but the earth batteries.
Anyway, I think this is what this site is all about. To me, the folks out there actually doing experiments will always mean more to me than the others who sit back and just criticize. I have learned much here so far. Thanks.
Bill
@Captainpecan,
I'm going to test your theories. I have built the attached circuit (well, almost, still have to make some coil etc.).
I will use my controller switch and pulse charge several capacitors through coils. The back emf voltage from
each coil (at each pulse, when step charging) will go back to the negative terminal by the use of a diode.
If there is any gain in the circuit then the connected rechargeable battery will charge up. Easy to test....
(The file name is a joke! :-)
Groundloop.
Aren't the diodes placed in the wrong place? And I assume L are coils?
Edit: Attached image. I might be misunderstand it though.
@broli,
Yes "L" are coils. No, I do not think so. When the switch open then the coil (at the left side) will be open and the
coil will go high Q and reverse polarity. The right side of the coil is already connected through a low "resistance"
capacitor to minus. So when the minus goes more negative then the plus will go more positive. The circuit
is "floating" because of the optocoupled switch.
I think this is right?
(EDIT) In your version there is no path for the back emf voltage when the switch is open.
Groundloop.
@Groundloop
Its right ;D
can some one make me a little test...
you need a glass reed switch ... a coil from a pulse motor single wire is fine ... a supply ... and 1 cap
i want you to take mesurements... on input consumption ....
you will note in this test you will see hemf at work ...... and learn to recover it .... on the INPUT SIDE..... ;)
any takers.... i will draw a test layout... to follow ...
ist
if someone can do this test .... im trying to show you an important part here .... and is nessary to understand the operation of ALL OF THIS
plus it is not showen in groundloops curcuit above...
@IS
What do you have in mind? I will build anything---once.LOL
Ok I see the problem in groundloops circuit, I wonder if were thinking the same thing?
here is the drawing
now i want you to test it without the cap across the reed and see the bright flash of electricty inside the reed switch ... i have burnt out many reeds learning this!!!! my reeds are big too... they are rated at 4 amps.... the most i ever switched with thease reeds was 15v 1amp and i burnt em plain out welded em inside the tube .... ;D ;D :o
so there is no way in hell that was done from the inputed power!!!!!! lol ;)
any how what is the result on consumption of power with the cap across the reed switch i bet it is much less.... what is the consumption with out the cap
do the test post results...
you will note the bright flash in the reed is hemf and the cap suckes it up..... the cap loves this engery .... choke coils do not ... lol
and this is how inductance fits....
ist
allcanadian,
QuoteI find it quite false to say it was all worthless by any means. There are some good points made no matter how it was tested. Many readers here had no idea you could even pass energy THROUGH a motor and use it again.
Now that I will agree with. :)
everything i am showing i have made my own through my RESERCH ONLY
i did not copy a single person and i learned what i have through practial tests
truth is i had this figured b4 i picked up those pattends.... b4 i met erfinder.... thank you... that was almost 1 year ago already...
it is a vibrator peroid..... it intrupts the flow and catches what comes back and uses it with the next fire to cut way back on inputted power....
ist
JUST DO THE TEST!
sorry thebuzz...
this is diffrent than the vids but it is desinged to coinside with this tech.... ;)
also on that test you will note.....
you can place the reed switch permantally in the proper location ...
you will then use a permant magnet to start it and stop it .....
intresting DONT YOU THINK..... hummm
now if anyone gets this then you could then take this 1 step further with a resonant coupled coil bifiller .... get the drift..... maybe tune the coil to 7.5 hz.....
well
lets see some pics of work any one ... or am i wasteing my time ...
ist
@IS
Damn, thats the last time I build one of your circuits, LOL
Im just kidding--it worked fine until my only reed switch,which was weak to begin with went poof. I see what your getting at with this circuit, I needed a little more time to match the capacitance to really get this circuit in the groove but in worked good.
This is why I have always been a commutator kind of guy :D
You guys will like this circuit but you have to scope the capacitor to see what is really happening in the circuit.
Edit-reduced the capacitance and tuned with a relay and she took off. Nice ;D my inductance was still a little low so the wave form was a bit dampened but it works very good.
Regards
AC
Captainpecan, allcanadian, blind believers and all others that still do not understand:
This is fairly basic stuff.
Dissipation? Yes of course there is dissipation in the coils. As long as there is series coil resistance.
Scenario 1: Connect a 18V capacitor across a coil, and leave it connected for 30 seconds No rotor or motor involved, just a simple real inductor.
Scenario 2: Connect the same 18V capacitor across the same coil that is in series with another identical value capacitor. Leave this connected for 30 seconds. Again, no rotor/motor involved.
If you were to plot the coil current vs. time, in which of the above scenarios will the current fall (after the initial rise) to a given value the quickest? Why?
After 30 seconds, the capacitor in scenario 1 will be almost completely drained of voltage and will contain very little remaining potential energy.
After 30 seconds, the 2 capacitors in scenario 2 will both contain roughly 9V, and contain some potential energy as a result.
Work is a measure of force through a distance so we can not measure work in this setup. We can measure the power through a series resistor though, and power can be converted to work if one so desires. We can place a very small resistance in series with the coil, OR we can simply measure the temperature rise of the coil itself, since it will have its own inherent DC resistance.
In which of the two above scenarios will the coil/resistor temperature rise the most? If you believe that the temperature rise will be equal, that would be a bad start.
In scenario two the temp rise will be less, even if you add the remaining two 9V discharges to the previous temp rise!
Why? The process of transferring charge/voltage between capacitors is a lossy process in itself. The energy (in Watts) in a 9V cap is 1/4 that of one at 18V. The energy (in Watts) of a 18V capacitor discharging into another equal value capacitor is somewhat more complicated, but it will fall somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 compared to a capacitor sitting at 18V being discharged into a short. Let's use 1/2. So we have 1/2 + 1/2 = 1. Minus some losses, and it is below the power that can be delivered directly from a 18V cap itself.
So you see, even the best possible outcome means you can only get about the same power/energy/work out from the two above scenarios.
BTW, if you want to be completely fair with your present motor setup, you must use a pulse circuit (one-shot) with an adjustable pulse width for the scenario 1 test, and steadily reduce the pulse width until the number of rotations equals what you are getting in scenario 2. Once you have done this, you will find that you have a surprising amount of voltage left on the capacitor in scenario 1 after the pulse. This would I hope, prove to yourself that the test procedure you are presently using is faulty and that you are wasting a lot of energy that you were previously unaware of.
Regards,
Poynt99
There is still one thing that puzzles me about the Young Effect.
Something I haven't seen anyone comment on yet.
Even Captainpecan didn't make mention of it.
What about the energy that is conserved when you charge the capacitor up through the motor?
I placed the motor between one lead of the batteries and the capacitor and the motor ran for quit some time
before the capacitor was charged up.
Now we have many turns of the motor and a charged capacitor. Which can then be used to do some more work.
Instead of destroying the charge put out by the battery while running the motor,
we store that energy in a capacitor. The Larger the capacitor the longer the motor will run before the capacitor is charged.
The dead short of a dead capacitor makes for a good jolt to get the motor spinning,
Then as the motor speeds up the resistance of the capacitor starts to go up as well.
Once the motor is moving at a good pace what would connecting another dead capacitor up to it do?
Perhaps this would have some value?
i wasent gonna post this but why not.... 8)
my latest pulse motor design...... notice square coils....
ist
this is my 3 phase quaditure design.... imagine tuned primary and secondaries as coils.... inductance matched as my tesla diode x 12
hummmm
just wild..... ;)
btw this is a lamanated core design... not air core altho im sure it could be .....
@ thebuzz i actually beleave you know right well what you speek of ...
and i allmost agree with you .... but not just yet lol 8)
;)
@ Abba
Your starting to catch on. Keep at it, it gets much more interesting when you start noticing what this is all about for yourself!
@captainpecan
Wow this thread has grown fast! This is great! The more people involved, the better!
Keep up the great work,
Jason
@innovation_station
What is a Tesla Diode, never heard of it before?
Quote from: 4Tesla on November 20, 2008, 03:36:10 AM
@captainpecan
Wow this thread has grown fast! This is great! The more people involved, the better!
Keep up the great work,
Jason
I think that's an illusion, you might have noticed by now that Stefan decreased the amounts of posts that are shown per page.
Quote from: broli on November 20, 2008, 06:12:18 AM
I think that's an illusion, you might have noticed by now that Stefan decreased the amounts of posts that are shown per page.
Stephan created free postings .. amazing :o
Quote from: AbbaRue on November 20, 2008, 01:20:38 AM
There is still one thing that puzzles me about the Young Effect.
Something I haven't seen anyone comment on yet.
Even Captainpecan didn't make mention of it.
What about the energy that is conserved when you charge the capacitor up through the motor?
I placed the motor between one lead of the batteries and the capacitor and the motor ran for quit some time
before the capacitor was charged up.
Now we have many turns of the motor and a charged capacitor. Which can then be used to do some more work.
Instead of destroying the charge put out by the battery while running the motor,
we store that energy in a capacitor. The Larger the capacitor the longer the motor will run before the capacitor is charged.
The dead short of a dead capacitor makes for a good jolt to get the motor spinning,
Then as the motor speeds up the resistance of the capacitor starts to go up as well.
Once the motor is moving at a good pace what would connecting another dead capacitor up to it do?
Perhaps this would have some value?
AbbaRue,
Yes, that is to be expected isn't it? Normal stuff, but it's not a way of obtaining free energy.
That's like stating "if I run a single motor off a battery, this costs me energy, but if I now insert a second motor in series with the first, the second motor will run
for free and I still get the same power and torque from the first"
It doesn't work that way, and neither does the capacitor scenario you outlined above. There is no energy gained, it is conserved.
Remember the one cap and two cap scenarios? The one cap scenario the way Captainpecan is doing it is extremely wasteful, and because of this, the scenario two appears as though a gain of energy occurs, but of course it does not. Apply a short pulse in scenario 1. You will get the same "work" done on that rotor, yet you will still have voltage on your cap!!! PROVE JUST THIS ONE THING TO YOURSELF!
Curious that Captainpecan has not made one single rebuttal to any of the facts I've pointed out. I hope he takes the time to do some of the tests, or at least think through some of them.
I am a free energy enthusiast, but I will try my damnedest to explain any anomaly I see on the bench before making a OU claim. Otherwise you just haven't done your due diligence and odds are that you've overlooked something which is going to come back and bite you. I hope you've got your Kevlar suit on Captainpecan.
Poynt99
poynt99, they are building circuits that helps us recycle energy so let them do what they are doing regardless of what they think they are doing. If they think it is free energy, let them think that because no matter what, we are all still benefiting from it. Think about it. ;)
Poynt99
My hats off to you. You have a lot more patience with stubborn researchers than I.
I stop when the person I'm trying to convey information to is unable to be influenced.
This dual cap charging scenario gets replayed every now and then by people without a 101 course level of understanding of very basic circuits and energy transfer.
But they plow on doggedly hoping for success, stating that the foundation of electronic physics is all wrong...further that all the engineers in all the labs in all the worlds missed this one and they will show the world differently.....an old saw. Just a case of angry scientist syndrome
I wish I could steer all that energy in a useful direction.
Captainpecan is attempting to be a real scientist by careful note taking, I applaud him for that as many do not go that far.
But if the test setup or basic understanding is flawed, you can take notes and data as skillfully as an accountant and still the data will skew in the wrong direction.
Kudos......HD
p.s. to his credit he has begun to see the folly of the motor as output test device as pointed out by Yucca recently and myself in several earlier posts.
@All,
I have completed my circuit today. The unit is up and running after some fixing of bugs in the mcu firm ware.
Attached is the circuit drawing. I have not made a drawing of the controller part yet but it is a simple PIC16F84A mcu
running at 20MHz. The mcu controls 6 optocoplers that switch 6 transistors on and off. I will make a drawing
of the controller if anybody ask.
Now the switching method. I use the 6 switches as described in the drawing. The last switch stays close for
the double time of the 5 others. I use a step charge of each stage. 255 small pulses to the switch. I leave each
switch on for each charge of the capacitors, thus connecting each capacitor in parallel, until I dump all the
paralleled capacitor into a big 22000uF. I precharged the big input capacitor to 0,5 volt before starting the mcu controller.
The mcu is running from a separate 9 volt battery. There is no energy transfer between the switch and the capacitors
because of the optocouplers used.
The big input capacitor is slowly charging up. Now I must STRESS the following:
There is NO way I can know where the extra energy is coming from. It may be RF or I may be picking up mains radiation.
The effect is so SMALL that it is well below the noise level. Further, the big capacitor will not charge to more than 1.296 volt.
It seems to me that above that voltage the losses starts to kick in. I have made a RF scan of the actual activity in my area.
The RF scan chart is attached. I do not have a Faradays cage to test in, nor will I make one because the effect I'm seeing
is so small.
(EDIT-1) After one hour of run the input/output capacitor has start falling in voltage. The voltage has now dropped to 1,292 volt.
Sorry guys, no free energy in this circuit!
(EDIT-2) The image shows a rechargable 9 volt battery connected to the input/output. I'm now using a big cap instead.
(EDIT-3) The voltage over the capacitor did drop because my switch battery was emty and the switch did not run. :-)
There is still a very small charging effect.
Regards,
Groundloop.
Groundloop
Nice work.
HD
Quote from: poynt99 on November 20, 2008, 09:25:23 AM
AbbaRue,
Yes, that is to be expected isn't it? Normal stuff, but it's not a way of obtaining free energy.
That's like stating "if I run a single motor off a battery, this costs me energy, but if I now insert a second motor in series with the first, the second motor will run for free and I still get the same power and torque from the first"
It doesn't work that way, and neither does the capacitor scenario you outlined above. There is no energy gained, it is conserved.
Remember the one cap and two cap scenarios? The one cap scenario the way Captainpecan is doing it is extremely wasteful, and because of this, the scenario two appears as though a gain of energy occurs, but of course it does not. Apply a short pulse in scenario 1. You will get the same "work" done on that rotor, yet you will still have voltage on your cap!!! PROVE JUST THIS ONE THING TO YOURSELF!
Curious that Captainpecan has not made one single rebuttal to any of the facts I've pointed out. I hope he takes the time to do some of the tests, or at least think through some of them.
I am a free energy enthusiast, but I will try my damnedest to explain any anomaly I see on the bench before making a OU claim. Otherwise you just haven't done your due diligence and odds are that you've overlooked something which is going to come back and bite you. I hope you've got your Kevlar suit on Captainpecan.
Poynt99
Poynt99 is correct!!!!
indeed!!
;D
groundloop awsome work... ;D
william!
There is no energy gained, it is conserved......... time is gained 8)
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 20, 2008, 01:42:45 AM
After a closer look, I'm afraid I would have to agree with poynt99 on this. The capacitor switch thing was posted on ionizationx for hydrocars to teach him the difference between charge and potential. It is something that I have seen on the web elsewhere as well - a brain teaser, not a free energy machine unless you only see what you want to see.
Extra voltage found in the charge transfer when you shorted one cap to another came from the spark itself. It is a cavitation and there is a mass to atomic energy conversion that takes place.
All free energy machines work the same way, can only work the same way, they convert mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass. Cavitation is the process to do that.
In the Tesla shuttle circuit which I feel you are loosely basing this on, the mass being converted can come from one or more places. The spark gap and the inductor if it is configured to cavitate properly.
Tesla liked to work with high pressure nitrogen as a mass source. Free energy devices have been produced in the past using nitrogen by others. Any element from 56 down will transmute just fine if you know the techniques used to do that.
Energy does not come from nowhere, it has to have a source. Mass = energy - Maxwell. It is stored potential and in order to unlock it, you need to create a cavitation. All free energy machines cavitate mass somewhere in the process. No exceptions.
Sorry, but that dog ain't going to hunt.
Great post! I'm glad someone here understands real Free Energy at a more scientific level.
All the group-think, wanna-be Tesla should take note of this, and quit clinging to the words of all the mystical newbies on this site who just want to sound like they know everything about FE, and have a fan club.
@groundloop
Tremendous good work!
Jesus
@nievesoliveras, @innovation_station, @HEYDUDE,
Thank you all. A lot of work to research but I think it it worth it.
One never know when something unexpected will happen.
Electronics is a great hobby of mine.
BTW: The capacitor is now up to 1.310 Volt and still gaining charge very slowly.
The gain is 0,001 Volt each 100 seconds.
I'm charging up my video camera now (from the mains :-) and will post a video later.
Groundloop.
this dog will chase and hunt ...
were just not done yet .... ;)
:)
ist
Also GP in the spirit of the first demonstrations. What happens if you let the coils do some work like CC's rotor that got pushed. If the numbers are equal surely the rotation is also free energy. If that's also the case one can tune the pulses to make a motor.
@Buzz
Something like a heat pump. Make something cold by extracting energy from it.
Then use the energy that is inbound to maintain the cold spot and heatup some stuff we like to have get hot on the gain from the ambient field?
expantion and contraction..... the heart beat....... balanced rhythmic interchange :)
ist
polar oppsites.... the difference in POTENCIAL.... the little OZONE generator does just this...
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 20, 2008, 12:56:49 PM
This dog is chasing his tail and when the dog gets dizzy and tired from spinning in circles, the rats will come out to feed. In the end, and there is always and end, the dog chasing his tail loses the battle.
On the other hand, you could put the dog on a tread mill, feed it dead rats, sunshine and water and the dog would produce free energy. It is all about technique.
welcome aboard !!! :)
THEBUZZlets get her on the right track.... THEN
im always open for simple ideas .... :) I MAY HAVE A FEW MORE THINGS THAT ARE QUITE NEAT ;D
ist
i may even SCOPE YOU ALL A WAVE .... ;)
Quote from: innovation_station on November 20, 2008, 12:54:14 PM
expantion and contraction..... the heart beat....... balanced rhythmic interchange :)
ist
polar oppsites.... the difference in POTENCIAL.... the little OZONE generator does just this...
No it doesn't! Stop preaching the false doctrine of false prophets! JUST SHUT UP!!!
You and you're cohorts are turning this forum into a damn circus!
@TheBuzz,
I think I explained it well enough in one of my former posts. The energy is entering the system from somewhere.
And, right now I found where it came from. The long leads on my digital volt meter.
When I remove the leads then the voltage drops. When I attach the leads, the voltage climbs.
So I think the energy is from the mains field in my room. As I said before, the circuit is NOT
over unity.
I tried to upload a video but I failed for some reason. Well, anyway the video was boring since
there was no spinning rotors or shiny lights. :-)
[EDIT] The video did upload OK. Here is the link. Warning, boring video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1053768634952020393
Groundloop.
@captainpecan,
I could not find any o/u in my setup. The gain I saw was a pickup of energy from
my DVM wires.
Later on I will try the motor setup with reed relays. Can't right now because my hot glue gun
just blew up. And, when I fired up my laptop and connected the charger to the mains then my
laptop charger blew up. What are the odds? :-)
Anyway, I will build a low friction rotor and use reed relays to switch the current.
This will happen i a weeks time or so.
I'm temporary out of here.............
Groundloop.
the ozone unit does not do all that you are right ....
MY BAD!!
im sorry!!
lets talk about what it actually does...
since YOU are all over it ... why dont you talk a little....
ist
that quote is not from the ozone generator ... :)
Quote from: innovation_station on November 20, 2008, 03:05:37 PM
the ozone unit does not do all that you are right ....
MY BAD!!
im sorry!!
lets talk about what it actually does...
since YOU are all over it ... why dont you talk a little....
ist
that quote is not from the ozone generator ... :)
No. I don't want to talk to you about anything. All you do is misinterpret, misquote, and misrepresent. Stop trying to pretend you are some sort of free-energy guru with your non-working replications and misplaced techno-bable!
The Ozone Generator is just an "Ozone Generator" - just like Tesla said it is! So stop putting your words in Tesla's mouth!
Since you insist the Ozone Generator is more than it really is - prove it - show some power and I don't mean lighting a bulb either - real power - I want to see some motors turning, horsepower being produced and measured, and some "work" being accomplished rather than repeated showing and babbling about crap that doesn't work!
Quote from: Gobaga on November 20, 2008, 03:31:36 PM
No. I don't want to talk to you about anything. All you do is misinterpret, misquote, and misrepresent. Stop trying to pretend you are some sort of free-energy guru with your non-working replications and misplaced techno-bable!
The Ozone Generator is just an "Ozone Generator" - just like Tesla said it is! So stop putting your words in Tesla's mouth!
Since you insist the Ozone Generator is more than it really is - prove it - show some power and I don't mean lighting a bulb either - real power - I want to see some motors turning, horsepower being produced and measured, and some "work" being accomplished rather than repeated showing and babbling about crap that doesn't work!
sad to hear your thoughts
if you want all that i guess you know what your needs are then :D
cuz i aint gonna do that for you lol ...
your needs = figure it out yourself ;D
ist
Quote from: innovation_station on November 20, 2008, 03:40:11 PM
sad to hear your thoughts
if you want all that i guess you know what your needs are then :D
cuz i aint gonna do that for you lol ...
your needs = figure it out yourself ;D
ist
You are just another worthless poser trying to act like you have something so you can sound important to those that don't know any better.
Now they know you are just a pretender with nothing better to do than to engage in fantasies.
Quote from: Gobaga on November 20, 2008, 04:46:43 PM
You are just another worthless poser trying to act like you have something so you can sound important to those that don't know any better.
Now they know you are just a pretender with nothing better to do than to engage in fantasies.
indeed i LOVE TO DREAM!!
AND YOUR CORRECT hope your happy!!!
i dont have a working device....
what can i say....
im trying just like everyone else that is all
i thought that posobilly the other minds here could in fact help me
but it seams the search is still on .... rats... i thought we had it ...
i am sorry guys i really am ...
another MY BAD
ist!
enough already ...
QuoteYou are just another worthless poser trying to act like you have something so you can sound important to those that don't know any better.
Now they know you are just a pretender with nothing better to do than to engage in fantasies.
Hey I like fantasies---- Can i be a worthless poser too?
sure caused a bit of att. tho
lol
just another waste of time.... but we had fun tho didnt we ... :)
jumping to conclusions has been always my week point
and my laque of electronics has not helped
any how guys sorry to wind this up to somthing that it infact is not .... :(
sorry
back to the damn bench im gonna figure this thing out yet .... there has to be a way ..... ;)
ist
If you all want free energy, build a Bedini like I have designed and put the tube inside of a large coil. ;)
Or you could build a smot like we are trying to design on the following thread and or at least give us some help designing one.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6077.0
Geez I think @Gaboda is really @Grumpy.
Same anger, same slants. Hmmmmmmm. Maybe I should change my username to @wattsdown. lol
@IS
You have to admit that you build systems faster then an adolescent can sport a new pimple. A new one pops up every day. But then there is no long term follow-up on your devices so it is rather hard for members to grasp or follow any real progress. Maybe you should consider sticking to one or two devices and work them to the bone, then report back so we can all learn. Whatever.
@CP
I also wanted to say that during the coil discharge, consider that more then 75% of the coils mag field was lost. This is because the magnets where positioned to the left of the coils to get only the 1/4 of the coils push to be in the proper clockwise direction.
If you consider that a coil has north and south, but at a minimal base consider it has North Left, North Right, South Left and South Right, but in reality both polarities exit/enter at 360 degrees. That's why I said there is more then 75% of the field that is lost. I think you would have more rotation if the coils where turned clockwise about 15-20 degrees. This would put more of the North or South Left in the circumference of the magnets movement. That could be another variable to test further. At what coil angle will give the most spin?
So event though your coil/mag is not that efficient, it still managed to put some energy back into the caps.
I'm always asking guys to try something on their device and you are no exception.
Can you please just put the three caps in series and short them, three coils in series, then both parallel but put a diode inline pointing to the cap positive. Put your meter on the cap. Now manually spin the rotor hard enough to make 3.0 to 3.5 turns and tell me what you will see on the meter as a voltage rise. Do it at least three times and get an average. That is the return I am talking about that I would need to know to better understand your videos.
But all in all you may work your device a little more and possibly make it a self runner.
@nightlife
I'll go to that thread and check it out. I have some ideas and wonder if you guys can check it out with your many magnets.
yo dude you got the worng dude! stright up
i have never ever been to that site and i only ever worked here on ou all my posts are here
i posted in the beguining long b4 i herd of the tpu on a few diffrent fourms
my water turbine that is all
so i dont know what to tell ya ...
not me bro .... ???
now if youll excuse me i have to find where the hell i went wrong!!!!!
cuz im not done it doesent work the way i thought it would have .... running my mouth b4 i proved it to myself .... WRONG WAY
let this be everyones lesson ....
unless you all like to look like THE FOOL IN THE END just as i have....
so be it ...... i will be quiet now ...
ill be at my bench working
ist
@thebuzz
QuoteToo bad Allcanadian and gotoluc started a flame war over there. I posted the info. energeticforum deleted for some reason. But I have a copy!
LOL, so you are Gotgas, now it makes perfect sense, LOL
I'll tell you what, why don't you start your own thread here at OU and you and I can debate your theories like responsible adults without all the name calling. Intruding on others threads and flaming people is just rude in case you have not figured that out yet.
QuoteSuppose I know how every free energy device ever validated works. Now would I pass the details on how to convert mass into the atomic mass contained within mass to a pack of spider monkeys completely lacking in integrity and the intelligence that springs forth from that? Probably not
Wow, every one----- you and I are going to have a lot to talk about then.
I don't want to flame anyone, like I said at the energetic forum I would like to hear what you have to say---but not in this thread.
When you have a tread started PM me.
Regards
AC
Yeh, no fighting inside, this bar was just renovated. lol
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 20, 2008, 07:59:06 PM
All free energy devices work the same way, only the details differ. The universe is a simple place. It only knows how to create mass from energy one way and it only knows how to convert that mass back into energy one way.
The free energy in Tesla's Shuttle circuit - "Free energy could be obtained if the the energy were transformed in some way" - Nicola Tesla.
Sounds interesting. Start a new thread on it.
"All free energy devices work the same way, only the details differ."
I missed the part where a free energy device has been shown to work, at all. Could you please point me to a proven free energy device, and tell me why my cellphone isn't powered by one?
TinselKoala,
QuoteCould you please point me to a proven free energy device, and tell me why my cellphone isn't powered by one?
Soon you will get that chance. ;)
Yes, it does.
It also tells me a lot about you, Mr. TheBuzz. For example, it tells me that you are not willing to be either constructively creative, nor constructively critical. You just want to call people names and pretend to have superior knowledge. But I would say that you seem to be a perfect example, to use your own words, of "belligerence matched only by ignorance." Your statements about the zero point, black holes, the ether, oxygen levels and "spider monkeys" demonstrate this quite well.
If you treat others with arrogance and ignorance, you will be repaid with scorn. You shouldn't need to ask me how I know this.
Wow! What has the Captain opened up here? A lot of passion being shown for something that is "not overunity". It makes me suspicious.
Bill
Warning rant ahead!!!
BEWARE OF THE SPIDER MONKEYS!!! while your at it beware of the tooth fairy and Santa clause...
The problem with the global society is that it revolves around business economics... and here we have pretty much our sole source of energy (oil) coming from some very few areas where the money going in is well horded by individuals leaving the actual country to suffer. This has been going on for too long and they now have a lucrative holding on the global economy. Think about it from a money point of view, you have a resource that you are selling and making a tidy profit on. there are other opportunities and means out there that just need some funding to get up and rolling. Do you:
A. pour money into this new resource in the hope that you can make money off it, in the process making what you been making money of for years redundant.
B. Buy, squash and out muscle any new technology that comes out that could be a threat to your monopoly?
B is the economic option by far!!! these people don't care about the environment, longevity or the evolution of our race (unless it involves more bolstering to their bank accounts!!!). And that is how our world is run on a very loose scale. If you want to make a change people need to come together in groups and generate their own income and self sustaining business. I can almost guarantee if an electric car came out that got 400km of a single charge or one that you could top up easily and quickly that was cheaper than petrol you would see an overflow of efficient petrol powered cars hit the market. There has been no real push in the automotive industry for real development in MPG/KPL. It all been in performance and pure KW not how well it does on fuel. Now with the fuel crisis people have had a look and gone F*** me fuel can get to 1.50 per litre!!! that means to fuel my 4.2 litre V8 its gonna cost me $120+ and that will get me like 400km of city driving... HOLY SPIDER MONKEYS!!! The new interest in conserving fuel (fueled by our impending possible recession) will mean people will be looking at more efficient vehicles. If you look at the average efficiency of cars after the last recession there was a massive jump in how efficient they were. After that once its settled people want power for the same efficiency and that's what sells, so that's what they make!!! now in due cycle we want more efficient cars so they are coming out again.
Now here is the dangerous part. There is potential to remove these people with high incomes low sense of worth around the globe by developing fossil fuel-less generators and commuter transport that has no reliance on them for fuel. Can't see the massive drop in profits as this prospect sweeps the globe pissing off the people who had all the power and money (dang guess you can't afford the new Ferrari, Lambo and Merc this year boss... you might have to sell the summer house in the Arctic to maintain your life style!!!)
So you squash such technologies and/or make it as difficult as you can for them to get going by using your contact and flexing the muscles you have laid down all through the world...
Now that all the conspiracy is on the table it economics that is our problem not spider monkeys. Make it economical and people will buy it!!!
Rant done and finished!!!
@TheBuzz
Good post. Nuclear energy is the real FE, everything else is just a distraction.
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 20, 2008, 07:59:06 PM
Yes you are right, I know who you are and have debunked you in the past and you know who I am. I am the one that posted the little charge verses potential puzzle at ionizationx roughly 8 months ago that this entire wasted thread was based on. It was supposed to teach people how they fool themselves but instead someone read that, fooled themself and then fooled a bunch of others.
It was the pack of spider monkeys from Canada making false claims that started a flame war at energetic. In the end, they lost just like they always do. Like I said, this will have an end and in the end, the rats will feed.
So after a year of getting rode by Buffalo Bill you might want to warn your little friends from Canada about how tenecias I can be, how I save a copy of every thread I post into and how much I dislike people making false claims and hurting the free energy movement.
Suppose I know how every free energy device ever validated works. Now would I pass the details on how to convert mass into the atomic mass contained within mass to a pack of spider monkeys completely lacking in integrity and the intelligence that springs forth from that? Probably not.
Some of you people are the reason everyone has to go without.
All free energy devices work the same way, only the details differ. The universe is a simple place. It only knows how to create mass from energy one way and it only knows how to convert that mass back into energy one way.
The free energy in Tesla's Shuttle circuit - "Free energy could be obtained if the the energy were transformed in some way" - Nicola Tesla.
Too bad Allcanadian and gotoluc started a flame war over there. I posted the info. energeticforum deleted for some reason. But I have a copy!
All free energy devices and the universe itself work by manipulation of the medium. You can call it matter or mass, but is only the medium in a condensed state.
So, are you gonna start a thread or keep pissing in the wind?
Until you actually build it, what do you really have? An idea? A secret? A concept? A collection of experiments and thoughts?
Build it - even if it takes you forever - even if it kills you - build that damn thing!
Actually there is a working device on this forum.
Dr. Stiffler's SEC.
But he's having a problem connecting it's output to the outside world without it shutting down.
If any of you name calling spider monkeys want to do something constructive for a change,
help the Doctor solve his problem and then we can all enjoy an endless source of free energy.
@TheBuzz
So just start a thread and post your info. I don't think it will be removed from this forum. Also put your material in a pdf or zip format and post it in the "Download" section. This way we can all save it. lol
Now, one thing though, I don't know what your beef is with @allcanadian but I feel compelled to tell you that he is definitely a great help here on OU.com and taking up someones thread is not the way to discuss your differences so what @allcanadian suggested still stands.
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 20, 2008, 07:59:06 PM
The free energy in Tesla's Shuttle circuit - "Free energy could be obtained if the the energy were transformed in some way" - Nicola Tesla.
Is this it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/248237/Barret-Teslas-nonlinear-oscillatorshuttle-circuit-OSC-theory
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 20, 2008, 03:19:49 PM
You seem confused, the quote is from your tag line below each and every post you make. It came from Tesla's patent where he demonstrated free energy.
??? which patent?
Quote from: newbie123 on November 20, 2008, 11:19:48 PM
@TheBuzz
Good post. Nuclear energy is the real FE, everything else is just a distraction.
I would say atomic energy instead of nuclear. The spin state of the neucleus has plenty of radiant energy as well as the spin and orbital momentum of the electron field. The point being that the atom is totally dependent on the force field it finds itself in for its potential energy to kinetic energy conversion. You can make any atomic lattice radioactive. Look what happens when you send a watts worth of energy through an elevated piece of iron. You vibrate gigatons of atoms without loss of energy of the signal. The energy the antennae of your cars radio receiver picksup has also vibrated every single atom between you and the transmitter tower. 1 watt untold atomic lattice vibrations. The radio signal is a catalyst for conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy. It is manipulation of a force field and does not enter into the energy conversion equations at all. Now if we confine this catalyzing signal to a mass field we get atomic energy conversion without getting into disassembly of the neuclear core. The mass of the antennae does not absorb the radio signal it responds to the radio signal in an energetic manner. I put a piece of wire next to a florescent bulb and put a radio signal out so that the waves pass through the bulb, the bulb lights up and the television sets throughout the house go nuts. Without the bulb no problem on the TVS. The bulb lights up because the mercury vapor goes into self excitation mode producing a plasma field which is the equivalent of a huge weird atom. Now you get to feel the energy play that is usually going on in a relativistic sized field in a field as big as the space occupied by the plasma. The electronic cloud around a single atomic radius is now involved in an electronic cloud around billions and billions of neuclei. The electronic kinetic energy produces a magnetic field that confines and reinforces the ionized atomic lattice, but isn't very good at confining the electrostatic charge of the protons or the photon emission from the plasma as it responds to the emwave energy passing through it. The list of elements or fundamental particles proves not to be a list of fundamental anything but just a very finite list of plasmic constructs.
I have a question.
If I have two elco's, one 2000uF and the other one 500uF.
If I charge the 2000uf Elco to 6 Volts and the 500uF Elco to 12 Volts, do they both contain the same amount of energy?
Thanks TheBuzz.
I wasn't sure it was so, so I asked.
Thanks again.
@thebuzz
QuoteI want and we all need a push back, someone to challenge with intelligence things put forth. If they stand the test, mission accomplished, if not we do what captainpecan, allcanadian and innovation_station are probably doing right now. Starting over.
I never had a problem with your theories---- I have a problem with your egotistical-God complex, thread hogging and rude behavior, LOL.
QuoteDouble slit experiment:
As the photon passes through the slit, so too must the two or more waves that produce that particle. The waves are interfered with by the area around the slit and so the photon can pass freely, hesitate, change direction, cavitate or be destroyed.
The third band of light between the double slit is where some or all of one wave went through one slit and some or all went through the other slit and then they clapped back together. (a cavitation).
Oops! Did I just explain the double slit and wreck someones science? I doubt it but it is worth thinking about. I spent years learning cavitation - the nucleus of ALL FREE ENERGY DEVICES.
LOL, again----wow, I hope your science can keep up with your ego. I talked with many physics students in some physics forums 10 years ago and very few if any believed the results of the double slit experiment. They believed the interference pattern was as you say waves produced by a disturbance in the media, not duality. So your "new" theory is not so new in any case because a bunch of physics students knew this years ago. I believe your new discovery is called "wave theory" LOL, which has been around for quite some time.
It's kind of funny that you condemn everything I say but I have come to most of the same conclusions you have long ago. You may want to read the works of Walter Russell as well, he stated everything you have and more over 50 years ago.
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 20, 2008, 11:37:04 PM
I just disclosed the secret to Meyer, the tesla switch and others on another site. Naturally the spooks are trying to get the thread taken down as we speak.
Hold on, I thought you visit sites to debunk stuff like Captainpecan's "effect"... ???
But now you post "the secret" to the Tesla switch etc on some unnamed website?
What is it now, are you debunking stuff, or are you trying to spread OU secrets?
After all, if there's "spooks" trying to get the thread down, there must be info in there
that is correct and that the shadow groups don't want to come out...
Now surely they wouldn't do that if what you posted is only debunking free energy claims?
So what is it, are you a debunker, or are you a "captainpecan" in your own right? ;)
QuoteAs for the spider monkey thing - They flamed me bad on another site that is also into making sure you never figure out that little trick. They reaped what they sowed.
Fine.
And it's pretty clear you're left traumatised by that experience, but to be very honest, I don't really give a crap who flamed who on some other forum.
And I think many others could care less too.
So could you please stop bringing up whatever fight you may or may not have had on that other forum and stick to the matter at hand,
which in this case seemed to be debunking the "young effect" untill you started proclaiming to have posted FE "secrets" somehwere else.
Which is another thing, why is it that you bring that up, but in the mean time you don't tell us what this alleged "secret" is?
QuoteSo you see I am constructive.
Well, not really. Your criticism has a very clear destructive characteristic.
Your intention may be positive, but I have not seen you say many constructive
things at all. I have seen you stomp Captainpecan and IST into the ground
and flame them like a propane torch, and a lot of that was also not constructive.
You seem to think your personal feud with certain others whom you are clearly
trying to debunk is of great value to the discussion, but it isn't really.
What is of value to the discussion is to explain extremely clearly why what is
shown is not over unity. Some others have done so too, and with a lot less
emphasis on their personal battle with people on other fora.
QuoteHow many free energy devices have you figured out and disclosed?
Lol, says the guy who has not disclosed anything either?
What kind of question is that? Do you feel better than others here?
Where is
your free energy device then eh?
Come on, show us some of that constructive attitude? ;)
Or are you really only out to debunk and patronise people?
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 21, 2008, 12:32:48 PM
@ Tink
Turn around is fair play.
So I do research in a lot of areas one being medical. Can you tell me the most common cause of the common cold?
Yes... I have discovered a cure for the common cold.
That is an easy one ;D
A lack of vitamin D
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 20, 2008, 06:59:05 PM
Yes and attention is exactly what GotGas said your were trying to get and another suggested that you were just trying to get others to help you design your circuit. EXACTLY what you just admitted to.
So here is what you need to do:
You need to go back to energetic and make a post apologising to GotGas and admit he was right.
He wrote in big capital letters what made the Tesla shuttle circuit work. He is without a doubt the smartest person researching free energy and claims does know how every free energy device ever validated works.
I should be of interest to anyone that the information on how free energy machines work and the specifics regarding the shuttle circuit and two other examples were quickly deleted from the energetic site. One could only speculate as to why what everyone is searching on a web site that claims to facilitate that was deleted.
Some of the clowns that are operating in this thread that went by gotoluc Allcanadian over there started a flame war with GotGas and now he does have a user name there. I would avoid that place like the plague.
Now show you have an ounce on integrity and go to energetic and admit GotGas was right and apologise.
I love that! ;D
Anyway, if anyone is wondering about the thread gotgas/thebuzz is refering to, here it is before the moderators removed the abusive posts. Make your own mind up about who was flaming who...
http://www.box.net/shared/0f8poxn5vh
(Saved as a mht file... should be able to open it in most internet browsers)
I found a cure for the common cold 7 years ago and it hasn't let me or my friends down since.
Put colloidal Silver in a spray bottle and in an empty nasal mist bottle. (Monatomic Silver works even better)
Then spay it in your throat and up your nose when ever you feel that sore throat feeling
you get before a cold. Works every time.
Do this every few hours for the first day.
And if you get to it to late and the cold has already set in, it will get rid of it in about 3 days instead of 3 weeks.
Sorry for being off subject but this is what they call cold season. And TheBuzz brought it up.
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 21, 2008, 10:48:21 AM
Hi Alan,
Well I didn't read and understand the whole thing but I don't think so. If you look at Tesla patent 568177 have a closer look at the symbol for L2.
A lot of people have speculated on this and never built the device including the source you cited.
I think I understand the patent and the effect has been demonstrated even on this web site several times. I'll probably start a thread in the future but I will do the smart thing and have device in hand. I am working on something that hopefully even a pack of spider monkeys can replicate. :-)
That is the ozone generator.
L2, you mean L in the diagram? That's a capacitor.
Or am I missing something?
Double slit experiment, never heard of it, quite impressive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEzRdZGYNvA
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 21, 2008, 02:47:36 PM
Notice how Sephiroth did not show you the two other pages of the thread? That is so you can't see what leads up to the flame war and who starts it.
Do you see how they withhold information in an attempt to slander and smear me? Now you have to ask yourself, who are they and what is their real purpose in posting at a free energy website that pitches spiritualism?
The rev. Jim Jones couldn't hold a candle to that place and some of those people.
Paranoid... if you think we are trying to supress it then why am I posting it here ;D
Here is page two from google's cache
http://www.box.net/shared/1yi0qlbacb
ps. (google cache from the 16th nov... the rest is posted on the live thread unedited)
@thebuzz
QuoteCanada really needs to do a better job of funding its public education system.
Maybe you should check where your own country is rated on an international level?LOL
Hey your a scientific sort of guy---right, Lets do a little experiment---how about you wear a big old flag from your country on your back then go tour every country in the world----then come back and do the same with a canadian flag.
I hope you can understand the irony here---- You would never make it back alive with an american flag on your back, LOL. Not a hope in hell ;D
I see this debate is about as pointless as the one at the energetic forum where you were harassing everyone and got kicked, LOL .So I will leave you here to argue with yourself and anyone else who may cross your path.
P.S.---keep up the great debunking Im sure everyone here will declare you a genius any time now.
Regards
AC
Dr Stiffler has come to a wall with the SEC and he needs some help getting over that wall.
He found that the SEC stops oscillation when he tries to draw the energy stored in his capacitor
and use it to do work outside of the SEC.
Perhaps the Young Effect can be utilized to draw power from his capacitor without disrupting the oscillation.
Does anyone else have a working copy of the Doctors new SEC, to try this with?
I was just thinking that transferring energy from one capacitor to another may not be noticed by the oscillator.
It may treat it like it's just charging a larger capacitor.
In any case we should all work together and try solving this problem with the Doctor.
Once he gets over this wall it should be possible to build as large a SEC as needed to supply all our energy needs.
I hope others can see the possibilities.
Remember lots of SECs is good for you! ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 21, 2008, 03:15:28 PM
Maybe you are posting it here because you were too ignorant to see it then.
Yeah, that must be it ::)
@alan
QuoteDouble slit experiment, never heard of it, quite impressive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEzRdZGYNvA
LOL, thanks for that video I was laughing so hard I almost fell out of my chair. Yes---it's true! the electrons knew they were being watched and used a vulcan cloak to disguise themselves as waves, LOL. Those damn dirty electrons they are very sneaky and cannot be trusted. Now compare this delusion on video to the simple explanation Thebuzz presented, we may not agree on everything but I agree with him on this topic.
"When cavitated, Iron transmutes from Fe56 to Fe54 and you get the two electrons for free and the iron is the source of mass. "
Prove it. Or at least provide a peer-reviewed reference.
Its always been my policy to tune out negative messages...and the messenger.
It is my belief the majority here do the same.
So...if order to communicate anything to anyone here, making the message enticing to read would be the way to go.
Anything outside that is perceived as mischief...of the troll variety.
I have learned much here from members who communicate their thoughts in a respectful manner...and nothing from negative posters.
That is probably because I stop reading as soon as a post takes a negative turn...and as a rule, I skip over further posts from that member, in debates.
We will always have differences of opinion, but same should be expressed without ego driven ugliness seen on many other forums.
On a free energy forum disruptive persons will be perceived as dis info, who's intent is to fracture debate on sensitive matters.
That type of discourse serves to under mine the spirit of cooperation that exists on this forum, and has no place here.
Regards...
Electrons? What are those?
Never mind the flimsy excuses for your behavior.
It is generally accepted that most significant discoveries came about through error.
This cannot happen when someone with a big ego refuses to allow people to make their own "errors" on the road to discovery.
Act like an adult, and not an adolescent...or leave the board.
If this thread is "ruined" as you say, it is because of your vitriol...and that of some other offending party's...for no other reason.
Regards...
Quote from: Tink on November 21, 2008, 11:58:36 AM
I have a question.
If I have two elco's, one 2000uF and the other one 500uF.
If I charge the 2000uf Elco to 6 Volts and the 500uF Elco to 12 Volts, do they both contain the same amount of energy?
2000uF/ 6V >> Q = 12 mCoulombs, E = 36 mJ
500 uF/ 6V >> Q = 3 mCoulombs, E = 9 mJ
Or, a 4-time bigger Cap has 4 times bigger Charge AND Energy, if both are charged to the same Voltage.
EDIT to add (missed that V2 = 12V) >> yes, the Energies are the same (36mJ)...
So, are there still people believing that Captainpecan's invention is OU? And, please, what exactly is "The Young Effect"?
All I see is a normal (underunity) behavior of a long time understood basic electrotechnics.
Dr. Stiffler's oscillator is quite common circuit, too. No magic there, either.
Do you ever wander why nobody from the orthodox science is never really interested in such concepts? Ok, I've heard for all the conspiracy theories (Big Oil, Illuminati, ..etc..).
And there are people who believe threads like this are undermined by the paid debunkers.... :(
Cheers!;D
TheBuzz, free energy comes from free movement with in a resistance. Free movement is the movement left after the work has been compensated for.
;)
I am still waiting for your reply about what a electron is. You brought it up talking about it saying that
QuoteThere are only about 2000 people in this forum that are familiar with the process.
when that is imposable to know and common sense says other wise.
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 21, 2008, 06:11:28 PM
You got the voltage wrong on the caps based on the question posed. One was 12V and the other was 6V.
Thanks, I saw V2 = 12V just after posting...
Quote
....
In order to produce young effect, one must replace reason, logic and experience with the magical thought of belief.
....
Sad, but true...
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 21, 2008, 06:11:28 PM
I was perfect person to help him clear that up since I invented cranky old man effect which is my gift to the free energy movement..
That being said, he made an error and it was not intentional. So when he gets done hiding under his rock he will come back out to play and we will forgive him until he does it again.
Then, repeat a necessary!
and the most IMPORTANT gift i might add... and amazingly effective... :)
old fart!
:P
thats a joke btw
ist
;)
@ TheBuzz:
Wow man, you really need to at least try and get over yourself. This thread has no value? A lot of information has been exchanged between a lot of folks that would have never happened if not for this topic. Of course, I am excluding the drivel you keep trying to post about. Like you know what you are talking about. Ha ha. You must know by now that the more you pretend to know everything about everyone's ideas and experiments, the more we all realize just how little you really do know.
Stiffler is wrong...The Young Effect is wrong, All Canadian is wrong, Capzero is wrong, Einstein was wrong, Tesla was wrong and evidently an entire discussion board somewhere was all wrong too...every one of them. This leaves just you thinking you are right. The fact that you think think you are right, just shows how little you know at all.
This topic was enjoyable until you went all Myth Busters on everyone here. Hey, you should work for them, they think they are right about everything too. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
Bill
Not too often a stiff like me gets to appear in print in a positive fashion in the same sentence as Tesla...thanks Bill.
After seeing the barely comprehensible disconnected reply to my post and others, I am convinced this poster is here solely to cause disruption and distraction...as you inferred
The best policy is to cut off his need for feed back, and stop addressing him.
They always disappear when that happens...the sooner the better in this case.
Regards...
i will add this to this thred .... if anyone thinkes they have figured it all out you better be sure ... ;)
b4 you post as i have and others have done only TO BE PROVEN WRONG ..... :(
so heres a thought to conclude this thred
just a little JC 4 YA ;)
working in the dark aginst your fello man ... but a sure as god made black and white
"whats done in the dark ... will be brought to the light" .... jonny cash ;)
GODS GONNA CUT YOU DOWN!!!! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1e0EQlQXoEo
IST!
TheBuzz,
Quoteenergy and mass are equivalent
That is correct because everything is energy and energy is just a vibration. So therefore, a electron is a vibration.
Beam me up Scotty. ;)
You guys really need to lay off the peace pipe. I mean, really, smokin' that much stuff on a daily basis just can't be good for you.
Now, we bring "God" into the mix? I doubt God cares about this soap opera.
Talk of "your fellow man" - give it a rest. All of you posers drip with bad intentions like a bad case of the clap.
@nightlife
QuoteThat is correct because everything is energy and energy is just a vibration. So therefore, a electron is a vibration.
I like these quotes ;D
QuoteThe matter of the universe combines to tell the space medium what it is and in
turn the medium tells all matter how to behave. In other words: The matter of the
universe determines the particles and the particles determine the matter.
QuoteEvery charged particle is part of the universe and the universe is part of
each charged particle.
QuoteA fish cannot comprehend the existence of water. He is too deeply immersed in it.
Regards
AC
Buzz, you talked before about L2 (N) in the ozone patent, I cannot see what you mean, please clarify if you want. 8)
Ok Buzz, well, I hope you're going to have fun here,
preaching to the few who remain to listen to your
selfrighteous monologues.
I do not see any value in this thread since you hijacked it
to kiss your own behind.
Have fun, and please stay out of other threads so at least
the rest of us can remain happy in our forum here, and not have
to get annoyed by your sitcking of feathers up your own rectum.
If you really do have something nice and constructive to tell us,
instead of whining about who did what in a flamewar on some
other forum, then why don't you just present it in a very clear
manner? You say you've done so and we just have to search for
it in all of the negative sounding posts of yours, but in the mean time
you refuse to read what Stiffler said for example... If you really want
to make a point about some OU related effect, you could simply
have stated it. Instead you want to make yourself look like some
kind of front soldier in the flame war on OU or something like that.
Most of us really don't care about how great you think you are.
We might care about a clearly described and interesting OU idea though.
Is this what happened in those other fora perhaps? You rocked up
trying to make yourself look like the big knowitall and started
accusing and irritating others, and it turned into a flame war?
Well, whatever, I'm just saying, if you would not act so selfrighteous
and annoying, you might not get such reactions either.
Bye :)
@alan
Buzz may have been refering to the designation of L2---which is a capital "N", hmm ---r2 = R2/! [3N]
or the Primary winding or "source"---"M"
@all
"What we now want is closer contact and better understanding between individuals and communities all over the earth... and the elimination of egoism and pride which is always prone to plunge the world into primeval barbarism and strife."
-Nikola Tesla
Quote from: Neolystic on November 22, 2008, 09:49:18 AM
@all
"What we now want is closer contact and better understanding between individuals and communities all over the earth... and the elimination of egoism and pride which is always prone to plunge the world into primeval barbarism and strife."
-Nikola Tesla
indeed i tryed to drop my EGO long ago...... my pride ... i love nothing more than be proved wrong :)
for when i cannot be proven worng i will know i am correct! ;)
ist
keep it a happy place .....
Tesla's ozone patent is very efficient use of input energy. He was producing ozone to take the place of chlorine which he realized was poisoning people. Municipalities are still insistent on poisioning us because it's easier to pump in poison than it is to maintain an ozone plant. Anyway you see that the primary on the winding is resonanting with the capacitor L. This creates two waves of magnetic disruptions in the core of his transformer for every current reversal in the lc. One going up and one going down. This creates a voltage across plates p that ionizes oxygen into o3 that breaks down into oh- radicals that kills the bugs. Tesla coils I have seen manufactured puts the primary down at the bottom of the secondary and not in the middle where it belongs. This is because the amateurs want big sparks. I saw a discovery program the other night and the biggest Tesla coil in the world didn't seem to be working too well. They had copied the one Tesla used in his shows to get some recognition that he was mastering electromagnetic induction with big sparks to astound the crowd. Fucking idiots duplicate this majic show version and wonder why they cant get transmission of power for more than a few feet. So say we are getting enough input to overcome the ohmic losses in the lc and this is coming from energy input to the spark gap. The whole system is ringing at 20khz or more. Where is the energy gain? From the magnetic field collapse.
If the magnetic field never collapses you don't get any ringing. What makes the magnetic field collapse? The rest of the Universe wants it collapsed. We don't have to use energy to make it collapse we just stop using energy and she does the rest. Voltage is induced as a product of the change in the magnetic field surrounding a conductor. Nothing to do with current or resistor heating or any of that horseshit. You can change the magnetic field inside a transformer core without one electron moving. Take a torroidal choke and feed it a frequency that the choke is designed choke or arrest. The current never flows but the voltage or force sure as hell does it's work on the torroidal choke core magnetic saturation change.
Quote from: sparks on November 22, 2008, 12:56:19 PM
Tesla's ozone patent is very efficient use of input energy. He was producing ozone to take the place of chlorine which he realized was poisoning people. Municipalities are still insistent on poisioning us because it's easier to pump in poison than it is to maintain an ozone plant. Anyway you see that the primary on the winding is resonanting with the capacitor L. This creates two waves of magnetic disruptions in the core of his transformer for every current reversal in the lc. One going up and one going down. This creates a voltage across plates p that ionizes oxygen into o3 that breaks down into oh- radicals that kills the bugs. Tesla coils I have seen manufactured puts the primary down at the bottom of the secondary and not in the middle where it belongs. This is because the amateurs want big sparks. I saw a discovery program the other night and the biggest Tesla coil in the world didn't seem to be working too well. They had copied the one Tesla used in his shows to get some recognition that he was mastering electromagnetic induction with big sparks to astound the crowd. Fucking idiots duplicate this majic show version and wonder why they cant get transmission of power for more than a few feet. So say we are getting enough input to overcome the ohmic losses in the lc and this is coming from energy input to the spark gap. The whole system is ringing at 20khz or more. Where is the energy gain? From the magnetic field collapse.
If the magnetic field never collapses you don't get any ringing. What makes the magnetic field collapse? The rest of the Universe wants it collapsed. We don't have to use energy to make it collapse we just stop using energy and she does the rest. Voltage is induced as a product of the change in the magnetic field surrounding a conductor. Nothing to do with current or resistor heating or any of that horseshit. You can change the magnetic field inside a transformer core without one electron moving. Take a torroidal choke and feed it a frequency that the choke is designed choke or arrest. The current never flows but the voltage or force sure as hell does it's work on the torroidal choke core magnetic saturation change.
im kinda takeing a break from posting but how can i when you write shit like this sparks ;D ;D
kinda at the bench ;)
playing as i usually do :)
ist!
;)
Quote from: allcanadian on November 19, 2008, 12:28:49 PM
@mscoffmanWRONG----the total work performed by the energy initially present is all that matters.
WRONG----the total work performed by the energy initially present is all that matters, the context of what happens in the circuit is irrelevant.
WRONG----Force=mass x acceleration----things do not accelerate for no apparent reason ;D, Work=force x distance. Friction is a force in opposion to motion, these include air friction rising as the square of velocity, eddy currents induced in the copper metal of the coils by the rotor magnets and bearing friction. This friction requires real work to overcome and this work must come from "somewhere".
Allcanadian;
I previously held you in respect, but not any more.
What you are saying is true, but only for the energy end product - which is heat!
How a circuit gets there is definitely dependent on it's configuration!
The next thing you need to notice is that the rotor and coils in question
is *not* a motor. Subsequent and extended interaction between the magnetic
rotor and coils is guaranteed because the coil are never switched off with
a commutator switch based on rotor phase. It makes the full rotor activity
part of the circuit activity.
So you are wrong, but your ideas don't seem easily correctable.
:S:MarkSCoffman
@alan
I had this on my hardisk and it is like the schematic you are showing. Maybe it serves to clarify something to you.
Jesus
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 22, 2008, 12:49:34 PM
L2 - Notice the shorted coil that surrounds the inductor?
Why do you think that coil is shorted? Surely that is the output of the transformer...
and I have a question about your theory that the extra energy is coming from the mass of the core... how do the electrons from the core find their way into the circuit through an insulator? Or have I misunderstood?
Thanks all, gonna give it a read and thought.
This thread looks familiar .. I've seen it somewhere else...
Here it is: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4540.0;topicseen
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 22, 2008, 01:28:54 PM
I wonder if that was what Tesla was thinking when he developed "The Death Ray". Tesla was a man and like any other failiable.
"When put into operation, Dr. Tesla said, this latest invention of his would make war impossible" - New York Times 1937, in an article about the "Death Ray"
I'd venture to say that it was, in fact, what Tesla was thinking.
" Quote from: TheBuzz on Today at 06:28:54 PM
I wonder if that was what Tesla was thinking when he developed "The Death Ray". Tesla was a man and like any other failiable."
So...we are down to besmirching the integrity of dead guys.
Can we go lower ?
Yes we can...and all who continue dialogue with this character are going just where you are being led.
Just consider for a moment, that you are allowing someone to manipulate and monopolize your time and your thought process...in a negative way
Regards...
Cap-Z-ro:
Well said sir.
Bill
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 22, 2008, 02:14:36 PM
The energy "that must come from somewhere" comes from the core of the transformer. An exception to the law of force is "if the mass is moving at or near quantum speeds".
We move the mass at quantum speed by crashing two magnetic waves into each other which doubles the speed. The doubling of speed and crashing waves produces a cavitation, which results in electron clustering and then electron cascade effect. That is the "somewhere" that the energy comes from.
Christ.. go back and read everything I have been posting to these free energy web sites for the last year or even this thread, it is all there in black and white.
Extra energy comes from the aether. Mass just releases it, or allows it to be released - however you look at it. Not that you are wrong, just a different perspective.
I do like Buzz's divergence of attention to those little shrimp that figured out that they were living in a sea of pressure. Now the shrimp could have wasted alot of energy chasing his prey and try to mangle the thing in it's claw but instead it creates a pressure wave that cavitates the ocean and the plasmic flow as the vacuum bubble collapses electrocutes it's prey. hmmmmmmm
@ all
I dont know what is happening on this forum. Every time that I make a good apportation of information. Somebody chamges the situatiion in a way that it seems that I am posting without a reason important things that seems unrelated of what is been talked about.
But I want to make sure that the situation when I posted the information was different than what appears at the present.
For me it does not matter. I will simply will restrain myself to give information anymore. And I will change my avatar for one that is more on accordance to what somebody wants me to be seen. It is okay!!
Jesus
so as i predicted captainpecan has sulked back into the woods without a peep now that it has been generally accepted that his so called discovery was in fact just a wrong idea with a wrong process and wrong conclusion
so now he is to shamed to come back and say sorry i was wrong thank you for showing me why and helping me not waste my time
and all the other sheep can go in search of their new shepard
and now it has turned into thebuzz circlejerk
bzzzzzz
@Buzz
QuoteRather than look up the Tesla patent, I just did a screen shot and posted that schematic as an example assuming that the L2 inductor in that image had a shorted secondary.
LOL, ---"Rather than look up the Tesla patent"---why doesn't this surprise me.
Quote from: yoyo on November 22, 2008, 11:28:14 PM
so as i predicted captainpecan has sulked back into the woods without a peep now that it has been generally accepted that his so called discovery was in fact just a wrong idea with a wrong process and wrong conclusion
so now he is to shamed to come back and say sorry i was wrong thank you for showing me why and helping me not waste my time
and all the other sheep can go in search of their new shepard
and now it has turned into thebuzz circlejerk
bzzzzzz
I'm actually quite sick of remarks like this. And I dont actually remember you predicting me hiding in the woods without a peep, unless you sent me that message. Where's your OU device? Since you know it all, please share. How about you post your work so everyone can flame you and make threats for change...
I have my reasons for not posting. Part of it is because I'm actually spending my time at the bench, actually doing. Instead of spending my time in this forum trying to tear everyone down, and act like I know it all. I have the ability to learn from mistakes, and to head the advice of those who actually know what the hell they are talking about trying to stear me in the right direction and I really dont give a sh!t what you think about it.
The funny part about this is that most of you still think this whole thread is about an equation. And god forbid someone tries to share their work! OMG... Let's trash them as much as possible and act like a bunch of little babies pissing and moaning. I used to think this was a great place to share theories and idea's. I thought it was a great place to learn, as I thought all of us had the same ending goal. But it's quite obvious that there is an enormous amount of people in here that dont even believe free energy is possible, and are doing whatever they can to try and destroy anyone who is trying to find it. If you dont believe free energy is out there, then what the F*** are you doing on overunity.com!
Part of the reason I dont care to post here anymore is the simple fact that there really is no point. It's quite obvious that even if someone posts the best free energy device known to man, they are only going to get destroyed for it, belittled, trashed, and threatened. Unfortunately it appears that advertising is all that is important here anymore, because the real members that care sure dont matter. There are many flamers here that deserve to be banned, and I think it is a great injustice to those here actually trying to be constructive and move forward towards making free energy a reality for all of us. The really sad part is that I know someone here has a good viable free energy device, but there is no way in hell they are going to post it here because the moderator will not moderate! So thanks to the flamers not being banned, everyone will suffer. Thanks a lot. I've got work to do, I'm wasting my time even replying to this nonsense.
@all
Thanks to those who have criticized in a PRODUCTIVE way! It keeps me learning, and at the bench, where discoveries are made!
Anyone interested in how my work progresses, pm me, I'm always glad to kick around theories, because I am definitely not sharing any of it in here anymore.
The newbie poster/flamer yoyo is likely a creation of the buzz poster/flamer.
It is a common tactic for trolls to create new identities to use in 'tag-team' fashion...while the core clone tries to assume a helpful 'good guy' role.
To any 'newbies':
If you choose to enter a forum with negativity, you too will be perceived as a clone of a flaming troll.
According to the above criteria, yoyo is a clone troll...so just put him/it on ignore also.
Regards...
Looks like it about time to get the boots out.
What I see in the patent in question is a very efficient use of input energy to extract energy from the air in between plates p. Starting at b with capacitor L discharged. Current flows from b through primary m to one side of capacitor L through the electrolyte to A until L is all charged up. Simple charging of a capacitor but Tesla ballasts the charging circuit with his motor c. Just like capt pecan did. The motor advances a certain #of degrees while L is charging and Tesla times this advance with the charge level of L so that when L is fully charged contacts kg close or at least get a superconducting plasma going between them and L discharges into M an inductor which loads up and recharges L and L then discharges into M etc. and this undamped resonating wave goes on until ohmic losses or inefficiency of the LC tank leave capacitor L exhausted of charge. Every core saturation change at M causes transformer secondary N to charge capacitor P. Now this high voltage is enough to rip electrons off of air and nitrogen molecules and the electrons head toward the voided metal p plate while the + ions stay put or slowly migrate away from voided plate p. Meanwhile the electrons as they accelerate towards voided plate p give off photons and xrays and all sorts of stuff. The ionized oxygen molecules form a three ringed atomic setup (ozone) and the nitrogen becomes oxidized also and any water vapor gets ripped apart into hydrogen and oxygen etc. This all happens from a pulse of dc back through the motor c. I would say that the highvoltage pulse experienced between plates p is a catalyst in the exoenergy reaction going on in this capacitors electrolyte. The energy is stored in the mass, the voltage is the power, and current is just one form of work we can get shuffling electrical "pressure" around.
@thebuzz
"WE MEASURE CAPACITOR ENERGY IN JOULES NOT CHARGE!"
actually, you can't measure cap joules, it only equals the work done by voltage, and consists of a first order derivative. If a charge anomaly is being observed (by user nul-points, for example), the cap energy formula must be reconsidered using multi order derivative, which then includes field or flux acceleration.
(maybe I am wrong, just trying to make a point to think about)
[quote a
Quote from: allcanadian on November 23, 2008, 05:09:40 AM
@BuzzLOL, ---"Rather than look up the Tesla patent"---why doesn't this surprise me.
You know, the motor reminds me of a newman and bedini motor, with it's rotating HV contacts/actuators.
@TheBuzz
You keep mentioning this cavitating theory.
Were can I learn more about what you are refering to?
It may coincide with my theory using different wording.
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 20, 2008, 12:56:49 PM
This dog is chasing his tail and when the dog gets dizzy and tired from spinning in circles, the rats will come out to feed. In the end, and there is always and end, the dog chasing his tail loses the battle.
On the other hand, you could put the dog on a tread mill, feed it dead rats, sunshine and water and the dog would produce free energy. It is all about technique.
you gonna talk about the tred mill it is of intrest to me .... indeed i have some constructive thoughts to do this ;)
might your idea contain 2 open ends.... 8) to allow the RATS to be eaten :)
ist
cavatition is the bottom of it ..... but i beleave it is actually called BALANCED RYTMIYH INTERCHANGE... UNITY OPERATION ... :)
as per walter russel.....
guys, stop giving that "Buzz" character the attention he so clearly craves.
He likes to post tons of text and likes to call others stupid and accuse them
of being rude while he does exactly that. If you'd all just stop replying to the guy,
he'll probably go away and annoy others on those other fora he is so anxious
to mention. And we'll have one less annoying poster on our nice forum.
;)
there is but 1 reason i ask....
he has made a comment almost NO ONE EVER HAS!!!!!!!
there for he deserves our att.... but he sure can DROP THE RUDE SH!T anytime now...
:)
ist
@ the buzz
can you clearly explain what you percive dead rats to be ....?
ist
Buzz again referred to an interesting patent. It was a patent for a magnetic magnifier. Now everyone here knows that we can take this certain emwave energy called light and use glass to magnify it and burn up stuff. Ever look at a microwave receiver. Parabolic dish. Emwave magnifier. Tesla tower emwave magnifier. What wave frequency was he magnifying? Down in his radial tunnels with insulated steel pipes running out from a core. What em wave frequency is most prevalent there?
The Buzz
Perhaps you could define cavitation as it appears in' your 'Head ?
Thanks [I Hope!!]
Chet
Aha, so to see cavitation at work, we must look at your head?
Lol ;D
@The Buzz You made mention of a pump and nozzle in Cavitation ?
Can you explain ?
Chet
BUZZ Cavitation in nature? [your post] http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc
Absolutely Amazing!! Almost unbelievable
Chet
The emwaves I was referring to is infrared wave energy. This wave field is everywhere on this rock inside outside coming in going out. I had a birkeland current going one day and the thing was sucking the heat right out of my hand. You talk about a cavitation you could hear these reversed jets making a sucking sound. I betya if Tesla had got Wardenclyffe up and going he would have been running one of the largest heat to electricity converters in the world.
Below I included a diagram of my understanding of a birkeland current.
It is an electric current that results in a magnetic confinement of a proton field. The electrons do not return to elemental type orbits but circumnavigate the entire ionzed core. A plasma field of such a construct can last a long long time. Billiions of years before there is enough emwave stimulation to bust up the resonance.
@ sparks:
Plasma field that will last a long, long time? This sounds like you are describing the sun. (I am being serious here) Is the fusion taking place on/in the sun related to what you are talking about?
Bill
intresting to say the least ...
there is so much to learn ...... it is just wild....
well just picked up my 3rd amp so back to the bench to go at the 3 freq combo ....
lol
hey i also picked up 4 low pass crossovers tuned to 1.8mh @4ohms /350hz.... lamanited cores my amps are 20w bridged 4ohm load
rotation as a biproduct anyone....
ist
time to assemble
i got 3 freq gennys too... sine and square....
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 24, 2008, 11:46:13 AM
Post every free energy patent you can think of that uses a shorted coil in the process.
What appears to be the latest Hubbard coil:
http://www.rexresearch.com/barbat/barbat.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/barbat/barbat.htm)
To my knowledge, the Hubbard coil has no shorted coils, but it has a spark gap (distributor) - the data on it is a little sparse.
What about devices that do nothave a shorted coil?
@Pirate
Yep. And when the currents screw up because the sun's top plasma hemisphere is rotating one way and the other hemisphere the other (with a number of problems occuring at the hemispheric slip at the equator) we get mass coronal ejections. Sunspots where the plasma cant go anymore because the magnetic tunnel is still there stay around a long time too.
I also believe that fusion is one process that is exoenergy going on but the main deal is emwave ordering that is so ordered that it leaves an energy vacuum of sorts. Something like putting the entire vibrations comprising all of Earth's atoms into the aether occupied by one proton. The escaping radiant energy is just a byproduct of this space densification or contraction. Just a matter of time before everything lines up and poof goes the sun.
I had tried explaining this to @z.monkey in the Infinity Coil thread to use such a shorting system with his Hubbard Coil build. Something robust like a distributor would have been ideal. Here...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5144.msg123027#msg123027
It is in fact very possible that such a "short then release" on a high induction coil would cause a compression and decompression, at which time the decompression happens faster then the actual matter can re-adjust, leaving a vacuum or internal "cavity".
Consider an inductor will spark when the connection is removed whereas a capacitor will spark when the connection is applied. Then there is the question of resonance.
All of this is pure Tesla.
@TheBuzz
Do you think one could cause cavitation to take place inside a fluorescent tube, using the right frequency and a strong magnetic field?
I have noticed that sending high voltage DC pulses into a fluorescent tube cause dark rings to move through the tube.
You see these dark rings separating bars of light.
A very interesting observation.
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 26, 2008, 12:14:51 AM
Here is a good example of a shorted coil being used to produce 150% OU that I just spotted and does the magnetic field duplication:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cka7qb0zoc8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cka7qb0zoc8)
Come on, now!
Resolution is +/- 0.5W and considering just that, he is already well within the error margin.
Add the cos power factor issue and voila!
Where is OU?!
Cheers,
Tinu
TINU Thanes work bears a ' MUCH' !!! closer look
Chet
Hi,
I’m not expecting significant errors due to non RMS measurements of output power, as long as the frequency is close to 50-60Hz and the feeding signal is close to a sinus (from mains). However, on one hand the power meter is simply not enough sensitive (0.5W in respect to 1W means 50%!) and, on the other hand, the coils (transformer) remain an inductive load regardless of the resistor(s) used, hence the power factor issue.
Cheers,
Tinu
i add this here cuz it fits.... 8)
Quote from: wattsup on November 26, 2008, 07:42:13 PM
Maybe there is some hidden TPUs in the attic. lol
lol..
how about here ....
i got 1 more song for you all ;D
little bit of red.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL7los3eD7c
HEY YOU SAY YOU WANNA START OVER AGIN... like i ever wanted it ...to be any diffrent ....
stop pretending everythings alright ....
get out of bed your little sleeply heads your black and white needs a little bit of red ......... ;) shall i add some RED MARKER?
IST!
http://keelynet.com/tesla/00568177.pdf
http://keelynet.com/tesla/00568176.pdf
http://keelynet.com/tesla/00568178.pdf
http://keelynet.com/tesla/00568179.pdf
http://keelynet.com/tesla/00568180.pdf
:) ;) ;D 8) :o :D
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 26, 2008, 09:34:56 PM
Hi Tinu,
I understand your critique of the measurement and agree with what you are saying.
I also understand that the shorted coil acts as an atomic accelerator and how that produces a (as Sparks would puit it - non-local) mass to atomic energy conversion. Ironically, Thane calls it an acceleration coil. Not sure if he means because it mechanically accelerates his motor or atomically accelerates hsi atoms or both. Regardless, this is a method used in many free energy devices that have been produced and verified in the past and so I find it interesting and in need of further investigation.
What protocaol would satisfy your measurement requirement for accuracy on such a device? Obviously an amp meter capeable of reading ma scale but what else?
Hi,
Thanks!
Regarding the question:
1. Waveforms/oscilloscope.
or
2. DC â€" AC â€" DC conversion (including correction as per converters and rectifiers real efficiencies) and mathematical error analysis.
or
3. heat (calorimetric) measurements.
Anyway, a power meter would be more than enough for me at this stage, assuming it is used in a range where its resolution falls well bellow the error margin of what’s to be proved (i.e. 5-10% error would be perfectly acceptable for a ‘proven’ 50%OU factor, wouldn’t it?)
Cheers,
Tinu
Wow, after all the fuss, this thread seems to be
going nowhere really fast! :D
Except for some suggestive remarks on cavitation
plasma experiments, and a totally vague suggestion
of Thanes Peripiteia effect thrown in seemingly
randomly just to spice the near dead thread up,
we're now down to nothing.
Great breakthrough information there Buzz! Lol ;)
Its what I always say about the young ones .. not enough poop to go the distance :P
as simple as it is here is your dose of the good stuff... ;D
fill 1 cap ... dump 1 cap to a coil... colapse the Field of the coil ... lol collect what comes back in a second cap... dump the second cap in the second coil.... collect what comes back in a cap lol and repeat till you are satisfied ... then take the last cap in the chain and dump it to a step up tranny to charge the first cap up and do another loop of the ring .... 8) this is a closed loop input side started from 1 charge.... of a cap ;D
and you do not nesasary need the step up tranny :P lol
also output is a tuned coil... you will draw the hemf off both coils... when in resonance ... ;) hemf on the input side is your power to self run.. and other side is out put your out put is dependant upon the freq of the coil .... if you can keep your coils with in 7Hz range you can tap magnetic as well 8)
ist
:P
let a single charge of cap 1 be first considered lol!!!! ;)
welcome to balanced rhythmic interchange !! :)
Quote from: innovation_station on November 27, 2008, 08:11:17 AM
as simple as it is here is your dose of the good stuff... ;D
fill 1 cap ... dump 1 cap to a coil... colapse the feild of the coil ... lol collect what comes back in a second cap... dump the second cap in the second coil.... collect what comes back in a cap lol and repete till you are satisifited ... then take the last cap in the chain and dump it to a step up tranny to charge the first cap up and do another loop of the ring .... 8) this is a closed loop input side started from 1 charge.... of a cap ;D
and you do not nessarly need the step up tranny :P lol
also output is a tuned coil... you will draw the hemf off both coils... when in resosance ... ;) hemf on the input side is your power to self run.. and other side is out put your out put is dependant upon the freq of the coil .... if you can keep your coils with in 7hz range you can tap magnetic as well 8)
ist
:P
let a single charge of cap 1 be first considered lol!!!! ;)
Booyahhh!!
IST is smoking the good stuff today :P
Are you seriously suggesting that the self induction of a
self oscillating LC circuit will produce more energy
than the original energy that was stored in the C to begin with,
and that coupling a number of these in a row with the
self induction of each previous coil being used to pulse the
next, abd that this will produce inceased charge????
How?
Quote from: Koen1 on November 27, 2008, 08:18:43 AM
Are you seriously suggesting that the self induction of a
self oscillating LC circuit will produce more energy
than the original energy that was stored in the C to begin with,
and that coupling a number of these in a row with the
self induction of each previous coil being used to pulse the
next, abd that this will produce inceased charge????
How?
does your black and white need a little more red??
ist?
study the OZONE GENERATOR pat i have said this much... it took me over 1 month of study on that pattend to grasp it ;) it most certanly was not just handed to me as i hand it to YOU!!!!!!!! i worked WITH OUT MONEY and damn hard to figure this out ......
THANK YOU :) ;) 8)
ist!
If you look at the patents that inno posted a common device arrangement Tesla used was to align the capacitor connected to the dc line with his motorized spark gap. Time and time again we see the words near on or around the scource of magnetic disruption. This capacitor is the same one that is fed dc current through 2 chokes or what Tesla first called coils of high selfinductance. Most times he used motor coils to get his monies worth out of choking. On energizing the mains this primary capacitor gets charged through 2 chokes. So the capacitor is trying to pull a whole bunch of amps from the line but the chokes don't let it because they "resist changes in current". They do not resist changes in voltage.
Or tension as Tesla would call it. So as Tesla alternately discharges and charges the capacitor in his load circuits his line just sees voltage waves going in and out.
(This is a nice way around a watt meter. Your power factor drops to zilch but who cares you got the voltage and that's what they suppose to be supplying you with the current is optional ; not illegal that I know of it's called reactive energy) Now Tesla takes this capacitor and shorts it out through a spark gap and transformer primary but makes sure the capacitor he is shorting is near the spark gap. Why is it important to locate the capacitor you are draining physically near the device that is shorting it? Tesla wants high frequency high voltage. He can get the highvoltage with his air core transformer and the frequency can go up once the ciruit starts resonating but why the cap near the spark gap?
@ sparks
is the cap charged from the surrounding elcetrostatic/magnetic/radient/die electric/aether feild disruptions? :)
ist!
Capacitor has mass spark gap lots of dielectric flux. (Thankyou G for correcting me on the ion field dielectric effect) something is going to get communicated between the rest of the Universe and that ion field. Might as well put some mass in the way that responds favorably to the zpe energy field warp the spark gap is up to. Captain Pecan sparks his two capacitors when he does that parallel cap deal. He ends up with the same charge in each capacitor combined and possibly a little more from the electrolyte soak. But Buzz pointed out his gain was from the plasma creation. When a cavitation bubble collapses a plasma insues because of the way atoms respond to time compressed acceleration forces. When you rip the electrons off of an atom the protons inside the neucleus arent happy. Imagine all the mass surrounding the sun gone in a nanosecond. I imagine there would be some sort of solar activity after such an event.
Oh really?
I thought what Buzz pointed out, and what was confirmed by others
like Yucca for example, was that there was no extra energy,
no energy gain, and that the apparent increase in energy turned out
to be a calculation error due to not taking into account the increase
in capacitance when two identical capacitors are connectd in parallel...
But now all of a sudden you claim there is energy gain in Captainpecan's
circuit? And now all of a sudden it has to do with plasma cavitation?
Sure.
Where then, is the plasma in CptPecan's circuit? Where does it cavitate?
And why then did Buzz and others drown CptPecan in replies that he was
completely wrong?
Why is that "ozone generator" patent now considered to be of importance
again, while only a little while ago in this thread it was repeatedly stated
to have nothing to do with this whatsoever, and certainly not be OU?
Do you guys enjoy playing three card monte or something? ;)
Quote from: innovation_station on November 27, 2008, 08:39:41 AM
does your black and white need a little more red??
No, your posts need a little bit more sense. You're still being cryptic,
you still don't clearly say what you appear to want me and others to think of,
and you're again starting to act like you know a lot more than everyone else,
while you acted all humble after Buzz had flamed you for acting like an OU guru.
At the time you even said you have a lot to learn and you were off on your
suggestive remarks concerning your intricate knowledge of Tesla style "OU"
circuits and tricks.
So now you've built up enough confidence to start acting like the guru again?
Only because you posed some links to a copy of some Tesla patents?
Fine with me, but then don't act like I'm stupid when I ask you to elucidate your
extremely vague and suggestive posts. When you do that, you're just being an ass.
Quotestudy the OZONE GENERATOR pat i have said this much... it took me over 1 month of study on that pattend to grasp it ;) it most certanly was not just handed to me as i hand it to YOU!!!!!!!!
Did you even read that sentence? You're telling me that you're not going to give me any info because it took you over a month to
figure it out, and then you tell me that you're handing it to me? No, you're not. You're not handing me anything.
Yes, you posted copies of a few patents. You still haven't "handed" anyone any clear info at all.
Quotei worked WITH OUT MONEY and damn hard to figure this out ......
Oh, right, and you think the rest of us has got
a trust fund and an R&D group to help us figure out stuff or something? Get real. We're all poor bastards like you trying to figure out
some way of getting OU.
QuoteTHANK YOU :) ;) 8)
My pleasure. :)
@koen There is something about this Little bug
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc [Most recently posted bye The Buzz]
No wires ,no circuits,no[apparent polarity differences[lightning] just some whoop ass cavitation
Glad he hasn't evolved a bigger claw yet
Chet
Buzz's cavitation will result in a plazma which results in mass to energy conversion. The photon emission xrays and other wave energy coming from the spark gap should be an indication that a relativistic happening is going on. The pop you here on an am radio when you turn off a light switch should be an indication of the very powerful effects of plasma formation. Physicists can call this altering the spacetime curvature about the plasma if they want (seems the big plasma ball the sun is good at doing this) but it happens and the rest of the field about this event shifts it's radiant energy field. Look at the first abomb. It is an impolsion and some of the selfconfining plasmas drifted around for days. They got a rotor that is made to exploit cavitation and the heat gain from the plasma formation powers a boiler. Some fireman did the math and the energy in is less then the energy out. They were just spinning a cavitator.
Can't agree with you Koen. This is a great thread...loads of interesting ideas being bounced around, and why not. And good videos from the captain at the start, which clearly got everyone thinking, no matter what the conclusions may be.
Hope you continue to post your work Captain. I found it interesting, and you can see from the number of replies that many others did also. Good luck!
Communicate, illuminate, resonate ;)
@Ramset: yeah, the Pistol Shrimp is a cool animal, but besides it being
an example of how nature tends to find a use for everything, it is still
no OU device.
We can do what the Pistol Shrimp does, and in fact we cause cavitation
of water with just about every ship screw. We don't find that amazing
nor OU either.
Sonoluminescence and fusion experiments using cavitation (most often
sonically induced in such experiments) are very interesting indeed,
the Buzzer has a point there, but besides that I know of no experiments
where OU nor actual sustainable energy production through cavitation
induced fusion have been achieved.
If someone does know of such experimental results I would love to hear
about them.
@Sparks: As far as I recall the first a-bombused high explosives wrapped around
the subcritical plutonium core, and sealed in a strong sphere, so that the core
got compressed to critical by the pressure of the high explosive around it when
the latter was detonated. So there's an explosion that compresses the plutionium.
Which goes critical and says BOOM.
If you wish to call the compression of something through the use of explosives
an implosion, then you're right.
Can you please tell more about the "they" and their "rotor that is made to exploit cavitation
and the heat gain from the plasma formation powers a boiler" setup, and how that
"spinning a cavitator" yields OU? It sounds like you've got documentation on that..?
Now that sounds like you're talking about something at least, and not just
naming some interesting phenomena. :)
@flathunter: You seem to have missed that CaptainPecan hasn't been around in the
thread for a while since he was flamed and attacked for posting his findings and
making the simple mistake of viewing the voltage increase as energy gain without
taking the capacitancs into account, and that the thread is now taken over by theBuzz,
and a few others who juggle vague remarks amongst eachother that have nothing to do with
CaptainPecans circuit nor videos anymore.
At this point in the thread there is apparently some fascination with cavitation.
Which is basically interesting subject matter, but it would be nice if a clear point
or path of reasoning were described so a constructive discussion could be conducted
on how we might implement cavitation in a device intended to produce OU.
With my admittedly cynical remarks I was trying to stimulate the guys to stop the
vague and suggestive remarks strategy and turn into the path of clearly formulated
discussion. But it seems posting cryptic hints is the trend now... ;)
Koen the 5000+ degree pulse the shrimp makes [Plasma] is not in the same league with prop cavitation
O.U. I sure think so !! [we're not talking about 30,000 hp motors turning a prop] its a BUG
I would love to learn more about this cavitation and how it applies to O.U.
Chet
The newest cavitator the corporate owned scientists haven't got to yet. Guarantee Keely's sympathetic vibrations cause a little cavitation and plasma.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxnEQssJ4FQ
some times the truth it a little too much to chew.... ;) tell me about it ....
wonderful vid sparks wits does a great job of explaining things.... dosent he ...
ist!
Sparks, I would love to replicate that seemingly simple cavitation device
Buzz any thoughts on this?
Chet
HHo king posted something on waters resonant freq. being between 30- 50 khz depending on whats in it
@Koen1
Ok, The CP's OU device concept failed in a basis of most common power/energy missconceptions..
So, why is the cavitation being discussed ??? Forgive me...
The OU shrimp is from a different story...
Quote from: sparks on November 27, 2008, 02:00:33 PM
The newest cavitator the corporate owned scientists haven't got to yet. Guarantee Keely's sympathetic vibrations cause a little cavitation and plasma.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxnEQssJ4FQ
Did you do your homeworks?
Or at least have you read some of the comments?
sunsarahgladys (1 month ago)
" if you ask im with your email he will ask you to send money to help them loll"
AlmostHydrogen (2 months ago)
"if you dont know if its real or fake, then why post something that could be fake?
perhaps before posting vids, you should make sure they are legit. Just a thot. "
That device is an utterly fake and it’s better not confusing and/or misinforming people around.
Ok?
Cheers,
Tinu
TINU the theory of how this COULD work is infantile
to call it a fake is irresponsible
yes Mr Thrapp should release this to the public
Chet
Quote from: ramset on November 27, 2008, 02:33:03 PM
TINU the theory of how this COULD work is infantile
to call it a fake is irresponsible
yes Mr Thrapp should release this to the public
Chet
I regret but still consider now and ever that promoting a device before making sure it is legit is irresponsible.
Cheers,
Tinu
P.S. This thread has already reached its predicted 40 pages, which is much longer than I’ve expected. ;)
I’m out. Good luck everyone!
The thing Koen isn't getting is that you can magnify energy like when you use a magnifying glass to magnify the energy from the sun onto like your hand and start burning it. The cavitation takes the chemical energy of that little shrimps muscle and magnifies a small portion of that energy into the collapse of the bubble. The magnification of this energy causes effects on the mass not unlike the effect of burning your hand with the magnifying glass. Light, chemical reactions, all sorts of shit going on when that bubble collapses that would not unless you magnify or time compress the reaction of the rest of the Universe into this small field. Fuck fusion energy we got shrimp energy! One thing about the boiler deal. He probably should check his water for a ph change cause the heat is just one thing he rung out of the water mass. You have hydroxides and hydrogen peroxides (which is a fuel) maybe a little hydrogen gas off the top. Transmutated carbon to iron if the water had any volatiles in them. Beta radiation. Nitrogen oxides from the combustion process. ETC ETC ETC.
Quote from: ramset on November 27, 2008, 01:43:15 PM
Koen the 5000+ degree pulse the shrimp makes [Plasma] is not in the same league with prop cavitation
No, that is true, it is more in the league of the sonoluminescence experiments I mentioned.
Temperature-wise that is, because the mechanism does make use of physical displacement of the water
and that is not unlike prop cavitation.
But to give you some clearer links on the relationship between our sonoluminescence experiments
and the shrimps' cavitation "pistol action", I shall provide a link or two for your interest.
Now first of all the schwikipedia even has these factoids correct:
"The shrimp snaps a specialized claw shut to create a cavitation wave that generates
acoustic pressures of up to 80 kPa at a distance of 4 cm from the claw. The pressure wave is strong enough to kill small fish.[7] It corresponds to a zero to
peak pressure level of 218 decibels relative to one micropascal (dB re 1 μPa), equivalent to a zero to peak source level of 190 dB re 1 μPa at the standard reference distance of 1 m. Au and Banks measured peak to peak source levels between 185 and 190 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m, depending on the size of the claw.[8] Similar values are reported by Ferguson and Cleary.[9] The duration of the click is less than 1 millisecond.
The snap can also produce sonoluminescence from a collapsing cavitation bubble. As it collapses, the cavitation bubble reaches temperatures of over 5000 K.[10] The light is of lower intensity than the light produced by typical sonoluminescence and is not visible to the naked eye. It is most likely a by-product of the shock wave with no biological significance. However, it is the first known instance of an animal producing light by this effect." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_shrimp)
And here's a little link to some sonoluminescence info: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7029/full/nature03361.html (Oh, sorry, I see one may only
read that article when registered... perhaps someone can find another version of the article?)
Here's some more info on "single bubble sonoluminescence", as these cavitation experiments are called, and their relation to plasma:
Let's start simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16572452
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16090812
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/pdf/nature.030205.pdf
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:15744295
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/72/1/012
And here's what schwikipedia has to say about "bubble fusion", which is obviously related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion
In any case, my point is basically that the Pistol Shrimp uses
sonically induced cavitation which is exactly what they're doing in the
luminescence (should actually read: localised plasma generation inside cavitationally generated microbubbles) experiments. The shrimp
uses its claw to produce the abrupt pressure wave in the water, a.k.a. sound.
Doesn't mean it's necessarily OU;
We can also produce very small localised zones of extreme energy density, but that doesn't mean we aren't inputting the energy.
I really think the shrimp inputs all the energy needed to make its claw snap shut, which provides all the energy for the sonic pressure
wave and this in turn causes the local cavitation of water which can sometimes result in very small and localised zones of such
energy density that momentary plasma flashes can sometimes be seen.
But yes, it is a cool trick for a shrimp, certainly! ;D
Tinu
Then the reverse would also be true
Chet
@ ramset,
What would exactly be the reverse?
@all,
Now that I see we are in optics, one final joke before leaving:
“A magnifying glass may make it seem bigger but it surely ain’t get any harder!†;D
lol and take care.
Quote from: ramset on November 27, 2008, 02:21:36 PM
Sparks, I would love to replicate that seemingly simple cavitation device
Buzz any thoughts on this?
Chet
HHo king posted something on waters resonant freq. being between 30- 50 khz depending on whats in it
sounds like a good test for my soon finished 3 freq 60 w total power controller board :)
sound and or magnetic interactions .. verry easly built ;)
ist
or if we can get our hho cell matched to the impeadience of the amps.. ;)
@Tinu
The magnifying glass bends the emwaves we call light and focuses them on a small field. Without the MAGNIFICATION of the diffused emwave energy you wouldnt be able to start your skin ablase or heatup a leaf to combustion state. The solar people use parabolic disks to MAGNIFY the solar emwave energy to heat things up. The guy with the resonating center element creates pressure waves just like the little shrimp that creates cavitation of the fluid which focuses the wave energy into spots and then the water gets hot enough in those spots to do things like burn nitrogen and oxygen and other fun stuff that wouldnt happen unless that spot got real hot. The clicking noise and the guys pressure waves do the same thing .Magnifying diffuse energy distribution surrounding a mass field to concentrated energy distribution that results in changing energy in that field from a diffused state to a concentrated state which we can use to do work. This magnification of energy does not need to use more energy than it concentrates. How simple can I possibly explain it . You take energy from all over the place and put it in one tiny place and things start to heat up. If you can't figure that out time to go.
THE BUZZ You certainly have the ability to make even the most complicated seem so simple
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and knowledge
Chet
ok so in checking out some other tesla pattends i see oil filled caps..... hummm assumeing the little bug does it in water how about electricty in oil ;)
lol what ya think 8)
ist
ist sounds like a recipe for deep fried shrimp :}
Chet
Sparks I've always loved that round thing of Thrapps, Keely's Tesla's that makes the hot water with the little 'resonator' on the side and the multiple waves zipping around inside the sphere at Mack 1 We gotta make one of those .
doing all that work with 1.6 volts off a 9 volt battery ?Like he said that's 10,000 watts worth of work to raise the temp 80 degrees in 2 minutes
That probe he pulled out of the middle was definitely unique
He said allot of interesting things during that interview
gotta listen again tomorrow
CAVITATION IS SOME POWERFUL MEDICINE
Chet
yep ramset agreed... i need a hot water on demand unit for my hot box heater ;)
this displayed unit of wits ... will do the job just fine altho i could get away with about 1 leter of liquid... thus it can be tiny and verry powerfull and run off a few d cells for quite some time .... 8)
the future is magical... :)
ist!
Quote from: Koen1 on November 27, 2008, 02:53:13 PM
No, that is true, it is more in the league of the sonoluminescence experiments I mentioned.
Temperature-wise that is, because the mechanism does make use of physical displacement of the water
and that is not unlike prop cavitation.
But to give you some clearer links on the relationship between our sonoluminescence experiments
and the shrimps' cavitation "pistol action", I shall provide a link or two for your interest.
Now first of all the schwikipedia even has these factoids correct:
"The shrimp snaps a specialized claw shut to create a cavitation wave that generates acoustic pressures of up to 80 kPa at a distance of 4 cm from the claw. The pressure wave is strong enough to kill small fish.[7] It corresponds to a zero to peak pressure level of 218 decibels relative to one micropascal (dB re 1 μPa), equivalent to a zero to peak source level of 190 dB re 1 μPa at the standard reference distance of 1 m. Au and Banks measured peak to peak source levels between 185 and 190 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m, depending on the size of the claw.[8] Similar values are reported by Ferguson and Cleary.[9] The duration of the click is less than 1 millisecond.
The snap can also produce sonoluminescence from a collapsing cavitation bubble. As it collapses, the cavitation bubble reaches temperatures of over 5000 K.[10] The light is of lower intensity than the light produced by typical sonoluminescence and is not visible to the naked eye. It is most likely a by-product of the shock wave with no biological significance. However, it is the first known instance of an animal producing light by this effect." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_shrimp)
And here's a little link to some sonoluminescence info: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7029/full/nature03361.html (Oh, sorry, I see one may only
read that article when registered... perhaps someone can find another version of the article?)
Here's some more info on "single bubble sonoluminescence", as these cavitation experiments are called, and their relation to plasma:
Let's start simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16572452
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16090812
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/pdf/nature.030205.pdf
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:15744295
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/72/1/012
And here's what schwikipedia has to say about "bubble fusion", which is obviously related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion
In any case, my point is basically that the Pistol Shrimp uses sonically induced cavitation which is exactly what they're doing in the
luminescence (should actually read: localised plasma generation inside cavitationally generated microbubbles) experiments. The shrimp
uses its claw to produce the abrupt pressure wave in the water, a.k.a. sound.
Doesn't mean it's necessarily OU;
We can also produce very small localised zones of extreme energy density, but that doesn't mean we aren't inputting the energy.
I really think the shrimp inputs all the energy needed to make its claw snap shut, which provides all the energy for the sonic pressure
wave and this in turn causes the local cavitation of water which can sometimes result in very small and localised zones of such
energy density that momentary plasma flashes can sometimes be seen.
But yes, it is a cool trick for a shrimp, certainly! ;D
@Koen1
Roger Stringham probably have explored the cavitation effect ... reentrant jet during bubble collapse... 500Mpa plasma jet speed 30 km/sec
http://www.newenergytimes.com/Conversations/StringhamR/StringhamR.htm
a nice document that can provide some explanation (plasma vortex and plasma pinch effect) is:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StringhamRcavitationb.pdf
wings
Quote from: ramset on November 27, 2008, 11:04:10 PM
THE BUZZ You certainly have the ability to make even the most complicated seem so simple
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and knowledge
Chet
Here is an even simpler (and true) explanation: “The guy with the round water tank†is an impostor.
Quote from: sparks on November 27, 2008, 04:05:30 PM
@Tinu
The magnifying glass bends the emwaves we call light and focuses them on a small field. Without the MAGNIFICATION of the diffused emwave energy you wouldnt be able to start your skin ablase or heatup a leaf to combustion state. The solar people use parabolic disks to MAGNIFY the solar emwave energy to heat things up. The guy with the resonating center element creates pressure waves just like the little shrimp that creates cavitation of the fluid which focuses the wave energy into spots and then the water gets hot enough in those spots to do things like burn nitrogen and oxygen and other fun stuff that wouldnt happen unless that spot got real hot. The clicking noise and the guys pressure waves do the same thing .Magnifying diffuse energy distribution surrounding a mass field to concentrated energy distribution that results in changing energy in that field from a diffused state to a concentrated state which we can use to do work. This magnification of energy does not need to use more energy than it concentrates. How simple can I possibly explain it . You take energy from all over the place and put it in one tiny place and things start to heat up. If you can't figure that out time to go.
@sparks,
Really, there is not need to explain it. At least not to me.
But please don’t say any longer to “use a magnifying glass to magnify the energy from the sun†but “use a magnifying glass to FOCUS the energy from the sunâ€. There is a huge difference between the two verbs; energy is not magnified at all but barely concentrated/focused. Nothing is ‘magnified’ except maybe what was implied by my previously above-posted joke.
Cheers,
Tinu
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 23, 2008, 01:33:54 PM
Alan, I always thought that we measure cap "energy" in joules since it represents the amount of energy or work that can be done. Second order? Could you define that term for me. You are clearly intelligent and want to discuss it more.
Hey thebuzz,
sorry for the delay
about pecns vid's, I need to rewatch them, I watched them in passive mode.
I'll give it a shot:
multiple order equations, basic of calculus, let me give you an example:
basic unit x position, the first time derivative of position, dx/dt, is velocity v, second derivative of position (is first derivative of velocity), d^2x/dt^2 (or dv/dt), is acceleration.
An equation consisting of velocity is a first order equation, one that includes acceleration is a second order eqn, for example x = startpos+vt+0.5at^2
Same with a circuit consisting of a coil and cap. A cap is a first order component, because its voltage is related to dq/dt (= current), an inductor is a second order component, because its v. is related to the second derivative of charge, or the first of current (changing current), d^2q/dt^2 (di/dt). got it? ;)
Now for the energy in a cap:
Like you said, its energy equals what it can do for work, that is correct. It also equals the work done to charge it.
E = V * all Q's to the cap = integral (V * dq), which can be extended to 0.5CV^2: q = V*C -> V=q/C -> subst. V with q/C -> E = integral(q/C * dq) -> E = int(0.5 q^2 / C) -> E = 0.5*(C^2+V^2) / C -> 0.5C*V^2. (I gess most know this already)
But, the energy depends on the voltage, but does a changing voltage and changerate have effect on charge?
lets call dv/dt = W and d^2v/dt^2 = X
then energy is: E = int(V*dq) + int(W * dq dt) + int(X * dq dt dt)
or the force of voltage on a charge:
F = V*q , if that becomes a second order of voltage over time, then it becomes: F = V*q + W*q*t + 0.5*X*q*t^2
Just the basics of my idea, not completed yet 8)
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 24, 2008, 02:39:35 PM
You are looking at a tiny fusion and that is a free energy device that converts mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass. Cavitation is required to extract the electrons in order for that to occur.
That is exactly what Stan Meyer said: extract the electrons from the gases before ignition, to convert the mass to energy.
@Sparks: Don't you see that you can have the best magnifying glass ever,
but without light input there will still be zero effect?
That's one of the things I thought I had indicated but perhaps I wasn't clear.
Yes, to use your magnifying glass example, it can concentrate incident
light into a point of much higher energy density.
But that is not OU.
That is taking the energy already present and concentrating it in a much
smaller area.
And yes, we can do that by using concave mirrors and such.
But it's still no OU. Yes, it can be energy we aren't inputting
directly ourselves, just like the large concave mirrors the ancient
Greeks used to set fire to the Persian ships used solar power,
normal sunlight, concentrated into small zones on the wooden
ship hulls and the sails.
Focusing and concentrating sunlight or any other natural radiation
is not technically over unity, obviously.
And I fail to see the connection between simple lens/mirror based
"refractive" magnification, and the plasma-mediated transmutation
of elements as Buzz seems to be suggesting.
Or at least, seemed to be suggesting, before he rocked up
with the Thrapp stuff. Thrapp doesn't want us to build that thing,
he wants us to send him tons of money. If he really wanted to
share free energy with the world he would simply explain in a video
how to build one. But he doesn't. He only has videos intended to
lure people in. Never gives any info unless you pay him, and I have
heard that even when you do that he does not give any usefull info,
just a lot of vague remarks and suggestive statements about possible
future developments. But no plans, no actual devices that you get.
At least, that's what I was told by people who claim to have sent
him money.
You got other info, Buzz?
lol, no punk back, sorry. 8)
- What do you think of the multiple order F and E equations?
With this I tried to give an explanation of an excess charge phenomenon (by nul-points for example): that maybe the forming of the voltage field also exhibits a force on electrons.
- You asked what I meant with second order eqn. and I gave you my understanding of it, if it is incorrect, at least tell me where.
- The material/wire resistance (called ESR on that website) wasn't relevant.
- Cavitation is new to me, why does it explain OU according to you? (guess you tried to explain many times)
- wink was only meant as politeness, nothing more
@ the buzz
not to ever cut your words apart ....
but how about feed back loops .... and perpetual motion ;)
also perfect harmony ... ac sound waves do you find thease units work with cavatition
or is it more vibration?
all that we see in our reality is electric in nature ... and i herd over 9 months ago on a radio station they were able to transmitt sub atomic particles... hence teleportation......
is already done ....
ist
hutch does much with sound waves and vibration on diffrent materials at diffrent freqs... with out any connection to the object .....
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 28, 2008, 10:46:05 AM
... but you are being a dickhead to my friend sparks.
...
Normally I ignore your ignorant rants but will help you this time in exchange for you stop acting like a dickhead.
...
All free energy devices work the same way, they convert mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass and cavitation is the process for doing that.
Now read more, write less and stop being a dickhead or I won't tell you anything ever again.
Please, stop being so arrogant. I think no one needs you to tell them constantly how
you think everything works.
OK?
Quote from: spinner on November 28, 2008, 11:30:51 AM
Please, stop being so arrogant. I think no one needs you to tell them constantly how you think everything works.
OK?
Such ego bursts tell more about the attacker than the attacked.
Spinner Aside from your normal job of pouring gasoline on a fire here, how do you think these things work? OH I FORGOT YOU DON"T THINK THEY WORK
ARROGANT, TALK ABOUT THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK!!!
Chet
Overunity appears to be impossible if we look at everything on a three dimensional scale. The fourth dimension time is where work gets stored. Conservation of energy and mass laws are well proven but conservation of work is subjective and can only be recognized when you start going into the fourth dimension. The reality we are presented with at any given moment shows us the conservation of work. This is true until we get to an event horizon where work is no longer recognizable. This is getting out there and is not necessary for simple concentration of energy into a time slot. For now we can just bring the forces we have at our disposal to do work or convert potential energy into radiant energy. Work is the byproduct of this conversion and can be used to build a catalyst for this conversion or just go off and get stored in some blackhole somewhere. Least that's my blah blah blah.
Google cavitation and utube and there is this firestation that uses a cavitation boiler. Company that sold them the unit has thermocouples and pressure gauges and all sorts of stuff on it. Some debunker guy on someones payroll is out there now giving the company shit. The guy looks like one of these expert witnesses ambulance chasers pay to profess anything because he has some credentials of some sort. Don't trust the guy who is a public servant and has absolutely no motive to lie, go with the guy who travels all over the place in some shitbox that looks like he'd testify for a tankful of gas to get to the next diner. Man this world is so in the pocket of the slavedrivers.
Sparks I believe that device uses a shearing and cavitation effect
Those guys at the station love it
Chet
No, I asked you to stop acting pretentious and start
giving some proper info, not to start acting like more of an asshole.
And if there's anyone who should piss off, it's you.
Go talk to yourself if you don't want to have a decent discussion on a forum.
It's clear to everyone why you got into a flamewar on other fora.
You should see the PMs I get complaining about your asshole behaviour,
which the regulars on this forum don't post in this thread because they
really don't want you to get verbally aggressive with them.
The majority of people were so put off by your attitude that they don't
even visit the thread anymore.
And in fact I'm starting to wonder whether I'm going to revisit,
since there's already perfectly good threads on cavitation boilers and we
really don't need another one, especially not if the believers don't
even want to clearly say what they mean.
Had you said "Thrapp's water boiler" when you said "cavitation",
it would have been pretty clear. But instead you went and acted
mysteriously, as if you knew something others don't.
Do you actually have such an "OU" water heater?
Did you build it?
Do you get free electricity from it?
Or are you just trying to make yourself look good by repeating
what others have said about the thing?
Anyway, I don't see why you didn't simply provide some proper
links like these:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cavitation_Heaters
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/cavitationheaters.htm
http://akoil.ru/content/view/36/9/
Instead of going off on tangents...
Anyway, your rudeness and annoying attitude has reached the limit,
you're going on report.
And for your information, there's more people who care about what Spinner
said then there are people who find your tone and attitude acceptable.
And no, I am not just saying that because I dislike your tone.
Let's see if you can reply to this in a normal fashion instead of getting insulting
and pretentious again. The majority vote at present says no.
KOEN spinner is the wrong guy to use as an example here, 80 % of his posts are ARROGANT and Condec ending
The boss has had to straighten him out
Chet
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 28, 2008, 12:02:39 PM
There is a difference between arrogance and confidence based in experience. I am very confident and you are an arrogant windbag. Nobody cares what you think - piss off.
**EDIT**
BTW - He asked me what I think. O.K., piss off off again.
Hey, sorry for stepping on your nerve. It was meant as a "friendly warning", because you are really acting like an idiot. Looks like you have a grandiosity complex... Good, it's not contagious.... :D
Your confidence may be based on experience (I'm sure you'll tell us more), although the "knowledge" you're literally enforcing here mostly reflects your own fantasies about how stuff works...
I'm not going to "piss off", hehe..
I will just leave this thread like many good people already did.
Sayonara!
I see we have a cat fight going on here.
Are we taking bets? Do we have the odd's yet?
Lets get ready to rumble. LOL
Buzz the speed of sound in fresh water is 14-1500mps what would it take to cavitate water in a sphere to raise the temp so fast with so little power
Chet
Spinner yes 2-300 hits an hour there coming like a famine to the feast
Chet
SOO... THe SPiNNER guy f#lks with DR Stiffler and no more Dr Stiffler
He F#lks with Hardy 54no more Hardy
Now he F*cks with Buzz
He is a great POLICEMAN for the threads thanks Spinner you are the winner
Chet
well at least ill watch Sparks movie again
Heard some things I never did before in this one
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxnEQssJ4FQ
Chet
I find it funny that Buzz tells Spinner to "Piss off" when it is Buzz that has hijacked the good captain's topic here. I actually was beginning to believe that Buzz, in spite of his irritating manner and lack of people skills, might know something. BUT then he posts about Mr. Thrapp who has already been proven (in my mind as well as the minds of most that decided to look into him and his claims) to be all about raising money with no real devices and so I have no doubt that he knows nothing and is just good at being a pain in the ass.
If any one here thinks that Thrapp is for real, please see all of the other related topics that looked into him and his organization. Not to mention the interviews that Stefan did with him, or should I say tired to do with him.
If folks still want to believe in Mr. Thrapp, that is their business I guess. I have stated my opinions about him so you can decide for yourselves...or not. It is up to you.
And yes, a lot of good folks have been run off of this topic, consider me to be one of them.
Bill
dayyum! looks like i missed all the fun!
Quote from: TheBuzz on Today at 03:46:05 PMQuote
Koen1,
...
...
...or I won't tell you anything ever again
a lot of people would pay good money for that !
;) (yet another cheesy grin)
Quote from: ramset on November 28, 2008, 02:12:19 PM
SOO... THe SPiNNER guy f#lks with DR Stiffler and no more Dr Stiffler
He F#lks with Hardy 54no more Hardy
Now he F*cks with Buzz
He is a great POLICEMAN for the threads thanks Spinner you are the winner
Chet
Ramset,
I really feel sorry for you.... It looks like you always pick a wrong guy (The BOSS character, like in Archer's thread) to think instead of you.
Is thinking a painfull experience to you, or what?
FYI, no one from your list above quit because of my skeptical views. They quit (or stepped aside for a while) because there was (or still is) nothing to show... We'll hear from them soon..
TheBuzz (supposedly) left this thread because he heard that "all the good people are leaving"... ;D
In the mean time, you can construct an "OU cavitation experiment" in a spherical pool with a diameter of 1400 meters and try to induce a sonic standing wave with a 1Hz pressure excitation... ;)
1Hz is not a problem, try to do it with your finger and report back what happened.
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 28, 2008, 01:32:25 PM
You didn't write that at all, here is your post. Read em and weep idiot. You can't read and comprehend my posts much less remember or refer to your own posts.
Wow, is it really that difficult to not be insulting?
And if you're going to try and be a wise guy, do it right.
Apparently you yourself have trouble reading what I wrote. To quote that very same post of mine:
QuoteYou got other info, Buzz?
Now in what language doe sthat mean "what do you think" or "insult me some more please"?
Indeed, it does not mean that at all. However you decided to imagine that that is what it means.
Your reply is abusive and plain dumb.
QuoteI have better things to do than spoon feed some functionally illiterate dependtard his next thought.
Oh really, so insulting people is a better way to spend your time than simply saying what you mean?
QuoteYour lack of integrity has everything to do with your lack of intelligence. The link between the two are unbreakable.
It is good that you realise your own problem.
It is sad that you have to project it on others.
QuoteSo anyone that has questions regarding how free energy devices work can ask sub genius Koen1. Be sure it is warm and fuzzy for him since his chemically destroyed brain exibits agitation response when overstimulated.
Piss off
Hahahahaha! :D
If you don't see how your insults only serve to show your true colours,
and disqualify you as a serious discussion partner in a forum,
that's your problem. Everyone else sees it.
But it would be nice if you'd stop being so abusive.
Verbal abuse is characteristic of a weak mind, in case you didn't know that.
I realise it must be very difficult for you, but just try to post something unabusive for once.
Let's see how eloquent you reply to this one eh?
The guys say you're going to post 30% nonsense, 40% abuse, and maybe 30% repetition.
I suspect the percentages are closer to 20, 50 and 30. Let's see.
@Nul-points: LOL nice one ;D
RESONANCE, CAVITATION ?
Pictures come to my mind of Tesla in a shaking building in down town manhatten ,as the police kick in the door
He's swinging a sledge hammer at a little resonator before God Knows what happens
Buzz thanks
Chet
PS I guess you should have gone to CHARM school
Spinner When I spoke of the BOSS I spoke of our Moderator Stephan ,and this reprimand directed at you and khabe
'Khabe and Spinner,
please stop harassing James,
otherwise I will ban you'
Chet
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 28, 2008, 02:35:44 PM
I find it funny that Buzz tells Spinner to "Piss off" when it is Buzz that has hijacked the good captain's topic here. I actually was beginning to believe that Buzz, in spite of his irritating manner and lack of people skills, might know something. BUT then he posts about Mr. Thrapp who has already been proven (in my mind as well as the minds of most that decided to look into him and his claims) to be all about raising money with no real devices and so I have no doubt that he knows nothing and is just good at being a pain in the ass.
If any one here thinks that Thrapp is for real, please see all of the other related topics that looked into him and his organization. Not to mention the interviews that Stefan did with him, or should I say tired to do with him.
If folks still want to believe in Mr. Thrapp, that is their business I guess. I have stated my opinions about him so you can decide for yourselves...or not. It is up to you.
And yes, a lot of good folks have been run off of this topic, consider me to be one of them.
Bill
I must apologise to this board for posting the Thrapp cavitation device. I guess this guy has about as much integrity as our favorite SM. I did study Keely briefly and this man would use cavitation to fine tune pipe organs and sonic motors etc. He knew about the power of cavitation as does Buzz and any other person who has taken a pump apart and seen what two hours of cavitation can do to a piece of brass.
I have been electrically shocked by standing waves on the top of a resevoir with a cavitating pump operating on the same stand as the resevoir. This cavitation of the impellor actually decreases the motor load go figure?
SPARKS Apology accepted
Chet
Quote from: sparks on November 28, 2008, 04:24:48 PM
I must apologise to this board for posting the Thrapp cavitation device. I guess this guy has about as much integrity as our favorite SM.
I believe Thrapp and Mark both have working devices..Thrapp wants money, and I believe wants to sell it as a product, and won't give out the details. What makes him a sleeze is the fact he tries to sell $100 phone interviews, but in the end never says anything about how to build the device..This guy is all about making money. SM seems to just have disappeared, maybe even threatened.
@TheBuzz,
please don´t use "street language" over here and please stop to insult people.
Please no flame wars.
Many thanks.
@ALL,
please stay ontopic here or open up a new topic.
Many thanks.
Thankyou Stephan
I believe the topic was an overunity device/method
and the likelyhood that cavitation was /is responsible for this anomaly
certain examples of cavitation were brought forward and found to be most interesting
I for one greatly appreciate the opportunity this forum provides for learning
thanks CHET
CaptainPecan's work had NOTHING to do with cavitation. Thanks Stefan.
Bill
Bill Maybe I misspoke captain pecan suspected he found a path to overunity
The Buzz spoke of an anomaly where all things overunity were connected to cavitation
sounded VERY interesting and as the thread progressed in this line of thought the interest [HITS] jumped off the page
I personally feel this is not a new topic, but an explanation of this anomaly
This isn't about winning its about learning
Something the world needs very badly right now
Chet
The Buzz So the idea is plasma is matter in a state of transition and in such a state[matter] has the potential to yield O.U.
Cavitation can put matter in this state [plasma] and as such opens the door to much greater potential [The shrimp]
This is how I understand what you have said
Chet
@ The Buzz:
Wrong again? I hardly think so and the science is on my side.
Why don't you post something useful on another topic and let the folks that actually build things continue to do so without your insults? Where are YOUR experiments? I have posted many, along with videos documenting my results. Again, where are yours? I have posted my successful magnet motor (homopolar) and my earth battery experiments on youtube and metacafe with links on this site to them. Where are your videos?
I have played with caps and super caps for a long time and have never seen or had a "spark" that caused cavitation of anything at any time.
I have founded two high tech research and development corporations that served the aerospace and electronics industries for years and are still doing so today. What have you founded?
I have invented and designed parts that have flown on the space shuttle, been a consultant to NASA, designed and built parts for inertial guidance system for missile defense, manufactured actuators for Disney's Imagineering folks, made parts for the Tokamak reactor at Princeton University, light sensors for AT&T's fiber optic network, and on, and on and on. I ask again...what have you done?
You have done nothing but hijack this interesting topic to the point where the author will not post here any longer. I strongly suggest you take Stefan's warning seriously and stop insulting folks who are here for serious work and are actually doing something besides trying to tell everyone how smart you think you are by insulting them and accusing them of doing exactly what it is you are doing. I disagreed with you and said the Captain's topic has nothing to do with cavitation and you say that is starting a flame war? Why because I disagreed with you? This makes a lot of sense.
Start your own topic!!!!
Thank you.
Bill
Bill The excess energy in CP's caps is coming from somewhere ?
I don't think they put it in at the cap factory
perhaps this plasma /spark event opens a window ?
Definately not something to throw out with the dish water !!!
Chet
Quote from: ramset on November 28, 2008, 07:42:47 PM
Bill The excess energy in CP's caps is coming from somewhere ?
I don't think they put it in at the cap factory
perhaps this plasma /spark event opens a window ?
Definately not something to throw out with the dish water !!!
Chet
Chet: With all due respect....what excess energy? It was TheBuzz, and others, that said there was
no excess energy and that it was a math problem mistake. And now you say TheBuzz's cavitation theory explains or may explain the excess energy? This makes no sense.
I was following the Captain's work closely and I didn't see anything wrong with his work and conclusions but, I don't know everything. Too bad he is no longer here to ask. Maybe he was on to something, maybe not but I guess we will never know. I do know that if someone says over and over that there is no excess energy and then turns around and later says his theory explains all of the excess energy perfectly and if we don't agree with him then we are flaming him, there is something very wrong.
I am out of here. I am tired of dealing with this crap!
Bill
Bill theres no OUTAHERE we are in this mess together brother, for better or for worse sorry if I offended you it was not my intent. Plasma is so mysterious and wonderful it seems a natural path to O. U,
Chet
@ Chet:
I have no problems with you man...it's cool.
@ Buzz:
To set the record straight, I am not an auto accident investigator and I do not work for an insurance company. I own Tactical Investigations and I work for whomever can afford my rates. This is the 4th successful company I have founded I just didn't mention it earlier as it is not really all that high tech.
Buzz: You sir are not a nice person. Just because you might post a false resume don't accuse me of doing it. I have done all that and more, it is documented and, if you had any smarts at all, you could look it up easily. Such things as I was nominated in 1993 for Inc. Magazine's Entrepreneur Of The Year for one of the Corporations I founded. I would go on but no need to embarrass you any more than you are already doing to yourself. My statements can all be verified. What was that you have done again? Never mind, I'm out.
Bill
@Pirate881
Sounds like you got what it takes to develop a low pressure thermally driven turbine system that will spin till the cows come home or we freeze up the entire oceans of the Earth. You can boil water at -10 degrees if you want and run it through a turbine on it's way to condensing and heating up an atmospheric boiler system. Only limiting factor is how fast you can get rid of the heat and drop the temperature of the Oceans. Oceans are great infrared energy collectors don't you think. Now how can we magnify (oops sorry Tinu) :) focus that energy. I could lay a mile of pipe in any part of the Eastern Seaboard and give you a 20megawatt power plant. No radiation no combustion no windmills no solar panels adaptable to any existing steam plant. Your a business man you smell a buck here or not!!
Come on guys, grow up and stop acting like little girls. This has become way out of hand.
The only thing you all are accomplishing here is pissing each other off and we don’t need that, we need to all work together and become one so that we can try to accomplish our goal which is to help all. This kind of behavior is not helping anyone so please stop and start thinking of ways to help each other because that is what I thought this forum was for.
This buzz character may or may not have a clue...more than likely his words are not really his.
He must think people have short memories, re his isultin troll like behavior toward other members...and his latest post is more of the same.
By providing tidbits if info...likely not his, he prolongs his stay by appealing to everyone's sense of curiosity.
Its never good policy to turf members from a forum, who have contributed a working anomalous circuit and hold Canadian and US Patents.
Its much wiser to turf the disruptive and negative posters who intentionally prevent discussions from developing in a natural manner.
Regards...
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 28, 2008, 04:44:57 PM
@TheBuzz,
please don´t use "street language" over here and please stop to insult people.
Please no flame wars.
Many thanks.
*Removed Double Post*
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 28, 2008, 04:44:57 PM
@TheBuzz,
please don´t use "street language" over here and please stop to insult people.
Please no flame wars.
Many thanks.
It is easy to see why you got banned from all of those other forums. I hope Stefan bans you from this one.
Bill
Wow! So now you are an attorney too? Take your best shot big boy. I have been threatened by much better folks than you. (and much smarter as well) If all you have is an attempt to smear and flame, don't post. This is a technical discussion.
Bill
Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk someone.
It has been defined as the use of information and communications technology, particularly the Internet, by an individual or group of individuals, to harass another individual, group of individuals, or organization. The behavior includes false accusations, monitoring, the transmission of threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sexual purposes, and gathering information for harassment purposes. The harassment must be such that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.[1]
I believe it is you that needs to be very careful considering all the name calling and posting of my company contact info. Be sure to mention that to the State Police as well won't you? In case you forgot.
@the buzz
for the record i can not name 1
and i have studyied many many things in the past 3.5 years since my intrest perked in this feild.....
im sorry guys to side with the buzz but indeed he is correct .....
i will not lie for anyone ...
like you said the buzz
there have been MANY to come to this conclousion .... MANY REMAIN silent ... the few brave speek ... i decided to talk .... THERE IS NO OTHER WAY
THE WORLD HAS TO HAVE THIS OR WE ARE DONE!!!! PLAIN AND SIMPLE ....
I HAVE THEORIES I WILL NOT DICUSS AT THIS POINT IN TIME PUBLIC....
as they require much more reserch ... b4 i will lay any claims....
facts say WERE IN BIG SH!T
why is the earth getting hotter why is all the ice on the earth melting.....
i rest my case...... isnt the natural freq of the earth suspoto be 7.8 not 60hz......
ist!
IST:
"The Schumann Resonance are quasi standing wave electromagnetic waves that exist in this cavity. Like waves on a spring, they are not present all the time, but have to be 'excited' to be observed. They are not caused by anything internal to the Earth, its crust or its core. They seem to be related to electrical activity in the atmosphere, particularly during times of intense lightning activity. They occur at several frequencies between 6 and 50 cycles per second; specifically 7.8, 14, 20, 26, 33, 39 and 45 Hertz, with a daily variation of about +/- 0.5 Hertz. So long as the properties of Earth's electromagnetic cavity remains about the same, these frequencies remain the same."
The frequency seems to vary. There is more info at: http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/sch2.htm (http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/sch2.htm) which is where I obtained this info. 50 hertz is close to 60hz. I had no idea it got this high. I thought it was down around 4.5-8hz.
Bill
Well, it seems I must have changed my name... Moved to another country... My computer exploded... I've seen a lot of junk said as to why I am not posting in this thread. But if I remember right, I specifically mentioned that it had to do with the fact that this thread was overran by flaming, and people who do not have anything meaningful to say burying the thread in troll dung. Why have I not been posting? I've been at the bench, studying, and learning. What's the point in giving the trolls what they want? It's best to ignore them.
I must add, I've had quite a few responses privately, and it is overwhelmingly obvious that there is an extreme interest in real work, and not troll dung. Hopefully this thread will be moderated as it appears that it has begun to move in that direction. Believe it or not, I do actually value opinions. Positive and Negative. As long it carries some merit, or at least isn't just flat out flaming.
I have continued on with my work, and have come A LONG WAY! I may post some more videos soon. The question of cavitation? I'm working on that one too... Does it have anything to do with the original experiment? Maybe cavitation is more simple than a many of us think? Maybe it is happening right under everyones nose and they dont know it. All I can say is that it is pretty fascinating and I am working on a way of combining it with my other work, or at least understanding it better. I do have a good source of info, for some experiments I'm working with right now that could combine this all together. I may post a video of it shortly and get some feedback. ;)
your on bro 8) ;D :)
lol!!
i got a hundred torroides or so.... lol most are quite small tho .. but it wont matter ...
i got more shit than you can shake a stick at lol just laying around to build shit .....
kinda getting sick of wireing up my 3 freq 3 amp controller any ways... need a break from it ...
:)
dont got much wire left tho... hey i can go buy some more lol .... 8)
ist!
KEEPING IT REAL IN REAL TIME :) thats what im talking about .....
awsome captian ..... YOU ARE KEEPING IT REAL... GREAT JOB !! ITS ALL ABOUT LEARNING ...... :)
8)
i got bored earlyer on today so i hooked up my resonant coupled bifillar coil to a genny and my scope i took some pics... ;D
here ya go.. this is fed sine waves output at resosance is spike sine ;D
TheBuzz a.k.a. Omnibus.
Back to the topic of the thread. Who has done any work at the bench similar to what I have done? Could you please post your results!
that is good lol ;)
here is what is under test .... my simple testing :D
what you see on my scope is the resosance coupling from feed to output and some were along the way we acurie spikes ... lol ;)
hummmm..
ist
here is a pic of the unit i made my own...
i love this part lol ..... LET A SINGLE CHARGE OF CAP 1 BE FIRST CONSIDERED LOL!!!!
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 29, 2008, 03:29:33 AM
The MOT never even comes close to saturation. In an inductor, voltage leads current. So you can just compare that to the pistol shrimp.
Get out of my head damnit!!!!... Your ruining my next video! lol...
hey did some one say drop the freq genny add a reed or a trigger coil..... hummm if we could just keep it at the right freq.... hummm
still chewing on that one ... ;)
ist = innovation station team!!
or isteam! or HISTEAM!!
:)
peace
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 29, 2008, 03:29:33 AM
@ Pecan! You are back from Brazil! You did tell me your laptop blew up, but I made up the name change and move to Brazil stuff.
I'm still trying to figure out how I used my laptop to send you a message to tell you that my laptop blew up? I'll add that mystery to my to do list of stuff I will eventually figure out! ;D
perhaps there is unlimited current on the other side of the fence and at current you just cant mesure it ;) lol :D
ist
@TheBuzz
Quote
....Here is thought cap-Z-ro - why don't one of you spooks and flamers post one device that does not use cavitation that most people are familiar with and disprove what I am saying about cavitation being at the heart of ALL FREE ENERGY DEVICES. That is all you have to do but not one of you ever has. Now why is that?
Just name one device that has been highly validated that I can not point to a cavitation. Just 1.
Now that would be constructive and technical.
OK, first, you name at least one device "
that has been highly validated" to date... Oh, maybe "a highly validated" means something else to you? Can you point us to any (or even one) of the "higly validated OU devices"? Thanks....
You can bet You'll getting a respond as soon as you point us to that highly validated device of yours....
Then, "
...why don't one of you spooks and flamers post one device that does not use cavitation that most people are familiar with and disprove what I am saying about cavitation being at the heart of ALL FREE ENERGY DEVICES. That is all you have to do but not one of you ever has. Now why is that?"
I suggest you look at the "conventional knowledge" about "
your" fixed idea, the "cavitation OU effect".... You're making a fool of yourself. Did you studied any of the Physics related to "fluid mechanics"? Funny, but conventional physics treats the "cavitation" as a "interesting,
in practice mostly harmfull,
very localized, but still thermodynamic-molecullar kinetics effect, ...".
Needless to say, the cavitation kinetic process has a "minuscule overall energy efficiency". It has it's usefull aspects, allright (care to name a few?). But "OverUnity"? Yeah, sure...
Your ideas may come from the "sono-luminiscence", or even a "sonofusion".... Btw, have you seen the movie "Chain reaction"?
You know who the "main science adviser" was? The thoughts from the orthodox science? The (current) reality?
Please, at least you try to understand what you are saying...Like "all the FE energy comes from an atomic energy"....
"Fe" is a very wide, debatable stuff.... Again, check out what the "cavitation effect" really is...
Then, produce something which will back up Your claims...
And then, we can discuss your genius/personality.
Until then, you're the same poor bastard, a FE wannabe, like the rest of us.
Got it?
This buzz troll simply projects all his infirmities on to those he flames, thinking that no one sees the pattern...which is as old as death.
I trust the good members here will stop feeding this troll...as he is successfully derailing meaningful dialogue.
To accuse Bill, myself and others of conspiring to spam this board is as ludicrous as his thought that people will actually believe it.
I notice he deleted the dumb induced post...hoping nobody see the paranoid rant.
Hoping nobody would notice, he "very cleverly" avoided addressing my claims of 'building' an anomalous circuit, and my Patents...so his assertion that I am a flamer would not look like the insane rantings of a desperate troll.
This troll is likely being paid to disrupt forums such as this, and most likely been here before using a different moniker...and will likely return using another tag, with the same motive.
You all see what he is doing, please stop responding to his future posts baited with info he gleans from others.
All his "tidbits of info" are always off topic...an indicator that he is just pasting unrelated info he finds elsewhere.
Regards...
I guess Koen and Pirate either didn't pay attention or can't understand what I posted below. In order for a turbine to spin we need only to produce pressure differential on either side of the turbine. DIFFERENTIAL. Now this pressure differential can occur at any system pressure. So we take two pipes put them on either side of a turbine and CAVITATE the whole system. Low as the pipe can withstand. Now open up a valve on one side of the turbine and let a little water in there. The water immediately boils as long as the latent heat of vaporization can flow into the liquid. So we're sucking heat in. Now this vaporization is building up pressure on one side of the turbine. And will continue to do so until all the water is vaporized. So the turbine starts to spin. Now the pressure is going to spin the turbine until both sides of the turbine are at equal pressure. Now comes the fun part. We need the vapor to condense or give up it's heat of vaporization to maintain the pressure differential. The other end of the pipe needs to get rid of it's heat. So we have to radiate the energy from the receiver end of the vacuum system. Best way to do this is take the mechanical energy of the primary turbine and use it to pump the heat into a smaller area where the temperature is above the ambient and use it wherever it's needed like raising the pressure in a conventional boiler system. Notice we have to Cavitate space before this happens. Cavitation makes things happen that won't with normal pressure force on them. Remember now that Einstein mathmatically prooved that space pushes planets toward the Sun.
Inside Buzz's cavitation of space things are going to happen that wouldn't under normal spacetime pressure. Plazma has a negative specific heat. In other words to raise the temperature of a plazma you have to remove heat from the plazma. If you add heat to a plazma the temperature goes down. That's kinda counerintuitive.
What form of matter could account for the other 95percent of the Universe?
The atrocity perpetrated on the Japanesse innocents used a device that creates pressure waves that cavitate space and this wasn't a microbubble. Fucking insane animals running around staking out "terror-tory".
@Buzz:
Ok, that's it.
Bill is one of the respected members of our forum here,
and he has said nothing that is untrue.
The person anxious to start fights here and insult people
is clearly Buzz.
You have been reported once and the admin warned you.
You are now going on report again, and don't be surprised
if you get banned.
We don't need fascists in our forum.
@Sparks: yes we did read what was posted and it does have nothing to
do with CaptainPecan's experimnt which was as Bill pointed out "proved"
non-OU bu Buzz himself and others.
This hijacked topic is now focused on cavitation and still the only
"proof" of that being OU was the Thrapp stuff, which has already been
discussed extensively in other threads and the general consensus is
that Thrapp is a scammer.
If you wish to discuss cavitation then by all means do, but do not
confuse a discussion on that topic with the arrogant and insulting
behaviour that Buzz has been displaying. There is no problem with
you and Buzz discussing cavitation as such. There is a problem
with Buzz's behaviour and tone, and the fact that he hijacked someone
else's thread to chase the author off and turn it into an off topic
discussion. Discuss cavitation heaters if you like, but do it in an
appropriate thread, and please keep it civil.
As I stated previously, the troll tosses up topics of interest to take the focus off of his disruptive behavior.
It wouldn't surprise me if Tharp is feeding him his lines.
Don't take his bait...ignore him...he/it has noting positive to offer...only the discord he spreads to others...as has been evidenced here already.
Regards...
Koen Captain Pecan is posting in this thread again. He seems to have been helped by THE BUZZ
Perhaps the captain can speek for himself on this
Chet
@ All:
I have started a topic on cavitation. Everyone can feel free to post their ideas over there.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=post;board=34.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=post;board=34.0)
This way, this topic can get back to the Captain's experiments.
@ Sparks:
I look forward to discussing some of your ideas over there if you feel like it. I did read what you posted but I felt it would be off-topic to reply here.
Thanks.
Bill
If Captain Pecan's second capacitor the one he is transferring electrons to keeps on getting pumped out and somehow we get the whole system down to a lower pressure where electrons can flow into the collector capacitor through a motor to a second capacitor that is insulated from the electron bombardment or heat could we get his motor to do work?
@Bill Thankyou I think that is a very appropriate positive step. It was getting kinda smokey in here. :)
@captainpecan,
I have started to build my "tripulse" motor based on your theories.
My frictionless (almost) rotor is done with two neodymium magnets,
one facing north out and the other facing south out.
I have a question for you. How many turns and size (also magnet wire thickness) is your coils?
(I'm about to make the three coils now.)
Also, I would like some comments on what is the best solution, positive feed back loop or a negative
feed back loop? See the attached drawing.
Regards,
Groundloop.
Quote from: Groundloop on November 29, 2008, 04:24:27 PM
@captainpecan,
I have started to build my "tripulse" motor based on your theories.
My frictionless (almost) rotor is done with two neodymium magnets,
one facing north out and the other facing south out.
I have a question for you. How many turns and size (also magnet wire thickness) is your coils?
(I'm about to make the three coils now.)
Also, I would like some comments on what is the best solution, positive feed back loop or a negative
feed back loop? See the attached drawing.
Regards,
Groundloop.
If I was going to remake my coils all over again, they would be 131.2 ft of 22guage wire. Is it important to use these exact figures, probably not, as when I started getting good results I just simply used old coils from another project and they were not anything special.
I chose a tri-coil configuration, for two reasons. The first reason was because I had 3 coils already, and the second was due to the size of the rotor, 3 seemed to give me plenty of clearance between the coils to allow me to ad 3 more coils easily to generate some energy from the rotation.
Personally, I am using all 3 coils in series. Each pulse uses all three coils. I found it to increase the rotation and torque without increasing the input. I was also able to easily increase the rotation and torque simply by adding more magnets.
@captainpecan,
Thank you for the fast answer.
OK, so my coils must then be designed so that I do not exceed the amperage rating of my reed relays.
I will use three read relays as shown because I will try to get the charge go from one capacitor to the next.
That is also the reason I have used only two magnets, one facing north out and one facing south out.
This will ensure that only one reed relay will be closed when the two others is open.
Do you have any thoughts on what is the best way to feed back the back emf generated voltage?
To the positive rail or to the negative rail? Others, any thought on this? Sparks?
Groundloop.
ground loop your reeds will crash and burn bro 8)
they look week ;)
i used BIG REEDS and they burn up ... in seconds..... cap it as i told you long ago you have failed to do so your reeds will burn out and you get no OU just like you proved many times already ....
;D
cap it cap it cap it lol
i drew you a pic ....
ist!
you know once capped it can not be proven wrong ... :D
do you know why it works?
i looked for some earlyer displayed youtube vids showing this sh!t but they have been removed :o inagine that... ha! i wouldnt know why ::)
i may find a new 1 or 2 ... lol
@ Groundloop
Honestly, in theory, it appears that the negative feedback would make more sense. It may not be a bad idea to test both ways. This theory could use some info from others here, anybody?
I agree with IST on capping those reeds. Allcanadian immediately showed results when he duplicated what IST is talking about earlier in this thread. Sure couldn't hurt!
@innovation_station,
My reed relays are rated 3 ampere. I will use coils that will draw approx. 10mA at each pulse.
The back emf voltage pulse (that normally creates sparks in the relays) are removed from
the relays by the use of diodes. So the reed relays will last very long.
@captainpecan,
Thanks, I also think that negative is better because the reed relays will last longer.
Groundloop.
Quote from Buzz:
"@Pirate I also want to thank you for stealing my discovery and taking it somewhere else. Be Goooooone demons za! I will consider this just another example of cyber-stalking. No I won't be discussing my discoveries in the thread you started, I try to avoid you."
Buzz:
Here is a tip for you pal. If you are trying to avoid me, do NOT accuse me of stealing. That is libel as this is a published site. I am considering a few actions myself. You keep getting in deeper and deeper. BTW You were not invited to the other topic so by saying you will not post there makes me very happy. Thank you.
Bill
PS I am filing a formal complaint with Stefan. I do not steal and will not be accused of doing so.
ah yes the good stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxLw0YU3pXg&feature=related
your on the fourm are you not bro... ya cap the input feed the out back to the same cap..... hummmm...
that curcuit is my charger... but i added a bridge rectifier to it ;D just keepin it simple ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR9EWtoxVfo&feature=related
lol caps.... lol caps = ou ;)
lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xsMe1XOyT4&feature=related
lol
you want more lol
i will find 200 hundred videos i can fully explain .... lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLXmpiUL2kw&feature=channel
take note of the inputted engery in this vid ... take note of the colapsed engery ... ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgkoxbS5rHk&feature=related
BIG CAP!! BIG CAP .... lol
ist ;) :)
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 29, 2008, 07:10:14 PM
This person is fixated on me in a psychotic way. He keeps coming into this thread and posting flames, starts a thread on what I discovered all free energy devices have in common, etc. Then he edits his post to remove the invitation in order to make another false allegation.
This is cyber-stalking, online harassment and is illegal.
We can go back to private messages until it goes away.
To all:
I have edited no posts, nor cyberstalked anyone, nor stolen anything. I just wanted to state this for the record. I have also not PM'd Buzz as he seems to think.
Thanks.
Bill
Stefan please remove the delusional troll.
This is getting too far beyond stupid.
Despite the insinuation...there has been no PM's exchanged between the troll and myself...those who I refuse to interact with on line are ineligible for off line contact as well.
Regards...
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 29, 2008, 04:25:13 PM
Please stop posting questions in my message box. /quote]
Here ya go
Bill
Quote from: Groundloop on November 29, 2008, 06:03:53 PM
@innovation_station,
My reed relays are rated 3 ampere. I will use coils that will draw approx. 10mA at each pulse.
The back emf voltage pulse (that normally creates sparks in the relays) are removed from
the relays by the use of diodes. So the reed relays will last very long.
@captainpecan,
Thanks, I also think that negative is better because the reed relays will last longer.
Groundloop.
my reeds were 4 amp :o :o burnt out :o my supply was 12 vdc 1 amp..... it consumes 12v 100 ma... :o when it returns it burns shit up.............
you will see also if you are bleeding off with a diode .... THIS IS DIFFRENT THAN CAPPING ..... the cap is charged faster with out THE DIODE... and your reeds last longer
USE WHAT YOU DISCARD........
it goes both ways .... you must use it both ways
1 of my tpus is the bedini enhanced ..... ;)
so spinn the hot real fast 1 way collect the cold the other way ... ::) ::) ::)
gonna give up soon!!! :(
ist
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 29, 2008, 06:53:31 PM
Bill
PS I am filing a formal complaint with Stefan. I do not steal and will not be accused of doing so.
I have set user TheBuzz
to read access only.
Regards, Stefan.
@innovation_station,
Did you mean like this?
Groundloop.
lDeleted
yes thanks ground loop that is correct...
try it out please
with and without the cap mesure the diffrence ... ;)
ist
i have a unit here i will take a pic for you ....
notice how the spark dissipears when you add the cap.... it then gets dumped with the next dump to the coil this is the first step ...
i used single reeds ... in my tests to keep it simple... :)
this thread went dead
is there no such thing as young effects. do i get my gift or not?
@ ist:
What do you mean by "single" reeds? Can you please explain? Thanks.
Bill
ill find a pic for you ..
:)
i have this exact reed switch i have now burnt all 10 out 8)
they do not last long...... unless u cap it !!
it is a spark gap \ magnetic switch ... ;)
lol
the reeds in the pic i have the biggest one 4 amp rating poof burnt out From 12v 100ma.... what can i say....
hummm TRANSMIT IN ORDOR TO RECIEVE......
do you need a pic of the burnt glass so black you cant see the switch?
@IST
If you place the reeds in the air core, they will last much much longer since the spark will be quenched. lol
@Pirate88179,
Single reeds has just one contact inside. Double reed has two. One is default on the other default off.
One connection is common. The double reeds is more versatile and I use them for a reason in this circuit.
@innovation_station,
Any suggestion on the value I must use on those caps? (The one in parallel with the reeds.)
Groundloop.
@wattsup,
Please explain what you mean with the word "quenched".
(Not in my dictionary.)
Groundloop.
Quote from: wattsup on November 30, 2008, 01:24:33 AM
@IST
If you place the reeds in the air core, they will last much much longer since the spark will be quenched. lol
well i never did put it rite inside the coil b4 lol .... if you put it in the rite spot out side the coil YOU WILL WELID THE REED LOL!!!!! and have a HUGE flame inside the reed :o :o :o :o :o lol
play wit it you will see lol
value for that cap should be small ceramic 1kv ;) somthing quick....
ist
so the cap is compleatly filled in 1 pulse...
Quote from: wattsup on November 30, 2008, 01:24:33 AM
@IST
If you place the reeds in the air core, they will last much much longer since the spark will be quenched. lol
That is funny and a new invention. If fed with DC, you could call it a SCR!
No, not a new invention. You are quenching the spark in the reed switch by the magnetic field in the air core of the coil.
As usual, Tesla got there first. Sharp spark cut-off times are crucial in generating the HV spike. The faster you can turn off the spark (the squarer the pulse shape, in other words) the higher the resultant voltage spike. Tesla used many configurations of magnetically-quenched spark gaps.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 30, 2008, 08:49:33 AM
No, not a new invention. You are quenching the spark in the reed switch by the magnetic field in the air core of the coil.
As usual, Tesla got there first. Sharp spark cut-off times are crucial in generating the HV spike. The faster you can turn off the spark (the squarer the pulse shape, in other words) the higher the resultant voltage spike. Tesla used many configurations of magnetically-quenched spark gaps.
since a reed switch is magnetically activated, it would seem
to me that if you placed it in the middle of a coil it would turn on and
stay on like a scr. Also buzz said the energy gain was coming from
the spark cavitation. if high voltage spikes could make a motor run ou, that
would have worked for somebody a long time ago no?
1) depends on the timing and the orientation of the reed switch.
2) who cares what Buzz thinks? certainly not I.
3) yes, many people have used HV spikes in devices, including motors, that appear to be OU. You can find many examples right here on this forum.
perhaps it has...... 8)
i think you are much further ahead to keep the reeds in the right place .....
;)
i have a few proto boards done up in cases perhaps i will take a pic....
do you all hear me wishing for free engery ANYMORE..... NO!! 8)
gotta say somthing..... :) ::)
ist
Any old school automechanic that has ever changed points and not a defective open capacitor to have the customer back in his face a couple of days later realizes that the capacitor is there to protect the points from getting burnt. The capacitor is shorted while the points are closed and the primary is doing it's thing. As the points open as fast as they can there is a great probability of creating a plasma that will build in the same direction as the opening of the points. The primary voltage causes current flows across this very conductive plasma and is enough so that the primary never sees a sudden collapse but an eased collapse of the core magnetism cycling at all sorts of weird current levels depending on what kinda plasma you got going there. ;) Performance down the tubes and ionization of the metals of the points. Now put a discharged capacitor across the points. This time as the points open the current of the primary charges the capacitor. This allows the points to move far enough away from each other so that the conductive plasma field does not have a chance to bridge the expanding gap and the primary current sees a very abrupt halt depending on the ramp up of the capacitor.
Quote from: sparks on November 30, 2008, 10:30:54 AM
Any old school automechanic that has ever changed points and not a defective open capacitor to have the customer back in his face a couple of days later realizes that the capacitor is there to protect the points from getting burnt. The capacitor is shorted while the points are closed and the primary is doing it's thing. As the points open as fast as they can there is a great probability of creating a plasma that will build in the same direction as the opening of the points. The primary voltage causes current flows across this very conductive plasma and is enough so that the primary never sees a sudden collapse but an eased collapse of the core magnetism cycling at all sorts of weird current levels depending on what kinda plasma you got going there. ;) Performance down the tubes and ionization of the metals of the points. Now put a discharged capacitor across the points. This time as the points open the current of the primary charges the capacitor. This allows the points to move far enough away from each other so that the conductive plasma field does not have a chance to bridge the expanding gap and the primary current sees a very abrupt halt depending on the ramp up of the capacitor.
them the words bro 8) ;D
ever hear a ramp up lol ;) verry kool ;D
this is gain ... a positive feed back from the hemf on the input side ONLY........
your output is ... a tuned resonant coil i showed the amped spikes sine waves on my scope.... 8)
@ sparks
time to bring back an old video .... you will remember this one ;D mit backemf lol ......wich SHOULD BE CALLED HIGH ELECTRO MOTOVIE FORCE but whatever ....
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=aSmMFog10D0
lol yep this is what i have learned to tame.... ;D
1 more real good video sparks you will like this one ;)
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gfUuwnD2-fg
well im at it just 1 more
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=-dXFkcE_Jhw
that is for now ;) folks....
ist! ;D
captainpecan,
In your second video pt 2 (coils only, no rotor), you state you are getting some "free energy" because the final voltage on each capacitor after discharge is higher when summed together than what you originally started with in C1, even after discharging through a motor coil.
Here is a slight change to your circuit that will give you even more "free energy" after discharge, showing quite nicely that your setup in the videos is wasting considerable energy.
This circuit comes right out of: "Power Electronics Design Handbook" by Nihal Kularatna.
Just for fun, I simulated it in SPICE to see how much "free energy" I could get. I used your capacitor and starting voltage values. The coil inductance was a guess, but the circuit can be made to work with a wide range of values. The inductor "L1" in my diagram represents your motor coils. C1 is the source battery if you will. My "S1" is the power switch in the Kularatna diagram. Ignore the 100 MEG Ohm resistors, they have no real effect and are there only to make the simulator run properly.
You can see that the key to making this work is to switch the circuit ON for a precise or optimal amount of time, and in this case I used 18.5 ms. The result is a voltage of 12.43V remaining on each capacitor after a single pulse discharge from C1 through L1 to C2.
This is quite a bit better than any of the results you obtained in your videos. As I recall, all your voltages were below 10V.
The energy being wasted or lost in your setup is due to excessive switch ON time, and you are not capturing much (if any) inductive kickback from the coils.
Yucca put it well here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6090.msg138920#msg138920 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6090.msg138920#msg138920) when he said that in theory we should be able to achieve a voltage of approximately 12.5V on each capacitor after discharge. I achieved 12.43V in the simulation. The actual voltage required to achieve 100% conservation of energy would be 12.96V on each capacitor, based on a starting voltage of 18.33V for C1. At a voltage of 12.43V achieved in my simulation, this equates to an energy transfer of 92% efficiency. With a better diode such as a Schottky, the efficiency will probably approach 95%. There will always be real life losses due to switch and wire resistances in the circuit, and radiation effects.
The numbers:
Reference energy in one cap:
18.33V @ 4700uF = 0.7896J
Simulation energy remaining in two caps:
12.43V @ 4700uF = 0.363 (x2 is 0.7262J)
Efficiency = (0.7262/0.7896) x 100%
= 92%
Theoretical (no losses) energy reamining in both caps:
12.96V @ 4700uF = 0.7894J (two caps)
Efficiency = (0.7894/0.7896) x 100%
= 99.98%
What do you think captain?
.99
@poynt99
Well done simulation..
Now the question is, if the mechanical movement of the rotor can be made this way, that
it can back induce more voltage back to the second cap and the voltage
will still rise over there 12.43 Volts ?
Then it could all in all go over 100 %.
But you have to find the right mechanical setup and magnet configuration.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 30, 2008, 11:29:00 AM
@poynt99
Well done simulation..
Now the question is, if the mechanical movement of the rotor can be made this way, that
it can back induce more voltage back to the second cap and the voltage
will still rise over there 12.43 Volts ?
Then it could all in all go over 100 %.
But you have to find the right mechanical setup and magnet configuration.
Regards, Stefan.
bs...
lol
99 good work tho
im gonna show you a better way captin is too ... the buzz is correct ....
i think many fail to see exactly how captins caps actually work ...
you dont need any movement stephen ......
NO MOVEING PARTS .....WHAT IM TRYING TO SHOW YOU ALL IS HOW!!!!!!!
sheeh this is crazy hard to crack warped minds by lies .....
ist
@ captian i hope you got your new vid done as its needed and so is your explanation so far on the knowalge you have gained since this has come to light ....
8)
1 peice of the puzzel at a time and it may not ever cost you a dime ;D :)
ist!
what is needed is common ground understanding from there our mind is our only limit!!
If we add the sound waves emwaves and heating effect resulting from the spark gap to the the potential energy left in the capacitors has this simple transfer of energy from capacitor a to discharged capacitor B gone over the top?
i post this pic agin .....
is this over the top in 1 pulse...??
ist
simple ou for everyone ... ;) now how does the relate to the topic ;D
i will continue to teach you how to make a 12 volt ou battery charger from this neat thing ;D
lol
but i will Waite till your are on my page ... :)
now what if our caps were 12vdc solar deep cycle batteries that we could run inverters off ;) and all batteries were constantally recharged as it flys around .... :)
YOU WILL TAKE NOTE... THE RETURNING ENGERY IS ALWAYS MORE THAN APPLYED... 8)
in the case of this unit showen ... the faster it goes the bright er the bulb gets.... ;)
@All,
My Tripulse motor will not run. First I had two magnets in the rotor with alternate polarity.
The reed relays triggered on both south and north passing magnet and the rotor did not run.
Then I turned on magnet around so that the rotor had the same polarity facing out for both magnets.
The result was that the magnet field did get weaker and only one of the reed relays fired.
Is there a way to get a reed relay to fire on ONLY one magnet polarity?
Groundloop.
Yes, you can get a reed relay to fire on only one polarity, by "biasing" the switch with a small magnet on the opposite side of the triggering magnet. It takes some experimentation to find the right strength and position.
An alternative solution would be to use a Hall effect switch. If you need the mechanical interruption to make a spark or something, you can use the Hall sensor near the rotor to fire a mechanical relay or reed-solenoid combo some distance away. Then your Hall sensor can be positioned to take advantage of either polarity of the rotor magnets, and you still get the mechanical interruption at the relay contacts or the reed-solenoid combo.
@ Groundloop
I'm not sure I have any advice for you on the reeds, although your setup looks like it would work good with hall sensors if you happened to have any handy.
@ Pointz
I never claimed my setup was the most efficient, I definitely do not see a problem trying to make it better. Thanks for taking a few minutes to try and make a more efficient circuit. There are many ways to improve it, and that's kind of why I posted it to start with. The more we can catch in the caps the better, because we will get work out of the motor either way. That's the whole point. The interesting part is though, IST appears to be correct as far as I can tell. There may not even be a need for rotation. I'm seeing some pretty interesting stuff solid state right now.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 30, 2008, 02:33:39 PM
Yes, you can get a reed relay to fire on only one polarity, by "biasing" the switch with a small magnet on the opposite side of the triggering magnet. It takes some experimentation to find the right strength and position.
An alternative solution would be to use a Hall effect switch. If you need the mechanical interruption to make a spark or something, you can use the Hall sensor near the rotor to fire a mechanical relay or reed-solenoid combo some distance away. Then your Hall sensor can be positioned to take advantage of either polarity of the rotor magnets, and you still get the mechanical interruption at the relay contacts or the reed-solenoid combo.
Yeah, what he said! ;D
Quote from: open maind on November 30, 2008, 11:36:08 AM
PLEASE MISTER STEFAN HARTMAN PLEASE OPEN THE FORUM IEVE free energy magnetic mill IS VERY IMPORTAND THE INFORMATION ES VERY IMPORTAND I NEED GO INFORMATION A PEOPLE THE MAGNETIC MILL IS A NEW AND FUTURE STATION POWER IS VERY IMPORTAND INFORMATION. THE PEOPLE NEED INFORMATION NO MORE MONOPOLY OIL PETROLEUM
Please stop spamming the thread,
otherwise I will set this account also to Read Only...
If you have something new,
just post clear pictures or videos,
but don´t post always your old outdated stuff....
@TinselKoala,
Thanks for the tip. It worked! My motor is running now, on only reed relays.
I used small Ferrite magnets for my bias.
Now the motor is shuffling energy from the input, to the first capacitor, to the next capacitor and via last coil to ground.
The motor is using 0,05 Ampere at 10 Volt input. This is very close to my design goal.
@captainpecan,
I have tried Hall switches many times but I wanted to run on reeds only, this time.
Groundloop.
awsome ground loop glad to hear you seccucess ... 8)
now if you can get it self running from a single charge of cap 1 ;) lol
that would be the SH!T lol
lets put a BIG CAP BIGGGGG CAP AS C1 .... i have 1 laying round here some where ;)
ooo here it is ... how about ....120000uf 15vdc..... and i bet your coils will not use the power contained in the cap and if they do use some choke coils ... to give your magnets a little more push :D ;)
if ya know what i mean .... lol
@innovation_station,
My goal today was to get this motor running. I can see that it is running ccw and that was NOT how I designed it.
So first I must reverse all three coils so the the motor gets the correct timing.
I also have BIG caps somewhere around here, found it, 10 FARAD 12,5 Volt. Will try that later. :-)
Groundloop.
Quote from: Groundloop on November 30, 2008, 03:11:26 PM
Now the motor is shuffling energy from the input, to the first capacitor, to the next capacitor and via last coil to ground.
The motor is using 0,05 Ampere at 10 Volt input. This is very close to my design goal.
Any guess on the rpms or power the motor is showing? That photo you posted is a really bad angle I think, surely you have the reeds all in the proper placement. The photo just makes it appear like the two back coils are almost touching each other while there is plenty of space from the next one. Makes it look like the reeds are not quite lined up for the best performance. I'm sure it's just the angle of the photo though, but I thought I'd ask.
@captainpecan,
Bad angle photo. There is a small difference in the placements of the coils.
Had to do that because of the available space on top of the plastic box.
I do not think it will impact the motor in a negative way. More important
is the rotation of the rotor. It is going the wrong way right now. I must
reverse the coils so that the motor runs clock wice instead. Then the position
of the reeds will be correct. Working on this right now....
Groundloop.
;D
now that is a huge freqin cap lol
ist
@ IST:
Thank you for the explanation of the single reeds, now I see.
@ Groundloop:
Thank you also for explaining. Nice job on your tri-coil set-up. Is your 10F cap considered an ultra cap or super cap? I was hoping someone would start messing with those on this topic. I found some decent sources for reasonably priced super caps, some very high F too. Best of luck to you on reversing your spin. One thought, if it WANTS to spin that way, why reverse polarity to change it? It may, the way you have it set-up now, be more efficient in this direction.....just a thought.
Bill
Quote from: captainpecan on November 30, 2008, 02:45:08 PM
@ Pointz
I never claimed my setup was the most efficient, I definitely do not see a problem trying to make it better. Thanks for taking a few minutes to try and make a more efficient circuit. There are many ways to improve it, and that's kind of why I posted it to start with. The more we can catch in the caps the better, because we will get work out of the motor either way. That's the whole point. The interesting part is though, IST appears to be correct as far as I can tell. There may not even be a need for rotation. I'm seeing some pretty interesting stuff solid state right now.
Actually, you kinda did miss the two points I
was trying to make, but that's ok.
.99
@Pirate88179,
It is a Dynacap. See: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=get200
Yes, you was right. I reversed the coils and got a very bad rpm. I will change them back.
Tips to others that want to build a reed relay motor. Make the reeds adjustable in position.
Groundloop.
@ Pointz
I just tried your circuit, minus the resistors as I dont have those values, and I believe you said they were only needed to get spice to work right. It does not appear to perform as spice says it does. In fact, it appears to be worse than I originally did. I added some smaller resistors that I had available, just in case, and I got even worse results that followed my belief that the resistors dont need to be there. Using that method, I split 18.48v in C1 to end up with 9.31v in C1 and 9.09v in C2. I tried using one of my coils, then 3 of my coils, then using a MOT in place of the coils, and I am getting all the same results, the voltages are staying in the mid to low 9's when split, far from the average of mid 12's as the simulation states.
Either I'm doing something wrong, which I do not think that I am, or spice's simulation in this case does not work in reality. One thing is for sure though, spice is using the exact physics equations for it's calculations. Again, It seems I am not able to match what the equations say I am? Anyone else done this before and get the results spice says you are supposed to? This circuit is not rocket science, but I sure am not able to get it to work the way it says it should.
Good that you are thinking about the idea, but I figure one important aspect of the circuit may have been overlooked:
Did you use your hand and manually short the wires together, or how did you implement the switch?
Improper timing of the pulse will give you varied end-voltages on the caps. The circuit isn't rocket science, but to make it work you really need an electronic switch driven by a pulse circuit that has an adjustable pulse width. Is this what you have used?
You are correct about the two resistors in the circuit, just pretend they are not there.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 30, 2008, 04:19:24 PM
Actually, you kinda did miss the two points I was trying to make, but that's ok.
.99
Actually, no, I knew exactly what you were getting at. Like your other posts in the past, your intention was to show that there is no "free energy" in my circuit. Your point in your simulation was trying to show how "inefficient" my circuit is and how it seems to loose lot's of energy. I saw no point in reading it as a tear down, and I looked for valuable information that may be there, as I always do. If someone can show me how to split 18v into 2 12.5v caps, I'm all for it. That just makes it even better. In fact, I think Stefan read it the same way I did.
So, even though I think you wanted to make it look like there is no chance of free energy in my system, thanks for trying to prove it wrong. I did try your advice. Actually, I kinda wish it worked!
Quote from: poynt99 on November 30, 2008, 04:40:55 PM
Good that you are thinking about the idea, but I figure one important aspect of the circuit may have been overlooked:
Did you use your hand and manually short the wires together, or how did you implement the switch?
Improper timing of the pulse will give you varied end-voltages on the caps. The circuit isn't rocket science, but to make it work you really need an electronic switch driven by a pulse circuit that has an adjustable pulse width. Is this what you have used?
You are correct about the two resistors in the circuit, just pretend they are not there.
.99
Yes, I used a switch. and my fingers and sparks were not a variable. It just does not appear to work as planned. I tried small pulses, long pulses, dead short... I just couldn't duplicate anywhere near 12.5v in each cap. Sorry. Maybe someone else has been able to do this.
so i finally finished my 3 freq controller so i started on the next coil ;D
i liked it so much i will post it here 8)
ist
my plan is to drive this by sound waves thus elemaniting... switching devices.... ;) rotation is from mixing of the freqs..... ;) and speed can be what you make it ;)
3 crossover coils... 2 pancake pick up coils ... so far lol 8)
ist
@ IST
Impressive... Cant wait to see what's next!
Here's some food for thought. How can we improve on this?
so this is how this coil will work
the coils vertical ones are 4ohm crossover coils they produce strong magnetic waves when at the proper freqs.... theose mag waves will induce current in my pickup pancake coils in 1 dirrection 8) those crossovers are my 3 coil in the 369 combo ....
i will not use the 6 coil in this yet .....
next we need our speekers :D our speekers will be our 9 coil in teslas combo but i dont want sound.... i want electro magnetics.... and the speekers will be used to force the rotating induced electric current in my polorized pancake coils.... faster round and round .... also they act as choke coils ... or motor coils.... ;D thus limiting our input .... and giving us a point of EFFICIENT high electro motive force to devolop should we decide to use it in this unit ...
i was thinking of the speekers to go 90 deg to the crossovers .... round the whole ring ...
ist
im open for ideas...
Quote from: captainpecan on November 30, 2008, 04:44:55 PM
Actually, no, I knew exactly what you were getting at. Like your other posts in the past, your intention was to show that there is no "free energy" in my circuit. Your point in your simulation was trying to show how "inefficient" my circuit is and how it seems to loose lot's of energy. I saw no point in reading it as a tear down, and I looked for valuable information that may be there, as I always do. If someone can show me how to split 18v into 2 12.5v caps, I'm all for it. That just makes it even better. In fact, I think Stefan read it the same way I did.
So, even though I think you wanted to make it look like there is no chance of free energy in my system, thanks for trying to prove it wrong. I did try your advice. Actually, I kinda wish it worked!
I think what people try to tell you is that you lost energy
when you charged the first cap from the battery. This is the part
you do not include but is what proves that there is no free
energy in your invention.
What do you think can make the capacitor voltage go up just wondering?
Quote from: MeltDown on December 01, 2008, 01:02:41 AM
I think what people try to tell you is that you lost energy
when you charged the first cap from the battery. This is the part
you do not include but is what proves that there is no free
energy in your invention.
What do you think can make the capacitor voltage go up just wondering?
Ah... So because you "think" I lost energy charging the first cap from the battery, that "proves" there is no free energy in the system. Energy loss, no matter how great or small from charging the first cap with the battery, has absolutely nothing to do with what is tested. Energy from one cap to another does. Is it a consideration if trying to make a self runner using batteries, definitely, I agree. I dont see how you can draw a conclusion that "proves" there is no free energy because of the battery, when I never even checked the voltage on the battery to start with because it was not even part of the experiment. There is not enough information to "prove" one way or another in these videos. Energy from the rotation was not added either. The video's are just experimental, and raising thought process. A true self runner is where the proof is.
Quote from: captainpecan on December 01, 2008, 04:27:27 AM
Ah... So because you "think" I lost energy charging the first cap from the battery, that "proves" there is no free energy in the system. Energy loss, no matter how great or small from charging the first cap with the battery, has absolutely nothing to do with what is tested. Energy from one cap to another does. Is it a consideration if trying to make a self runner using batteries, definitely, I agree. I dont see how you can draw a conclusion that "proves" there is no free energy because of the battery, when I never even checked the voltage on the battery to start with because it was not even part of the experiment. There is not enough information to "prove" one way or another in these videos. Energy from the rotation was not added either. The video's are just experimental, and raising thought process. A true self runner is where the proof is.
It is impossible to charge a cap at 100% efficiency,
that is not in question by anyone that know electronics
and physics and that is fine that you do not care or
test that.
My question was where does the energy gain come from
when you short the caps together?
@CaptainPecan: good to see you're back in full action again :)
Ok, I have had a few interesting discussions with friends of mine
about this too, and just looking at your basic setup of the initial
experiment you posted, this is the general consensus:
- yes, we can switch a starting charge on cap1 that measures X volts
to a parallel arrangement using cap1 and cap2, where all caps have
the same capacitance (farads).
- yes, if we only look at the charges and the very basics of capacitor
theory and we omit the capacitance (farads) of the caps, then
one would assume we would end up with a parallel arrangement
where each cap contains 0,5 X volts.
- BUT, if we do take the capacitance into account, we can see that
the parallel arrangement of 2 capacitors with a capacitance Y (farads)
per cap, is NOT identical to one single capacitor with capacitance Y.
- and this in part explains how the voltage on such a parallel cap
setup can measure higher than the 0,5 X volts. Because the volts
alone are not the only measure of the energy contained in a capacitor,
but rather the combination of farads and volts. If you only measure the volts
without taking the farads into account, you can get higher volt readings
even though the actual energy contained in the caps may in fact have decreased.
Now, that said, that's only the general consensus in the group of friends
that I discussed it with on my side here, and you may not be interested in hearing
about that, but in case you are, there you have it.
If you look up similar examples in electrodynamics books, they will descibe
similar voltage gain while energy drops situations.
(And please don't think I'm trying to put your idea down or anything, I was hoping
for a real energy increase too, but what they say seems to accord with theory
and calculations so it would seem they're correct.... ;))
Of course it does not discuss the possibility that pulsing a monopole motor
may indeed be achieved by switching the charges between caps, which I feel
you have shown pretty clearly and is very Bediniesque in my opinion ;)
nor does it immediately discount the possibility that you might be getting
fairly large "back emf" spikes in the pulsing of the coil setup. Very Bedini
again, but hey ;)
And of course using cool switches like reed couplers may have very interesting effects.
Keep it up bud!
:)
- BUT, if we do take the capacitance into account, we can see that
the parallel arrangement of 2 capacitors with a capacitance Y (farads)
per cap, is NOT identical to one single capacitor with capacitance Y.
- and this in part explains how the voltage on such a parallel cap
setup can measure higher than the 0,5 X volts. Because the volts
alone are not the only measure of the energy contained in a capacitor,
but rather the combination of farads and volts. If you only measure the volts
without taking the farads into account, you can get higher volt readings
even though the actual energy contained in the caps may in fact have decreased.
This is a good point that keon1 makes and he is lucky to have smart friends.
You could switch the caps around and prove or not this point he makes.
It is like pouring 10mm of water from a wide bucket into thin pipe and filling
it up 100mm. Looks like a gain but is the same amount of water.
Quote from: MeltDown on December 01, 2008, 06:16:25 AM
It is impossible to charge a cap at 100% efficiency,
that is not in question by anyone that know electronics
and physics and that is fine that you do not care or
test that.
My question was where does the energy gain come from
when you short the caps together?
;D
im gonna have to pull an erfinder card.... out of my back pocket ;)
this is incorrect... ;D
need proof ;)
lol
in 1 pulse i have put 65 v dc in a cap from a 12vdc source ..... lol and it COST ME NOTHING I COULD ACTUALLY MESURE... ;D
PERHAPS
you are correct melt down .... it cant be charged a 100 percent efficiency only bond 100 percent efficient :D at 100 percent efficient it would only charge to 12vdc not 60 somthing volts... ;)
ist
i will ask you 1 more time do you need proof?
:)
yes that is correct that cap reads 186.1vdc..... :P
sure that was charged from 10 pluses but in the frist crack of the button i have put over 60vdc in that same cap ;)
this is where you match it :) so it is filled in 1 pluse as you can see my cap is a large one ... btw do not touch the cap it is real power and you can match this feeling by putting your finger in the wall socket..... 8)
Voltage is power not energy. Gain in power of a system is a good thing. Give me a picofarad at 1million volts in a capacitor anyday then 12 volts in a farad capacitor. Because 1 million volts doesn't have to worry too much about resistance. It makes things happen that aint gonna happen with 12 volts no matter how much 12volts you got. Study the vary concept of an ozone generator. There is no current between the plates of an ozone generator but there is some voltage between them. Keep on going up the voltage ladder and you start ripping atoms up. It aint gonna happen in a field with 12volts between the plates.
Innovation_station - you did not measure the current, only voltage.
I can made 12V 1A into 1 million volts but that is not free energy,
just a step up of voltage.
to measure power in watts we use volts X amps (P=V x A) and the current
and volts must be phased.
I agree, meters and math are for the girly man that goes to school.
If you say it feels like a wall socket, that is scientific enough for me
and confirmation of free energy and the laws of electromagnetics have
been violated for sure.
Could you do one test to be sure?
Could you put one finger in the wall socket and at the same time
touch the other finger to the cap with the 180V and tell me which finger
feels the most current (not voltage) just current?
I need a current measurement to be sure, so get your fingers good
and wet for good current transfer and do the test at least 100 times to be accurate. :-)
Quote from: MeltDown on December 01, 2008, 07:52:07 AM
Innovation_station - you did not measure the current, only voltage.
I can made 12V 1A into 1 million volts but that is not free energy,
just a step up of voltage.
to measure power in watts we use volts X amps (P=V x A) and the current
and volts must be phased.
I agree, meters and math are for the girly man that goes to school.
If you say it feels like a wall socket, that is scientific enough for me
and confirmation of free energy and the laws of electromagnetics have
been violated for sure.
Could you do one test to be sure?
Could you put one finger in the wall socket and at the same time
touch the other finger to the cap with the 180V and tell me which finger
feels the most current (not voltage) just current?
I need a current measurement to be sure, so get your fingers good
and wet for good current transfer and do the test at least 100 times to be accurate. :-)
here's a better idea put your tongue on it and have a MELTDOWN!! :D lol!!
it melts screwdrivers when i short it ... i have done this from a 9v too... :P
if you do not get it by NOW you really SUCK!!
LOL
ist!
pretty well done with you guys ::) ::)
AGIN I TELL YOU TO GO STUDY ..... if you argue my words you are not in the know 8)
Quote from: sparks on December 01, 2008, 07:48:58 AM
Voltage is power not energy. Gain in power of a system is a good thing. Give me a picofarad at 1million volts in a capacitor anyday then 12 volts in a farad capacitor. Because 1 million volts doesn't have to worry too much about resistance. It makes things happen that aint gonna happen with 12 volts no matter how much 12volts you got. Study the vary concept of an ozone generator. There is no current between the plates of an ozone generator but there is some voltage between them. Keep on going up the voltage ladder and you start ripping atoms up. It aint gonna happen in a field with 12volts between the plates.
For correct terminology we say electric power is measured in watts which
is volts x amps. Electricity is two things, voltage and current and so this
is why we measure the energy in watts.
You are right about the high voltage. The secret to the free energy is
what is between the plates that gets converted. Plain air is not good.
Quote from: innovation_station on December 01, 2008, 08:05:52 AM
here's a better idea put your tongue on it and have a MELTDOWN!! :D lol!!
it melts screwdrivers when i short it ... i have done this from a 9v too... :P
if you do not get it by NOW you really SUCK!!
LOL
ist!
pretty well done with you guys ::) ::)
AGIN I TELL YOU TO GO STUDY ..... if you argue my words you are not in the know 8)
Then I totally agree with you because I do not want to suck and I want to be in the know like you.
I get it now, thanks for setting me straight. The screw driver does not lie, cannot lie but meters
lie all the time.
btw the way smarttie ... lol my battery is recharged lol thuss never going dead .....
duh!!! it always returns to where it was
wake up !!! i can have it so it is recharged more than it was if you want ....lol and still have output
so take you WRONG MATH AND SHOVE IT ....
get the real deal than consult me with your equasions ... heres a tip start with RODINS MATH ;)
ist
if you think my math works the way my spelling does be it knowen this is wrong ...
sorry if i seem rude it is not ment to be like that ....
but i have had enough bs through out learning this..... form people i dont need more i need people to build it ... ;)
could it be the that what you are seeing here is the effect set out on page 10 section 15 of this patent?
British GB 2390941
The "Young Effect" is appropriately named. It is CaptainPecan's generous gift to the free energy movement. When the gift is unwrapped we find youthful enthusiasm and youthful folly.intermingled.
It is a gift that has been recycled or re-gifted many times on many forums. The enthusiasm is admirable. The blind folly is laughable.
The energy stored in a capacitor is a square function of voltage. As such 18^2 is much greater than 9^2 + 9^2 by a factor of 2X. So a capacitor charged to 18 volts has twice the stored energy of the two combined capacitors charged to 9 volts each. This is very simple math and has been pointed out by numerous others but simply glossed over.(folly or enthusiasm?....you decide).
In an ideal world and with the appropriate inductive switching you will come very close to the value of 12.73 volts on each capacitor. This energy now shared would exactly equal the stored energy of the single cap charged to 18 volts. The fact that you are not getting close to this value is because your switch is not ideal and your inductor has resistance.
So now the claim has changed and the focus is on the motors free revolutions. Careful scrutiny will show that a motor is also a generator and with the shaft unloaded, the rotational inertia tends to put back the slight amount of current to get it moving, minus resistive and frictional losses. Load the shaft and you will soak up the stored energy and wind up with a different charge on the caps, but still much less than the 12.73 volts that would represent a break even situation.
(psst: Good luck with your gift)
Quote from: MeltDown on December 01, 2008, 08:05:52 AM
You are right about the high voltage. The secret to the free energy is
what is between the plates that gets converted. Plain air is not good.
MeltDown - you are correct.
Plain air is not good - Blondlot proved this around the turn of the century with an experiment based on the old electron theory. (I guess the electron theory is still alive and well, despite this.)
@meltdown
QuoteFor correct terminology we say electric power is measured in watts which
is volts x amps. Electricity is two things, voltage and current and so this
is why we measure the energy in watts.
No, electricity is one thing----voltage is an electrical pressure and current is this electrical pressure in motion, just because something is moving does not change "what" it is. So we could say power in "watts" is nothing more than the ability of a source to maintain electrical pressure dispite the motion or "current" which discharges the same source. Voltage, a potential difference is the only power in a circuit---- the current is an effect of when the voltage is allowed to move.
Quote from: HEYDUDE on December 01, 2008, 10:00:51 AM
(psst: Good luck with your gift)
not my gift.... im just getting to the bottom of how and why somthing like this WORKS....
IST!
looks like the tpu thred went dead agin ..... ::)
testing my concepts? :)
Quote from: allcanadian on December 01, 2008, 11:06:05 AM
@meltdownNo, electricity is one thing----voltage is an electrical pressure and current is this electrical pressure in motion, just because something is moving does not change "what" it is. So we could say power in "watts" is nothing more than the ability of a source to maintain electrical pressure dispite the motion or "current" which discharges the same source. Voltage, a potential difference is the only power in a circuit---- the current is an effect of when the voltage is allowed to move.
Current (electron drift) is not electrical pressure in motion. If it were, then waving a capacitor or battery around would charge it.
Yeah, I can charge a cap to over 190V too, using a half dead 9V battery. I kinda need all my fingers so I opted to use my Fluke meter to measure the cap instead ;D
By the way great job Captain!!
This simple circuit works really well capturing the bemf.
The coil was one side of a 120V to 9V transformer, the cap was a 1500mf 200V, diode was a 1N40001.
Anyone have any ideas how to hook this circuit up to a DC motor to capture or eliminate the back emf?
Here's the WORKING circuit.
Quote from: yaz on December 01, 2008, 12:34:52 PM
Yeah, I can charge a cap to over 190V too, using a half dead 9V battery. I kinda need all my fingers so I opted to use my Fluke meter to measure the cap instead ;D
By the way great job Captain!!
This simple circuit works really well capturing the bemf.
The coil was one side of a 120V to 9V transformer, the cap was a 1500mf 200V, diode was a 1N40001.
Anyone have any ideas how to hook this circuit up to a DC motor to capture or eliminate the back emf?
Here's the WORKING circuit.
great job !! finally!!!
i have a few IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT CURCUIT :)
but we will get there or maybe some else can figure it out
great work bro 8)
thank you !!
ist!
btw i have used an anolog meter as well..... ::) :D i just dont show it ;) with or with out the cap it dont matter..... ;D
This is a pretty efficient motor design. Needs to be tested though. It powers two fans for the price of one. Maybe two induction generators for the price of one? The induction motor mounted on a standard base is running at 90 percent efficiency and stretching bolt heads and support members and all sorts of stupid shit . When we anchor the stator with a load this efficiency goes up to 180 percent.
Ehm...
It's not so hard to charge a cap to 150V from a 1.5V battery, is it?
If you use a 1:1000 trafo and either pulses or an alternator?
Quote from: Koen1 on December 01, 2008, 03:22:53 PM
Ehm...
It's not so hard to charge a cap to 150V from a 1.5V battery, is it?
If you use a 1:1000 trafo and either pulses or an alternator?
I think you mean 1:100 and if you use alternator you
need diode to rectify AC to DC for unidirectional pulse
but we know what you try to say.
well going shopping tommorow agin
any one want to add to my list...?
im going to get magnet wire a BUNCH so i can wind more coils.... ;D
anyone got any hints on gages? lol
i need 3 diffrent gages at min ...i will get 12 ga or 14 enamiled as my 3 as 6 i was thinking 20 and 28 0r 30 ga for 9 coil
let me know what you think!!!
personally i dont think it matters so much .... it is more the mass to mass tuneing ;) but they should all fit with in the same wave length or harmonics of it if you get what in trying to say...
so we so far have detirmened that
3 = low selfinductance .... 12 or 14 gage ideally we pic a length of this wire to base everything off of first ... this is your kick coil ...
6= med self induction ...... out put .... this will be tuned to dubble the resistance of the first coil .... as i currently see it ...
9= high self inductance ...... choke coil... this will be fine wire 28 or 30 ga it is a motor coil or a magnet coil also the speeker in the audio ver
arguments i do not claim this correct .... it needs more work as im only now starting to build it...
so chew it apart so i build it prorer ;)
this is posted here because when we get it right it will charge the caps THE BEST... 8) who knows you may not even need caps.... ::) lol
ist!
Quote from: innovation_station on December 02, 2008, 12:47:13 AM
well going shopping tommorow agin
any one want to add to my list...?
ist!
I would like to add two books to your list.
1. A dictionary
2. A basic electronics handbook
Quote from: MeltDown on December 01, 2008, 07:55:11 PM
I think you mean 1:100
Oh yeah I see, typo, a zero too many. Sorry. But indeed,
a 1:100 or 10:1000 trafo should increase 1,5V to 150V.
And let's say the battery can put out 1 amp, the
150V would be somewhere around 0,01 amp.
Very basic transformer stuff...
Quoteand if you use alternator you
need diode to rectify AC to DC for unidirectional pulse
Obviously.
Quotebut we know what you try to say.
Oh good. Was starting to wonder how complicated it could be. ;)
Now I'm not entirely sure, but it looks to me like this is "just"
using an input pulse to generate a magnetic field, and then
using both the initial pulse and the self-induction of the coil
to get more out of the "back emf".
According to most books that shouldn't be able to yield
any more energy than the input...
@CaptainPecan:
Here's an idea: what if you do away with the battery,
you don't count the battery as circuit element.
Let's say you charge the starting capacitor from your
battery and then put the battery away.
Can this circuit now take that charge, run it through
the coil etc, then finally store it on a parallel cap
arrangement, and now according to what you and
IST have been posting you should have more
energy in the parallel cap arrangement...
Now pump all of that energy back into one single
capacitor identical to the initial starter cap,
by for example simply discharging the entire
parallel capacitor array through a transformer...
If you're right and you are getting out more actual
energy (and not just volts), then you should
be able to charge this second cap to a higher
voltage than the starter cap had.
And if both caps are identical, with identical
capacitance (farads), then a higher voltage on
the output cap would seem to indicate a real
higher energy level, and would seem to confirm
the energy gain in your setup.
Can you try that?
So basically, use the setup you already have for your
energy gain experiment, but instead of measuring the
total voltage of the parallel capacitor arrangement,
you simply discharge that entire arrangement through
a pulse trafo and use the output of the trafo to charge
a fresh cap identical to the single starting cap.
Seem to me comparing the total input voltage and the
total output voltage when both these voltages are stored
on single identical capacitors will give a nicely comparable
measurement, or at least, without all the issues related
to the nonidentical parallel arrangement.
Oh, I kind of repeated myself I see... Lol that's another tip:
always drink your coffee
before you start a reply. ;) ;D
Quote from: MeltDown on December 02, 2008, 03:37:05 AM
I would like to add two books to your list.
1. A dictionary
2. A basic electronics handbook
yea what ever shove the dictonary....
and basic electronics.... lol
how about tubes ;D my garbage is made of electronics..... ;D
and this is what you get to see ;D
when i build the REAL SH!T IT WILL NOT BE SEEN ;)
ist!
has anyone made the video yet of the mot spitting rf flames?? from the colapse of the feilds humm ::) la dee da... this is the first step ...
second would be to capture it and convert it to run with gain ....
stpe 3 improve it ... so it draws no power and you still get the flame....
then apply it as i currently am ....
you must first crawl b4 you run ;)
Quote from: innovation_station on December 02, 2008, 07:40:48 AM
has anyone made the video yet of the mot spitting rf flames?? from the colapse of the feilds humm ::) la dee da... this is the first step ...
second would be to capture it and convert it to run with gain ....
stpe 3 improve it ... so it draws no power and you still get the flame....
then apply it as i currently am ....
you must first crawl b4 you run ;)
Is this what you mean?!?!?! I think I'm starting to crawl a little bit... ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR_1EfqCtCQ
Quote from: captainpecan on December 03, 2008, 03:42:15 AM
Is this what you mean?!?!?! I think I'm starting to crawl a little bit... ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR_1EfqCtCQ
In your video you stated "58 volys in one shot"
Not really. When you dragged that clip
across the wire, it made and broke contact many times. Each
time it sent a charge pulse to the cap and so the cap charged to
higher level. :-)
Quote from: MeltDown on December 03, 2008, 03:54:42 AM
In your video you stated "58 volys in one shot"
Not really. When you dragged that clip
across the wire, it made and broke contact many times. Each
time it sent a charge pulse to the cap and so the cap charged to
higher level. :-)
It is amazing how quick people jump up to tear things down. This time I think you should rethink how that voltage got there. Watch a little closer I guess. I dont know what to tell you.
I am not tearing things down, I am pointing out a flaw in your test.
Replace the arcing wire with a 2n3055 that is driven with a 555 set
up as a one shot. That would be a proper test that you could draw
some kind of conclusion from.
Otherwise, each time the connection makes and breaks, you send
another charge pump to the capacitor and one will expect it do charge
just like a capacitor will and just like yours did.
Quote from: capthook on November 17, 2008, 03:12:47 AM
I 100% disagree with your statement that energy is entering the system, and it is my opinion that what you are doing has a 0% chance of creating free energy.
When you refine your methods and contemplate it some more - you should come to the same conclusion.
Still in the (unrefined) sandbox I see.........
Quote from: captainpecan on November 17, 2008, 03:04:05 PM
Did I prove it? Some say yes, some say no. I guess it really doesn't matter, because the real proof is going to happen when the self runners start popping up out of the woodwork!
Has the woodwork turned to sawdust yet?
Quote from: captainpecan on December 03, 2008, 04:34:25 AM
It is amazing how quick people jump up to tear things down. This time I think you should rethink how that voltage got there.
So if someone expressing an opinion that differs from you, they are bashing you? And when you make a comment like "self runners start popping up out of the woodwork!" about your..... ahem.... tests..... you DESERVE NOT A BASHING BUT A THRASHING!
So lets see:
1. What is a spark....hmmmm HIGH VOLTAGE
2. What happens when you MAKE a spark........ see #1
3. You input 20volts @ 3.5amps (the rating of your powersupply) for 1 second: 70 wattseconds
4. You capture on your capacitor: .5(.0001x58x58) = 0.1682 wattseconds
So you managed to:
Do zero work while expending 99.99% of your applied power.
When can I run my car off of this 'technology'? ::)
It appears youtube cuts frames out of video's. You cant see the high voltage spikes on the multimeter, and cant see the sparks all the time. Here are six back to back stills of individual frames that make it a little easier to see what is happening on the multimeter. You can see the extremely high voltage spike coming off the coil just as the connection is broken.
Quote from: capthook on December 03, 2008, 05:41:04 AM
So if someone expressing an opinion that differs from you, they are bashing you?
Many people have expressed opinions that differ from mine, and I do not see it as bashing at all. But it is obvious those who have no respect for others. Some people dont care to sift through all the troll dung, just to find someone trying to work in the right direction. It seems funny though that certain people like you, who have absolutely nothing positive to add to this thread anymore, continue to hang around. I dont believe you have given even 1 suggestion as to how things could be improved. All I've seen from you is flat out tear down. You said your piece way back on page 1 about capacitors charging. You've said since page 1 that there is no free energy here. Stop wasting our time and yours by hanging around in here. Move along now, there's nothing more for you to see here.
Quote from: capthook on December 03, 2008, 05:41:04 AM
You input 20volts @ 3.5amps (the rating of your powersupply) for 1 second: 70 wattseconds
You capture on your capacitor: .5(.0001x58x58) = 0.1682 wattseconds
So you managed to:
Do zero work while expending 99.99% of your applied power.
When can I run my car off of this 'technology'? ::)
First off, It's interesting you can come to a conclusion of exactly how much energy was lost in this test by figuring it took one full second for that millisecond pulse. Oh, and let's get critical and measure exactly how much energy in the capacitor. I dont think I mentioned anywhere in that video that it had anything to do with overunity either. I took suggestions from others as to what I should test, for ways to send a low voltage into a higher voltage cap. The goal was to charge a cap from the collapsing field to a higher voltage. Interesting enough, I learned something from trying what IST suggested. I dont really care if you like it or not to be honest, I did exactly what I wanted to do in that video... Take another step forward in understanding how all this stuff can work together.
Where's your videos showing your work towards free energy? Maybe everyone would like to pick your stuff apart too!
Well I quit reading after the self-runner woodwork comment.
And haven't posted since page 5.
Thought I'd pop in and see why this thread was still around.
At least you've moved on from your 'splitting charges on capacitors is free energy' notion.
And though harshly presented, the comments I just made about your latest video included my opinion of what was/wasn't happening.
And your comment about "tearing down!" to Meltdown after he just offered his non-offensive opinion struck a nerve, like Carly Fieorina crying "sexism!" every-other-sentence as McCains talking head.
So hey - I apologize for the bashing tone - and wish you the best in your endevours.
@ captian loosk great! ;)
i guess you now see how this IS possible ..... 8)
so to get this correct you apply 19.8vdc . 0ne shot ... and in that 1 shot .. you are returned 58vdc ... ;)
not rocket sience here.. infact extreamly simple :)
so i post this 1 more time have a good look at my curcuit i have made my own
ist
hey dont for get the single charge of cap 1 to start this entire process... ;D
we need just 1 more simple test .... lol
test the consumption of this unit .... when useing the choke and not useing the choke ...
what are the results :)
btw i just ordered 30 lbs of copper wire 3 spools :) im gonna go with 14 22 28 gages
oh i also built my 12n1 coil vertical coils .... all speeker wire all same length and all bifillar i used a 6" pvc core for my coil and 12 spools of 18ga speeker wire then 2 pancakes top n bottom lengths of my magnets are 33'3"
Quote from: innovation_station on December 03, 2008, 08:59:52 AM
so to get this correct you apply 19.8vdc . 0ne shot ... and in that 1 shot .. you are returned 58vdc ... ;)
And this is overunity to you, right?
@c-pecan
the collapsing magnetic field contains maximum the energy that it did cost to create it.
Quote from: capthook on December 03, 2008, 07:04:04 AM
Well I quit reading after the self-runner woodwork comment.
And haven't posted since page 5.
Thought I'd pop in and see why this thread was still around.
At least you've moved on from your 'splitting charges on capacitors is free energy' notion.
And though harshly presented, the comments I just made about your latest video included my opinion of what was/wasn't happening.
And your comment about "tearing down!" to Meltdown after he just offered his non-offensive opinion struck a nerve, like Carly Fieorina crying "sexism!" every-other-sentence as McCains talking head.
So hey - I apologize for the bashing tone - and wish you the best in your endevours.
CabinBoy is feeling let down. He thought he was going to see a battle on the high seas between Captain Hook and Captain Pecan.
CabinBoy's money was on Captain Hook since he has that killer looking metal hook for a hand, a black skull and bones flag on his ship and measures current.
QuoteQuote from: innovation_station on Today at 01:59:52 PM
so to get this correct you apply 19.8vdc . 0ne shot ... and in that 1 shot .. you are returned 58vdc ... Wink
Quote from: alan on December 03, 2008, 11:32:01 AM
And this is overunity to you, right?
CabinBoy usually enjoys reading Innovation_Station's posts more than watching Jerry Springer although Springer has better fights and has less commercials.
CabinBoy now feels it is a toss up.
@ Captainpecan:
Nice video. I think you explained what you were doing very well...it seemed clear to me. I don't recall you drawing any conclusions in that video so it would be hard to disagree with your undrawn conclusion. Most of us here are all learning. I am like you, I learn by doing and attempting...it is the only way my brain can "see" it. Keep up the good work.
@Cabinboy:
Me thinks we have seen ye before mate. Avast!
IST:
I can't wait to see that when completed. It looks great!
Bill
Quote from: alan on December 03, 2008, 11:34:08 AM
@c-pecan
the collapsing magnetic field contains maximum the energy that it did cost to create it.
This is true but what it does is focus the energy or store the energy in a smaller field. Take the simple ignition coil. We invest 12volts at 1amp for 1 second say and flip over a bunch of magnetic dipole moments in the steel. Then just as the core reaches saturation or a little afterwards with a reduction in current to holding levels we open the circuit very quickly. Now our 12volts is with use of a secondary that responds only to the collapse goes to 20,000volts. Now let us store 20,000 volts in a capacitor hook it up to the primary of another ignition coil setup and do it again. Now the secondary gives a nice expotential rise but now we need a capacitor to hold on to a million volts. What kinda mass isn't going to give up potential energy sitting in between two plates with a million volts distributed across them? What was done is that we gained power by doing work. There is no conservation of work but there is focusing of power or force.
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 29, 2008, 07:46:39 PM
I have set user TheBuzz
to read access only.
Regards, Stefan.
Watch out, he might threaten to sue... ;)
Quote from: TheBuzzBlueroomelectronics - Your copyright violation was reported, the page was documented. The illegally obtained photos were taken out of context and used to smear me and I have requested the web site owner provide all identifying information for you including the IP address of the post.
My wife works at a business called a law firm that specializes in intellectual property. It just costs me $230.00 to file a complaint in District court and another few hundred to default you and get a judgment, then wreck your credit from the comfort of home here in the US. The credit report is automatic.
Always happy to do it since it is all so cut and dry on something like this.
Got that over at electro-tech-online.
Let me get this right ..
If I have 2 balloons of equal capacity (strechyness, thickness, volume .. etc etc .. you get the idea)
and I blow one up to say 19.8 kpa (might blow up but whatever .. imagine it can cope with it)
You guys are telling me that I will be able to (very quickly of course) put the other empty balloon
(hole to hole) and have it pump up (share the air pressure) so that both balloons now
contain more potential energy (combined for the 2 balloons) than there was in the one previously ????
Am I way of on the analogy here .. please someone show me the bit i am missing.(Preferably without using the words "faith" or "Bearden")
Cheers,
Dean
Mr. Deam McGowen sir
Yep them thar balloons will blow up bigger'n hell. My cousin Jeb and me did that thar saRntific speriment with a pair o inner tubes from the traKter. The trick is , you see. you gotta keep em reel cool, like put em in the root seller when ya hooks em up, den brings em into the sunlight and em tubes ill be stretched tighter.n a hogs behind in a crop failure.
It's reel dad gummit.
Quote from: HEYDUDE on December 03, 2008, 01:25:46 PM
Mr. Deam McGowen sir
Yep them thar balloons will blow up bigger'n hell. My cousin Jeb and me did that thar saRntific speriment with a pair o inner tubes from the traKter. The trick is , you see. you gotta keep em reel cool, like put em in the root seller when ya hooks em up, den brings em into the sunlight and em tubes ill be stretched tighter.n a hogs behind in a crop failure.
It's reel dad gummit.
;D
@sparks sounds like my cascade amp you describe lol ;)
8)
now we know this can and HAS been done ...... now what? lol
lets finish it .....
ist
Quote from: HEYDUDE on December 03, 2008, 01:25:46 PM
Mr. Deam McGowen sir
Yep them thar balloons will blow up bigger'n hell. My cousin Jeb and me did that thar saRntific speriment with a pair o inner tubes from the traKter. The trick is , you see. you gotta keep em reel cool, like put em in the root seller when ya hooks em up, den brings em into the sunlight and em tubes ill be stretched tighter.n a hogs behind in a crop failure.
It's reel dad gummit.
Dude! I have tears running down my face and can't stop laughing. That is without a doubt the funniest troll dung I have ever ingested here before. It is like an Innovation_station family reunion!
If I ever moved down South, I would just die laughing. These two are locked in a belief together reinforcing each others delusion. Why do I get the feeling Innovation_station was the friend that talked Captain Pecan into naming it "Young effect?"
A pecan is a nut, can you do something with that?
I love this thread.
try this to see what happens allow the current to flow through the diode and coil to the other cap as you have donebut add a diode opposite to the flow in parallel with the coil it should be several amp rated after the pulse is fired give a second and open the other diode and then read the cap values something seems to say there should be a gain if newman is correct on his work.
i myself have been trying to figure out something and it may be up your alley as to what you are working on. But it is a bit more complicated and will see how things go.
good luck
Quote from meltdown:
Why do I get the feeling Innovation_station was the friend that talked Captain Pecan into naming it "Young effect?"
No, that would be me. I was inspired by the term "Hutchison Effect".
Bill
Quote from: HEYDUDE on December 03, 2008, 01:25:46 PM
Mr. Deam McGowen sir
Yep them thar balloons will blow up bigger'n hell. My cousin Jeb and me did that thar saRntific speriment with a pair o inner tubes from the traKter. The trick is , you see. you gotta keep em reel cool, like put em in the root seller when ya hooks em up, den brings em into the sunlight and em tubes ill be stretched tighter.n a hogs behind in a crop failure.
It's reel dad gummit.
Well thats it then ... Cooeee dee
Quote from: nueview on December 03, 2008, 02:01:39 PM
try this to see what happens allow the current to flow through the diode and coil to the other cap as you have donebut add a diode opposite to the flow in parallel with the coil it should be several amp rated after the pulse is fired give a second and open the other diode and then read the cap values something seems to say there should be a gain if newman is correct on his work.
i myself have been trying to figure out something and it may be up your alley as to what you are working on. But it is a bit more complicated and will see how things go.
good luck
Thanks for the tip, it couldn't hurt to give it chance. I'm working on trying things to eventually land 90 to 100% or more energy in the caps while doing work also. I'd be interested in hearing some of your results sometime with your work also.
i am who i have always been and my style is my own 8)
the things i have showen and describe i have made my own ... :P
now
tesla said you can have many soureces and destinations in ONE WIRE ...... hummmmmm
just look at the fone system or the cable network .... ok same goes for electricty.... and there fore there should not be a problem useing a MOT ;D
this goes far deeper but stick to the mot 4 now ...... once understud fully we can then design the ring
sounds like you NEED MY PNP NPN UNIT LOL maybe then you can pop 80 amp fuses as sm did ;) or whatever the rateing was ....
ist
i think the rateing on the transistors was somthing like 110v 10 amp there bouts 3055 and 5871
hey i just picked up some motor start caps yesterday 3 of em ;D and hey i already have 2 motor run caps ;D ;D ;D lol i just need to buy 1 more run cap ;)
Quote from: captainpecan on December 03, 2008, 02:24:08 PM
Thanks for the tip, it couldn't hurt to give it chance. I'm working on trying things to eventually land 90 to 100% or more energy in the caps while doing work also. I'd be interested in hearing some of your results sometime with your work also.
:-\
Wouldn't it be sufficient to even get 1% to begin with ?
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 03, 2008, 02:13:13 PM
Quote from meltdown:
Why do I get the feeling Innovation_station was the friend that talked Captain Pecan into naming it "Young effect?"
No, that would be me. I was inspired by the term "Hutchison Effect".
Bill
Oh. ;)
So now we have captain hook, captain pecan, a cabin boy and pirate88179 that is really a colaberator.
Oh Gilligan!
Nothing left to do but found another of your high technology firms, mass produce it and strap that bad boy to the space shuttle.
Thank you for "falling on your sword." I can't stop laughing!
Does anybody else hear those banjos? I can't wait for Raisonbread(Ray's inbred) to show up...
Underunity of the genetic kind! LOLOLOLOL. :(
I am full of myself. No really, the Depends are on overload!
--giantkiller. It is a good day to throw stones, eh?
Quote from: MeltDown on December 03, 2008, 03:56:23 PM
Oh. ;)
So now we have captain hook, captain pecan, a cabin boy and pirate88179 that is really a colaberator.
Oh Gilligan!
Nothing left to do but found another of your high technology firms, mass produce it and strap that bad boy to the space shuttle.
Thank you for "falling on your sword." I can't stop laughing!
I am not a collaborator, (spelled correctly) I only suggested the name is all. I really don't understand your comment on the space shuttle and founding high tech firms but, that's ok. As for falling on my sword, nice analogy, but used incorrectly. So, all in all, your post was not very constructive nor was it related in any way to the topic of this thread.
Bill
I am on of the ones on the 'read and learn' program here...and while I watch I notice things...and like any other critical thinker I apply things I know to these things I am noticing.
-One thing I know is that there are many ways to pose a question.
You can challenge someone with a question, or you can make an inquisitive inquiry, or you can question someones intelligence, honesty, and integrity.
There are individuals who's sole purpose here, by all appearances is to disrupt debate and cause general discord...it is believed by many that some are paid on that basis.
Those things are known to me.
If the more recent members here do not wish to be suspected of being an intentional disruper by me or others watching, then it might be wise to frame your questions in a less confrontational and more constructive fashion.
I like to take everyone at face value...they have masks hanging up over this window, put a smiling one in your post and watch what happens.
It is just as easy to expose a scam or a less than accurate measurement or statement was a respectful question...of which those of ill intent ignore or side step - thereby quickly revealing themselves...and sparing everyone the agony of a long drawn out stab and dance.
Don't forget the reason why we are all here...we are all on the same team more or less...so lets all start treating each other like team mates.
After all...those suppressing free energy are a team...and the reason they are winning is that they act like a team, and are focused on their one main goal = suppression.
I'm convinced we are a better team, its just that some of our players are only concerned with their own stats.
We have a new year coming, lets get our game together and get off the slave train in 2009.
Regards...
Edit: This post was started and posted prior to the above 3 or 4 posts.
Quote from: dean_mcgowan on December 03, 2008, 02:30:34 PM
:-\
Wouldn't it be sufficient to even get 1% to begin with ?
Obviously you missed the entire point of the video. There is nothing anyone can do to appease those who only look for flaws and never see anything else. How about offering your 2 cents as to how it can be done better. That would be "constructive" criticism. There really is no need for these smart ass remarks. Don't like the video's, don't watch them. It's as simple as that.
@ Cap-Z-Ro
I couldn't agree more. It's to bad this kind of thing is going on. It's caused so many to not share their work with the world, and I cant blame them for it.
Quote from: giantkiller on December 03, 2008, 04:18:53 PM
Does anybody else hear those banjos? I can't wait for Raisonbread(Ray's inbred) to show up...
Underunity of the genetic kind! LOLOLOLOL. :(
I am full of myself. No really, the Depends are on overload!
--giantkiller. It is a good day to throw stones, eh?
talk about throwing stones your dropping bombs ..... ;)
dubble boom ;D
anyhow...just thought i would explain the start cap and the run cap idea .....
charge the start cap this is c1 discharge it to the coil collect what comes back in the same start cap ... this is where you need a coil not a mot .... this is your input side ... so now every time you release the caps engery it is instantlly full agin for the next fire ... simple right
right just like it always was ...
now the run cap is your output.... but you need your resosnant couppled coil to pull off the same kick that fills your start cap .... and now you dump the same kick in you out put run cap ... but IT IS AMPED ;) and you can take from the source through resosnance with out any losses... or affecting the source ...
ist!
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 03, 2008, 05:55:13 PM
I am on of the ones on the 'read and learn' program here...and while I watch I notice things...and like any other critical thinker I apply things I know to these things I am noticing.
-One thing I know is that there are many ways to pose a question.
You can challenge someone with a question, or you can make an inquisitive inquiry, or you can question someones intelligence, honesty, and integrity.
There are individuals who's sole purpose here, by all appearances is to disrupt debate and cause general discord...it is believed by many that some are paid on that basis.
Those things are known to me.
If the more recent members here do not wish to be suspected of being an intentional disruper by me or others watching, then it might be wise to frame your questions in a less confrontational and more constructive fashion.
I like to take everyone at face value...they have masks hanging up over this window, put a smiling one in your post and watch what happens.
It is just as easy to expose a scam or a less than accurate measurement or statement was a respectful question...of which those of ill intent ignore or side step - thereby quickly revealing themselves...and sparing everyone the agony of a long drawn out stab and dance.
Don't forget the reason why we are all here...we are all on the same team more or less...so lets all start treating each other like team mates.
After all...those suppressing free energy are a team...and the reason they are winning is that they act like a team, and are focused on their one main goal = suppression.
I'm convinced we are a better team, its just that some of our players are only concerned with their own stats.
We have a new year coming, lets get our game together and get off the slave train in 2009.
Regards...
Edit: This post was started and posted prior to the above 3 or 4 posts.
Well said sir. Very well said.
Bill
;) Couldnt say it better myself.
Quote from: captainpecan on December 03, 2008, 07:41:38 PM
@ Cap-Z-Ro
I couldn't agree more. It's to bad this kind of thing is going on. It's caused so many to not share their work with the world, and I cant blame them for it.
Quote from: captainpecan on December 03, 2008, 07:41:38 PM
@ Cap-Z-Ro
I couldn't agree more. It's to bad this kind of thing is going on. It's caused so many to not share their work with the world, and I cant blame them for it.
What can you expect? When you need to give up the wading boots for a diving suit it just isn't worth it anymore.
I've read a lot of threads on this forum and I have never seen any subject attacked with this much energy.
Maybe this is a good sign, maybe we are on the verge of something really big here,
and someone is trying to prevent it from being discovered.
I think we need to really dig deep into this one and try and find out what it is.
I think this is the time to mention something I have witnessed and can't explain. Clearly related to this subject.
About 3 years ago I was experimenting with my own homemade capacitors charging them with about 500 volts.
The caps were made from Al. foil and regular poly. construction plastic. I used the thinnest size the hardware store sells.
I used 12 inch wide foil. 2 sheets 6 ft. long each.
The bridge rectifier I used was made from 4 1000V 6A diodes.
So the diodes were rated at twice the voltage I was experimenting with.
As I charged the homemade capacitor I noticed it shrunk while I charged it.
The static attraction between the Aluminum sheets compressed them towards each other.
And as soon as this happened my 1000 volt diodes failed.
I say failed because they didn't get hot, the current I was sending through them was only about 200mA.
The only explanation I could come up with is the voltage of the diodes was exceeded and they failed.
I didn't have any coils in the circuit so;
How could 500 Volts suddenly become larger then 1000V?
Capacitance is based on 3 things.
1. Distance between plates (the closer the higher the capacitance)
2. Surface area of plates (the larger the higher the capacitance)
3 Di-electric used (the greater the brake down voltage the better)
My main question here is:
What happens when you charge a capacitor and then move the plates of the capacitor closer together?
Does the voltage and stored energy increase? If so by how much.
I didn't need to move the plates closer together, the static charge on the plates did that for me for free.
Is this a new source of energy????
For three years now I have searched for any record of someone doing this and have not found any.
I don't think any lab has ever physically tried this.
Now what if those shrinking caps were used in the young effect, what kind of output would we get??
By the way I tried using 4 new diodes at a much lower voltage and I blew them as well so it is repeatable.
I don't recall the voltage I used the second time but I think it was the output of a voltage doubler connected to 120 Volts.
I didn't want to blow any more diodes so I never tried it again.
I just wanted to mention:
I made 2 identical caps at the time but I don't have either one anymore.
I was so angry when the diodes blew the second time that I mutilated the one cap.
And the second one I threw into a box of junk where it got crushed by some heavy stuff piled on it.
When I tested it, it was shorted out.
I haven't got round to making any new ones yet but it shouldn't be difficult to do.
i believe that the voltage squares with half the distance. i once did the same experiment and it left me rather surprized also the discharge becomes more tenatious for itself rather than outside ground i layed my plates on the carpet on the concrete floor and they were well attracted to the ground until discharged so i do know what you mean about the force of attraction.just some information.
Quote from: sparks on December 03, 2008, 12:48:47 PM
This is true but what it does is focus the energy or store the energy in a smaller field. Take the simple ignition coil. We invest 12volts at 1amp for 1 second say and flip over a bunch of magnetic dipole moments in the steel. Then just as the core reaches saturation or a little afterwards with a reduction in current to holding levels we open the circuit very quickly. Now our 12volts is with use of a secondary that responds only to the collapse goes to 20,000volts. Now let us store 20,000 volts in a capacitor hook it up to the primary of another ignition coil setup and do it again. Now the secondary gives a nice expotential rise but now we need a capacitor to hold on to a million volts. What kinda mass isn't going to give up potential energy sitting in between two plates with a million volts distributed across them? What was done is that we gained power by doing work. There is no conservation of work but there is focusing of power or force.
But, how can this give FE?
Also, focusing power isn't the same as gaining power. I guess focusing of energy is the correct term, since power implies j/s, and the discharge is less than a ms.
Quote from: AbbaRue on December 04, 2008, 01:09:09 AM
I've read a lot of threads on this forum and I have never seen any subject attacked with this much energy.
Maybe this is a good sign, maybe we are on the verge of something really big here,
and someone is trying to prevent it from being discovered.
Or maybe it is something everyone understands.
Everyone thought they understood magnetism too at one time.
But now look at how many new concepts are being discovered.
How many claims to OU devices.
A transformer uses electricity to create a magnetic field in a coil,
and then that field is collapsed and captured by a different coil.
This effect transforms electricity from one voltage to another.
And from one amperage level to another. Eg. an arc welder.
Now I ask how could this same concept be used in a capacitor?
Could we use capacitance to transform one voltage to another?
We already know it can transform one current level to another?
If discharging one capacitor into another produces more voltage across the 2 caps.
Then what about discharging one cap into many caps.
Can we use this to step voltage up to different levels.?
Well I guess that has already been done in voltage multipliers (eg. voltage doublers, triplers, quadruplers, etc.)
But is there a better way of doing this, perhaps using multi-plated capacitors.
I believe this thread has opened the path to a whole new science of electricity.
And I hope the mockers will begin to see the potential for discovery here,
and start contributing some new ideas instead of mocking.
The study of capacitance is still very Young. ;D
I remember reading something about someone using a 4 plate capacitor that produced some interesting effects.
The 2 outside plates were connected to one circuit and the 2 inside plates were connected to another circuit.
I believe this worked similar to a transformer for converting electricity in some way.
It formed some type of energy compressor.
Considering the 2 outside plates are farther apart then the 2 inside plates.
So the capacitance of the 2 inside plates is much higher then that of the 2 outside plates.
I don't remember were I read it, but I think they stated that the input and output became isolated from each other.
And this somehow produced free energy. The outside plates were charged with say 100uF
but the inside plates contained many times the amount of uF's.
Maybe someone is familiar with the device, it may have been in Harold Aspden's documents.
It would be interesting to make a 4 plate capacitor from aluminum foil and poly. plastic and see what effects we get.
And this is one device that anyone on this forum can build for less then $10.
Just keep track of which plates are which, you want the 2 inside plates connected to one circuit
and the 2 outside plates connected to another circuit.
Kind of like a bifilar coil only it's a capacitor. But at the same time winding foil in a coil like this also acts as an inductor.
So this will act like a type of transformer as well. Similar to a flat Tesla transformer.
I hope the mockers can see the potential here and start contributing!! At least give it a little thought. ;D
Quote
If discharging one capacitor into another produces more voltage across the 2 caps.
Then what about discharging one cap into many caps.
Doing this will result in dilation of charge or V-pressure.
But what will happen when a charged cap is being discharged through a (bifi) transformer using techniques regularly shown here, of which the secondary is connected to multiple caps? ie. Can high voltage spikes (high dV/dt) alone charge caps ?
Well I'm not entirely sure about that AbbaRue...
I have the feeling you consider me to be one of the "mockers",
but really I don't feel that I am. In fact, I feel the "mockers" originally
did and still do have a point, which is structurally ignored by
CaptPecan and IST in favour of their own interpretation.
As I see it, the point made by CaptPecan was that there might be
energy gain in the circuit. The point made by the opposing party
was that yes CP did show voltage increase on the meter, but no,
that is not energy increase, and there is good theory to support that
point of view. So they did go along with CP's observation of voltage
increase, but they pointed out that is not immediately the same
as energy increase.
Now CP's reply was and basically still is "Yes it does."
And the other side's reply to that is and was "No it isn't."
And that's basically where things got stuck.
But there's a way to test it.
I have suggested a way to measure and compare the charges and energy
contained in the capacitors before and after the dischage,
and for some reason nobody wants to do that.
It's really simple: Whether or not there may be issues with the capacitors
and the different capacitance of parallelled caps, and whether or not those
differences give rise to apparent voltage gain in the parallel cap arrangement
while the actual energy contained in the system is decreased, all of that would
not matter to the comparative measurement if only the "output" charge were
dumped into a capacitor that is exactly identical to the capacitor we first started with.
So we take an x farad cap rated to say 35V and charge it with 9V from a battery,
then perform the CaptainPecan pulse trick, and then dump all of the charge on the
parallel cap arrangement into a properly connected transformer primary, and hook
the secondary to a fresh and uncharged x farad cap rated to 35V again.
If that second cap now measures more than 9V, it can now be compared to the
initial 9V cap and we may conclude that somehow some energy was gained.
If, on the other hand, the apparent voltage increase is not really an energy
gain at all, like the "antagonists" of the CaptPecan interpretation have
been saying all along, but merely an apparent voltage gain due to the
differences in capacitance of the parallel cap arrangement in contrast
to the single starting cap, then this simple test should clearly show
a lower voltage on the ouput capacitor.
Why the "hands on" guys refuse to try that simple variation is beyond me.
It could resolve the bickering over calculations and simply give them two
"hands on" caps with actual charge in them, and that should show the
energy increase if there really is any.
But I guess it's much more enjoyable to keep bickering and to keep posting
vague but very enthousiastic remarks about a very simple circuit. Isn't it? ;)
Sure it is... Why do any conclusive and comparative tests if we can fuel
the thread by not doing it? ;D
So really I don't care if it is CaptainPecan who is right or if it is
"the mockers" who are right,
I just want to see someone do that test and show us the difference
in charge between the energy in and the energy out, when
stored on identical capacitors.
That should be perfectly well comparable, and should show once and
for all if there is energy gain or energy loss.
Test done => end of debate => next step in developing a device.
Test positive => let's desgin and build a version that prodces maximum OU.
Test negative => no cigar, go back to start, do not collect $2000.
;) :D
Want a cap to work like a transformer?
Try this....
Want a cap that varies in value?
Use 3M VHB tape as the dielectric.
The charge is store in the dielectric not the plates. They only convert charge to current and current to charge.
Greets from the peanut gallery...
BEP
i like to let the train chugg along the tracks .... ;)
i will do the cap tests ::)
i will try my start caps first 2 identical caps 1 pulse and we will see.....
then i will try 1 start cap and 1 run cap 8)
i gave what i have cuz im sick and tired of people not posting constructive results
ist
KEEPING IT SIMPLE 8)
Quote from: Koen1 on December 04, 2008, 07:32:40 AM
So they did go along with CP's observation of voltage
increase, but they pointed out that is not immediately the same
as energy increase.
Now CP's reply was and basically still is "Yes it does."
And the other side's reply to that is and was "No it isn't."
And that's basically where things got stuck.
Sorry, that is not how it is. From the beginning, I acknowledged the physics equation showing the loss in energy, but a gain in voltage. My argument was that I was still getting the work out of the caps, "AS IF" the actual energy contained in them followed the same trend as the voltage alone. This was almost totally ignored by physics books being jammed up my butt quoting equations that I was very well aware of to begin with. I showed what "appeared" to be an interesting effect, where work done discharging both caps in parallel at the exact same time, did almost half as much work, as when they were discharged seperately. Even though the work done appeared to be totally different amounts, the equations state the energy was supposed to be identical in both scenarios. I noted an interesting result that I tested, and I clearly stated my intentions on the very first post of this entire thread, where I stated that I did understand the proper use of the equations, but I felt I had a good argument as to why they may not apply.
Then of course not many seemed to even notice the point of the video's. The fact that when you connect two caps together, directly in parallel, then record the "Energy" not just the voltage. Then do the same test hooking a motor between the two and record the "Energy" not just the voltage. When I do that, I show more energy in the caps in scenario 2 than in scenario 1. Indicating I gained energy running it through the motor, forcing it to do work, and catching it on the otherside, as opposed to just dumping from one cap to another. This I also felt was a good point worth noting, but seemed to be ignored.
Not to mention, if you look back a few pages in the thread, it was suggested that to show NO ENERGY LOST from cap to cap transfer, I needed to actually catch "something close to" 75% of the original VOLTAGE, in each of the caps and not 50% in each as I did in the video's. I then followed the suggestions as to how to do that that were posted for me to follow. I did not get the results as the simulation had planned and still was only catching 50% of the original VOLTAGE on each cap showing a loss by the equations in energy. I am working on better ways to transfer the energy between two caps to recover 90% or more energy following the equations, and then still be able to show the work done being greater by the motor. Unfortunately, there are very few suggestions that help move in the right direction when it comes to this.
So I do not feel it is fair to say by any means, that I am just ignoring what everyone is saying. It appears to me that I am following what is being said, doing what I can to utilize as much of the info as I can, and moving forward.
Quote from: Koen1 on December 04, 2008, 07:32:40 AM
But there's a way to test it.
I have suggested a way to measure and compare the charges and energy
contained in the capacitors before and after the dischage,
and for some reason nobody wants to do that.
It's really simple: Whether or not there may be issues with the capacitors
and the different capacitance of parallelled caps, and whether or not those
differences give rise to apparent voltage gain in the parallel cap arrangement
while the actual energy contained in the system is decreased, all of that would
not matter to the comparative measurement if only the "output" charge were
dumped into a capacitor that is exactly identical to the capacitor we first started with.
So we take an x farad cap rated to say 35V and charge it with 9V from a battery,
then perform the CaptainPecan pulse trick, and then dump all of the charge on the
parallel cap arrangement into a properly connected transformer primary, and hook
the secondary to a fresh and uncharged x farad cap rated to 35V again.
If that second cap now measures more than 9V, it can now be compared to the
initial 9V cap and we may conclude that somehow some energy was gained.
If, on the other hand, the apparent voltage increase is not really an energy
gain at all, like the "antagonists" of the CaptPecan interpretation have
been saying all along, but merely an apparent voltage gain due to the
differences in capacitance of the parallel cap arrangement in contrast
to the single starting cap, then this simple test should clearly show
a lower voltage on the ouput capacitor.
Why the "hands on" guys refuse to try that simple variation is beyond me.
It could resolve the bickering over calculations and simply give them two
"hands on" caps with actual charge in them, and that should show the
energy increase if there really is any.
But I guess it's much more enjoyable to keep bickering and to keep posting
vague but very enthousiastic remarks about a very simple circuit. Isn't it? ;)
Sure it is... Why do any conclusive and comparative tests if we can fuel
the thread by not doing it? ;D
So really I don't care if it is CaptainPecan who is right or if it is
"the mockers" who are right,
I just want to see someone do that test and show us the difference
in charge between the energy in and the energy out, when
stored on identical capacitors.
That should be perfectly well comparable, and should show once and
for all if there is energy gain or energy loss.
Test done => end of debate => next step in developing a device.
Test positive => let's desgin and build a version that prodces maximum OU.
Test negative => no cigar, go back to start, do not collect $2000.
;) :D
I wish I could say that the test you feel should be done, would prove or disprove this work. Unfortunately, It appears that all it would prove would be how efficient the transformer is. That's about it, unless I'm reading your post incorrectly. By all means, please run the test. If it gets people back at the bench working, then I'm all for it. Unfortunately, I do not feel it would be an accurate test. I am working on a test that Pointz99 suggested a few pages ago with his simulation, as I feel that if I can still show work done, and get the results the simulation says I should, then it would be proven.
Back to work. Thanks for your comment though, this was not meant to spit dirty words at you, as you have been much less disrespectful in your responses to this thread than many others have been.
QuoteMy main question here is:
What happens when you charge a capacitor and then move the plates of the capacitor closer together?
Does the voltage and stored energy increase? If so by how much.
I didn't need to move the plates closer together, the static charge on the plates did that for me for free.
Is this a new source of energy?Huh
For three years now I have searched for any record of someone doing this and have not found any.
I don't think any lab has ever physically tried this.
When you move the plates closer, the voltage goes down, the current and capacitance goes up and the energy is conserved according to well known physical lawa published in books on experimental magnetism and electricity at least 150 years old. This is not a new source of energy, but a well known method of transforming energy.
As a matter of integrity, those touting the "Young Effect" as a possible new source of energy should read some of these old books and get a good understanding of the intense work done by pioneers in this field such as Michael
Faraday..Out of respect, they should then humbly withdraw such wild claims.
The experiments being performed by the neophytes in this thread cannot be called anything approaching scientific method and are crude at best. They do not even include accurate measurements of capacitor values as part of the "data".
I am affiliated as a R&D consultant to the HIGH ENERGY CORP, manufacturer of ceramic and film capacitors. We understand the electronic physics of capacitors.
http://www.highenergycorp.com/
Look them up.
Inno wanted me to finish this so. When the ignition coil magnetic field collapses we have two things happening. Twenty thousand volts charging up the spark plug capacitor and the collapsing field about the primary winding.
The primary winding is also seeing a change in the magnetic field about itself.
The points are open so there is no completed path for this voltage generated accept through a small capacitor used to clean up the primary current flow stop. Now say we insert a capacitor and diode parallel to the primary circuit at this time. The primary now produces a current that is in opposition to the current that produced the magnetic field saturation of the core. This capacitor charges and once the magnetic event is over is now allowed to be the scource of the work involved saturating the core again. This goes on until ohmic losses in the form of heat or electrostriction bleeds off the power in this resonating primary circuit. So our initial work has amounted in alot of capacitor charging and current simply by stopping the work at the right time.
Now imagine if the coil magnetic domains just flipped over and stayed that way. Nothng but a bunch of hot wire. Dumb work.
@Koen1 and others.
The Captain demonstrated that the largest increase in voltage was while running the motor.
When he connected the caps up directly to one another the gain wasn't as high.
The question for me isn't about the voltage gain measured between the 2 caps.
The formulas presented seem to answer that question.
What interests me is the fact that you can run a motor while charging the capacitor from the battery.
Then you can run the motor while transfering energy from C1 to C2.
Then you can run the motor off each of those caps while discharging them.
Where is the energy coming from that runs the motor while the cap is being charged.
I think this is a conversion of time into energy.
It takes longer to charge the capacitor with the motor connected in series.
The question is does it draw more power from the battery because of the time delay.
I think the capacitor to capacitor transfer shows it doesn't because apparently
there is more voltage left on the 2 caps after running the motor then when the caps
were connected directly to each other.
A good test would be to see if the caps charged through the motor contain more charge,
then the ones charged by directly connecting them to each other without the motor.
Discharge both into a resistor by X number of volts and time how long it takes to do so.
Say from 9 volts to 4 volts. If both take the same amount of time to discharge then the motor ran for free.
The part I don't understand is why the motor stops spinning if the caps. still have current in them, especially if it's more current then at the beginning of the test.
sparks you know it :)
well all i have played dj all along lol it has been a blast and by far the best thing i have ever done in my life ....
but this song is from the deviceses i have made my own........... being sung to all of you :)
its all ABOUT LOVE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkHTsc9PU2A
its all take.... no more no more .... it can not waite ..... im yours........
i guess what i b say n .....is there anit no better reason ...to rid yer self entities and just go wit the seasons ... its what we aim to do ... our name is our virtue .....but i wont hey its all take no more no more it can not waite im yours ..... open up your mind and see like me...... open up your plans........ and damm your free .......look into your heart and you will find the sky is yours ...
;)
this is our fate im yours!!!
of course it gets better but where you are is a GREAT PLACE TO START!!
cheers!
ist!
QuoteThe part I don't understand is why the motor stops spinning if the caps. still have current in them, especially if it's more current then at the beginning of the test.
When the charge is equal on the capacitors, the current stops flowing (voltage across motor is zero and therefore current goes to zero.)
The motor acts like an inductor with rotational inertia replacing magnetic inertia. The motor does no real work in this case as it returns any current it uses to rev up back to the capacitors as it revs down. (minus frictional and resistive losses)
Load the shaft and everything changes as work is done to drive the load. Then less energy will be seen in the capacitors.
There is nothing in these circuits that is unconventional and cannot be explained by OHMS LAW and the equations governing CHARGE and INDUCTANCE.
Those confused please open a book or do some careful lab type experiments, the fog will quickly lift.
Lack of understanding of the devices being tested leads to much confusion, and the forest is deep and dark.
"When the charge is equal on the capacitors, the current stops flowing "
Are you sure about that? I'd say, when the voltage is equal, the current stops flowing. If you have a 0.1 mFd cap and a 1 mFd cap, each at 10 volts, there is much more charge in the 1 mFd cap, since (Charge)=(Voltage)x(Capacitance). Only if the caps have exactly the same capacitance will they have the same charge, at equal voltages. But current will flow as long as the voltages aren't equal.
Quote"When the charge is equal on the capacitors, the current stops flowing "
Are you sure about that? I'd say, when the voltage is equal, the current stops flowing. If you have a 0.1 mFd cap and a 1 mFd cap, each at 10 volts, there is much more charge in the 1 mFd cap, since (Charge)=(Voltage)x(Capacitance). Only if the caps have exactly the same capacitance will they have the same charge, at equal voltages. But current will flow as long as the voltages aren't equal.
All along we have been talking about equal value caps although no one has actually measured any of the caps in question (to be precise)
Of course, the quoted statement only applies to equal value caps.. You are correct to modify this statement as it does not hold for caps of unequal value.
@AbbaRue:
Well, it seems to me that we should not count the step
where the caps are charged from the battery via the motor,
as you will be expending energy directly from the battery
before getting it into the caps, and that won't be easy to
measure (unless you're going to use exact measurements
on the current from the battery).
If the idea was to compare the energy in vs energy out by
measuring the charge on caps before and after, then it
seems to me we may want to leave the battery out of it
for now.
@CaptainPecan:
And the rest of it sounds increasingly like Bedini's "radiant energy"
"battery charger" motors, as described in his book "Free Energy
Generation".
Really: the monopole pulse motor, the "energy spike"...
Perhaps you're trying to re-invent Bedini's motor here?
Have you checked out Bedini's motor designs yet?
It seems to me that, if this is really what you're focusing on,
your "Young effect" may in fact be the "Bedini effect"... ?
I would advise to take a look at the different Bedini motor designs
to see the similarities for yourself. :)
Oh, and on the trafo stuff: yes, obviously it would only work when
we already know the efficiency of the transformer. But fortunately
we do know the efficiencies of most transformers. It's the capacitor
circuit that we want to measure the efficiency of, and with a known
trafo efficiency that should be a fairly easy calculation.
But hey, it was just a suggestion to try and get around the "cap voltage
vs cap energy" problem and make your measurement and comparisons
easier. It's your experiment so it's up to you if you want to use it. :)
Quote from: Koen1 on December 05, 2008, 06:55:14 AM
@CaptainPecan:
And the rest of it sounds increasingly like Bedini's "radiant energy"
"battery charger" motors, as described in his book "Free Energy
Generation".
Really: the monopole pulse motor, the "energy spike"...
Perhaps you're trying to re-invent Bedini's motor here?
Have you checked out Bedini's motor designs yet?
It seems to me that, if this is really what you're focusing on,
your "Young effect" may in fact be the "Bedini effect"... ?
I would advise to take a look at the different Bedini motor designs
to see the similarities for yourself. :)
Actually, I'm well aware of Bedini's work. In fact, it was my work with the school girl monopole that got me thinking down this path to begin with. I've been trying to learn as much as possible from Bedini, and Cole's work also. The path I sorta drifted down, and I make a mention of it I think in video 1, was that most of what I've seen from Bedini's work deals directly with shorting out the battery for the pulse, then switching the circuit over to dump the collapsing field into another battery. The small difference with what I'm attempting to accomplish, is no direct short from the battery for a pulse. To simply pass the pulse right through the coils and land in another capacitor. With capacitor energy losses at serious question, Bedini's way could still end up being the best, who knows. I do feel there is something to the theory of passing the energy "through" the motor as apposed to shorting out the batter "to" the motor. I'm just trying to adjust it somehow so we can elimate those batteries in the end.
To be technical, most everything on this entire forum could be called the "Tesla Effect"! ;)
In fact, Bedini makes many references to Tesla when he discusses his work also. Afterall, I think most everything we are "learning" now, Tesla already "knew" then! I cant even imagine how far he would have gotten if he had the tools to work with that we all have now! Mind boggling.
Learning and inspiring other people to learn is a good thing, and you've certainly been doing that CP ;)
On that note, I'll be posting an interesting solid state variation on your experiment that will show how to shuttle more than 50% (hopefully) of the energy back and forth from C1 to C2 and back again in an oscillatory fashion. There will also be a means to connect a load and observe the effects in the transfer of energy, with and without a load, and roughly how much work can be done in each case.
.99
@ 99
cant waite ... ill build it ..... 8)
im really gald this world is finally takeing this tesla tech seriously as it is already well knowen for 100 + years lol
just so few could ever wrap their heads round it
8)
but here we are
i will be ordering my specturm anyilizer in the new year ... when i learn to use it properly ... we will have safe operating rings... :)
unless some one has already figured it out and they decide to post there way of doing it ;)
ist!
my wire will be here mid next week 30 lbs ;D 3 gages ....
Quote from: BEP on December 04, 2008, 07:53:04 AM
Want a cap to work like a transformer?
Try this....
Want a cap that varies in value?
Use 3M VHB tape as the dielectric.
The charge is store in the dielectric not the plates. They only convert charge to current and current to charge.
Greets from the peanut gallery...
BEP
BEP
DO you have experience with making caps with this tape ?
I have been looking for a good simple dialectic for making caps ......
The search I did came up with 1 in width max ..... is there wider available?
gary
@99
Sounds good. Cant wait to see what all you come up with.
Quote from: HEYDUDE on December 04, 2008, 05:29:49 PM
When the charge is equal on the capacitors, the current stops flowing (voltage across motor is zero and therefore current goes to zero.)
The motor acts like an inductor with rotational inertia replacing magnetic inertia. The motor does no real work in this case as it returns any current it uses to rev up back to the capacitors as it revs down. (minus frictional and resistive losses)
Load the shaft and everything changes as work is done to drive the load. Then less energy will be seen in the capacitors.
There is nothing in these circuits that is unconventional and cannot be explained by OHMS LAW and the equations governing CHARGE and INDUCTANCE.
Those confused please open a book or do some careful lab type experiments, the fog will quickly lift.
Lack of understanding of the devices being tested leads to much confusion, and the forest is deep and dark.
Thanx Bro.
i made a video for you guys.... :)
ist mot sparks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CIwC0pMxQE
awsome colours ;D
;)
oh i threw on a anolog meter too ;D lol
ist!
Concerning charging the capacitor from the battery while using the current to do free work.
An analogy;
You have a full container of water and and empty container.
You can pour the water directly into the empty container or you can run it through a small turbine engine.
The water in the full container doesn't notice the turbine except that it takes longer
for the water to get into the other container. So time is traded for energy.
The difference with the water is you would have to consume energy to lift the newly filled container
into the air so you could pour the water back into the original container.
With a capacitor, once the capacitor is charged you just need to switch over to running the motor off the charged capacitor.
The only energy consumed in doing so is used by the switching circuitry.
I'm referring to discharging the cap directly across the motor once it's charged.
If you discharge it into another capacitor then you would only get half the energy out before the motor would stop running.
Because once the two caps are at equal energy the current would stop flowing.
One question I have, how could you transfer all the energy of one cap. into another cap. ?
Would you use a switching circuit and a transformer?
The windings of the transformer would discharge the capacitor completely.
I don't see how to do this, even by stepping the voltage up, at some point the two caps
would appear to have equal charge, and the current would stop flowing.
Another case:
A) You have an (almost) empty battery. (let's say it shows 10V measured by DVM); forget about any losses, use "ideal" components...(Cap, probes/wires, DVM, switcher unit, etc.. ).(!)
1) Charge TWO IDENTICAL el. caps (e.g. 1000uF each) with that battery. (caps connected parallel with battery)
2) Disconnect those caps from the battery (when fully charged)
3) Connect those caps in series...
4) discharge the combined caps (in series) back to the same battery.
Repeat steps 1-4 as long as long as it's necessary or as long as you wish to...
Q1: Results? What happens with the battery? C/V/Q? Energy?
Q2: what happens if one uses a "CP's motor" in series?
Q3: Is there anything unusual happening? Where is 'FE' ????
Why so many people here are in doubt when it comes to the "theoretical" equation for Energy stored in (ideal) cap (E=CV^2/2)?
???
Quote from: HEYDUDE on December 04, 2008, 05:29:49 PM
The motor acts like an inductor with rotational inertia replacing magnetic inertia. The motor does no real work in this case as it returns any current it uses to rev up back to the capacitors as it revs down. (minus frictional and resistive losses)
Load the shaft and everything changes as work is done to drive the load. Then less energy will be seen in the capacitors.
There is nothing in these circuits that is unconventional and cannot be explained by OHMS LAW and the equations governing CHARGE and INDUCTANCE.
Those confused please open a book or do some careful lab type experiments, the fog will quickly lift.
Lack of understanding of the devices being tested leads to much confusion, and the forest is deep and dark.
I'm not so sure everything is explained already and there is nothing unconventional here. In a conventional circuit, just the addition of a motor runs the battery down as it is direct shorted. When you put a load on it, it drains even faster and creates a great deal of heat in the motor as lost energy is converted into heat also.
This is not what I am seeing going on in this case. I will post my next video to try and explain.
Quote from: AbbaRue on December 06, 2008, 06:09:46 AM
Concerning charging the capacitor from the battery while using the current to do free work.
An analogy;
You have a full container of water and and empty container.
You can pour the water directly into the empty container or you can run it through a small turbine engine.
The water in the full container doesn't notice the turbine except that it takes longer
for the water to get into the other container. So time is traded for energy.
The difference with the water is you would have to consume energy to lift the newly filled container
into the air so you could pour the water back into the original container.
Add a flywheel to your turbine to change it into a pump down at the end.
Electrically this is called a coil of high self inductance or choke coil.
Here's another video that shows how the motor is not using energy to run. And that it in fact still acts the same way when it is loaded down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwp7podu06s
Quote from: AbbaRue on December 06, 2008, 06:09:46 AM
One question I have, how could you transfer all the energy of one cap. into another cap. ?
To do this you have to move the dielectric or the energy in it and by that I mean you have to move the state of stress that was the response to the energy initially applied to the capacitor.
For example, take a plastic cylinder and place 4 set of capacitor plates on each side like poles of a motor with the plastic cylinder in the middle of the plates of each pole. Charge one "pole" of plates. Rotate the plastic cylinder so that the portion of plastic that was between the pole that you charged is now between the poles of the next "pole" of plates. The energy stored at the first pole will now be at the second pole. This is just for illustrative purposes, as it takes energy to physically move the cylinder. Wait. Add a magnetic field via a large solenoid around the entire cylinder and poles. Now the rotating cylinder will also generate charge in the pole plates.
There you have Grumpy's dielectric windmill and a lesson in dielectrics.
Dear kind sir, Captain
I have reviewed you latest video, might I make a few suggestions?
Please examine your non-ideal motor and consider what it actually is for three conditions,1 rotor unloaded, 2 rotor loaded with a prony brake and 3 locked rotor.
You will discover that the effective capacitive, inductive and resistive components will vary in each condition.
Create an electrical model for the motor for each of the three conditions, this will lead to a deeper understanding of the physics of the energy transfer in your experiments.
You have in each case (for a non-ideal motor) resistive. inductive and capacitive effects, creating a complex reactive circuit function.
May I suggest that you refine your experiment to bring it to the level of a good scientific experiment. Eliminate the use of clip leads with their variable contact resistance. Use relays with mercury wetted contacts and short heavy soldered wires for all interconnections to eliminate resistive losses. Measure or standardize all capacitors.
Use a prony brake (piece of string, weight and pulley) for your motor so that you may obtain accurate loading. Or put a paddle on the end and immerse it in a fluid. Or couple it to an identical motor with a variable resistive load. It will reflect this load to the first motor.
Just a little inductance (mH) between the caps is required for you to get higher readings on the capacitors because when you use a direct cap to cap short, the instantaneous current tries to go to near infinity and energy is used up in the resistive losses in the circuit (clip leads, contact resistance, ESR of capacitors) not to mention EM losses through radiation due to high oscillatory frequency.
The addition of a little inductance (mH) allows a slow rise of current and lowers the oscillation frequency considerably, lowering instantaneous losses.
Your motor has reactive components that create a few illusions. I will leave it to you to discover what these are, as I have done many of these experiments years ago, before I had a deeper understanding of the underlying physics.
Its a little painful to watch people hacking their way through the jungle when a paved road was built through these regions eons ago.........of course I don't have to watch!.
HD.
@ CaptainPecan:
Nice job on the video. Very well done and explained.
Bill
Powertransfer goes in a positive parabolic curve with R as variable, the highest point having the most efficient resistor value, don't know the eqn. exactly anymore.
No FE here is my guess, but 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.
hmm:
http://www.smpstech.com/charge.htm
i have finally found a good video cam :P
the vid i posted last night to youtube was done on a low res cam :)
the vids i will make from now on are hi def 8)
now you will see what i see ;D
ist!
Quote from: Grumpy on December 06, 2008, 10:12:08 AM
To do this you have to move the dielectric or the energy in it and by that I mean you have to move the state of stress that was the response to the energy initially applied to the capacitor.
For example, take a plastic cylinder and place 4 set of capacitor plates on each side like poles of a motor with the plastic cylinder in the middle of the plates of each pole. Charge one "pole" of plates. Rotate the plastic cylinder so that the portion of plastic that was between the pole that you charged is now between the poles of the next "pole" of plates. The energy stored at the first pole will now be at the second pole. This is just for illustrative purposes, as it takes energy to physically move the cylinder. Wait. Add a magnetic field via a large solenoid around the entire cylinder and poles. Now the rotating cylinder will also generate charge in the pole plates.
There you have Grumpy's dielectric windmill and a lesson in dielectrics.
@Grumpy
Would you say that the migration of electrons from one side of an atom to the other side of the atom can be used to move the wire?
Should any particular orientation
Quote from: sparks on December 06, 2008, 02:28:29 PM
@Grumpy
Would you say that the migration of electrons from one side of an atom to the other side of the atom can be used to move the wire?
Should any particular orientation
Electrons are not little point-like things floating around the center of an atom - this is a poor representation that has been misinterpreted as "fact".
Also, keep in mind that when you have a sphere , cylinder, or ring - you have a divergence - might that have something to do with what we call "mass", "inertia", and "gravity"?
Another overlooked factor quite alongside of Captain Pecans attempt at overunity is to consider the amount of energy wasted in charging the first capacitor to 18.33 volts from the two 9 volt batteries.
As we are well aware every battery can be modeled as a voltage source in series with the battery's internal impedance. This internal impedance can be arrived at by taking a few resistors e.g. 1 Ohm, 10 Ohms, 100 Ohms. Hook your meter to the battery and temporarily place each resistor across the battery noting the voltage drop. From this you will be able to graph a series of load lines that will allow you to guesstimate the internal impedance using Ohms law for resistors in series.
If the battery were a pure voltage source (internal impedance equals 0 ohms) the instantaneous current would try to go to infinity for a brief instant until the capacitor charged. At that point the current would drop to 0 and the capacitor would be fully charged. The real world is not like this.
Since the batteries have an internal impedance (resistance) this resistance will soak up considerable energy in charging the cap because all of the charging current must flow through the batteries internal impedance, generating a small amount of heat and wasted power. Roughly half of the energy that the battery tries to deliver to the capacitor is wasted in this internal resistance.
Although this is a side issue it will have to be dealt with at some point in the captains "design" if he is to achieve his goal.
There are a few ways around this involving a little engineering, but we know how some of you feel about those trained engineers, so we'll save that for another time.
HD
QuoteThere are a few ways around this involving a little engineering, but we know how some of you feel about those trained engineers, so we'll save that for another time.
Me likes trained engineers. They are smart, have experience and make sense.
Capacitor Energy Transfer Experiments V1.0
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item207
.99
Poynt99
You are an Amazing member of this Forum.Thank you for taking the time to do that
Chet
You're welcome Chet.
Thanks.
.99
nice 99!!
you sure good at this kind of thing ... :)
guys!!! lol i just made my first pwm ;D my way lol ;)
im makeing 3 of em ;) low speed....... 2.5 5 .... and we will see how that goes...
555 and fet :)
ist
@99
Fantastic work. Very well thought out, and simulated. Two thumbs up! ;D
Quote from: HEYDUDE on December 07, 2008, 01:23:19 PM
Another overlooked factor quite alongside of Captain Pecans attempt at overunity is to consider the amount of energy wasted in charging the first capacitor to 18.33 volts from the two 9 volt batteries.
As we are well aware every battery can be modeled as a voltage source in series with the battery's internal impedance. This internal impedance can be arrived at by taking a few resistors e.g. 1 Ohm, 10 Ohms, 100 Ohms. Hook your meter to the battery and temporarily place each resistor across the battery noting the voltage drop. From this you will be able to graph a series of load lines that will allow you to guesstimate the internal impedance using Ohms law for resistors in series.
If the battery were a pure voltage source (internal impedance equals 0 ohms) the instantaneous current would try to go to infinity for a brief instant until the capacitor charged. At that point the current would drop to 0 and the capacitor would be fully charged. The real world is not like this.
Since the batteries have an internal impedance (resistance) this resistance will soak up considerable energy in charging the cap because all of the charging current must flow through the batteries internal impedance, generating a small amount of heat and wasted power. Roughly half of the energy that the battery tries to deliver to the capacitor is wasted in this internal resistance.
Although this is a side issue it will have to be dealt with at some point in the captains "design" if he is to achieve his goal.
There are a few ways around this involving a little engineering, but we know how some of you feel about those trained engineers, so we'll save that for another time.
HD
But my batteries never get hot when I don't use them, what have you got to say to that ??
Heydude makes a valid point about the battery's internal resistance.
There will be a 50% loss in this internal resistance and the external wiring to the capacitor in combination.
@ Dean, this internal resistance is in series with the battery cell, so why would the battery get hot when not in use (i.e. the battery terminals are open)?
@ CP,
Thanks. ;)
poynt99
Great job on the document, should open a few eyes. Clearly explained...concise.
QuoteBut my batteries never get hot when I don't use them, what have you got to say to that ??
I'm sure this was tongue in cheek from Dean he knows better. :D
I keep my small batteries in the refrigerator, extends the shelf life a bit. ;D
p.s. The "Young Effect" should be renamed to "Young's Faux Pas" and posted in it's rightful place (z_p_e's "Electrical Faux Pas" thread) lest it become an urban legend on OU.
@99 8)
im building a 3 freq ss unit it is almost done would you be so kind to take a look at it to see if you spot any problems
it is simple to make and cheep to build ....
i will be posting pics of it later on ..... this is designed for low speed pulses and mixing of the freqs...to change the freq change the cap..... ;)
this is for 3 freq MAGIC MIXING 8) I ment magnetic mixing :D
ist
i bread boarded the first unit then hard boarded the unit now im building a tripple .... ;D
this will utialize allcanadians mosfet gatekeeper to redirrect the output ... :)
just bang and redirrect no resosance couppling between the coils... in this unit 8)
To decrease losses in the capacitor leads use new polymer based room temperature superconductors. :) Dielectric currents are popping up everywhere. From Grumpy's windmill to electrostatic turbines in a vacuum chamber. Seems the aether is full of dielectric currents. Then there is Siemens on top of the pyramid creating a quick leyden jar with a bottle of wine and stungunning his guide. Gravity current?
Sounds good.
Please tell me where I can get a bit of these "polymer based room temperature superconductors."
I think they would be very useful.
If they existed.
Which they don't.
@Tinsel
http://www.ultraconductors.com/primer.html
.
Quote from: sparks on December 08, 2008, 12:46:47 PM
@Tinsel
http://www.ultraconductors.com/primer.html
Yes, thank you, I am aware of Mark Goldes and his claims.
Are you aware that he has been making the same claims for years, including the one about "there will be a device / macroscopic sample available to test soon?"
For years, he's been making the same promises.
I repeat, please let me know where I can obtain a sample of a polymer-based room temperature superconductor. Because Mark Goldes doesn't have any.
Here is some history on that you are not going to read elsewhere:
I sent Perreault two magnets I got from home depot that increased a spark roughly 1000% when you spark a fence charger against the face of the magnet. I called it home depot effect. :-)
Subsequently, Perreault probably handed it off to this other guy who patented it as a superconductor and then Perreault posted the patent on his web site soon after. So I don't trust either one of them.
Home depot then changed magnet suppliers and I have never been able to find anymore that did this .
What it is or how it works nobody seems to know. I just know that it makes a 1/8" spark turn into an impressive 1" spark with a very loud bang.
These web sites are crawling with and often run by spooks.
Hi MeltDown,
Could you show a color picture of a Home Depot magnet behaving like that? I mean not the sparks but how the magnet looks like.
Is it normal Neo with known cover layer like nickel etc? Or maybe Samarium-Cobalt type?
If there is no any other magnet type to behave like that then the only logical deduction would be the cover material of the earlier Home Depot magnet which did the trick?
Thanks, Gyula
LOL this sounds like the Neodymium magnet
increased spark effect that was reported a couple
of months ago... :)
It was back when the thread on the carbon rod "fusion"
experiment was still quite active, and the basic setup
if I recall correctly was just a battery connected to
wires and a spark gap, and this wired to a car spark plug...
The Neo magnets were connected to the spark gap
terminals, in such a way that the spark would jump
from the magnets' N pole to the other mags S pole.
Sparks would jump across a gap that would be too
large to cross for the charges if no magnets were used.
Somehow, the electrons can use the magnetic field to
jump a bit farther than they should be able to.
Okay, I'm probably off on the specifics of the setup here,
and I may even have mixed up the N and S poles there,
but the basic idea is still the same. Look it up. It's right
here on the forum somewhere... :)
But I'm not sure if it has anything to do with superconductivity...
Seems to have more to do with magnetic flux decreasing
resistance in the field region... which is cool, but decreased
resistance is not automatically superconductivity.
Oh, and as for the "Young effect" cap-to-cap discharge and OU
idea, there has actually been a thread discussing similar experiments
but a bit more professional over here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.0
and it might be usefull to see what they discussed already.
They were working on it before CptPecan started his thread.
And in that relation there is a document here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item207
that may be very usefull for CaptainPecan and some others doing their experiments.
Credit to Poynt99 for that document.
Regards,
Koen :)
Quote from: Koen1 on December 09, 2008, 09:07:41 AM
LOL this sounds like the Neodymium magnet
increased spark effect that was reported a couple
of months ago... :)
Regards,
Koen :)
how about 1 year plus ago need my picture??????? ;D 8)
in that same picture i tought you to recover :o
i have done many expairments zapping neos
you dont want to talk about zapping neos..... this is how my g unit works ... well some of it :D
i also did scope vids ....... yea that is correct i beleave i was 1 of the first to electrofly neos public ... perhaps even b4 richard....!!!!
but
I MUST NOW REMIND YOU LET IT ROCK! LET IT ROCK!! LET IT ROCK !!! NO I WONT LIVE A LIE NO! NOT THIS TIME!!!.... ;)
my latest controller is for zapping magnetics..... :)
isteam!!
A superconductor would be one that transfers voltage from one field to another I would imagine. That voltage is transferred just by electrons seems to be the stumbling block. What transfers voltage across a vacuum tube? Does your radio receiver antennae jiggle because of electrons flying out of the transmitter antennae? Perhaps a channel with electrets arranged about the channel can form a coherent insulated field of charge wherein an increase in charge at one end of the field is instantaneously felt at the other end of the field without moving electron one. This would be a charge lattice not a mass lattice. Something like those balls hanging on a string toys. You lift one up and let her go and the ball at the other end of the conductor mimics the first ball action without much of a loss of energy.
Quote from: sparks on December 09, 2008, 10:03:13 AM
Something like those balls hanging on a string toys. You lift one up and let her go and the ball at the other end of the conductor mimics the first ball action without much of a loss of energy.
@ Sparks:
I wonder if that is not how all electrons move in a wire, super conductor or not? So maybe Newton is alive and well inside all conductors and wires?
Bill
Quote from: gyulasun on December 09, 2008, 03:04:36 AM
Hi MeltDown,
Could you show a color picture of a Home Depot magnet behaving like that? I mean not the sparks but how the magnet looks like.
Is it normal Neo with known cover layer like nickel etc? Or maybe Samarium-Cobalt type?
If there is no any other magnet type to behave like that then the only logical deduction would be the cover material of the earlier Home Depot magnet which did the trick?
Thanks, Gyula
I still have two of the magnets and played with them not long ago and they still do that home depot effect. Here is info on the magnets:
They are ceramic NOT neo.
They measure 7/8" X 3/8" X 1 7/8"
I always assumed a superconductor is really a super insulator since you can't pin a magnet to it but you can above it outside the field. I also assumed that what makes a superconductor work is that it allows protons to flow on that insulation barrier. Protons don't flow through a solid but do a gas or liquid.
This also lends credibility to my action at a distance requirement for a magnet. That a magnet or a magnetic field is a showering of particles smaller than an electron and can only be captured by another magnetic field.
It would only make sense that if we are moving part of a particle down a wire say an electron, then the proton it was once associated with has an attraction to it and so we have resistance. However, it the electrons and protons are both allowed to move along that insulating barrier, then resistance goes away.
I feel that there is a third way to eliminate resistance and that is with superluminal speed. My problem is how do I measure that? I think I can create it various ways but measuring it is the difficult part. My superluminal meter is back in time. :-)
Actually I think I know how build a probe that could measure it but am not going to disclose that until built and tested.
OK MELTDOWN! creamic then ::) i got tonnes.... i hear you need hi voltage to cavatate a ceramic magnet... with a spark ... :)
you guys want some advanced SH!T!
lol
neos it is ..... lol
i am building a NEO core.... for my coils ::) TESLA STATES you can add 10 magnets in a stack after ten it fights aginst its self thus encouring losses .... or lessing the effect.... of course there were no neos back then .of course there were no neos back then .. so this may be diffrent with neos... not so sure yet
i bought square neos yesterday .... ;) 20 of em .... they are thin 1 " x 1" x 3/16 there bouts...
the coils will be biased to the core ;) pos and neg bifillar ....
i have designed many things wit neos tooooooooo!!!!!!!! lol you just aint seen them yet lol ;)
ist ;)
@IST: perhaps you could claim credit for a neo circuit,
if only you would post clear shcematics and details on that...
But since you never really do that, you only drop a few
words and we're supposed to magically form a clear picture
based on those extremely vague remarks of yours,
I think you're taking it a bit far to claim you've somehow
"discovered" a magnet spark increase effect.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I don't believe you've
done such experiments. I'm just saying that in order to
claim that you were the guy who "discovered" such an effect,
it would seem that you'd need to at least have explained and
described those experiments in detail. And I don't really
see that.
And what magnets was Tesla talking about?
I bet it wasn't neodymium ones... they didn't have those yet in his day.
That also seems to void any interpretation of Tesla's "no more than
10 magnets in a stack" in the context of using neodymium magnets.
The neo experiments I mentioned used nickel coated neos, the spark
jumped directly from the one nickel coated neo to the other.
If you have not used conductive magnets in your experiments yet,
you clearly have not performed exactly the same experiment.
What was yours then?
Did you stick two electrodes on two ceramic magnets and have them
spark?
What do you mean by your statement "the coils will be biased to the
core pos and neg bifilar"?
See, that's the type of vague statements I mean. Why don't you say
clearly]/i] and precisely what you mean? Can't be that difficult
to just spend a few more words to turn it into a coherent piece of text?
@Sparks: well actually the latest "cuprate" superconductor laminates
do not use direct electron exchange, but rather phonon coupling...
Or at least, that's what I've been reading about. ;)
Quote from: MeltDown on December 09, 2008, 11:04:27 AM
I still have two of the magnets and played with them not long ago and they still do that home depot effect. Here is info on the magnets:
They are ceramic NOT neo.
They measure 7/8" X 3/8" X 1 7/8"
I have one of these magnets. Did you just arc to it? Voltage level? AC, DC, or impulse?
Quote from: MeltDown on December 09, 2008, 12:54:12 AM
Here is some history on that you are not going to read elsewhere:
I sent Perreault two magnets I got from home depot that increased a spark roughly 1000% when you spark a fence charger against the face of the magnet. I called it home depot effect. :-)
Subsequently, Perreault probably handed it off to this other guy who patented it as a superconductor and then Perreault posted the patent on his web site soon after. So I don't trust either one of them.
Home depot then changed magnet suppliers and I have never been able to find anymore that did this .
What it is or how it works nobody seems to know. I just know that it makes a 1/8" spark turn into an impressive 1" spark with a very loud bang.
These web sites are crawling with and often run by spooks.
how is the magnet polarized? Through the large face or the side?
@MeltDown
Most of those type of magnets are coated with a thin layer of zinc to keep them from oxidizing.
Zinc can be used to make a tunnel diode which has negative resistance properties.
Here is a site were someone made there own tunnel diodes from zinc plated metal.
http://home.earthlink.net/~lenyr/ntype-nr.htm
So maybe the way the zinc plating was placed on those magnets you got formed a tunnel diode effect.
Hope this helps solve the puzzle.
I have a hundred 1cm square magnets of this type would be awsome if they did the same thing.
@MeltDown
Could you show us the layout so we can try this with our own magnets?
Quote from: Koen1 on December 09, 2008, 12:33:52 PM
@IST: perhaps you could claim credit for a neo circuit,
if only you would post clear shcematics and details on that...
But since you never really do that, you only drop a few
words and we're supposed to magically form a clear picture
based on those extremely vague remarks of yours,
I think you're taking it a bit far to claim you've somehow
"discovered" a magnet spark increase effect.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I don't believe you've
done such experiments. I'm just saying that in order to
claim that you were the guy who "discovered" such an effect,
it would seem that you'd need to at least have explained and
described those experiments in detail. And I don't really
see that.
And what magnets was Tesla talking about?
I bet it wasn't neodymium ones... they didn't have those yet in his day.
That also seems to void any interpretation of Tesla's "no more than
10 magnets in a stack" in the context of using neodymium magnets.
The neo experiments I mentioned used nickel coated neos, the spark
jumped directly from the one nickel coated neo to the other.
If you have not used conductive magnets in your experiments yet,
you clearly have not performed exactly the same experiment.
What was yours then?
Did you stick two electrodes on two ceramic magnets and have them
spark?
What do you mean by your statement "the coils will be biased to the
core pos and neg bifilar"?
See, that's the type of vague statements I mean. Why don't you say
clearly]/i] and precisely what you mean? Can't be that difficult
to just spend a few more words to turn it into a coherent piece of text?
@Sparks: well actually the latest "cuprate" superconductor laminates
do not use direct electron exchange, but rather phonon coupling...
Or at least, that's what I've been reading about. ;)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3689.0
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1872.2130.html
ITS ALL BEEN DONE B4!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
@ keoen1 :o :o :o :o :o :o :o perhapes you have not read enough ::) ::) ::)
notice the date ....... i have done this well b4 posted .....
Re: Lords of the Ring
« Reply #2135 on: August 27, 2007, 12:40:08 AM »
hello gk and all
in playing around today i got my neos out agin Grin
such fun i have with those little things well i just wish there was an easy to control them but it seams like is it a hard thing to do
i havent seen many play with neos and well it is just so much fun i think they can teach much here altho how much more must be taught is there a way to harness power from the neos ? easly? the ring i am playing with today is about in its simplest form and you all know how i like simple right
i realize most of my posts are not relivant to the tpu but then agin maybe they are i will not know fior sure until i finish it or get output from it
a picture of my setup as of today i threw some other parts in the mix to see what happins it is a mess but it is much fun
ist
you all think this will light a bulb? lol
you tell me agin ... i laugh at you
do i still need draw YOU A PICTURE LOLLOLLOL!!!!! :o
william!
i can and will find you many more links ::) of my proof ;)
i have some vids up here too showing PROOF..... LOL
want those too and the DATES.... 8)
enjoy ....
IMAGINE ...............THIS WORKS WIHT MY CAPPAC! LOL it is posted long ago tooooooo..................... bla bla bla
A voltage impressed on two electrodes can cause ionization of the atoms in the gap. The ions and electrons can then assemble into a plasma which is just a macroatom. This plasma or macroatom allows for an electron energy shell configuration that can in effect span the gap. Very conductive situation here as there is a great chance that the free electrons are creating a coherent path of -charge from electrode to electrode. The magnetic field can be manipulated to either align the ions so as that the plasma is sustained or to blow the ions into disarray to quench the gap. Either way it was the original oscillator before vacuum tubes and controlling it's almost superconductive properties would result in alot of high amplitude high frequency currents. They also use magnetic quenching on high voltage dc circuit breakers and call them blow out coils. I really don't know if a plasma would be called a superconductor. You do get alot of weird effects when you get dielectric and magnetic flux fields in phase.
Quote from: TheBuzz on November 26, 2008, 12:14:51 AM
Here is a good example of a shorted coil being used to produce 150% OU that I just spotted and does the magnetic field duplication:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cka7qb0zoc8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cka7qb0zoc8)
That's very interesting. I did the math, and it's in agreement with the input meter -->
First stage: The input meter shows 10.9V, 0.66A, 0.42 PF = 3.0 (3.02) watts, which is in agreement with the 3W reported by the input meter.
Second stage: The input meter shows 10.9V, 0.34A, 0.54 PF = 2.0 (2.00) watts, which is in agreement with the 2W reported by the input meter.
Third stage: The input meter shows 9.9V, 0.14A, 0.70 PF = 1.0 (0.970) watts, which is in agreement with the 1W reported by the input meter.
I have no idea if the frequency is within the meters range, but the meters are showing more output than input, period.
I hope Thane Heins keeps up the good work, regardless of the outcome. There's no shame in trying. Looks like he may be on to something.
PL
@IST: those links show exactly what I mean;
apparently you did build something and post that picture,
but the one is a typical extremely vague post of yours
that only hints toward using magnets but doesn't give any
real info,
the other is just that pic plus a remark on neo magnets,
posted in the middle of a TPU thread...
Neither include a clear description nor schematic of the
setup, neither give clear info about your input and output.
See what I mean?
So yeah, you seem to have done experiments in that direction,
but no, you did not post any clear nor detailed info on them.
I don't think it has anything to do with me not reading enough,
it has more to do with you posting vague and cryptic messages,
not revealing any details, and posting them in the middle of for
example that TPU/Ring thread instead of just posting them in
a neo magnet experiments thread...
Please post a schematic and/or clear description of your neo magnet
setup and your test results?
And may I ask why, if you already got a neo circuit to OU charge batteries
over a year ago, why you haven't shared this huge OU breakthrough?
If you really got OU from it, why didn't you continue working on it?
Quote from: Koen1 on December 10, 2008, 08:18:37 AM
@IST: those links show exactly what I mean;
apparently you did build something and post that picture,
but the one is a typical extremely vague post of yours
that only hints toward using magnets but doesn't give any
real info,
the other is just that pic plus a remark on neo magnets,
posted in the middle of a TPU thread...
Neither include a clear description nor schematic of the
setup, neither give clear info about your input and output.
See what I mean?
So yeah, you seem to have done experiments in that direction,
but no, you did not post any clear nor detailed info on them.
I don't think it has anything to do with me not reading enough,
it has more to do with you posting vague and cryptic messages,
not revealing any details, and posting them in the middle of for
example that TPU/Ring thread instead of just posting them in
a neo magnet experiments thread...
Please post a schematic and/or clear description of your neo magnet
setup and your test results?
And may I ask why, if you already got a neo circuit to OU charge batteries
over a year ago, why you haven't shared this huge OU breakthrough?
If you really got OU from it, why didn't you continue working on it?
why piss me off guy?
if you need more .. lol
i guess you dont really need my answers .. i find it funny there is only a HAND FULL THAT NEVER GOT IT WHEN I DID IT LOL ...
hey heres a thought why did it all dry up ? ;D perhaps the rest got the trick ;D
tell me AGIN WHY I SHOULD GIVE IT ALL TO YOU ?
btw this is a RESERCH SITE....
heres a tip go reserch.... ;D and catch up b4 i post more that cannot be proven wrong :)
ist
may i advise you to chill a wee bit :) i may have somthing you can dup and test quite soon ;) similar to magnacoaster 8)
till then relax ..... it aint christ mas yet!! 8)
im still waiting for your gifts... ;) BTW IM FULLY STOCKED ON PARTS 8) maybe ill build some more things maybe i wont show em lol ;D
hey i just dropped another 1000 cdn on my stuff...
WALKING IN A WONDER FULL WONDER LAND ...... I WONDER....... ;)
Wow innovation_station... wow..
I can't believe you just told Keon1 the big secret where everyone agreed to not give him the memo. Now HE is going to build one. You really let us down this time.
I have converted my fleet of private jets to innovation_station's free energy magnet technology, my whole city now runs with them, several small Asian countries have also converted and through it all we managed to keep it a secret from him and then you go and reveal this!
Even Pirate???? who coined the term "Young Effect" after being inspired by one of innovation_stations fellow Canadians named Hutchinson, who managed to drag several battle ships worth of radars into his tiny apartment and then proceed to light up the powerful radars from them, even pirate DIDN'T GET THE MEMO.
Well the cat is out of the bag now so I guess we might as well tell Koen1 too.
Keon1 - buy some magnets, set some wires and coils by them and then pretend that you have free energy. That is what everyone else did. We call it "innovation_station effect" or "ICE" as the academic community secretly refers to it. The US military is all over this at secret underground bases in the Nevada desert.
Pssst! Don't tell pirate and the Young dude Captain Pecan. They are like an online MENSA date that never ends.
These are the poster children for HBB - "Head Banger Babies" An international non-profit organization trying to make it a crime to intentionally drop a new born on his head more than 100 times per day. We have managed to make some progress after most of the world agreed to ban professional baby juggling. Canada was of course the lone hold out and it is still widely practiced in Kentucky at an amature level, obviously.
Sure they make great trash collectors and counter intelligence officers that engage in poisoning the well (in spook terms) but do we really need any more? No! Please make a donation to the HBB fund today.
PS innovation_station - you forgot to dumb down your writing several pages back. Sloppy trade craft?
why did i stop my reserch with neos at that time?? cuz there side effects.... perhaps RADIATION :o
think about .... study ... hows that ...
sure i did some dumb things .... sure i did some good things ...
but the best thing i could have ever done was to LEARN B4 I PLAY ... to stay safe ....
have you ever zaped a neo at a harmonic of the resonant?
have you ever done it with 3 freqs? lol no me eather ....
will i .... i dont know... perhaps 1 is enough..... :)
ist
pssst: now the cat is out and running put it on a tred mill.... ::)
Quote from: innovation_stationwhy did i stop my reserch with neos at that time?? cuz there side effects.... perhaps RADIATION :o
Now that irritates me. I don't think you're serious. People don't have to worry about neo magnets giving off dangerous radiation.
I don't care for scare tactics, especially when the guy does not provide circuit diagrams.
my 2 cents,
PL
try it :D
make sure to wear your rings... gold works best ..... lol
;)
my arm went numb.... ::)
you tell me after you FEEL THE RESULTS... ;)
ist!
hey ever throw a stone in a pond? ever see the ripples.... hummmm electro fence in the grass ringgggg bells??
I've stood 10 feet away from a 50000 watt 1MHz radio station with a ferrite rod antenna in my hand.
Tesla lived in high voltage radiation -->
http://www.brancostoysin.co.uk/Nikola%20Tesla%20photo%203%20%20high%20voltage%20sparks.jpg
It should be an honor to work on such technology that may one day help this world on a global scale.
Please, no scare tactics, otherwise people will put a red flag next to your name.
PL
please correct me if im incorrect.... this is not ment to mislead!!!!
im not highly edjmucated lol :D
and i can not always be right im just like the rest of you human! for what ever that actually means :D
ist!
CORRECT IT if it IS WRONG hence the reason for public exposure........ ;)
Quote from: innovation_station on December 10, 2008, 11:51:01 AM
try it :D
make sure to wear your rings... gold works best ..... lol
;)
my arm went numb.... ::)
you tell me after you FEEL THE RESULTS... ;)
ist!
hey ever throw a stone in a pond? ever see the ripples.... hummmm electro fence in the grass ringgggg bells??
Everyone I ever knew that threw a stone in a pond died of radiation poisoning except for Mr. T who was obviously saved by his gold rinds and necklaces.
Here in the US all ponds are ringed with warning signs that say "Be sure to wear gold rings if throwing stones."
This thread is the gift that just never stops giving. :-)
Quote from: MeltDown on December 10, 2008, 12:23:33 PM
Everyone I ever knew that threw a stone in a pond died of radiation poisoning except for Mr. T who was obviously saved by his gold rinds and necklaces.
Here in the US all ponds are ringed with warning signs that say "Be sure to wear gold rings if throwing stones."
This thread is the gift that just never stops giving. :-)
so you like golden rings...
heres another one ....
use a ferroite torroide jt and make it heterodyne ;)
drop it in your ringgggg.... 8)
ist!
im building driver boards right now.... im on #12 ;)
sure i already have the next model designed.... it will be the xr2206 chip ;) and some real nice amps ;D
can you say sine in perfect harmony 3 freq/phase quaditure.... hummmm my hovver board :o
Try to keep these topics "on-topic" gentlemen.
If you can't, start a new thread for this kind of rubbish....I'd suggest one called "Talkin' Trash".
Have some respect for the originator in all these threads guys. If we had a moderator that actually moderated rather than creating more ways to generate revenue, messages like these wouldn't even be necessary.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on December 10, 2008, 02:04:32 PM
Try to keep these topics "on-topic" gentlemen.
If you can't, start a new thread for this kind of rubbish....I'd suggest one called "Talkin' Trash".
Have some respect for the originator in all these threads guys. If we had a moderator that actually moderated rather than creating more ways to generate revenue, messages like these wouldn't even be necessary.
.99
indeed im sorry guys ... 99 captian and all
i just wish my hands would keep up with my mind!!!!
and my mouth would keep up with my hands.....
sorry back to real time
captian ... what ya think ... all of this can be added to improve the original design ;)
ist!
Quote from: poynt99 on December 10, 2008, 02:04:32 PM
Try to keep these topics "on-topic" gentlemen.
If you can't, start a new thread for this kind of rubbish....I'd suggest one called "Talkin' Trash".
Have some respect for the originator in all these threads guys. If we had a moderator that actually moderated rather than creating more ways to generate revenue, messages like these wouldn't even be necessary.
.99
Maybe the reason this thread is a magnet for "talkin' trash" is that it is called "The Young Effect, my gift to the free energy movement"? So naturally I thought this was THAT thread.
As far as your complaint about Hartman and his revenue generating ads, I for one like them. I click on all of them and find so many good deals, products and services. I wish that there were MORE adds to click on and a better selection too. In fact, I would pay an annual fee if I could get a substantial increase in ads but only if they blink.
As far a moderating goes, Hartman is doing a great job. He banned TheBuzz after TheBuzz shared what all free energy devices have in common - (cavitation) and Hartman kept the pirate that was attacking TheBuzz while the Pirate dude was making false claims and going back and editing his posts to hide those false claims. The pirate guy was after all the one that came up with young effect. So I think Hartman is doing a wonderful job of moderating.
Just my 99 cents worth.
Quote from: MeltDown on December 10, 2008, 05:11:49 PM
As far a moderating goes, Hartman is doing a great job. He banned TheBuzz after he shared what all free energy devices have in common - (cavitation) and he kept the pirate that was attacking him while making false claims and going back and editing his posts to hide those false claims. The pirate guy was after all the one that came up with young effect. So I think Hartman is doing a wonderful job of moderating.
Just my 99 cents worth.
You are totally wrong sir and I resent your implication that I attacked anyone. Go back and read. Get your facts straight before making false accusations here. TheBuzz attacked me, Captainpecan, Allcanadian, and many others on here without any reason whatsoever. He ignored Stefan's warnings and continued to attack. I responded to his personal attacks and threats just like I am responding to yours. Also, I never edited ANY of my posts...ever.
Why don't you find a topic that you can actually post useful information and attempt to contribute in a positive way instead of continuing to attempt to disrupt this topic? If you think there is nothing useful here, fine, move on.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 10, 2008, 05:20:29 PM
You are totally wrong sir and I resent your implication that I attacked anyone. Go back and read. Get your facts straight before making false accusations here. TheBuzz attacked me, Captainpecan, Allcanadian, and many others on here without any reason whatsoever. He ignored Stefan's warnings and continued to attack. I responded to his personal attacks and threats just like I am responding to yours. Also, I never edited ANY of my posts...ever.
Why don't you find a topic that you can actually post useful information and attempt to contribute in a positive way instead of continuing to attempt to disrupt this topic? If you think there is nothing useful here, fine, move on.
Bill
Please don't attack me like that. The point I was trying to make is this thread is a non topic. It has become an urban legend that has been discussed on other forums regarding a person(s) unwillingness to measure power, only voltage and despite page after page of people trying to explain it, they would not listen. It is a thread based in self delusion.
I could have sworn that your post went missing the parts about founding high tech firms after you didn't know what a reed switch was, I see it is back there or maybe I missed something. But I did dig up this and it does question your claims.
Your original claim:
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 28, 2008, 07:19:11 PM
@ The Buzz:
Wrong again? I hardly think so and the science is on my side.
Why don't you post something useful on another topic and let the folks that actually build things continue to do so without your insults? Where are YOUR experiments? I have posted many, along with videos documenting my results. Again, where are yours? I have posted my successful magnet motor (homopolar) and my earth battery experiments on youtube and metacafe with links on this site to them. Where are your videos?
I have played with caps and super caps for a long time and have never seen or had a "spark" that caused cavitation of anything at any time.
I have founded two high tech research and development corporations that served the aerospace and electronics industries for years and are still doing so today. What have you founded?
I have invented and designed parts that have flown on the space shuttle, been a consultant to NASA, designed and built parts for inertial guidance system for missile defense, manufactured actuators for Disney's Imagineering folks, made parts for the Tokamak reactor at Princeton University, light sensors for AT&T's fiber optic network, and on, and on and on. I ask again...what have you done?
You have done nothing but hijack this interesting topic to the point where the author will not post here any longer. I strongly suggest you take Stefan's warning seriously and stop insulting folks who are here for serious work and are actually doing something besides trying to tell everyone how smart you think you are by insulting them and accusing them of doing exactly what it is you are doing. I disagreed with you and said the Captain's topic has nothing to do with cavitation and you say that is starting a flame war? Why because I disagreed with you? This makes a lot of sense.
Start your own topic!!!!
Thank you.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 03, 2008, 02:13:13 PM
Quote from meltdown:
Why do I get the feeling Innovation_station was the friend that talked Captain Pecan into naming it "Young effect?"
No, that would be me. I was inspired by the term "Hutchison Effect".
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 03, 2008, 04:57:46 PM
I am not a collaborator, (spelled correctly) I only suggested the name is all. I really don't understand your comment on the space shuttle and founding high tech firms but, that's ok. As for falling on my sword, nice analogy, but used incorrectly. So, all in all, your post was not very constructive nor was it related in any way to the topic of this thread.
Bill
You claim to have have built parts that have flown on the space shuttle, then you don't seem to know anything about that when it is discovered you came up with young effect.
You claim to have founded high tech firms but then don't understand the comment after you revealed that you "founded" "The Young effect" shortly after asking innovation_station what a reed switch was.
When placed into context, it appears that you are making false claims, that is all I am saying.
What parts did you create that flew on the space shuttle and what high tech firms did you found?
Merry Christmas
The ceramic coils springs that we invented and precision machined flew on STS 60 and were a part of the Wakefield experiment. These springs were precision machined using high speed diamond tooling out of partially stabilized zirconium oxide. These springs and the technology on how to machine them, were developed at Ellis Ceramtek, Inc. by my father and myself in the early 80's. The springs that flew on STS 60 were machined at my former company Machined Ceramics, Inc. which I founded in 1989. In 1996 I began Thunderwood Golf, a company that manufactured and marketed the Thunderwood driver which was a persimmon wood with a high-tech ceramic "Power Concentrator" located in the sweet spot. A year later, we began marketing an entire line of clubs using ceramic materials and carbon fiber.
In 2000 I founded Tactical Investigations, a licensed full-service Investigations agency. I would tell you about the high-tech devices we use but, that is a secret.
I could go on and on if you like, but this is well off-topic as were your comments about me attacking you. I just pointed out where you were wrong and now you claim it was an attack.
If you persist in these off-topic discussions I will just put you on ignore. If you have any more questions about my background, feel free to pm me, e-mail me or call me. Let's keep it off of here please. Thank you.
Bill
The 'BUZZ' and 'Meltdown' are one and the same...one gets the boot and another not so coincidentally pops up with the very same beefs and preoccupations...its groundhog day again.
I would suggest ignoring the troll just as before...when he will then start making mindless threats again and get booted...again.
Regards...
my new controller thought i would post it here :P
guess why lol :D
cuz it will charge my caps n dump em....
you see my power supply should be round 85vdc ;)
ist
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 10, 2008, 07:06:09 PM
The 'BUZZ' and 'Meltdown' are one and the same...one gets the boot and another not so coincidentally pops up with the very same beefs and preoccupations...its groundhog day again.
I would suggest ignoring the troll just as before...when he will then start making mindless threats again and get booted...again.
Regards...
User Meltdown ( the same IP as user CabinBoy)
was now banned due to harrassing other users.
GEESE
MELTDOWN? BUZZ? CABINBOY?
Why do you have to come into the forum swinging??
Didn't Mom teach you not to make friends swinging a baseball bat??
Come on!! you have so many GREAT ideas {FRESH ONES} [although I never saw a post from cabin Boy ]
PLEASE if you figure a way to get back BEHAVE YOURSELF !![count to 10 before posting] take an anger management course
Your Great Ideas/Knowledge and experience are needed here
Leave the BAT in the closet
Chet
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 11, 2008, 04:52:57 AM
User Meltdown ( the same IP as user CabinBoy)
was now banned due to harrassing other users.
MeltDown brought up some good points that should be addressed, as did HEYDUDE, Poynt99, and others. His posts on cavitation were also interesting.
Couldn't you have just issued a warning rather than banning him?
I would like to see some of these "worthless crap posters" banned. Then I would not have to wade through page after page of BS to find the good posts.
CabinBoy thinks it is such a strange little web site.
The same 4 people attack TheBuzz AKA MeltDown when he shows people that all free energy machines have the same thing in common. Once provoked, TheBuzz AKA MeltDown fights back and Hartman bans him over and over.
This thread was started by Young and it was Pirates idea to call it young effect. Now CabinBoy watches the same four people start a thread that is popular regarding cavitation and those same four people discrediting the information or at least trying to. People are smart enough to put 2 and 2 together.
And you blame TheBuzz for fighting back? This has been going on for years here and is why many people think Hartman is on the other side. All you have to do to get attacked and banned here is start disclosing real information regarding free energy.
Look how Thane Heins was attacked by some of those same people. Now Thane does not post much. Meltdown posted one last post last night though that tells how the suppression people play the game.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4047.3680 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4047.3680)
TheBuzz knows how all free energy machines work but the suppression here is too great. Maybe if things change, TheBuzz will come back but I wouldn't hold my breath.
In the end, TheBuzz AKA MeltDown was right. Young effect is nothing, cavitation is everything. ;-)
CabinBoy thinks there is something strange going on at this place. O.K. Hartman, now you can ban CabinBoy too but wait for him to be attacked by the same people, in same order often saying the same thing. It is like a machine.
TheBuzz has close to ten years worth of posts by those people and when he did a statistical analysis he realized it is an organized operation. The numbers do not lie.
Sir
I am definitely not one of your peers
Nor do I share your insight into your comments about some members here
However I LOVE YAH MAN !!
Chet
PS your ideas have put some real' meat' on some old bones around here !!
8)
@ the buzz its is all good i know your correct and i wont shoot you down nor your ideas!!!!!
in fact i do support them .... just the laque of respect for fellow humans that is all i dislike ...
but beleave me i feel your furstration ....
i try my best to bite my tongue most times ....
for the rest that dont get it.... it is left as a mistery ... just as it was left to me ;D
ISTEAM!! ;)
Quote from: Grumpy on December 11, 2008, 11:07:03 AM
MeltDown brought up some good points that should be addressed, as did HEYDUDE, Poynt99, and others. His posts on cavitation were also interesting.
Couldn't you have just issued a warning rather than banning him?
I would like to see some of these "worthless crap posters" banned. Then I would not have to wade through page after page of BS to find the good posts.
Okay, I have removed the ban on user Meltdown again,
but please don´t start flamewars or namecalling and be ontopic.
If you need to point out errors in a user´s experiment,
please do it nicely and calm and in a responsible way
accepting that at least somebody is trying to do experiments
to try to find new things out.
That is needing respect, also if the user is making errors.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 11, 2008, 12:42:53 PM
Okay, I have removed the ban on user Meltdown again,
but please don´t start flamewars or namecalling and be ontopic.
If you need to point out errors in a user´s experiment,
please do it nicely and calm and in a responsible way
accepting that at least somebody is trying to do experiments
to try to find new things out.
That is needing respect, also if the user is making errors.
Regards, Stefan.
Thank you. Well said!
Quote from: CabinBoy on December 11, 2008, 11:34:42 AM
CabinBoy thinks it is such a strange little web site.
The same 4 people attack TheBuzz AKA MeltDown when he shows people that all free energy machines have the same thing in common. Once provoked, TheBuzz AKA MeltDown fights back and Hartman bans him over and over.
This thread was started by Young and it was Pirates idea to call it young effect. Now CabinBoy watches the same four people start a thread that is popular regarding cavitation and those same four people discrediting the information or at least trying to. People are smart enough to put 2 and 2 together.
And you blame TheBuzz for fighting back? This has been going on for years here and is why many people think Hartman is on the other side. All you have to do to get attacked and banned here is start disclosing real information regarding free energy.
Look how Thane Heins was attacked by some of those same people. Now Thane does not post much. Meltdown posted one last post last night though that tells how the suppression people play the game.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4047.3680 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4047.3680)
TheBuzz knows how all free energy machines work but the suppression here is too great. Maybe if things change, TheBuzz will come back but I wouldn't hold my breath.
In the end, TheBuzz AKA MeltDown was right. Young effect is nothing, cavitation is everything. ;-)
CabinBoy thinks there is something strange going on at this place. O.K. Hartman, now you can ban CabinBoy too but wait for him to be attacked by the same people, in same order often saying the same thing. It is like a machine.
TheBuzz has close to ten years worth of posts by those people and when he did a statistical analysis he realized it is an organized operation. The numbers do not lie.
Ban is lifted.
What is actually occuring during cavitation?
Hey thanks for the support guys - that feels nice. However, I am TheBuzz and TheBuzz is banned. My messages are in TheBuzz's mailbox. My 30 years of research was disclosed under TheBuzz's username.
Maybe you could get Hartman to undo that ban on the TheBuzz so I can go over to the cavitation thread and explain what 30 years has taught me and leave the pirate and Captain Pecan's thread to them.
I realize that my sense of humor is not for everyone and I also realize that I am thin skinned. I apologize for the times I was unfair and I do not apologize for defending myself when attacked.
I have no belief or disbelief. I am pure logic to the core - all science. Social science is not my forte and I am working on it in my spare time. I have no spare time, I am getting old.
So if I offend someones ego, it is my way of challenging the magical thinking that it is based in. If you knew in me in my real life you would quickly come to the conclusion that I have no ego but I am confident that I have more than a clue or two about science and the subject of free energy.
Many of these beefs with a few members here started a decade ago or at another forum. I dislike the magical thinking that is brought into science at all levels, here and in acidemia . That is not what science is or how it gets done. It is what keeps you from your goal and makes things more complicated than it is in reality.
A common thought agreement is: "It is true BECAUSE you believe it and I believe it." 500 hundred years ago we burned people at the stake for suggesting the Earth was round. We are still burning people at the stake just for other reasons.
Most stories in life begin with the word because. When a small child gets caught doing something they should not and you ask them why they did it, they just say "because." The child has not learned to tell stories yet but has learned the first word they usually begin with. "I" "but" and "because" are three magical words that usually begin a magical story. I cringe every time I hear it or say it.
When you clear away all those common thought agreements or what I call magical thought, the universe becomes very easy to understand.
That magical thinking is taught at a university level so you never figure out how to build a free energy machine. So don't think that just because someone has a PHD they actually know something about this subject.
It is no accident that the person that funds much of the university system is also the biggest oil man in the US. He does not bind the wrists of the people, he binds their minds and it is maddening to someone that thinks with free energy. It all begins within.
I have reverse engineered the Ark of the Covenant, created a plausible explanation for the double slit experiment and the extra bands of light in the Bohr model of the atom. I am always willing to share what I have learned. For if I did not, it would all be for not.
That is my rant for now. It is nappy time. :-)
You just can't help yourself can you.
There was absolutely no need to raise the names of those users in a negative fashion again.
I'll give you a week before you are out of here for good at the rate you are going.
How can someone with so much knowledge have such a total lack of common sense and human decency ?
Shakes head.
TheBuzz
I don't think you could dangle a bigger carrot!! [sarcasm] I thought the Boss already uncensored you[with stipulations]
Chet
I personally have never seen the CAVITATION THEORY as purported by TheBuzz on this forum before [in a specific thread making specific claims]
AS the theory was proposed by TheBuzz and said Buzz was booted[for conduct unbecoming a buzz] at the time of the Threads creation,It does present a conundrum
IT really is his contribution, and has a lot of interest to members Here
CP sorry to bust into your thread won't happen again
Chet
TheBuzz sorry for the confusion
I mean its your baby!
As Sparks comments below
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 11, 2008, 02:20:55 PM
You just can't help yourself can you.
There was absolutely no need to raise the names of those users in a negative fashion again.
I'll give you a week before you are out of here for good at the rate you are going.
How can someone with so much knowledge have such a total lack of common sense and human decency ?
Shakes head.
Why do you attack me? Could you show me where "I raise the names of those users in a negative fashion again."
This thread was started by Captain Pecan and Pirate obviously was working with him and he mentioned that. I in no way stated anything negative about them. They were upset that I was posting the cavitation information in their thread some time ago. I only posted it because I was trying to create some sort of plausible explanation for the 1 volt gain.
The you and a few others attacked me like you are now. Very strange.
Quote from: ramset on December 11, 2008, 02:42:05 PM
I personally have never seen the CAVITATION THEORY as purported by TheBuzz on this forum before [in a specific thread making specific claims]
AS the theory was proposed by TheBuzz and said Buzz was booted[for conduct unbecoming a buzz] at the time of the Threads creation,It does present a conundrum
IT really is his contribution, and has a lot of interest to members Here
CP sorry to bust into your thread won't happen again
Chet
Hey ramset,
I posted page after page of information in this thread and then Pirate started a new thread regarding the cavitation information I posted. Not sure I understand what you mean possibly but you did post in that other thread.
There is a topic at the below link that is discussing the Cavitation information first advanced by Buzz in CP's thread. This subject has been expanded on by postings of others and should be of interest to all.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6192.msg143257#msg143257
Quote from: sparks on December 11, 2008, 02:57:11 PM
There is a topic at the below link that is discussing the Cavitation information first advanced by Buzz in CP's thread. This subject has been expanded on by postings of others and should be of interest to all.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6192.msg143257#msg143257
Thanks for posting the link Sparks. It is of interest of all and gaining speed quite quickly.
People are waking to the reality that all free energy machines use cavitation to convert mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass and that is the only way to create a free energy machine in this universe - no exceptions.I can explain where that takes place in many if not all of them. The common and different ways that it can be accomplished such as aharonov bohm effect which is an electromagnetic cavitation, ultrasonic which is a physical cavitation, acceleration and so on. They all work same at a basic level.
Ever wondered why so little information is available on the subject or why some try and suppress it? It is the silver bullet of free energy.
Quote from: MeltDown on December 11, 2008, 03:12:47 PM
People are waking to the reality that all free energy machines use cavitation to convert mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass and that is the only way to create a free energy machine in this universe - no exceptions.
Ever wondered why ?!?!?!?!
just since as long as i can remember :D
THANK YOU THEBUZZ
did you catch your buzz yet? ;) lol
ist!
quote:
" I do not apologize for defending myself when attacked."
With that statement, following the mention of the 2 users previously attacked by you (because it was not they who attacked you), you falsely asserted that they had attacked you.
That is raising their names negatively.
Using the 'whoever says it last appears credible' approach may work on other message boards but you have already found that doesn't work here...play your word games somewhere else.
The only reason your presence is being tolerated here is because of knowledge/information the good members here hope to glean from you...in the interest of humanity.
Other than that, you have presented yourself here as an abusive troll...which is why you were banned the first time...(I'm a bit psychic ;D).
I believe that should be clear to you...unless you are so tuned to circular logic that you unable to understand anything without juvenile undertones.
*drops matter in favor of staring aimlessly out viewless window*
Hey Cap
Glad we talked in PM
Chet
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 29, 2008, 10:53:55 AM
@ All:
I have started a topic on cavitation. Everyone can feel free to post their ideas over there.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=post;board=34.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=post;board=34.0)
This way, this topic can get back to the Captain's experiments.
@ Sparks:
I look forward to discussing some of your ideas over there if you feel like it. I did read what you posted but I felt it would be off-topic to reply here.
Thanks.
Bill
Just to set the record straight once again, I made the above post after opening up a topic to discuss if cavitation was the key to OU or not. Also note, this was done pages prior to Buzz being banned. I did that to give folks a place to discuss this and to prevent CP's topic from running astray of it's topic. I personally do not believe that cavitation has anything to do with OU with a few possible exceptions but, it is interesting to see what others post on the topic. I will ignore the latest attacks on me and a few others as this has no place in this, or any other topic. If someone has something they want to contribute there, as many have been doing, feel free to do so. If one has an objective to just bash folks and create chaos, then go somewhere else.
Also, another falsehood, I never worked with CaptainPecan on his research. It is his and his alone. I did suggest a name for his work, that is all. I do not want credit for anything I did not do.
That being said, I would really hope we can stick to the topic here and maybe we can all learn something, one way or the other.
Bill
short and long of this entire thred is this.....
captian use the CEMF BEMF BACK EMF OR HEMF to boost your gain in your caps ... peroid....
simple enough?
ist!
time is gained engery is conserved a trade off i guess :D ;) ;D
are we in the point 0 zone yet ;)
Hey chet,
Like I always say, alls swell that ends swell when everyone means swell.
We're both better men for it...whatever it was. :)
Regards...
sorry for the interruption CP
Pardon...just passing thru.
As you were...
Look. I have an idea. I suggested it before and now I will post it openly in plain language. As most know, I have had somewhat of a personality conflict with Buzz/Meltdown/Cabinboy, etc. (All the same person) I really believe that, instead of subjecting others on a topic with flames and anti flames, everyone involved should take it to pm. I think this may be the computer age equivalent of "hey, let's step outside." This should already have been, and should be, good etiquette for any forum.
Trust me, I know this is hard to do if someone says something publicly about you, or your ideas, or your mother. It is hard to respond in private when the attack was out in the open. It is a slippery slope and once began, hard to stop. We have all seen it and I have been guilty of it myself. We would all agree that this is counter productive and probably drives away others who may have had something good to say.
As my grandmother once said: "It takes two to argue." I will now make a great effort to follow this idea and if I have a problem with what someone posts on a topic, I will take it private and either fix the misunderstanding, or call their mother some kind of name....who knows?
This is not directed at any one in particular with the exception of maybe me. If someone posts that they think I am an idiot, I can pm them and try to convince them I am not, or, I can call them an idiot as well. Whatever. At least it will not disrupt the others and sidetrack someone's topic.
Others can choose to follow this, or not. This is the way I am going to respond to any future altercations involving myself.
Sorry for the off-topic post......
Bill
BIll just saw your post
very mature outlook [hard for me right now]
Thanks
Chet
@ Chet:
Hard for all of us...trust me, I know. As I said, I have been guilty of it but it serves no purpose.
Bill
I liked the videos it is interesting
Quote from: Charlie_V on December 11, 2008, 10:05:57 PM
I liked the videos it is interesting
Thank you, I'm glad someone else found it interesting.
I am still a little hung on trying to understand the results of the last video I posted... I will post the link again, as it kinda got buried in the middle of stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwp7podu06s
I have done many more tests since this video, and I am still getting interesting results. All my new tests are using the motor to lift a weight, and measuring work done compared to energy lost. I am still not seeing energy lost, directly related to running the motor.
The first thought is that due to Lenz Law, the fact that the motor runs at all, should show a loss of energy. But in my tests, it appears that the only difference made in the circuit, is due to the added inductance of the motor coil, and the slight resistance increase. Almost like the current doesn't even see the magnets in the motor, it just seems to push them out of it's way on it's way through. I know that is not a very scientific explanation, lol, but it does seem interesting.
Any thoughts as to why there seems to be absolutely no loss related to adding the motor in the circuit, even with a load?
Quote from: captainpecan on December 12, 2008, 03:08:27 AM
...
I am still a little hung on trying to understand the results of the last video I posted... I will post the link again, as it kinda got buried in the middle of stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwp7podu06s
I have done many more tests since this video, and I am still getting interesting results. All my new tests are using the motor to lift a weight, and measuring work done compared to energy lost. I am still not seeing energy lost, directly related to running the motor.
Hi, captainpecan!
You made a very nice videos presenting your ideas!
I know you don't read posts or make responds to the narrow minded skeptics (like me)...
I do understand you! I swear!
"People who are saying it is impossible should not bother the other people who are doing it right now..." Or, something like that...(sorry, language...)
Regarding your experiments - you say you're showing the work done by your motor for free... Lifting weights? Yes, this is a solid proof method (i like it very much!)
But.. How much weight and how high? With a little speculation, I'd say "a few grams, a few centimeters high" (or anything in between)...
That would be in the order of miliJoules of useful work performed by a motor in your experiment. And I think you know that you're still "missing" at least 10-times more energy than that....
Quote
The first thought is that due to Lenz Law, the fact that the motor runs at all, should show a loss of energy. But in my tests, it appears that the only difference made in the circuit, is due to the added inductance of the motor coil, and the slight resistance increase. Almost like the current doesn't even see the magnets in the motor, it just seems to push them out of it's way on it's way through. I know that is not a very scientific explanation, lol, but it does seem interesting.
Any thoughts as to why there seems to be absolutely no loss related to adding the motor in the circuit, even with a load?
Your motor is
in reality just a common inductive load (looking from the capacitors sides, or energy transforming processes)...
The energy converted to mechanical motion is
very small.... Therefore, it doesn't really matter if the motor is blocked (fully loaded), or free spinning... Try it... The current flowing through the motor doesn't "see" the load at all... (it does but the result is almost negligible...) And, vice-versa, energy transformed to rotational motion (momentum) is to small to induce any usefull amounts of electricity back to the circuit....
That's why the final results are not very different when the motor is spinning or not, or if it is completely removed and replaced by a common wire...
At the end, the sum of all energy conversions should be Unity, and the practical results (all the energy accounted for) is still UnderUnity....
Quote from: captainpecan on December 12, 2008, 03:08:27 AM
Thank you, I'm glad someone else found it interesting.
I am still a little hung on trying to understand the results of the last video I posted... I will post the link again, as it kinda got buried in the middle of stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwp7podu06s
I have done many more tests since this video, and I am still getting interesting results. All my new tests are using the motor to lift a weight, and measuring work done compared to energy lost. I am still not seeing energy lost, directly related to running the motor.
The first thought is that due to Lenz Law, the fact that the motor runs at all, should show a loss of energy. But in my tests, it appears that the only difference made in the circuit, is due to the added inductance of the motor coil, and the slight resistance increase. Almost like the current doesn't even see the magnets in the motor, it just seems to push them out of it's way on it's way through. I know that is not a very scientific explanation, lol, but it does seem interesting.
Any thoughts as to why there seems to be absolutely no loss related to adding the motor in the circuit, even with a load?
Hi captainpecan,
Good movie, huge progress! Sincere congratulations for your desire to master the issue.
I’d appreciate that you’re now in the phase of fully grasping the physics behind it, in a correct way. Explanations were already posted, not just by me but by several other members, but here it is again, hopefully delivered at the right time and in a ‘digestible’ form.
You say:
“These tests indicated that there was a slight gain in energy, for using the motor. Not only that, the work motor does appear to be free.â€
Several points that might help:
1. 44.6 compared with 44.8 is 0.4%. Please check the capacitor tolerance, that of the voltmeter and also the variability of force in pushing the switch and of making contacts of exact same characteristics each time you move the clips and so on (there are many factors, all contributing to total error). I’d put everything under 5% error margin or even 10%.
2. Judging as per 1, it is safer (and actually this is the case here) to say that “tests indicated that approximately the same amount of energy is dumped into capacitor 2, no matter if the motor is loaded or not.â€
3. I’d be very cautious in using the word ‘gain’. Now it’s clear to you that, in its entirety, the system is facing a loss of up to 50% at each cycle.
4. Speaking of losses, it is well spent time to reflect upon the following fact: there is no way to lose more than 50% of initial energy for setups of this kind!!! Is it then possible to lose less than 50%? Surely it is. Your system already proves this possibility. Follow on for more.
5. As known, energy is not created, neither lost. So, speaking in terms of “energy losses†is not scientifically correct and it may create misunderstandings. Instead, one may better ask: Where did the missing energy go? It went into the environment, as heat.
6. A setup of the kind: capacitor 1 â€" black box (on one wire) â€" capacitor 2 may, in theory, transfer energy from 1 to 2 with and efficiency in between 50 and 100%. In other wording, it may exhibit an ‘energy loss’ (in the sense of 5 above) between 0 and 50%.
7. Considering 6, the setup under test does not have anything special; it’s in the theoretical range, although at lower limit (pretty worst in terms of efficiency). That’s why no electronic circuits use it. It would heat up and eventually catch fire.
8. What is heating up? In other words: Where is the energy transformed into heat? It’s on the plates of the second capacitor: it’s very important to understand it. Even in the ideal case (no resistance i.e â€" use of superconductors; perfect dielectric etc) the second capacitor is heating up. There (on the plates of the capacitor), part of the potential initial energy (which is voltage) is transformed into heat due to the movement of electrons (collision of incoming electrons, if you want to picture it easier although it would be scientifically incorrect), in the charging process.
9. Once the above is well understood, it will become crystal clear that a capacitor can indefinitely store a certain amount of energy and it can deliver it with 100% efficiency but it will pose efficiency issues only when charging it (and not at all when discharging it! discharging is 100% efficient).
10. How can heating be reduced (which is also equivalent to reduce the losses or to increase the efficiency) when charging a capacitor? It’s by applying at its terminals a voltage infinitesimally larger than its current voltage. That would require a variable voltage source that will slowly increase it’s voltage from 0 to 18.5V (as in your experiments). A battery doesn’t do that (it has constant voltage). A capacitor (capacitor 1 in your experiments) doesn’t do that either but exactly the opposite (it decreases its voltage from 18.5 to 9-10V), thus very low efficiency, close to the worst case.
In summary, to answer to the question of “why there seems to be absolutely no loss related to adding the motor in the circuit, even with a load?†I’d say that if the motor is not changing its functioning characteristic (i.e. the motor is the same ‘black box’ according to point 6 above), the setup remains the same whether or not you load the motor. The setup being the same, it will have the same efficiency, let’s say 56% in your case. Each cycle, only 56% of the initial energy will be reusable (half in capacitor 1 and half in capacitor 2 if they are of identical capacitance) and 44% is taken out of the setup. Normally, missing energy it is taken out as heat and the whole process might undergo unnoticed by the un-aware experimenter. But one may take the energy out as mechanical work (that’s what the motor does), which no matter if it is finally transformed into heat (motor stops due to friction) or just stored (i.e. motor raises some weights) it’s nonetheless the same 44% energy going out. Unfortunately the observation of mechanical work in conjunction with the un-awareness about silent heat does not mean it is something special going on there and certainly it is nothing there to give hopes for OU.
Please take your time in reading/understanding such long post with my hope that it will help.
Cheers,
Tinu
The ban on user TheBuzz is lifted again and I hope that there will
be no more namecallings and that the discussion will
be ontopic and respectfully.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: MeltDown on December 11, 2008, 02:04:30 PM
Hey thanks for the support guys - that feels nice. However, I am TheBuzz and TheBuzz is banned. My messages are in TheBuzz's mailbox. My 30 years of research was disclosed under TheBuzz's username.
hmm... Well perhaps you could really undisclose it again because it seems to have gone missed... What exactly was "disclosed"?
Your belief that cavitation in some form or other is the OU solution? Could you perhaps "disclose" some more exact and convincing
data except for your pesonal conviction?
And what's with the multi-accounting? That's a fairly typical adolescent prankster trick, isn't it? Not really something serious people do...
... but that's just how I feel about it... ;)
QuoteMaybe you could get Hartman to undo that ban on the TheBuzz so I can go over to the cavitation thread and explain what 30 years has taught me and leave the pirate and Captain Pecan's thread to them.
Err... why don't you just go down there as Meltdown and post your stuff?
It's not like you can only remember Buzz's alleged 30 years of experience when you're logged in as Buzz now, is it?
If you didn't want Buzz to get banned, you shouldn't have acted like such an ass.
QuoteI realize that my sense of humor is not for everyone and I also realize that I am thin skinned. I apologize for the times I was unfair and I do not apologize for defending myself when attacked.
Well that's something I guess. ;)
QuoteI have no belief or disbelief. I am pure logic to the core - all science. Social science is not my forte and I am working on it in my spare time. I have no spare time, I am getting old.
Then behave a bit more civilised please. Old people shouldn't throw teenage fits, it's not healthy. ;) And if you have no spare time,
then don't waste your time picking fights. Show people clear and undeniably convincing evidence of your cavitation OU conviction and they may agree.
Tell people they're stupid and should piss off like you did, and they'll not be convinced as easily.
QuoteSo if I offend someones ego, it is my way of challenging the magical thinking that it is based in.
That is just not true.
If you intentionally offend someone, you are intentionally trying to hurt their feelings, not trying to get them to think logically.
Is that how you were taught things? Did your teachers continually insult and offend you, and that's how they taught you mathematics and English
for example? If so, then perhaps I must point out that is not a didactically sound method and not generally the normal way of teaching people.
And that you may have had fights woth a few members of this forum on other sites does not mean it is logical nor acceptable
to start picking fights with those people here.
If you wish to bring more rationalisation and logic into the discussion then do so by presenting coherent, clear, and logical
arguments supported by data that will convince people.
Do not do it by insulting people and picking fights.
Some people are devoted to their "belief" in a certain interpretation of Free Energy "lore". Let them.
If you have a clear argument to the contrary, those who do have some logic will see, and those devoted to illogical approaches
will stick with their own experiments. Everyone likes a hobby, and some prefer belief over logic. Their choice.
QuoteI have reverse engineered the Ark of the Covenant, created a plausible explanation for the double slit experiment and the extra bands of light in the Bohr model of the atom. I am always willing to share what I have learned. For if I did not, it would all be for not.
Ok well then do so?
So, ark of covenant, simply a large box capacitor with a retroreflective antenna, or an actual chemical battery powered "zapper" transmitter?
I think the last and think I've got a few nice leads, but since you claim you have completely reverse engineered it I'd like to hear your take.
Plausible explanation for the two slit experiment, in what way? Is interference not plausible enough? Is your explanation classical or
Schrödinger based, is it miltidimensional ("brane"-like), what? And the Bohr model? Ok, cool, but why that model and not any of the others?
What about the Mills classical model? Thoughts on that?
There you go, a nice whad of very unmagical unsupersticious ideas for you to practise a little of that logic and willingness to teach that
you mentioned earlier. :)
And I would like to hear some of your thoughts on those, really. Without the insults please, if possible. ;)
Thanks.
Kind regards,
Koen
(and not Keon like some dyslexics here seem to read every time)
P.S. Oh darn, SORRY for posting this in your thread CaptainPecan, I shall try to keep things on-topic only in the future. :)
CabinBoy has noticed that people with a low IQ tend to make very short posts. That is what is interesting about Koen1's posts.
Quote from: spinner on December 12, 2008, 05:32:01 AM
Regarding your experiments - you say you're showing the work done by your motor for free... Lifting weights? Yes, this is a solid proof method (i like it very much!)
But.. How much weight and how high? With a little speculation, I'd say "a few grams, a few centimeters high" (or anything in between)...
That would be in the order of miliJoules of useful work performed by a motor in your experiment. And I think you know that you're still "missing" at least 10-times more energy than that....
I am not claiming overunity by any means with this experiment, just trying to understand why my results dont show more losses than they do. And actually, yes there is a lot of energy missing in this scenario, I agree. But the work done is useful work, not just a gram lifted a cm, but I do get your point. Believe me.
I sorted the results by starting voltage, as it shows exactly why it "appeared" to be losing less energy. It is obvious by these results that the very small decrease in energy loss is simply due to the added inductance in the line, and less energy even left the first capacitor to start with. That explains why less energy was lost. That's my take on it anyway.
I do find it interesting though, that if you lose half your energy simply transfering from cap to cap, it would seem you would lose a noticeable amount more when you use that energy to do work along the way between them. My test results seem to show different, which was the entire meaning of this thread to start with. Energy does not "DIE" when it hits a motor. It flows right through it, and can continue being used to do work. Energy appears to only be lost due to resistance and other factors, but not necessarily by the force used to push those magnets around in the motor. Just my thoughts. Maybe I can be shown different or given more valuable advice as to how to prove otherwise.
@tinu
Thanks for the detailed reply. I will read it over a few times to make sure I dont miss anything in there, lol. On a side note, I am considering capacitor tolerance. Mine are rated at + - 5% which clearly falls in the category of my results. I do however think the results are not due to the tolerance in this case. Simply the addition of the inductor in the circuit has caused less energy to flow from C1 to C2. Less energy flows, less losses occur. No great discovery there, lol. Just posting my results so I may understand them better. Thanks for your insights.
I did notice your opinion explaining the results a little though. If I read your post correctly, your saying it's possible that the C2 is losing less energy because it is being charged slower, due to the motor in the circuit. And the motor is causing energy loss also. The sum of less energy lost on C2 and more energy lost from the motor, equal almost the same energy loss with or without the motor. I think that is what you were getting at anyway. Seems reasonable, but not sure I can test that. I need another motor of identical specs to hook to the circuit in series. Dont have one right now.
@captainpecan
Excellent video, It's funny isn't it----- all of them tell us the motor has performed "work" in our motor systems, LOL it has done no work, there is no work involved other than ohmic losses. Whether the motor is fully loaded or free wheeling the motor has done little if any "work" relative to the source. The only reason people have assumed the motor has done electrical work is because of the funny relationship whereby the source discharges at a rate equivalent to the work the motor performs-----change the relationship and you change the rate at which the source discharges ;). As you say-- what if there was a way to transfer energy without "misplacing" a great deal of the energy? Much of the confusion revolves around electrical work, power and tangible work, I will tell you electrical work is not equivalent to the tangible work output from a motor and they are two completely different things. When you consider why energy is lost in your two cap/motor experiment you should also consider the capacity of the system or capacitive resistance as well, that is the moment the caps have equalized cap 2 offers a great resistance--- replace cap 2 with a 2 Farad cap and you will see this "resistance" is no longer present ;). I have proven this for myself and you have made an excellent start towards this goal, keep up the good work you are definately on the right track.
P.S.-- I have found it easier to just ignore the motor as in reality it is nothing more than a time delay ie... it momentarily "stores" energy then releases it and very little electrical energy is actually lost. Solve the "time" issue and you will be well on your way.
Regards
AC
@AC
Glad to see you are back. Hope that little stint with TheBuzz did not ruffle your feathers and we can all put that in the past and move forward. Yes it is true that the feed will only supply what the motor needs but in this case, I would suspect that the motor needs are way above what the capacitor could deliver in any sustained power supply and I think this is where there is some confusion on what is being seen.
@CP
You know what the capacitors are but do you really know what that dc motor is, how is it made, how is it wound, does it have a commutator, are the commutator brushes wider then one segment, what is the ohms of one segment, how many turns did the motor do when you discharged the cap through it then to the other cap.
Again, from the start of this thread I mentioned when you were using your first rotor with three coils that there is power generation potential there. Same thing applies to your motor if it has stator magnets. If it is the type of motor I am thinking of, some of the coils are not connected to the brushes that energized other coils that started the turning. Those unconnected coils are still turning in a magnetic field and hence they can start getting charged up themselves. Now when you disconnect the cap, if a charge coil happens to now be connected by the brushes, the flyback can charge back your cap. Confused???????
Just put a diode on a bled capacitor and connect it to your motor all in series. Turn the shaft manually and take a voltage reading off the cap. That would be the first variable to look at to find your answers.
I suspect that between the applied energy of the cap that moves the motor and the actual motor stopping, there are some degrees of rotation that happened due to the simple momentum of the rotor and that was enough to put back juice inside both caps.
Caps discharge when you connect them. Inductive coils discharge when you disconnect them so if you kept your voltmeter on the first cap, you should see the voltage drop when you connect the cap and go back up when you disconnect the first cap. The inductive flyback from the motor coil will return faster then you can manually disconnect it. lol
As long as the first cap holds the loop closed, the motor coil will also hold its charge.
wattsup
i have yet another improvement to this stuff.... ;D
im makeing you all a video ..... :o :o :o :o :o
thats right you better watch it ;)
i made a mot smoke today at a demo.... ;D
ist neo zap!!! yea baby!!! 8)
ist!!
Quote from: captainpecan on December 12, 2008, 05:26:54 PM
Simply the addition of the inductor in the circuit has caused less energy to flow from C1 to C2. Less energy flows, less losses occur. No great discovery there, lol. Just posting my results so I may understand them better. Thanks for your insights.
On the contrary...
From the "Capacitor Energy Transfer Experiments" document, page 13:
QuoteIf we increase L1 to a higher value, C1 will actually turn out to be lower in voltage than C2, meaning more of the initial energy is transferred between the two capacitors.
This is of course provided that the resistance of the inductor is not too high, in which case the losses would be high.
.99
@99
Good point. The resistance of the motor is 22 ohms though, which is about 4 times the resistance in the tests. Couldn't tell you the inductance of the motor coils though. My assumption was the added resistance could skew the results just slightly enough to not follow your work exactly. As I said, it is an assumption. But we all know what happens when we assume.. lol.
Quote from: captainpecan on December 12, 2008, 05:14:20 PM
I do find it interesting though, that if you lose half your energy simply transferring from cap to cap, it would seem you would lose a noticeable amount more when you use that energy to do work along the way between them.
CP, in both cases we are doing work, one is a combination of mechanical and electrical (with the motor in series), and the other is purely electrical (only wiring and diode in series).
So in the case with the motor, energy is being expended in heat, in mechanical losses, and defying gravity with the weight. In the simple case with only a cap to cap transfer through a diode and the associated wiring, it is strictly a heat loss.
It comes down simply to energy loss, and energy can be utilized to do mechanical work or generate heat in calories.
.99
Quote from: captainpecan on December 12, 2008, 09:56:34 PM
@99
Good point. The resistance of the motor is 22 ohms though, which is about 4 times the resistance in the tests. Couldn't tell you the inductance of the motor coils though. My assumption was the added resistance could skew the results just slightly enough to not follow your work exactly. As I said, it is an assumption. But we all know what happens when we assume.. lol.
Hi CP,
Right ;). I should clarify that as we increase the resistance and a certain value of series resistance is reached, in relation to both the inductance and the capacitance, the losses will always be about 50%. So even with a series resistance of 1000 Ohms, there would be a 50% energy loss, even if there was a small inductor in series with this resistance.
The resistance "swamps out" the inductor after a certain point.
The inductance in that little motor is just too small to make any appreciable difference to the energy transfer efficiency.
.99
CaptainPecan,
Look at Bedini's work, and what he has to say about capacitors.
One thing I wanted to mention that seems to be overlooked (probably isn't though, I haven't read all 70 something posts). Anyway, when you place the capacitors in parallel, you are adding the capacitance of the system. Together they become one capacitor of 9400uF charged to 9Volts.
One thing I was thinking about today was what happens when you add capacitors that are not of the same capacitance. As Allcanadian said, if you add a 2F capacitor in parallel instead of another 4700uF, what is the voltage in both after the discharge? I know the ratio will be different, but how do you determine what the voltage ratios are? Its probably simple, but because the energy stored in the first capacitor is limited, its not initially apparent to me. Any ideas?
Charlie
Also, I can tell you right now a coil of 22ohms is WAY too lossy. Try getting a half inch piece of copper pipe and bend it into a coil, and make sure all your leads are large wires and very short. That should improve efficiency a lot.
Quote from: Charlie_V on December 12, 2008, 11:26:33 PM
Also, I can tell you right now a coil of 22ohms is WAY too lossy. Try getting a half inch piece of copper pipe and bend it into a coil, and make sure all your leads are large wires and very short. That should improve efficiency a lot.
I WANT TO TRY THIS I WILL BUY PIPE TOMMOROW HOW BOUT 1/4 OR 3/8?
ist
btw vid is 10 min long and i uploading right now to youtube......
link as soon as it is done and well worth your waite ;D
:)
Quote from: Charlie_V on December 12, 2008, 11:23:08 PM
One thing I wanted to mention that seems to be overlooked (probably isn't though, I haven't read all 70 something posts). Anyway, when you place the capacitors in parallel, you are adding the capacitance of the system. Together they become one capacitor of 9400uF charged to 9Volts.
One thing I was thinking about today was what happens when you add capacitors that are not of the same capacitance. As Allcanadian said, if you add a 2F capacitor in parallel instead of another 4700uF, what is the voltage in both after the discharge? I know the ratio will be different, but how do you determine what the voltage ratios are? Its probably simple, but because the energy stored in the first capacitor is limited, its not initially apparent to me. Any ideas?
Charlie
Actually, it's better to think of the two capacitors as being connected in series, not parallel.
To work out the end result voltage, you work the problem as you would a resistive divider, but in this case they are capacitors. An example to illustrate, we'll discharge C1 into C2 directly through a piece of wire:
C1=4700uF
C2=470uF
C1 initial voltage = 18.33V
C2 initial voltage = 0V
C1,C2 Final Voltage is: 18.33 (4700/5170) = 16.66V (yes C1 and C2 are the same voltage)
Regarding the copper tube coil idea, good luck with that. The idea is to make the L/R ratio as high as possible, so unless you are going to make a 1/2" copper tube coil that is a few hundred feet long, you won't get enough inductance. What is needed is the primary of a high VA transformer.
.99
After seeing captainpecans hard work I decided to go back to the bench which is never a good thing because I always end up learning new things that I knew for certain could never work, LOL.
Experiment 1
Three Caps are utilized, Cap 1 is 4700uF@25v, Cap 2 is 4700uF@25v, Cap 3 is 2 Farads@24v.
Start Conditions:
Cap 1 = 12.51v or 367.775mJoules energy
Cap 2 = 0v
Cap 3 = 0v
Cap 1 is discharged into Cap 2 through Cap 3, that is Cap 3 is in series with Cap 1 and Cap 2.
Finish Conditions:
Cap 1 = 4700uF at 8.09v or 153.803mJ
Cap 2 = 4700uF at 7.45v or 130.431mJ
Cap 3 = 2 Farads at 0.265v or 70.225mJ
Total Energy at Finish = 354.459mJoules Energy
354.459 / 367.775 = 96.3%
All calculations were done here---
http://www.electronics2000.co.uk/calc/calcchrg.php
Energy stored: W = ½ QV = ½ CV2 where W is the energy measured in Joules.
Note:All experiments performed in an ice cold garage under poor lighting while half intoxicated ;D
Here is another neat trick, take a joule thief circuit which will drive six or more 3v LED's from a single 1.5v AA battery, mine runs at 1Mhz. Next instead of discharging through the LED's to ground put a 2 Farad capacitor in series with the LED's and the common ground. You will find after running for a minute or so that the very large 2 Farad capacitor will still read zero volts which is expected------ but what is unexpected is that if you short the 2 Farad capacitor at zero volts with a large conductor/wire a good spark and very loud crack will be heard, that seems like an awful lot of power at zero volts generated from a single 1.5v AA battery.
Regards
AC
@AC
Thanks for hitting the bench for a few minutes, lol. Your results are very interesting, I'm trying to get my hands on a larger cap, but I dont have any available.
Also, I'm playing with the idea of using Nimh bats. It's really hard to get accurate measurements with them though since the voltage changes quite a bit as time passes between tests. It seems I am moving energy between them very efficiently, while still running a motor. But to be honest, I cant really tell for sure, measuring the energy in these Nimh bats is definitely more difficult to do accurately. The caps definitely move the energy around faster though, and your results look pretty promising.
@buzz
Thanks for the link, interesting read. Although looking at the results of those tests, it seems they lose even more energy than I do. Good read though, right on topic, and does follow the same concepts. Very interesting.
I think you're ignoring some key equations, like that of Work.
W = 1/2 m v^2
Since the 1/2 and Mass are constants in this experiment, we don't need to worry about them. However because velocity is squared, that's where this theory debunks. You are trying to add up figures and compare them to the original, but science says you must square them first. This happens in the equation you talk about which describes a 50% loss, and it describes it here also. The square term is used extensively in math, science, and statistics. If you want to ignore it, you have a lot of people to prove wrong yet to come.
According to your video, the distances were 221 for the full charged, and then 129 and 137 for the two half charges. What your ignoring is the angular velocity of your motor. Each time it takes roughly 4 seconds to reach that distance. This means that the 221 is traveling at a greater velocity.
55.25 - Full
32.25 - Cap 1
34.25 - Cap 2
Since everything else is held constant, we can square the velocities....
3052 - Full
1040 - Cap 1
1173 - Cap 2
Obviously, the amount of work is greatly decreased because the force is greatly decreased. I don't know if this has been brought up before, but it should. Adding up the charges means nothing unless you can prove that you're getting the same amount of work from them by adding them up individually, and you aren't.
i guess youtube didnt like my video......
so i will make a new one
might have been a bit big 450 meg hi def
ist
makeing a smaller one ....
Quote from: allcanadian on December 13, 2008, 12:42:41 AM
Experiment 1
Three Caps are utilized, Cap 1 is 4700uF@25v, Cap 2 is 4700uF@25v, Cap 3 is 2 Farads@24v.
Start Conditions:
Cap 1 = 12.51v or 367.775mJoules energy
Cap 2 = 0v
Cap 3 = 0v
Cap 1 is discharged into Cap 2 through Cap 3, that is Cap 3 is in series with Cap 1 and Cap 2.
Finish Conditions:
Cap 1 = 4700uF at 8.09v or 153.803mJ
Cap 2 = 4700uF at 7.45v or 130.431mJ
Cap 3 = 2 Farads at 0.265v or 70.225mJ
Total Energy at Finish = 354.459mJoules Energy
354.459 / 367.775 = 96.3%
There's something odd about these electrolytic capacitors. All 3 voltages are much higher than what is predicted by Ohm's law when applied to capacitors.
C1 and C2 should be about 6.24V each, and C3 should be at about 20mV if all the caps are ideal with values are as stated.
.99
Quote from: innovation_station on December 13, 2008, 11:23:54 AM
i guess youtube didnt like my video......
so i will make a new one
might have been a bit big 450 meg hi def
ist
makeing a smaller one ....
I think the limit is 100mb for youtube or 10 minute time limit for the regular account. The mb range might go up if you switch the account type to director. You might want to use a different compression like divx which can reduce the file size dramatically without ruining the quality.
Just did a bench experiment with two electrolytic caps I have.
Discharge C1 into C2 directly from cap to cap. Capacitors are 10,000uF, 63 WV, nichicon brand
C1= 10,000uF, Vic= 9.00V
C2= 10,000uF, Vic= 0.00V
After discharge:
C1= 4.41V
C2= 4.26V
.99
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)MY IST NEO ZAP! TECK 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
WAKE UP ALREADY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBg-hVTIOM
THE INNOVATION STATION TEAM!
@ ist:
Great video! (I rated 5 stars) That looks extremely dangerous to me, ha ha. It sounds like you have a mini arc welder there.
Bill
@IST
Nice... I think I'm gonna have to duplicate that, I think I've got everything laying on my bench to do it!
@IST
OK so, what's coming off the secondary?
Also, please open the transformer and show us the inside. We don't want to get Mac'd again. lol
So I'm going to assume that this topic hasn't come up and no one can prove it wrong thus making this entire thread false? Thanks.
"I think you're ignoring some key equations, like that of Work.
W = 1/2 m v^2
Since the 1/2 and Mass are constants in this experiment, we don't need to worry about them. However because velocity is squared, that's where this theory debunks. You are trying to add up figures and compare them to the original, but science says you must square them first. This happens in the equation you talk about which describes a 50% loss, and it describes it here also. The square term is used extensively in math, science, and statistics. If you want to ignore it, you have a lot of people to prove wrong yet to come.
According to your video, the distances were 221 for the full charged, and then 129 and 137 for the two half charges. What your ignoring is the angular velocity of your motor. Each time it takes roughly 4 seconds to reach that distance. This means that the 221 is traveling at a greater velocity.
55.25 - Full
32.25 - Cap 1
34.25 - Cap 2
Since everything else is held constant, we can square the velocities....
3052 - Full
1040 - Cap 1
1173 - Cap 2
Obviously, the amount of work is greatly decreased because the force is greatly decreased. I don't know if this has been brought up before, but it should. Adding up the charges means nothing unless you can prove that you're getting the same amount of work from them by adding them up individually, and you aren't."
A good point you bring up Shrexes.
Your analysis points in the same direction as when the capacitor energy equations are examined. Also, I think it has been agreed by all that the pulse motor used is not the way the energy should be measured because it inherently wastes a good portion of the energy in C1 when driving the motor directly, hence skewing the results.
.99
The whole premise of these experiments is that energy is "created". The fact that the voltages add up to more than the original is not important, as current science is agreeable with this happening. The problem comes when trying to prove that you can just add them up because there is more total distance.
You drop a ball from 10 feet in the air. 10^2 = 100
You drop two balls from 6 feet in the air. 6^2 + 6^2 = 72
6+6=12
This is fine, but you still get more out of the one at 10 feet, than the combined at 6 because the velocity is squared. As long as the proofs of these equations are sound, no amount of circuitry will change this.
Energy can never be created. If any device showes more output than in, the first job is to investigate from where this
extra energy came from. On that basis improvements can be made on the design.
Ok, regardless the rig does not increase output more than the input. Call it what you will.
@shrexes
QuoteThe whole premise of these experiments is that energy is "created". The fact that the voltages add up to more than the original is not important, as current science is agreeable with this happening. The problem comes when trying to prove that you can just add them up because there is more total distance.
No, the whole premise is that energy can be conserved, all of us know that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. If your losing half your energy by transfering it from one place to another then I think common sense would dictate that this may be something a person should look into further rather than just accept it as fact.
Regards
AC
QuoteEnergy can never be created. If any device showes more output than in, the first job is to investigate from where this
extra energy came from. On that basis improvements can be made on the design.
Uhm, if it cant be created, then how did it get here?
Ok, since this is a war of semantics, I will admit by the word "created" I actually meant "grabbed out of thin air by some unknown energy source."
With that being said, the experiment attempted to show that no power was lost, and that in fact some was gained from the aforementioned energy source. I brought up an explanation as to why this experiment merely confirms what science has already known. Instead of looking at the equations, we are discussing points that are frankly irrelevant right now. Of course energy cannot be created or destroyed (hence the quotations), but a small mistake in words should not make an educated person look away from the facts. Does anyone want to explain to me why my observations about this experiment are wrong and that the energy really was conserved and that the experiment really did generate free movement? That's all I'm asking for.
because the engery transfer is faster than light ....
ist
hence the trem time is gained teslas words.....
@Shrexes
Obviously from your replies, you have not followed the whole thread. I dont blame you, it's just that it seems what your commenting on has been covered already. Most everything I've seen you comment on was about the amount of energy in the caps, and measuring work done on the pulse motor. Honestly, that was not what this thread was about, it was just all most people could think about. It has been pretty much agreed upon that the pulse motor was not a very good way to measure the work done, and we've been through all that already. Although I dont blame you for not reading all 80 pages to get caught up! 99 did some work with the capacitors and energy left in them, the link is posted to his work on the very first post of this thread now. Please check it out, as it will help answer some of what you are asking about.
We are now back to the whole point of the video's to start with. The fact that energy flows right through a motor, and can be used again. It's what conservation of energy could really mean. Please read from page 77 on and you will see the video we are discussing. I also posted some test results half way down page 77 also that ties into it. Thanks for your comments, I hope this helps bring you up to speed a little with whats being talked about now.
@ captainpecan
I took your advice and watched the three test video with the motor. There is still nothing "free" about it.
I have already shown how the charges cannot be added up. Therefore, 18 > 9+9. The reason why is because it's a matter of high density to low density transfer of charge. Using it in a different example.....
You have two pressurized water tanks. One is 18 psi and the other is a vacuum, 0 psi. You have a thin tube connecting them, and we're assuming it's a perfect system with no leaks or extraneous losses. If you open the tanks, the water pressure will equalize between the two because water will rush out of the high density to the low density. This is going to happen whether the waters movement is restricted or not. However, lets put a paddle wheel inside the tube connecting the two tanks. Now, the water will rush through and spin the wheel, but in the end both tanks will have equal pressure. Essentially, you are only using energy that would otherwise be wasted.
You can release the air out of a pressurized air tank, or you can blow it through a small wind mill so that it's at least doing something as it's released.
Quote from: captainpecan on December 12, 2008, 03:08:27 AM
I am still a little hung on trying to understand the results of the last video I posted... I will post the link again, as it kinda got buried in the middle of stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwp7podu06s
I have done many more tests since this video, and I am still getting interesting results. All my new tests are using the motor to lift a weight, and measuring work done compared to energy lost. I am still not seeing energy lost, directly related to running the motor.
The first thought is that due to Lenz Law, the fact that the motor runs at all, should show a loss of energy. But in my tests, it appears that the only difference made in the circuit, is due to the added inductance of the motor coil, and the slight resistance increase. Almost like the current doesn't even see the magnets in the motor, it just seems to push them out of it's way on it's way through. I know that is not a very scientific explanation, lol, but it does seem interesting.
Any thoughts as to why there seems to be absolutely no loss related to adding the motor in the circuit, even with a load?
Sorry, I think you are still not understanding what I'm trying to say. I am not referring to those video's at all. I am referring to the one in the quote above, taken from page 77 of my post. Later on that page I posted test information also lifting a 1 oz weight with the motor. This is what I am referring to, not what you are seeing. That is where the misunderstanding is coming from.
Quote from: captainpecan on December 12, 2008, 05:14:20 PM
I am not claiming overunity by any means with this experiment, just trying to understand why my results dont show more losses than they do. And actually, yes there is a lot of energy missing in this scenario, I agree. But the work done is useful work, not just a gram lifted a cm, but I do get your point. Believe me.
I sorted the results by starting voltage, as it shows exactly why it "appeared" to be losing less energy. It is obvious by these results that the very small decrease in energy loss is simply due to the added inductance in the line, and less energy even left the first capacitor to start with. That explains why less energy was lost. That's my take on it anyway.
I do find it interesting though, that if you lose half your energy simply transfering from cap to cap, it would seem you would lose a noticeable amount more when you use that energy to do work along the way between them. My test results seem to show different, which was the entire meaning of this thread to start with. Energy does not "DIE" when it hits a motor. It flows right through it, and can continue being used to do work. Energy appears to only be lost due to resistance and other factors, but not necessarily by the force used to push those magnets around in the motor. Just my thoughts. Maybe I can be shown different or given more valuable advice as to how to prove otherwise.
I am assuming this is the point you are trying to make. And yes, you are absolutely correct. The electrons can pass straight through the system from Cap 1 to Cap 2, and can pass through a motor. The motor will move, and the Caps will be equal. Add 2 motors, or 3, or 4, 5, or even 6. If it weren't for resistance, you'd see the same thing. Science as we know it, and in these equations you and I are referring to, accepts and supports this. However, what you have at the beginning of experiment is a charge difference. There are tons of electrons in one cap, and they are rushing as fast as they can to get to the nice wide-open empty one. A motor isn't going to get in their way, they need to get to that empty cap. Think of the Americans going out west. They didn't want to be cramped in the cities, so they set out for the wide open plains. Nothing was going to stop them until it was just as dense there as it was where they already were.
The point is that the energy comes from having such a high difference in the voltage. At the end of the experiment you had roughly 9.5 in each. You could run the experiment again and again until you had 18 caps with 1 volt each. They wouldn't be worth very much by themselves because the highest difference you can get with them is 1, as opposed to 18.
I hope I am addressing all of the points you talk about, and that I'm even addressing the correct statements.
Quote from: Shrexes on December 13, 2008, 11:56:11 PM
Now, the water will rush through and spin the wheel, but in the end both tanks will have equal pressure. Essentially, you are only using energy that would otherwise be wasted.
You can release the air out of a pressurized air tank, or you can blow it through a small wind mill so that it's at least doing something as it's released.
I read your post again, I had misread it earlier I think. Now, from what you said here, "you are only using energy that would otherwise be wasted"... Doesn't that sound like "conservation of energy"... How much energy was lost having that wheel in the circuit? How much would be lost to have 5 instead of 1? Why waste the spin of the wheel, why not generate energy from it... How much did it cost to generate that new energy? Was it "created"... No more than simply passing a magnet over a coil "creates" it..
At best, the amount of energy generated from the spinning wheel would be the amount of energy due to the density transfer anyway. In this case, the water pressure has a measurable force. Now, if the wheel were attached to a turbine of some kind that was too strong to be moved by the water, than you're only replacing the barrier that was originally there to keep the tank pressurized.
At best, what your rig is doing is using up energy that would otherwise be lost. Much like the dissipation in heat from the brake pads and the way that's used in newer cars. It's a more efficient use of a system, but it follows all equations set before it.
Quote from: Shrexes on December 14, 2008, 12:25:25 AM
I am assuming this is the point you are trying to make. And yes, you are absolutely correct. The electrons can pass straight through the system from Cap 1 to Cap 2, and can pass through a motor. The motor will move, and the Caps will be equal. Add 2 motors, or 3, or 4, 5, or even 6. If it weren't for resistance, you'd see the same thing. Science as we know it, and in these equations you and I are referring to, accepts and supports this.
Yes, we are now on the same page here. This is exactly what I am talking about.
Quote from: Shrexes on December 14, 2008, 12:25:25 AM
The point is that the energy comes from having such a high difference in the voltage. At the end of the experiment you had roughly 9.5 in each. You could run the experiment again and again until you had 18 caps with 1 volt each. They wouldn't be worth very much by themselves because the highest difference you can get with them is 1, as opposed to 18.
You are exactly right, would not be worth much to have 18 caps at 1 volt each. That's why that's not what I am talking about. Think of this, if you can add many motors between the two caps, then you can have many generators between the two caps. If you can have many generators between the two caps, then you can charge another cap up to 18v or more by pulsing all of them into that cap. Now can you see my point?
Quote from: Shrexes on December 14, 2008, 12:37:19 AM
At best, the amount of energy generated from the spinning wheel would be the amount of energy due to the density transfer anyway. In this case, the water pressure has a measurable force. Now, if the wheel were attached to a turbine of some kind that was too strong to be moved by the water, than you're only replacing the barrier that was originally there to keep the tank pressurized.
At best, what your rig is doing is using up energy that would otherwise be lost. Much like the dissipation in heat from the brake pads and the way that's used in newer cars. It's a more efficient use of a system, but it follows all equations set before it.
If that were true, wouldn't I not have gotten the energy split between the two caps in the video when I almost locked up the motor? This is the part that was interesting, there was no noticeable difference with a heavy load, as apposed to no load. Do I have all the answers, definitely not. I'm just kicking around theories that I cant seem to prove wrong completely. Input from others is why it's even posted.
I'm not sure, but I don't think that you could use all of the generators to power up the same Cap. I don't think a generator powered by 18V could fill a capacitor of 18V, or even any more than what is "lost" in the transfer. I haven't taken physics in almost 4 years, and I was horrible at circuitry, but I still don't think you get any free work, you are only using the work that would be lost anyway. And that work will be equal among all of the generators on the circuit, and even an infinite number of them running on the same voltage cannot combine themselves to push energy into a capacitor because the capacitor will still be pushing back harder than the generators.
I don't know. It sounds expensive to test, but if you can do it, I'll be impressed.
I don't think the load matters because the electricity is going to pass through the coil regardless. The fact that the movement by the magnet is being restricted is irrelevant. Again, all the electrons care about is getting through the wire. They don't care about anything else along the way.
Quote from: Shrexes on December 14, 2008, 01:00:26 AM
I'm not sure, but I don't think that you could use all of the generators to power up the same Cap. I don't think a generator powered by 18V could fill a capacitor of 18V, or even any more than what is "lost" in the transfer. I haven't taken physics in almost 4 years, and I was horrible at circuitry, but I still don't think you get any free work, you are only using the work that would be lost anyway. And that work will be equal among all of the generators on the circuit, and even an infinite number of them running on the same voltage cannot combine themselves to push energy into a capacitor because the capacitor will still be pushing back harder than the generators.
I don't know. It sounds expensive to test, but if you can do it, I'll be impressed.
The same way you can charge a capacitor up to 800v with a 1.5v AA battery in a disposable camera. Also, nothing says you have to charge the exact cap that is pushing the discharge. Switch caps. Then all the generators ever have to do is top off a cap from 9.5v to 18v, while being ran off the potential of the other cap discharging it's 18v back down to 9.5v.
Is it proven to work... nope. But it hasn't been proven not to work yet either. It's a theory that seems more reasonable than many others I've seen, as a way to accomplish a supposedly impossible feat to begin with, free energy. lol....
Quote from: Shrexes on December 14, 2008, 01:05:07 AM
I don't think the load matters because the electricity is going to pass through the coil regardless. The fact that the movement by the magnet is being restricted is irrelevant. Again, all the electrons care about is getting through the wire. They don't care about anything else along the way.
And that's part of the interesting thing. If you ran the motor, direct shorting a battery instead of the way described here. Load that motor down and it draws amps like crazy and will burn up. There is a noticeable difference here, at least it seems to me. It's like motors were designed to run this way, and not the way we all do it.
@captainpecan,
Your experiments were always in accordance with classical physics/electrotechnics understandings... OK?
The point is, your idea of reusing the "drained through or already used" energy is not viable. While it may seems so, the energy "used" (transformed) cannot be used again by the same methods or in the same circuit. (because of the 'potential' energy losses)
I think the same was pointed out by many members (!) since the beginning of your thread.
There is no mystery. If you think that we're just narrow minded, please, fell free to correct us.... By any (reasonable) means...
Thanks!
Quote from: spinner on December 14, 2008, 05:06:10 AM
@captainpecan,
Your experiments were always in accordance with classical physics/electrotechnics understandings... OK?
The point is, your idea of reusing the "drained through or already used" energy is not viable. While it may seems so, the energy "used" (transformed) cannot be used again by the same methods or in the same circuit. (because of the 'potential' energy losses)
I think the same was pointed out by many members (!) since the beginning of your thread.
There is no mystery. If you think that we're just narrow minded, please, fell free to correct us.... By any (reasonable) means...
Thanks!
So, you are saying the motor in my circuit has transformed the energy into something that cannot be used anymore. So basically, all the energy that was transformed, never left the other terminal continuing through the circuit? So if I added a second motor to the circuit, even more will be "transformed" and even less will make it through the circuit, which would cause a noticeable loss I would guess. Well, I've added two motors now, and I am getting almost identical results with both motors, still leaving the same amount of energy in the caps. Even though everything says I should be losing a lot, I'm lifting weight with these motors, and both are doing work, and not showing any noticeable loss in ending energy, as apposed to them not even being in the circuit. Thanks for your opinion, I think I will keep working on it, and I never called anyone narrow minded.
Quote from: captainpecan on December 14, 2008, 05:44:13 AM
So, you are saying the motor in my circuit has transformed the energy into something that cannot be used anymore. So basically, all the energy that was transformed, never left the other terminal continuing through the circuit? So if I added a second motor to the circuit, even more will be "transformed" and even less will make it through the circuit, which would cause a noticeable loss I would guess.
Basically yes.. Even though it's not obvious at the first sight... Your measurements/experiments were not correctly made, or not in accordance with what is known... - You dismissed a lot of loss mechanisms like thermal / Ohmic (inevitable resistance, electrolyte chemistry losses), EM energy radiation, ), etc... It seems your motor is doing a real (usefull work)...
Yes, if you add additional motors, your end result should (and would!) differ (if measurements are made carefully), but because the energy conversions are not very obvious (there's a minuscule mechanical energy conversion involved), you would hardly notice it....
Needless to say, your experiment is a "very high tolerance" one... So the data gained can be interpreted as such....
Quote
Well, I've added two motors now, and I am getting almost identical results with both motors, still leaving the same amount of energy in the caps. Even though everything says I should be losing a lot, I'm lifting weight with these motors, and both are doing work, and not showing any noticeable loss in ending energy, as apposed to them not even being in the circuit. Thanks for your opinion, I think I will keep working on it, and I never called anyone narrow minded.
Your motors are producing an energy conversion which is still for at least (a few) orders of the magnitude below all the "missing" or unaccounted energy...
This is a classical misunderstanding (where most of the 'FE'electronic devices fails)...
The Measurement's errors... This is the most obvious mistake made by the nowadays FE explorers...
Did you know the claims for "electrotechnical origin FE" raised by the factor of
+20 in the last 2 decades... Partially by the wide use of internet, and partially by the wide use of digitall V/I-meters....
The phenomenon... ?
@captainpecan
Ignore the naysayers, keep at it mate and please continue to share the results. If indeed nothing comes of it, both you and a fair portion of the forum will have learnt some valuable lessons.
If something does come of it....well, you know the rest...
Regards,
Ben.
What we know so far:
1) In order to increase the efficiency of energy transfer between two capacitors above 50%, an inductance needs to be placed in series between them.
2) This series inductance needs to exhibit a certain minimum inductance-to-resistance (L/R) ratio in order for this scheme to achieve positive results, that is to achieve n > 50%.
3) Using an inductance that exhibits a L/R ratio below this minimum will limit energy transfer efficiencies to about 50%. About 50% of the remaining energy is lost/dissipated in the inductor's DC resistance.
4) Using a small DC motor as the inductor does not meet the minimum L/R ratio to achieve n > 50%, however work can be done by this motor while energy is being lost and transferred through it.
5) Using 3 (for eg.) of the same small DC motors in series maintains the same L/R ratio and therefore the efficiency remains at 50%. Work can still be done by each motor, but Ohm's law must be taken into account as the available current has been reduced or limited to 1/3 compared to when only a single motor was used (66 Ohms compared to 22 Ohms). In theory the available power is equally divided among the 3 motors.
6) Each motor has it's own mechanical losses due to bearing friction etc. so to maximize the use of the available power, a single motor is probably best. There is no gain in using 3 motors in series as explained in 5).
.99
@ 99 indeed ;D
they all must be seprate .... lol thus the returning kick from each adds up to output :o or the bigger diffrance in the cap ;) how ever if the coils were transformers this does not hold true ... you could connect all primaries as captian peacn has done with his coils ... but....
the secondaries add up ;).... as you pass engery throught the primary .. upon colapse the secondaries fill the cap.... ;)
ist :P
NOW BUILD MY TRANNY...... 6 OF EM ;) WRAP IN A RING DUH...... THEN ADD MY NEO TECK TO INCREASE AMPARGE...
i aint telling you the rest .... seen the movie IRONMAN??
CaptainPecan,
Aren't you pulsing this cap motor cap combination?
I ask because, impulses do not adhere to all the conventional BS about being conservative. Gobaga posted something on this but later removed it. I have it saved somewhere. Anyone thinking otherwise should be ignored as they are probably trolls or just ignorant of details in electrodynamics in the last 50 years.
I think you should find a way to charge the cap in excess of conventional means of charging it, then use this to drive the motor.
It is my understanding that conventional EM motors are very inefficient when operated like this, but I have heard that rotoverters run quite well this way - I'll ask my brother about that as he has experience in this field.
Yes it is pulsing in the motor due to the commutator/brush contact is changing to a new coil each few degrees in time. If you took a simply iron core coil and pulsed it, it will do the same thing as running your dc motor steady.
i just had a back feed melt down lol
with 1 freq .... 8) my wires started smokeing ..... :o guess there is some power there ::)
ist
the back feed and meltdown is because i never took the power off 8)
and it is flying back to source as we all are ;D
@spinner
This is not a smart ass remark, please don't view it as such. Since electrical energy always follows the path of least resistance, it appears that what you are telling me, is that when an electron enters one side of the motor, somehow the actual properties of the coil much change to provide a path of less resistance being to leave the coil, rather than flow through it. As it leaves the coil, it chooses to transform itself into a rotational movement and without that transformation, no movement would occur. Therefore, if I had a perfectly efficient motor, no electrons would ever leave the second terminal of the motor, as they all would be forced out of the circuit, in forms of kinetic, heat, or whatever other energies are involved.
Or, could it be that the electrons are going to keep running right on through that coil, only transforming into heat due to resistance. Isn't it possible the rotation is not really a transformation of the electron, and merely an effect of it passing by? Similar to standing next to the road, and a car fly's by at 300 miles an hour. Now the car did not see any noticeable difference in it's velocity when it passed by me, but a force would be exerted against you, blowing you away from the car. In that scenario, the car did not mysteriously disappear as it transformed into a gust of air blowing you onto your butt on the side of the road. The car kept going, like it never even knew you existed. The air surrounding the car changed, not the car itself. It was the air that pushed you away from the car. Comparing to the motor scenario, isn't it possible that the magnets themselves got pushed out of the way by the "air".. (pun intended) and not the electron jumping out of the circuit and give it a kick to move it? If this is true, then like the example I gave, that car would keep moving right on down the road no matter how many people stood on the side of the road, blowing all of them on their butts. Sure, a small force would be exerted against the car, but very small change in it's velocity would occur. This would then explain why when I hooked more then one motor in the circuit, there was no noticeable difference in ending energy, but there was definitely a noticeable difference of work obtained.
Just my take on it. I'm not sure why all the regular laws of nature go out the window when you deal with electricity. I'm thinking everyone is complicating it to much, and things are not all that different. To be honest, I dont want to convert that electron into the light and heat that powers my house light bulbs... I want to borrow some of that kinetic energy when that electron whizzes by, and use it to force more electrons into the mix.. (magnet moving over a coil). If I don't convert the electron, I can keep borrowing it's kinetic energy, and use it to help direct some of it's "friends" into our circuit to play!!!
Hey, all I'm saying is that our physics books say what we are searching for is impossible. As long as we view the world in the same way the physics books say we have to... Then the physics books are correct. Start viewing the world the way nature teaches us through experience, and maybe we can see what the physics books aren't able to anymore.
Isn't it in fact those same laws of nature, that founded all the scientific finding we learn about? Newton didn't learn what he did by restricting his mind to what he read in a book. In fact, isn't the same laws of nature what is bringing everyone to the conclusion that energy is lost when electrons are forced to stop moving and all pile onto that plate of a capacitor? So why ignore how nature works, when that electron moves through a motor to get there.
From the Cap'n:
QuoteI'm not sure why all the regular laws of nature go out the window when you deal with electricity.
How have you found this to be true?
Quote
From the Cap'n:
I'm not sure why all the regular laws of nature go out the window when you deal with electricity
Quote from: HEYDUDE on December 14, 2008, 02:31:20 PM
How have you found this to be true?
I havn't, that's the point. I did not word that sentence very well though. I was attempting to say...
I'm not sure
that all the regular laws of nature go out the window when you deal with electricity.
Captainpecan,
I am not certain whether you found something or not. I asked some friends who are EE's and physicists. They are looking it up as we speak. I do have something that I think will show one way or another. Please see attached.
Switching between the positive and negative of C1 will give a 4.5V swing both ways. If what you believe is true, then this may be a way of seeing how long the armature can swing back and forth.
Quote from: icanbeatbob on December 14, 2008, 08:37:20 PM
Captainpecan,
I am not certain whether you found something or not. I asked some friends who are EE's and physicists. They are looking it up as we speak. I do have something that I think will show one way or another. Please see attached.
Switching between the positive and negative of C1 will give a 4.5V swing both ways. If what you believe is true, then this may be a way of seeing how long the armature can swing back and forth.
Thank you for your post. After reviewing your circuit suggestion, it is quite apparent that the energy will just decrease. But the question is, how fast? And how much will shuttle back and forth being used, and recycled?
This is however an easy circuit for me to test, so I got right on it! I am however impressed with the results. I will try and get them into a spreadsheet, and total up all the results. Hopefully I can get them posted tonight. The results are not quite what I expected.
Hi All! I'm brand new to the site, it's 3:21 am, and I just had to share...
Wow. What a great thread! I just spent the last 3 hours reading every one of the posts on here right from the very beginning on Nov 17th. I'm so damn tired that I'm about to start typing like Ist (the video with the microwave transformer sparking across the magnets was awesome by the way).
I'm a bit of a tinkerer, have read way too many books, and am way short on practical exp which is why I was so interested in the videos on here etc. I had a good laugh somewhere in the middle of all this because someone mentioned Chain Reaction which I actually worked on (special effects).
I don't know if any of you have read a long thread all the way through like this... but damn... what a show!
To Captainpecan... I'm going to get some parts and start playing tomorrow. What a great way for people to start educating themselves and just ask "so... why is this happening...".
To all the folks on here suggesting experiments and testing procedures, you guys rock. I can't wait to give some of this a try.
Thank you all for a very entertaining and educational night. And good luck!
Clu
Captain Pecan.
Why don't you use two motors and double the work on your voltage trip from cap to cap. You can also get more power if you make sure the rotor AND the stator does work. The stator lifts up one weight while the rotor lifts up another weight. Then when you use two motors you will have four weights moving up for each charge transfer. Should increase the efficiency of your circuit. :)
Hi All,
This is my first post. I've been lurking here for a long time, about a year and a half.
This thread caught my eye because I had thought of this before myself. Charge a capacitor get some work done. I am convinced there is something here to explore. It's a kind of controlled resonance.
@CaptainPecan
Great job on the videos and holding up under pressure.
I tried duplicating your experiment with some cap's I've pulled out of an old dead PC power supply. Right off the bat I was getting spectacular results. Then I noticed that if I re-arranged the cap's it changed my result significantly. I came to discover that all these equally marked caps did not perform equally. Then for sake of experiment I tried using a significantly smaller cap capable of holding significantly higher voltage to charge and I got what I expected. A much higher ending voltage.
In summary. Just measuring voltage doesn't tell you the whole story. You've got to actually measure the capacitance of the capacitor too. Especially electrolytic cap's which can and do break down over time. You get a higher voltage in the destination cap when it has a smaller capacitance and a lower voltage when it has a higher capacitance. The larger the inductor the more current is kept flowing during the charge.
When thinking of a circuit to repeat the cycle, I thought of 3 or 4 caps, then always chose the one with the least voltage to charge with the one with the most voltage (assuming they all are the same capacitance). Well I could not get this idea to work in hand testing after a few days I gave up. I'm not sure what to try next. But I still think something clever might work to be able to "reuse" the potential multiple times and get significantly higher efficiencies than we normally see. Possibly by reversing a charge to increase the potential has merit but you can't really do this with your electrolytic caps if you try giving them a reverse charge they will break down easily.
Sorry I don't have more help to offer.
Good luck, and keep up the good work.
Shinz.
i must say that is an awsome post!!!!
you nailed it down !!!
build it ...
all things must be balanced hence balanced ;) rhythmic interchange :)
ist
A short footnote and clarification to what's in the document here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item207
and what I've said in previous posts regarding transfer efficiency.
I've noted that with a given capacitor value, below a certain L/R ratio the transfer efficiency will always be 50% or less. The relationship actually has to do with time constants.
For capacitors, Tau=RC
For Inductors, Tau= L/R
In the document, I showed that increasing the L/R ratio of the inductor resulted in being able to break over n= 50%. Another way to achieve this is to reduce the value of the capacitors! This may seem counter-intuitive, but it is so.
The setup was:
C1,C2 = 4700u
L1 = 30mH, 5.3 Ohms DCR
Let's look at the tau in each case.
C=> 5.3 Ohms X 4700u
tau = 24.9ms
L=> 30mH / 5.3 Ohms
tau = 5.66ms
This 5-fold difference is the reason we could not break n=50% with the values. This is the "swamping effect" I mentioned before.
If captainpean was to reduce his capacitors to a value of 1000u, he would see a n > 50%. Why?
C=> 5.3 Ohms X 1000u
tau = 5.3ms
The tau's are now about equal. Reduce the cap values more, and again the efficiency will increase.
Of course as we continue to reduce the capacitance value, it makes it more and more difficult to get an accurate "reading" on the capacitor voltage with standard meters, because simply attaching the meter will begin to quickly discharge the cap throwing off the true reading. I guess that's why everyone uses huge caps in their experiments.
Hope that makes things a little more clear.
Regards,
.99
Perhaps this is relevant here also:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg145766#msg145766
.99
so a month of bragging i have it but i wont tell yet
then a month of nonscience and bad tests and wrong conclusions all while saying we just dont understand and u are 100% sure u have discovered it and we keep saying u r so wrong and not even just a little but 100% wrong and u say ha i am 100% right
now looks like all u realize it was all wrong
hopefully u learned something along the way and will listen more to others and ease up on the
overkill brashness and bravado and chest thumping
amazing and sad how often this senerario plays out around here
what a bunch of goofball confused people
and why did it take 84 pages of nonscense to get there
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
where is the free energy where is captainpecan where is the miracle he shouted to the world with such drama and idiocy
where is ist
guess u finally realised after months what u were told on day one
u dont have a clue u r wrong and u shouldnt make such claims as u did that u discovered the secret of free energy and u know it for sure when u were so frickin wrong
and not even a peep from u saying ya i guess u told me so
bonehead
Too bad Captain Pecan didn't know squat about resonance. Then every time the energy went from being in his capacitor to being in his motor coils he would have been able to fill up the capacitor and discharge the capacitor many many times resulting in alot of motor rotation. Inductance inertia. Voltage pressure. Current in conductor slaps back and forth back and forth. No ou just effiecient.
Quote from: sparks on January 30, 2009, 08:52:10 AM
Too bad Captain Pecan didn't know squat about resonance. Then every time the energy went from being in his capacitor to being in his motor coils he would have been able to fill up the capacitor and discharge the capacitor many many times resulting in alot of motor rotation.
We're ALL learning, no matter what level we feel we're at.
CP was getting resonance, but because the circuit "R" was high relative to the L and C values, the Q was very low, effectively killing the possibilty for any more than one or two cycles of oscillation.
.99
Thanks poynt. I wasn't trying to berate Capt. just trying to perk things up round here. I'm working on this theory that Tesla was using a resonant circuit in his electric car. Just don't know where he put the capacitors. The control box could have been inputting high frequency into the rc tank to take care of the ohmic losses. Super capacitor development and ringing the motor coils is just catching up with Tesla. Tesla had those bifilar coil capacitors to work with. No idea of the q potential this man could develop. Tesla knew what you can do with ionizing potentials also. Making most anything radioactive and getting some mass to energy conversion when he needed it.
Quote from: sparks on January 30, 2009, 08:52:10 AM
Too bad Captain Pecan didn't know squat about resonance. Then every time the energy went from being in his capacitor to being in his motor coils he would have been able to fill up the capacitor and discharge the capacitor many many times resulting in alot of motor rotation. Inductance inertia. Voltage pressure. Current in conductor slaps back and forth back and forth. No ou just effiecient.
I'd say that CP abandoned his quest afterall...? It was expected from the nr.1 post....
You see, a (currently still valid) answer surfaced very early in this thread.... !???
No resonance there, sorry...
No "inductance inertia", and no "Voltage pressure"....
Efficiency poor... Fucked up....
A very old energy equation is still valid, it seems.... (?!)
It's a refreshing thing to see you guys fighting against an old stuff.... Like Voltage, Current, Capacity, ..Inductance....
Hey, you can invent something totally new?
Cheers!
@sparks
Tesla also had the electric motor made his specs. It was not an off-the-shelf type.
This is like Zeno's Paradox.
Quote from: TheBuzz on January 30, 2009, 03:58:13 PM
Neither was the power source that supplied the energy to run it. Therein lies the part that actually mattered.
probably wasn't conduction current...
@Grumpy
More like longitudinal em echo waves in the skin of a copper conductor. Or maybe some longitudinal wave hetrodyning with existing longitudinal wave anomalies running around the Universe. If a longitudinal emwave is inundating the field of your antennae how would you know it if your antennae is setup to receive transverse waves? Iron appears to be jumping around at 1.2khz here on Earth.
If it is jumping around at 1.2khz in space then the oscillator must be a big one.
Maybe the lmd waves are not the anamolies but more of the norm.
cp left why ???
fools like most round this place
HE MADE HIS OWN FOURM DUH!!!!!! WHERE YA BEEN ??
yo yo
flux off ;)
you want ou ... lol pg 1 jt thred !!!! enjoy you got 210 pages to catch up on ...
sparks .... time for you to build somthing .......
resosnance .... lol .... ha!
WHAT IS RESOSNANCE .... :o
NO MORE ANSWERS IN THIS THRED .... enough here already ....
whos fault is it if it dont make sence to you!
ist!
This appears to be independent confirmation of the Young Effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g3DwpshYxU&feature=channel_page
Bill
8) 8) :P
LOL
great job!!!!!
william
0000000OOOOOOOooooooo letes hear it 1 more time THIS IS NOT OU!!! LOL
nuttin to see here folks move along please 8)
btw thanks bill :)
@ IST:
Thank you.
Bill
Quote from: TheBuzz on January 31, 2009, 12:41:36 PM
I have never been so proud to say I am a US citizen and innovation_station is a Canadian.
At least an American that knows where Canada is , good for you.LoL
You will get it when you are ready . Good luck!
@all
I did not want to say anything yet, but I am having a tremendous success!!!!!!
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6362.msg158838#msg158838
Jesus
The following link may be relevant the this thread take a look at it.
http://www.gnucash.org/mirrors/mirrors/jnaudin.free.fr/cstack/index.htm
I did make mention to this concept earlier in this thread and finally found the source of it.
It would be interesting to see the results of using one of these special capacitors to charge a super cap.
Or using it in place of the starting capacitor in the Young Effect.
86 pages of assdroppings
where is the free energy captain pecan
or more like general nut
funny how so much ecxitement by so many dummies
result bad theory bad tests bad conclusions bad results
assdroppings x100
Quote from: yoyo on April 01, 2009, 12:36:39 AM
86 pages of assdroppings
where is the free energy captain pecan
or more like general nut
funny how so much ecxitement by so many dummies
result bad theory bad tests bad conclusions bad results
assdroppings x100
ROFLMAO !
Quote from: yoyo on April 01, 2009, 12:36:39 AM
86 pages of assdroppings
where is the free energy captain pecan
or more like general nut
funny how so much ecxitement by so many dummies
result bad theory bad tests bad conclusions bad results
assdroppings x100
FLUX OFF ALREADY ...
LOL
FOOL
IST!
CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH EH?!?!?!?!
LOL
NOW THAT IS YOUR FAULT!!