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.....

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!
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 ²
or 18 ²

then 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]