Hey Nul

I understand your reasoning, and I dont want to argue, and i know you are not trying to argue. =]

I am basing my thoughts on the idea that we have been fooled into thinking that things are the way they described them to us.

Like the Gabriel transformer. This was a Tesla idea in 1890.
And what we had learned about transformers is actually true. Its just we were never told we could separate the flux produced by the secondary from the primary flux core, of which causes the primary to draw more from the source as the sec current rises.  ;]

So we HAVE to question everything. Everything!

And if we have stored energy in the inductor, energy put there while charging the cap to 5v, energy beyond what it took to charge the cap, then you may be right. But Im not thinking so. =]

I am working on proof on this very subject as we speak. ;]

I look at it like this. In a battery, when we take energy from it, we are just per say taking electrons that are packed into one side, and allowing them to fill holes in the more empty side. We could say this in a few ways, but this is just 1 way.

If we fire up the circuit, slowing things down so we can watch what is going on, and we stop or disconnect the battery somewhere below 5v so that when the inductor stops spinning(per say), the cap ends up with 5v. Did we expend a caps worth at 5v of energy from the battery at the time we disconnected the batt at the point below 5v that finally reaches the cap?  How can we say for sure? Are you sure and ready to move on?   

When we slow things down, being that the inductor will not accept gobs of current and charge the cap instantly, we have to watch the current as it increases.  It increases more as the field builds in the inductor, never really getting to a current level that would be seen if we were just directly charging the cap from the battery. The only reason current is increasing is the fact that the inductor is determining how much gets through over time. But what is going in, IS what is coming out in reference to the inductors leads.
I dont believe that more current had gone through the inductor to get to the cap during the time the cap was charging WHILE the battery was connected. I dont believe it. Where did it go? Not in the cap. Are they packed into the inductor and slowly delivered to the cap after the batt was disconnected?

Take this example. Battery, cap, inductor and an led in series. the led will light till the cap is full and the led will go out due to no more current will flow against the charged cap. Well guess what? That cap is now charged, and will light the led all by itself when we reverse the polarity. We used energy from the battery to charge the cap THROUGH the led. A measurable amount of energy used in the led. But we still have that same amount of energy still in the cap after wards. We can use that energy 2 times, just about. We have a loss due to the led V drop, but that is just a function of the led to not conduct below that drop. Not a loss, just a barrier. That barrier did cause waste. But that is all in circuit design.

So get rid of the led and just replace with a diode and the inductor with a primary of a transformer. Now we can charge the cap through the transformers primary and still have energy in the cap for the other phase, and after that the cap is still charged, just in the opposite polarity. Like a controlled oscillation, stopping at the peaks and switching to give the other cycle, all from 1 half cycle charge from the battery that charged the cap in the first place.
If the transformer sec is loaded, then we will see the cap wont have too much left in charge, only because the draw on the sec caused a damping in the primaries ability to freewheel, or oscillate. No real loss, just the energy running in the primary was taken up from the sec on the other side, and the primary was stalled from freewheeling.

That is where the Gabriel transformer is a key element in all of this. The primary can be put into oscillation and not be killed by the sec current produced flux, because that flux is not instilled into the primary windings. So now we can have an extended oscillation of the primary while taking from the secondary. Oscillation is preserved and each cycle can produce power out without being killed off quickly.

If that doesnt make sense, I will come up with a way to describe it better. ;]  Or better yet Ill have to prove it.  ;]


mags
I have presented this before but its is hard to get most to listen.

Hey Loner  ;]

Just as you say, I put some "maybe's"  and "possibly s" just in case i am wrong, even though at times I think Im right.  ;]  I have to because I dont think I would like the taste of my foot. ;]

When you spoke of the flywheel, I thought of my separate descriptions between the inductor and the physical wheel.

The physical wheel is different. A lot of energy is expended to get it started and that energy that is further put into the spinning, need not be as much once it is already spinning. And once it is at full speed, very little is needed to keep it there. ;]

The inductor on the other hand, requires voltage(pressure) to get it going, but the current is low in the beginning. The power is low when starting the inductor flywheel. As it speeds up, more energy is required to accelerate, more current flows, more power required.

So in my frame of mind, with a cap in series with the inductor, we are charging the cap, but the inductor is in the way of getting it done NOW. It is just a form of decreasing resistance in the path of getting the cap to become equal or leveling out with the source.

If we forget that the inductor actually stores any energy that had gone through it,  and we see that it just has a decreasing resistance as the cap charges, we can then say that the cap, when it reaches the same level as the source, holds an equal amount of energy that was taken from the source.  Agreed?  ;]

Now we look at the energy stored, per say the flywheel is spinning, freewheeling weighted wheel. While the resistance is decreasing and the flywheel is accelerating, where can we say that energy was used to get it spinning?
We could look at the action that is happening in the inductor is just as I described, a decreasing resistance value, and we could calculate that and be accurate as to the amount of energy being fed through the inductor and ignore the flywheel other than it is just an artifact of the current that had gone though the inductor.

I would say that in the series circuit presented, when current flows, that current is the same throughout the circuit at any given time.
I dont think anyone could argue this.

So I dont see the spinning up of the inductor as an energy loss between the source and the cap getting charged, just a delay of sorts.
I dont see it as a hole in the water pipe where we lost something before the water gets to the bucket.

I dont see it as a place in the circuit that took anything from the source, that didnt make it to the cap.

If it did, and this is key, then our current in the circuit would be different on the input lead to the inductor as compared to the output lead of the inductor.  But we know that current in the circuit is a constant per time of flow, especially being that the circuit has no branches and is just a closed loop.

As for the differences in voltage vs current in the inductor, that is easy.  Imagine the inductor being 1 ohm in resistance. That would be when the inductor is not in circuit.
So when we present a voltage across the inductor, the resistance (impedance) of the coil will be very high in the beginning, thus high voltage and low current. As the wheels get spinning that resistance decreases, more current flows and the resistance becomes even lower.
Once the resistance finally becomes 1ohm, high currents will flow and the voltage measured across that resistance will be low, when measured across the inductor, especially if the source cant hold its own against the very low resistance, and other resistances in the circuit will affect this also.

So, did we use any energy from the source to get the wheel spinning, as in actual energy taken from the source and not provided to the charge cap?  Did all of the energy that came from the source, from no charge in cap to full charge in cap, reach the cap? 

So in my circuit description in the above post, if we got rid of the diode that is across the bat/switch, and we disconnected the batt when the cap reached 5v(source =5v), did we consume more from the batt than it took to get the cap charged to 5v?  I say no. I say we are left with a spinning flywheel that has nowhere to put the energy instilled in the inductor. And I think its free if we capture it properly.

Lets get rid of the cap and the diode across the batt/switch so we have batt, switch inductor and diode in loop.  Now when we close the switch, the inductor starts spinning and currents are accelerating.
But now we are just discharging the battery, and getting the wheel spinning. In the circuit we still just have a decreasing resistance seen in the inductor, and electrons are just filling holes in the + side of the battery. Our loss is the battery just having a load on it that varies as the circuit continues to flow current.
We can say that we stored the energy in the inductor, but only to the point that the inductors field cannot increase any longer because the source cannot provide more pressure than 5v. Beyond that, the battery just sees a resistance load, and the action of being drained because the batteries - and + want to equal out.

If we have a water fall and we can figure how much water per min is falling, then we add a paddle wheel under the falls, can we still say that the amount of energy from the source had a loss or conversion of energy between the amount of water that begins to fall and the amount that made it past the paddle wheel to the river below? No, it is the same amount. Plus we got the wheel spinning. =]
This is not a perfect example, but it gets the message across.

=]

Mags

And,  what really might blow your mind is my late thoughts on heat developed in circuits. I dont have it all worked out in my head yet, but it just may also be an artifact of current flow through a resistance.

What does the heat offer to the circuit other than a change(higher) in the resistance that it came from? It is more like a physical flywheel as in the power is high before the heat, lower resistance, and as the heat increases, the resistance gets higher and currents lowered. But I still think that we didnt loose anything creating the heat, especially when the heat is a desired effect.

But in a circuit that doesnt have the intentions of creating heat, the heat that is created in the circuit is just more of an obstacle to current flow rather than a loss, due to higher resistance and lower current flow.  ;]

One thing though, the heat stored or created would need another device to return its energy back to the system, but the inductor can do it all on its own.  =]

Mags gone crazy   :

HI  every one

Mags

Does it matter if we use circuit that  use a bit of battery power which has to be recharged afer a month of continous usage ? I don't think so.
Anyway it's a basic circuit.It will work IF we left voltage on cap above battery voltage and discharge the rest BACK into battery GROUNDED with a really good ground with IRON.
The faster we do it the longer it will work on the same battery.
It has to do with battery, it won't work without it. In fact if we SHORT battery or CAP very quickly when it is GROUNDED while applying higher voltage (even HV) at positive terminal it will recharge ! Just a small idea 
nothing important ...