Quote from: Magluvin on March 31, 2011, 03:14:04 AM
Hey Tek
Well from what im seeing today, i cant say i trust anything at the moment. I understand that if we are open minded that we see things beyond what is in the books.
I can see how if things are flawed on purpose, that there are and were people that are smart enough to design the whole system as they present it, and everything works the way they want it. From design to product, we have all the formulas and knowledge to accomplish things with great predictability. I believe They could be that smart to get it all to work very well, with all the alterations intended to shadow the goodies.
Why are we having issues with cap charging? Why does the sim show a micron of loss in transfer, but the site claims 50%loss, we have seen an apparent 50% loss. The sim cant be that far off, or nothing would work at all with any circuit. Just a simple charge a cap from a battery through a 100 ohm resistor, and discharge the cap through a resistor, and scoped the source. There was no difference in the resistor measurements, and the scope shots were identical for charge and discharge. But the source shot had shown a .12mw more from the source than what the resistors read.  I cannot see that the sim is that far off, cant be, not for such a simple thing. And I have used the sim for 555 designs, and others that when I really built it, it worked perfectly. So I dont buy it, not yet, not right now.  Fishy

I think that if heat is the way to go, I could collect my lunch money fer that calorometer, and try.  i wish I had all the necessary equipment to do things.  Can we make one?

Gotta get to sleep.  Fishy

Mushy Mushy

Mags, Someone could make one using an old Thermos bottle,for the experiment and a digital thermometer. I don't happen to have one. The process uses a measured amount of water at a starting recorded temperature and the ending temp. the lid has a sealed hole for the temp probe as well as the load wires that are connected to the submerged resistor. I would place the thermos bottle on a timed rocker table for agitation instead of the stirrer rod that is in the gif I am posting.
also the gif shows an air space. the air space in our case is the Thermos vacuum. ignore the rest of the diag. For our purposes measuring minute changes in temp., I would suggest as small as possible water as possible. This home spun device should dispel any argument on power gain or loss.  A similar method is used in testing microwave oven wattage. I'll see if I can find a reference.   

Well, Im at lunch, and I have decided not to cook up the feet yet.  =]

There is something for sure that doesnt make any sense. Either we are going about transferring the energy the wrong way, or there is something else happening.

Forest.  I understand the cap never empty. But it is empty of potential difference. that is what we are concerned with. ;]

they say it takes work to charge the cap, at a 50% loss.

Well what about a non polarized cap, that sitting on a table or where ever, can have small voltages developed from thin air. Sometimes positive, sometimes negative in reference to the leads. Was there work involved it what takes place in the cap?

This is still just crazy. In essence from what is said to be, there should be a 50% loss all over any circuitry. Yet we have motors that are above 90%eff. We supposedly have dc-dc power supplies that are said to be above or around 90% eff. Were did our loss go in these examples? The dc-dc supply has plenty of caps, and there is heat. Where is our 50% loss now?  Is 50% loss the new 100% eff scale?

Is it that we only suffer losses when the cap is below the source level, and we have eff in building that cap voltage higher than the source?
Is it our flywheel that gives us the advantage over 50% to see anything close to 100%?   Questions questions.

I still hear Woopy groaning MMMMMM  in the vid. A shock to the system. I think there has to be another way.

Woopy,  the resistor will not let the inductor spin up as far as we need for the time it takes for the cap to accumulate the charge. Imagine without the resistor, the inductor will peak and the cap is already near source voltage, so the inductor is not spinning as fast because it didnt ever get up to the currents to do so with the resistor. I see the resistor as a limitation not a loss. Just think, it is said that no matter the resistance, the 50% loss still stands, but you encountered a non effective Believe Circuit buy increasing the resistance. Our 50% loss has changed here to other than 50%.
Doesnt jive with the heat loss story.

My idea for test was just to see if the cap, fully charged, discharged through the resistor will still give the voltage division from 10v in 1 cap to 5v in both. And they are saying that no matter what the resistance, anything above 0 will cause the 50% loss.

Now wrap your head around this one..... This is very important!!!

Lets say we have zero resistance. Zero resistance in the cap and the leads, and source, all super conducting material.

If we charge the cap from the source now, Will we get more than 10v in the cap from a 10v source???  That is a huge question. there can be no heat developed, But I betcha we still only get 10v into the cap this way.     Where was any work wasted or spent in heat here to get the same results of 50% loss anytime, all the time.  Tricks.   

THEY that are behind any alterations to laws of physics, did not cover all bases and didnt see where the issues are with proving for a true fact, that what THEY say, is the way things really are.  We are at the crossroads here. We just have to figure out which road to take to find the truth.

Something is seriously flawed. We have a lot of work to do.
We have to get around this puzzle.  But this puzzle is unlike Titos puzzles. Here we know things. We know our issue. We know what what we are experiencing here is of a nature that we never had come across. Well probably not everyone, and they are not talking, for what ever reason.

I wonder if people in the know, are just sitting back and laughing.

Well, at least today I can still stand on my 2 feet. For now.   

Be back later, with what ever I come up with while thinking at work.

This stuff is like my second job, that doesnt pay well.    but I have more pride in this than my real job.   ;]


Mags

I think about this too and found that it is either a mistake in measure or : charge is not conserved or energy is not conserved.
The problems is in 1/2 in capacitor energy formula. Like something is missing here.

Quote from: forest on March 31, 2011, 02:39:09 PM
I think about this too and found that it is either a mistake in measure or : charge is not conserved or energy is not conserved.
The problems is in 1/2 in capacitor energy formula. Like something is missing here.

Well, by THEIR definition, the energy is conserved in producing heat.

So if current flow produces heat as a loss to the circuits energy, then any time there is current, there is heat, and a 50% loss at all times in circuitry.  So when we charge our rechargeable batteries, we use 2 times as much energy to recharge them, maybe more. So the batteries are expensive and we have to pay 2 times as much for enegy to get a half a bag of doughnuts to use them again. Nice. Not.

hmmm, this will be a sad story for the ou community. If we ever have just a bit of gain, we are only a bit better than 50% eff. Getting near 100% is a big hill to climb. How could we ever get to our goals if 50% eff is just all over the place, every where in our circuits?

We will have to somehow find a way to measure what we lost from a known amount of source energy.

Im not folding here. Im just trying to understand the SCHEME of things, in order to find the flaw or trick that avoids these losses, or if the losses are very real and we just cant get past that.

We cant measure a battery to get an accurate value of energy there. It will have to be a large cap.

I have read somewhere that Faraday had it right and others screwed it up. I will have to start there.

Hope you all will be patient with this stuff. If there are things we dont know nor understand then how can we build anything.
When people design circuits, do they figure the 50% loss in all aspects of the circuit?  When we figure power in/out, do we have to include that loss in our calculations?
I remember my electronics teacher telling us there is a 50% loss in standard transformers. Well, I dont get that result when I read the specs, input and output  VxA for comparison from a standard 12v 1A wall unit supply.  Where is that 50% loss now?  Seems quite close to equal, minus idle currents in the primary added to usable input current produced by secondary current flux. Didnt we lose anything, like 50%? Even in the filter cap in the unit? Or is it only when we charge a cap from start to finish that we only get a half a bag of doughnuts??
Hmmm, that could be an area to look at. We may be going about delivering the charge to the cap all wrong.  Mabe my feet are scared.

Tesla said there is efficiency in the charging of the capacitor in the Igniter circuit. We need to investigate it more. With my tests thus far, I may not know enough to find the gain. Sad but probably true.



This all has me doubting myself a bit. I still dont buy it.  Something is a miss. How can anyone not take notice to these things when working in the electronics field?
Well, most probably never build and test the weird stuff we do. So they never have an initiative to see anything wrong. Maybe nothing is wrong. That statement sucks to me right now.  Im looking at my toes so I can remember what they look like when their gone. 


Mind blowing stuff.

What ever it is, if we understand it more or at all, it will be knowledge gained.   <---   Oooo  looky, we may gain something here.  =]

Mags

Hey Woopy

How do you feel about, we see the 50% loss, and with the diode and inductor, we see a gain? Do you feel we really have a gain with the inductors actions vs direct charging eff?

Could it be that the inductor has an effect that can overcome the loss, if there really is one?  Or does the inductor alter some other property to avoid the loss.
Im still amazed that we loss 50% buy doing something that would never seem so.

Just blurting as I feel the need.

Mags