Quote from: poynt99 on April 14, 2011, 05:42:12 PM
From my perspective, I offer an insight and some key information, then I see if that is understood. If it appears so, then I move on and offer more information based on questions that arise from the previous info. As we proceed, we can go more in-depth if required. That is how I gauge the information I offer.

So far no one has acknowledged or been able to demonstrate that they understand the fundamentals I have presented so far....and you feel you are ready to jump into more detail already?

.99

Hey Point

Lol  I hope we are still cool here.  Lets just say that maybe it would be easier to understand the simple explanation of heat losses vs virtually no heat losses with inductors, if we knew the details of how it occurred. =]  Because for some reason, from what I see, the details better be good to pull me from this apparent rut Im in.  ;]
I read in a pdf that inductors should be added to secondaries of transformers and the windings of motors, as these would be advantageous.  This is my next project.

Mags

Quote from: woopy on April 14, 2011, 05:00:27 PM
wow moving fast here

thank's to all

@ Mag i really be with you in your post 688

now just before going to sleep    1  more question

if the connecting wire for the  DIRECT transfer (without inductor and diode,   that is cap to cap)  could be supraconductor  (i mean no loss in  at all ), would we also get 50 % energy   lost in the transfer ? I think yes and you ?

good night at all

Laurent

You know, if we do a direct transfer from cap to cap, we have a high freq oscillation. If we are able to disconnect the caps at a certain time, a time when that discharge induced oscillation only makes it to the peak of the other phase, 1 half cycle, I bet that we see a near 100% complete conversion. We still have inductance, just small, thus high freq osc.  And we simulated a diode by disconnecting at the reverse phase peak.  Same as inductor/diode BC.

Well at this point I believe that if it were superconducting, caps also superconducting, no resistance......

In a direct cap to cap would resort in a never ending oscillation.

But a better question would be what would happen in the BC while superconducting. Would we see a different outcome than a normal world BC?  Maybe the source cap would completely deplete its charge and even go reverse polarity, and the receiver gets bumped to beyond the original source potential. That would be special, no?

As for losses. What is in the details, with and without the inductor?
Does the inductor go negative resistance to accomplish not allowing other resistances in the circuit to produce heat while current flows through them?

Other than that, I still see current flowing through those circuit resistances, with or without inductors and said losses being had.

Mags

Superconducting does not change much. It depends on frequency. With low inductance we would have high frequency and still heat loss because of radiation (energy outside wire cannot "glue" to wire when abruptly changed). Tesla said no more then 30khz to limit EM.
Now,I think I found mechanical analogy. Car crash.
Normally car crash generate radiant energy : heat sound and so on. It destroy vehicles.High frequency.
Not very long time ago there was  clever man in Poland , Lucjan ŁÄ...giewka. He invented and patented a bumper with internal flywheel. Depending on construction this bumper was able to convert large part of crash energy into high speed internal flywheel effect  which was then radiated as heat and sound much longer then the crash incident itself. Watch also Stan Deyo videos how he explained the ufo. Very interesting.The same about Bruce De Palma.Where are those inventions ? Buried...
Inductor is doing the same thing I think.

http://www.project-epar.pl/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/skanowanie0006.pdf

Hello all
The energy transfer between two caps stops when the voltage potential across each cap is equal. So you will always have energy left in the source cap. So with two caps of equal value you can at most get only 1/2 of the energy to transfer. Now if you add an inductor and diode between the caps then it is possible to get more energy to transfer between the caps.  This happens because the inductor will store up energy in the form of a magnetic field.

When the source cap discharges through the inductor, the inductor builds up a magnetic field that depends on the current flow. This field is maintained as long as the current flow does not decrease. When the current flow starts to decrease (the voltage at the receiving cap is approaching the source cap) then the magnetic field collapses and imparts energy (current) in the direction of the receiving cap. The collapsing magnetic field causes the coil to act as a voltage source (coil internal resistance and induced current from the collapsing magnetic field) in series with the source cap which boosts the voltage seen by the receiving cap. The receiving cap gets more energy than it would in a simple energy transfer between caps.

You can model the coil as a secondary energy source that siphons off energy at the start and adds it back in at the end.

hi all
yes it is going on, thank's to all

on my latest post, i asked , what would be the result if ONLY the transfering wire should be supraconductive , but not the cap.

the idea was to isolate the transfer system.

So what happen if i have a main normal source cap which is connected by a supraconductive wiring to the normal receiver cap ?.

I think that, in this  ( virtual )  circuit , the transfer will oscillate some time and the cap resistance will slowly damp the oscillations to the final result   = 50% lost of the stored energy.

So i think that whatever is the transfer mean ( resistive or supraconductive ), and this OF COURSE WITHOUT THE COUPLE  INDUCTOR /DIODE, the direct transfer maximum efficiency from a cap to a cap can not avoid 5o% energy lost.

And if this transfer  is so good because  it loses  ONLY 50 % energy lost , that  means it is in fact 100 % efficient ?? i mean it is no way to get a better result in a direct transfer.


And it is totally logical if we consider the energy stored  as the pressure in an air tank

if we have 2 same capacity tanks , one is 100 bars and the second is 0 bar if we transfer the first tank in the second of same capacity, and this by any means,  the pressure will be 1 / 2
in each tank . So the total energy stored now in the 2 tanks together, ,       Weird but true as per the "bloody formula  1/2 * C * v^2 , is the half ( 1/2)

And of course all better result should be considered as an anomaly ? I mean that the adding of a DIODE / INDUCTOR  in the transfer circuit which improve the efficiency of the transfer  is to be considered as an anomaly ?

ouups tired i go sleeping

good luck at all

laurent