Dual capacitor paradox

[captainpecan]

Yes, please post any info you know of. I have also seen others discussing the subject here and there but it seems that people stop looking into the subject after not having much luck and many don't share all their findings I believe to help others try and find other methods. Me personally, if you have ever watched a coil ring on a scope, then you know the majority of that energy was used over and over again while it is ringing. I just want to understand this better because I think there are ways we can use it that we currently are not doing yet.

[captainpecan]

Have you seen member poynt99's paper on capacitor energy transfer?  There was an Uploads part of this forum but now I cannot find any such icons on the left hand side column it used to be there....
So I attached the pdf file from my HD.

Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for. I took a long time away and just recently got back. It's awesome seeing stuff from long ago coming back up!!! I have a lot of catching up to do.

[captainpecan]

Poynt99s great work in that paper brings up some very good points. It proves that we can recycle a majority of the energy sent from 1 capacitor to another. The magnetic field that builds up around the inductor during this action is where the effect I am most interested in lies. In his tests, he attempted to use a transformer to pull that field down and store it. It appeared to have seriously dropped the efficiency of the transfer and really didn't get any usable benefit. That's not the thing I am looking at here. I am wanting to use that magnetic field for work done, while allowing the recapture of most of the energy used to create that field. What I am wanting to do is not collapse it to catch it. Let it collapse itself and push through to be caught and reused over and over. Of course adding the tiny bit back that is lost to continue the cycles. I'm not looking to get more out of the pulses than put in. I'm looking to get free work out of those pulses and recycle as much as possible to keep doing it over and over. Problem is, is it possible to find values good enough to get work done. Just jotting down my thoughts. I have always thought the magnetic field around a coil comes from the environment anyway as a counter result of the current flow. All our losses are from other means. Other than resistance and drag, I believe an electric motor is always a free energy device. We always flow energy THROUGH the coils and the magnetic field from the environment is what actually runs that motor. Its just reacting to us killing the energy by running it constantly to ground. Its when we stop throwing it to ground and recycling it, we realize that motor still runs, so the motor never actually consumed that energy to begin with. Dont get me wrong, i knownthat field is occuring because of the current flow. But I just feel that field itself is the environment trying to equalize things and bring about an equalibrium as nature always does. Is that the source of free energy we seek? Just my thoughts and ramblings.

[captainpecan]

I have been doing a lot of work over the years passing energy from series batteries to parallel and running a load between them. I have had pretty good results. I may start another thread just for that. But it is not as easy to measure exactly the amount of transfered pulse by pulse to narrow down concepts and ideas. Not to mention, batteries can be unpredictable. Capacitors are more predictable, but seem to be pretty lossy.

[onepower]

Captainpecan
I was using an Arduino, data logger and two 13.5v/10F caps to calculate the system energy losses similar to Poynt99.

My experiments show any resistance produces a loss near 50% when moving energy from C1 to C2 and the most common way to reduce it is by adding inductance.

It's interesting because as I said the system always losses 50% however we can use an inductance to generate 50% more energy by extracting energy from the current flow between C1-C2. So we always lose 50% but we can gain 50% from the current flow which brings us back up to near 100% efficiency. Here many make the mistake of thinking we simply reduced the losses which is not true. The transfer losses are inherent in the system and cannot change. By adding inductance we generated extra energy which negated the resistance losses, the context matters.

In fact the concept above is the basis of most FE devices. Most don't understand this because there not breaking down the system with respect to the individual energy(s) and total energy present at any given moment. For example, we always dissipate near 50% energy whenever a high energy density discharges into a lower energy density. We always dissipate energy but we can also generate energy during the transfer of energy from high to low. How much energy we can generate in any number of ways determines the total system efficiency which can be COP>1.

Regards
AC