OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

[nul-points]

@alan
sorry, i must have started my update post here before your reply, so i didn't see it until editing my typos!
  thanks - yes, i'm hoping there will be some replication tests soon to confirm one way or the other


@All
interesting update on the cap self-recharge effect....

i just checked the circuit after being on vacation for 7 days

after the last test run (Sat 17 May) i discharged the output cap to 0V tho' Rload and then shorted the cap for a few seconds and when i left, after about an hour, it's voltage had risen from 0V to 0.29V

the circuit has been disconnected from the input cap and any test-gear for 7 days - but on checking the output cap this morning, the voltage is at 0.64V

(if this isn't evidence of 'capacitive inertia' i want to know what is!)

i presume that it actually peaked higher than this last weekend and then in the remaining days it has fallen to 0.64 with the natural low-leakage of the SuperCaps

this self-recharge is around 25% of the original voltage!

so, i've already had OU from the output - leave it awhile and it wants to give me some more!

[gyulasun]

- i have read in some of Tesla's writings that he had discovered a way to 'siphon' charge from a generator using frequent, small amounts of charge via a capacitor in such a way that he could extract as much energy as he liked and it wouldn't affect the source

that sounds to me suspiciously like a description of 'free energy' - and his general approach, described above, is exactly what is going on in these experiments

Hi Sandy,

I would like to learn about those Tesla writings you read,  in fact I remember a conversation where Tesla was questioned on his capacitive discharging experiments and in fact questioned on doing the first wireless transmissions (earlier than Marconi,)  but in those capacitor discharge tests the bottom line is that the (discharge) time involved is what counts. 
You can charge up a cap to many thousands of volts and then the available energy from that cap depends only on how quickly or slowly you discharge it.  This is what I remember and this in itself does not sound free energy because you fed in that particular amount of energy from a generator (or whatever source) in advance during a certain time periode and if you use up this same amount  of energy in much shorter time then you seem to "consume more" but in fact you do not...
A similar example is a battery, say a capacity of 50Ah battery., normally it can provide 1A current for 50 hours but it certainly can provide 25A for 2 hours (this latter is an abuse for such battery I know) so I think this is how the capacitor discharge above is understood...

interesting update on the cap self-recharge effect....

i just checked the circuit after being on vacation for 7 days

after the last test run (Sat 17 May) i discharged the output cap to 0V tho' Rload and then shorted the cap for a few seconds and when i left, after about an hour, it's voltage had risen from 0V to 0.29V

the circuit has been disconnected from the input cap and any test-gear for 7 days - but on checking the output cap this morning, the voltage is at 0.64V

(if this isn't evidence of 'capacitive inertia' i want to know what is!)

i presume that it actually peaked higher than this last weekend and then in the remaining days it has fallen to 0.64 with the natural low-leakage of the SuperCaps

this self-recharge is around 25% of the original voltage!

so, i've already had OU from the output - leave it awhile and it wants to give me some more!

Yes,  as I mentioned, the atoms/molecules of the dielectric material inside the capacitor try to arrange back to their 'position' where they were all forced to 'setup' by the earlier electric field stress of the 2.7V (or whatever) value. This is what I think... 
By the way, my elder co-workers used to mention that certain high voltage transmitter type capacitors were stored with short-circuited connections when not in use because charge tended to accumulate in them beyond 'nasty' values and gave shockes when accidentaly the unshorted connections were touched.  (And charge in them did not come about due to the closeness of RF or other transmitter near field effects for sure but the explanation pondered on was the cap 'remembered' the manufacturer's high voltage tests... )
-------------------------------

You may have thought on making the L inductance resonant with C2 (500uF) at the switching frequency?  What if you match them to be at series resonant?  then you may benefit from the resonant voltage up transformation?  would be an interesting test...   

Thanks,  Gyula

[argona369]

Hi Gyulasan.

>By the way, my elder co-workers used to mention that certain high voltage transmitter >type capacitors were stored with short-circuited connections when not in use because >charge tended to accumulate in them beyond 'nasty' values


I can also add to strange capacitor effects.
I built 4 small leyden jars a while ago (1.5? x 4? glass spice jars).
Aluminum sticky tape inside and outside, shredded aluminum foil stuffed inside,
Electrical tape wrapped around outside, and then multi dipped in wax/hot glue
To seal the whole thing.
(25% melted hot glue (through glue gun) mixed
Into melted paraffin wax and stirred together, makes a great non-brittle dielectric sealant)

They worked very well as leyden jars. (> 125,000 volts)
I had put them (non-shorted) into my parts box and left them for several months.
When I went to use them again I was having problems, they would not hold a charge.
I removed the outer tape/wax layers and ran them (to my 30 cm wimshurst) to see what was happening to the jars.
They were now all arcing through the glass dielectric at low voltage!
The dielectric had broken down just from being in storage, there was no charge noticed
On them when taken out of storage btw.

Cliff,

[nul-points]

@Gyula
you've raised 3 important observations/questions! Thank you for mentioning these

> I remember a conversation where Tesla was questioned on his capacitive discharging experiments ... in those capacitor discharge tests the bottom line is that the (discharge) time involved is what counts...  this in itself does not sound free energy because you fed in that particular amount of energy from a generator (or whatever source) in advance during a certain time periode and if you use up this same amount  of energy in much shorter time then you seem to "consume more" but in fact you do not...

- i'm trying to find again the Tesla reference i read some time ago - but it was not about his large-scale capacitor discharges

if i remember correctly, he was definitely saying that he could 'collect' (which i describe as 'siphoning') small and frequent amounts of charge from a generator, or other source, by means of a capacitor, i believe, and that he could extract as much power as he liked without depleting the source

it was this last statement that i was saying sounded like 'free energy'


> Yes,  as I mentioned, the atoms/molecules of the dielectric material inside the capacitor try to arrange back to their 'position' where they were all forced to 'setup' by the earlier electric field stress of the 2.7V (or whatever) value. This is what I think...

i agree that there is a long history of evidence of self-recharge of capacitors and that the dielectric must be involved - because the energy in a charged capacitor is understood to be actually stored in the dielectric, not the cap plates - but i am thinking that this description is still an effect, not a cause - the recharge seen this last week could provide 10mW of power for 7 seconds

firstly, i'm not sure that a purely 'electret' effect could provide this sort of power when the cap was only charged to 2.7V to begin with - i understand that electrets usually need a high voltage stress as part of their creation

secondly, when creating an electret, the stress voltage has to be maintained continously whilst the polarity alignment becomes 'fixed' - but in these cap recharges the voltage has been completely discharged first and then also shorted before the voltage builds up again

to 'force' the atoms/molecules in the dielectric to return to a previous 'setup' we would need to perform some electrical work on them - the only work on a capacitor which conventional physics recognises is to apply a voltage across the plates

where is the power coming from to do this work?  i say it is not coming from anwhere conventional!!

well, i think we can both agree that, whatever the cause of the recharge, 'electret' or 'aether spin', it is completely 'free energy' because after the full amount (1219mWs in this experiment) of conventional stored energy has been discharged thro' Rload then another 70mWs has become available from the self-recharge - nearly 6% extra energy!

i think a lot of people (me included) would be happy to get a COP of 1.06 from a simple capacitor!


> You may have thought on making the L inductance resonant with C2 (500uF) at the switching frequency?

yes, this is a very good question - is it possible to increase the switched charge voltage thro' resonance (by 'tuning' the peak voltage to occur at the moment of switching)?

i haven't tried matching L & switched C for resonance - i'd considered adjusting the cycle period above & below the existing rate to see if the COP increases either way - but it would be an excellent test to try resonance directly

i hope that one of us gets to try this resonance test soon


@argona
> The dielectric had broken down just from being in storage

do you have any theories as to how the dielectric (just glass?) degraded to that extent?


> there was no charge noticed on them when taken out of storage btw.

i guess not, if the dielectric had failed! 

[argona369]

>i guess not, if the dielectric had failed!

Lol.
Low voltage was maybe (guess) 1,000 volts.
(Arc discharges seen though glass dielectric)
There might have been some voltage on the jars but I never noticed it.
(before and after storage).

Disassembled to look for bubbles or cracks and there was none.

>do you have any theories as to how the dielectric (just glass?) degraded to that extent?

None whatsoever, and it was just plain glass jars.

I also noticed that when my wimshurst (?thumper?) was first run,
It produced 10x more ozone at first which diminished after say 5 hours
of operation (motor driven).
I always felt that at first running it had pulled electrons out of the plexi disks,
And ?ran out? or could not pull anymore latter on (depleted something).

Cliff,