ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

[dieter]

Luc,


since there is a bridge rectifier, I must assume the input is AC. The caps in series will act as high pass, or in other words, caps in series ate conductive as long as the voltage is changing, and depending on their capacitance, the higher the AC frequency, the more they let trough. So yes, it does limit the input, frequency dependant.


But I have no idea why tesla puts a coil to the dc end of the rectifier, that's only a simple electromagnet.


Furthermore, tesla had no diodes, at least not such ones.


BR

[Magluvin]

Luc,


since there is a bridge rectifier, I must assume the input is AC. The caps in series will act as high pass, or in other words, caps in series ate conductive as long as the voltage is changing, and depending on their capacitance, the higher the AC frequency, the more they let trough. So yes, it does limit the input, frequency dependant.


But I have no idea why tesla puts a coil to the dc end of the rectifier, that's only a simple electromagnet.


Furthermore, tesla had no diodes, at least not such ones.


BR

From what I read, Colorado Springs I believe, the input caps were to limit current flow if something bad happens to the system of the device. The cap allows enough current for normal operation, but if something gets damaged and/or shorted, the caps limit the current to not cause more damage if the problem happens.

Mags

[forest]

The guy doesn't even know what the markings on his capacitor mean. "Ten Joules 250 volts" he says at around the 50 second mark, and that it "doesn't have any capacity".
The "J" means that the cap has a 5 percent tolerance (accuracy) in the marked capacitance. Not "JOULES". It's hard to read due to the blurry out-of-focus but it is very likely to be a 1 uF capacitor, judging by the size and voltage rating compared to some similar poly-film types in my capacitor box,  hardly "doesn't have any capacity" . Normally a marking of "10J" would indicate 10pF at 5 percent tolerance _on a ceramic cap_. But this is a fairly physically large poly film cap and we may not be seeing a missing decimal point. "1.0J" or ".10J" are more likely values for a cap of that physical size and material at 250 V.  It could even be a 10 uF capacitor.

This is NOT "energy amplification", it is only a naive illustration of _peak power_ ampification. Storing energy in a capacitor over a long period of time (the time between shorting the capacitor with a spark) and discharging it over a short time period (the actual time that the sparking is happening) is nothing new, and the presenter of the video is not demonstrating what he apparently thinks he's demonstrating.

He thinks his capacitor doesn't have any capacity. But it does, as the video clearly illustrates.

Below is a photo of a 10 pF 2kV capacitor:

Yes, peak power. But it was repeatable from dead batteries. Why is that important ? stiveip has given one example about car. 

[TinselKoala]

Yes, peak power. But it was repeatable from dead batteries. Why is that important ? stiveip has given one example about car. 

You are kidding, right? The demonstration proves that the batteries weren't exactly "dead" at all.

They still have enough voltage to produce a charging current that charges the capacitor. Obviously. And if you calculate the remainng energy content of the batteries, and the energy in a 10uF capacitor charged to 40 or 50 volts, whatever, you will see that those sparks are not actually very energetic and that the "dead" batteries could still deliver a fair number of them.

Keep doing the charging and discharging of the capacitor and with each cycle the battery voltage will drop just a little, the charging current will drop just a little, and just a little less energy will be transferred to the capacitor, so each successive spark will be weaker and weaker.

The simplest demonstration of this would be to take that stack of batteries and hook up a voltmeter to it and watch the voltage while somebody charges and sparks the capacitor over and over and over. Keep doing it, I +guarantee+ that the batteries will keep running down. Eventually they will get to the point where they are _really_ dead and can't put an appreciable amount of energy into the capacitor. The spark will be feeble and will be getting feebler.

The capacitor and the stack of 9v batteries have very different discharge characteristics. The battery stack can't deliver the peak current that the capacitor can. It's a matter of relative impedance.

[Cadman]

You are kidding, right? The demonstration proves that the batteries weren't exactly "dead" at all.

They still have enough voltage to produce a charging current that charges the capacitor. Obviously. And if you calculate the remainng energy content of the batteries, and the energy in a 10uF capacitor charged to 40 or 50 volts, whatever, you will see that those sparks are not actually very energetic and that the "dead" batteries could still deliver a fair number of them.

Keep doing the charging and discharging of the capacitor and with each cycle the battery voltage will drop just a little, the charging current will drop just a little, and just a little less energy will be transferred to the capacitor, so each successive spark will be weaker and weaker.

The simplest demonstration of this would be to take that stack of batteries and hook up a voltmeter to it and watch the voltage while somebody charges and sparks the capacitor over and over and over. Keep doing it, I +guarantee+ that the batteries will keep running down. Eventually they will get to the point where they are _really_ dead and can't put an appreciable amount of energy into the capacitor. The spark will be feeble and will be getting feebler.

Of course this is true. Did someone claim otherwise?

The capacitor and the stack of 9v batteries have very different discharge characteristics. The battery stack can't deliver the peak current that the capacitor can. It's a matter of relative impedance.

And that is the important point.

Thanks for confirming it.

Regards