OverUnity Research

Hello my fellow OU explorers. I trust that I find myself in good company here.

I have been doing a significant amount of research alongside a number of experiments these past few months in an effort to understand the history of OU research and identify the common elements. My hope was that by eliminating all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. My research spanned decades and covered all the greats including Tesla, Gray, Floyd Sweet, Don Smith, Steven Mark, Tariel Kapanadze as well as some of the more recent newcomers.

My research and experiments have all boiled down to one thing: capacitors.

The formula for calculating the energy stored in a capacitor is: E = 1/2 * C * V²

Energy (Joules) = 1/2 * Capacitance (Farads) * Voltage squared.

The formula for the time to charge a capacitor is: T = RC

Time constant = Resistance * Capacitance

The key thing to note is that there is no mention anywhere of current in Amperes.

It is possible to charge a capacitor using static electricity only (volts with zero current).

When a capacitor discharges, the energy released is the total charge in Joules. 1 Joule is equivalent to 1 Watt per Second.

It is possible to extract amps from a charged capacitor. It requires no amps to charge said capacitor.

I am designing a generator using these principles and everything I have tested so far has worked according to my predictions.

I understand that most will be sceptical about this finding, but it is something quite simple that most of you should be able to reproduce and verify yourselves first hand.

I'll post a circuit diagram and step by step instructions on how to reproduce this effect later this evening or tomorrow.

See "charging current" for a capacitor here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capchg.html#:~:text=When%20a%20battery%20is%20connected,up%20to%20the%20battery%20voltage.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.05.30, 18:03:12
See "charging current" for a capacitor here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capchg.html#:~:text=When%20a%20battery%20is%20connected,up%20to%20the%20battery%20voltage.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm aware of inrush current which is limited by the resistance, but this is in a closed circuit.

What I'm proposing is to charge the capacitor in an open circuit arrangement, like so:

(https://i.ibb.co/58ZXb46/Illustration.png) (https://ibb.co/1qcYFQL)

Here's a circuit simulation that I put together: https://tinyurl.com/2jw643bj

I came across the attached document (Stationary Field Generators) during my research. It describes a similar method of operation to that which I am proposing. The main difference appears to be that in this document it describes the use of an initial current to charge the capacitors, whereas in the scheme that I'm proposing you don't have that initial charge and so power consumption is zero.

Quote from: lfarrand on 2022.05.30, 17:03:54...
It is possible to charge a capacitor using static electricity only (volts with zero current).
...

This is wrong by definition of what a current is.
A charge displacement is a current, so transferring charges from one place to another will always involve a non-zero current.

Quote
...
The formula for the time to charge a capacitor is: T = RC
...

This is also false. T=RC, the capacitor charging time constant, is not the time to charge, which would be infinite, but the time to charge the capacitor to about 63% of the charging voltage (exactly 1-1/e).

Quote from: lfarrand on 2022.05.31, 06:19:40...
What I'm proposing is to charge the capacitor in an open circuit arrangement, like so:

(https://i.ibb.co/58ZXb46/Illustration.png) (https://ibb.co/1qcYFQL)
...

This circuit is not open, it is closed by the ground connection. The ground is a conductor. And if two "grounds" are used, which is a misnomer for one of the two, they are at least capacitively coupled so the circuit is looped too (even if one ground was the earth and the other the moon).

charging capacitor by displacement current  O0

Nikola Tesla has patents for charging capacitors with radiant energy.

Perhaps you have something similar.

Displacement currents are what happens between capacitor plates, or between any conductors whose potentials vary with respect to each other. The influence of charges on each other at a distance is equivalent to a variable current flowing between them.

This has been known since the 19th century thanks to Maxwell. Of course we can charge a capacitor via a circuit including displacement currents somewhere. But a displacement current does not mean an open circuit. On the contrary! it is because the circuit is apparently open and a current is flowing, that Maxwell had to introduce displacement currents. This means that in reality the circuit is closed, there is no mystery, Kirchoff's laws apply.

Of course we can laugh when this well-known and completely conventional banality is brandished as a discovery.
Unless you think you're smarter than everyone else, which is unfortunately common because of the Dunning-Kruger effect, tell yourself that if you have a simple brilliant idea in a hackneyed field like electromagnetism, hundreds of thousands of others have had it before you in the past, that the idea is just the result of your own ignorance of the field, and that if it's simple, it's not brilliant at all but wrong. So if you really believe in it, at least make the effort to study and experiment first, rather than bothering us with useless childishness.

https://list.youku.com/albumlist/show/id_27546084.html

https://overunity.com/18143/colors-kapanadze-forum-fe-builds-circuits-and-comments/30/


Made in china

I am studying, experimenting and learning more every day. I'm very concious that I don't know everything in the field of electromagnetism. If every newcomer was put off and disheartened by more experienced folk then I don't suppose many of the discoveries that we've come to rely on would have seen the light of day.

I thought I'd share something that I discovered and thought warranted a closer look. If you think that this has been known about for eons and that it's not worth wasting effort on then please feel free to go on your way.

I'm just doing some research and experiments and openly sharing what I've found in the hope that it will help anyone looking into similar phenomena.

I've just built a new high voltage transformer to enable me to progress with my next round of tests. I have a few hypotheses to test out and once I find out the answers then I'll post them here.

@lfarrand

Your answer does not give me the impression that you want to learn. A newcomer who wants to learn would have modestly asked questions about his idea rather than pretentiously asserting anything as if it were a truth.

And now you would either admit that your idea was wrong for the reasons given, or you would ask more questions to understand why the idea is supposedly wrong.
My arguments were circumstantial, my answer should have been helpful to you if you wanted to learn, but instead of thanking me, you complain about it because someone tells you that your idea is wrong!  With this posture in the realm of affect rather than science, you won't even learn from your mistakes.

Do you understand why what you have proposed is a dead end? I can tell you more if you have questions.
If you don't believe me, test your setup before bothering us with it, and you should eventually understand why you screwed up.
Not everyone is Tesla. Sorry if my style is a bit scathing, but it's mine.

Quote from: lfarrand on 2022.06.03, 08:41:53
...
I've just built a new high voltage transformer to enable me to progress with my next round of tests. I have a few hypotheses to test out and once I find out the answers then I'll post them here.

That's the right way. Good luck in your work, and if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask, I'm always ready to explain what I think I know.

I think this is a legitimate topic.  Except for the 'one' member who decided to jump in with repeated derision, trying to sway the community's opinion.  If there's a ground rod, perhaps it has to be switched in AFTER the cap is charged?  There's options to be explored.  It's not just ditch the concept as quickly as possible because ONE member with a big mouth doesn't want to read about it.

Experimenters at various sites have replicated John Bedini's single wire capacitor charging with his 'radiant' inductive spikes.  Also, J.L. Nadin's Free Electron Pump charges an isolated ball electrode with a single wire connection.  And someone on this forum (me) suffered eye injury due to an arc flash at the non connected side of a cap.

Besides that, answers which aren't know can't be given.

Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2022.06.04, 18:09:43
I think this is a legitimate topic.  Except for the 'one' member who decided to jump in with repeated derision, trying to sway the community's opinion.
...
Experimenters at various sites have replicated John Bedini's single wire capacitor charging with his 'radiant' inductive spikes.  Also, J.L. Nadin's Free Electron Pump charges an isolated ball electrode with a single wire connection
...

I am the " 'one' member". I conducted experiments on Avramenko's single wire current transmission techniques to verify the claim that no current or almost no current was flowing. Not only does a current flow, but I measured that this current is equal to the current supplied by the generator.
I also replaced the copper wire with an extremely thin strand of carbon fibre. This strand was connected on one side to a high frequency generator, and on the other side to an electrode in the air with a volume of about 3x3x3 cm. The carbon thread caught fire and disappeared in smoke.

It is of course possible to charge a capacity with a single wire, because an insulated electrode is always capacitively coupled to the environment, especially the ground. So we have a normal circuit looped by displacement currents, a current flows well during the charging time. This operation is perfectly consistent with what electromagnetism tells us.

Quote
Besides that, answers which aren't know can't be given.

The answers are known, but apparently not by you. If you take the argument I gave about displacement currents closing a circuit as "derision", then you do not understand the scientific issues.
I invite you to experiment as much as I do, and learn the basics of what you are talking about rather than making derogatory remarks about me and commenting as a bigoted admirer of famous names in free energy (just names as b*dini, not inventors, not discoverers, not even scientists) whatever they do, in pointless verbosity without understanding anything about the mechanisms involved and known for more than a century.

Quote from: lfarrand on 2022.05.30, 17:03:54
...
It is possible to charge a capacitor using static electricity only (volts with zero current).
...
I am designing a generator using these principles and everything I have tested so far has worked according to my predictions.

I understand that most will be sceptical about this finding, but it is something quite simple that most of you should be able to reproduce and verify yourselves first hand.

I'll post a circuit diagram and step by step instructions on how to reproduce this effect later this evening or tomorrow.

Hello lfarrand,

I think I might know the method you may be using to do this and the perspective you have of the charging scenario.

Although technically, F6FLT is correct when he says a cap can't be charged without current, you can charge a cap without current just as you say, as long as the current comes from somewhere.

I try to avoid being blinded to other possibilities by "what is known fact".

Thank you for what you have presented so far and I look forward to hearing more about your work.

Regards
Cadman

That Avramenko diode plug is a direct take off of Ed Gray's Electrostatic Generator.  The only thing different is the plug patent adds an extra diode in front of the capacitor.  I've done a lot of work with the cap/diode T-tap circuit.  I verified that the charge pump circuit also works with pulsed DC (the extra diode).  This was long before I heard of Avramenko, or saw Gray's patents.  Taking out one diode bipasses the patent.  Otherwise, the plug is wired to pump negative charge, so of course there is a current.

Dealing with potential only does not require electron rearrangement in every case.  Stan Meyer showed that a water molecule can have a capacitive charge when it is elongated.

Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2022.06.08, 15:34:23
...
Dealing with potential only does not require electron rearrangement in every case.

A potential alone cannot provide energy. A potential is moreover arbitrarily fixed. We always need a potential difference.
The work of the electrostatic force is W=q.(Va-Vb). A charge must therefore go from a to b for energy to be supplied or consumed, which implies a current, a current being by definition a displacement of charges.

The easiest way to understand most systems is to break it down...

1)All energy is the capacity of "something" to perform Work.
2)Work is a function of a Force acting on something causing it to move through a Distance, move meaning motion.
3)Ergo, all energy and work relates to the present motion or change in motion of something... Energy is motion.

This applies to everything on every level so if we want to know where the Energy/work is we look for a Forces present then for the change in distance/motion of something. Some like to confuse everything with fancy terms, math and equations however these energy systems are not that difficult if we stick to the basics.

Here's a clue, Tesla implied the universe could be seen as mechanical in it's nature. We have material stuff, forces, motion and changes in motion. As such we could literally dispense with all the fancy scientific/electrical terminology and use basic mechanical ones.

Regards
AC

Thanks for sharing your insights folks. I do believe that if we are to 'harness the wheelwork of nature' then we can achieve significantly more if we work together as a team. You know, in an open collaborative fashion where we are free to share ideas without fear of predjudice or being greeted with derision. I think we sometimes forget that we are dealing with other humans who have feelings and emotions. We are all on the same side playing for the same team - humankind.

I'm still hard at work balancing family life with a full time job. I basically spend my early mornings researching and early evenings doing experiments. I only wish there were more hours in a day!

This is one of the ideas that I'm working on at the moment. I've also just had an epiphany about another idea, which I think might explain Don Smith's devices. I'll post another thread about that.

The task we should all be working on, is how to connect to the wheel-work of nature that Nikola Tesla spoke of, and convert energy therefrom.

Grumpy

QuoteThe task we should all be working on, is how to connect to the wheel-work of nature that Nikola Tesla spoke of, and convert energy therefrom.

"If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."... Nikola Tesla

I always found this quote strange because literally nobody I know thinks in these terms. Most are consumed with voltage, current and magnetic fields. Energy seldom if ever enters the equation and yet it is basically the only concept which matters.

Keep in mind this constitutes less than 1% of the population and everyone else has fossil fuels on there brains. The concept of electricity is completely foreign to most as is energy. So we could do some math, say 99% of the population doesn't really understand what electricity is and of the 1% that actually do few know how to understand it in the context of energy. Let alone in terms of energy, frequency and vibration as Tesla claims.

There's the problem, isn't it?. Which seems to explain why only a small fraction of 1% of people can even improve upon electrical devices and an even smaller fraction of them could go on to understand how to build a COP>1 device. Realistically were looking at 1% of 1% of 1% of the population which is basically on par with winning the lottery.

Regards
AC

Here's a thought experiment with some maths, inspired by reading some old Tesla patents.

Take one 1uF, 25V capacitor and build a circuit powered by a 12V battery. Assume 1 ohm resistance.

After 5 time constants the charge on the capacitor will be 99.3% of 12V, which is 11.916V.

One time constant is:

t = RC
t = 1 x 0.000001
t = 0.000001 seconds
5t = 0.000005 seconds = 5 microseconds

Therefore the capacitor will be charged to 11.916V after 5 microseconds.

The energy stored in a capacitor is:

E = (CV²) / 2
E = (0.000001 x 11.916²) / 2
E = 0.000070995528 J

There are 1,000,000 microseconds in a second, so we would be able to charge & discharge the capacitor 200,000 times per second.

Assuming we discharge the capacitor and recharge it cyclicly, making use of the stored energy, then after 1 second we would have accumulated:

200,000 Hz x 0.000070995528 J = 14.1991056 Watts (1 J per second is 1 Watt)

Now, consider that voltage is essentially free. It's relatively easy to generate extremely high voltages with extremely low currents.

If instead of 12V our circuit operated at 20,000V and our capacitor was rated at 20kV, then the calculation would look like this:

99.3% of 20kV = 19,860V

E = (CV²) / 2
E = (0.000001 x 19,860²) / 2
E = 197.2098 J

200,000 Hz x 197.2098 J = 39,441,960 Watts = 39.44196 Megawatts

If our circuit operated at 40,000V then the calculation would look like this:

99.3% of 40kV = 39,720V

E = (CV²) / 2
E = (0.000001 x 39,720²) / 2
E = 788.8392 J

200,000 Hz x 788.8392 J = 157,767,840 Watts = 157.767840 Megawatts

Here are some examples that I put together in the Falstad circuit simulator: https://tinyurl.com/23y9wzcj

It would probably be more efficient to only charge the capacitor to 1t, at which point it would be charged to 63.2% and then discharge at a rate 5x that of charging to 5t. There are diminishing returns from that point to 5t due to the shape of the curve on the graph.

Also, it would make sense to use an extremely small capacitance and charge & discharge many more times per second.

I heard that vibrating a capacitor when charging has interesting effects. That's something I need to try.

Can you check that joules to watts conversion?

197 joules per 1 second is only 197 watts (a sanity check)

Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.06.11, 00:34:28
Can you check that joules to watts conversion?

197 joules per 1 second is only 197 watts (a sanity check)

Of course. The key point to what I'm saying is that in the circuit above we can charge & discharge the 1uF capacitor 200,000 times per second.

If we are able to charge & discharge once every 5 microseconds, then because there are 200,000x 5 microsecond intervals in one second, then it follows that we can charge & discharge 200,000 times per second.

99.3% of 20kV = 19,860V

E = (CV²) / 2
E = (0.000001 x 19,860²) / 2
E = 197.2098 J < this is the energy per 5 microsecond interval

200,000 Hz x 197.2098 J = 39,441,960 Watts = 39.44196 Megawatts < this is the cumulative energy for a 1 second interval

1 Joule = 1 Watt/second

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule:
One joule can also be defined by any of the following:

• The work required to move an electric charge of one coulomb through an electrical potential difference of one volt, or one coulomb-volt (C⋅V). This relationship can be used to define the volt.
• The work required to produce one watt of power for one second, or one watt-second (W⋅s) (compare kilowatt-hour – 3.6 megajoules). This relationship can be used to define the watt.

Discharging a capacitor through a diode has an interesting effect. It's much faster to discharge it to 0.2t but then becomes much slower to discharge from that point.

From https://physics.uncg.edu/hellen/DiodeDecay.htm:

A charged capacitor initially discharges very quickly through a forward-biased diode.  However the diode current's nearly exponential dependence on voltage results in a drastic reduction in the rate of discharge.  Figure 1 clearly shows the transition in decay rate.

(https://i.ibb.co/pyDhT9L/Measured-voltage-decay-small-closed-symbols-vs-log-t-and-predicted-decay-large.png) (https://imgbb.com/)

Measured voltage decay for a 0.1 microf capacitor through a 1N4148 diode.  Initial voltage is 0.62 V.

Also https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233665312_Verifying_the_diode-capacitor_circuit_voltage_decay:

The voltage on a capacitor discharging through a forward biased diode is calculated from basic equations and is found to be in good agreement with experimental measurements. In contrast to the exponential time decay for a RC circuit, the nonlinear characteristics of the diode result in a nonexponential decay for the diode–capacitor circuit. For a silicon diode the decay is predominantly a logarithmic function of time.

If you charge a capacitor through an inductor then you can charge the capacitor to more than the source voltage and it also eliminates the 50% energy lost due to resistance / heat.

An interesting post on another forum discussing the discharging capacitor using diode method: https://modwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=209392

If you connect a diode reverse biased and pass a voltage through it that exceeds its breakdown voltage then the remainer of the voltage will effectively pass through the diode with an extremely small current initially, eventually becoming very large as the breakdown voltage is exceeded. The capacitor is charged fully before the diode has chance to pass significant current through because of the lag between the diode entering breakdown mode and it being able to conduct large currents, so very little current is used to charge the capacitor.

(https://i.ibb.co/BBn6KTD/Diode-current-wiki.png) (https://ibb.co/hVYd125)

Example circuit: https://tinyurl.com/22anry4r

Quote from: lfarrand on 2022.06.11, 05:02:31
99.3% of 20kV = 19,860V

E = (CV²) / 2
E = (0.000001 x 19,860²) / 2
E = 197.2098 J < this is the energy per 5 microsecond interval

200,000 Hz x 197.2098 J = 39,441,960 Watts = 39.44196 Megawatts < this is the cumulative energy for a 1 second interval

1 Joule = 1 Watt/second

Are you sure that Hz X J = W ?
Also, that cumulative energy figure, regardless of how it was determined, is not stored in the capacitor.

If you want to charge batteries and capacitors with what appears to be "free energy", you might investigate "cold current".  Start with Peter Lindemann's book (attached), the Eric Dollard video where he charges a cap from the top bulb of his Tesla coil, Tesla's radiant electricity patents, and anything else you can find on it.

Charging storage devices is interesting, but you eventually want to develop a rotating source of cold current with a mix of conventional current.  Spin it at high speed and build up energy from space, and actually connect to the wheelwork of nature.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.06.11, 13:53:44
Are you sure that Hz X J = W ?
Also, that cumulative energy figure, regardless of how it was determined, is not stored in the capacitor.

If you want to charge batteries and capacitors with what appears to be "free energy", you might investigate "cold current".  Start with Peter Lindemann's book (attached), the Eric Dollard video where he charges a cap from the top bulb of his Tesla coil, Tesla's radiant electricity patents, and anything else you can find on it.

Charging storage devices is interesting, but you eventually want to develop a rotating source of cold current with a mix of conventional current.  Spin it at high speed and build up energy from space, and actually connect to the wheelwork of nature.

Are you sure that Hz X J = W ?

To be precise it's Hz x J = W/s

I'd like to correct what I said earlier. I meant to say that it's 1 Watt = 1 Joule per second (1W = 1 J/s), not 1 Joule = 1 Watt/second.

Think about it another way. If I generate 1 Joule in 1 second then I've generated 1 Watt. If I generate 197.2098 J in 1 second then I've generated 197.2098 Watts. If I generate 197.2098 J in 5 microseconds and do this continuously, then I've generated 39,441,960 (197.2098 x (1,000,000 / 5)) Joules in 1 second.

Thanks for the pointers. I've already read Peter Lindemann's book and watched all of Eric Dollard's older videos where he replicates Tesla's work. I've also printed off all of Tesla's patents and I'm working through those now, along with his Colorado Springs notes.

Just so that I'm clear with my ultimate aim - what I'm planning to do is develop something that will provide just enough energy to satisfy the load. I suppose a good analogy is steaming videos vs downloading them and opening them locally. I'm not planning to store huge quantities of energy in capacitors or batteries. It'll probably have a small buffer to cope with transient above average demands, but otherwise I'm looking to generate on demand.

Quote from: lfarrand on 2022.06.10, 21:57:47
99.3% of 40kV = 39,720V

Just out of curiosity, have you ever tried working with voltages like 40KV ?

:)

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2022.06.11, 16:47:50
Just out of curiosity, have you ever tried working with voltages like 40KV ?

:)

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.  :)

I haven't worked with 40kV, but I have worked with 20kV. I know there are more challenges to overcome with voltages above 20kV, like corona discharge and insulation degredation.

In any case I don't think I'll need to use 40kV, it was just an illustration of the possibilities. I'll most likely stick to the 4kV-20kV range, to suit the ratings of the capacitors that I have.

Quote from: lfarrand on 2022.06.10, 21:57:47
...
Assuming we discharge the capacitor and recharge it cyclicly, making use of the stored energy, then after 1 second we would have accumulated:

200,000 Hz x 0.000070995528 J = 14.1991056 Watts (1 J per second is 1 Watt)

Now, consider that voltage is essentially free. It's relatively easy to generate extremely high voltages with extremely low currents.
...

Still wrong on the substance.
P=U.I . You can use as high voltages as you want, as U and I must be related for a given power, you gain nothing.

I have a high voltage power supply of 50 KV, 3 mA. Sure the current is low, but it still makes 150 W, the power it draws from the mains, and it's the same as if I had 5V and 30A.

I explained that the work of the electric force is W=q.(Va-Vb), so that obtaining a potential difference, therefore a voltage, is not free, and immediately after, you start to assert the same absurdity: "consider that voltage is essentially free". We don't have to consider that, we don't have to consider a completely false assertion, devoid of any scientific basis, a childish naivety. You should at least understand that you do not understand the basics of electromagnetism and that you have to learn them before talking about it like an inventor.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.06.13, 08:34:16
Still wrong on the substance.
P=U.I . You can use as high voltages as you want, as U and I must be related for a given power, you gain nothing.

I have a high voltage power supply of 50 KV, 3 mA. Sure the current is low, but it still makes 150 W, the power it draws from the mains, and it's the same as if I had 5V and 30A.

I explained that the work of the electric force is W=q.(Va-Vb), so that obtaining a potential difference, therefore a voltage, is not free, and immediately after, you start to assert the same absurdity: "consider that voltage is essentially free". We don't have to consider that, we don't have to consider a completely false assertion, devoid of any scientific basis, a childish naivety. You should at least understand that you do not understand the basics of electromagnetism and that you have to learn them before talking about it like an inventor.

Good grief F6, let the man present his thoughts and his experiment. You don't even know where he's going with this yet.
Please, wait for the results to speak for themselves before you heap your condescending disdain all over him.

Quote from: Cadman on 2022.06.13, 13:25:22
Good grief F6, let the man present his thoughts and his experiment.

This is what I do, Cadman.  I let him present his "thoughts", and I present mine on his point.

Quote
You don't even know where he's going with this yet.

You may not, but I do. It's very clear where he's going with this, he explained it and it's very simple. He wants to move charges thinking that it doesn't require energy if the current is low, even if the voltage is high. So he wants us to admit a priori something wrong, without presenting any reason why we should do it.

Quote
Please, wait for the results to speak for themselves before you heap your condescending disdain all over him.

Do you think he comes here to speak for himself, or to get feedback? When expressing yourself on a forum, you have to accept criticism, especially when it is detailed and factual as I take the trouble to do. When I come on a forum and I come across competent people, I am happy to learn from them. Of course for that, you have to come here also to listen, and to answer objections, not just to pretentiously show off with a miraculous scheme.

If the method is to congratulate each other for the slightest nonsense announced as a new idea when it is outdated and vain, it is no wonder that we still don't have free energy  C.C.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.06.13, 19:49:00

It's very clear where he's going with this, he explained it and it's very simple. He wants to move charges thinking that it doesn't require energy if the current is low, even if the voltage is high. So he wants us to admit a priori something wrong, without presenting any reason why we should do it.

You presume too much. You know his thoughts and can read his mind can you. You seize the slightest mis-statement and take a person to task for it in a most insulting manner.
BTW you left out the part about 'with extremely low currents' didn't you.

Quote
Do you think he comes here to speak for himself, or to get feedback?

I think he came here to show his work and get feedback and suggestions for improving what he does have, not to be condemned before he's even presented enough background for an informed opinion.

Quote
If the method is to congratulate each other for the slightest nonsense announced as a new idea when it is outdated and vain, it is no wonder that we still don't have free energy  C.C.

So sayeth the self appointed judge and jury. Describe his device! Give us the factual details of it so we can all see how wrong it is.

This is supposed to be a forum for research not just a forum for submitting completed experiments for peer review.

I think what has perhaps been somewhat disregarded here in the last answers is the recommendation from the study in reply #3, namely that:

Quote
* Voltage is a unit of "graduated field potential" that is referred to as potential and
electromotive force or emf. It is thought of as the force behind moving a mass of
electrons into current flow. "The unit of voltage however: does not define the force in
Newtons terms." Voltage however is used in the figuring of the voltage with the
charge (electron mass in units of coulombs) to obtain the force in Newtons. A voltage
difference hence, does indicate at all times, a "field force potential" calculable in
Newtons. The field forces are either of the positive polarity kind or of the negative
polarity kind and they can move mass all on their own without mechanical help.
Example: static electricity is able to move objects as well as shock people.

From: Stationary Field Generators.pdf in Reply #3

Of course current is needed to built up the initial voltage. After that, and this is the suggestion of the author of the study as an example in the electron tube configuration and then constructed with normal capacitors, this initial potential is able to rise free electrons from the ground and store it in the lower capacitor. There is a current flowing but this current is, according to the author, free.

Quote from: Cadman on 2022.06.13, 20:50:18
You presume too much. You know his thoughts and can read his mind can you....
I think he came here to show his work and get feedback and suggestions for improving what he does have, not to be condemned ...

The answer is just as absurd as the initial idea of moving charges without energy, to bring them to a position where one could draw energy.

The question is not to know what so-and-so thinks, we don't care about that for our purpose, but to analyze a scientific or technical proposal.
The proposal of lfarrand, even if it does not hold water, is rather clear and I understood it.

If I had not understood it, obviously I would not have criticized it, but I would have asked for clarification, since understanding must be the basis of an analysis. And if you or lfarrand think I didn't understand it, you have to say why and answer the objections I made. This is a common practice in science and it is what allows it to progress.

If you think you are in a religion where everyone should respect any belief of the others under the pretext that it is a belief, I don't see why you come on a technical forum to talk about electrons. Electrons are defined by physicists, they obey precise rules, otherwise they are not electrons anymore and they should be called something else and their properties should be given.

Nobody has to accept blindly opinions, which you seem to require. lfarrand made a public proposal of experiment, it is thus debatable and that is what I do.
I'm not condemning lfarand, contrary to what you say, I'm just saying that his idea is wrong, stemming from ignorance of what the charges are. The drift of your comments towards people issues is unhealthy. This is not a matter of people but of technical debate on a technical, and to say the least, basic issue.

I'm not asking Cadman to behave this way or that way, he does what he wants, and so do I. If you don't want to talk about the lfarand device, don't talk about it and let others talk about it if they want to.  Thank you

Quote from: Frederik2k1 on 2022.06.14, 07:35:30...
Of course current is needed to built up the initial voltage. After that, and this is the suggestion of the author of the study as an example in the electron tube configuration and then constructed with normal capacitors, this initial potential is able to rise free electrons from the ground and store it in the lower capacitor. There is a current flowing but this current is, according to the author, free.

The author talks about charge, and this object is scientifically defined. Moving charges in a potential difference provides or consumes energy, the laws of electromagnetism are very clear about this, so the current is not free.

Obviously, if the author was talking about magic electrons, everything is possible, but then we would prefer to see a demonstration rather than listen to his fairy tale.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.06.14, 07:50:13
The author talks about charge, and this object is scientifically defined. Moving charges in a potential difference provides or consumes energy

What's the COP of moving charges via UPS? :P ;D

Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.06.14, 15:16:51
What's the COP of moving charges via UPS? :P ;D

;D
It all depends on the potential of the handler!

If your UPS has lead acid batterys in it it will never be over unity only lose.

Something like this ? https://youtu.be/AThJ8qxVdGo?si=Qgnory2MwrUpN1y5 But in a solid state version and collection from the ground instead of atmosphere ?

Indeed, you can do nothing without amps  ;D unless you you just did something

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.06.14, 19:05:12
It all depends on the potential of the handler!

;D

@Ifarrand

Don't be discouraged by naysayers.

Your idea is very good!  O0

I encourage you to keep going. You will have Don Smith device.

It takes bravery to blaze new trails others have not.

Cheers,
wlw

Stanley Meyer finally wins?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HhBIg3rGv4
Technically this is abundant free energy.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2023.11.14, 01:01:57
Stanley Meyer finally wins?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HhBIg3rGv4
Technically this is abundant free energy.

Lets think about this!
In order to do that you need to create stress between two reference points
or you won't charge the cap with it, you cant have potential with out the reference or
its leakage in the local environment in Don Smiths case it was down to earth,
we live in a plasma based universe every thing is connected instant instantly and
speed of light is BS with in it.

Sil

That thing that you refere as plasma has been named as aether by Nikola Tesla and many others ... i don't mind if you need to call it different.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss speed of light, we are still use this reference to calculate the length of waves pp and looks ok for this. Even if I agree with you that there are some things faster than velocity of light.

And by the way, if you mention plasma as universal medium, do you consider that same equations applies to it as per Arie DeGeus explanations for aether and Bernoulli laws apply ?

Quote from: Classic on 2023.11.14, 13:20:36
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss speed of light, we are still use this reference to calculate the length of waves pp and looks ok for this. Even if I agree with you that there are some things faster than velocity of light.

Light does not 'travel'. It has no 'velocity'. Light is already EVERYWHERE.
It is omnipresent.

Light does however 'reproduce' from one wave-field to the next, like a Mexican wave. We live in a sexed electric universe.

Light is like your MIND, wherever you go... there is your mind.

Plz read Dr. Walter Russell's books. www.philosophy.org  O0

Cheers,
wlw

Quote from: whitelightningwizard on 2023.11.18, 12:56:38
Light does not 'travel'. It has no 'velocity'. Light is already EVERYWHERE.
It is omnipresent.

I'm not sure someone in a spacecraft halfway between this galaxy and the Andromeda would agree.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2023.11.18, 23:03:58
I'm not sure someone in a spacecraft halfway between this galaxy and the Andromeda would agree.

If they can travel between galaxies, they understand Light does not travel.  O0

Only advanced understanding of Light and cubic wave field mechanics would permit such circumstance.

We all live in a photosynthetic Universe of Gravity-controlled Light.

Cheers,
wlw

Quote from: whitelightningwizard on 2023.11.19, 01:01:27
If they can travel between galaxies, they understand Light does not travel.  O0

Only advanced understanding of Light and cubic wave field mechanics would permit such circumstance.

We all live in a photosynthetic Universe of Gravity-controlled Light.

Cheers,
wlw

I'm not sure you understand the difference between a belief and a scientifically establishable fact - a bit reminiscent of those looney tunes nutters during the pandemic.

....

Quote from: Paul-R on 2023.11.19, 10:26:44
I'm not sure you understand the difference between a belief and a scientifically establishable fact - a bit reminiscent of those looney tunes nutters during the pandemic.

All science came out of philosophy, since the early days of Democritis.

So question everything, even ur scientific facts.

What I have is a belief that Genius is self-bestowed and mediocrity is self-inflicted.  O0

Cheers,
wlw

Cut the wire , make a knot so the current cannot flow, yet the effect is the same

Quote from: forest on 2023.11.19, 14:55:59
Cut the wire , make a knot so the current cannot flow, yet the effect is the same

how come a jug element has to be coiled in order to boil water when submerged?

twisting any wire into a loop (just 1 turn) transforms a straight wire effect into a coil effect.

try figure 8 in wire.  O0

Cheers,
wlw

that was my response to  F6FLT . I checked Avramenko and it works exacly as stated - with broken wire

Quote from: whitelightningwizard on 2023.11.19, 15:09:11
how come a jug element has to be coiled in order to boil water when submerged?

twisting any wire into a loop (just 1 turn) transforms a straight wire effect into a coil effect.

try figure 8 in wire.  O0

Cheers,
wlw

Hi,

@lfarrand,

Yes, that is correct. The formulas you mentioned are commonly used in calculations involving capacitors. Capacitors store energy in the form of an electric field between two conductive plates, and the amount of energy stored depends on the capacitance and voltage.

When charging a capacitor, the time it takes to fully charge depends on the product of the resistance and capacitance. This is known as the time constant. However, it's important to note that in the charging process, the current flowing into the capacitor gradually decreases over time.

When a capacitor discharges, the energy stored in it is released, and this energy is equal to the total charge in joules. One joule is equivalent to one watt-second, which is a unit of power multiplied by time.

It is indeed possible to extract amps from a charged capacitor. When a circuit is connected to a charged capacitor, the stored energy is released, and current flows through the circuit. The current will depend on the resistance in the circuit and the voltage across the capacitor. It's worth noting that during the charging process, the current is not constant and decreases as the capacitor charges up.

check - https://youtu.be/EBfZCAab59Y

Regards

Here is a clue...
Question to ChatGPT: what is a magnetic field made of?

Answer:

QuoteA magnetic field is not made of a physical substance; rather, it is a property of space that arises due to the motion of charged particles. In classical physics, the magnetic field is described by the concept of a "field" – a region in space where a force can be exerted on a charged particle.

The fundamental cause of a magnetic field is the motion of charged particles, such as electrons. When charged particles move, they generate a magnetic field around them.

For some time I have rejected the terms magnetism and magnetic field because there meaningless and irrelevant.

As the definition above explains, the effect is a property of space and only arises due to the motion of charged particles. When a charged particle (electric field carrier) moves it disturbs the surrounding electric fields producing a motional electric field aka magnetism. In fact, the term magnetic field was invented by Huygens/Faraday because they were clueless as to what it was (a spooky action at a distance) similar to today. However now we know space is not empty it's full of smaller particles called virtual particles aka Aether, dark matter/energy etc... .

Consider the facts.
1) There is no magnetism in a material or matter and the effect is determined solely by charged particle spin and orbits. In fact, the spin/orbit describes forms of motion ie. motional electric fields.

2)There is no magnetism is space, the translation of the effect is basically unknown and all we really know is that an electric field moved somewhere and said motion produced a force on something else in another place. It can be explained by a motional electric field and the notion of magnetism is irrelevant.

An electric field moved, said motion displaced the surrounding electric fields in space, this displacement produces a force on another electric field. As such the effect called magnetism is not required and is kind of absurd when we think about it. It's like saying an orange is just an orange but if it moves it magically becomes an apple. Why the obsession with imaginary magnetic fields?, there is no logic or reason in it in my opinion.

AC

The vernaculars available to people X00 years ago would not have included a way to describe simply, and definitely not specifically, what it is that makes a PN junction of todays devices function, because they had no exposure to it.

However, were the relevant information gifted to the right mind at the time (use your imagination)
I suspect it would theoretically be possible to have them conjure their own interpretation of the mechanism / process / article in mention.

Had da Vinci been shown and explained the sintering process behind modern magnet production persay, in a way he could digest - I don't doubt he could have made his own, or at least produced a viable sketch on how to go about it manufacturing usefully potent units as we have to hand today,

In other words and without analogy. It should be possible for those in the know to acutely convey the "thing" that makes a given system work in the systematically jumbled yet highly functional mess that is the English language (persay)

We don't see this, rather, further obfuscations of said SIMPLICITY which is at the core of even the most complex devices.
Just 404 errors,
one after another.

We can learn from what we know we are not privy to, just as we learn from failed experiments.

Excelsior

QuoteIn other words and without analogy. It should be possible for those in the know to acutely convey the "thing" that makes a given system work in the systematically jumbled yet highly functional mess that is the English language (persay)

We don't see this, rather, further obfuscations of said SIMPLICITY which is at the core of even the most complex devices.
Just 404 errors,
one after another.

It's complicated, for example Alfred Hubbard invented a working FE device when he was 16. He claimed to have received the tech from Nikola Tesla while working as his bus boy. An engineer named Lester Hendershot living in the same city also developed a similar device. It's said Hendershot saw Hubbard device which is where he got the idea.

Edwin Gray also claimed he bought his tech off a Russian who also claimed to have received the tech from Tesla. Gray had no idea how it worked but a friend with electrical experience modified the tech to run a motor, aka the gray motor. When his friend died the tech died with him and apparently gray had no idea how it worked.

My research seems to conclude that the majority of these supposed FE inventors were given or borrowed the idea from other people and had little idea how it actually worked or where the energy came from. As such they could not give what they did not possess in the first place which is an understanding of the technology.

It's easy to understand why the technology is so elusive. It's not what you see it's what you do not. The device is just a bunch of coils of wire, iron cores and switches but that is not what makes it work. The process is based on the motion of charged particles as an electric current and the fields associated with said current, the unseen. How can one describe what they cannot see and choose not to understand?...

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.12.21, 23:13:58
An electric field moved, said motion displaced the surrounding electric fields in space, this displacement produces a force on another electric field. As such the effect called magnetism is not required and is kind of absurd when we think about it. It's like saying an orange is just an orange but if it moves it magically becomes an apple. Why the obsession with imaginary magnetic fields?, there is no logic or reason in it in my opinion.

I would not call it an "obsession" because one is the other side of the other as in the proverbial coin.
Permanent magnets exist and they can be moved to generate electric fields, too ...or even electromagnetic waves when they are moved quickly.

You have correctly noticed that motion is a significant factor here.  I have noticed it too ~30 years ago and after thinking rigorously about it for a while, I have come to the conclusion that what we call electric, magnetic and gravitational vector fields can be be explained solely in terms of it. Matter, too  ...but that would require an entirely separate thread and I am not sure whether a rigorous discussion about it would be welcomed on this forum as it might be too theoretical.

Verpies

QuoteI would not call it an "obsession" because one is the other side of the other as in the proverbial coin.
Permanent magnets exist and they can be moved to generate electric fields, too ...or even electromagnetic waves when they are moved quickly.

The currently accepted theory is that the Primary Fields E, B, G are made of virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes. The people proposing this theory are not quacks they are the best and brightest physicists on the planet. If this accepted theory is true then who knows what is possible and nothing is as it seems. So it's a little more complicated than "permanent magnets exist".

If as the topic implies, FE is simple, then it could be as simple as finding some way or means to make the supposed virtual particles pop into existence a little longer than expected. I think it's pretty cool the currently accepted theories could explain where FE comes from. I mean, if the most intelligent people on the planet claim in effect all fields oscillate in and out of existence then what isn't possible?.

AC

As we know induction is created by a moving magnetic, or an alternating magnetic field. If you combine an electric field and a magnetic field you would say you gain an electro magnetic field as in RF.

You may say where am I going with this, latter I will try to explain, but first think of the electric field between capacitor plates which is encircled by another plate which is both inductive and capacitive.

Regards

Mike

Quote from: Centraflow on 2023.12.24, 09:00:19
As we know induction is created by a moving magnetic, or an alternating magnetic field. If you combine an electric field and a magnetic field you would say you gain an electro magnetic field as in RF.

Their explicit combining is not needed since one creates the other in an alternate fashion.
All that is needed to create such RF wave is to move or change one. The quicker, the better.

See this video (https://youtu.be/NB2AP7jvqvA).
More here (https://www.youtube.com/@ElectromagnetismAnim/videos).

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.12.24, 08:43:07
The currently accepted theory is that the Primary Fields E, B, G are made of virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes.

I am not a proponent of that theory even if it is the one preferred by the mainstream scientists.
Also, parallel universes are not necessary to explain E, B, G forces, space, time and matter, IMO.

Quote from: verpies on 2023.12.24, 09:11:42
Their explicit combining is not needed since one creates the other in an alternate fashion.
All that is needed to create such RF wave is to move or change one. The quicker, the better.

See this video (https://youtu.be/NB2AP7jvqvA).
More here (https://www.youtube.com/@ElectromagnetismAnim/videos).

That is correct, but the point is, alternating or moving fields, the latter are what is needed to create an induced current, and of course, an alternating field also can induce a current. Take the north pole of a magnet and slide it down a copper or aluminum plate, right, it is inducing a current from the moving magnetic field, the equal and opposing field created, by eddy currents within the plate. These currents if generated within a closed loop can be huge.

Regards

Mike

Alternating fields produce AC and moving fields produce DC, the latter is what I am going to concentrate on, DC.

The faster you can move that field the greater the induced voltage and current into whatever medium you have.

In multi-plate electrolysis cells, you normally have neutral plates (not connected directly), but in electrolysis, you have a liquid electrolyte where the ions in the electrolyte create this connection. In a capacitor (AC) there is no electrolyte, but in a multi-plate capacitor you can have neutral plates by connecting via a diode to the ground, only electrons collect on that plate.

I hope you are starting to get an idea of where I am going with this. The NEUTRAL plate in this capacitor is an electron trap that can accumulate electron current.

This accumulated current, which has been induced by a moving magnetic field (DC) is part of a capacitor that accumulates (receives) electron current, and can also discharge this current back into the circuit.

If there is no load on the circuit, it ticks over, if a load is connected the current supplied will be subject to the load resistance, but effectively infinite current could be supplied, as in a dead short.

Run out of time atm.

Merry Christmas to all, and an interesting new year.

Mike