For the past couple of years, I have been happily generating a couple of watts "ou" unverified by peers.
I listened to Lagace and tried something and I got 4 watts. Unverified by anyone. OK, so it's time to get serious.
In order to understand Lagace, you have to understand electrostatics. Especially electrostatic induction as applied to capacitors.
There is no ou. The term is itself misleading. The term cop>1 would be more appropriate.
1 Have a really good look at his latest video and poke as many holes in it as you can.
2 What I need is a simple circuit that uses a cheap frequency generator to switch a circuit on and off. That's it. Has anyone got a schematic? I have various transistors and a few cheap Chinese frequency generators.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c7llvTjlwQ
You're saying that you have reproduced Joel's work and it is worth spending a few hundred dollars on super caps to pursue this experiment? Can you elaborate on what your experimental setup was?
Thanks,
Dave
Hi Dave.
I'm not sure that any great expenditure is necessary.... As I see it he is discharging a large value capacitor into an empty one of the same value via a transformer winding. ( using a simple electronic switch)
The secondary winding is charging up a large capacity capacitor bank. Surely any value of capacitance would suffice? After the pair have reached equilibrium a note of voltage and current passed through a known resistance will give the final value for the energy transfer.
Have I missed something important Guys??
Cheers Graham.
Joel says that he's tried it with conventional electrolytic caps but only had success with the super caps. I have loads of large bus caps from old VFD's that I have repaired but haven't set up the experiment due to his statement.
Dave
I don't remember Joel saying that ordinary caps don't work. My take was that ordinary caps don't appear to give much energy and are hard to quantify.
I'll give more details about my experiment in a bit.
My advice, based on years of experiments, is to set up a capacitor bank and use that.
When you pulse caps, at least one thing will happen. This has been verified independently by Grumage and me.
We both have or had a setup where once the device was shut down, it would not! and kept running for ten minutes or so!
This is because the dielectric absorption of the caps was supercharged. Both of us run or ran spark gaps!
I think Grum has dismantled his setup, but, based on his discoveries I have modified mine, and was able to delete a troublesome thyristor.
As Elon Musk says - good engineering is when you can delete a component, because there is no cost and no possibility of failure.
That is the starting point to note.
Now I need a simple circuit that uses a frequency generator to drive a transistor to use as an on-off switch.
Look guys, this is the start. Kapanadze uses exactly the same principle.
Number 2:
Joel says that intercepting the wiring with a trafo enables you to harvest energy that does not conventionally load the trafo.
It is seen by the circuit as a system loss. He recommends that the trafo is less than 4 ohms.
I tried it and it works.
So, one way of looking at it is you are tapping into a reactive current circuit with a slight resistance (less than 4 ohms) but getting real power out of it without loading the circuit.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.02.08, 20:53:34
For the past couple of years, I have been happily generating a couple of watts "ou" unverified by peers.
I listened to Lagace and tried something and I got 4 watts. Unverified by anyone. OK, so it's time to get serious.
In order to understand Lagace, you have to understand electrostatics. Especially electrostatic induction as applied to capacitors.
There is no ou. The term is itself misleading. The term cop>1 would be more appropriate.
1 Have a really good look at his latest video and poke as many holes in it as you can.
2 What I need is a simple circuit that uses a cheap frequency generator to switch a circuit on and off. That's it. Has anyone got a schematic? I have various transistors and a few cheap Chinese frequency generators.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c7llvTjlwQ
1. first hole to poke is, what is the actual value of the caps in the small bowl. we can read the value of caps A and B, but not C.i
2. the transformer. if cap A is pulsed to cap B through the transformers secondary(2v rating) and the primary (110v if not 220v) winding ouputing to cap C, then i fail to see enough current getting to the 3rd cap in order to charge 'higher' than cap A began with. i can only see this happening if caps C is of a much lower value than cap A and B.
mags
but, i would like to see your angle on this.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.09, 20:13:56
but, i would like to see your angle on this.
mags
I am not using Joel's system, but a variation of Duncan's when he told us about charging a battery from the mains.
I am aware that battery behavior is unpredictable because there are chemical processes involved. Also, a battery can die unexpectedly.
However, I have seen enough to encourage further experimentation.
My only meter used is a mains wattmeter. Constantly registering zero draw. I'll show a pic when I've time.
But, when you put Joel's experiments, together with Kapanadze's schematic, it all starts to make more sense.
ie Where is the energy coming from?
We all know that capacitors charge up by themselves.
My take is that this is a form of electrostatic induction.
Now.... one pulse is not useful energy.
But.. a hundred million pulses a second?
Kapanadze constantly told me that his system relied on high frequency. So the puzzle starts to make sense.
Now have another look at a simplified version of Kapanadze's circuit. I have removed the start-up sequence that consisted of a switching system.
Instead of focusing on the coil side, have a look at
l1, which is where the initial "magic" happens. There, staring at you is the
capacitor and high-frequency generator!I am sure that we have all looked at Kapanadze videos intensely. Have you ever seen his capacitor and high-frequency generator?
He may have had a big cap hanging around in his first video but it was not on the table.
My opinion is that a focus on both the coils and Tesla was classic misdirection to protect the secret.
Incidentally, the voltages are my guess in the schematic.
Now add to the fact that Don Smith spilled the beans before he died and talked about caps getting energy from the electric background through electrostatic induction, and the puzzle has even more evidence.
So, where do Joel's revelations fit in? He is essentially telling us where the energy is coming from. It is up to us to figure out a circuit.
So, has anyone got a good schematic for a frequency generator-controlled on-off switch?
in his vid of the 2 caps, A and B, both the same value, and caps C in the bowl, of which we cannot say for sure its value, he is not using high freq at i think 75% duty. if the vid is legit, he is not implying high freq as you speak of, 100mhz. i have that sig gen he has in the vid. 150k max, and not so square up in the freq above 100k. but good for general lower freq stuff.
electrostatic induction. without knowing what it is yet, i imagine multi plate caps, with more than 2 leads off of it.. what is your version of it?
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.10, 05:08:26
in his vid of the 2 caps, A and B, both the same value, and caps C in the bowl, of which we cannot say for sure its value, he is not using high freq at i think 75% duty. if the vid is legit, he is not implying high freq as you speak of, 100mhz. i have that sig gen he has in the vid. 150k max, and not so square up in the freq above 100k. but good for general lower freq stuff.
electrostatic induction. without knowing what it is yet, i imagine multi plate caps, with more than 2 leads off of it.. what is your version of it?
mags
AAh, well here's the thing. If you charge one plate of a capacitor, the environment charges the other plate for free.
By putting a charge on a plate, you create an imbalance in nature.
Re Lagace. Yes he's getting good results, and I think we should replicate those. But better will come at a higher frequency, but we have to start somewhere.
It also appears that if you ground the uncharged plate it works better. If you think about it, in an on-off situation, you are only ever pulsing one side.
Put it this way, I think it is the best lead we have ever had that gives us a path to figuring out ou.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azDFR5RwVkA
Now if we can turn the grounding on and off cheaply, what do you think will happen?
In the following video I show you what happens when you repeatedly pulse a capacitor bank. In this case, I was using a spark gap as the on-off switch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBR2tOTsyfg
does it cost anything to charge the 1 plate?
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.10, 18:57:34
does it cost anything to charge the 1 plate?
mags
Of course, the first time. If you pulse the ground on and off then in theory you should get charges from the environment.
I''m only quoting Don Smith, Rick Friedrich, Lagace and others.
All I can suggest is to try it and find out. That's what we should be doing on this forum anyway.
My understanding is that if you pulse one side, the environment gives back an equivalent amount, so then it is up to
you to configure a circuit.
The modus operandi is electrostatic induction, which is generally overlooked in electronic engineering as a potential energy source.
Yet I'm sure we've all experienced an unexpected static shock at some point in our lives.
as i was thinking earlier, say we had a 4 plate cap and 2 plates in the middle as the output cap and 2 plates on the outer side, like a 4 layer sandwich. so the outer plates, well insulated dielectric, having constant charge maintained, given their close proximity to each inner plate, would electrostatically induce the inner plates. so we take the charge from the inner plates to a load, output, and let it recharge because of the outer plates constant charge, as the outer plates never actually discharge. dunno. sounds feasible. if we have a diode across the middle cap that allows electrons to be shifted from one plate to the other during the induction. does that make sense?
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.11, 00:36:49
as i was thinking earlier, say we had a 4 plate cap and 2 plates in the middle as the output cap and 2 plates on the outer side, like a 4 layer sandwich. so the outer plates, well insulated dielectric, having constant charge maintained, given their close proximity to each inner plate, would electrostatically induce the inner plates. so we take the charge from the inner plates to a load, output, and let it recharge because of the outer plates constant charge, as the outer plates never actually discharge. dunno. sounds feasible. if we have a diode across the middle cap that allows electrons to be shifted from one plate to the other during the induction. does that make sense?
mags
Yes, there are many ways to tame this science. In his first patent, Kapanadze uses a three-plate capacitor!
I've just remembered he once told me he would have to make one component himself.
I don't like a dielectric if it is: as in an electrolytic capacitor. An electrolytic capacitor behaves more like a battery in that it passes current.
The choice of a well insulated dielectric has to also be considered because many of them have either a positve or negative charge.
That is where the science gets a little complicated. But not hard. It just needs a bit of research; that is very easy these days.
So obviously the type of caps used in this research have to be more thoroughly researched.
A good reference point is that the earth ground appears to be negative.
Also remember that attaching a diode will transmit charge on the outside of the diode and can act as a short. So the diode has to be turned on and off at the very minimum. Remember static behaves very differently from Kirchhoff's laws.
If you take a good look at the Kapanadze device in Aquarium 2 you will see that he isolates the static side from the electricity transmission side.
I think you've understood the science, and good luck. Don't give up.
Here is Lagace's schematic and video still.
Based on his comments here is the analysis.
Power used 1.96 - 1.78 = 0.18 volts at 500 F = 1/2 C.Vsq = 8.1 joules or .00225 watts
Power received = 2.51 @10000F = 31,500 joules or 8.75 watts
I question the size of his receiving capacitors, but still food for thought.
If anyone knows the capacitors used - that would be useful information.
Of course, we haven't included the power used by his function generator although there will be some switching losses from the transistor.
I have modified to include a revised schematic
Have at it - and constructive criticisms are welcome.
Please note: I have modified the original schematic to include the bridge rectifier
one thing about the 4 caps. the size of the 2 single caps is 5F, but the 4 caps if you look, they are in series.??? if the value of the 4pack is suppose to be 10F, then each, being smaller in size than the 5F caps, would have to be 40F each..... series caps lower the total capacitance, parallel increases it. so im really not trusting that. 40F would be much larger than he has there. but im still interested in what you present here.. ;)
mags
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.02.11, 22:17:18
Power used 1.96 - 1.78 = 0.18 volts at 500 F = 1/2 C.Vsq = 8.1 joules or .00225 watts
You can't linearly take the difference between the starting and finishing voltage of the primary cap. Since energy stored in the capacitor is a function of the square of the voltage, you would have to calculate it like this: (1.96V^2 - 1.78V^2)*500/2 = 168.3 J
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.12, 00:51:03
one thing about the 4 caps. the size of the 2 single caps is 5F, but the 4 caps if you look, they are in series.??? if the value of the 4pack is suppose to be 10F, then each, being smaller in size than the 5F caps, would have to be 40F each..... series caps lower the total capacitance, parallel increases it. so im really not trusting that. 40F would be much larger than he has there. but im still interested in what you present here.. ;)
mags
The two caps are 500F each and then he claims the charge recovery cap bank is a set of 10000F which is ambiguous verbiage. He needs to show his values on camera. I have a hard time believing he is getting an energy increase of 31500J/168.3J = 187 COP. I'll be following along this thread but won't be putting a lot of energy into this myself unless someone can show that it is worth it.
Dave
Quote from: web000x on 2025.02.12, 01:46:59
You can't linearly take the difference between the starting and finishing voltage of the primary cap. Since energy stored in the capacitor is a function of the square of the voltage, you would have to calculate it like this: (1.96V^2 - 1.78V^2)*500/2 = 168.3 J
The two caps are 500F each and then he claims the charge recovery cap bank is a set of 10000F which is ambiguous verbiage. He needs to show his values on camera. I have a hard time believing he is getting an energy increase of 31500J/168.3J = 187 COP. I'll be following along this thread but won't be putting a lot of energy into this myself unless someone can show that it is worth it.
Dave
Some calculation revisions.
Chat GPT suggested they may be 10,000F supercaps (Photo enclosed)
4 in series gives us 2,500 F @2.51 volts = 6,275J or 2.1875 watts
However, there was energy recovery in cap bPrimary cap a = 168.3 J - secondary cap b ie 10% loss? say (- 18) = 150 J therefore
net consumption = 18.3 J
So, revised figures give a
net input of 18.3 J
Output Power received = 6,275 J or 2.1875 watts
Net COP 342
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.02.12, 03:49:08
However, there was energy recovery in cap b
Primary cap a = 168.3 J - secondary cap b ie 10% loss? say (- 18) = 150 J therefore net consumption = 18.3 J
You would need to know the start and finish voltage of that second 500F capacitor to make any meaningful calculations in that regard.
lol. yeah i messed up the values. when i do sims on this, i use smaller values and get quicker results.
thanks for pointing that out. my mistake. but still, either values, it doesnt look good.
but the electrostatic induction has my attn.
mags
having trouble finding caps 10,000f. just see web sites claiming graphene caps back in 2015.
those 500f caps are big in comparison to the alleged 10,000f caps. but if they make them, i want one. O0
mags
This might be the capacitor he was using for the charge receiving bank. It comes in various capacities including 10KF.
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/new-technology-500f-1000f-3000f-5000f_1600129821347.html?gQT=1 (https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/new-technology-500f-1000f-3000f-5000f_1600129821347.html?gQT=1)
Edit: Upon looking more closely, the radial package depicted in the image doesn't seem to be available in a 10KF size. It says the package is a snap in style at that capacity. However, the radial package does look similar to what he was using in the bowl so maybe he is just using a smaller capacity.
it would take 20 500f caps to equal 1 of those smaller ones
mags
Quote from: web000x on 2025.02.12, 04:14:43
You would need to know the start and finish voltage of that second 500F capacitor to make any meaningful calculations in that regard.
I agree. But as a back-of-the-envelope calculation, the only thing that matters is that we are getting energy out of the background environment.
And that this input is in useable quantities.
Also, when analyzing Don Smith, Kapanadze, or any other of the "OU" claimants, one cannot rely on Kirchhoff's or Ohm's law only.
We have to account for input from the environment. In my video, I and Graham have proved beyond any doubt that this is a fact.
And that this energy is in the form of useable quantities. I can demonstrate this fact anytime. The device is in my room right now.
It works every time. Every single time.
I think we should get Joel on this forum and thank him for highlighting the effect.
He may not know how it works, but we do.
That in my opinion is a breakthrough.
Here's the circuit diagram. Once you replicate it you'll be convinced.
Just remember to turn it off once the caps have been conditioned. Conditioning may take several hours.
Be careful when you turn it off because it is still charging up the caps in lethal quantities from the background environment.
Incidentally, I have just looked at Kapanadze's first patent with the three-pate capacitor and now understand it.
Thank you to Joel, for providing the evidence.
Modification: You don't need a three gap spark gap to prove the tchnology. Just ignore the lead leading to the third spark gap connection.
I have modified my previous post.
Kapanadze's 1st patent explained:
Here we have Kapanadze's three-plate capacitor.
Focus on that. I have labeled the three terminals A B and C.
1st Phase: Terminals A and B are pulsed using both a frequency generator and a spark gap.
They are pulsed Lagace style.
(The third plate receives energy from electrostatic induction and is used in conjunction with plate B to form the feedback circuit.)
2nd Phase: Terminals B and C are used to feed back into the circuit.
Safeguard: A safeguard against "runaway" is provided by the spark gap.
Have at it.
None of this will work in Spice or any other program because the understanding of how a capacitor works is flawed.
The voltages are my guestimates based on the available evidence.
All the other components in the circuit are to tame the power to comply with modern electronic equipment requirements.-
such as 50 hz and 220 volts in Europe. For the US it has to be different.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-does-a-third-plate-affect-capacitance-in-a-3-plate-capacitor.592090/
mags
you said Kap said he had to make a component, assuming the cap. did he say if it was made of wire, like a bifi or trifi?
mags
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.02.10, 07:04:21
AAh, well here's the thing. If you charge one plate of a capacitor, the environment charges the other plate for free.
By putting a charge on a plate, you create an imbalance in nature.
Re Lagace. Yes he's getting good results, and I think we should replicate those. But better will come at a higher frequency, but we have to start somewhere.
It also appears that if you ground the uncharged plate it works better. If you think about it, in an on-off situation, you are only ever pulsing one side.
Put it this way, I think it is the best lead we have ever had that gives us a path to figuring out ou.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azDFR5RwVkA
Now if we can turn the grounding on and off cheaply, what do you think will happen?
In the following video I show you what happens when you repeatedly pulse a capacitor bank. In this case, I was using a spark gap as the on-off switch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBR2tOTsyfg
I appreciate your sharing with us, Aking.21.
The schematic you provide for the Lagace video is clear - and not complex.
Have you replicated it yet? Anyone? (Im waiting for high-capacitance super-caps to arrive....)
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2025.02.14, 00:41:27
I appreciate your sharing with us, Aking.21.
The schematic you provide for the Lagace video is clear - and not complex.
Have you replicated it yet? Anyone? (Im waiting for high-capacitance super-caps to arrive....)
I have not started to replicate legace, but I am learning about the induction side, and it's a little weird.
For example, when working with mains, nothing on an ne2 shows up until you earth it say to a battery-negative terminal or your body.
This means that the electrons from my body were forming the negative part of the electrostatic induction into the circuit
I don't want to use mains earth wire as in the UK the neutral is earthed. It's actually very dangerous to the uninitiated, which is another reason
to keep it on a private forum. I am already on my third fuse. lol
It may explain why Kapandze was hunting for good earthing in one of his early videos.
I do have some supercaps at 2600F each, but have not used them yet.
As a thought. If you use one of those mains detector screwdrivers, it just has to be a similar situation.
Thanks, Aking.21...
Another question I have regards the frequency generator.
1- Is it really operating at just 26.2 Hz?
also-
2- Does the transistor permit current to pass (thru the transformer), with just the +signal from the freq. generator applied to the Base? as suggested by your intriguing schematic.
"Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?"
with super caps, i dont suggest putting 1kv charge... even 1 plate, may breach the caps very low voltage barrier. suppose that might be a test to initially try to see if it can handle it.
i did some work with small 1.2kv neon transformers from older scanners and some Av plug on caps. if we need to produce the hv at a cost either way, wouldnt an av plug be all we need?
mags
i have a bunch of blue dipped caps. im going to put an av plug and the neon trafo and another av plug in reverse on the cap leads and tie that to gnd. will run the 12v input of the neon trafo from a batt pack and see if the cap charges faster. if the neon trafo pulls more input, 1 wire to av plug, then we have to consider capacitance, currents through the air itself. never thought to have the reverse av plug to gnd, so gotta try now. simple to setup.
mags
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2025.02.14, 05:20:01
Thanks, Aking.21...
Another question I have regards the frequency generator.
1- Is it really operating at just 26.2 Hz?
also-
2- Does the transistor permit current to pass (thru the transformer), with just the +signal from the freq. generator applied to the Base? as suggested by your intriguing schematic'
According to Lagace, he tried it by hand and it worked. So after getting tired, he automated it as per my experiment reconstruction.
I talked to Grum about the transistor device and his opinion was that transistor switching would lose some power, rather than put a gain into the circuit.
Maybe Gyula would like to comment as he is the expert in these matters.
I am not sure about the switching device schematic. I looked at the video, and it looked like that. It was certainly not operating a relay.
He mentions that he uses a cheap Chinese frequency generator to control a transistor switch.
You could trigger the transistor by the frequency generator registering high (square wave) and switch the transistor off by the fg registering low. You would need a 1k ohm resistor for the base of the transistor. It all depends on the type of transistor. I intend to build one next to see what happens. A good simple diagram from someone more experienced in circuit design would help us all.
I looked at the video, and it looks like 26.2 Hz. Lagace said he tried a few different frequencies.
2 Yes the current passes through the transformer. Hence the varying magnetic field. It is pulsed DC. I believe.
Hi Guys.
I mentioned the fact that there's inherent resistance losses using semiconductors for switching....
EDIT. As we don't know how his switch is wired ( is the semiconductor fully isolated? ) There's always a possibility that the capacitor is getting some energy from the drive circuitry.
Now, to the super caps. May I take you back here. https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4429.msg103940#msg103940
The capacitor bank contains 5x 2.7 V capacitors wired in series and was rated for 13.5 V. @ 40F if you follow on the vendor replaced the faulty bank. Well, today I found the faulty unit and was extremely surprised to find it still had over 11Volts standing and was able to light a 12 volt incandescent bulb until fully discharged.
I'm hoping that my son will be over at the weekend to help me with a couple of simple tests. Putting an ammeter between a fully charged capacitor and an empty one will be an interesting first step.
Cheers Graham.
car amplifiers use multiple transistors in parallel to reduce the resistance.
mags
Hi Aking and Graham,
Indeed, using semiconductors for switching involves some loss in power. But the loss can be kept at a relatively low level. Consider the equivalent series DC
resistance of supercapacitors (500 F range), it ranges from about 2 to 5 milliOhm, depending on the make and the manufacturer.
By a random search, this type has 3.1 milliOhm equivalent DC resistance: https://handsontec.com/index.php/product/500f2-7v-super-capacitor-solder-tab-terminal/ (https://handsontec.com/index.php/product/500f2-7v-super-capacitor-solder-tab-terminal/)
When the switch is on, the DC resistances of the two caps in Joel's circuit are added up from the current flow point of view and consider to add the winding resistance of the 2 V transformer coil,
it may be in a similar range.
So roughly speaking, the total DC resistance in the closed circuit may amount to say an average of 10 milliOhms or so, not counting the ON resistance of the switch yet.
Using a power MOSFET like this https://www.mouser.co.uk/datasheet/2/196/Infineon_IRF1324_DataSheet_v01_01_EN-3362809.pdf (https://www.mouser.co.uk/datasheet/2/196/Infineon_IRF1324_DataSheet_v01_01_EN-3362809.pdf) it has a typical ON resistance of 1.2 milliOhm,
max 1.5 milliOhm. Here for instance it can be purchased: https://www.mouser.co.uk/ProductDetail/Infineon-Technologies/IRF1324PBF?qs=2r01AXMCG3Nmd46Swuw5wA%3D%3D (https://www.mouser.co.uk/ProductDetail/Infineon-Technologies/IRF1324PBF?qs=2r01AXMCG3Nmd46Swuw5wA%3D%3D)
Now consider the total DC resistance involved in Joel's closed circuit: it is around 11.2 milliOhm and now you know this depends much on the components used.
If you charge up supercapacitor C1 to say 2 VDC and C2 and the other caps are fully empty, the initial peak current at the switch-on moment would be 2 V / 11.2 milliOhm = 178 Amper (peak current).
This warrants the use of the MOSFET type I refer to above with heat sink like Joel used. OF course there are many similarly rated power MOSFETs to choose from.
So from this example, you can see the power loss of the suggested switch is the smallest, compared to the rest of the other circuit elements.
Will draw a circuit schema tomorrow. The cheap frequency generator can be like this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/404347009846 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/404347009846)
A question to you both: In Joel's video https://youtu.be/0c7llvTjlwQ?t=2 (https://youtu.be/0c7llvTjlwQ?t=2) there is a black cylinder glued to his board, it looks like for me as a HV module like this
https://www.ebay.com/itm/314779472132 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/314779472132)
BUT as I can see in the video, the wires of this module are NOT connected to the rest of the circuit, hence no high voltage field
can be present as an additional energy source IF the presence of such field is a must to have the extra high output.
How you can see this I wonder. I pose this question because I do not know whether to include the HV module in the schematic and where to connect its wires?
Gyula
I am having difficulty responding. I can't send the diagram. I keep getting an error message.
It's this one: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg114600#msg114600
Quote from: gyula on 2025.02.15, 23:21:42
Hi Aking and Graham,
A question to you both: In Joel's video https://youtu.be/0c7llvTjlwQ?t=2 (https://youtu.be/0c7llvTjlwQ?t=2) there is a black cylinder glued to his board, it looks like for me as a HV module like this
https://www.ebay.com/itm/314779472132 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/314779472132)
BUT as I can see in the video, the wires of this module are NOT connected to the rest of the circuit, hence no high voltage field
can be present as an additional energy source IF the presence of such field is a must to have the extra high output.
How you can see this I wonder. I pose this question because I do not know whether to include the HV module in the schematic and where to connect its wires?
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
We don't need the HV module as it is not used in the demonstration by Lagace.
I have the same cheap function generator as in the video.
I have a pretty good idea of how to wire it but don't want to destroy it, hence my request.
Here's the diagram.
Thanks for getting involved,
Howerd.
IRLB3034 is also low on resistance. 1.4mohm
mags
i have the same sig gen also.. the irlb3034 hits its lowest on resistance at about 4v on the gate. so i rin the sig at 4 to 5v and a separate supply for the circuit the transistor drives. common gnd of course. 3034 is max 40v.
mags
also the sig gen can run on input up to 30v
mags
Hi Howerd and all,
Your schematic here https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg114600#msg114600 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg114600#msg114600) is ok, I drew the same (and attached below) but used GND symbols for the common negative connections. (No need for real ground or earth connection, I do not mean that.)
Regarding the PWM oscillator connections, I also attached an explanation, please tell if you have further questions.
Note to Graham: use only a clamp-on Ampermeter to avoid burning the internal circuits of a normal Amper meter (DMM or Analog) due to the huge peak currents involved with a super capacitor discharging to another one. I mean in case you really wish to measure the current, IMHO no need for such test. I understand curiosity of course but be aware of possible consequences. :D
Addition: regarding the diode bridge, the requirement for current rating would be several Ampers, at least 4-5 A.
Gyula
Hi Mags,
I agree with the IRLB3034, its 40 V max drain source voltage rating is more favorable, so I would suggest it for our UK friends: https://www.mouser.co.uk/ProductDetail/Infineon-Technologies/IRLB3034PBF?qs=9%252BKlkBgLFf0jZeWnRhawEQ%3D%3D (https://www.mouser.co.uk/ProductDetail/Infineon-Technologies/IRLB3034PBF?qs=9%252BKlkBgLFf0jZeWnRhawEQ%3D%3D)
Pin connections are in the same order like for the IRF1324.
Thanks,
Gyula
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.16, 05:01:32
i have the same sig gen also.. the irlb3034 hits its lowest on resistance at about 4v on the gate. so i rin the sig at 4 to 5v and a separate supply for the circuit the transistor drives. common gnd of course. 3034 is max 40v.
mags
Dear Gyula.
Many thanks for your technical assistance. O0 As my son was working away this weekend I am unable to do any serious damage.... 😂
On a more serious note is there any possibility of the MOSFET drive energy being transferred into the receiving side?
Cheers Graham.
Hi Graham,
Yes, there is possibility for the drive power leaking through the switch, mainly via the gate - drain capacitance of the MOSFET (in the data sheet it is Crss, reverse transfer capacitance.
For the IRF1324, at 2 V drain-to-source voltage Crss is around 4 nF and for the IRLB3034 it is around 2 nF, from their data sheet.
At the switching frequency of around 27 Hz, the 4 nF reverse transfer capacitance represents about 1.4 MegaOhm, and the 2 nF represents 2.9 MegaOhm reactance.
These reactances are very high to let meaningful driving power pass through to the rest of the circuit, so IMHO the high COP value Joel claimed cannot come from the function generator.
(Here I assume his switching device is not faulty.)
Addition: at near zero drain-to source voltages this switch starts to operate, the Crss of the MOSFETs is higher, data sheet specifies it from 1 V. So even 6-7 nF reverse capacitances can be present.
For a 7 nF capacitor the reactance is around 840 kOhm, still high enough to block significant drive power appear across the drain-source. Consider also that when there is driving power present across the gate-source, the drain-source, the drain-source points are shorted, the MOSFET conducts the charge current from C1 to C2.
Gyula
Thank you Gyula for your technical assistance.
Lagace says that his supercaps seem to have a memory effect and the voltage bounces back up.
My view is that this is dielectric absorption on "steroids" as a result of repeat pulsing. A fact Graham and I have established.
As a reminder - here is the video that shows the "memory" effect which is super dielectric absorption.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBR2tOTsyfg
This leads to a second point: optimum conditions for the capacitor siting.
ie you can't just have the capacitor hanging around anywhere on the circuit board.
We are looking at electrostatic induction, and proximity to other devices is going to affect the behavior of the static field around the supercap.
To add a humorous anecdote: Graham was once experimenting with high voltage and his hair stood on end! Clearly a highly charged field!
However humour aside, this answers a very important fact our group encountered in Tbilisi, Georgia all those years ago.
The team was in Kapanadze's home in the morning and he refused to turn the device on because of a thunderstorm.
He explained that the charged atmosphere could attract lightning.
Kapanadze waited until the afternoon to turn the device on, and that is when the Aquarium 2 was turned on.
You can hear Mike Taylor saying "It's working now".
That is why he made that comment because the team had to wait for the air to clear.
I asked Mike how Kapanadze turned the device on and he said it was the usual method of
using a 9-volt battery to inject power into the circuit.
I hope these comments give us a clearer understanding of the technology we are dealing with.
Regards,
Howerd.
Quote from: gyula on 2025.02.16, 11:08:38
Hi Howerd and all,
Your schematic here https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg114600#msg114600 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg114600#msg114600) is ok, I drew the same (and attached below) but used GND symbols for the common negative connections. (No need for real ground or earth connection, I do not mean that.)
Regarding the PWM oscillator connections, I also attached an explanation, please tell if you have further questions.
Note to Graham: use only a clamp-on Ampermeter to avoid burning the internal circuits of a normal Amper meter (DMM or Analog) due to the huge peak currents involved with a super capacitor discharging to another one. I mean in case you really wish to measure the current, IMHO no need for such test. I understand curiosity of course but be aware of possible consequences. :D
Addition: regarding the diode bridge, the requirement for current rating would be several Ampers, at least 4-5 A.
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
are you sure your drawing is the same as the one from Aking.21?
See his and yours below.
In Joel his video and in the drawing from Aking.21 there is a direct connection between the POSITIVE poles of C1 and C2 (500F) and the MOSFET is in series with the secondary of the transformer on the NEGATIVE poles of C1 and C2.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53168)
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53182)
EDITTED the direct connection between C1 and C2 to be on the POSITIVE poles!Itsu
Hi Itsu, thanks for your mail, I will revise my drawing, probably later tonight or tomorrow. I apologize from everyone.
Gyula
dear Itsu,
No time for a drawing tonight. Watching Joel's video, as I see it, the positive poles of C1 and C2 seem to be directly connected by a thick (yellow and green colored) wire and the negative poles are connected by the switch via the 2V transformer coil.
Can you check this again? My understanding is that the single, vertical, white and wide stripes on the sides of the caps indicate the negative poles. (Regardless, my drawing does not give back the circuit shown in the video, no doubt.) Aking has not indicated the poles of the capacitor, otherwise his drawing seems correct.
Gyula
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.02.16, 19:58:51
...
In Joel his video and in the drawing from Aking.21 there is a direct connection between the negative poles of C1 and C2 (500F) and the MOSFET is in series with the secondary of the transformer on the positive poles of C1 and C2.
Quote from: gyula on 2025.02.16, 21:43:15
dear Itsu,
No time for a drawing tonight. Watching Joel's video, as I see it, the positive poles of C1 and C2 seem to be directly connected by a thick (yellow and green colored) wire and the negative poles are connected by the switch via the 2V transformer coil.
Can you check this again? My understanding is that the single, vertical, white and wide stripes on the sides of the caps indicate the negative poles. (Regardless, my drawing does not give back the circuit shown in the video, no doubt.) Aking has not indicated the poles of the capacitor, otherwise his drawing seems correct.
Gyula
Gyula,
yes you are right about the green / yellow wire, it directly connects the positive terminals, not the negative ones as i mentioned O0
I have corrected that in my earlier post!Itsu
Quote from: gyula on 2025.02.16, 21:43:15
dear Itsu,
No time for a drawing tonight. Watching Joel's video, as I see it, the positive poles of C1 and C2 seem to be directly connected by a thick (yellow and green colored) wire and the negative poles are connected by the switch via the 2V transformer coil.
Can you check this again? My understanding is that the single, vertical, white and wide stripes on the sides of the caps indicate the negative poles. (Regardless, my drawing does not give back the circuit shown in the video, no doubt.) Aking has not indicated the poles of the capacitor, otherwise his drawing seems correct.
Gyula
It looks like he's pulsing the negative side. I assumed it was positive. In which case I assume my transistor is the wrong way around.
Is that a correct revision?
I think Joel's circuit suppose to look like this, but the real connections are hard to trace from his video:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53194;image)
So IMO Aking.21 his diagram looks OK if one supposes that the transistor is in the NEGATIVE path.
Itsu
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.02.17, 00:19:26
It looks like he's pulsing the negative side. I assumed it was positive. In which case I assume my transistor is the wrong way around.
Is that a correct revision?
Hi Howerd,
The transistor symbol as you drew in your proposed schematic is correct, if you meant using a normal NPN bipolar transistor say 2N3055 for switching (the 2N3055 is just an example type).
The transistor can be a MOSFET of course, this would be preferred if the DC resistance of circuit components as I wrote last night would involve the very high initial peak current drawn from C1 (or Ca as you indicated it).
Gyula
Dear Itsu,
If the switch is an N-channel MOSFET (I think it is), then the drain and the source pins in your proposed schematic would need to be flipped I think.
This is because in case the MOSFET is connected like you drew, the body diode between the D and S pins would continually conduct as long as the voltage level in C1 is higher than the voltage level in C2 (diode forward voltage is to be considered).
Here I suppose of course that C1 is the voltage source (like a battery), the top wire line is positive as we agreed and the drain of the MOSFET should receive the positive polarity via C2 (which is a short circuit).
Have been busy so no schematic from me tonight, will be back tomorrow, sorry.
Thanks, Gyula
Thanks Gyula,
you are right!
I have corrected the drawing above O0
Itsu
Okay Itsu, you are welcome. So the very possible schematic Joel showed in his video is now okay I think as you have corrected.
But no need for revising the transistor connection in Aking.21's schema, his NPN transistor's collector receives positive voltage at the bottom leg of his right hand side 500F capacitor (C2 or Cb) from his left hand side 500F (C1 or Ca) capacitor, provided the top wire connects the positive poles of the two capacitors.
Or maybe you mean something else with his transistor connection?
Gyula
Thanks Gyula.
Forget my remark about the transistor, it is correct.
Itsu
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.13, 22:45:22
you said Kap said he had to make a component, assuming the cap. did he say if it was made of wire, like a bifi or trifi?
mags
Kapanadze gave no further details. Regarding our large project proposal for inputting energy into the grid, he said he would have to measure the wires.
He mentioned that he uses bifilar winding.
The component he refers to could just as easily refer to the way he uses the frequency generator.
ok. just got out my sig gen. 26.2 is 26.2khz. there are no decimal points below 1khz, just whole numbers.
mags
as we have known in the past, the best way to replicate is to have the same components as illustrated in a claim. 2 of them in question here are the caps(cap c) and the transformer.
my first question would be the actual value of the caps, and second, can that transformer handle eff transfer from sec to primary at 26.5khz.
and thirdly, im still having an issue with the primary side of the transformer being able to supply the currents needed to charge up caps C to a higher level than caps A and B. who knows. the actual primary of the transformer, used as a sec here, could be 1kohm.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.18, 19:33:03
ok. just got out my sig gen. 26.2 is 26.2khz. there are no decimal points below 1khz, just whole numbers.
mags
Correct, i happen to have a few of such sig gen's, and although it can go as low as 1Hz, it can not do 26.2Hz, so the below picture of Joel his video can only mean 26.2kHz.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53196;image)
And the duty cycle goes from 001 to 100%, so 074 is 74% duty cycle which is something like this:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53198;image)
Itsu
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.18, 19:49:52
as we have known in the past, the best way to replicate is to have the same components as illustrated in a claim. 2 of them in question here are the caps(cap c) and the transformer.
my first question would be the actual value of the caps, and second, can that transformer handle eff transfer from sec to primary at 26.5khz.
and thirdly, im still having an issue with the primary side of the transformer being able to supply the currents needed to charge up caps C to a higher level than caps A and B. who knows. the actual primary of the transformer, used as a sec here, could be 1kohm.
mags
Yes 26.2khz. I agree. Re the caps - remember the odd behaviour due to pulsing. Maybe a switched-mode trafo would handle the frequencies.
yes, a different transformer would be better.
i know that sims are frowned upon when working with ou ideas, but this, without 3 or 4 plate caps, without hv static induction, should be able to work in sim.
as i said earlier, 1 to 1 ratio, cap C would beat out cap B in charge voltage initially. in the end we could get 100% of the original energy when we calculate all 3 caps for a total. this is because we used the transfer from cap to cap to do something, charging cap C.
when i change the transformer ratio, higher on the output side, it gets worse the higher we go.
that transformer, depending on its intended input V to 2v out could be 1/50 or more ratio.
one other issue i had was the full bridge rectifier having possibly a 1.5v drop through 2 diodes at any time to charge a 2.5v cap. but i didnt mention it as the transformer output to cap C was step up to negate that factor to virtually nill. but only if the cap allowed higher voltages at its terminals initially before fully accepting the charge. like as if after the rectifier, a higher voltage were trapped untill the caps resistance let it distribute...
what we would need is a lenzless transformer. a transformer where the primary acts as an inductor alone, but also has a secondary output that does not affect the primary. with such a device, we could use the primary as an inductor to transfer ALL of cap A to cap B and get extra from the secondary.
my solidstate orbo could be that. ill post some pics of the thing and post yt vids from back then.
when the magnets are not installed in the orbo, there is no output from the sec pickup winding as the windings are 90deg of each other as they are layered together.
so i get output from the sec with mags installed and i get field collapse currents from the input winding like it was a lone inductor.
gotta do some running around and will post more this evening.
since this will still involve cap to cap and the transformer is still in question, it should be alright to just say we are trying a different transformer to stay in topic.
mags
Hi Folks,
It is good the switching frequency turned out to be 26.2 kHz and duty cycle is 74 %, thanks for these.
Yes, a switch mode type transformer or a modified flyback transformer would have less loss at 26 kHz versus a normal mains type transformer Joel seemed to use (2V to 110V AC, 60 Hz).
BUT in case the COP indeed tends to be much higher than one, this transformer loss cannot be an issue.
One more thing to consider: at 26 kHz even a transformer coil of 2 V has already an inductive reactance 1000 times higher versus the reactance at 26 Hz,
so the very high 100 -200 Amper peak current I referred to earlier via the switch is not valid. This makes it easier for the switch for the rated current spec.
The MOSFET type I and Magluvin suggested in the previous page can still be be good though if a flyback diode is used across the 2 V transformer coil to tame the spike amplitude. This is not loss, the flyback current via the diode helps maintain coil current after the switch is off.
Gyula
we have to remember, flyback diodes on a primary may not be a need as the secondary will be consuming the collapsing field. otherwise, if we were to collect flyback from the primary, the secondary would be lacking as much.
if we were to just pulse an inductor or the primary of a transformer having an open sec, when we pulse it, the mag field expands, and that outward expansion induces counter emf of which creates the time delay to get max field and max current. now we switch off the transistor, the mag field collapses, opposite of the expansion effect, will induce forward current in the windings, same direction as the input when the transistor was on. so the diode does not conduct that direction. but, the inductor having its own capacitance, no matter how small, comes into play. as the field collapses and forward current is developed, the end potential of that charges up that self capacitance to a high voltage. once the field fully colapses and the self capacitance is fully charged, now that capacitance discharges back into the inductor and then has a path back to the source through the diode of the transistor.
just wanted to be sure everyone understands that the field collapse does not induce reverse currents immediately when the transistor or switch is turned off. ;)
mags
A point to remember. The final receiving cap is in series. A series of 4. This is a highly efficient way of receiving electricity. The first few % or so charging up a capacitor is almost instant. Then the capacitor struggles and we get losses. Pulsing a cap therefore takes advantage of this factor. Possibly the faster the pulse, the more efficient the circuit because we are always in this sweet spot.
I enclose a typical cap charging graph. We need to be as near to the vertical part as possible.
here are pics of the solid state orbo i made years ago.
starts with a ferite bead commonly found on some power cords and computer cables.
i use Schotch double sided tape around the outside of the bead then wind 2 layers 30awg around the bead. the tape helps hold the first layer on the bead and then a new layer of tape on the first layer then wind second layer on that. tape is thin like regular schotch tape.
then wind the outer toroid style winding. i did it till the strands inside were tight next to each other. so the outside strands have a little space between them.
so, if we pulse the toroid winding, the other winding will be virtually unaffected. now we put the magnet, magnets, inside where they are almost as long as the core is long. so on each side, in just a bit as in the pic.the magnets field will be very attracted to the bead so most flux will be in the core. when we pulse the toroid winding. we want to instill enough flux so that the magnets flux is no longer attracted to the core and it expands outward 'cutting' the other winding inducing current in one direction. when the toroid is turned off, the magnets field is reattracted to the core and collapses to the core and cuts the other winding again, inducing current in the other direction. and we can recover from the toroid winding also.
there are some slight effects between the inout and output once it is in operation that i will go over later.
mags
Here's Joel Lagace charging super capacitors in what appears to be a different way than described above in this thread - from an earlier vid of his.
I'm curious how Joel has this experiment wired... And is it "easier" to replicate than what we're discussing above?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLtRsd996CU
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2025.02.21, 14:14:43
Here's Joel Lagace charging super capacitors in what appears to be a different way than described above in this thread - from an earlier vid of his.
I'm curious how Joel has this experiment wired... And is it "easier" to replicate than what we're discussing above?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLtRsd996CU
In this video, Joel potentializes one plate of a capacitor with HV.
He uses an earth-ground to potentialise the other plate THROUGH the MOT.
He then uses the MOT current to charge his super cap using (I presume) the diode that comes with the MOT.
I have attached a screenshot of the video.
One criticism: He charges the HV module with his variac, which I presume is powered by the mains.
In the UK the neutral side of the mains wiring is connected to earth.
Electricity travels very easily through the earth. I would advise you to put either a fuse on the earth side or a mains bulb
If the mains bulb lights up then you are powering the whole setup from the mains.
If not then it is probably worth further investigation.
Either way you are better off powering the HV module from a battery, and use a portion of the circuit to charge the battery also.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.02.21, 16:29:37
In this video, Joel potentializes one plate of a capacitor with HV.
He uses an earth-ground to potentialise the other plate THROUGH the MOT.
He then uses the MOT current to charge his super cap using (I presume) the diode that comes with the MOT.
I have attached a screenshot of the video.
One criticism: He charges the HV module with his variac, which I presume is powered by the mains.
In the UK the neutral side of the mains wiring is connected to earth.
Electricity travels very easily through the earth. I would advise you to put either a fuse on the earth side or a mains bulb
If the mains bulb lights up then you are powering the whole setup from the mains.
If not then it is probably worth further investigation.
Either way you are better off powering the HV module from a battery, and use a portion of the circuit to charge the battery also.
OK - thank you, Howerd.
I was wondering why not more people were trying to replicate this rather simple setup, until i noticed this is a private thread from Grumage.
So probably not many people are able to see this thread.
As i did put something together with parts that were available to me, i now will present what i was able to replicate.
This is the circuit i have now:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53220;image)
A picture of this shows a rather chaotic mess of wires, which is due to the many DMM leads and scope probes attached to it:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53228;image)
So i monitor the voltages with DMM's across the 3 super caps C1, C2 and C3 which respectively are 100F, 100F and 500F which is less as Joel uses, but in the same relation.
I also use the scope to monitor the MOSFET drain - source voltage, gate - source voltage and the drain - source current.
These scope signals can be seen here where yellow i the drain - source voltage, blue is the gate - source voltage and green the drain - source current.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53224;image)
We seem to have a rather big spike at MOSFET shut off time (90V at start) which probably is what drives the C3 (500F) cap via the transformer and rectifier to be charged.
I did a first test making sure to drain (short) both C2 and C3 so they were 0V and charged C1 to 2.7V then noting down initially every 5 minutes the voltage over C1, C2 and C3.
After one hour running, i switched to noting down voltage every half hour.
The result can be seen here:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53226;image)
We see IMO a practical normal behavior of the discharge - charge of the super caps.
C1 discharges from its initial 2.54V to about half of that, as expected
C2 charges from 0V to almost half of C1 its voltage minus the voltage on C3
C3 charges very slowly to a fraction of C2 its value by stealing it from C2.
So this initial run thus shows IMO no abnormal behavior.
Data on the transformer:
220V - 8V adapter
290mH - 2.1mH at 10kHz measured
509 Ohm - 2 Ohm measured
47 KOhm - 345 Ohm inductive reactance at 26.2kHz
interwinding capacitance 23pF thus 266 Ohm capacitive reactance at 26.2kHz
Energy balance of the super caps:
C1 (start) charged to 2.54V has 322.6 Joule
C1 (end) discharged to 1.28V has 81.92 Joule
C2 (end) charged to 1.18V has 69.62 Joule
C3 (end) charged to 0.109V has 2.97 Joule
C2 and C3 together have gained 69.62 + 2.97 = 72.59 Joule
C1 was left with 81.92 Joule of the initial 322.6 Joule
Normally we lose about half of the energy when connecting 2 caps together, so 322.6 / 2 = 161.3 Joule should be left over.
But we got left with 81.92 + 72.59 = 154.51 Joule, which IMO again is very normal.
Itsu
good go at it itsu. i dont have super caps like these. but, i think normal caps should work similarly. while you have that set up already, would you have a 1 to 1 ratio transformer to try? i would say preferably much lower ohms on the windings. i think you could get better results as in 'closer' to 100% total, similarly to what i found in sim.
my tests with the orbo will be with more normal caps. first will be to test the toroid inductor to try and get nearly all of cap A to cap B. then take from the pickup coil to cap C. all done in just 1 shot, no pulsing. if we can get more in cap C with one shot than was lost in cap B, then we are good.
thanks for showing. ;)
mags
Thank you, Itsu, for performing that well documented experiment and confirming what a lot of us suspected. I would love to be wrong and think that there is more to this setup such as finely tuned impedance matching/mismatching relationships, but it is hard to tell without Joel being willing to shine a closer light on some of the specifics.
Thanks,
Dave
Quote from: web000x on 2025.02.22, 00:21:22
Thank you, Itsu, for performing that well documented experiment and confirming what a lot of us suspected. I would love to be wrong and think that there is more to this setup such as finely tuned impedance matching/mismatching relationships, but it is hard to tell without Joel being willing to shine a closer light on some of the specifics.
Thanks,
Dave
This is not a replication of the Lagace video. There are different components used in the Lagace video.
It would be interesting to see how different makes of capacitors behave.
Different dielectrics or electrolytes make a cap behave differently.
I think that Lagace has been pulsing his caps for such a long time, that he has altered their behavior.
If you want to see the effect, check out my last video. It works every single time without fail.
I would be interested to see if Itsu's caps experience dielectric absorption.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.21, 22:36:49
good go at it itsu. i dont have super caps like these. but, i think normal caps should work similarly. while you have that set up already, would you have a 1 to 1 ratio transformer to try? i would say preferably much lower ohms on the windings. i think you could get better results as in 'closer' to 100% total, similarly to what i found in sim.
my tests with the orbo will be with more normal caps. first will be to test the toroid inductor to try and get nearly all of cap A to cap B. then take from the pickup coil to cap C. all done in just 1 shot, no pulsing. if we can get more in cap C with one shot than was lost in cap B, then we are good.
thanks for showing. ;)
mags
Thanks Mags,
i also think that normal caps will behave similar, so no need for super caps.
Next thing is to find out what things are influencing the setup so that it does behave more abnormal, and my guess too will be the transformer.
I will see if i can find transformers that will show a major difference, like your suggested 1 to 1 ratio.
All the leads / probes will probably have a negative influence also, like introducing leakage and thus loss.
Looking forward to your test results.
Itsu
Quote from: web000x on 2025.02.22, 00:21:22
Thank you, Itsu, for performing that well documented experiment and confirming what a lot of us suspected. I would love to be wrong and think that there is more to this setup such as finely tuned impedance matching/mismatching relationships, but it is hard to tell without Joel being willing to shine a closer light on some of the specifics.
Thanks,
Dave
Hi Dave,
i am not sure Joel is able to see this thread as it is a private one, but indeed we have still some unknowns in this setup which we need to overcome.
Itsu
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.02.22, 06:13:11
This is not a replication of the Lagace video. There are different components used in the Lagace video.
It would be interesting to see how different makes of capacitors behave.
Different dielectrics or electrolytes make a cap behave differently.
I think that Lagace has been pulsing his caps for such a long time, that he has altered their behavior.
If you want to see the effect, check out my last video. It works every single time without fail.
I would be interested to see if Itsu's caps experience dielectric absorption.
Aking.21
no replication is ever the same as the original, but in a well documented experiment we can look for the effect which causes the abnormality even with different components IMO.
My super caps show / suffer? from dielectric absorption, soakage, or memory effect, but that is a normal behavior.
It's hard to drain C2 and C3 to zero volts and keep them there before starting the experiment, as they immediately start to increase in voltage.
My super caps are being pulsed during these last tests, so they also should be "conditioned" if that is needed, so we should be able to see that.
Itsu
I was yesterday running this above experiment for over 6 hours, and it ended after 6 hours with the shown results.
But it was still running for some hour before shutting it down.
I noted down these last values of the caps being:
C1: 1.272V
C2: 1.1881V
C3: 0.1136V
I then removed the 9V battery which drives the FG and disconnected the lead going from C2 negative to MOSFET drain.
This morning i checked the DMM's in the above state (disconnected C2) and found the values to be:
C1: 1.251V
C2: 1.1226V
C3: 0.1475V
So both C1 and C2 had decreased (what might to be expected through leakage etc.), but C3 had increased.
0.1475V or 147.5mV is not that of a big value, so it probably is due to the earlier mentioned "dielectric absorption, soakage, or memory effect" or there is some charging via picked up signals (50Hz) from the environment here.
I will monitor this voltage the rest of the day to see what will happen.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Thanks for your efforts on testing this setup.
Regarding the transformer, you may have a common mode current choke used for mains filtering at the mains input of PC or TV sets switched mode PS, like these for instance
https://www.ebay.com/itm/385519333419 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/385519333419) or https://www.ebay.com/itm/155702287103 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/155702287103) https://www.ebay.com/itm/275755671744 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/275755671744)
any such choke has 1:1 turns ratio and around 1 Ohm or less DC resistance per winding. Inductance may be any in the range from 5 mH to 20 mH or so.
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
yes i have such common mode chokes, so i will use one of those.
I also will change the bridge rectifier diodes from the present UF4007 (517mV forward voltage) to 1N5819 (206mV forward voltage).
But first i would like to measure in the present circuit the signals across both the primary and secondary of the transformer.
Itsu
Hi Guys. I used my private bench to Allow access for Howerd to members of the Freedom group. This is why there's only a few participants.
Let me provide a link to a topic that JLG started that provoked the ensuing Kerfuffle here at OUR.
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4432.msg103537#msg103537
I personally think JLG has a bit of the Dunning Kruger effect going on but that's just me....
I'm really pleased that Itsu has picked up the gauntlet as his approach and diligence should give us the answers we're looking for. O0
Out of curiosity where did the original claim of <COP 1 originate?
Cheers Grum.
Hi Grum,
thanks for that info, i had not seen that (short) thread before.
Itsu
I noted down the last values of my (disconnected) setup, and they are:
C1: 1.241V
C2: 1.1117V
C3: 0.1546V
So C3 voltage was still climbing while C1 and C2 were decreasing.
Then i did reset the device by shorting C2 and C3 so they show 0V, charged C1 to show 2.7V and connected C2 negative to the MOSFET drain to start the process.
I scoped across the 220V side of the transformer and registered the white signal as shown below.
Then i removed the probe and reconnected it to the 8V coil of the transformer showing in yellow:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53230;image)
We see in the yellow trace again the spike (70 - 80V) at MOSFET turn off time.
Oddly enough, we see in the white trace a mere 50% duty cycle signal of 2.187Vpp.
Not sure how this spiky signal (from a 74% duty cycle signal) on the 8V side transforms to this AC square wave like signal of 50% duty cycle.
Probably the inductance and capacitance of the transformer is causing this.
After rectification by the diode bridge, we end up with a marginal DC signal across the C3 cap of 18.3mV DC.
No wonder, there is almost no charging of C3.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53232;image)
Itsu
I removed my 220V - 8V transformer including the UF4007 diode bridge and replaced it by a common mode choke and a 1N5819 schottky diode bridge.
Data on the common mode choke is:
21.8mH at 10kHz inductance
1 Ohm resistance
6pF capacitance
Initial tests show minor differences in signals, but i need to do a longer run to see how it behaves.
Itsu
Quote from: Grumage on 2025.02.22, 14:27:09
Hi Guys. I used my private bench to Allow access for Howerd to members of the Freedom group. This is why there's only a few participants.
Let me provide a link to a topic that JLG started that provoked the ensuing Kerfuffle here at OUR.
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4432.msg103537#msg103537
I personally think JLG has a bit of the Dunning Kruger effect going on but that's just me....
I'm really pleased that Itsu has picked up the gauntlet as his approach and diligence should give us the answers we're looking for. O0
Out of curiosity where did the original claim of <COP 1 originate?
Cheers Grum.
In the above post, JL is converting mains to
reactive power using the microwave oven capacitor.
This is then rectified to pulsed DC.
He then uses the scr-neon part to create an additional on-off pulsing mechanism to pulse charge the car battery.
The Mains charges up the Microwave oven cap, then the cap discharges this back into the mains every cycle.
Arguably this circuit uses only a slight amount of grid power, ie for the initial AC trigger voltage and system losses.
Where could any excess energy come from?
Not from the mains.
1 The capacitor exhibits super dielectric absorption because it is repeatedly charged and discharged.
2 The battery: this behaves similarly to the capacitor
3 Bedini publicly stated that his excess energy came from the battery in his circuits.
My conclusion is that any excess energy has to come from the static field around the device.
If you look at most circuits there is an onrush of power on switch on.
Most researchers want to ignore this because it is viewed as a nuisance.
Maybe the initial onrush is due to static build-up. (ie "free energy")?
Re your question as to where the cop >1? It originated from my analysis of JL's claims in his video.
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg114607#msg114607
However, we have not included the power used by the FG-controlled mosfet.
I am busy building several FG-controlled mosfet interrupters as they are a useful module to have around.
As an example, you can extract power from an HF circuit and convert it to mains frequency. A very useful tool in my opinion.
Let us keep experimenting.
hey aking.
just wondering if you could show us what you have going. i think you had mentioned that you would
thinking about super caps, with the internal resistance and the vast amount of capacitance, could it be that some redidual charge remains even after apparent complete discharge? if you have a cap, or caps, that exibit this, wouldnt it be a good idea to have a bunch of them in parallel, or even series, and just take from that, even just a bit at a time to allow it to bounce back? have you tried dead shorting the cap, a cap exibiting the self recharge, and letting it sit for say a week or more?
and even a step further, apply a smal negative voltage, one that emulates the voltage read from the cap in the recharged condition, to possibly bring the cap to an actual zero charge state.
i know its a lot to ask. do have some large super caps on hand that are from a lamboghini avarntador that are used to energize the starter. if you ever hear one start up, seems almost instantaneous. i do repairs on these modules for a lambo dealer. the casing takes on water and causes corrosion shorting of the cap chain(6 in series). sometimes i come across a bank that is too far gone and i keep them for possible later use of the caps that were not damaged. the ones i can fix, i do a complete discharge of all the caps individually. the reason being is even some of the modules that dont have water damage, the caps tend to not balance out in the chain after many charges and discharges. the module has voltage sampling wires, red on pos end of pack and black on the neg end, and a purple wire in the middle of the chain. that wire samples the difference in charge between the first 3 caps and the other 3 caps. if that sample becomes different eventually, the car will not start on purpose, probably to keep the pack from having balance issues that could cause fire hazard and such.
so, the reason for discharging each cap becomes apparent. if i discharge the pack as a whole, it is possible that the lowest voltage cap could go reverse voltage once it goes to zero and the others still have potential. that would be an issue. so i do them individually with car stop light bulbs, 2 parallel each cell, and when the lights go out i dead short for the rest of the discharge.
then there is another issue. supper caps tend to have self discharge leakage, some of these more than others. in this case, when i charge the pack to say 13v, i can see which ones are leaking more than others. then i use the adjustable supply to push those a bit beyond max voltage and it seems to burn out those leaks and we are very near good again. the leakage portion of the repair is sometimes a try try again till good.
anyway, these caps have definitely been 'pulsed hard'. direct charge from the car battery via a high quality solenoid, then the batt disconnects and the cap starts the car alone. the pack is welded with heavy link bars
so if i get to a point that i need them, i can cut good ones from a bad pack. these are very high current, low resistance.
im gathering different value caps, 3 each, to do the orbo test. normal caps.
firstly ill try the toroid winding inductance with a diode and find the right combo that will send most all of capA to capB. will try it with and without the magnets in place, no connection to the output winding, as the magnets inserted affect the inductance of the toroid coil.
mags
I started a new run with the new common mode transformer and the schottky diode bridge see diagram:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53247;image)
I shorted C2 and C3 so they read 0V and charged C1 to 2.7V.
The voltage (yellow trace) across the C1 side of the transformer looks like this right after the start (current in green through the MOSFET):
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53237;image)
The voltage (again, yellow trace) across the C3 side of the transformer looks like this:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53239;image)
It seems the discharging - charging now is much faster, instead of about 6 hours yesterday it stabilizes now around 1.5 hours when i stopped recording.
I toke measurements every 5 minutes now.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53241;image)
Energy balance of the super caps:
C1 (start) charged to 2.7V has 364.5 Joule
C1 (end) discharged to 1.526V has 122 Joule
C2 (end) charged to 1.324V has 87.66 Joule
C3 (end) charged to 0.1627V has 6.618 Joule
C2 and C3 together have gained 87.66 + 6.618 = 94.278 Joule
C1 was left with 122 Joule of the initial 364.5 Joule
I think if i continue to record the data it would again end up rather equaly again without any abnormal increase in C3.
Itsu
thanks itsu
what it looks like is the spike, seen on the sec of the transformer, is stored on the other side of the rectifier where cap 3 is. this could be the resistance of the cap is causing that charge to be in only a small portion of the cap at first, and then the so called displacement currents ooze into the rest of the cap over that period of time.
have you tried different freq and duty cycles? the up slope on the input winding looks like it ould take on a longer pulse before starting to level out to max current. ;)
being picky, a scope shot of the middle of the 2 diodes of the bridge might be interesting. maybe not. also, i wonder what we would see if you put a small normal cap just before cap 3 after the rectifier. one that can hold the voltage of the spike. even a disk cap.
one more thing. from what you see so far, is a full bridge necessary? looks like a one direction thing from here. if so, then you could just use 1 diode in place of the bridge, in the propper direction of course. this will eliminate at least 1 voltage drop. these small voltages, 1 drop is a lot.
mags
Itsu:
Re cap 3.
This is not what Joel does.
He has 4 caps in series which is a much more efficient way to get to the required result.
I think 4 caps in series instead of a single cap 3 will make a big difference, especially with pre-conditioning by pulsing.
how exactly should we precondition the caps? freq, time frame, hv or low v matters?
like do we need to do this for a week, or hours....
.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.23, 00:01:02
how exactly should we precondition the caps? freq, time frame, hv or low v matters?
like do we need to do this for a week, or hours....
.
mags
One of the main reasons experimenters cannot replicate Staley Meyer is that they are unaware that the water capacitor must be pulsed first. ie conditioned first.
24 hours is enough. Here's a diagram of how I do it. I have not done this with super caps, however, when I
saw Lagace's video, a light bulb went on in my brain. ie "So it works with supercaps too!!"
The principle works with low voltage as Lagace has shown.
In my diagram, if you want to try it, you can use the electrolytic caps salvaged from a dead cfl.
Regarding frequency, obviously, 2.4 khz or thereabouts is fine.
Keep experimenting.
Once you switch my device off and find it keeps on running, you'll be convinced. Have a look at my video. It works every time. Every single time.
this vid?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fBR2tOTsyfg
mags
that circuit above. is it still together and working? if so, when you turn it on and off, you are disconnecting the input power to the hv module? how about disconnecting the hv module from the 'cap, spark gap' circuit also when you disconnect power? O0
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.23, 05:02:26
that circuit above. is it still together and working? if so, when you turn it on and off, you are disconnecting the input power to the hv module? how about disconnecting the hv module from the 'cap, spark gap' circuit also when you disconnect power? O0
mags
No power at all. I've disconnected the module and the effect is the same.
Just build it and see for yourself.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.22, 22:14:03
thanks itsu
what it looks like is the spike, seen on the sec of the transformer, is stored on the other side of the rectifier where cap 3 is. this could be the resistance of the cap is causing that charge to be in only a small portion of the cap at first, and then the so called displacement currents ooze into the rest of the cap over that period of time.
have you tried different freq and duty cycles? the up slope on the input winding looks like it ould take on a longer pulse before starting to level out to max current. ;)
being picky, a scope shot of the middle of the 2 diodes of the bridge might be interesting. maybe not. also, i wonder what we would see if you put a small normal cap just before cap 3 after the rectifier. one that can hold the voltage of the spike. even a disk cap.
one more thing. from what you see so far, is a full bridge necessary? looks like a one direction thing from here. if so, then you could just use 1 diode in place of the bridge, in the propper direction of course. this will eliminate at least 1 voltage drop. these small voltages, 1 drop is a lot.
mags
Mags,
thanks for the suggestions.
What i see is that basically the signals do not really change with changing the transformer.
We still see the large back EMF spike (220V now) at the start (which obscures the real shape of the 26.2kHz 74% duty cycle signal) and the 50% duty cycle AC square wave signal at the other side.
I guess we need the diode bridge to rectify the AC signal or else we loose half of the period.
IMO there is no resonance near the 26kHz involved on the AC side of the transformer as the capacitance / inductance there is too high.
Anyway, i will see what i can do.
Itsu
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.02.22, 22:56:09
Itsu:
Re cap 3.
This is not what Joel does.
He has 4 caps in series which is a much more efficient way to get to the required result.
I think 4 caps in series instead of a single cap 3 will make a big difference, especially with pre-conditioning by pulsing.
Yes, i know Joel has 4 super caps in series, but that will lower the C3 value to 25F if i do that with my 100F caps, but i can give it a try.
If it really is "a much more efficient way to get to the required result" i have my doubts as it is not based on any logic IMO.
Itsu
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.02.23, 01:22:30
Once you switch my device off and find it keeps on running, you'll be convinced. Have a look at my video. It works every time. Every single time.
Hi Howerd,
Earlier I wrote to you my explanations on why the setup shown in your video (simplified schematic in your Reply #91 above) is able to keep the 8 neon bulbs lighting.
Please let me quote my text for the others here too to agree or disagree with it.
In the paper box you have I assume 5 capacitors in series, each is 1 uF, 600V rated. So if the Chinese HV module charges them up to say 3000 V maximum
(I do not know the actual HV voltage across the caps, do you?), the stored energy in the resulting 200 nF would be 0.9 Joule.
This is a nice amount of energy to feed the 8 series connected neon bulbs.
A single neon bulb NE2 normally takes around 600 uA (data sheet) and has about 65 V operational voltage (starting from 90 V firing voltage), this involves 39 mW power per bulb for
a decent brightness. So 8x 39 mW is 312 mW for the 8 neon bulbs, this would be consumed from the series capacitors that are charged up previously from the HV module.
The 0.9 Joule energy stored in the capacitors means 0.9 W (i.e 900 mW) power when the caps are discharged in 1 second to zero volt from 3000 V.
The 312 mW power for the bulbs would be taken out from the capacitors nearly in 3 seconds (900 mW / 312 mW = 2.88). Of course, as the capacitors are being discharged,
the 600 uA load current is gradually reducing, this extends the discharge time at a reducing output power.
In the video, you connected the 8 neon bulbs at around video time 4:24 when they flashed up brightly and then they were on with a much lower brightness than the flash
was till the end of the video 5:25. Surely they were on for longer than this 61 seconds I do not doubt it, till the capacitors got discharged below a voltage level of
8x 65V under which the neon bulbs are extinguished.
The bright flash up of the bulbs happened from the fact that the capacitors had much higher stored voltage than the 8x 90V=720V and the caps then discharged to
8x 65V=520V and remained around that level till the cap voltage was drawn down from the around 2000 - 3000V level below say 8x 60V=480V or so i.e. below their
lower threshold voltage. Of course, my estimation may differ from your actual voltage levels in the video but my mistake may range between + / - 15 -20 volts or so.
Only measurements can clarify this if needed, you can use your voltage meter safely across any of the neon bulbs if you wish.
Such neon bulbs can even have 10 - 20 V difference in firing voltage levels,this is normal.
I understand you believe in "conditioning" the capacitors.
Well, the insulating material used in capacitors has a property known as dielectric absorption, see a correct description at wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_absorption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_absorption)
This means in your case here that, using this backwards, as described in wiki, the earlier exerted torque on the molecular dipoles (by the HV) in the insulating material
inside the caps what they received during the "conditioning" do not let the capacitor discharge as quickly as the RC time constant would let it and the capacitor discharge
time may increase by a few percent. This depends on how quickly or slowly the molecular dipoles are able to return to their original energy levels they had before applying
HV (dielectric material dependent). You can call this as "conditioning" if you wish or you mean that, no problem, the explanation is given IMHO.
I already wrote to you about electrets and I mention this again in connection with this present video: you could maintain driving even more than 8 neon bulbs
for weeks and probably for months from them. But the output power from an electret is still low, it may have some hundred volts at some hundred microAmper or a few mA max.
The main problem is it has very high internal impedance which limits output current (in fact it is a special capacitor with a precharged dielectric material inside).
This high internal impedance is true for the copper or Alu stripes picking up energy from the plasma field on the surface of the plasma bulb and feeding the Avramenko plug. All I mean is that you supply energy to the capacitors, they store it and then feed the neon bulbs for a certain time. Towards the end of your video you mentioned looping the
output to the input. Well, this would certainly be feasable and would be tried IF the capacitors would not get discharged after a certain time.
You may not accept all these, that is fine with me. I think what conventional science can explain (like IMHO in this case) there cannot be ou.
Gyula
Hi Gyula.
Your reply is very interesting and thank you for your expert input it is much appreciated.
However, I am not claiming ou.
If it has created an electret - then good.
That is getting energy from the environment.
Dielectric absorption is also good. It is getting energy from the environment.
Therefore both Kirchoffs and Ohms laws do not apply.
So the billion-dollar question is: If 1 nanowatt of electricity is recycled back into the input - what is the outcome?
That is why I am interested in Lagace's experiments.
It would be good if he could be invited into this freedom group somehow.
I appreciate everyone's efforts here. Keep experimenting.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.02.23, 17:00:46
If it has created an electret - then good.
That is getting energy from the environment.
Dielectric absorption is also good. It is getting energy from the environment.
Therefore both Kirchoffs and Ohms laws do not apply.
Dear Howerd,
IMHO the energy by which your neon bulbs are lit for a certain time does not come from the enviroment, it came first from the two 1.2 V batteries, then the received HV influenced the dielectric material in the capacitors and after switching off the batteries, the dielectric material released the received energy.
An electret does get energy (it should get) from a high voltage source that must be furnished in for influencing the dielectric material and the latter then can release it till most the charge particles etc reoccupy their original position in the dielectric material. Then the electret is depleted like your capacitors in the box.
I agree that Joel could join in here and a civilized conversation could start. However, as I understood him from the videos, he has commited himself to a kind of company forming etc so if this materializes, then he will not share crucial details. If there is indeed real COP values he claims being much higher than 1.
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2025.02.23, 17:47:35
Dear Howerd,
IMHO the energy by which your neon bulbs are lit for a certain time does not come from the enviroment, it came first from the two 1.2 V batteries, then the received HV influenced the dielectric material in the capacitors and after switching off the batteries, the dielectric material released the received energy.
An electret does get energy (it should get) from a high voltage source that must be furnished in for influencing the dielectric material and the latter then can release it till most the charge particles etc reoccupy their original position in the dielectric material. Then the electret is depleted like your capacitors in the box.
I agree that Joel could join in here and a civilized conversation could start. However, as I understood him from the videos, he has commited himself to a kind of company forming etc so if this materializes, then he will not share crucial details. If there is indeed real COP values he claims being much higher than 1.
Gyula
If that is the case then Joel's experiment can not work as I think.
How do you think it works?
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.02.23, 10:28:11
If it really is "a much more efficient way to get to the required result" i have my doubts as it is not based on any logic IMO.
Itsu
It is based on the way a capacitor works over time. The first few percent charge up almost instantly, and then the ability to accept electricity starts to slow. If we have 4 caps in series, we get to the required voltage a lot quicker.
Getting to the required voltage quicker = much more efficiency.
Also much more dielectric absorption (4 caps instead of 1)
Also, the electret effect as Gyula describes.
I also appreciate that the Farads divide by 4 and this is a mistake in Lagace's video.
However, our C.O.P. calculations took his mistake into account and the C.O.P. was still in the hundreds.
In other words, we based our calculations on cap 3 = 2.5 kFarads
The cop calculations did not take the cost of pulsing via the FG system into account
It remains to be seen if Gyula is correct that all the energy comes fom the battery in the first place or if there is something else at play
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.02.23, 18:14:19
If that is the case then Joel's experiment can not work as I think.
How do you think it works?
The question is what we mean on "it works"? COP less than 1 or COP higher than 1?
Joel did not show in (his latest) video details which would be needed to know for correctly judging his setup's exact operation. Itsu included all the data needed for evaluating his setup and he got COP less than 1.
IF Joel's supercaps has been 'conditioned' by HV before (no info was given on this in the video) he made the video then it is different story and we do not know for instance how long it could have run with the claimed COP>1, etc.
Gyula
watching Akings vid, was wondering if the caps heat up a bit and expand a bit. could it be cooling and contracting, therefore the rundown spark? would be interesting once the sparking discontinued if we were to cool it down further if it would spark some more, or if it were heated up if the sparking would stop.. just thining
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.23, 20:03:00
watching Akings vid, was wondering if the caps heat up a bit and expand a bit. could it be cooling and contracting, therefore the rundown spark? would be interesting once the sparking discontinued if we were to cool it down further if it would spark some more, or if it were heated up if the sparking would stop.. just thining
mags
It would be nice if you could replicate the effect.
I realized a long time ago that two heads are better than one.
I first discovered the effect using 4.7uf 400v caps from cannibalized dead CFLs. There are loads of useful components
inside those things: A nice choke, a simple trafo, a bridge rectifier, and a very nice electrolytic 4.7 uf 400v cap and other small caps.
Also, they are designed to work at about 27 KHZ - ie HF components.
so those caps in the vid are 4.7uf
mags
so digging through circuit boards, ive found 4 sets of 3 same value, same brand caps.
100uf 100v
470uf 100v
1000uf 50v
4700uf 16v
also found some T0220 dual diodes that are .222 drop. will get a spec sheet
first will try the caps to try to get most of cap A to cap B via the toroid winding and the diode, trying different voltages for each to get the best match before core saturation.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.23, 20:34:59
so those caps in the vid are 4.7uf
mags
Hi Mags,
Which video you mean? This one by Aking? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBR2tOTsyfg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBR2tOTsyfg) If yes, then back then when the video was made the capacitors were 1 uF, 600V rated, Grumage confirmed that back then (in 2023). This is why I based some calculations above in my post on that.
Maybe Aking wishes to chime in with any correction if needed. Probably his capacitors back then were not electrolytic types.
Gyula
As suggested by Aking.21, i changed C3 to be 4x 100F in series, meaning 25F using the last setup (CMC 1:1 transformer, schottky diode bridge).
The circuit now looks like this:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53249;image)
Again i shorted C2 and C3 to be 0V, and charged C1 to 2.7V.
I did not record all the data, i initially wanted to just note down the start and end voltages, but as C3 started rather quickly to load up and even increased more than C1 i noted down the data after 1 hour which was:
C1 C2 C3
Start 2.7V (364.5 J) 0V (0 J) 0V (0 J)
1 Hour 1.852V (171.5 J) 1.028V (52.84 J) 1.927V (46.42 J)
running....
So it seems that having for C3 4x caps in series OR having a lower value cap for C3 (or both as in this case) we see C3 voltage increase quickly and even increase more than C1.
It however does not seem to contain more energy together with C2 then C1 has, but it might LOOK like we have more energy in C3 then in C1, thus LOOKS like overunity.
So are the caps in Joel his video really 4x 10000F (2500F) or less?
I will keep it running overnight to see what the end result will be, but as it changes very slowly now i do not expect a large change....
Itsu
Quote from: gyula on 2025.02.23, 21:26:22
Hi Mags,
Which video you mean? This one by Aking? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBR2tOTsyfg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBR2tOTsyfg) If yes, then back then when the video was made the capacitors were 1 uF, 600V rated, Grumage confirmed that back then (in 2023). This is why I based some calculations above in my post on that.
Maybe Aking wishes to chime in with any correction if needed. Probably his capacitors back then were not electrolytic types.
Gyula
1uf. hmmm. i was thinking 4.7uf as Aking seems to have sugested in the previos post might be qite small to afford that much self sparking after the hv power input was disconnected. each spark should have drained those small caps very quickly. that was why i questioned about if the hv leads from the transformer were also disconnected also, to eliminate the posisbility of rundown with that after power input was removed as seen in the vid. if they are 1uf, then i would suspect that even more.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.23, 20:34:59
so those caps in the vid are 4.7uf
mags
No, I was talking about the first time I got the effect.
I have measured the current caps as in the video:
They are highly unstable with varying capacities.
After some settling down I got: each cap 500 pf @100 Hz ; 470 pf @10KHZ
I ony measured the 1st cap in the series (disconnected).
5 caps in series: 402 pf sometimes 325 pf at 100 Hz.
So the mathematics doesn't add up. (Not my fault).
The meter used was DER EE DE-5000
Grumage has the same caps, (he sent them to me) maybe he has some more info.
The overnight run was not conclusive as the 9V battery powering the little FG got drained and the FG stopped working at some time, but the results after 13 Hours on the meters were:
C1 C2 C3
13 hours 1.651V (136.3 J) 1.092V (59.62 J) 2,2V (60.5 J)
Doing the calculations anyway: we started with 364.5 Joule in C1
C1 ended with 136.3 Joule left over
C2 ended with 59.62 Joule left over
C3 ended with 60.5 Joule left over.
So overall we started with 364.5 J and ended with 256.42 Joule, so no gain noted here.
If we only take the data from after 1 hour running, we get:
Starting with 364.5 J, ending with 171.5 + 52.84 + 46.42 = 270.76 Joule, so also here no gain noted.
I will do another run making sure the FG keeps on running.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.02.24, 10:20:44
The overnight run was not conclusive as the 9V battery powering the little FG got drained and the FG stopped working at some time, but the results after 13 Hours on the meters were:
C1 C2 C3
13 hours 1.651V (136.3 J) 1.092V (59.62 J) 2,2V (60.5 J)
Doing the calculations anyway: we started with 364.5 Joule in C1
C1 ended with 136.3 Joule left over
C2 ended with 59.62 Joule left over
C3 ended with 60.5 Joule left over.
So overall we started with 364.5 J and ended with 256.42 Joule, so no gain noted here.
If we only take the data from after 1 hour running, we get:
Starting with 364.5 J, ending with 171.5 + 52.84 + 46.42 = 270.76 Joule, so also here no gain noted.
I will do another run making sure the FG keeps on running.
Itsu
I notice your circuit seems more efficient after 1 hour of running than at the end. Is that because the FG stopped running you think?
I don't think so, it probably is due to the nature of the (dis)charge speed which is fastest at the start, then slowing down gradually because of the internal resistances staying constant while voltage is decreasing, thus getting this funnel shape graph i showed in my earlier posts.
Itsu
I restarted the last setup again this morning and after 24 hours running we got this data:
C1 C2 C3
start 2.7V 0V 0V
6 hours 1.704V 1.156V 2.08V
11 hours 1.618V 1.194V 2.13V
24 hours 1.455V (105.85 J) 1.255V (78.75 J) 2.18V (59.4 J)
33 hours 1.349V (90.99 J) 1.29V (83.2 J) 2.2V (60.05 J)
48 hours 1.249V (78 J) 1.311V (85.94 J) 2.22V (61.6 J)
i will keep it running some days.
Itsu
one of the issues with cap to cap as you see here is that capA at 2.7v, has the highest pressure, potential, at first but deteriorates double time as cap B takes on potential. the first pulse is the most powerful. as it goes along, the voltage across the primary can only be the difference in voltage cap A minus cap B.
eventually we should end with 1.35v in each cap A and B in an ideal situation. each holding only 25% of the original cap A energy.
so, im wondering how much could go to cap C if we just used cap A, nix cap B and just charge cap C. im thinking the outcome can be a better eff than what we are seeing cap to cap charging cap C
on my end, the list of caps i posted are too much for the inductance of the toroid winding. 1.6mh. the max flux happens too quickly thus max current. like the 1000uf almost acted like simple cap to cap with just a variance in voltage diff. 100uf showed inprovement. say 20v ended 6v cap A and 14v cap B. little lower due to diode. so i finally went to 2uf plastic dip 100v. works as intended but the caps leak down quickly. so possibly go to electrolytic will help with that. also need to try 10uf, some below 100uf. testing....
even though i was down on the cap to cap above, my approach is dealing just 1 shot cap A to cap B being the toroid winding is very close to lenzless and hope for output on cap C.
i have another orbo wound with more turns of finer wire. need to find that, or rewind a new one with a higher inductance.
mags
I have updated my previous post with 24H data.
So we now (24H) have:
C1 = 105.85 J
C2 plus C3 = 138.15
There seems to be more energy in C2 and C3 together as there is now energy left in C1
Total energy started with was 364.5 J in C1, and left over in all 3 Caps now is 244 J so still overall we loose (but we always do if paralleling caps).
At the end we suppose to have an equal amount of energy left in C1 and C2 ( without C3 1.35V = 182.25 / cap) but that we are not going to get anymore due to the transfer to C3.
I will keep it running for some time to see if we get an equal amount of energy in C1 and C2.
Itsu
Mags, I see you are trolling F6FLT - good on you. You've plenty of available science to prove him wrong.
You once asked me about my little device.
Well, here it is: Consistently showing zero amps and zero volts yet charging a very big 12 volt battery.
It is a simplified diagram of Lagace's free energy from the energy company (which is not the case).
How it works:
1. A mains rated less than 1uf capacitor is charged by the mains in the first half cycle.
2. The capacitor discharges this power back into the mains in the next half cycle. This process repeats at 50 or 60 cycles per second.
3 The sequence is interrupted by a bridge rectifier that charges your 12-volt battery.
It is called reactive power, but it is essentially your own power which you have paid for bouncing back and forth between
the electricity company and your capacitor minus system losses.
4 The additional power can only come from the electrostatic field in my opinion or the power meter is wrong.
I estimate that about 2 watts of energy is being created.
The choice of capacitor matters very much. A bigger than 1uf cap and it immediately registers 1.2 watts and more.
I assume this is because the bigger cap puts higher resistance in the system.
If I introduce a spark gap into the circuit, resistance is immediately created and power is consumed and registered.
It is a delicate balance. Introducing a trafo can also register sometimes. Sometimes not.
The first pic shows the system with the circuit encapsulated.
The second pic shows the actual circuit.
The third pic shows a transparent encapsulated circuit.
Either way, it is a highly efficient battery charger, and those with solar power and battery backup may be interested.
Meanwhile, i was revisiting the video at the first post of this thread and noted the following:
Joel says at:
1:03 "i charge Cap A (our cap C1) to 1.96V and discharged the other cap (pointing to our cap C2).
1:29 "switching in Hz which is the optimum" pointing to the FG which clearly shows to be set to 26.2 kHz. (so is it really the optimum then?)
1:55 "After 1 hour (after start i guess) we have 0.1V drop on Cap A (our cap C1) and a same 0.1V (-10%) increase on the other cap (our cap C2).
2:28 pointing to our cap C3 "this is a set of 10000F" which is hard to believe as the 4 caps are in series meaning 40000F each.
2:36 pointing to our cap C3 "set to zero" meaning at the start it was discharged to 0V IMO.
7:13 "it ran all night" showing the voltage across cap A (our cap C1) being 1.78V which means coming from 1.96V at start, a drop of 180mV
7:55 we can see written on the top of one of the 4 series caps "10000", see attached picture. So not 10000F, so still very doubtful these are real 10000F caps (4 in series mean 2500F).
In the comments below this video, there are also doubts about the value of the used C3 caps, but questions asked Joel are ignored (which i often see in his other video's where these 4 series caps are used.
He uses these 4 series caps already in this video: https://youtu.be/Xr9QSD889ZA from 2 years ago, in which also the now used transformer is shown (Prim. 120VAC 60Hz 15W - Sec. 2.3V 3A).
From the above, we learn the values on his caps to be:
C1 charged to 1.96V (500F = 960.4J).
C2 and C3 drained to 0V
He says cap A (C1) dropped 100mV in the first hour and C2 (his other 500F cap) gained 100mV (meaning it was charged to 0.1V) and that this was going on in this relation.
He also says that at the time of the video the device was running all night and showed that C1 (his cap A) now measured 1.78V, so a drop from 1.96 of 180mV.
This thus mean, seeing the above statement, that C2 now should have gained 180mV so it should now measure 0.180V.
C1 started with 1.96V = 960.4J and ended with 1.78V = 792.1J so lost 168.3J
C2 started with 0V and ended with 0.180V = 8.1J (which is hard to believe IMO, but as it was never measured or mentioned it could be anything).
C3 started with 0V and ended with 2.51V which for a 2500F cap mean 7875J (which is also hard to believe).
If we follow the suggestion of one of the responders under Joel his video that the 4 series caps more look like 100F caps (meaning a total of 25F) and we take the shown 2.51V then we have an energy of 78.75J in these caps which is much more believable and matches more the results i have.
I guess we will never know, as Joel ignorers questions about his 4 series caps value up till now.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.02.25, 21:35:08
C3 started with 0V and ended with 2.51V which for a 2500F cap ...
They make 2500 Farad capacitors now ? :o
I think this is a slightly clearer picture of the caps.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.02.25, 22:46:08
They make 2500 Farad capacitors now ? :o
I think Itsu meant the 4 capacitors (10000 F each) connected in series resulted in 2500 F.
Hi Howerd,
If your capacitor is say 870 nF, then its capacitive reactance is around 3.65 kOhm at 50 Hz mains frequency,
This sets the battery charge current to around 65.5 mA AC with the 240 V mains.
Using say 1 uF capacitor, the reactance reduces to 3.18 kOhm and the charge current increases to 75.4 mA AC.
At the DC output of the diode bridge the charge current feeding the battery could be checked by a DC ampermeter, it should be in the above calculated range,
capacitor depending.
Your power meter is not wrong IMHO, it just has a limited lower measurement range, not specified below the 1 W or so consumed power. Maybe there is specification in
the user manual? What is the type of the meter?
In your point 4 you wrote
"The additional power can only come from the electrostatic field in my opinion or the power meter is wrong"
Would like to ask where is this electrostatic field created you refer to?
Gyula
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.02.25, 19:48:37
Mags, I see you are trolling F6FLT - good on you. You've plenty of available science to prove him wrong.
You once asked me about my little device.
Well, here it is: Consistently showing zero amps and zero volts yet charging a very big 12 volt battery.
It is a simplified diagram of Lagace's free energy from the energy company (which is not the case).
How it works:
1. A mains rated less than 1uf capacitor is charged by the mains in the first half cycle.
2. The capacitor discharges this power back into the mains in the next half cycle. This process repeats at 50 or 60 cycles per second.
3 The sequence is interrupted by a bridge rectifier that charges your 12-volt battery.
It is called reactive power, but it is essentially your own power which you have paid for bouncing back and forth between
the electricity company and your capacitor minus system losses.
4 The additional power can only come from the electrostatic field in my opinion or the power meter is wrong.
I estimate that about 2 watts of energy is being created.
The choice of capacitor matters very much. A bigger than 1uf cap and it immediately registers 1.2 watts and more.
I assume this is because the bigger cap puts higher resistance in the system.
If I introduce a spark gap into the circuit, resistance is immediately created and power is consumed and registered.
It is a delicate balance. Introducing a trafo can also register sometimes. Sometimes not.
The first pic shows the system with the circuit encapsulated.
The second pic shows the actual circuit.
The third pic shows a transparent encapsulated circuit.
Either way, it is a highly efficient battery charger, and those with solar power and battery backup may be interested.
Hi Gyula,
When you repeatedly charge and discharge a capacitor you are constantly charging and discharging an electrostatic field.
The air contains electrostatic energy as do various objects.
according to Chatgpt:
"A capacitor stores energy in the form of an electric field between its plates. Here's how it works:
Charging the Capacitor: When a voltage is applied across the capacitor's plates, electrons accumulate on one plate (making it negatively charged), while the other plate loses electrons (becoming positively charged). This creates a potential difference (voltage) between the plates.
Electric Field Formation: The separation of charges generates an electric field in the dielectric material (the insulating material between the plates). This field represents stored electrostatic energy."
If we want COP>1 we have to figure out how to use this available energy.
If we do nothing, our chance of success is zero.
If we work at it our chances of success may be minuscule, but they are not zero
Keep experimenting.
Quote from: gyula on 2025.02.25, 23:02:03
I think Itsu meant the 4 capacitors (10000 F each) connected in series resulted in 2500 F.
They make 10000 Farad capacitors now ? :o
Quote from: verpies on 2025.02.26, 00:41:29
They make 10000 Farad capacitors now ? :o
It all started with ths video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c7llvTjlwQ
That is where the 10000F caps claim originated.
hey aking
yeah, im not 'saying' f6flt is wrong. but, as we should all know, electrons have a neg charge vs pos, crt knowledge should solidify that. and a pos charge is brought about by atoms missing electrons. doesnt sound so far fetched. now comes the tough part. why does a magnetic field come about when electrons flow through a conductor?
see, i have a 'theory' that ive only presented a couple times in the last 10years or so. the theory is based on why, depending on pole polarity of magnetic flux and the direction that flux crosses or cuts a conductor, does that determine the influence of currents in that wire, one direction or the other? how does that process work exactly. so this is what i have come up with....
im thinking that electrons are where that mag field derives from. also im thinking that electrons have a pos and neg side to them, with the mag field circling around the pos and neg axis of the electron. sounds crazy, i know. but hang with me here...
when we apply current to a wire, we are told that electrons enter the wire from the neg of the source, through the wire towards the pos of the source. so lets just say as the current is low, fewer electrons flow and higher current, more electrons flow, in 1 direction. why do we have less mag field with low current, and stronger field with high current? ah, we say well possibly my theory that electrons, each one, and say just ones that are loose from their atoms, has its own field and when there is more current thus more electrons. but how do the electrons know to align their individual fields with the fields of other flowing electrons? this is where the pos and neg sides of the electrons theory becomes a possibilty. we apply the source to the wire and electrons are flowing because of charge difference from one side of the wire to the other. if the electrons have a pos and neg side to them and they align themselves, while flowing in the wire, with the pos and neg input, then the mag fields of each will also be in alignment with each other. thus more current flow, more loose electrons, more magnetice field strength. all this being said, the electrons pos and neg alignment properties with the polarity of the input must be greater than the mag fields of the electrons, as the individual mag fields between aligned electrons would oppose oneanother, as in repell. like 2 magnets being brought together, side by side, they would repell.
not saying i am correct. just a theory that has stuck with me for a while. its my way of thinking why does current flow this direction or that direction depending on the direction the flux cuts the wire 'prependicularly' thats the puzzle my brain is trying to solve. so if the idea of electrons having a pos and neg side electrical field and the mag field, b field, circling the pos and neg axis, then inducing current direction with flux cutting works similarly where the flux aligns the electrons in a polarity pos side this direction, neg side that direction. this would imply that the electron is also the source of electric field. drag the magnet across the wire, electrons align pos and neg in the wire, only to move if there is a load on the induced wire.
if i am totally wrong, then i dont get where the b field around the wire comes from exactly. it remains a big mystery the functions of this polarity, that polarity. this direction and that direction. all whether we are inducing the wire or running current through it. also if im wrong, then i have to think of the electron as just a neg particle that is just mysteriously manipulated as we seem to maybe know, as if we know some of how it works together in very basic form, but we dont know why it all works as it does. yet.
i have a small neon drive circuit from an older copy scanner machine. high freq, about 1kv. so in the case of a cap with an av plug(2 diodes) and we connect the plug to just 1 wire of the neon trafo output, we are able to charge that cap. was not in the belief that with the neon driver operating, no load, that the charges on one end of the trafo ouput winding, are only electrical fields on their own. i was in the belief the electrons in that output winding, mind you, high volt, very fine wire and many turns, are being compressed from one end of the wire to the other, back and forth. so when there is an excess of electrons at the av plug, they can release a bit of pressure into 1 plate of the cap through 1 diode, and also suck electrons out of the other plate of the cap, through the other diode when the pumping of electrons in the winding goes the other direction. thus allowing the cap to charge via 1 wire. but if my theory is correct, then it could be just pos e fields at one end of the hv winding and neg e field at the other end, could be that electrons are just aligned in the unloaded winding and the source of the e field is all those electrons with pos and neg sides are aligned + - + -. but again, if i am wrong, then i revert back to electrons being pumped from one end of the winding to thebother and back again, in order to legitemise the electrical charges at each end of the winding.
as for the device you have, i suppose you would need a lab grade current meter to see if the currents you have going to the battery through the tiny cap are actually coming from the wall. tiny caps like that only allow small amounts of ac currents through. like audio analog crossover networks where the caps reduce low freq currents getting to tweeters for example, or used to absorb high freq to gnd after a series inductor to keep high freq away from the woofer.
you might get better results by making an lc that is tuned to your house line freq and just tickling it with 1 wire from the hot lead in the wall. cant say that the house line meter would register that if you got high enough currents from the lc.
mags
I've just had a thought about Lagace's 10000F comment.
It could be that he has 4x2,500F caps in series.
Therefore Cap C3 would be only 625F
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.02.26, 03:22:52
I've just had a thought about Lagace's 10000F comment.
It could be that he has 4x2,500F caps in series.
Therefore Cap C3 would be only 625F
looks to be in series. also looks to be 10,000F also from the closups. i wonder if there are caps out there being labeled wrong intentionally to sell them. i havnt seen any for sale. titles of products for sale that say 10,000F but when you look, they only have maybe 3000F or less. anyway, i still want one of those 10000F caps. ;)
why he says they are 10000F but doesnt verbally specify they are in series makes me wonder whats the gist, or maybe he just forgot to say it at the time. dunno
the use of a smaller capacitance for cap C is the only way he could get these numbers. especially when the circuit drawing shows all caps same value. why change that in the demo. just too thick on boloni so far.
mags
I updated my post #114 with some additional data (33H and 48H) and copied it here, including the graph.
C1 C2 C3
start 2.7V 0V 0V
6 hours 1.704V 1.156V 2.08V
11 hours 1.618V 1.194V 2.13V
24 hours 1.455V (105.85 J) 1.255V (78.75 J) 2.18V (59.4 J)
33 hours 1.349V (90.99 J) 1.29V (83.2 J) 2.2V (60.05 J)
48 hours 1.249V (78 J) 1.311V (85.94 J) 2.22V (61.6 J)
58Hours 1.201V (72.12 J) 1.305V (85.15 J) 2.23V (62.16 J)
Its new to see that C1 now has less energy in it than C2.
But overall we still see no gain as we started out with 364.5 Joule in C1, and now we got a total of 225.54 Joule in the 3 caps.
This however is more than what we could expect when paralleling 2x 100F caps which should end with half of the starting 364.5 J being 182.25 Joule!
I agree that 10000F caps are very hard to find / get now (i could not find any, the skinny ones like Joel shows), so i wonder where they came from already 2 years ago.
With other words, its almost certain they are not 4x 10000F caps in series (meaning 2500F) IMO.
Itsu
Itsu, that's an interesting result..
It shows that something is going on which possibly defies Kirchoff's law.
I would like to bet that a repeat of the experiment will show a greater gain.
BTW Lagace said this only works for cop>1 with supercaps.
I don't know if mine qualify, as they are from an electric bus at 2.5v 2600F each, but I'll give it a go.
They are Maxwell Boostcaps Type BCAP0010 A08
I think your results are encouraging and some proof for my hypothesis that repeated pulsing can
extract energy from the electrons surrounding the device.
I have finally built my F G device, so can move on to serious stuff.
Thanks, once again for your input, Itsu.
I agree that those results are interesting and that something is going on, but i am not sure what.
The fact that both 100F capacitors C1 and C2 suppose to settle out to half of the C1 initial energy level (365.4 Joule) thus 182.25 total, but that we ended up together with C3 to a total of 225.54 could be considered IMO as a gain.
Your caps will qualify i think, why not, the question is only if you need a higher capacity for C3 or a lower on, so try both cases if possible.
I think i will return to my 220V / 8V transformer and repeat the experiment to see if the lower C3 capacity (4x 100F in series, thus 25F) provide similar results as with the 1:1 CMC transformer.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.02.26, 19:47:16
I agree that those results are interesting and that something is going on, but i am not sure what.
The fact that both 100F capacitors C1 and C2 suppose to settle out to half of the C1 initial energy level (365.4 Joule) thus 182.25 total, but that we ended up together with C3 to a total of 225.54 could be considered IMO as a gain.
Your caps will qualify i think, why not, the question is only if you need a higher capacity for C3 or a lower on, so try both cases if possible.
I think i will return to my 220V / 8V transformer and repeat the experiment to see if the lower C3 capacity (4x 100F in series, thus 25F) provide similar results as with the 1:1 CMC transformer.
Itsu
Instead of C1/C2 losing half of their energy via resistance in the wire, some of the energy is transferred via the inductive impedance of the transformer, effectively storing it in C3 instead of dissipating it as heat.
Quote from: web000x on 2025.02.27, 01:00:47
Instead of C1/C2 losing half of their energy via resistance in the wire, some of the energy is transferred via the inductive impedance of the transformer, effectively storing it in C3 instead of dissipating it as heat.
the 50% loss is not due to resistance.
mags
one way to think about the possiblity of resistance as being a loss in the cap to cap scenario, is to look at other ways resistance causes losses in other circuits, even simple circuits.
look at a 10v source to a lightbulb. add more resistance in series with the bulb, what happens?
in the cap to cap deal, try changing that resistance. super cool super conducting wires and the caps for the least amount of resistance, then try no cooling and the lowest resistance possible. then add 1000ohms. then 1megohm.
the outcome of say starting with10v will end in 5v in each cap every time. not a microvolt lost. this example above, simply put, should encourage one to seek elswhere for the apparent losses we are discussing.
now. why did we lose 50%???
mags
still trying things with the cap to cap and orbo in place of the transformer.
below from left to right is caps A, B and C.
the best transfer of cap A to B through the toroid winding was so far with 2uf plastic dip caps. the cap to cap potential and currents are quite different than pulsing the toroid from a capable source. the immediate dip in voltage across the winding, cap to cap, forces me to try higher voltages in order to get as much of the magnets flux out of the core to cut the output windings as possible. pulsing the winding with even short duty cycles works better. like i said earlier, will need to rewind the toroid for more inductance to try to improve things. the caps in the pic are 53uf 450v. i get good output from the output winding but the cap to cap transfer suffers due to too low inductance. the amount of energy stored in the inductance reaches peak to quickly, and by the time the caps get closer to equilibrium, the energy in the inductor is diminished.
im going to wind a new one and see if it improves anything.
mags
one more thing.. earlier i said the 2uf caps self drain too quickly. the meter i was measuring that voltage with must have a low input impedance. when i tried my fluke meter, 10mohm impedance, the drop was still there but not near as bad. the other meter i one of the new tweezer meters. works great for many things. but this was an issue measuring stored voltage on small caps.
mags
Quote from: web000x on 2025.02.27, 01:00:47
Instead of C1/C2 losing half of their energy via resistance in the wire, some of the energy is transferred via the inductive impedance of the transformer, effectively storing it in C3 instead of dissipating it as heat.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.27, 05:27:05
the 50% loss is not due to resistance.
mags
Thanks web000, thanks Mags,
not sure what it is here, but looking at this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_capacitor_paradox science tend to believe its due to resistance and radiation (RF).
Itsu
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.27, 09:29:54
one more thing.. earlier i said the 2uf caps self drain too quickly. the meter i was measuring that voltage with must have a low input impedance. when i tried my fluke meter, 10mohm impedance, the drop was still there but not near as bad. the other meter i one of the new tweezer meters. works great for many things. but this was an issue measuring stored voltage on small caps.
mags
Good call Mags, so we have to check what the influence of the used DMM's are on the measurements. O0
I changed in my last setup the CMC 1;1 transformer for the 8V / 220V transformer, the rest is the same, see diagram:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53335;image)
I recorded the first hour the voltages every 5 minutes, then let it run overnight and toke again a measurement after some 12 hours, hence the somewhat skewed graphs.
The result can be seen here:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53333;image)
No similar increase on C3 as with the CMC transformer now.
So the impedance / inductance of the transformer plays a major role in the transfer to C3.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.02.27, 09:43:23
Thanks web000, thanks Mags,
not sure what it is here, but looking at this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_capacitor_paradox science tend to believe its due to resistance and radiation (RF).
Itsu
if you can think about it like 2 5gal buckets instead of caps. even air tanks. pressure is pressure and currents are currents
5 gal water in bucket A. bucket B is empty. at the bottom the buckets are connected with a hose with an on/off valve.
open the valve. wait. in the end, howany gal do we end up with in each bucket?
add resistance. open the valve just a little bit. same result, just longer time to complete. kinda with the super caps. get 2 bu kets with a million gal capacity and repeat the experiment. how many gal would we have in both containers after the long time of waiting for the result? same results, shorter time.
we lost 50% because we didnt do anything with the energy 'transfer'. but here, in your experiments, you are using the transfer to. harge cap C. and still only have 50% left in caps A and B. but the addition of cap C brings us above 50%.
like if you do the cap to cap with an inductor of proper value and a diode, you can transfer all of cap A to cap B, minus only the diode drop voltage what ever it is. and the masters of the universe will say, oh, the use of the inductor negates the resistance losses.
colombs law should be understood. if you could count the electrons taken from one plate to another, then with the capacitance value we can calculate the exact voltage in that cap.
does resistance remove electrons from the current in the circuit??? did the resistance of the water valve create any heat losses and change the amount of water we ended up with in the buckets??
if we dont use the energy transfer, then we just reduced the pressure, in each case, and wasted that energy. used energy to fill up those caps and buckets, but chose to just kill off half of the energy to fill the first one in the first place. and no water was spilled on the ground. no electrons left the system, nor gobbled up by the resistors. we could put a water motor in place of the valve and drive a flywheel and take all of bucket A to bucket B. this could be a useful thing. say we had 2 60 gal drums. each drum is 1000ft away from each other.run a long hose( already primed with water) with a valve and turn it on. how many gal would we end up with in each drum? 30 each? ok. so we got 30gal of water transfered from here to there. but if we put the water motor with flywheel, we could possibly transfer all of the 60 gal 1000ft. same as the inductor builds the mag field(flywheel), expanding, then the collapsing field pulls all the rest of capA charge and pushes it into capB. no resistance loses. infact if you can time the on off of the switch, transistor, perfectly, you can get rid of the diode and have no losses at all....
i dont know why they say it is resistance that causes the 50% loss. if Colomb had it figured out back then, then why the deception, or they just really dont know. what might we be missing if we dont know the truth here? is it a coverup, or a widespread mistake?
mags
Mags,
the wiki page is not for nothing called the "capacitor paradox" ;)
There are countless discussions to be found about this subject, so i do not want to go there and just follow the general consensus.
Itsu
When the circuit has resistance, half of the energy is lost to that resistance. Take a large value cap and discharge it through a resistive load into another cap. Feel the heat generated from the resistor. Use a scope probe across the resistor and set up math functions to integrate the power wave and see the energy dissipated in the resistor. It will be half of the starting energy of the charged capacitor. The only time there is a charge transfer paradox is when there is no resistance in the circuit and all of the components are ideal.
Dave
thats just it. even ideal, the loss would be the same. still 5v in each cap still 5gal in each bucket. still 5lb of air in each tank.
if it were ideal, would we end up with 7.07v in each cap from 10v? could we get 7.07 gal in each bucket from 10gal??
just for example, say we have 2 known value caps. and with that known value, we can say that if there were 1000 electrons pulled from 1 plate to the other and that would calculate out to 10v with the value of the cap.
now we do cap to cap. now we have only 500 electron count in each cap. we now have 5v in each cap. we did not lose electrons. resistance did not gobble them up. resistance, heat, no heat, only slows down the flow of electrons, not take them away from the system.
if we start 10v, we would need to end up with 7.07v in each cap to calc to 100% total, no loss. well where did you get those extra electrons from to acomplish that?? the ideal world gives them out for free i suppose. maybe in that world we could start with 10gal of water and end up with 14.14 gal total in 2 buckets.
one issue is, people seem to trust wiki above all knowledge, even though some stuff has been known to be wrong there. need to get back to basics and read from the actual texts of these guys that put it all together for us 100yrs back and more. Tesla. Faraday. Colomb. etc.
again, if i used an inductor in series with the 2 caps, if i can get all of the 10v from A to B, in the real world mind you, then there must be some overunity happening there according to your knowledge, beeing all those resistances in the wires, inductors and caps oh my.
and if your correct, imagine the cap to cap through the inductor in an ideal situation. must be overwhelming the amount of overunity happening now. ehhh. wrong. still 10v this cap to that cap.
mags
As Itsu has said, radiation resistance is another place for the energy to go. When you have zero resistance, your RC time constant is zero and therefore the time it takes to transfer that energy into the other cap is instantaneous. Powerful capacitive discharges create a rather large wave in the ether.
Dave
Hi Itsu,
In your Reply #71 https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg114752#msg114752 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg114752#msg114752) you used the 8V / 220V transformer already and gave the transformer specs.
The 220V coil on it has 509 Ohm DC resistance versus the CMC's 1 Ohm, this surely causes a relatively big loss in charging C3. Also the wall plug-in transformer core can have core losses at 26 kHz.
I mention this because I think we would need to consider any FG output energy leakage into the circuit via the switching transistor IRF540.
This leakage may add energy to the system and during the 48 hour run time it resulted in the data you included in Reply #129 yesterday.
Data sheet includes typical capacitance graphs versus drain to source voltage, say at VDS=2V the gate to drain capacitance (Crss=Cgd) is around 600 pF, and the other
capacitances are also included in the snapshot on Figure 5 attached from data sheet https://www.vishay.com/docs/91021/irf540.pdf (https://www.vishay.com/docs/91021/irf540.pdf)
Although you did not run the test for 48 hours with the 8V / 220V transformer like with the CMC one, it is possible that the energy leakage from the FG in the same circuit
was fully consumed by the losses in the 8v / 220V transformer so the "extra" energy (or the strange behaviour) you experienced with the CMC transformer simply could not manifest (especially not in C3) (here I assume the
"extra" energy enters the system from the FG via the IRF540's capacitances).
Comments are welcome from everybody of course.
Gyula
Quote from: web000x on 2025.02.27, 16:52:16
As Itsu has said, radiation resistance is another place for the energy to go. When you have zero resistance, your RC time constant is zero and therefore the time it takes to transfer that energy into the other cap is instantaneous. Powerful capacitive discharges create a rather large wave in the ether.
Dave
im not saying heat and radiation are not being produced. but i am saying that the 50% loss is not due to that. we are only talking cap to cap here. its not a circuit typically used for anything in the industry. what we are not looking at is the fact that the electron count is always going to be the same in order to calc the voltage very precisely in a known cap value. if we cant get a grip on the analogy of voltage pressure vs pressure of the weight of water and even air pressure as being the same, then explain thise differences to me. all 3 of those pressures can do similar work. more work the higher the pressure and less work the lower the pressure. and those works can all be measured in the same watts. those stored energies can be calculated in the same joules.
so what if we are all possibly missing out on something in all we do here just because of this one paradox that may not be mainstream correct? whyvwould my claim be simply dismissed with a wiki post, but we all spend so much time on this questionable claim in a vid?
mags
mags
I get what you're saying but in conventional circuits we are indeed losing energy to resistance or RF. Where the energy comes from in these OU circuits is the million dollar question. You said that 50% of the energy is not lost due to resistance but what I see on my bench is that it is indeed lost to just that.
Something energetic is coming from a low impedance (zero resistance and/or stout copper busses) when a capacitor is discharged through them. See Gerry Vassilatos Secrets of Cold War Technology where Tesla talks of the stinging rays from large cap discharges into low impedances. Energy is leaving the circuit boundaries.
Here is a quick test I did earlier with two 5600uF caps and a 30 ohm resistor. I charged the C1 up to 10V and C2 at 0V. I connected the resistor between the positive terminals of the caps and put a current probe on the wire and a voltage probe across the resistor. F3 (Purple) is a math function of CH2*CH4. I took the area of F3 as indicated under the measurements tab and it aligns almost perfectly with 1/2 of the energy from the initial charge on C1.
CH4 - 1mV = 1mA
Initial Energy in C1 - (10^2)*(5600uF)/2 = 280mJ
Area under F3 = 137mJ
Dave
i agree. in conventional circuits, everything that is in line between the source and the load, can be a loss, but only because of voltage divisions preventing the load from seeing max voltage from the source.
but in this case, lets say we charge cap A to 10v, then just short it out till 0v. did we lose 'all' the energy because of resistance? or did we lose what we once had by just letting it go? we simply discharged the cap. if there was radiation because we discharged the cap, that radiation wasnt the reason the exess electrons in the neg plate were transferred to the electron depleted positive plate for an end result of 0v, zero energ left. and also, IF there were no radiation nor any resistance, would that 10v cap still just discharge to 0v? or would you expect a better result than a 100% loss?
if so, explain. ;)
mags
We haven't even considered what effect earthing one of the caps would have, nor have we considered what effect pulsing the earth ground would have.
Don Smith and Kapanadze both use grounding. It's an interesting topic that I will be looking at eventually.
It is also interesting to see what effect the MOSFET has.
Kapanadze told me that the negative terminal of a car battery acts as an earth. (thus avoiding any mains leakage).
I'm nearly ready for testing, but the big caps I use require a lot of messing about to keep them in place.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.27, 20:13:00
i agree. in conventional circuits, everything that is in line between the source and the load, can be a loss, but only because of voltage divisions preventing the load from seeing max voltage from the source.
but in this case, lets say we charge cap A to 10v, then just short it out till 0v. did we lose 'all' the energy because of resistance? or did we lose what we once had by just letting it go? we simply discharged the cap. if there was radiation because we discharged the cap, that radiation wasnt the reason the exess electrons in the neg plate were transferred to the electron depleted positive plate for an end result of 0v, zero energ left. and also, IF there were no radiation nor any resistance, would that 10v cap still just discharge to 0v? or would you expect a better result than a 100% loss?
if so, explain. ;)
mags
If you had no radiation nor resistance, you would have an infinite LC oscillation. ;)
Quote from: gyula on 2025.02.27, 17:34:58
Hi Itsu,
In your Reply #71 https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg114752#msg114752 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg114752#msg114752) you used the 8V / 220V transformer already and gave the transformer specs.
The 220V coil on it has 509 Ohm DC resistance versus the CMC's 1 Ohm, this surely causes a relatively big loss in charging C3. Also the wall plug-in transformer core can have core losses at 26 kHz.
I mention this because I think we would need to consider any FG output energy leakage into the circuit via the switching transistor IRF540.
This leakage may add energy to the system and during the 48 hour run time it resulted in the data you included in Reply #129 yesterday.
Data sheet includes typical capacitance graphs versus drain to source voltage, say at VDS=2V the gate to drain capacitance (Crss=Cgd) is around 600 pF, and the other
capacitances are also included in the snapshot on Figure 5 attached from data sheet https://www.vishay.com/docs/91021/irf540.pdf (https://www.vishay.com/docs/91021/irf540.pdf)
Although you did not run the test for 48 hours with the 8V / 220V transformer like with the CMC one, it is possible that the energy leakage from the FG in the same circuit
was fully consumed by the losses in the 8v / 220V transformer so the "extra" energy (or the strange behaviour) you experienced with the CMC transformer simply could not manifest (especially not in C3) (here I assume the
"extra" energy enters the system from the FG via the IRF540's capacitances).
Comments are welcome from everybody of course.
Gyula
Gyula,
thanks for that info.
Yes, the FG is able to add some power into the circuit, and a quick look on the PS shows it is consuming 9V @ 10mA (90mW).
Not sure how that pans out for additional input into the circuit (gate is pulsed with 9V pulses with 75% duty cycle.), so perhaps i can get some measurements on that gate circuit.
Itsu
An update on my present circuit, which just now was running for 36 hours.
The below Excel sheet shows both the data (time in minutes) and the graph.
We see that C1 and C2 are swapping places concerning voltage reading, (C2 is dropping at the moment) and overall we have a much less input into C3 for reasons like mentioned by Gyula (higher secondary resistance).
Itsu
Quote from: web000x on 2025.02.27, 20:33:34
If you had no radiation nor resistance, you would have an infinite LC oscillation. ;)
ideal caps have no resistance and no inductance. the cap is ideal, just capacitance. so no oscillation.
nags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.02.28, 00:46:51
ideal caps have no resistance and no inductance. the cap is ideal, just capacitance. so no oscillation.
nags
The only problem with that situation is that it is not rooted in reality. All of the metallic geometry constituting the capacitor will have some inductance. A current passing through the conductor will produce a stored magnetic field. Saying omit the inductance is akin to saying we are running experiments in a reality where kinetic energy does not exist and we only have potential available.
Anyway, I am not trying to derail this thread with theorizing so this will be my last response to the capacitor paradox. I am genuinely curious if anyone will find an anomaly and would love for Joel to be proven right.
Dave
I just updated my post #152 above with 36 hour data.
We see both C1 and C2 decreasing and C3 increasing only barely.
I think this is due to a steady state we have reached now, and the internal leakage of the capacitors together with the DMM's across them is causing this decrease.
There is not much use to continue this run i guess.
Itsu
if the document the screeshot here came from is correct, then this is the transformer that should work using the cap to cap deal. i have some toroid cores that are perfect halves. so wind one half and the secondary wound on 2 other halves, the put the halves together. easier wind than a closed toroid..
basically the claim is that the 2 core rag doll is lenzless other than 'increasing' the primary inductance when the sec is loaded. normal transformers, the primary inductance will go way down when the sec is loaded.
so. the same idea i had with the orbo, use the primary as the inductor to transfer all of cap A to cap B and load capC with the sec.
the cap to cap paradox is key here. till now i hadnt found a good reason to use it, as all my earlier attempts over the years didnt pan out. but here also, i hadnt found a good use for the rag doll as shown, till now. if the rag doll works as described, then these 2 should be a perfect match.
the cores came from an unusual scorce. at work they replaced the showroom lights. the old ones were round toroid cfl bulbs with no electrical connections. there were inductively powered with these cores with like 10 turns from a 400 out balast. anyway, i have a few of them.
mags
Quote from: web000x on 2025.02.27, 18:51:22
I get what you're saying but in conventional circuits we are indeed losing energy to resistance or RF. Where the energy comes from in these OU circuits is the million dollar question. You said that 50% of the energy is not lost due to resistance but what I see on my bench is that it is indeed lost to just that.
Something energetic is coming from a low impedance (zero resistance and/or stout copper busses) when a capacitor is discharged through them. See Gerry Vassilatos Secrets of Cold War Technology where Tesla talks of the stinging rays from large cap discharges into low impedances. Energy is leaving the circuit boundaries.
Here is a quick test I did earlier with two 5600uF caps and a 30 ohm resistor. I charged the C1 up to 10V and C2 at 0V. I connected the resistor between the positive terminals of the caps and put a current probe on the wire and a voltage probe across the resistor. F3 (Purple) is a math function of CH2*CH4. I took the area of F3 as indicated under the measurements tab and it aligns almost perfectly with 1/2 of the energy from the initial charge on C1.
CH4 - 1mV = 1mA
Initial Energy in C1 - (10^2)*(5600uF)/2 = 280mJ
Area under F3 = 137mJ
Dave
I used the same method as web000x did above, but tried to measure my 100F super caps that way.
First thing i did was measuring the value of my super caps because how sure are we they are really the written 100F?
Anyway, i used the method as shown here: https://youtu.be/Y1dCHwHokbw
It turns out that one of my super caps (C1) loads from 1V to 2V with 1A current limit in 1 min 27sec, so in 87s, meaning its value is 87F minus 25% is 65.25F.
Another one (C2) measures 97F minus 25% is 72.75F.
Doing a transfer between them from 2V in C1 to 1V in both via a 0.2 Ohm resistor shows the below screenshot:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53394;image)
Yellow the voltage across the 0.2 Ohm resistor, green the current through it, and in red the power calculated from V and I.
The calculation is made of the data in between the both red vertical lines A and B and the result shown in the bottom left corner (60.37Ws or Joule).
So we started with 2V in 65.25F (130 J) and ended with 1V (32.625 J) in C1 and the same energy in C2 (32.625 J) which means we lost 64.75 J which is almost accounted for by the lost power in the resistor.
Itsu
with thes large caps, it would be hard if not impossible to do a transfer from A to B, probably even with a very large inductor. similar to my issue with the orbo toroid winding, where the caps with a value above 2uf would take the inductor to max current, max flux, before half way through the transfer. the larger the caps, the quicker to max flux n current. so with the super caps, with high internal resistance, like i said, it would be very unusual to anything higher than 50% from A to B.
that resistor you were talking about, id bet if you took it out of the circuit, you would have very similar results left in A and B caps. of course the lost energy would be found in that resistor, or any other resistor value should get the same result. anything above 0ohms really. doesnt anyone find it odd that no matter the value of the resistor in the same circuit, that the lost energy is still 50%???
lets say the resistor was .001ohm. the lost energy will be found there. but i insist that the resistace is not the reason for that loss. i dont think cap b should necessarily be thought of as a load but rather an energy storage device. a 1Mohm resistor in a circuit in series with say a resistor that is the same resistance of the super cap. now replace capB with that resistor of the same resistance as the cap. i can guarantee that most all the energy is consumed by the 1Mohm resistor and it will not be 50% this time. only if the 2 resistors arebthe same value.
mags
I am nearly ready to start the experiment. My preliminary tests have revealed that cap A loses potential with no connections. This decay has not been taken into account
Meanwhile, Joel has moved on as I expected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cWOZDRh5cA
Transcript:
0:02
are you ready to power the future with
0:03
smarter energy or perhaps I bet you
0:06
didn't know we could make energy work
0:08
harder for us welcome to navua Labs
0:11
where the future of energy begins today
0:14
inspired by the great minds like Maxwell
0:16
and Tesla we're revolutionizing how we
0:18
think about power gone are the days of
0:21
Simply producing more energy now it's
0:23
about making every watt count our
0:26
mission to optimize energy for
0:28
everything from AI Data Center and space
0:30
exploration to your own home at navua
0:33
Labs we believe in unlocking the full
0:35
potential of existing energy sources
0:38
think of it as energy recycling but on a
0:40
groundbreaking level by enhancing
0:43
current systems we're creating smarter
0:45
cleaner and more scalable Power
0:47
Solutions imagine Aid driven data
0:50
centers that consume less but perform
0:52
more electric vehicles that travel
0:55
farther with less charge even your
0:57
household appliances running more
0:59
efficiently
1:00
all thanks to Innovative energy
1:02
recycling our vision is simple smart
1:05
clean energy for everyone we're not just
1:08
talking about sustainability we're
1:10
making it a reality and we're doing it
1:13
one electron at a time ready to be part
1:16
of the future join us at Neva labs and
1:19
let's power a smarter world together
1:21
Neva Labs energy
1:27
optimized in the realm of science
1:29
questioning established theories is the
1:31
Cornerstone of progress while Dogma
1:34
confines true science thrives on
1:36
curiosity and exploration throughout
1:39
history our understanding of the
1:40
universe has continuously evolved each
1:43
Discovery building upon the last what we
1:46
often consider immutable laws are often
1:48
just approximations of more complex
1:50
realities consider the humble bee a
1:53
creature that challenges our
1:54
understanding of physics bees generate
1:56
heat through rapid muscle contractions
1:59
and create an electrostatic charge as
2:01
they move through the air this charge
2:04
interacts with their environment in ways
2:06
we're only beginning to understand some
2:08
theories suggest that these oscillations
2:10
might even interact with gravity itself
2:13
potentially reducing the be's effective
2:15
weight traditional aerodynamics struggle
2:18
to explain how bees fly yet fly they do
2:22
defying our current models to explain
2:25
these phenomena we need to extend our
2:27
understanding perhaps even revisiting
2:29
fun FAL equations like Maxwell's as we
2:32
delve deeper we uncover more questions
2:35
than answers revealing the vast gaps in
2:37
our scientific
2:38
[Music]
2:41
knowledge at Neva Labs we're taking on
2:43
this challenge pushing the boundaries of
2:45
science to unravel these Mysteries
2:48
returning to historical context we
2:49
revisit the remarkable contributions of
2:52
Nicola Tesla before 1900 Tesla's
2:55
pioneering work revolutionized the
2:57
electrical industry introducing Concepts
2:59
like the rotating magnetic field and the
3:01
LC oscillatory circuit crucial for radio
3:04
transmission his Ambitions included
3:06
transmitting power wirelessly through
3:08
standing scaler waves in the earth
3:10
providing virtually Limitless free
3:12
energy unfortunately Financial backers
3:15
sabotaged his efforts fearing the
3:16
economic repercussions of free energy
3:19
Tesla's use of scalar waves specifically
3:21
Fe feel static electric potential holds
3:24
significance he understood that coupled
3:26
scalar waves formed herzan waves
3:28
indicating a more fun fundamental
3:30
electromagnetic wave theory than the
3:32
conventional electromagnetics of his
3:34
time this fundamental wave the scaler
3:36
wave is crucial to understanding the
3:38
Soviet super weapons that emerged in the
3:40
following decades Tesla's vision of
3:43
providing free energy to mankind faced
3:45
vement opposition from Financial Empires
3:48
dependent on controlling energy
3:50
production and resources perceived as a
3:52
threat to these Empires Tesla lost all
3:55
Financial backing and his laboratory was
3:57
ultimately destroyed by 1914 the once
4:00
renowned inventor and scientist had
4:01
become a forgotten nonperson isolated
4:04
from the scientific Community examining
4:06
the historical development of
4:07
electromagnetic Theory the concept of
4:09
replacing Vector Fields with two scalar
4:11
Fields as demonstrated by Whitaker's
4:13
1903 paper closely coincided with
4:16
Tesla's pioneering work despite the
4:19
foundational proof of Tesla's wave
4:21
coupling Theory existing in the hardcore
4:23
electromagnetic Theory the West
4:25
overlooked it presently the West
4:27
concentrates on the herzan wave Limited
4:29
to the speed of light C however scalar
4:32
waves such as Tesla's fif field are not
4:35
bound by this velocity the fif field a
4:38
spatial concept operates in four
4:40
dimensions and has the potential to
4:42
affect time flow while present
4:44
electromagnetic Theory assumes a
4:46
constant flow of time for everything the
4:48
F field can move at any velocity
4:49
including infinite have you ever
4:51
pondered about the immense amount of
4:53
energy we consume each day and the
4:55
pressing need for innovative solutions
4:57
across the globe our energy consumption
4:59
is skyrocketing while our resources are
5:01
dwindling it's a paradox that's begging
5:04
for a resolution we're caught in a
5:06
constant race devising ways to fuel our
5:08
ever growing energy appetite but what if
5:11
the answer lies in a realm we've
5:12
overlooked what if there's a way to tap
5:14
into a usually wasted and ignored part
5:17
of electrodynamics enter Joel's one wire
5:20
system a revolutionary method inspired
5:22
by Tesla's one wire system this system
5:25
signifies a significant shift in how we
5:27
understand and harness the power of
5:29
electron DCS at the heart of Joel's one
5:31
wire system are two diodes each with a
5:34
specific cathode and a node
5:36
configuration these dodes play a pivotal
5:38
role converting a unique field that
5:40
surrounds the wire known as the heavy
5:42
side component back into pure direct
5:45
current potential this potential has
5:47
zero current but it does have voltage
5:49
this voltage can charge small capacitors
5:51
very quickly now these capacitors can be
5:54
discharged into a load or a charging
5:56
battery this process effectively
5:58
converts this pure potential back into
6:00
real current thanks to the displacement
6:02
current effect this system does not
6:04
close the loop or offer any return path
6:06
which is a significant departure from
6:08
traditional electrical systems now you
6:10
might wonder how does this system
6:12
actually work the mechanics of Joel's
6:14
one wire system are as fascinating as
6:16
they are Innovative let's break it down
6:19
step by step first Joel connects the one
6:21
wire side of a diode to the live side of
6:24
a near zero current field of another
6:26
wire this unique wiring configuration
6:28
doesn't form a closed loop or offer any
6:31
return path which is a key factor in
6:33
eliminating backend counter
6:34
electromotive Force also known as C EMF
6:37
here's where it gets even more
6:38
interesting Joel employs antenna likee
6:41
counter Poise wires on the diodes which
6:43
work in concert with wave guide and
6:45
Reflections this clever setup is
6:47
designed to capture more of the heavy
6:49
side component a frequently ignored part
6:52
of electrodynamics harnessing the heavy
6:54
side component is no small feat it's
6:56
like fishing in a vast ocean with an
6:58
exceptionally fine net designed to catch
7:00
only a specific type of fish yet the
7:03
payoff is remarkable this approach can
7:05
generate pure potentials of hundreds of
7:07
volts now you might be wondering what
7:09
happens next well these high potentials
7:11
are not left idle they are converted
7:13
into real current through a process
7:15
called CAP dumps this involves charging
7:17
small capacitors very quickly and then
7:20
discharging them into a load or charging
7:22
battery effectively transforming pure
7:24
potential back into usable current but
7:26
what does this mean for our energy
7:28
Paradox Joel's one wire system opens up
7:31
a world of possibilities in the field of
7:32
energy it's akin to a magician revealing
7:35
Hidden Treasures only in this case the
7:37
treasure is a part of electrodynamics
7:39
that's often overlooked the heavyside
7:41
component by ingeniously converting this
7:44
component into pure direct current
7:46
potential Joel's system effectively Taps
7:48
into a virtually unused reservoir of
7:51
energy this isn't a case of creating
7:52
energy out of thin air rather it's about
7:55
utilizing an underappreciated aspect of
7:57
electrodynamics the beauty of this
7:59
system is that it doesn't stress our
8:01
input load it's like siphoning off just
8:04
enough to make a difference without
8:05
draining the source imagine the
8:08
implications for green energy and
8:09
renewable sources harnessing this
8:11
potential could revolutionize how we
8:13
generate and use electricity reducing
8:16
our Reliance on non-renewable resources
8:19
innovative solutions like Joel's one
8:21
wire system are not just remarkable
8:22
Feats of science they are Stepping
8:24
Stones towards a more sustainable future
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.01, 23:30:04
with thes large caps, it would be hard if not impossible to do a transfer from A to B, probably even with a very large inductor. similar to my issue with the orbo toroid winding, where the caps with a value above 2uf would take the inductor to max current, max flux, before half way through the transfer. the larger the caps, the quicker to max flux n current. so with the super caps, with high internal resistance, like i said, it would be very unusual to anything higher than 50% from A to B.
that resistor you were talking about, id bet if you took it out of the circuit, you would have very similar results left in A and B caps. of course the lost energy would be found in that resistor, or any other resistor value should get the same result. anything above 0ohms really. doesnt anyone find it odd that no matter the value of the resistor in the same circuit, that the lost energy is still 50%???
lets say the resistor was .001ohm. the lost energy will be found there. but i insist that the resistace is not the reason for that loss. i dont think cap b should necessarily be thought of as a load but rather an energy storage device. a 1Mohm resistor in a circuit in series with say a resistor that is the same resistance of the super cap. now replace capB with that resistor of the same resistance as the cap. i can guarantee that most all the energy is consumed by the 1Mohm resistor and it will not be 50% this time. only if the 2 resistors arebthe same value.
mags
Hi Mags,
thanks for your view on this again.
You might be right that something else must also be in play here, but for now we have to work with what we see happening on the bench.
Like Web000x, i had to adjust the resistor to the caps values to have a practical way to show the result on a scope, but the outcome are very similar.
Less resistance will result in higher (off the scale) initial current, more resistance will increase the time to take to equalize the voltages etc.
Itsu
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.03.02, 01:30:40
I am nearly ready to start the experiment. My preliminary tests have revealed that cap A loses potential with no connections. This decay has not been taken into account
Meanwhile, Joel has moved on as I expected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cWOZDRh5cA
Looking forward to your experiment.
Yes, we see a decay in potential in not connected caps, like we also see an increase in potential of a just shorted cap.
It's that dielectric absorption effect.
Not sure what that (promotional) video is all about, but IMO it has nothing to do with Joel.
Itsu
Another Joel video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZg6379y42I
and here's a screenshot. Don Smith electron pump.
I've set up my experiment with cap1 2,600 F 2.5v.
Cap 2 the same
Cap 3 is 4 x 2,600F 2.5v in series.
I did some preliminary tests with cap 1 into cap 2.
Cap 1 was charged to 2.24 volts, cap 2 discharged. 6523 joules
After a couple of hours of pulsing at 3.6kHz and 15% duty cycle I got
Cap 2= 1.00 volts. 1,300 joules cap1 1.44 volts. 2.695 joules
So an interesting starting point to use as a comparison.
I found that when I upped the frequency to 150 khz after the experiment concluded, there were only losses and cap 2 didn't want to charge.
Obviously the correct frequency needs to be found. Could be a long job.
The conclusion is that discharging cap 1 to cap 2 is a mighty inefficient process with massive system losses.
Next I'll wire up the transformer and do the experiment properly.
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.01, 21:15:58
...
It turns out that one of my super caps (C1) loads from 1V to 2V with 1A current limit in 1 min 27sec, so in 87s, meaning its value is 87F minus 25% is 65.25F.
Another one (C2) measures 97F minus 25% is 72.75F.
......
So we started with 2V in 65.25F (130 J) and ended with 1V (32.625 J) in C1 and the same energy in C2 (32.625 J) which means we lost 64.75 J which is almost accounted for by the lost power in the resistor.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Thanks for these tests. IF it makes sense, when you have time, do the same test by swapping the two caps and see how it behaves. So 2V input into the 72.75F cap.
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
looking at my own data of yesterday, i noticed i screwed up, as i toke for both caps the same joule value at 1V, but both caps are not equal, so the joule value at 1V must be different.
Doing the calculations again, i now get:
"So we started with 2V in 65.25F (130 J) and ended with 1V in 65.25F (32.625 J) in C1 and in C2 1V in 72.75 (36.375 J) which together is 69 J, so we lost 61 Joule which is accounted for by the lost power in the resistor (60.37 Joule)
Almost bang on.
Now after swapping the caps we get:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53398;image)
Meaning, we lost 63.03 Ws or Joule in the 0.2 Ohm resistor.
So we started with 2V in 72.75F (145.5 J) and ended with 1.077V in 72.75F (42.19 J) in C1 and in C2 1.076V in 65.25F (37.77 J) which together is 79.96 J, so we lost 65.64 Joule which is almost accounted for by the lost power in the resistor (63.03 Joule).
Itsu
Thanks Itsu.
Anyway, it is worth knowing the actual Farad value of super or ultra capacitors the members using.
Gyula
One thought I've just had. I have several DMM and they all differ by a percent or two. Does anyone have a fix for this.
Can this make a huge difference in our calculations? Obviously I only use the same digital multimeter in any experiment, so the relationship is constant.
I've finally got my act together.
The start voltages are: (I'll check the real Farads after the 1st experiment.)
cap1 2.79V 2600F
cap2 0.08V 2600F
Cap3 0.03V 2600F x4 IN SERIES.
I found an AC trafo 9v AC from 240 V mains 50Hz used in reverse, as in Lagace's video.
The output voltage was 82.2V DC through a HV bridge rectifier. It was enough to light a neon, as shown in one of the photos.
The FG is set at 26.5 KHZ, has a duty cycle of 75%, and is powered by the power supply in the photos. I am using a MOSFET transistor.
It's good to document the experiment here for future reference.
It was interesting seeing the experiment light up a neon using displacement current.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.03.02, 21:39:58
One thought I've just had. I have several DMM and they all differ by a percent or two. Does anyone have a fix for this.
Can this make a huge difference in our calculations? Obviously I only use the same digital multimeter in any experiment, so the relationship is constant.
Well, DMM's have their own specifications on internal resistance (10 MOhm, 1MOhm) and accuracy so best is to look those up for your DDM.
If those specifications differ then not much can be done IMO other than trying to use the same DMM's in the experiment like you are doing.
Itsu
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.03.03, 04:40:23
I've finally got my act together.
The start voltages are: (I'll check the real Farads after the 1st experiment.)
cap1 2.79V 2600F
cap2 0.08V 2600F
Cap3 0.03V 2600F x4 IN SERIES.
I found an AC trafo 9v AC from 240 V mains 50Hz used in reverse, as in Lagace's video.
The output voltage was 82.2V DC through a HV bridge rectifier. It was enough to light a neon, as shown in one of the photos.
The FG is set at 26.5 KHZ, has a duty cycle of 75%, and is powered by the power supply in the photos. I am using a MOSFET transistor.
It's good to document the experiment here for future reference.
It was interesting seeing the experiment light up a neon using displacement current.
Looking good O0
So for C3 you have 2600 / 4 = 650F, which is lower then C1 and C2 like i also used (but lower overall values), so you might expect similar results as i had with my latest experiment.
Itsu
Here is a link for calculating discharge time for super capacitors, this may help checking the Farad measurements.
http://www.circuits.dk/calculator_capacitor_discharge.htm (http://www.circuits.dk/calculator_capacitor_discharge.htm)
Howerd,
As an addition to Itsu's reply on DMMs differing displays, you can buy voltage reference integrated circuits with specified output voltages of 0.5% or 1% precision (these are the cheaper types) and you can compare your DMMs using such voltage references. Here are choices: https://eu.mouser.com/c/semiconductors/power-management-ics/voltage-references/ (https://eu.mouser.com/c/semiconductors/power-management-ics/voltage-references/) In the Output voltage column you can select among the output voltages.
and see for instance this type with 10V output voltage: https://eu.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Texas-Instruments/LM4040CIZ-10.0-NOPB?qs=QbsRYf82W3EnDEn4D%252BL3Kg%3D%3D (https://eu.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Texas-Instruments/LM4040CIZ-10.0-NOPB?qs=QbsRYf82W3EnDEn4D%252BL3Kg%3D%3D)
Gyula
on dmm's.
for such large caps, just connecct the meter for as long as it takes to get a reading. the drain should be closer to negligable.
mags
Results after 12 hours, which are a little strange.
start C1 2.79 7254c (coulombs)
start C2 0.08 208c
start C3 0.03 19c Total 7481c
Ater 12 hours
C1 2.30 5980c
C2 0.72 1872c
c3 0,24 156c Total 8,008c
Remember this experiment is the closest to Lagace in both the size of the caps and the use of the trafo, which is not HF but an ordinary mains ac trafo
C1 and C2 are 2600F C3 is 650F
C3 is 4 x 2600 F in series.
I am however using the positive side of caps 1 and 2 through the FG rather than Joel's negative side.
Maybe I've made an error in calculation, but the voltages are correct,
In any case, when I look at the initial losses between cap1 and cap2, (if you look at one of my previous posts), this is a massive increase.
The caps seem to be behaving better.
However, 1 metre below this experiment is my constant mains battery charging equipment that is disturbing the electrons in the air around the experiment.
The calculations seem OK by me.
But why do you think the results are "a little strange"?
They follow a similar path (although we only have 2 data points) as in my last experiment, shown in post #152 above.
But you still have a long time to go, i reckon for a complete dataset.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.03, 19:56:26
The calculations seem OK by me.
But why do you think the results are "a little strange"?
They follow a similar path (although we only have 2 data points) as in my last experiment, shown in post #152 above.
But you still have a long time to go, i reckon for a complete dataset.
Itsu
Well, there's an energy increase. Where did it come from?
That's what I meant.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.03.03, 18:11:17
Results after 12 hours, which are a little strange.
start C1 2.79 7254c (coulombs)
start C2 0.08 208c
start C3 0.03 19c Total 7481c
Ater 12 hours
C1 2.30 5980c
C2 0.72 1872c
c3 0,24 156c Total 8,008c
Remember this experiment is the closest to Lagace in both the size of the caps and the use of the trafo, which is not HF but an ordinary mains ac trafo
C1 and C2 are 2600F C3 is 650F
C3 is 4 x 2600 F in series.
I am however using the positive side of caps 1 and 2 through the FG rather than Joel's negative side.
Maybe I've made an error in calculation, but the voltages are correct,
In any case, when I look at the initial losses between cap1 and cap2, (if you look at one of my previous posts), this is a massive increase.
The caps seem to be behaving better.
However, 1 metre below this experiment is my constant mains battery charging equipment that is disturbing the electrons in the air around the experiment.
so after 12hrs c3 has greater energy that c1 started with?
if so then you apparently got it..
i would stop at that point, take cap1 and cap2 and boost converter whats left in them into c3 to go even higher.
then start again from c3 and repeat.
mags
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.03.03, 22:29:21
Well, there's an energy increase. Where did it come from?
That's what I meant.
You might want to measure you caps similarly to the method Itsu showed before making calculations.
At another 10 hours.
Cap1 2.03 5278
Cap2 1.002 2605
Cap3 0.32 208 total 8091
I just noticed that cap3 was disconnected, I have reconnected it now.
We started with 7481, now 8091 = cop 1.08
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.04, 02:16:42
You might want to measure you caps similarly to the method Itsu showed before making calculations.
I will do when I switch the experiment off. It still doesn't alter the fact of an increase, it may alter the numbers but not the
relative situation.
Anyhow, there are tons of other things to try now.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.03.04, 02:40:47
I will do when I switch the experiment off. It still doesn't alter the fact of an increase, it may alter the numbers but not the
relative situation.
Anyhow, there are tons of other things to try now.
You aren't calculating energy, 1/2*C*V^2. You are showing calculations for charge, C*V, which will not show any meaningful COP the way you're calculating it since charge is Coulombs, not Joules. And precise capacitance measurements could very well bring your charge back into a situation showing equality.
why did you use coulomb instead of joules to describe the energies? not saying doing so is wrong necessarily, but no need to change things up. just makes others have to calc to joules to compare.
mags
now for the big question.. why use super caps for this?
if the caps were 10,000uf, would the results be any different other than the time it takes to do the experiment? the super caps seem to be, according to the claim, necessary. now it is time to test that and compare. it should not take 24hrs to find out.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.04, 03:21:08
why did you use coulomb instead of joules to describe the energies? not saying doing so is wrong necessarily, but no need to change things up. just makes others have to calc to joules to compare.
mags
I used an online calculator and it used coulombs that's all. No big deal.
If you want to put the measurements into joules that's fine by me.
I am more concerned as to why the 4 caps in series are slow to charge.
The voltage from the trafo has gone down to 22 volts, which is expected as the potential difference between
C1 and C2 is reducing. But the trafo is not geared to HF, as it is a mains trafo, and there are a huge number of different trafos.
The trafo will introduce some losses as it is not optimised.
As a proof of concept, all I can say is that it is encouraging so far.
I may redo the experiment later in the week, and use joules.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.04, 04:52:15
Why use super caps for this?
Because super caps exhibit the highest Dielectric Soak.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.03.03, 22:29:21
Well, there's an energy increase. Where did it come from?
That's what I meant.
OK, then please take a look at post #132 here: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg114930#msg114930 where Web000x explains where this energy might come from.
Itsu
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.04, 02:09:51
so after 12hrs c3 has greater energy that c1 started with?
if so then you apparently got it..
i would stop at that point, take cap1 and cap2 and boost converter whats left in them into c3 to go even higher.
then start again from c3 and repeat.
mags
No i do not see that "after 12hrs c3 has greater energy that c1 started with", see:
Ater 12 hours
C1 2.30 5980c 6877 J
C2 0.72 1872c 673.9 J
c3 0,24 156c 18.72 J
Using this calculator to calculate to joules: https://www.calctool.org/electrical-energy/capacitor-energy
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.03.04, 02:37:31
At another 10 hours.
Cap1 2.03 5278
Cap2 1.002 2605
Cap3 0.32 208 total 8091
I just noticed that cap3 was disconnected, I have reconnected it now.
We started with 7481, now 8091 = cop 1.08
I do not see this COP 1.08
We started with:
start C1 2.79 7254c (coulombs) 10119 Joule
start C2 0.08 208c 8.32 Joule
start C3 0.03 19c Total 7481c 0.2925 Joule
So a total of 10127.6 Joule
After 22 Hours we now have:
Cap1 2.03 5278 5357 Joule
Cap2 1.002 2605 1305.2 Joule
Cap3 0.32 208 33.28 Joule
So a total of 6695.48 Joule
or a COP of 0.66
For completeness i added the 10 hours of data to the graph:
Itsu
Itsu:
Thank you for your analysis of my experiment.
I didn't realize that there was such a huge difference between coulombs and joules in terms of analysis and
interpretation.
I am going to have to do some thinking about this anomaly.
After a further 20 hours
The results are:
C1 1.87v
C2 1.12v
C3 0.44v
The voltage out of the tafo s now down to 18 v, and I am shutting down the experiment.
C3 is not performing as Lagace suggested.
thing is, if Joel has people investing money in his ideas, id be pretty sure he would not show anything that could be replicated. it could be that if he does have something, that he may be showing something similar but different in ways that when someone replicates, it will not work as claimed. so my question would be, why show anything at all? to impress who?
could be if he does have something, he has been approached about it and told to put out some vids that absolutely do not work so when people replicate those and it simply does not work, people will be discouraged, lose interest and move on. in the end creating a lot of non believers in the idea of ou. i believe i have seen this situation several times in the past. we are left with countless hours of work. trying and trying again, but still nada bing. sucks
like how many people here in just this forum alone have been there done that with claims?? these days i make big, hard decisions before i delve deep into claims. i dont really have time to be fooled anymore.
but, i do believe ou should be possible. havnt given up on that no matter how many failures ive had. but here, i had doubts about the transformer in the beginning. its all here in posts, and i presented why.. i also dont like the idea of intentionally losing 50% in caps 1 and 2 in hopes of making up that 50% in cap 3. again, you would get better results by getting rid of cap 2 and kill off cap 1 trying to charge cap 3. Definitely would get better results. thats why my way, again, here in posts, where i want to transfer most or all of cap 1 to cap 2 and THEN if we get anything in cap 3, we are way closer to golden than what we have seen here. way way way closer. my hopes would be that cap 3 has enough in it to boost convert cap 3 to top up cap 2 hopefully higher than cap 1 started with and have a very simple proof of concept. ive even thought of ways to eliminate the diode so as to not have that drop at all. maybe an arduino programed to exactly time the transistor to stay on all the way till cap 2 is finished taking all of cap 1's charge. when that is had, anything in cap 3 would be free. then we just send cap 2' charge back to cap 1 and get another charge on cap 3.
say we start with 20v cap1 and end with 19.4v in cap 2. there just may be enough in cap 3 to again, boost convert to top of that 19.4v, even if it were just get our 20v back and repeat would be an awsome thing, let alone getting possibly more than 20v.
so tonight im rewinding the toroid winding on the orbo. finer wire, more turns. wish i knew where i put the one i had. with the one i have, using the 2uf dip caps, the transfer was good from cap 1 to cap 2. and i got output on cap 3. but the leaky nature of these caps is not what i want to show. needs more inductance on the toroid wind so larger more stable caps give us a clear view of what is what.
mags
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.03.04, 23:37:03
After a further 20 hours
The results are:
C1 1.87v
C2 1.12v
C3 0.44v
The voltage out of the tafo s now down to 18 v, and I am shutting down the experiment.
C3 is not performing as Lagace suggested.
Added this data to the graph:
Itsu
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.05, 00:01:58
thing is, if Joel has people investing money in his ideas, id be pretty sure he would not show anything that could be replicated. it could be that if he does have something, that he may be showing something similar but different in ways that when someone replicates, it will not work as claimed. so my question would be, why show anything at all? to impress who?
could be if he does have something, he has been approached about it and told to put out some vids that absolutely do not work so when people replicate those and it simply does not work, people will be discouraged, lose interest and move on. in the end creating a lot of non believers in the idea of ou. i believe i have seen this situation several times in the past. we are left with countless hours of work. trying and trying again, but still nada bing. sucks
like how many people here in just this forum alone have been there done that with claims?? these days i make big, hard decisions before i delve deep into claims. i dont really have time to be fooled anymore.
but, i do believe ou should be possible. havnt given up on that no matter how many failures ive had. but here, i had doubts about the transformer in the beginning. its all here in posts, and i presented why.. i also dont like the idea of intentionally losing 50% in caps 1 and 2 in hopes of making up that 50% in cap 3. again, you would get better results by getting rid of cap 2 and kill off cap 1 trying to charge cap 3. Definitely would get better results. thats why my way, again, here in posts, where i want to transfer most or all of cap 1 to cap 2 and THEN if we get anything in cap 3, we are way closer to golden than what we have seen here. way way way closer. my hopes would be that cap 3 has enough in it to boost convert cap 3 to top up cap 2 hopefully higher than cap 1 started with and have a very simple proof of concept. ive even thought of ways to eliminate the diode so as to not have that drop at all. maybe an arduino programed to exactly time the transistor to stay on all the way till cap 2 is finished taking all of cap 1's charge. when that is had, anything in cap 3 would be free. then we just send cap 2' charge back to cap 1 and get another charge on cap 3.
say we start with 20v cap1 and end with 19.4v in cap 2. there just may be enough in cap 3 to again, boost convert to top of that 19.4v, even if it were just get our 20v back and repeat would be an awsome thing, let alone getting possibly more than 20v.
so tonight im rewinding the toroid winding on the orbo. finer wire, more turns. wish i knew where i put the one i had. with the one i have, using the 2uf dip caps, the transfer was good from cap 1 to cap 2. and i got output on cap 3. but the leaky nature of these caps is not what i want to show. needs more inductance on the toroid wind so larger more stable caps give us a clear view of what is what.
mags
Looking at Joel his video's, they do not excel in clearity on details and IMO even are leaving out, intention or unintentional, essenteal information for doing a replication.
Perhaps that is on purpose, but indeed then why bother publishing it.
Also there is hardly any follow-up in the comment section where questions often are being ignored.
I do not think there a way past the capacitor paradox, so we have to live with the 50% energy loss when doing a cap to cap transfer.
What we can do to increase the effeciency is to use synchronous rectification instead of a diode bridge to rectify the AC coming out of the transformer.
But if it is enough tip it over i doubt it.
Example of synchronous rectification can be found here: https://www.ti.com/lit/ml/slup175/slup175.pdf like on Fig. 6 on page 7-4 etc.
What i have seen up till now doing my own results and those of Aking is that i have very little doubt that Joel his C3 caps is way lower in value then he is pretending it is.
Together with the lower impedance transformer (120V / 2V) like my 1:1 CMC it gives a higer voltage on C3 after some time compared to C1, but this is no indication there is more energy in C3.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.05, 10:22:20
I do not think there a way past the capacitor paradox, so we have to live with the 50% energy loss when doing a cap to cap transfer.
Yes, cap-->cap energy transfers are inherently inefficient.
This is because caps are voltage sources, yet for the most efficient charging process, they require a current source.
This is also the reason why coil-->cap energy transfers are so efficient (coils ARE current sources).
It is possible to transfer 99% of the cap's energy to another cap by using a low-loss coil as an intermediary, i.e.: cap-->coil-->cap transfer (C1 --> L1 --> C2 in the circuit below).
In such scheme, the switch and diode/synch rectifier play a role of gatekeepers that do not allow the energy to return to the first cap and coil.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53426)
To see it working click here (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/circuitjs.html?ctz=CQAgjCAMB0l3BWcMBMcUHYMGZIA4UA2ATmIxAUgpABZsKBTAWjDACgBjEbNEFBQt148qNKLHikp0maRBMYk2RgRhihGoWyCFEiJDYAbWmEEoUYmqe4IUUcPLAT4LhNmxgMYFMzD0DAG4g6tyQYiEoeHj2olRIVAnQCGwA7kJU2LYmgpl2gcFmUQV8GHn2NHEx4slpEfjFmHmpxbjhOVkGXLbR5mLdNnZiikqyo8SOScR+NFOmeBg0eMR4vvFQzZpiuRSRA+sATnz1vel8FvZgBmkifAKnJ1enN88dbGAI41Zm5zcP4nAQS4uYF8JLNbZgGhbQjRSFDNjYMQAZQ4AAsAPYAF0xAGsAJ4OQjQFYsBL-UyqGgoMB4ATdBBQ2HwZBsAAmOx6502ZzEdhRGOx+LYSPA3iOsMIVDQ0TJmP2AFcGPYUGxDjxbjk7DcqEC4OCtVl1dr9RqhOBdo9PII1HYreaZSbvLCMNaLeCYeAodwPdL1tdhFkQttLZLwMRbS6w000qw7L66g7DtyTtzg8hgWwAIZ8IqRHrHIrjS4XYFk3QjaQqNQaLTW0t6tJ5kpx3N3R6-O5N-iCR5N1o56LGxtFZ7CXi9gv5iUJDbWFMaHl+7J7VOvGOhk6+h7NIOGg1Nd5S0qerZZOHK+w1ZvgDf1UwzxvHp3gSPPgwADwoRY9oc8EDE1gAMKGAAlhwOIADoAM6YqiIFQdBUEpCBmJotBbCfuG4B4OE9A0uQAGCJi6LQUimKZvsmIYUIPQqEI4yYNEAHRIB7CflS9CNLQ5yYEgzEgAAMmxtA4CUogLCU9D8QASsJbi8iQFCZNe-GASq7G0kcnx4GYYr8QAIsJKDYD0bh8NgDF3DJ6kmHwhAEXGGCiNhIDSdgbAAOYtIGOQejO6L2AuoiZEMEgWFYFSEPw-ySC6AjRVK9juQFHggEFtAhTFcAuigxAWTQbjePEziQGQhDxWsWoQMlhJDBlZkVFlpVxVFlUODV5DpXQDJNTleXEAVHgJdA+h8CA5DuSZ9gAGKjcM8D6M4lwQCwICAZmAAOmYcChmYAHYcAwCKwiAs0xLAgIXY4IAAJJ7ay8ocORB1HUAA).
The op-amp's/comparator's purpose is to detect when C1 is empty.
The R1 is there only to make the simulation well-behaved (in reality it can be omitted).
The MOSFET'ized version is here (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/circuitjs.html?ctz=CQAgjCAMB0l3BWcMBMcUHYMGZIA4UA2ATmIxAUgpABZsKBTAWjDACgBjEbNEFBQt148qNKLHikp0maRBMYk4nmx4MZYmALKExeYsgRIbADa0wglCjE0L3BCijh52aNkp4wGBxhR5bYCjYzHrGAG4gxIK4YlF8eHhOolRIVGnQCGwRcX6JOb5JtCmFMJkA7pGW+JV8BcYVcTE17o7GXA6JVmId9o5iBnCyQ1LyGNCBhp40-tg0kOrBLEZQbBU0hGItFH69KwBO4IRUXULH1k5g9ad8AtcnVyLXj1vGsyAAyhwAFgD2AC5-ADWAE9nIRoHhmJckrALAgwDQUFoBB0EDRpsg4Mg2AATbadc7rMQnRyfX4AkFsd7gQJ8aoWY7VNIgP57ACuDCcKDYBzAxD6dh45kEogwcFWQmFksCiSuXkEfMc8vAOweSp2yplKwq-GiDma+rlR3A-PAGAVprltLQeSqsp5tA2fEJTpemPgV1ytUcXt12rut19t09CW4kGJoceIcSz2EvDlpq9iqlV1slhdxPOqcF+qJu2MAA8KHoLIljV4IGI7ABhEwASw4gIAOgBnP5fOst1stsp1v7fVtsIumrSxehachVwR-H6t95-ACGez+Q6EnW8Qj0mESVcS1fYRcR9EwfXOmCQu5AABkD7QcLVRcT75eAEq3hBvIh6D9IE+0cB7tyh54L+kB6NMli0peAAit5WOQ-A+js-AXgBIAvkBIAbnMiTmuYlZoS+2BsAA5gajiNIQsorAAZtw-hFFQqibPqQpgBk2IVM8rFUfmEpzExuY5q0EqPCcabOv0okMQJ9E2HYxhzBAf6+tUXpIHgrZgAgrYsDpLaXB6kC6QMpAqGoGhaCgOjEK2xkGUZfCtmgWlGUZzkcWAdkSr6BQqXUPmRuG3phlJOpqaGyZep6twScmEmKVY1wScxKZcp5mQHH6Wx+gl7rilxwj6tlhqibwEm5Qpq5WBA2CJkldWoVo6E0KugRPkggS-hgO4qiAAASdZMAAWq2AD0rYAOIAHLQa2ADybJ-AADktbA-E4TqiO4-QSNYthzIQ-DiB6ZCEAIx3HE4xEbcdW20Dt4jaUdqQSIM5oXakfA3Nw61gv0D0fkUJ2SB9L1cs4N0gII910GiINwOa1l1TQH5dU9EPRGwqhOAAYssAxwEYb2XBALAgNWC7LQuHB9guAB2HAMNjiQQPjMKGOAsLyBAACS9M4myHCLozzNAA)
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.05, 17:47:50
Yes, cap-->cap energy transfers are inherently inefficient.
This is because caps are voltage sources, yet for most efficient charging, they require a current source.
This is also the reason why coil-->cap energy transfers are so efficient (coils ARE current sources).
It is possible to transfer 99% of the cap's energy to another cap by using a low-loss coil as an intermediary, i.e.: cap-->coil-->cap transfer (C1 --> L1 --> C2 in the circuit below).
In such scheme, the switch and diode/synch rectifier play a role of gatekeepers that do not allow the energy to return to the first cap.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53426)
To see it working click here (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/circuitjs.html?ctz=CQAgjCAMB0l3BWcMBMcUHYMGZIA4UA2ATmIxAUgpABZsKBTAWjDACgBjEbNEFBQt148qNKLHikp0maRBMYk2RgRhihGoWyCFEiJDYAbWmEEoUYmqe4IUUcPLAT4LhNmxgMYFMzD0DAG4g6tyQYiEoeHj2olRIVAnQCGwA7kJU2LYmgpl2gcFmUQV8GHn2NHEx4slpEfjFmHmpxbjhOVkGXLbR5mLdNnZiikqyo8SOScR+NFOmeBg0eMR4vvFQzZpiuRSRA+sATnz1vel8FvZgBmkifAKnJ1enN88dbGAI41Zm5zcP4nAQS4uYF8JLNbZgGhbQjRSFDNjYMQAZQ4AAsAPYAF0xAGsAJ4OQjQFYsBL-UyqGgoMB4ATdBBQ2HwZBsAAmOx6502ZzEdhRGOx+LYSPA3iOsMIVDQ0TJmP2AFcGPYUGxDjxbjk7DcqEC4OCtVl1dr9RqhOBdo9PII1HYreaZSbvLCMNaLeCYeAodwPdL1tdhFkQttLZLwMRbS6w000qw7L66g7DtyTtzg8hgWwAIZ8IqRHrHIrjS4XYFk3QjaQqNQaLTW0t6tJ5kpx3N3R6-O5N-iCR5N1o56LGxtFZ7CXi9gv5iUJDbWFMaHl+7J7VOvGOhk6+h7NIOGg1Nd5S0qerZZOHK+w1ZvgDf1UwzxvHp3gSPPgwADwoRY9oc8EDE1gAMKGAAlhwOIADoAM6YqiIFQdBUEpCBmJotBbCfuG4B4OE9A0uQAGCJi6LQUimKZvsmIYUIPQqEI4yYNEAHRIB7CflS9CNLQ5yYEgzEgAAMmxtA4CUogLCU9D8QASsJbi8iQFCZNe-GASq7G0kcnx4GYYr8QAIsJKDYD0bh8NgDF3DJ6kmHwhAEXGGCiNhIDSdgbAAOYtIGOQejO6L2AuoiZEMEgWFYFSEPw-ySC6AjRVK9juQFHggEFtAhTFcAuigxAWTQbjePEziQGQhDxWsWoQMlhJDBlZkVFlpVxVFlUODV5DpXQDJNTleXEAVHgJdA+h8CA5DuSZ9gAGKjcM8D6M4lwQCwICAZmAAOmYcChmYAHYcAwCKwiAs0xLAgIXY4IAAJJ7ay8ocORB1HUAA).
The op-amp's/comparator's purpose is to detect when C1 is empty.
The R1 is there only to make the simulation well-behaved (in reality it can be omitted).
the inductor used to transfer most or all of cap1 to cap2 would need to be absolutely huge if using super caps, if not virtually impossible. im not intending on using super caps for anything other than storage purposes.
i think all the testing could have been done with normal caps with similar results and a much shorter time span for the test.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.05, 18:57:28
the inductor used to transfer most or all of cap1 to cap2 would need to be absolutely huge if using super caps, if not virtually impossible.
I agree. That's why I called for low-loss coil. That means low resistance and high inductance.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.05, 18:57:28
I think all the testing could have been done with normal caps with similar results and a much shorter time span for the test.
Yes, with realistic coils the transfer would have to happen in milliseconds.
The MOSFET'ized version of that circuit is below, if you want to play with it.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53428)
To see it working click here (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/circuitjs.html?ctz=CQAgjCAMB0l3BWcMBMcUHYMGZIA4UA2ATmIxAUgpABZsKBTAWjDACgBjEbNEFBQt148qNKLHikp0maRBMYk4nmx4MZYmALKExeYsgRIbADa0wglCjE0L3BCijh52aNkp4wGBxhR5bYCjYzHrGAG4gxIK4YlF8eHhOolRIVGnQCGwRcX6JOb5JtCmFMJkA7pGW+JV8BcYVcTE17o7GXA6JVmId9o5iBnCyQ1LyGNCBhp40-tg0kOrBLEZQbBU0hGItFH69KwBO4IRUXULH1k5g9ad8AtcnVyLXj1vGsyAAyhwAFgD2AC5-ADWAE9nIRoHhmJckrALAgwDQUFoBB0EDRpsg4Mg2AATbadc7rMQnRyfX4AkFsd7gQJ8aoWY7VNIgP57ACuDCcKDYBzAxD6dh45kEogwcFWQmFksCiSuXkEfMc8vAOweSp2yplKwq-GiDma+rlR3A-PAGAVprltLQeSqsp5tA2fEJTpemPgV1ytUcXt12rut19t09CW4kGJoceIcSz2EvDlpq9iqlV1slhdxPOqcF+qJu2MAA8KHoLIljV4IGI7ABhEwASw4gIAOgBnP5fOst1stsp1v7fVtsIumrSxehachVwR-H6t95-ACGez+Q6EnW8Qj0mESVcS1fYRcR9EwfXOmCQu5AABkD7QcLVRcT75eAEq3hBvIh6D9IE+0cB7tyh54L+kB6NMli0peAAit5WOQ-A+js-AXgBIAvkBIAbnMiTmuYlZoS+2BsAA5gajiNIQsorAAZtw-hFFQqibPqQpgBk2IVM8rFUfmEpzExuY5q0EqPCcabOv0okMQJ9E2HYxhzBAf6+tUXpIHgrZgAgrYsDpLaXB6kC6QMpAqGoGhaCgOjEK2xkGUZfCtmgWlGUZzkcWAdkSr6BQqXUPmRuG3phlJOpqaGyZep6twScmEmKVY1wScxKZcp5mQHH6Wx+gl7rilxwj6tlhqibwEm5Qpq5WBA2CJkldWoVo6E0KugRPkggS-hgO4qiAAASdZMAAWq2AD0rYAOIAHLQa2ADybJ-AADktbA-E4TqiO4-QSNYthzIQ-DiB6ZCEAIx3HE4xEbcdW20Dt4jaUdqQSIM5oXakfA3Nw61gv0D0fkUJ2SB9L1cs4N0gII910GiINwOa1l1TQH5dU9EPRGwqhOAAYssAxwEYb2XBALAgNWC7LQuHB9guAB2HAMNjiQQPjMKGOAsLyBAACS9M4myHCLozzNAA).
D1 must be a low forward voltage-drop Schottky diode.
The R1 is there only to make the simulation well-behaved (in reality it can be omitted).
Note that in order to eliminate that AND gate, this circuit purposely uses a comparator that has a Hi-Z / GND output ...like the LM393 or TLV1704, etc....
for the one shot full transfer, the indu to needs to rise in current and mag field to peak right about the time the 2 caps are at equalibrium, say start with 10v and at equalibrium each cap would be at 7.07v each, of which if you stopped there and disconnect, those 2 caps with 7.07v would both add up total and equal the same energy as the 10v cap started with.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.05, 20:18:24
for the one shot full transfer, the indu to needs to rise in current and mag field to peak right about the time the 2 caps are at equalibrium, ...
What are you talking about ?
In this circuit (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg115112#msg115112), the caps are never in equilibrium except when they are both empty (initially, C1 decreases from 100% to 0% and
only after that C2 increases from 0% to 99% energy).
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53434)
if you were able to slow down the process, you would see that when cap1 gets down to 7.07v from 10v start, cap2 will also be at 7.07v.
even in sim. make a series circuit, cap1, switch, inductor, diode and cap 2. close the switch and see. minus diode drop. now like i said earlier, if you wer able to turn off the switch when cap1 reaches 7.07v, without a diode, you would have 7.07v in cap 2 also. this shouldnt be that hard to understand. some here were questioning my work on this years ago, but only Poynt understood where i was coming from with this. such a basic circuit. again, shouldnt be that hard to understand.
once the caps have both reached 7.07v, the inductors current is max and the mag field is 'expanded' to peak also, now the mag field collapses and that energy stored in the inductors mag field is enough to take all of whats left in cap 1 and force it to cap 2. again, minus diode drop if used.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.05, 23:20:32
if you were able to slow down the process, you would see that when cap1 gets down to 7.07v from 10v start, cap2 will also be at 7.07v.
This oscillogram (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53434) represents a slowed-down view of the energy transfer process and the voltages levels you are describing are not occurring in this circuit (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg115112#msg115112).
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.05, 23:20:32
once the caps have both reached 7.07v, the inductors current is max...
Are you blind ?
In this circuit (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg115112#msg115112), the caps are never both at 7.07V (initially, C1 decreases from 10V to 0V and
only after that C2 increases from 0V to 9.99V).
Also, the inductor's current (I
L1) is at maximum when both of the caps are empty (at 0V, not at 7.07V).
This oscillogram (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53434) illustrates that unambigously.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.05, 23:20:32
make a series circuit, cap1, switch, inductor, diode and cap 2. close the switch and see.
Don't change the subject. I am not referring to a circuit connected like the one you are describing.
In all my previous messages, I linked this circuit (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg115112#msg115112) so there would be no doubts to what I am referring to.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.05, 23:20:32
...such a basic circuit. again, shouldnt be that hard to understand.
Exactly.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.05, 23:26:34
This oscillogram (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53434) represents a slowed-down view of the energy transfer process and the voltages levels you are describing are not occurring in this circuit (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg115112#msg115112).
Are you blind ?
In this circuit (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg115112#msg115112), the caps are never both at 7.07V (initially, C1 decreases from 10V to 0V and only after that C2 increases from 0V to 9.99V).
Also, the inductor's current (IL1) is at maximum when both of the caps are empty (at 0V, not at 7.07V).
This oscillogram (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53434) illustrates that unambigously.
Don't change the subject. I am not referring to a circuit connected like the one you are describing.
In all my previous messages, I linked this circuit (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg115112#msg115112) so there would be no doubts to what I am referring to.
Exactly.
firstly, dont change the subject???? your circuit is not representative of what we are discussing. so you can shut it.
we are talking about cap to cap. trying to use the cap to cap paradox and seeing what we might be able to do with that. this is the subject of the thread and joels claim as such. no power supply connected except to initially charge cap 1. so, just 1 charged cap and 1 completely discharged cap with some simple circuitry, to try and charge a 3rd cap with the energy transfer from cap1 to cap2.
so if you are not talking about cap to cap as we are, then should i even respond to the rest of your post?
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.06, 00:13:57
firstly, dont change the subject???? your circuit is not representative of what we are discussing. so you can shut it.
It is related. Did you see what I wrote below ?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.05, 17:47:50
Yes, cap-->cap energy transfers are inherently inefficient.
This is because caps are voltage sources, yet for the most efficient charging process, they require a current source.
This is also the reason why coil-->cap energy transfers are so efficient (coils ARE current sources).
It is possible to transfer 99% of the cap's energy to another cap by using a low-loss coil as an intermediary, i.e.: cap-->coil-->cap transfer (C1 --> L1 --> C2 in the circuit below).
...and you engaged with that specific circuit by replying:
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.05, 18:57:28
the inductor used to transfer most or all of cap1 to cap2 would need to be absolutely huge if using super caps, if not virtually impossible.
Thus there could have been no doubt what we were discussing.
if we do as joel has shown, he is intentionally letting 50% of the original energy from cap1 by way of the cap to cap paradox, in hopes of. recovering it, or better to cap3.
anyway, if i charge cap1 to 100v and direct discharge that into cap2, both caps same value and cap2 stars at 0v, how much voltage will be in each cap when all is said and done? why, in the process described did we lose 50% of that energy?
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.06, 01:19:43
why, in the process described did we lose 50% of that energy?
To i
2R losses, arcing and EM radiation.
The rate of change of current approaches infinity when two unequally charged caps are connected because caps are voltage sources, and for the most efficient charging process, they require to be charged from a current source.
ok. im looking at your circuit. it is using just an inductor instead of a transformer. i dig it. im on a similar path on that.
you have pretty much applied a boost converter to do cap to cap.
i see your scope shot. yes you charge the inductor with cap1 and then discharge that into cap 2. thats why you have both caps at 0v before the inductor charges cap2.
joel is not doing it that way at all. he is just pulsing the primary with cap to cap currents in pulses
now that there is consensus that what joel has presented camnot work as presented, i am still in the process of replacing the transfomer with my orbo. i intend to show transfer of cap1 to cap2 all in one shot and charge a cap3, as the input of the orbo, a toroid winding, is not affected by the output winding. rewinding the toroid winding as we speak for higher inductance so i can do larger caps that dont self discharge quickly like the 2uf i found good results with. ive explained all this earlier. circuit is already set up. as soon as i fin the winding it will be ready to go. basically i will be doing what you are showing but all in 1 shot. cap1 to cap2 and output to cap3.
it will be a proof of concept
mags
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.06, 01:29:30
To i2R losses, arcing and EM radiation.
The rate of change of current approaches infinity when two unequally charged caps are connected because caps are voltage sources, and for the most efficient charging process, they require to be charged from a current source.
i dont believe weblost the 50% due to resistance nor radiation. cant explain it again right now, but i have explained it many different ways here already. check it out. tell me what you think
excuse some typing errors. from my phone
mags
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.05, 17:47:50
Yes, cap-->cap energy transfers are inherently inefficient.
This is because caps are voltage sources, yet for the most efficient charging process, they require a current source.
This is also the reason why coil-->cap energy transfers are so efficient (coils ARE current sources).
It is possible to transfer 99% of the cap's energy to another cap by using a low-loss coil as an intermediary, i.e.: cap-->coil-->cap transfer (C1 --> L1 --> C2 in the circuit below).
In such scheme, the switch and diode/synch rectifier play a role of gatekeepers that do not allow the energy to return to the first cap and coil.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53426)
To see it working click here (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/circuitjs.html?ctz=CQAgjCAMB0l3BWcMBMcUHYMGZIA4UA2ATmIxAUgpABZsKBTAWjDACgBjEbNEFBQt148qNKLHikp0maRBMYk2RgRhihGoWyCFEiJDYAbWmEEoUYmqe4IUUcPLAT4LhNmxgMYFMzD0DAG4g6tyQYiEoeHj2olRIVAnQCGwA7kJU2LYmgpl2gcFmUQV8GHn2NHEx4slpEfjFmHmpxbjhOVkGXLbR5mLdNnZiikqyo8SOScR+NFOmeBg0eMR4vvFQzZpiuRSRA+sATnz1vel8FvZgBmkifAKnJ1enN88dbGAI41Zm5zcP4nAQS4uYF8JLNbZgGhbQjRSFDNjYMQAZQ4AAsAPYAF0xAGsAJ4OQjQFYsBL-UyqGgoMB4ATdBBQ2HwZBsAAmOx6502ZzEdhRGOx+LYSPA3iOsMIVDQ0TJmP2AFcGPYUGxDjxbjk7DcqEC4OCtVl1dr9RqhOBdo9PII1HYreaZSbvLCMNaLeCYeAodwPdL1tdhFkQttLZLwMRbS6w000qw7L66g7DtyTtzg8hgWwAIZ8IqRHrHIrjS4XYFk3QjaQqNQaLTW0t6tJ5kpx3N3R6-O5N-iCR5N1o56LGxtFZ7CXi9gv5iUJDbWFMaHl+7J7VOvGOhk6+h7NIOGg1Nd5S0qerZZOHK+w1ZvgDf1UwzxvHp3gSPPgwADwoRY9oc8EDE1gAMKGAAlhwOIADoAM6YqiIFQdBUEpCBmJotBbCfuG4B4OE9A0uQAGCJi6LQUimKZvsmIYUIPQqEI4yYNEAHRIB7CflS9CNLQ5yYEgzEgAAMmxtA4CUogLCU9D8QASsJbi8iQFCZNe-GASq7G0kcnx4GYYr8QAIsJKDYD0bh8NgDF3DJ6kmHwhAEXGGCiNhIDSdgbAAOYtIGOQejO6L2AuoiZEMEgWFYFSEPw-ySC6AjRVK9juQFHggEFtAhTFcAuigxAWTQbjePEziQGQhDxWsWoQMlhJDBlZkVFlpVxVFlUODV5DpXQDJNTleXEAVHgJdA+h8CA5DuSZ9gAGKjcM8D6M4lwQCwICAZmAAOmYcChmYAHYcAwCKwiAs0xLAgIXY4IAAJJ7ay8ocORB1HUAA).
The op-amp's/comparator's purpose is to detect when C1 is empty.
The R1 is there only to make the simulation well-behaved (in reality it can be omitted).
The MOSFET'ized version is here (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/circuitjs.html?ctz=CQAgjCAMB0l3BWcMBMcUHYMGZIA4UA2ATmIxAUgpABZsKBTAWjDACgBjEbNEFBQt148qNKLHikp0maRBMYk4nmx4MZYmALKExeYsgRIbADa0wglCjE0L3BCijh52aNkp4wGBxhR5bYCjYzHrGAG4gxIK4YlF8eHhOolRIVGnQCGwRcX6JOb5JtCmFMJkA7pGW+JV8BcYVcTE17o7GXA6JVmId9o5iBnCyQ1LyGNCBhp40-tg0kOrBLEZQbBU0hGItFH69KwBO4IRUXULH1k5g9ad8AtcnVyLXj1vGsyAAyhwAFgD2AC5-ADWAE9nIRoHhmJckrALAgwDQUFoBB0EDRpsg4Mg2AATbadc7rMQnRyfX4AkFsd7gQJ8aoWY7VNIgP57ACuDCcKDYBzAxD6dh45kEogwcFWQmFksCiSuXkEfMc8vAOweSp2yplKwq-GiDma+rlR3A-PAGAVprltLQeSqsp5tA2fEJTpemPgV1ytUcXt12rut19t09CW4kGJoceIcSz2EvDlpq9iqlV1slhdxPOqcF+qJu2MAA8KHoLIljV4IGI7ABhEwASw4gIAOgBnP5fOst1stsp1v7fVtsIumrSxehachVwR-H6t95-ACGez+Q6EnW8Qj0mESVcS1fYRcR9EwfXOmCQu5AABkD7QcLVRcT75eAEq3hBvIh6D9IE+0cB7tyh54L+kB6NMli0peAAit5WOQ-A+js-AXgBIAvkBIAbnMiTmuYlZoS+2BsAA5gajiNIQsorAAZtw-hFFQqibPqQpgBk2IVM8rFUfmEpzExuY5q0EqPCcabOv0okMQJ9E2HYxhzBAf6+tUXpIHgrZgAgrYsDpLaXB6kC6QMpAqGoGhaCgOjEK2xkGUZfCtmgWlGUZzkcWAdkSr6BQqXUPmRuG3phlJOpqaGyZep6twScmEmKVY1wScxKZcp5mQHH6Wx+gl7rilxwj6tlhqibwEm5Qpq5WBA2CJkldWoVo6E0KugRPkggS-hgO4qiAAASdZMAAWq2AD0rYAOIAHLQa2ADybJ-AADktbA-E4TqiO4-QSNYthzIQ-DiB6ZCEAIx3HE4xEbcdW20Dt4jaUdqQSIM5oXakfA3Nw61gv0D0fkUJ2SB9L1cs4N0gII910GiINwOa1l1TQH5dU9EPRGwqhOAAYssAxwEYb2XBALAgNWC7LQuHB9guAB2HAMNjiQQPjMKGOAsLyBAACS9M4myHCLozzNAA)
Interesting topic this "cap to cap transfer via and inductor".
I was looking into it too after your response and found this on the net: https://www.av8n.com/physics/capacitor-transfer.htm
I was trying to do an LTspice simulation, but got a bad case of the flu i am now dealing with.
Also ChatGPT "knows" about it, but its diagrams sucks.
So we basically dump the C1 charge into L1 (the diode prevents C2 from being charged initially), then at the negative slope, C2 gets charged up from the energy stored in L1.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.06, 09:30:30
got a bad case of the flu i am now dealing with.
I had that flu, too. It is bad and lasts for weeks. Treat it seriously.
There are also 3 other virii going around. See:
https://youtu.be/oHU4LBdTl0o?t=234
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.06, 09:30:30
So we basically dump the C1 charge into L1 (the diode prevents C2 from being charged initially), then at the negative slope, C2 gets charged up from the energy stored in L1.
Yes, but it is possible to do that transfer without that diode and without the loss due to its forward voltage drop. Just with one MOSFET ...but the circuit for that is less educational.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.06, 01:49:48
i dont believe we lost the 50% due to resistance nor radiation.
But you do acknowledge that EM and i
2R losses happen during a CRC energy transfer (not my circuit!) qualitatively, don't you ?
If you do, then all that remains is to establish the magnitude of that loss quantitatively.
For example: for two equal caps (C
1 and C
2), initially one charged to 10V and the second to 0V, the current flowing between them in the first instance when they are connected by a 100mΩ resistance (R) is 100A and that represents 1kW of power loss in that instance (because P=i
2R). To obtain the total energy loss this power loss needs to be integrated over time as the current falls
*. The result obtained this way beats any belief you may have about it.
This does not consider the energy loss in the EM radiation resistance.
*
The current in a series CRC circuit falls in time like this: i(t)=[(V1-V2)/R]*e^[-t/(RC1C2/(C1+C2))]
Integrating the instantaneous power loss R*i(t)2 over t from zero to infinity, yields the total energy loss as E=[C1C2(V1-V2)2]/[2(C1+C2)]. Note that E does not depend on R.
If C1=C2=C and V2=0 then the above reduces to: E=C2V12/4C = CV12/4 = ½CV12/2
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.06, 01:49:48
i dont believe weblost the 50% due to resistance nor radiation.
...
Why don't you believe what all electronics engineers know and use every day?
You waste half the energy charging a capacitor through a resistor, from a voltage source like another capacitor or a battery.
Since the voltage of the capacitor and the voltage source are different as long as the capacitor is not charged, the current would be infinite. In practice, since there will always be a resistance in the connection and in the capacitor itself, the current peak will be dissipated in the resistance and will represent an energy equal to that of the capacitor charge.
The only way to charge a capacitor without loss is with a current generator, not a voltage generator. A current generator allows the voltage across the capacitor to rise step by step.
Alternatively, a voltage generator can be used, but must be connected in series with an inductor of sufficient value, which transforms it into a current generator by the virtue that E=-L.di/dt (so E will also rise smoothly).
Radiation loss will only be significant if you use coils of not negligible size in relation to the wavelength of the frequencies in the charge current spectrum.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.06, 11:36:02
Why don't you believe what all electronics engineers know and use every day?
You waste half the energy charging a capacitor through a resistor, from a voltage source like another capacitor or a battery.
Since the voltage of the capacitor and the voltage source are different as long as the capacitor is not charged, the current would be infinite. In practice, since there will always be a resistance in the connection and in the capacitor itself, the current peak will be dissipated in the resistance and will represent an energy equal to that of the capacitor charge.
The only way to charge a capacitor without loss is with a current generator, not a voltage generator. A current generator allows the voltage across the capacitor to rise step by step.
Alternatively, a voltage generator can be used, but must be connected in series with an inductor of sufficient value, which transforms it into a current generator by the virtue that E=-L.di/dt (so E will also rise smoothly).
Radiation loss will only be significant if you use coils of not negligible size in relation to the wavelength of the frequencies in the charge current spectrum.
short on time atm. but if you look back on this thread, ive gone over reasons why i 'claim' what im what im talking about. ill be back on later. at work
real quick, on losing 50% by charging a cap from a power supply, or other stable source. thinking on that as i have my mind set, that loss may not be a loss. ill think today and let u know what i think about that.
im hoping that even one of you get what im claiming. talk later
thanks
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.06, 16:26:31
im hoping that even one of you get what im claiming. talk later
thanks
mags
I got lost on your theory when you started talking about a cap transfer/discharge where it was an ideal cap with no inductance in the conductor medium. This can never be. Just as there can never be a coil that is without inter-turn capacitance.
Dave
As mentioned earlier, as was trying to complete an LTspice simulation with a similar circuit as verpies used.
His circuit and result can be seen here:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53445;image)
My LTspice simulation result is here:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53447;image)
As can be seen, the results are very similar where C1 starts with 10V and ends with 0V while C2 starts with 0V and ends with -10V.
But -10V on an electrolytic cap would be not a very stable situation, so i am not sure how to overcome this (if still using electrolytic caps).
Another observation is that after some 31 seconds or so the voltage on C2 is back to 0V, see this long time simulation:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53449;image)
Not sure if this in real life too or a glitch (or the fact of the reversed polarity on the electrolytic cap C2).
LTspice file attached
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.06, 20:36:37
But -10V on an electrolytic cap would be not a very stable situation, so i am not sure how to overcome this (if still using electrolytic caps).
Just flip that cap around. It always experiences one polarity of voltage, anyway.
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.06, 20:36:37
Another observation is that after some 31 seconds or so the voltage on C2 is back to 0V, see this long time simulation:
Not sure if this in real life too or a glitch (or the fact of the reversed polarity on the electrolytic cap C2).
Maybe the diode is leaking or LTSpice is really good and can model the leaky behavior of electrolytic caps biased in reverse.
Lagace latest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgFkKkYYmjs
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.06, 19:49:40
I got lost on your theory when you started talking about a cap transfer/discharge where it was an ideal cap with no inductance in the conductor medium. This can never be. Just as there can never be a coil that is without inter-turn capacitance.
Dave
iinteresting that you say that about how i lost you when getting into the ideal versions of cap to cap. its interesting because mile high back in the day specifically brought the ideal situation to the table while i was having doubts in the back of my head on cap to cap and the consensus of why the 50% losses. so after he did communicate what he thought the outcome would be in ideal land, it hit me.... so i ran a sim with no resistance applied to any components. 50% loss....
what really led me to believe as i do after that, mile high said that in ideal land that doing a direct cap to cap, ideal, no resistance, that we would end up with 7.07v in each cap from a start of 10v. thats when the thoughts in the back of my head were starting to pan out as to why i felt there was a problem here that we are not paying attn too.. and i found my answers in coulombs law.
firstly, if you think that instilling a charge in a cap is not due to electrons being taken from the pos plate and also electrons being pumped into the neg plate in order to quantify that charge, then we probably wont get anywhere with this. but if you do, then follow me here...
basically if you inderstand what coulomb tells us then if we were to have a cap, no charge, and if we could take 1 electron from the pos plate and pumped 1 into the neg plate, that we could calc the exact voltage that the cap is charged to as long as we know the exact value of the capacitance. more electrons taken from the pos plate and sent to the neg plate, we can again calc the exact voltage potential in that cap with these 2 numbers, the electron count and the cap value.
so also. with a known voltage on the cap and its value of capacitance, we could calc the number of electrons displaced from the pos plate to the neg plate.
now. earlier i said that there would be an equalibrium of 7.07v in each cap starting with 10v more to see who would respond to that.
it is an impossiblility to have 7.07v in cap1 and 2 by way of just cap to cap, no inductor. just as some here have pointed out. and we can agree on that. what milehigh claimed with the ideal example and said we would end up with 7.07v in each cap, that was the clincher to be able to solidly say that resistance is not the cause of the loss. the only way, cap to cap, for the results of 7.07v to be left in each cap would be to add more electrons to the system than we started with.. like a 10gal bucket of water to an empty 10gal bucket, we can not end with 7.07gal in each bucket. 10lb air pressure in a tank and another empty tank. we can only end up with 5lb in each when said and done. in order to end with 7.07lb in each tank, more air would need to be added to the closed system. same for the water....
if you use verpies circuit, and started with 10v, and he turned off the transistor when cap1 got down to 7.07v, that inductor will charge cap2 to 7.07v. again, minus diode drops. total energy left idealy in cap1 and cap2 would be equal to the energy we started with in cap1 at 10v.
like mile high tried to be slick with the ideal example that he claimed we would end up with 7.07v in each cap if it were ideal, of which would show no loss. well the only way that could happen is if the electron count for each cap were altered from an external source durring the process. cant happen.
my point is that if we do cap to cap, and were to calc how many electrons were taken from cap1's pos plate and put in the neg plate in order to read 10v, once we do the cap to cap, and end up with 5v in each cap, we can calculate the number of excess electrons on each neg plate and how many are depleted from the pos plates, and those calculations will show numbers that we did not add nor lose any electrons to the closed system of the circuit durring that cap to cap event. we only reduced the initial energy we began with because we didnt do anything with that transfer from cap1 to cap 2. resistance of any value, even absolute 0ohms, the outcome will be exactly the same. the only difference between lower or higher resistance would be the time it takes to do the full conversion of cap1 at 10v, to cap1 and cap 2 each having 5v. now with the inductor, things change up. milehigh said that the inductor negates the resistance in order to end up with 10v in cap2 from a start of 10v in cap1.. i was like, WHAT??? Resistance is no longer a problem what so ever now???? na. makes no sence. meanwhile, with no inductor, any resistance gives the exact same results, 50% loss every time????? any other circuit, add a series resistance and change that resistance and different results will occur for each change. but with cap to cap the ONLY thing that changes is the time. thats it.
why nobody elese questions this is beyond me. and once i convince some that the resistance is not the cause of the loss, they always then say that the cause of the loss is due to radiations. if that were true, then radiation losses of 50% would simply happen in everything we do. cap to cap with inductor and diode has no radiation losses??? give me a break. something is wrong when it comesnto the science on this subject.
also, i dont think we lose 50% when charging a cap from a source like a power supply, etc. if you do, can you explain that to me? and i will respond. there is a BIG difference between a constant source and a charged cap as a source, on that is definitely not constant at any time durring the transfer, just a continous depletion of potential from start to finish.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.07, 01:22:53
what really led me to believe as i do after that, mile high said that in ideal land that doing a direct cap to cap, ideal, no resistance, that we would end up with 7.07v in each cap from a start of 10v.
That was only MileHigh's hypothetical example, based on the premise: "
WHAT IF there were no losses during C2C energy transfers" and the mathematical identity: 0.707...
2 = ½ which implies that ~70.7% of the voltage represents 50% of the energy, because the energy stored in a capacitor is proportional to its voltage squared (V
2).
In reality this does not happen because there are always at least 50% energy losses during C2C transfers and when the energy in two equal capacitors equalizes then each capacitor stores only ¼ of the initial energy,. This means that only 50% of the initial voltage is left in each capacitor ( not ~70.7% ). This happens because ½ * ½ = ¼ and the energy stored in a capacitor is proportional to its voltage squared (V
2) thus 50% of the voltage represents 25% of the initial energy.
Reiterating the relationship between voltage and energy stored in a capacitor:
- ~70.7% of voltage = 50% of energy.
- 50% of voltage = 25% of energy
There is no charge conservation violation with the true numbers for the voltage and energy in a capacitor.
Apparently you have based your entire thinking on MileHigh's hypothetical thought experiment that does not occur in reality.
to say the least, milehigh was wrong. hypothetical? well at the time he was claiming it was so in order to counter my theory at the time. heck, every time i mentioned bifilar, he would attack. anyway....
im not saying there would be no heat via resistances. im not saying there would be no emmited radiations, all of which can be measured to equall that 50% loss. so why are those things not considered loss issues when we can get cap1 to cap2 in full minus the diode drop? no losses what so ever other than the diode drop? there is certainly resistance. there is certainly radiations. why are those not creating even small losses? and if they are instilling the losses we are talking about, then can we say cap1 through an inductor to cap2 is a form of excess energy, one that overcomes those losses to an exact, easily predictable outcome of seemingly no loss at all???
but that loss is not because of those things. and, those things used that transfer of charge the same way the inductor made use of the transfer. what i do see is just about everyone here firstly claimed that resistance was the cause. but then when i shut that down, then it must be radiations as a cause. so what is it exactly??? seemed so dead set on resistance because science says so. so, i suppose even science doesnt know either as they claim one or the other but no definite answers, yet the science is still the only authority even when proven wrong. at times i feel as im dealing with a cult. lol.
if you dont believe things are being hidden from us in the science world, then you will find out one day. they lie about the vaccines. they lie about blood pressure and salt. they lie about co2. infact when climate, so called, experts were asked in congress what they all thought the co2 levels in the atmosphere are, and some had different answers. most ranged from 5% to even 15%. but the person asking the question took them all down, as the actual numbers were less than 1%. and not one of them had any rebuttal. not one. theres your truth. from scientists, experts, the ones we must trust. 8)
so those are only a speck in the sand of lies from science. why is it soo unbelievable that maybe im correct, when in actuality, you dont know for sure if im wrong. ;)
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.07, 05:11:22
to say the least, milehigh was wrong. hypothetical? well at the time he was claiming it was so in order to counter my theory at the time. heck, every time i mentioned bifilar, he would attack. anyway....
im not saying there would be no heat via resistances. im not saying there would be no emmited radiations, all of which can be measured to equall that 50% loss. so why are those things not considered loss issues when we can get cap1 to cap2 in full minus the diode drop? no losses what so ever other than the diode drop? there is certainly resistance. there is certainly radiations. why are those not creating even small losses? and if they are instilling the losses we are talking about, then can we say cap1 through an inductor to cap2 is a form of excess energy, one that overcomes those losses to an exact, easily predictable outcome of seemingly no loss at all???
but that loss is not because of those things. and, those things used that transfer of charge the same way the inductor made use of the transfer. what i do see is just about everyone here firstly claimed that resistance was the cause. but then when i shut that down, then it must be radiations as a cause. so what is it exactly??? seemed so dead set on resistance because science says so. so, i suppose even science doesnt know either as they claim one or the other but no definite answers, yet the science is still the only authority even when proven wrong. at times i feel as im dealing with a cult. lol.
if you dont believe things are being hidden from us in the science world, then you will find out one day. they lie about the vaccines. they lie about blood pressure and salt. they lie about co2. infact when climate, so called, experts were asked in congress what they all thought the co2 levels in the atmosphere are, and some had different answers. most ranged from 5% to even 15%. but the person asking the question took them all down, as the actual numbers were less than 1%. and not one of them had any rebuttal. not one. theres your truth. from scientists, experts, the ones we must trust. 8)
so those are only a speck in the sand of lies from science. why is it soo unbelievable that maybe im correct, when in actuality, you dont know for sure if im wrong. ;)
mags
Impedance is a complex quantity. It contains both resistance and inductive reactance. If the circuit impedance is primarily resistive, you will have most of the energy dissipate as heat losses. If the circuit is primarily inductive reactance, you will have stored magnetic energy that can then be transferred into C2.
Dave
one more thing...
ive made analogies that i compare air pressure in tanks and water buckets. can you tell me what i am missing here? am i not correct in doing so even though the results are virtually the same in each case?
voltage is pressure.
current is flow due to pressure.
results are the same. cap to cap, 10v to each having 5v. tank to tank, 100lb to 50lb each tank. 10gal to 2 buckets of 5 gal.
please show me how i should not relate these as all the same.
air tanks, transfer to tank2 with an air motor with a flywheel as the inductor. same with the water buckets, water pressure driven motor with flywheel as the inductor.
can anyone agree with me on that?
if so, in the air tank setup where we just open the valve and let the pressure equal out between tanks. 100lb to 50lb each. 50% loss. did we lose that 50% because of resistance or radiations??? if not then where did that energy go?????
ill tell you where it went. we stupidly, pumped tank1 to 100lb and just dumped it into a container with twice the volume, which in the end adds up to a 50% loss. why is that so hard to understand when it comes to the cap to cap?? any resistance from air tank to air tank is not the cause of the loss in the end. maybe that air flow through the hose from tank to tank makes a bit of heat due to air friction. but it didnt cause the 50% loss, now tell me about how radiations caused the loss. please tell me how.
you can calculate the amount of energy stored in the air tanks in the form of pressure by volume. you can quantify the amount of work that a 10gal bucket of water can do with the pressure from a hose outlet at the bottom of the bucket.. we can do work with that water flow caused by the weight of the water in the bucket. 10 gal in 1 bucket can do more work than 2 buckets with 5 gal, just like the caps from 10v in one cap to 2 at 5v. same exact thing.
once you get it straght that they are all the same, then you will see that the resistance and radiations are not the cause of the loss. you then should also understand the the electron count on the caps plates that determine the voltage(pressure) are the same as the air molecule count in the tanks or the water molecule count in the buckets. dont assume AI is always correct. AI only has reference to info already out there that may be wrong intentionaly or not.
dont be stuborn. really think about this.
mags
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.07, 05:48:17
Impedance is a complex quantity. It contains both resistance and inductive reactance.
...and capacitive reactance.
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.07, 05:48:17
If the circuit impedance is primarily resistive, you will have most of the energy dissipate as heat losses. If the circuit is primarily inductive reactance, you will have stored magnetic energy...
...and if the circuit contains primarily capacitive reactance, its energy will be stored mostly as electric field.
Furthermore, the effects of inductive reactance can cancel the effects of capacitive reactance, ...but we don't know of anything that can cancel the effects of resistance.
Especially its conversion of electric current into heat (@Mags: water pipes almost do not do that).
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.07, 05:48:17
...
If the circuit is primarily inductive reactance, you will have stored magnetic energy that can then be transferred into C2.
Dave
This is why charging one capacitor from another, through an inductor, can be done without loss (which is what happens in a resonant circuit).
The inductor is charged by a current that smoothly charges the capacitor. It's as if we were charging with a voltage barely above the capacitor's voltage and gradually increasing it.
This avoids the important voltage difference between the charging source and the voltage of the capacitor being charged, which in the ordinary case of a series resistor is compensated by it through energy loss.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.06, 21:34:14
Just flip that cap around
Of course, but people should know that we have a reversed polarity there, so it is not the same as in the normal cap to cap transfer circuit.
After reversing C2, i still have the draining within 31 seconds.
I added another switch between C2 positive and ground and now the draining stops, however during the opening of this switch we have a 140V spike as if we interrupt the magnetic field in a coil.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53453;image)
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.07, 11:35:21
After reversing C2, i still have the draining within 31 seconds.
I added another switch between C2 positive and ground and now the draining stops,
This means that the diode leaks.
It is possible to make the CLC energy transfer without this diode by using a π circuit, but I find that circuit to be less educational.
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.07, 11:35:21
I added another switch between C2 positive and ground and now the draining stops, however during the opening of this switch we have a 140V spike as if we interrupt the magnetic field in a coil.
If there is current flowing in the coil when you open that switch, then you are opening it at the wrong time.
Also LTSpice might be so smart that it simulates the diode's junction capacitance or even the DSRD effect.
QuoteIf there is current flowing in the coil when you open that switch, then you are opening it at the wrong time.
Well, i made sure there is no current flowing in the inductor, see screenshot where SW2 is closed (150ms) when no current through L1 (i L1) is flowing, so IMO it can not be that.
But I just noticed that even with SW2 open, we still have the drain on C2 where it is back to 0V after 5000 seconds (1.38 Hours).
I guess its building time to see what is really happening.....
Itsu
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.07, 03:33:01
That was only MileHigh's hypothetical example, based on the premise: "WHAT IF there were no losses during C2C energy transfers" and the mathematical identity: 0.707...2 = ½ which implies that ~70.7% of the voltage represents 50% of the energy, because the energy stored in a capacitor is proportional to its voltage squared (V2).
In reality this does not happen because there are always at least 50% energy losses during C2C transfers and when the energy in two equal capacitors equalizes then each capacitor stores only ¼ of the initial energy,. This means that only 50% of the initial voltage is left in each capacitor ( not ~70.7% ). This happens because ½ * ½ = ¼ and the energy stored in a capacitor is proportional to its voltage squared (V2) thus 50% of the voltage represents 25% of the initial energy.
Reiterating the relationship between voltage and energy stored in a capacitor:
- ~70.7% of voltage = 50% of energy.
- 50% of voltage = 25% of energy
There is no charge conservation violation with the true numbers for the voltage and energy in a capacitor.
Apparently you have based your entire thinking on MileHigh's hypothetical thought experiment that does not occur in reality.
It is not always true. In this experiment you lose only 10% of energy. But this is not a direct transfer of energy from one capacitor to another yet in this transfer the coil is involved. JLN circuit attached.
Quote from: bfulmind23 on 2025.03.07, 15:34:25
It is not always true. In this experiment you lose only 10% of energy.
That depends on the quality of the selected components.
With low R
DS-ON MOSFETs and a π circuit without a diode, short cycle time and low resistance / high-inductance coil, the CLC energy transfer efficiency can approach 100%, albeit never reach it.
Quote from: bfulmind23 on 2025.03.07, 15:34:25
But this is not a direct transfer of energy from one capacitor to another yet in this transfer the coil is involved.
With C2C/CRC energy transfer, the efficiency is theoretically capped at 50% due to i
2R losses.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.07, 05:59:57
one more thing...
ive made analogies that i compare air pressure in tanks and water buckets. can you tell me what i am missing here? am i not correct in doing so even though the results are virtually the same in each case?
voltage is pressure.
current is flow due to pressure.
results are the same. cap to cap, 10v to each having 5v. tank to tank, 100lb to 50lb each tank. 10gal to 2 buckets of 5 gal.
please show me how i should not relate these as all the same.
air tanks, transfer to tank2 with an air motor with a flywheel as the inductor. same with the water buckets, water pressure driven motor with flywheel as the inductor.
can anyone agree with me on that?
if so, in the air tank setup where we just open the valve and let the pressure equal out between tanks. 100lb to 50lb each. 50% loss. did we lose that 50% because of resistance or radiations??? if not then where did that energy go? ??? ?
ill tell you where it went. we stupidly, pumped tank1 to 100lb and just dumped it into a container with twice the volume, which in the end adds up to a 50% loss. why is that so hard to understand when it comes to the cap to cap?? any resistance from air tank to air tank is not the cause of the loss in the end. maybe that air flow through the hose from tank to tank makes a bit of heat due to air friction. but it didnt cause the 50% loss, now tell me about how radiations caused the loss. please tell me how.
you can calculate the amount of energy stored in the air tanks in the form of pressure by volume. you can quantify the amount of work that a 10gal bucket of water can do with the pressure from a hose outlet at the bottom of the bucket.. we can do work with that water flow caused by the weight of the water in the bucket. 10 gal in 1 bucket can do more work than 2 buckets with 5 gal, just like the caps from 10v in one cap to 2 at 5v. same exact thing.
once you get it straght that they are all the same, then you will see that the resistance and radiations are not the cause of the loss. you then should also understand the the electron count on the caps plates that determine the voltage(pressure) are the same as the air molecule count in the tanks or the water molecule count in the buckets. dont assume AI is always correct. AI only has reference to info already out there that may be wrong intentionaly or not.
dont be stuborn. really think about this.
mags
The air tank analogy does not fit an analogy with capacitors, this for an ideal transfer of air between tanks. See Grok's simple analysis. If you ask for the full analysis, you will see some losses due to windage, noise, and heat differences, but here you see that half pressure drops only half the energy vs 1/4 energy drops with capacitors and half-voltage.
Dave
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.07, 15:35:53
That depends on the quality of the selected components.
With low RDS-ON MOSFET and a π circuit without a diode, short cycle time and low resistance / high-inductance coil, the CLC energy transfer efficiency can approach 100%, albeit never reach it.
It's true. It is interesting that directly C2C loses so much energy, but if you add a coil the energy loss is much less.
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.07, 16:29:14
The air tank analogy does not fit an analogy with capacitors, this for an ideal transfer of air between tanks. See Grok's simple analysis. If you ask for the full analysis, you will see some losses due to windage, noise, and heat differences, but here you see that half pressure drops only half the energy vs 1/4 energy drops with capacitors and half-voltage.
Dave
well if this is so, then we can do work with the flow from tank1 to tank2 and end up being able to do it again from 2 tanks with 50lb to another 2 tanks empty and do more work and still end up with close to the original energy in 4 tanks now and do it again.
theres some free energy for ya.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.07, 17:43:51
well if this is so, then we can do work with the flow from tank1 to tank2 and end up being able to do it again from 2 tanks with 50lb to another 2 tanks empty and do more work and still end up with close to the original energy in 4 tanks now and do it again.
theres some free energy for ya.
mags
http://www.rexresearch.com/neal/neal.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/neal/neal.htm)
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.07, 20:01:15
http://www.rexresearch.com/neal/neal.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/neal/neal.htm)
nice. hadnt seen that before.
my grandfather and his dad were inventors. grandpa had an air engine idea back in the 70s. couldnt get funding and never got it done..
so i get ideas like them also.
again, thanks
mags
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.07, 16:29:14
The air tank analogy does not fit an analogy with capacitors, this for an ideal transfer of air between tanks.
Indeed. A better analogy for a capacitor would be a low-mass piston with a quadratic spring, as it is not subject to the evil gas laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws) and thermal energy loss through the walls of the tank.
For an inductor it would be a vane motor/generator (https://youtu.be/udI2dWmwMUE?t=949) with a flywheel.
Also, pipes do not convert water current into heat, much.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.07, 01:22:53
if you use verpies circuit, and started with 10v, and he turned off the transistor when cap1 got down to 7.07v, that inductor will charge cap2 to 7.07v. again, minus diode drops. total energy left idealy in cap1 and cap2 would be equal to the energy we started with in cap1 at 10v.
Yes, in the scenario you are describing, each capacitor ends up with 50% of the initial energy and ~70.7% of the initial voltage.
But what about the charge balance ?
Initially, cap1 had C1*10V Coulombs of charge (Q1) ...and after the CLC transfer, both capacitors collectively have C1*7.07V + C2*7.07V Coulombs of charge (Q2), because they are anti-parallel and can be flipped for free to become parallel.
I'll leave it to someone else to explain why Q2 > Q1. Why only I should have all the fun ?
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.02.12, 03:49:08
Some calculation revisions.
Chat GPT suggested they may be 10,000F supercaps (Photo enclosed)
4 in series gives us 2,500 F @2.51 volts = 6,275J or 2.1875 watts
However, there was energy recovery in cap b
Primary cap a = 168.3 J - secondary cap b ie 10% loss? say (- 18) = 150 J therefore net consumption = 18.3 J
So, revised figures give a net input of 18.3 J
Output Power received = 6,275 J or 2.1875 watts
Net COP 342
Sorry for jumping in the middle of this but I've experienced chatGPt telling you what it thinks you want to hear and by asking it in a slightly different way I caught it essentially contradicting itself. And I know those caps Joel shows in the video are definitely not 10,000 Farad caps. I've got a bunch of 3000 Farad 2.7v caps that are way bigger in physicals size than those caps. A 10000 F cap would likely be the size of a quart bottle if not bigger. Maybe he meant 10000 mF? or 10 Farad. I do think you can do some very interesting things with caps and may get COP much greater than one but some things in his video just can't be true based on what I know about capacitor size versus Farad size unless someone has come up with something totally new. BTW I've recently found some Ultra or super cap banks that do 500 Farads at 16 volts out of China for ~ $75 - easily puts out over 2000 Amps which is more than enough to start a big V8 engine. It starts mine faster than any battery ever did ;)
Quote from: web000x on 2025.02.12, 16:38:38
This might be the capacitor he was using for the charge receiving bank. It comes in various capacities including 10KF.
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/new-technology-500f-1000f-3000f-5000f_1600129821347.html?gQT=1 (https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/new-technology-500f-1000f-3000f-5000f_1600129821347.html?gQT=1)
Edit: Upon looking more closely, the radial package depicted in the image doesn't seem to be available in a 10KF size. It says the package is a snap in style at that capacity. However, the radial package does look similar to what he was using in the bowl so maybe he is just using a smaller capacity.
The 3000F cap shown on alibaba is 5.5 inches tall by 2.36 inches in diameter and that is just 3000F. The one's Joel has in the video are clearly much smaller than that even.
Is it the phenomenon described in the appendix that Joel Lagace is concerned with? He wrote it all down in the document with all the calculations.
Basically, it's about using displacement currents sensibly and recycling them.
In the PDF, especially from page 35.
I gave uo reading this when I realized he cannot even do simple math.
Smudge
ok. so in the document, once you complete transfer from capA to capB, each half of the original voltage, and charging capC, then reverse capA polarity so the total potential(voltage) of series capA and capB is back to what we started with but half total capacitance. but it allowes us to discharge cap A and B all the way this time and charging cap C even more, as he is suggesting we end up with all the original charge of capA into cap C.
i like that. multiple cycles of cap to cap and losing nothing virtually
sort of leans toward my idea that the energy is not lost by way of resistance nor radiation, unless in the mechanism of doing so there is something free that overcomes the losses.
but guys, if you try this, try with some regular caps. outcome should be good in a much shorter time.
mags
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.03.08, 15:14:26
I gave up reading this when I realized he cannot even do simple math.
Smudge
Who is "he" ?
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.08, 15:17:11
sort of leans toward my idea that the energy is not lost by way of resistance nor radiation, unless in the mechanism of doing so there is something free that overcomes the losses.
Would you be convinced by an exploding wire connecting two caps - one charged , the other one discharged ?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.08, 15:29:54
Who is "he" ?
Looks like he is referring to Joel in that recently posted document where the first energy calculation is off by an order of magnitude. 10(uF)*100(V^2) does not equal 10000uJ. He almost corrects himself by stating 0.001J but then divides that by 2 and ends up with 0.005J. (Calling things Joules here that are only partial calculations) It appears this error propagates through the whole document.
Dave
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.08, 15:43:20
Would you be convinced by an exploding wire connecting two caps - one charged , the other one discharged ?
i suppose you are talking about wire that cant handle the flow
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.08, 16:05:41
i suppose you are talking about wire that cant handle the flow
Yes, did you consider what phenomenon makes it unable to "handle the flow" of current and vaporize/explode ?
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.08, 15:51:47
10(uF)*100(V^2) does not equal 10000uJ.
Correct, they represent 50000µJ of energy stored in a capacitor.
50000µJ = 0.05J.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.08, 16:49:00
Correct, they represent 50000µJ of energy stored in a capacitor.
50000µJ = 0.05J.
Look more closely at the text I attached from his document. The figure 100 is from 10 Volts squared. He has over calculated his initial energy conditions.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.08, 15:29:54
Who is "he" ?
Let's play guessing games. Isn't that Joel Lagace? ;D
You can save a lot of time by not even looking at the calculations. When it starts with "
Understanding the Don Smith Capacitor Energy Method: Unlocking Hidden Energy Potential", we understand that we're dealing with a grand master who's going to explain the hidden secrets of a conventional device that a beginner in electronics would understand better than him.
And when it continues with "
Energy is everywhere. It surrounds us in forms both seen and unseen", we understand that he's addressing incompetents like himself, so he has to say things so simple and banal that it will flatter the audience, who will imagine they understand great mysteries, and he, the grand master, will get followers.
The problem of the charge of capacitor has long been solved. Since it's the key to the efficient operation of MOSFETs in switching mode, to reduce losses due to gate capacitance, it's been studied extensively. The general principle of how best to charge a capacitor is well known. It's got nothing to do with special cases interpreted any old way, and all the nonsense of J L. How could he turn such a simple thing into such a twisted story? His text is so pretentiously stupid that it's hard to believe it could have an audience.
The principle is
adiabatic charging, which I've already indirectly mentioned when talking about its practical implementation: step-by-step charging or charging by current generator or through an inductor.
It's not very complicated, but a prof will explain it better than I can:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtgOboxMNoU&t=81s
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.08, 17:03:02
The figure 100 is from 10 Volts squared.
Atypical notation. I read it as a 10µF capacitor charged to 100V.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.08, 17:14:13
The problem of the charge of capacitor has long been solved.
Yes, ...and I solved it again here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg115130#msg115130) by integrating the i
2R losses over time as one capacitor charges another.
I marked the final result in red color.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.08, 16:05:41
i suppose you are talking about wire that cant handle the flow
mags
When I discharged some of my 2600F caps to start the experiment, I used 15 amp mains wire leads and the connectors got so hot
that I had to withdraw my hand quickly and disconnect and reconnect the wires several times.
I suggest that at the uF level, you cannot see the resistance easily, but when you get into the heavy stuff, wire resistance becomes obvious.
Having said that, I am carrying on with various aspects of reactive power energy extraction.
Something about the math in the paper doesn't add up to me. The transformer explanation doesn't add up to me either. The primary should react to the secondary no matter what. Displacement current across the capacitor should result in real current in the wire - the transformer should react as it would to any current pulse.
Also the fact that everything he throws together seems to work fine makes me suspicious. If it works then I'm all ears because I'd rather deal with a relatively low voltage, high current system than one with high voltages.
I can't rationalize in my head how the circuit isn't any different than a normal circuit though, where is the gain mechanism, excess energy coming from?
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.07, 15:21:30
Well, i made sure there is no current flowing in the inductor, see screenshot where SW2 is closed (150ms) when no current through L1 (i L1) is flowing, so IMO it can not be that.
But I just noticed that even with SW2 open, we still have the drain on C2 where it is back to 0V after 5000 seconds (1.38 Hours).
I guess its building time to see what is really happening.....
Itsu
It turns out that building this circuit (cap to cap via inductor (CLC) using 100uF caps and 1H inductor) is easily said than done.
It's not the caps, but the inductor or better the resistance of that inductor that's the problem.
For this CLC to work, we need a high capacity inductor (like 1H), but at the same time also a low (few Ohms) resistance.
I toke my biggest inductor (1.5mm Sq wire), stuffed it with ferrite rings and measured it only to be 15mH at 2.4 Ohm.
According to the LTspice sim, this was not going to work (only partially).
So i had to lower the used caps also to be 10uF, so i ended up with this diagram:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53481;image)
and this build:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53483;image)
Running 10V input on C1, waiting for the FG pulse to close SW1, i get this screenshot:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53485;image)
The DMM's across both C1 (left) and C2 (right) shows the following values just before the pulse:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53487;image)
and right after the pulse:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53489;image)
So it seems that it works "kind of" here, but IMO due to resistance in the inductor we are not able to fill C2 to the max.
Using super caps will be even harder, as we would need a much higher value inductor with even lower resistance.
Itsu
After using some (better?) audio grade bipolar 10uF caps, things improved:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53491;image)
Looking at the purple trace and the A and B cursor data (white circle) we started with 200mV on C2 and ended with -9V on C2.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.09, 15:16:52
For this CLC to work, we need a high capacity inductor (like 1H), but at the same time also a low (few Ohms) resistance.
Of course.
Also, shortening the transfer time improves the resistive losses.
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.09, 15:51:08
After using some (better?) audio grade bipolar 10uF caps, things improved:
The π CLC circuit without a diode (depicted below) is even more efficient (no diode voltage drop), but it requires a bilateral switch (which you are using already anyway).
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53493)
P1 adjusts the voltage at which the C1 is considered to be empty and at which the switch opens (useful if C1 doesn't get discharged all the way down to 0V). Sim here (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/circuitjs.html?ctz=CQAgjCAMB0l3BWcMBMcUHYMGZIA4UA2ATmIxAUgpABZsKBTAWjDACgBjEbNEFBQt17YEKWlFjxS0mbNIgmMKXKxhsYBDRp4FSyBEhsANt0I6UKGrW19LUcPcMA3EMUG4rbvnh1UqNKiQ-CQQ2Fy8UH1dBTDFggOpgmFCAd2i+AXTYqDY0rw907DwrQy4tczty7mLxPTg5BulHHIAncEIqCyseTrsqMEM0noz3Xi6cgGVwMDE0HTAOvnxmgBcWgFcGexRc8AxBMGIxMH3puN3+A5m9q-O0sC1qz3cawfb+o5vwT7fWWeWIss3pFzBhZlFLjkhmNMiCRlDvDoCnDsNhBL9PnDDsdHoYAB4UYjtHSLE4QKwLEAAYSMAEsOABrAA6AGcVgALWks1kslK0lYcdmstgEz5gGrEeji8gUwQrAD2rImKwAhi0ViKhESUJ9UZ1iEgKToqewCQErJYrAEkJYZeAdAAZU3TCDYGjHa5uw32kAABWdNHFfEltEOwcERupOwJDyldHAjweEZ9ACVsGwAOaFCURuCOXbDIpWmxFhFw7IVsFlqLIqsFYHLLGYqKGDSdTIzJGicCRbb2UIqvhV8uNqJEgYKCcDeB5pRqTQLmiLzQ0My6SSQBqqdQr+YzwxtTtnL5-ezTuCZnvza5Ho9+NgaIloirdNG2C3gZg3-f7vjQVJCL0r4xH0FwdomYq4gW3ZHiI-y+A+GAUo8BQLFQz5nvAEjEHgCDnj+cAQCmDAslyqoAHYcAwuwROBFqZG8gI6LR6K7Gh3BvtiHGsdC6HdoWrxsShNQooJXAom+olWp+TBEnOIhLopy5aGuegGBcNY1AJJRsbqkk1m+B4JvRBwoZAJTIPAQndGuDzdIJMZ4XwhDkBoswYP4qbOpYYgYZY9DYBg5I+lS0a2OQ-AQBY5iaOIQYpjs8r2IQFl0LFeiWg8kCEPwEgzmQhACLlnT2OmSVBil9hpRafgbpu+xFUEfA+mVDiVf4Ij0AkdT1YVOVNcc3BsElgjtbQCl5fA+w6tgxBLuoxXQAYzXuGwRT2AAYstPX6JN+i7Sw1IqgADiqHD8iqlHUetEBbY4sAQGAD2TiAACS5EACbrBwFFUWwQA).
OK, same components as above without the diode, so slightly modified circuit.
Results are indeed better, and the both caps have the same polarity now:
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.09, 20:40:03
Results are indeed better, and the both caps have the same polarity now:
Unfortunately this CLC π circuit cannot be realized with one MOSFET in lieu of the Reed Relay :(
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.09, 15:16:52
I took my biggest inductor (1.5mm Sq wire), stuffed it with ferrite rings and measured it only to be 15mH at 2.4 Ohm.
If you'd closed the magnetic path of that inductor with high permeability material, its inductance could've reached 1H.
QuoteUnfortunately this CLC π circuit cannot be realized with one MOSFET in lieu of the Reed Relay :(
OK.
For completeness, i also tried the MOSFET circuit, and it worked too, i only could not put all 4 traces on the scope due to grounding problems. O0
But switching the MOSFET in the ground path instead of the reed switch works.
QuoteIf you'd closed the magnetic path of that inductor with high permeability material, its inductance could've reached 1H.
OK, i can take a shot at that next.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.09, 21:41:17
But switching the MOSFET in the ground path instead of the reed switch works.
Not for the π circuit, because C1 and C2 would get both charged up through the MOSFET's body diode.
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.09, 21:41:17
OK, i can take a shot at that next.
I doubt you have a ferrite core that is big enough to accommodate that coil.
Anyway, you already confirmed experimentally that CLC transfer is more efficient than CC transfer. Increasing the CLC efficiency a little is not going to change anything.
what size caps are you using that need 1H coil??
10mh will do for caps below 10,000uf or 10mf
1000uf will work just fine with 10mh. the effect can be seen with simple stuff you probably have around. i do simple one shots capA to capB with a push button. i dont get why this seems so dificult
mags
sorry. 1000uf. not 10,000
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.10, 02:51:29
what size caps are you using that need 1H coil??
10mh will do for caps below 10,000uf or 10mf
1000uf will work just fine with 10mh. the effect can be seen with simple stuff you probably have around. i do simple one shots capA to capB with a push button. i dont get why this seems so dificult
mags
Hi Mags,
My CLC experiments above show that my present 15mH 2.4 Ohm coil is not enough for 100uF caps as i am not ably to transfer more energy as when using normal C2C transfer (50%).
Only when i lowered the caps to 10uF ones, i was ably to get 95% or so transfer.
So if i want such a high transfer rate on bigger caps (like the 100uF from verpies his diagrams / simulations), i need higher inductance and / or lower resistance in the inductor.
The goal is to use super caps (100F) in this CLC transfer, so therefor the need for inductors in the (many) Henries range (but with low resistance).
Itsu
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.09, 23:28:26
Not for the π circuit, because C1 and C2 would get both charged up through the MOSFET's body diode.
I doubt you have a ferrite core that is big enough to accommodate that coil.
Anyway, you already confirmed experimentally that CLC transfer is more efficient than CC transfer. Increasing the CLC efficiency a little is not going to change anything.
I guess you are right, this CLC transfer of energy between caps works, at least at the values we use now.
I was hoping it could explain the effect Joel had with his CLC transfer as that is what it also is IMO where his L is the primary of a transformer.
Itsu
For those wishing to see further info on some parameters change etc, see this simulation work by member poynt99 from years ago.
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2025.03.10, 11:25:29
For those wishing to see further info on some parameters change etc, see this simulation work by member poynt99 from years ago.
Yeah, this is such a common idea that a member of this forum wrote a paper about it a long time ago.
Everything, that he writes in it is true although it is hard to gather from it how the efficiency of the CLC transfer depends on the R/L ratio, so below is my contribution that addresses this relationship:
You can plot the following function (in e.g. MS-Excel) to see how the
ratio of the final voltage V
2 across C
2, to the initial voltage V
1 across C
1, depends on the resistance (R) or inductance (L) or capacitance (C) in a CLC transfer.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53506)
The same equation written as text:
V2/V1 = (1+e^(((-R*Ï€)/(2*L))/(2/(L*C)-(R^2/(4*L^2)))^(1/2)))/2This is assuming that C=C
1=C
2 and the underdamped case.
NOTE: In MS-Excel x^(1/2) works but it can also be written as: SQRT(x). Also, write EXP(1) instead of e or EXP(x) instead of e^x and PI() instead of π.
Verpies: Thank you. O0
Gyula
In kind, below is a graph of the V2/V1 ratio versus resistance in a CLC transfer, for the values of of C and L used by Itsu:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53508)
...see the attached MS-Excel file.
This should save Itsu the time needed to cannibalize his locomotive in order to obtain a closed core for his huge coil and beat his own V2/V1 record.
If you want to compare the influence of the resistance on the inductorless CC/CRC transfer, then read the footnote in this post (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg115130#msg115130).
Of course, even a straight piece of wire exhibits inductance, so pure CC/CRC transfers are only theoretical.
Thanks verpies,
i did some quick playing around with it, and it shows that with my present 15mH / 2.4 Ohm inductor and 10uF caps i can reach an efficiency of 0.966 (very to close to what i have now).
If increasing the Inductance to 1H (still with 2.4 Ohm resistance), efficiency can be increased to 0.995 (still with the 10uF caps).
If i swap to 100uF caps with the same 1H / 2.4 Ohm inductor i can reach a max. efficiency of 0.986.
With my present 15mH / 2.4 Ohm inductor and with 100uF caps i only get a max. efficiency of 0.901 which i did not came close to yet..
Etc. O0
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.10, 16:03:45
I did some quick playing around with it, and it shows that with my present 15mH / 2.4 Ohm inductor and 10uF caps i can reach an efficiency of 0.966 (very to close to what i have now).
This model does not account for the hysteresis loss of the core and for the EM radiation.
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.10, 16:03:45
With my present 15mH / 2.4 Ohm inductor and with 100uF caps I only get a max. efficiency of 0.901 which I did not came close to yet.
The quality of these 100µF caps could be the issue ...or the reed switch opens too early and arcs.
Just a thought for you, a bifilar wound inductor connected like tesla showed is four times the inductance with the same resistance.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2025.03.10, 17:40:04
Just a thought for you, a bifilar wound inductor connected like tesla showed is four times the inductance with the same resistance.
...and that means connected how?
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53349)
Top picture.
OK before you ask I'll clarify how it works, I have already somewhere on this forum but here goes.
If you wind a bifilar coil and and leave it unconnected and measure each of the two coils individually they will read whatever, lets say 10 mH's each you would think connecting them in series would give you 20 mH's but connected as Tesla 's patent, you will measure 40 mH's.
So if you want a 200 turn inductor and a normal wind it is 100 mH, you wind 100 turns bifilar giving you 200 turns total then connect them tesla style, separately each winding would read 50 mH but with the bifilar connection you would have 200 mH with the same length of wire same resistance.
Yes it only doubles the overall inductance in the end but with the same amount of resistance.
Hope I explained it well enough for people to understand how it works, but don't ask me why it does this, I don't know.
It's easy enough to try on on your work bench.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2025.03.10, 17:40:04
Just a thought for you, a bifilar wound inductor connected like tesla showed is four times the inductance with the same resistance.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2025.03.10, 20:48:29
It's easy enough to try on on your work bench.
It's been tried on the workbench already - take a look at the dialog below:
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.02.27, 13:29:36
I only had a spool of dual bonded magnet wire of 0.5mm diameter each (see picture) which i have put in bifilar mode.
It measures 45 Ohm and 114.5mH at 1kHz
Quote from: verpies on 2025.02.27, 14:38:07
What is the inductance of the green strand alone ?
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.02.27, 15:07:53
29mH @ 10kHz
Indeed the inductance quadruples but the resistance does not stay the same.
You can click on the "
Quote from:" links above to see the details of the conversation and photos.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.09, 20:48:05
Unfortunately this CLC π circuit cannot be realized with one MOSFET in lieu of the Reed Relay :(
If you'd closed the magnetic path of that inductor with high permeability material, its inductance could've reached 1H.
I did some very rudimentary tests on cored coils how they behave when closing the magnetic path of that inductor with high permeability material
It seems the inductance increases anywhere between 5 and 7 times when doing so, with the latter being a yoke where the halves are put back together (considered by me to be a good magnetic path).
This means that my present 15mH coil could be increased to about 105mH IMO.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.03.11, 09:49:23
It seems the inductance increases anywhere between 5 and 7 times when doing so, with the latter being a yoke where the halves are put back together (considered by me to be a good magnetic path).
Without air gaps ?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.11, 10:27:57
Without air gaps ?
Yes, as close as possible
If we place a parametric inductance between the capacitors.
At the moment of charge transfer from one capacitor to another, it will increase its inductance.
Then we could be charge into second capacitor more than was into the first. :)
But we need energy for change its parameter. :'(
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.03.11, 17:52:37
If we place a parametric inductance between the capacitors.
At the moment of charge transfer from one capacitor to another, it will increase its inductance.
Then we could be charge into second capacitor more than was into the first. :)
But we need energy for change its parameter. :'(
Or if you had opposing variable capacitances, you could shuttle the charge back and forth between the two capacitances, conserving the charge, all while powering a resistive load. This is what Chris Carson was doing I do believe.
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.11, 18:28:37
Or if you had opposing variable capacitances, you could shuttle the charge back and forth between the two capacitances, conserving the charge.
Yes.
But again, energy is needed to move the plates apart.
Has anyone considered what effect resonance has in a CLC circuit?
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.03.12, 20:30:08
Has anyone considered what effect resonance has in a CLC circuit?
Yes, the CLC energy transfer is already fully resonant, i.e. it happens at the natural LC frequency.
If the plates of the capacitor are not moved from each other, but moved, similar to what is done in a variable capacitor of a radio receiver. Thus reducing the capacity. The attractive forces will be applied to the capacitor bearings. And less force will be needed for the shift. Why won't this work ?
Because force is not energy.
Force times distance is energy.
Even if the force to slide capacitor plates past each other is smaller for the same capacitance change, the distance of that movement is proportionally larger.
Lagace's latest video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBisYxSyXhY
A very interesting video detailing Lagace's equipment and plans.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et5KmCJj7fY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jUwZL7Uopw
Lagace's latest includes scope shots.
Long leads with crocodile clips = LF or DC thinking.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.03.15, 08:04:28
Lagace's latest video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBisYxSyXhY
Interesting vid, in 2 parts (see photos /screen shots) .
Which part do you all think is most interesting - part 1 with the fluorescent tube, or
Part 2 with the "Russian " noise generator?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2025.03.19, 20:56:01
Interesting vid, in 2 parts (see photos /screen shots) .
Which part do you all think is most interesting - part 1 with the fluorescent tube, or
Part 2 with the "Russian " noise generator?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2025.03.19, 20:56:01
Interesting vid, in 2 parts (see photos /screen shots) .
Which part do you all think is most interesting - part 1 with the fluorescent tube, or
Part 2 with the "Russian " noise generator?
I don't have a preference, I am waiting to see what he comes up with He's getting his act together so we'll see.
However, I do have doubts about his measuring ability.
But I have no doubt we'll all learn something.
ive been holding my breath on this a bit.. just not sure why there is so much attraction to what joel is showing in those latest vids.
so far all im seeing is a possible deception on his claims. he would have been better to just talk about it all instead of showing stuff that clearly does not work as he said, as shown in experiments here by some of you all here.
ill admit that it all renewed my interest in what can possibly be done with the cap to cap, but my version seems more applicable. would need a lenzless transformer. meg, whatever...will be testing the orbo this weekend. it is lenzless. if the input winding is good enough to do a full, or close to full transfer from cap A to cap B, then the output should be of significant interest.
i had said from the beginning when i got here that the transformer joel used wouldnt, shouldnt work as he described, as the currents of the output winding cannot produce anywhere near the current as is input to the 2v winding. and you found that to be true. 1 to 1 ratio was way better.
this should be very basic understanding.
anyway.... ive lost complete interest in joel and what he claims. but again, for me it did seed other ideas to go after.
mags
from cap to other cap , yes but the first cap is Earth. what do you think ?
Quote from: forest on 2025.03.22, 17:45:48
from cap to other cap , yes but the first cap is Earth. what do you think ?
hey forest.. good to hear from you.
the way i look at earth gnd is, it is such a large volume that when we take or give from it, the charge made by that, in the earh, neg or pos, that charge is so very little that it creates very little opposition to taking and giving electrons back and forth. like a small cap, once you charge 1 plate, pos or neg, the opposition to taking on more electrons or removing more, is greater and takes more energy to do so. like a crystal radio, it can take good advantage of the earths abillity to allow electron flow into and out of the radio circuit. without that earth gnd, the radio is still able to work, but it faces very tiny capacitances within the circuit, again with higher opposition to the ac current flow, thus way less output in order to hear the signal.
ive used a legnth of copper pipe as a gnd for a crystal radio, suspended from the ground and gotten a listenable output. that pipe had more electrons to move back and forth than just the radio circuit itself. i did this when i was a kid with a radioshack electronic kit as i wanted the radio to be portable without an earth gnd.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.23, 14:20:59
...earth gnd is, it is such a large volume that when we take or give from it, the charge made by that, in the earh, neg or pos, that charge is so very little that it creates very little opposition to taking and giving electrons back and forth.
Think, is charge preserved in a CRC or CLC energy transfer ?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.23, 14:35:48
Think, is charge preserved in a CRC or CLC energy transfer ?
id need for you to expand on that
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.23, 16:13:49
id need for you to expand on that
The "preservation" refers to the quantity of charge (expressed in Coulombs) before and after the transfer.
IOW: Is charge conserved in such transfer ?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.23, 23:03:22
The "preservation" refers to the quantity of charge (expressed in Coulombs) before and after the transfer.
IOW: Is charge conserved in such transfer ?
did you mean conservation of charge?
mags
Yes, is charge conserved in such transfer ?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.24, 07:12:20
Yes, is charge conserved in such transfer ?
charge into the earth?
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.24, 17:02:40
charge into the earth?
CRC or CLC energy transfer between any two capacitors.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.24, 17:42:36
CRC or CLC energy transfer between any two capacitors.
crc, cap resistor cap?
clc, cap inductor cap?
mags
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UFiu0ASS6E
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.24, 21:32:19
CRC, cap resistor cap?
CLC, cap inductor cap?
Yes
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.25, 12:26:52
Yes
well considering crc, instead of conservation, we are waisting charge, all because we are just letting it go. 50% gone no matter the resistance value. unless you are intentionally wanting to produce heat by way of that transfer.
joel is trying to use that energy transfer from capA to capB. but i think there can be a better way. he is 'accepting'the 50% left in capA and B while charging capC. im thinking we can charge capC and possibly get close to100% to capB from capA.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.25, 15:26:18
well considering crc, instead of conservation, we are waisting charge, all because we are just letting it go. 50% gone no matter the resistance value. unless you are intentionally wanting to produce heat by way of that transfer.
joel is trying to use that energy transfer from capA to capB. but i think there can be a better way. he is 'accepting'the 50% left in capA and B while charging capC. im thinking we can charge capC and possibly get close to100% to capB from capA.
mags
Charge is conserved in both the CRC and CLC transfers. It is the magnitude of reactance vs resistance that dictates the
energy loss if the transfer is manipulated properly. Charge and energy aren't the same.
Dave
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.25, 17:31:44
Charge is conserved in both the CRC and CLC transfers. It is the magnitude of reactance vs resistance that dictates the energy loss if the transfer is manipulated properly. Charge and energy aren't the same.
Dave
well he said crc or clc.
crc is the same as cap to cap. resistance of .001ohm vs 1meg ohm, the result will be the same other than time it takes to complete. if you are saying that since there is still charge, capA, capAb or both, when all is said and done, that we have conserved charge, then i suppose thats your version of it and the value of that charge, before and after, is of no consequence when considering conservation of charge.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.25, 18:20:17
well he said crc or clc.
crc is the same as cap to cap. resistance of .001ohm vs 1meg ohm, the result will be the same other than time it takes to complete. if you are saying that since there is still charge, capA, capAb or both, when all is said and done, that we have conserved charge, then i suppose thats your version of it and the value of that charge, before and after, is of no consequence when considering conservation of charge.
mags
It's not
my version of it. It is the collectively agreed upon definitions that we should adhere to in order to bring coherence to the ideas of which we speak. Charge is in Coulombs (Q=C*V) and Energy is in Joules (1/2*C*V^2). Just run the numbers and see that charge is always conserved in these types of transfers.
Dave
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.25, 19:10:29
It's not my version of it. It is the collectively agreed upon definitions that we should adhere to in order to bring coherence to the ideas of which we speak. Charge is in Coulombs (Q=C*V) and Energy is in Joules (1/2*C*V^2). Just run the numbers and see that charge is always conserved in these types of transfers.
So what do you get when you run use these formulas in Magluvin's scenario outlined below?:
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.07, 01:22:53
if you use verpies CLC circuit (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg115198#msg115198), and start with 10v, and turn off the switch/transistor when cap1 got down to 7.07v, that inductor will charge cap2 to 7.07v.
Yes, interrupting the CLC energy transfer early can cause both capacitors to become charged to the same voltage.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.25, 19:22:39
So what do you get when you run use these formulas in Magluvin's scenario aoutlined below?:
Then you remove it from the definition of the original question which refers to a CRC or CLC, now you're getting into parametric variations which is what a lot of the mavericks in this field of study consider to be the way forward for 'free energy'.
Dave
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.25, 19:44:13
Then you remove it from the definition of the original question which refers to a CRC or CLC, now you're getting into parametric variations ...
It is still a CLC energy transfer, albeit not one executed to completion.
Opening the transfer switch a little earlier does not change any parameters (i.e. inductance or capacitance) of the circuit.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.25, 21:25:15
It is still a CLC energy transfer, albeit not a complete one.
Opening the transfer switch a little earlier does not change any parameters (i.e. inductance or capacitance) of the circuit.
Please show me a realizable circuit in which you can just open a switch in a circuit with a current carrying inductor where the switch doesn't produce an enormous voltage in phase with the inductor's discharging current which dissipates most of that magnetic energy as heat at the switch with minimal transfer into C2. The only way to end up with 7.07V in both C1 and C2 is to switch C1 out of the circuit with a high speed SPDT switch that closes the loop for L to discharge into C2 with a very low resistive path. This effectively varies the capacitance of the inductor discharge circuit.
Dave
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.25, 21:49:13
Please show me a realizable circuit in which you can just open a switch in a circuit with a current carrying inductor where the switch doesn't produce an enormous voltage in phase with the inductor's discharging current which dissipates most of that magnetic energy as heat at the switch with minimal transfer into C2. The only way to end up with 7.07V in both C1 and C2 is to switch C1 out of the circuit with a high speed SPDT switch that closes the loop for L to discharge into C2 with a very low resistive path. This effectively varies the capacitance of the inductor discharge circuit.
Dave
ive done exactly that with the circuit you show above. i run the sim at a very slow rate and switch it myself. then disconnect the inductor from c2 when c2 reaches 7.07v AND when the inductors magnetic charge is at 0.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.25, 22:08:17
ive done exactly that with the circuit you show above. i run the sim at a very slow rate and switch it myself. then disconnect the inductor from c2 when c2 reaches 7.07v AND when the inductors magnetic charge is at 0.
mags
Yes, that circuit works to recover 7.07V in both caps. However, this circuit is subject to parametric variation which is the key point here.
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.25, 21:49:13
Please show me a realizable circuit in which you can just open a switch in a circuit with a current carrying inductor
I cannot without providing another path for the inductor's current.
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.25, 21:49:13
The only way to end up with 7.07V in both C1 and C2...
The cap voltages in my CLC circuit cross at 5V when the inductor's current is at its maximum.
Quote from: web000x on 2025.03.25, 22:13:45
Yes, that circuit works to recover 7.07V in both caps. However, this circuit is subject to parametric variation which is the key point here.
dont really get why you call what is left in capA as 'recovered', where it is more like what is left in capA after this particular transfer. capA went from 10v to 7.07v. capA lost charge and thats all. you can use the word recovered i suppose for 7.07v capB received from the charged inductor. but to combine end result charge in both capA and capB as recovered doesnt work for me..
mags
If we take instead of inductance an ideal lossless electric motor with a flywheel mounted on a shaft. :)
https://www.learningelectronics.net/circuits/power-mosfet-bridge-rectifier.html
mags
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.03.27, 05:43:39
If we take instead of inductance an ideal lossless electric motor with a flywheel mounted on a shaft. :)
that would work also.
but, imagine a ferrite bead used for noise reduction on a computer monitor cable. wind wire on the bead as if you were winding a toroid.
if you bring a magnet close to the bead, it will be attracted to it. but the more current you apply to the winding, the magmet will be less attracted. if enough current is applied to the winding till the core is saturated with flux, the magnet will no longer be attracted to the bead. this was the concept of the second version of the orbo motor by steorn. magnets on the rotor are attracted to the core. when the magnet is pulled in to tdc of the core, we pulse the winding on the core, and the magnet passes by. but that wasnt all. in all that, the winding on the toroid core is not affected by the magnet passing by. no voltage generation, no lenz.
so back to the ferite bead... if we insert a cylinder magnet in the bead that is almost as long as the bead, a lot of that magnets flux will be attracted to the bead as the bead creates a shorter path for the N and S flux. so some, most, or close to all of the magnets flux being in the bead, when we pulse the toroid winding, what happens to that flux in the core? it expands outward. when we disconnect the input to the winding, the magnets flux is again attracted to the core and collapses inward.
so now we wind a second wire around the bead as if it were just a rod core around the circumference. this winding will be very close to 90deg of the toroid winding. if we pulse the toroid winding, there will be virtually no output on the second winding. so, what happens when we pulse the toroid winding with the magnet inserted? ;) lenzless generator.
so for a single pulse of the toroid winding we get output on the second winding in one polarity when the field expands outward and cuts the second winding and another output from the second winding after the pulse when the magnets field collapses back to the core, cutting the second winding again with output of opposite polarity. 1 pulse input, 2 individual outputs
now, if we have a large enough bead where we can wind a toroid winding with enough inductance to convert the charge from capA 10v to 0v capB, and even just get close to 10v on capB, then we also have the output of the second winding that charges capC using the orbo effect to let the magnets flux expand and cut the second winding to charge capC. and hopefully capC contains enough energy to cover for the small loss inherited by capB plus some, repeat.
back at ou.com we had a thread where we all were coming up with a way to make the orbo motor effect happen solidstate. this was my version.
i wind the second winding first though then the toroid winding. seems the closer the output circumference winding is to the core, the better the output. tried both ways.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.27, 06:44:06
but, imagine a ferrite bead used for noise reduction on a computer monitor cable. wind wire on the bead as if you were winding a toroid.
if you bring a magnet close to the bead, it will be attracted to it. but the more current you apply to the winding, the magmet will be less attracted.
What if it will be an iron bead ?
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.03.27, 12:32:56
What if it will be an iron bead ?
can work. some of my cores measure continuity of near 50kohm. iron may heat up a lot more with all the flux shifting.
one reason i suggest these cores is that most anyone in this field should or could be able to easily get one. the magnets that i use can be found at homedepot hardware section. neo 4pac. i use 8 stacked. but get more to experiment with the length of the stack. 8 is just 1 magnet short of being as long as the core which seems to be best so far for output.
and this is not a refined setup. once you get how it is working, it can inspire ideas to improve upon. this is the basic concept and works quite well.
for the output you can use a bridge rectifier to capture both pos and neg from the output winding to 1 cap. about 1.5v drop that way. so we can use just 2 diodes and 2 caps, where on cap gets the pos and the other cap gets the neg and only .7v drop for each. then also schotky diode down around .2v. and finally can ay with a mosfet as a rectifier to bring that drop closer to 0v drop. eliminating those drops should be important in any case that eff is important. if running low voltage especially. i run it anywhere from 5v to 30v pulses and output responds.
in an earlier post i think i was incorrect on wire and winding layer numbers. is what radioshack had in a 3pack of magnet wire. the green i believe is 27awg and the red was 30awg. in the pics is the green and is 3 layers on the circumference output winding. i though it was 2 as it was a while ago, 10yrs or so. but the leads ar at opposit ends so it is not 2 layers as the leads would be at the same end of the core. some of these cores range in size a bit. the magnets need to fit with the windings of the toroid winding.
but if you build it with iron core im sure you will see what is going on. high freq will heat up the iron.
mags
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.27, 06:44:06
...if enough current is applied to the winding till the core is saturated with flux, the magnet will no longer be attracted to the bead. this was the concept of the second version of the Orbo motor by Steorn.
Yes, the attraction of a PM to a soft core indeed can be diminished in that manner.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.27, 18:32:55
Yes, the attraction of a PM to a soft core indeed can be diminished in that manner.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FrtGzxOKpwQ
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.27, 06:44:06
but that wasnt all. in all that, the winding on the toroid core is not affected by the magnet passing by. no voltage generation, no lenz.
There is one ferrite ring drossel from me. I connect it to oscilloscope. And move PM nearby. And I see voltage changes on the screen. And you say there shouldn't be anything... Then I supply current to its winding. The oscillations from the movement of the magnet are smaller, but they still exist.
Magnet attract to ring as before.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.03.27, 19:51:48
There is one ferrite ring drossel from me. I connect it to oscilloscope. And move PM nearby. And I see voltage changes on the screen. And you say there shouldn't be anything... Then I supply current to its winding. The oscillations from the movement of the magnet are smaller, but they still exist.
Magnet attract to ring as before.
can you show the output from the toroid with magnet passing by? if the orientation of the toroid is 90deg from what i show in the vid, then you may get small output because the magnet flux is passing across the windings on that side the pass happens similar to typical flux crossing a wire. look at my vid above. the magnets pass by the core not cutting the windings, but with the direction of the winding. like i said earlier there can be some slight effects but all are very negligable. this was the orientation steorn used. i still have that toroid from the vid. ill see what i can do to show some things. i made that vid with a small toroid on purpose just to see what we can get. thing runs. imagine many of those around the rotor... the key is the input is not affected by loading the rotor down. conventional motors all draw more input when rotation is loaded and slowed down.
mags
here is a pic of the orbo with the toroid in the orientation that would induce current with the magnet pass, but, there are 2 magnets, one with say N out on top and S out below it. by doing so there is no current generated becaus the N and S cutting the windings at the se time cancel out.
mags
not trying to derail the thread. this eorbo understanding helps understand my solidstate orbo so that my idea that it might help a lot with the cap to cap paradox and maybe make this unusual circuit possibly have some value. with cap to cap we either lose 50% or only transfer capA to capB with minimal loss at best so far. but neither is really useful. but if this orbo can send capA to capB and hopefully dump a healthy charge into capC, then we have something good. then it will be about how to make it more eff. and ya know what? its perdy damn simple.
mags
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.03.27, 19:51:48
There is one ferrite ring drossel from me. I connect it to oscilloscope. And move PM nearby. And I see voltage changes on the screen. And you say there shouldn't be anything...
Changes of a perpendicular, well aligned and symmetrical external magnetic flux will not induce any voltage but they will decrease the inductance of the toroidal inductor when the external perpendicular flux is at its maximum.
How the change of this inductance affects the CLC energy transfer efficiency is the interesting part.
Two-capacitor CLC transfer is not needed for powering this scheme. One-capacitor CLC transfer is sufficient (that's the classic LC tank energy sloshing but with added interruptions at zero L current crossings).
The diagram below depicts the arrangement of magnets which generates the perpendicular field configuration when each pair of magnets is oriented N-S:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4757.0;attach=53582)
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.28, 00:13:57
this eorbo understanding helps understand my solidstate orbo so that my idea that it might help a lot with the cap to cap paradox
To maximize the efficiency of the Orbo scheme you must energize the inductor from a capacitor at their natural LC frequency and interrupt this oscillation after half a cycle (when the energy returns back to the cap) until the next magnet comes around.
The magnet is attracted to the toroid with current. Only on a toroid do pronounced magnetic poles appear when current passes through its winding.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.03.28, 17:29:15
The magnet is attracted to the toroid with current.
The way this magnet is oriented is very different than the magnets on this diagram. (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg115384#msg115384)
Also, the toroid must be magnetically saturated in the circumferential direction in order to diminish the PM's attraction significantly.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.03.28, 17:29:15
The magnet is attracted to the toroid with current. Only on a toroid do pronounced magnetic poles appear when current passes through its winding.
i really cant tell that what you have there is a toroid or not. in a metal can?
verpies is correct. my vid with the tiny core wound in a style as seen below, as i mentioned in the vid took some high energy 'pulses' and would heat up pretty good. i did the tiny core in that vid as i thought it might be impressive. didnt have many turns of wire on it so was low ohms. and that was just pulsing. not continuous.
mags
this is a joule thief i made with a tiny toroid core and just 3 turns for each winding just to try what one might think may not work. push the limits of tiny. works well.
mags
If use pot core instead ring?
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.03.29, 17:40:04
If use pot core instead ring?
Geometrically they are very different.
Pot cores support toroidal flux.
Toroids support circular flux.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.03.29, 17:40:04
If use pot core instead ring?
ah. ok.. that when saturated will act like an energized air core coil. the N and S of the coil is not looped but open ended when the core is saturated. needs to be a closed loop winding. core could be square, rectangle possibly but round donut as ive shown would be prefered.
but thats why yours seing magnetic piles from the coil you using. say if we wind a toroid as i have shown above, without a core and then we input current. where would we see a defined N or S pole? ;)
mags
if you have some old power supplies or car amplifiers you can find some varying size cores. the tiny ones ive found were from cfl light bulb circuits. the ones that are like a standard screw in incandescent wire filament bulbs. the litle round curcuit board inside have these like in my joule thief circuit above.
mags
Chief: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWj9T5TWlWA&t=11s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWj9T5TWlWA&t=11s) or https://www.instructables.com/Take-apart-a-Compact-Fluorescent-Bulb/ (https://www.instructables.com/Take-apart-a-Compact-Fluorescent-Bulb/)
thanks gyula
yeah, wind some fine wire on one of those little toroid cores. hang a small magnet from the core and pulse the winding. the magnet will drop.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.29, 23:19:46
hang a small magnet from the core and pulse the winding. the magnet will drop.
Yes, I tried, the magnet drop. But only if it was holding very slightly.
Quote
i really cant tell that what you have there is a toroid or not. in a metal can?
I can assure you that the ring is covered with epoxy compound there. :)
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.03.30, 11:43:22
Yes, I tried, the magnet drop. But only if it was holding very slightly.I can assure you that the ring is covered with epoxy compound there. :)
ok.. i see if i can make a vid.
the cap to cap thing would require enough flux to make the magnet drop. even just a charged cap and discharge into the winding. it may need 10v. maybe 150v or more. but that experiment shouldnt take much time at all to just try different caps at different voltages
by no means just connect some different voltage sources to see. if the winding is low impecance, ohms, just pulse the winding as described. just 1 pulse and drop is all you are looking for.
below are examples of what may work. not easy to find fine wire windings. takes some time to make one.
mags
Chief, this video shows an interesting pulse motor based on toroid core saturation at the right moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s7sM3csFHM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s7sM3csFHM)
here he combined the Orbo and his Thomas principle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNcvCUG6IL4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNcvCUG6IL4)
on his video channel there are some more videos on his pulse motor: https://www.youtube.com/@k4zep/videos (https://www.youtube.com/@k4zep/videos)
Quote from: gyula on 2025.03.30, 19:22:10
Chief, this video shows an interesting pulse motor based on toroid core saturation at the right moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s7sM3csFHM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s7sM3csFHM)
here he combined the Orbo and his Thomas principle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNcvCUG6IL4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNcvCUG6IL4)
on his video channel there are some more videos on his pulse motor: https://www.youtube.com/@k4zep/videos (https://www.youtube.com/@k4zep/videos)
i remember those. thanks for finding those
mags
the thomas motor coil is the same as im doing. mine lets the magnets field escape the bead all the way around the bead to induce the pickup winding around the bead being the magnet is inside the bead lengthwise.
mags
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xjhh0Jwj7vo
mags
Combining this with what verpies mentioned here https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg115387#msg115387 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg115387#msg115387) may yield at least a unity energy balance?
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.03.30, 19:39:45
the thomas motor coil is the same as im doing. mine lets the magnets field escape the bead all the way around the bead to induce the pickup winding around the bead being the magnet is inside the bead lengthwise.
mags
Mags, If I'm reading this topic correctly. Would the trafos from a dead cfl be suitable?
hey aking
to get an orbo effect, us the toroid donut core. as for cap to cap as loel has shown, i dont think a normal transformer is the way to go, as we have seen so far.
mags
There's a toroid next to the "transformer" !
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.03.31, 16:32:51
There's a toroid next to the "transformer" !
yes
mags
Capacitor 10000 microfarads. charged to 60 volts. magnet does not come off. :-\
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.04.01, 11:54:37
Capacitor 10000 microfarads. charged to 60 volts. magnet does not come off. :-\
those are some heavy windings and a nice large cap. if you notice, the vid i posted here, his toroid was wound with a lot of turns and finer wire and was able to do it with a 12v batt
my orbo toroid winding, im rewinding with finer wire and many more turns. with the green winding i had, was able to get nice results cap to cap and capC output with 2uf caps. but the self leakage was a bit of an issue along with the meter draining it as i was measuring
should have done it with a scope. the impedance is way higher and could have shown something. but i already unwound that and started the new winding and my threading rod was short and not enough wire to wind it the way i thought. been 10yrs. found the longer one to hold mor wire and will get it done.
mags
Some never-before-seen Don Smith footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9euGRcmDbg
I posted here cos it's current and Lagace is trying to replicate Don Smith.
I would be interested in having qualified EEs comment on the video.
BTW, it is not INDUCTION that Smith is talking about, but electricity transmission,
in which I assume only the magnetic component can substantially penetrate matter, i.e., go through matter. Please remember that.
Anyhow, a civilised critique, please.
I found this so important that I have downloaded the entire video.
The big black box called a suitcase doesn't have batteries inside because it's connected to ground. Is anyone laughing? Or is it just me?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2mFFcMVgtA
Interesting. Can someone draw a circuit diagram? His explanation confuses me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ_-JNmuP70
Rick talks about going off-grid. especially Don Smith.
The transcript is too long to load but you can copy and paste it into word.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXytEvgSKxY
Lagace claims this device, based on Don Smith, "runs forever".
Just saying.
Seems like a joule thief (also mentioned in the comments) powered by the electred (capacitor) which can run a long time without any load.
Searching for "electred generators" on google shows one nice comment which goes like:
This can generate electricity in the same way that hamster farts can power a wind turbine - theoretically yes but actually not even remotely worth trying.
See bottom: https://www.reddit.com/r/ElectricalEngineering/comments/1gtts7l/can_an_electret_be_used_to_generate_harvestable/
Itsu
Ha ha, Itsu. ;D
And now for something better.
For those who like moving generators and want some insight on the Kunel magnet generator patent, check out this first-ever available Don Smith video from 1998.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ38hMIBVbE
Well, we go from HF to kilowatts in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-SE6P7o-Qs
(HF = Hamster Farts) lol.
Now this is getting SERIOUS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plci_NNlBDQ
Using a led bulb (not at full brightness) and using DMM's (in mA mode) as indicator of input / output power is indeed quite serious. Seriously wrong!!
Itsu
I mean, he's making claims of "overunity". Either he's an investment scammer or he's got something.
He's also making these claims under the banner of an energy company.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.05.10, 13:25:33
I mean, he's making claims of "overunity". Either he's an investment scammer or he's got something.
He's also making these claims under the banner of an energy company.
He also talks a lot without really saying much. It would be easy to fool someone who truly doesn't understand how to measure power, especially with the lack of V*I phase relations and the use of LED's as loads. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to think that it was as easy as hastily slapping some components together and getting results, but those of us that have been around for a few years have seen all kinds of claims fall short from those who don't take the time to understand necessary measurement protocols.
Quote from: web000x on 2025.05.10, 15:46:56
He also talks a lot without really saying much. It would be easy to fool someone who truly doesn't understand how to measure power, especially with the lack of V*I phase relations and the use of LED's as loads. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to think that it was as easy as hastily slapping some components together and getting results, but those of us that have been around for a few years have seen all kinds of claims fall short from those who don't take the time to understand necessary measurement protocols.
Indeed, in fact every world changing inventor sounded like an absolute fool didn't they?. Which begs the question... how would we know?.
Over 40 years ago I was all in on computers and spent endless hours programming/interfacing robotics on my Vic20 and then 64 using tape drives. At the library I read about this kid called Bill Gates developing DOS which sounded wild and something people called a "mouse". I heard about this thing called a "hard drive" as well and it seemed totally impossible.
So now when people say impossible I think "misguided". I have seen too much stuff others called impossible which has come to pass to believe they have any credibility. So we could ask who is the fool here?, was it people who saw the future and invested in Microsoft becoming millionaires or the critics?. We all know the answer to that question.
Ergo, only our knowledge base determines what is possible not others beliefs. Claims mean nothing, doing all the hard work to prove something for ourselves one way or another is what matters.
AC
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025.05.10, 13:25:33
Either he's an investment scammer or he's got something.
Well, there is one other possibility.
He could just not be making proper measurements and therefore be in error about his conclusions.
Typical to Joel's videos is he seldom, if ever, shows proper measurements and he often leaves out important circuit details in his videos, so no way to tell what the actual circuit performance is.
Not to say he is necessarily wrong in that video, just that we the viewers have no real way to evaluate his claim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5gyY81esDU
Lagace's latest video.