OverUnity Research

Meyl shows tesla longitudinal electricity transmission in 2003
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4615804709108706714# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4615804709108706714#)

I like this guy and his message. If folks would look at the demonstrations they would see it all makes perfect sense.

He has wrongly earned the tag of 'fruit cake'. I suspect the individuals claiming he is wrong are limited to a single language.

The only things wrong with his presentations are related to his limited ability to use English. Still not bad, even for someone able to speak multiple languages fluently.  :)

Can anybody fluid in math answer the following:

If you have a capacitor with two plates in air and you charge them with a voltage.
Then you increase the distance between the plates.

Now, how much do the voltage increase for the increased distance between plates?
And, how much do the Farad value decrease for the same increased distance?

GL.

@all, WaveWatcher
I have all the documentation and translations of Meyl's PDFs from German to English .   I suggest anyone interested watch the demonstration video first...

Meyl shows tesla longitudinal electricity transmission in 2003
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4615804709108706714#


Meyl transmits energy between two termninals ... energy which DOES NOT decrease with R^2  (in fact the energy transmitted is identical with a quadrupling of the distance), proving that what Tesla suggested (wireless transmission of power) was essentially correct, because Tesla was transmitting the scalar component of the wave equation, not the tranverse component.

(http://scienceprep.org/images/waves.jpg)

I will post all the documentation on Meyl I have here later today.   Meyl has experimental kits available on his site, but I am sure it is possible to replicate this phenomenon without the kit -- I have copies of the schematics and the kit's documentation.  Basically the core of the system is the Tesla 'pancake' coil , fed by tuned resonance, which is the apparatus which induces scalar waves in the spherical antenna.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/TeslaBifilar.png)
Bifilar coil in Nikola Tesla's United States patent 512,340 of 1894





@Groundloop
I don't know that formula off the top of my head , but I remember doing it in calculus-based physics.  Anyone else remember this?

Konstantin Meyl -- Documentation in English and German

English:
http://feynmanslab.com/docs/meyl/english/

German:
http://feynmanslab.com/docs/meyl/german/


As reading, the documentation for Meyl's experimental kit is pretty good when it comes to good information on the theory and practice of transmitting and receiving scalar waves.


(http://feynmanslab.com/docs/meyl/images/experimental-kit_scaled.jpg)
Meyl Scalar Wave Experimental Kit

(http://feynmanslab.com/docs/meyl/images/meyl.png)
Meyl Scalar Wave Transmitter/Receiver Schematics

source: http://feynmanslab.com/docs/meyl/english/Meyl%20-%20Scalar%20Wave%20Technology%20-%20Documentation%20for%20the%20Experimental-Kit%20to%20the%20transmission%20of%20ele.pdf (http://feynmanslab.com/docs/meyl/english/Meyl%20-%20Scalar%20Wave%20Technology%20-%20Documentation%20for%20the%20Experimental-Kit%20to%20the%20transmission%20of%20ele.pdf)

Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.03.07, 14:00:36
Can anybody fluid in math answer the following:

If you have a capacitor with two plates in air and you charge them with a voltage.
Then you increase the distance between the plates.

Now, how much do the voltage increase for the increased distance between plates?
And, how much do the Farad value decrease for the same increased distance?

GL.

Yes, there is a standard formula which will answer your question.

What you've asked about is the principle utilized in the Parametric
Amplifier which makes use of a Voltage Controlled Variable Capacitor.

Varactor

Look Here (http://www.electronics-radio.com/articles/electronic_components/diode/varactor-varicap-diode.php)

And Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_oscillator)

I took notice to Meyl's statement of the near field as scalar and noise. This I associated with the TPU because of the close proximinty of the coils and SM's mention of the hash.

Here is a diagram of scalar waves vs transverse waves from Meyl's web site.  I think the scalar magnetic and scalar electric impulses are 90degrees out of phase in the time domain (t).  aka during compressions and rarefactions.  I'm still trying to understand how this fits together, but the important idea is that there are two types of waves -- transverse waves have been studies for 100 years, and scalar waves are unknown in textbooks.

(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post4/scalarPhase.jpg)

We can generate and propegate Tesla scalar waves using his pancake type coil  , when it is properly driven in resonance connected to the ball-like antenna.  This mirrors Tesla' Colorado Springs experiments where he lit lights 25 miles away, and he properly called his 'Tesla Magnifying Transmitter' because he was getting overunity power reception at his receivers (unlike transverse/hertzian waves, which diminish with the radius squared).

You don't need the kits if you already know how it works.

Unfortunately, the ones thinking it is impossible or not knowing how it works will find enough reasoning to not try or not see even if they do use the kits.
There are enough of the results attributable to standard RF transmission and capacitance to prevent many from trying.

I will disagree with anyone saying they only transmit one or the other. Tesla may have considered Hertzian waves to be worthless and not considered their effects on his experiments. As far as I'm concerned you can't transmit one without the other. The only thing you can do is insert the transmitter into properly designed Faraday cage to eliminate the transverse effects or design to enhance what you are looking for.

You don't need to invest in the kits if:

1. you don't think there is difference in operation between a solenoid wound and single layer planar coil.
2. building a coil with almost zero inductance just doesn't make sense
3. you don't see a difference between electromagnetic and magnetic resonance
4. you think resonance is only that point of frequency where an LCR circuit naturally oscillates when external energy is supplied.

I haven't succeeded in many of the claims but there is enough to warrant experimentation. There will be no explanation of the above from me. My own personal experience indicates belief is impossible unless you succeed yourself. Probably many times before the observations sink in.  ;)

I'm not saying I believe everything Meyl says. I'm still the same way. It isn't a fact until it works on my bench.

Quote from: feynman on 2011.03.07, 23:04:00
I think the scalar magnetic and scalar electric impulses are 90degrees out of phase in the time domain...

Nope  :)

Quote
We can generate and propegate Tesla scalar waves using his pancake type coil  , when it is properly driven in resonance connected to the ball-like antenna.  This mirrors Tesla' Colorado Springs experiments where he lit lights 25 miles away, and he properly called his 'Tesla Magnifying Transmitter' because he was getting overunity power reception at his receivers (unlike transverse/hertzian waves, which diminish with the radius squared).

Another one that isn't a fact for me. I'm waiting for that bench that is 25 miles wide  ;)

Quote from: Dumped on 2011.03.07, 21:24:17

Yes, there is a standard formula which will answer your question.

What you've asked about is the principle utilized in the Parametric
Amplifier which makes use of a Voltage Controlled Variable Capacitor.

Varactor

Look Here (http://www.electronics-radio.com/articles/electronic_components/diode/varactor-varicap-diode.php)

And Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_oscillator)

Dumped,

Thank you for taking time to answer my questions, but I could not find any formulas that tells me
how much the voltage increase with distance or how much the Farad value decrease with distance.
(I'm terrible with math so if anybody can post the formulas here then I will be grateful.)

GL.

@WaveWatcher

Thanks for your comments, which are insightful and useful.

QuoteI will disagree with anyone saying they only transmit one or the other. Tesla may have considered Hertzian waves to be worthless and not considered their effects on his experiments. As far as I'm concerned you can't transmit one without the other.

I don't know the answer to this ("Can we generate scalar waves or tranverse waves without generating the other?"), but it's a very important question.   A kit seller on Ebay says his kit generates both scalar and transverse waves, but claims you can tune towards one or the other.  From Meyl's schematics, it would seem he generates RF from the oscillator, as well as scalar.  Naudin claims you can generate scalar waves with a Caudeceus coil, but these are probably (if they work) also coupled with bursts of RF.

(http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/images/spgenv1.jpg)

Naudin: The soliton pulse generator experiment
http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/index.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/index.htm)

Naudin: Test of the EM Soliton pulses through an EM shield
http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/spg_shield.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/spg_shield.htm)

QuoteThe only thing you can do is insert the transmitter into properly designed Faraday cage to eliminate the transverse effects or design to enhance what you are looking for.

Agreed.

QuoteYou don't need to invest in the kits if:
1. you don't think there is difference in operation between a solenoid wound and single layer planar coil.

Great point.   Is there a difference?
CON: The Tesla Scalar wave builder on Ebay has recently switched from pancake to cylindrical coils.  Apparently he can still generate scalar waves.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Tesla-Scalar-Wave-Demo-Coil-Pair-Konstantin-Meyl-like-/140510792593#payId (http://cgi.ebay.com/Tesla-Scalar-Wave-Demo-Coil-Pair-Konstantin-Meyl-like-/140510792593#payId)
CON: Naudin receives scopable hash on a standard coil through a Faraday cage.
PRO: Photographs of Tesla in his office , post Colorado Springs, show him doing wireless displays in front of a large pancake coil.
PRO: Tesla single-wire power transmission patents, which utilize bifilar pancake coils to transmit energy down a single wire.  (Tesla Patent 593139)


(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post4/tesla_bifilar_593138.png)

QuoteYou don't need to invest in the kits if:
3. you don't see a difference between electromagnetic and magnetic resonance

Agreed.. this is one area where I might disagree with Meyl.  Unless the magnetic and electric scalar components are separable during experiment, we should consider Tesla scalar waves to have both longitudinal components together.  Let me quote Meyl in his own words:

Quote
"Let us record: For the wave propagation there thus are three possible and stable states (fig.
21.12): the transverse electromagnetic wave according to Heinrich Hertz (fig. 1), the
longitudinal electric wave according to Nikola Tesla (fig. 2), and a longitudinal magnetic
wave (fig. 3), which isn't connected yet with a name of a discoverer. The last one is a pure
product of my theoretical derivation. The question is asked, which practical meaning the
magnetic wave could have."
-Konstantin Meyl
Scalar Waves: Tesla Physics for Engineers, "Derivation of the Scalar Wave" pp471

So Meyl has predicted the magnetic scalar waves' existence theoretically -- but says that it has a basis in reality.   Meyl states that the three waves a separable and distinct.  He says Tesla is concerned primarily with the longitudinal / scalar electric wave.  He says that biological cell communication can occur via magnetic scalar waves , filtered via cell-level hyperboloid structures.  

Basically, for now, I think we consider the magnetic and electric components of the scalar wave simultaneous with a possible phase relationship, and possibly separable.  This is in need of experiments.

Quote
4. You don't need to invest in the kits if:
you think resonance is only that point of frequency where an LCR circuit naturally oscillates when external energy is supplied.

Well, I think this is true for transverse waves, but we probably need to derive the properties of scalar waves from scratch, given that they have a variable propagation speed.

QuoteI'm not saying I believe everything Meyl says. I'm still the same way. It isn't a fact until it works on my bench.

Me neither.  But he is one of the few physicists with both a theory AND a working bench device.  But I agree, there's parts of his theory I disagree with.  Theories are only good as insofar as they can make usable predictions.

Meyl on Scalar Waves:
"The course of the field lines clarifies the difference. For the scalar wave all field lines
going away from the transmitter run together again. As long as no scattering field occurs,
there also won't be any transmission losses. It is an energy wave, for which the full
broadcasting power is transmitted wirelessly and which arrives at the receiver, by that
focussing the field lines again."

"For a [transverse wave] mobile with 3 Watts of broadcasting power only a few microwatt arrive at the
ground station. If I would have a scalar wave mobile, which functions with resonance,
then a broadcasting power of some microwatt will be completely sufficient, to carry out a
telephone call right through the earth. This minimum broadcasting power suffices, because
everything, what is being transmitted, arrives at the receiver - crucial is that the conditions
of resonance are fulfilled. That means, both must have the same frequency and the
opposite phase. In addition the modulation has to fit, so that on the one hand not several
participants in the conversation are getting in each other's way. For a purely carrier wave
transmission on the other hand there would be the risk of natural fields being collected
also and the power at the receiver taking inadmissibly high values. This is prevented
effectively by a correspondingly complex modulation.Nature solves the problem in
exactly this manner."
-Konstantin Meyl
Scalar Waves: Tesla Physics for Engineers, "Properties of Scalar Waves" pp485

"Scalar waves are still unexplored area, scientific new ground as it were. Individual
research scientists already have selectively ventured forward in this area and have
described properties of the scalar wave investigated by them in their special research area
mostly in measurement technical manner. But as a rule they lack the physical relation, as it
is derived in this book for the first time. If we don't proceed from individual
measurements, but from the wave equation and the mathematical physical derivation of
scalar waves, then we have the great chance to understand as something belonging
together on the one hand noise, photons, neutrinos and lots of other known phenomena as
well as on the other hand still unknown phenomena, which are called parascientific.
We should remember that we without theory of Maxwell and the representation in a
frequency band today still wouldn't know that the radio waves (LW, MW, KW, UHF), the
microwaves ( W), the infrared thermal radiation (IR), the light and the X-rays concern
just the same phenomenon"
-Konstantin Meyl
Scalar Waves: Tesla Physics for Engineers, "Properties of Scalar Waves" pp487

I might add, there is a section titled
23.4 Prediction of earthquakes with the help of scalar waves

Anyways, the reason we might want to consider magnetic and electric scalar waves separate might help us in design of phenomenon such as the TPU.  

Quote

QuoteI think the scalar magnetic and scalar electric impulses are 90degrees out of phase in the time domain...
-Feynman

Nope :) -WaveWatcher

You are correct.  I misunderstood.   The scalar wave(s) are in phase with themselves -- but may not be in phase with the associated transverse wave.  

I mistook Meyl's claimed angle of the scalar wave E-field vs H-field (90 degrees) in the near-field of a transmitter ,and the claimed far-field transverse wave angle between E-field and H-field (0 degrees) to be analogous to phase.  

In reality, the magnetic and electric scalar waves should be perfectly in phase at some distance x assuming they have the same propagation rate, and assuming we can even separate the scalar wave into an electric and magnetic component.  The magnetic and electric scalar wave might be inseparable.

However, the EM transverse wave and the EM scalar wave of a transmitter may go in and out of phase as distance increases, due to their different propagation rates.  That is, the EM transverse wave propegates at c=300,000km/s , while EM scalar waves have variable propagation rates  (just like sound has different speeds at different altitudes , and through different materials).

Thanks for clearing that up; I've been searching all the pdfs for confirmation regarding scalar phase.

Quote from: feynman on 2011.03.08, 01:08:32
The magnetic and electric scalar wave might be inseparable.

I suspect they are just as magnetic and electric are. That is, the magnetic and the electric are two facets of the same cause.

Quote
However, the EM transverse wave and the EM scalar wave of a transmitter may go in and out of phase as distance increases, due to their different propagation rates.  

Here we have something needing a test. I believe the majority actually able to produce scalar will believe scalar are faster than transverse. To them I would say 'yes and no'. So many observations have been made and not continued after something comes to light. Once a maximum velocity is found then a minimum should be sought. After that I would want to know the real reasons for the variation.

I think we'll find that the velocity range of the scalar component will vary between .375C and 1.625C of the transverse component. That variation above and below C will only change due to the amount of energy under the leading edge making frontal velocity apparent. So, the lower the energy ratio of scalar to transverse the less the leading and lagging of the scalar wave facet compared to the transverse facet.

In other words....
The velocity of the scalar isn't due to the velocity factor of the traversed medium. The average velocity of the scalar is C of the transverse wave. At one point in time this velocity may appear as high as 1.625C or as low as .375C. It depends upon what you are looking at, compression or rarefication.

This might also make some think they are seeing effect before cause  :D

Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.03.08, 00:22:27
Dumped,

Thank you for taking time to answer my questions, but I could not find any formulas that tells me
how much the voltage increase with distance or how much the Farad value decrease with distance.
(I'm terrible with math so if anybody can post the formulas here then I will be grateful.)

GL.

Yes, I failed to include THIS LINK (http://www.splung.com/content/sid/3/page/capacitors) which provides
the needed clue.

For the parallel plate capacitor the Voltage between the two
plates is directly proportional to the Distance between the
plates.

For example, if a given two plate capacitor with an air dielectric
is charged to 100 Volts when the plates are some distance apart;
doubling the spacing distance will double the voltage.

Conversely, decreasing the spacing distance by half will decrease
the voltage by half.

Quote from: Dumped on 2011.03.08, 04:45:22


Yes, I failed to include THIS LINK (http://www.splung.com/content/sid/3/page/capacitors) which provides
the needed clue.

For the parallel plate capacitor the Voltage between the two
plates is directly proportional to the Distance between the
plates.

For example, if a given two plate capacitor with an air dielectric
is charged to 100 Volts when the plates are some distance apart;
doubling the spacing distance will double the voltage.

Conversely, decreasing the spacing distance by half will decrease
the voltage by half.

Dumped,

So if the voltage is doubled linear by doubling the distance then the capacitor value (Farad) is reduced by 1/4 by the same doubling of the distance?
Test: U = 0.5 * C * (V*V)  C=10 Farad V=10 Volt gives U=500.  Double distance   U = 0.5 *  2.5 * (20*20) = 500. Looks right to me.

Thanks.

GL.

Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.03.07, 14:00:36
Can anybody fluid in math answer the following:

If you have a capacitor with two plates in air and you charge them with a voltage.
Then you increase the distance between the plates.

Now, how much do the voltage increase for the increased distance between plates?
And, how much do the Farad value decrease for the same increased distance?
...

C=ε0*S/d with S surface of the plates, d distance between plates.
U=Q/C = Q*d/(ε0*S)
Q is the capacitor charge, it is constant.

Therefore if you double the distance between plates, you double the voltage.
It is interesting to note that in the same time, the energy E in the capacitor is also doubled, because even if C is divided by 2, E is proportional to U squared (E =1/2*C*U²).

Where the energy comes from? When the capacitor is charged, the 2 plates attract  each other due to the Coulomb force. When you move the plates away, you must exert a work against the Coulomb force. It is this mechanical work that is changed in extra electrical energy stored in the capacitor. Energy conservation still occurs.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.03.08, 09:40:09
C=ε0*S/d with S surface of the plates, d distance between plates.
U=Q/C = Q*d/(ε0*S)
Q is the capacitor charge, it is constant.

Therefore if you double the distance between plates, you double the voltage.
It is interesting to note that in the same time, the energy E in the capacitor is multiplied by 4, because E in proportional to U squared (E =1/2*C*U²).

Where the energy comes from? When the capacitor is charged, the 2 plates attract  each other due to the Coulomb force. When you move the plates away, you must exert a work against the Coulomb force. It is this mechanical work that is changed in extra electrical energy stored in the capacitor. Energy conservation still occurs.

Exnihiloest,

How much do the capacitance change by doubling the distance?

GL.

Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.03.08, 09:51:14
Exnihiloest,

How much do the capacitance change by doubling the distance?

GL.

JUST THE EXACT AMOUNT THAT WILL KEEP THE ENERGY OF THE CHARGE EXACTLY THE SAME...BUT I DON'T THINK HE WANTS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.  YOU DON'T GET TO HARVEST ANY FREE ENERGY BY MOVING CAPACITOR PLATES AWAY FROM OR TOWARD EACH OTHER.  YOU LOSE WHATEVER ENERGY IS REQUIRED TO DO THE PHYSICAL MOVING.

HUMBUGGER 

NOT SHOUTING...KEYBOARD STUCK ON ALL CAPS

I led experiments on scalar waves, a few years ago. By modulating a high voltage at the terminal capacity of on open LC circuit, I was able to transmit a 2 Khz signal to a receiver consisting of a single capacity connected to an audio amplifier, up to 50 mtrs . Nevertheless this phenomenon was not distinguishable from two LC circuits coupled in near field. All experiments involving supposedly "scalar waves", especially those from Meyl, are all modelizable with classical electromagnetism using the near field, i.e. where the dimensions of the circuits and their distance are short in comparison with the wave length of the signals, and where E and H components don't radiate and are not directly linked, contrarily to an EM plane wave where E/H equals the vacuum impedance. And when higher frequencies are used, EM waves are generated and it becomes impossible to discriminate scalar waves from artefacts due to EM waves (I have never seen one experiment avoiding this confusion beyond any doubt, including this of Monstein, see http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/59/4/514).
Thus if we apply Okkham razor, we don't need to suppose the existence of scalar waves. Even though I consider Tesla as one of the greatest inventors, I'm convinced he was wrong with his scalar wave, the experimental evidence is against him, and Maxwell was right.

Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.03.08, 09:51:14
Exnihiloest,

How much do the capacitance change by doubling the distance?

GL.

Apply the formula:
"C=ε0*S/d"  with S surface of the plates, d distance between plates.

If you replace d with 2*d, you must replace C with C/2: the capacity is divided by 2 when the plate distance is doubled.

Note that this formula is an approximation, it works only when the distance between plates is very much shorter than the dimensions of the plates. For example if plates are disk of 10 cm radius, distance between plates should not exceed some mm (some % of the plate dimensions), otherwise a much more complicated formula has to be used.

(I have corrected my previous post, because energy is only doubled due to the fact that E=1/2*C*U² with U² multiplied by 4 but C divided by 2).

Exnihiloest,

Thanks, I understand now.

The voltage doubles when the distance double.
The capacitor value will be half when the distance doubles.
The energy stored will be two times the initial when distance double.
The energy came from the operator that did the work to double the distance.

Now if I use the formula E = 0.5 * C * (V*V) then:

For 1 Farad 10 Volt:

Distance 1x   E = 0.5 * 1 * (10*10) = 50 Joules
Distance 2x   E = 0,5 * 0.5 * (20*20) = 100 Joules
Distance 4x   E = 0,5 * 0.25 * (40*40) = 200 Joules

So this checks out fine. :-)

GL.

Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.03.08, 11:00:31
Exnihiloest,

Thanks, I understand now.

The voltage doubles when the distance double.
The capacitor value will be half when the distance doubles.
The energy stored will be two times the initial when distance double.
The energy came from the operator that did the work to double the distance.

Now if I use the formula E = 0.5 * C * (V*V) then:

For 1 Farad 10 Volt:

Distance 1x   E = 0.5 * 1 * (10*10) = 50 Joules
Distance 2x   E = 0,5 * 0.5 * (20*20) = 100 Joules
Distance 4x   E = 0,5 * 0.25 * (40*40) = 200 Joules

So this checks out fine. :-)

GL.

Well summed up, I agree 100%.

Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.08, 10:23:13
JUST THE EXACT AMOUNT THAT WILL KEEP THE ENERGY OF THE CHARGE EXACTLY THE SAME...BUT I DON'T THINK HE WANTS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.  YOU DON'T GET TO HARVEST ANY FREE ENERGY BY MOVING CAPACITOR PLATES AWAY FROM OR TOWARD EACH OTHER.  YOU LOSE WHATEVER ENERGY IS REQUIRED TO DO THE PHYSICAL MOVING.

HUMBUGGER 

NOT SHOUTING...KEYBOARD STUCK ON ALL CAPS

Hum,

Just thinking.......................

If we use a pizo electric speaker and mount a capacitor plate on top of it then we get a movable capacitor plate.
We charge the plate when the distance is smallest and take out 1/2 the energy when the distance is doubled.
The work we pay to do this is the same as we get out. (With some small losses.) But, we know that if we use
the resonant frequency of the weight of the capacitor plate, then we only need to put in approx. 2% of the initial
work to move the plate. Will this work?

GL.

Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.03.08, 11:18:42
But, we know that if we use
the resonant frequency of the weight of the capacitor plate, then we only need to put in approx. 2% of the initial
work to move the plate. Will this work?

GL.

Consider this....
Will adding or removing charge to this 'resonant motion' capacitor change the resonant frequency of motion or just make it more complex?

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.03.08, 11:52:43
Consider this....
Will adding or removing charge to this 'resonant motion' capacitor change the resonant frequency of motion or just make it more complex?

WW,

I know that the Coulomb force is quite strong and will dampen the oscillation.
If we add charge at the bottom of the capacitor plate stroke then the Coulomb force will increase.
But the opposite will happen at the at the top stroke where we remove 1/2 of the energy. If the Coulomb force
doubles at the bottom it will be 1/2 as much at the top so the result will be zero.  Am I right?

GL.

Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.03.08, 11:18:42
Hum,

Just thinking.......................

If we use a pizo electric speaker and mount a capacitor plate on top of it then we get a movable capacitor plate.
We charge the plate when the distance is smallest and take out 1/2 the energy when the distance is doubled.
The work we pay to do this is the same as we get out. (With some small losses.) But, we know that if we use
the resonant frequency of the weight of the capacitor plate, then we only need to put in approx. 2% of the initial
work to move the plate. Will this work?

GL.

I expect that the doubling of energy stored when the distance is doubled is directly related to the physical work done to move the plates apart, which will be a function of the charge and area.  The opposite charges attract, so moving the plates apart requires energy.  Resonance will not help, because the mechanical work extracted from the vibrating piezo will lower the resonant Q and damp the resonance, as in all systems where work is extracted.

This is another example of trying to extract real power from a resonant circuit or object without damping the resonance...it cannot be done.  Your figure of 2% will rise dramatically because the plates will resist being separated.

Humbugger

Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.08, 12:21:08

I expect that the doubling of energy stored when the distance is doubled is directly related to the physical work done to move the plates apart, which will be a function of the charge and area.  The opposite charges attract, so moving the plates apart requires energy.  Resonance will not help, because the mechanical work extracted from the vibrating piezo will lower the resonant Q and damp the resonance, as in all systems where work is extracted.

This is another example of trying to extract real power from a resonant circuit or object without damping the resonance...it cannot be done.  Your figure of 2% will rise dramatically because the plates will resist being separated.

Humbugger

I agree that we need to do work to lift the plate. But we get that work back when the plate goes back again.
It is like a spring, we only need to use work to pull the spring apart and we get all the work back when
the spring is released. You must see the whole cycle not 1/2 of the cycle. Is it not so?

GL.

Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.03.08, 12:41:47
I agree that we need to do work to lift the plate. But we get that work back when the plate goes back again.
It is like a spring, we only need to use work to pull the spring apart and we get all the work back when
the spring is released. You must see the whole cycle not 1/2 of the cycle. Is it not so?

GL.

I think you are forgetting that the "spring" is much weaker on the pullback stroke because you have removed charge at the top of the stroke.  Anyway, the answer is no, I don't think it will "work" if by "work" you mean the ability to take out more energy than you put in all told.  But that's just my old-fashioned opinion.

Humbugger

Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.08, 12:53:04
I think you are forgetting that the "spring" is much weaker on the pullback stroke because you have removed charge at the top of the stroke.  Anyway, the answer is no, I don't think it will "work" if by "work" you mean the ability to take out more energy than you put in all told.  But that's just my old-fashioned opinion.

Humbugger

Yes, I now see that the Coulomb force will be 1/2 on the return stroke so the result force
will be 1/2 of the Coulomb force in total. There will be small losses in the capacitor charge
so we will also need to recharge the capacitor for losses. But all in all, all we need to
input is enough energy to keep the capacitor plate in weight resonance. Will this give
us more energy out than we did put into the system? You say no, I say maybe because
we only need to pay for the first initial charge of the capacitor and can repeat the cycle
a lot of times before we need to top up the capacitor charge again. So we end up with the
question, do we need to use more energy to fight the 1/2 Coulomb force up stroke than
we get back from the double capacitor energy at the double distance? Anybody up for
doing math on a real life capacitor? Plate=round radius 50mm, plate distance 0,1mm at
closest and 0,2mm distance at top stroke. Voltage on plates 12 volt. Dielectric= Air.

GL.