Resonance energy methods - Don Smith revisited

[lfarrand]

I spent quite some time reading about the efforts of Don Smith from his own literature and various forum threads. Read, re-read. Watched some YouTube videos. Pored over images of the various DS devices. It didn't make much sense until something clicked. What follows is my interpretation of what is happening.

In a capacitor, the energy stored is E=(CV^2)/2. If you increase voltage by 2x then the energy increases by 4x. There is clearly a benefit in terms of energy output to boosting the voltage as high as you can go so long as you can minimise the input energy.

In a series resonant RLC circuit the voltage accumulates each cycle. Take the example of a 10nF capacitor paired with a 1uH inductor. If the input voltage is 5V, then the voltage of the capacitor at the end of cycle 1 would be 5V, cycle 2 = 10V, cycle 3 = 15V and so on. After 10,000 cycles the voltage would be 50,000V, which is 12.5J if you discharged it at that point. If, however, you charge and discharge each cycle then the total cumulative energy discharged would total 0.00125J. For the same input energy.

Taking this example a step further, the resonant frequency is 1,591,549 cycles/sec. This means that you can 'buffer' the energy on the capacitor in 159x 10,000 cycle batches per second, discharging each batch separately. 159 x 12.5J = 1987.5J (per second), which is 1.99kW.

Have I got something wrong? I'm happy to be educated.

[Hakasays]

I would suggest you focus not only on the charge component, but the discharge as well (or more appropriately the exchange between dielectric and magnetic fields).

If you push a wheel up a hill, a small increase in height might result in a large increase in potential energy, but as long as it's rolling down the same hill you don't end up getting more energy out than you put in.  You just get the energy out faster.

IMO as long as everything is symmetric, energy in = energy out.  But there are ways to alter inductance and capacitance with respect to time, possibly in the Don Smith arrangement?  That would be a potential asymmetry as cause+effect would no longer be happening in the same dimensional framework.


I'd also consider that if there is an exotic means to extract/destroy energy, the principle or implementation has to be at least somewhat difficult to engineer otherwise millions would have already done it.

[F6FLT]

I spent quite some time reading about the efforts of Don Smith from his own literature and various forum threads. Read, re-read. Watched some YouTube videos. Pored over images of the various DS devices. It didn't make much sense until something clicked. What follows is my interpretation of what is happening.

In a capacitor, the energy stored is E=(CV^2)/2. If you increase voltage by 2x then the energy increases by 4x. There is clearly a benefit in terms of energy output to boosting the voltage as high as you can go so long as you can minimise the input energy.

In a series resonant RLC circuit the voltage accumulates each cycle. Take the example of a 10nF capacitor paired with a 1uH inductor. If the input voltage is 5V, then the voltage of the capacitor at the end of cycle 1 would be 5V, cycle 2 = 10V, cycle 3 = 15V and so on. After 10,000 cycles the voltage would be 50,000V, which is 12.5J if you discharged it at that point. If, however, you charge and discharge each cycle then the total cumulative energy discharged would total 0.00125J. For the same input energy.

Taking this example a step further, the resonant frequency is 1,591,549 cycles/sec. This means that you can 'buffer' the energy on the capacitor in 159x 10,000 cycle batches per second, discharging each batch separately. 159 x 12.5J = 1987.5J (per second), which is 1.99kW.

Have I got something wrong? I'm happy to be educated.

The trap is to consider that to go from 5v to 10v, no more energy is needed than to go from 0 to 5v.

Each time the voltage goes up, it takes even more energy to increment the voltage by the same step voltage.

To go from 0 to U1 = 5v, it takes a power 1/2*C*U1² = 1/2*C*U1² = 12.5*C.

To go from U1=5v to U2=10v you need 1/2*C*U2² - 1/2*C*U1² = 1/2*C*(U2²-U1²) = 37.5*C, which is 3 times more power than in the first step.

To go from U2v=10v to U3=15v you need 1/2*C*U3² - 1/2*C*U2² = 1/2*C*(U3²-U2²) = 62.5*C, which is 5 times more power than in the first step.

And so on. At each step, the charge current must be produced at a higher voltage than the one we arrived at, so the power required, product of the voltage by the charge current increases at each step too.

[lfarrand]

The trap is to consider that to go from 5v to 10v, no more energy is needed than to go from 0 to 5v.

Each time the voltage goes up, it takes even more energy to increment the voltage by the same step voltage.

To go from 0 to U1 = 5v, it takes a power 1/2*C*U1² = 1/2*C*U1² = 12.5*C.

To go from U1=5v to U2=10v you need 1/2*C*U2² - 1/2*C*U1² = 1/2*C*(U2²-U1²) = 37.5*C, which is 3 times more power than in the first step.

To go from U2v=10v to U3=15v you need 1/2*C*U3² - 1/2*C*U2² = 1/2*C*(U3²-U2²) = 62.5*C, which is 5 times more power than in the first step.

And so on. At each step, the charge current must be produced at a higher voltage than the one we arrived at, so the power required, product of the voltage by the charge current increases at each step too.

Thanks for sharing this. I think what you're saying makes sense. I'll plug it into a simulation to see what happens.

[forest]

I would suggest you focus not only on the charge component, but the discharge as well (or more appropriately the exchange between dielectric and magnetic fields).

If you push a wheel up a hill, a small increase in height might result in a large increase in potential energy, but as long as it's rolling down the same hill you don't end up getting more energy out than you put in.  You just get the energy out faster.

IMO as long as everything is symmetric, energy in = energy out.  But there are ways to alter inductance and capacitance with respect to time, possibly in the Don Smith arrangement?  That would be a potential asymmetry as cause+effect would no longer be happening in the same dimensional framework.


I'd also consider that if there is an exotic means to extract/destroy energy, the principle or implementation has to be at least somewhat difficult to engineer otherwise millions would have already done it.

Right. No. You roll snowball, and get much more energy at the end

[F6FLT]

Right. No. You roll snowball, and get much more energy at the end

You get what you put into it. This would be the new principle of "free" energy? In this case, indeed, we already have it.

[Paul-R]

You get what you put into it. This would be the new principle of "free" energy?

This does not apply to pv cells or heat pumps.

The best definition of FE efficiency, in my view, is Patrick's:


Energy out
---------------------  = OU rate
Energy YOU put in

[F6FLT]

This does not apply to pv cells or heat pumps.

The best definition of FE efficiency, in my view, is Patrick's:


Energy out
---------------------  = OU rate
Energy YOU put in

I agree, but only within a framework that must absolutely be defined and specified: the closed system.
Another important notion to specify is the form of recovered energy. If it's heat, it's a degraded form not really "useful" energy.

If your closed system is the PV cells, the electrical energy is free, the entropy decreases locally.

If your closed system is the solar system, the energy is not free, neither for the PV cells nor for the heat pump, because its entropy increases.

If your closed system is the heat pump alone, or the earth + the heat pump, the energy is not free either. It is true that you get back more energy than you put into it, but this energy is degraded energy (heat). This energy does not make it possible to close the system because the conversion thermal energy/electric energy has a weak theoretical efficiency, and in practice even weaker. Therefore, it is always necessary to supply the heat pump with energy that is not free, the entropy increases.

Of course, I agree that what we are interested in is a local useful energy, so a decrease of the local entropy, no matter if we increase the one of the rest of the universe. If in this sense the electric energy of a solar panel is indeed free, that of a heat pump is not.

To loop a heat pump would be to carry out a demon of Maxwell. A Maxwell's demon has never been proved not to exist in general, but the attempts I have seen so far only concern really low energy levels, leaving serious doubts about possible experimental artifacts.

[Paul-R]

If it's heat, it's a degraded form not really "useful" energy.

If it arrives warmer than room temp., it will be plenty useful the month after next.

A very helpful and clarifying post, F6. We must remember that whilst the crazy man putin continues on the rampage, there isn't any form of energy that can't be pressed into service somehow, with a bit of cleverfness. The rules have changed. This may be the only good thing putin has done for the world.

[F6FLT]

If it arrives warmer than room temp., it will be plenty useful the month after next.

A very helpful and clarifying post, F6. We must remember that whilst the crazy man putin continues on the rampage, there isn't any form of energy that can't be pressed into service somehow, with a bit of cleverfness. The rules have changed. This may be the only good thing putin has done for the world.

I agree. By "useful", I meant reversible energy (potential energy of gravity, kinetic, electric, mechanical work...), as opposed to thermal energy.
It is sure that in these times when Putin is messing up our existence, even thermal energy is "useful", especially in winter !

[Grumpy]

I agree, but only within a framework that must absolutely be defined and specified: the closed system.
Another important notion to specify is the form of recovered energy. If it's heat, it's a degraded form not really "useful" energy.

If your closed system is the PV cells, the electrical energy is free, the entropy decreases locally.

If your closed system is the solar system, the energy is not free, neither for the PV cells nor for the heat pump, because its entropy increases.

If your closed system is the heat pump alone, or the earth + the heat pump, the energy is not free either. It is true that you get back more energy than you put into it, but this energy is degraded energy (heat). This energy does not make it possible to close the system because the conversion thermal energy/electric energy has a weak theoretical efficiency, and in practice even weaker. Therefore, it is always necessary to supply the heat pump with energy that is not free, the entropy increases.

Of course, I agree that what we are interested in is a local useful energy, so a decrease of the local entropy, no matter if we increase the one of the rest of the universe. If in this sense the electric energy of a solar panel is indeed free, that of a heat pump is not.

To loop a heat pump would be to carry out a demon of Maxwell. A Maxwell's demon has never been proved not to exist in general, but the attempts I have seen so far only concern really low energy levels, leaving serious doubts about possible experimental artifacts.

Better to pursue an "open system".

As for the self-running aspect: it depends.
If the construction of a device results in uncontrolled gain, then powering uncontrolled portions with uncontrolled output will destroy it, and possibly everything around it.
If you can demonstrate excess energy of 100 or 1000 times the input, and explain that the device cannot be self-running until controlled, then I would accept that as capable of self-running, just not self-running at this time.

[F6FLT]

A system that runs away and destroys itself without energy input is a selfrunner.
We don't ask for an eternal selfrunner, only for the time that we verify that it provides energy without consuming either internal or external energy (or else by tapping into an inexhaustible source).

[Grumpy]

Would you settle for output of 100 or 1000 times input if both are DC and the system is "open"?

Something like a homopolar generator with no Lenz Effect (i.e. no back EMF).  With no limits, we can see the potential for problems...

Will a homopolar generator, without BEMF, self-destruct if the output is supplied to the electromagnet that accompanies the homopolar generator?
(i.e. electromagnet rather than a permanent magnet)

This is a "what if" scenario.

[forest]

If the heat would be the primary energy to put into heat pump then we can easily lopp it back and create controlled explosion of heat. I'm looking into the process of sucking cosmic energy tapped by Earth magnetosphere in the way heat pump is working. I bet Barbosa&Leal had tried to patent the same.

[F6FLT]

Would you settle for output of 100 or 1000 times input if both are DC and the system is "open"?

No, it has to be looped, it has to be self-sustaining, otherwise there is no evidence that the 100 or 1000 times input measurement is correct.

Something like a homopolar generator with no Lenz Effect (i.e. no back EMF).  With no limits, we can see the potential for problems...

Bad example, it would be to affirm that the field of the charges of a source would have influence on the charges of a load without that the field of the charges of the load have an influence on the charges of the source. This non-reciprocity is contrary to electromagnetism, and is contrary to relativity, in short contrary to everything we know and to all the observed facts.
To reach a null result, the idea of the "no Lenz effect" is the dead end to follow. It is followed by many "free energy experts", whose operational results are consequently null. But how we hear them talking about, worse than the cackling in a henhouse, it's crazy! 

Will a homopolar generator, without BEMF, self-destruct if the output is supplied to the electromagnet that accompanies the homopolar generator?
(i.e. electromagnet rather than a permanent magnet)

This is a "what if" scenario.

We'll discuss it when it happens.
The question of the COP is even secondary. As long as it is greater than 1, losses included, it can be infinite since the system can be looped on itself as many times as we want with gain each time. One could even wonder if any COP would not be the result of a lower COP and an I/O looping of unknown nature...

Let's talk about what we observe, not about science fiction, or else we have to write novels, which are possible realities without any demonstration of their existence. It is unfortunately 95% of the discussions around free energy, but without the genius of a Jules Verne or a Ray Bradbury.

[Grumpy]

No, it has to be looped, it has to be self-sustaining, otherwise there is no evidence that the 100 or 1000 times input measurement is correct.

This is the goal then.

Bad example, it would be to affirm that the field of the charges of a source would have influence on the charges of a load without that the field of the charges of the load have an influence on the charges of the source. This non-reciprocity is contrary to electromagnetism, and is contrary to relativity, in short contrary to everything we know and to all the observed facts.
To reach a null result, the idea of the "no Lenz effect" is the dead end to follow. It is followed by many "free energy experts", whose operational results are consequently null. But how we hear them talking about, worse than the cackling in a henhouse, it's crazy! 

Lenz's Law applies to electromagnetic induction, a magnet inducing current in a conductor.  To avoid this law, one must induce current with another method than a magnet or magnetic field.  This does not mean that other laws will not be applicable.  I agree that using magnetic fields while attempting to avoid Lenz's Law is futile.

[Grumpy]

Interesting video on how electricity works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0

[Allcanadian]

Grumpy

Interesting video on how electricity works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0

It's an excellent video and shows what I have measured in many of my own experiments...

At minute 5:30 they show a conductor surface charge gradient which I can confirm. I measured it with my electrometer array around 10 years ago. As well at minute 8:00 we can see the zero or neutral point at the source and load. Conceptually two opposite potentials are generated at the source from zero, travel down both circuit legs and dissipate back into zero at the load. Confirming that the zero or neutral point is in fact real. Logically we should have deduced this because one condition cannot transition into an opposite condition without becoming neither condition or zero in the process.

As well at 10:50 we can see how energy radiates outward in a circuit from a switch point and the simulations at 13:30 are really cool. This is how I have been modelling energy flow in circuits and it shows how outdated the electron current based lumped sum models are. As they show in the simulations the electron flow and magnetic field which most are obsessed with take a back seat to the dynamics of the electric field.

This is by far the best video I have ever seen describing how electricity actually works in my opinion.

Regards
AC

[F6FLT]

This is the goal then.
Lenz's Law applies to electromagnetic induction, a magnet inducing current in a conductor.  To avoid this law, one must induce current with another method than a magnet or magnetic field.  This does not mean that other laws will not be applicable.  I agree that using magnetic fields while attempting to avoid Lenz's Law is futile.

Induction is simply the effect of the coulombic field of a charge on another charge when they are in displacement with respect to each other because one or the other or both are in a current, whether this current is electric or the equivalent of spin in a magnet.
The motion distorts the coulombic field according to the laws of relativity, it is no longer isotropic, the effect is called "magnetic field" by classical electromagnetism. It becomes this electric induction field when the velocity is not constant anymore. The relativity allows to pass from the field seen by a charge to the one seen by the other.

Lenz's law is therefore only a macroscopic consequence of a more fundamental elementary phenomenon between charges that influence each other, a reciprocal phenomenon, a charge not knowing if it comes from a generator or from a load.
The "free energy experts" talk nonsense about it and prove their ignorance by their inability to reach any operational result for decades, in their derisory fight against Lenz's law. The "futility" you speak of is only there.

[Allcanadian]

Grumpy

This is the goal then.
Lenz's Law applies to electromagnetic induction, a magnet inducing current in a conductor.  To avoid this law, one must induce current with another method than a magnet or magnetic field.  This does not mean that other laws will not be applicable.  I agree that using magnetic fields while attempting to avoid Lenz's Law is futile.

I think you nailed it... well said.

As Figuera put it, all our generators and transformers work the same using a changing magnetic field to induce a current in a conductor. The induced current then produces a magnetic field which opposes the magnetic field which induced it. Figuera and many other FE inventors called our devices "eddy current generators" because that is in effect exactly what happens. All our generators and transformers are glorified eddy current generators literally designed to produce opposition.

It's kind of like all the meth addicts wondering why there teeth and hair are falling out, it's an addiction. Thus it's not a matter of science or technology more so being addicted to one way of doing things, false beliefs and habitual behavior. Everyone keeps doing the same things thus they always get the same result.

Think of a solar cell, it doesn't use silly magnets whirling past coils of wire. It doesn't use a changing magnetic field to induce eddy currents which then oppose the magnetic field which induced it. None of these primitive contrivance are present and it uses a different process to move electrons. A solar cell uses solar radiation to excite the electrons then a band gap to produce and hold a separation of charges. In effect, it doesn't matter how we excite the electrons only that we do. How many possible ways are there to excite some electrons?...

Regards
AC

[Grumpy]

Induction is simply the effect of the coulombic field of a charge on another charge when they are in displacement with respect to each other because one or the other or both are in a current, whether this current is electric or the equivalent of spin in a magnet.
The motion distorts the coulombic field according to the laws of relativity, it is no longer isotropic, the effect is called "magnetic field" by classical electromagnetism. It becomes this electric induction field when the velocity is not constant anymore. The relativity allows to pass from the field seen by a charge to the one seen by the other.

Lenz's law is therefore only a macroscopic consequence of a more fundamental elementary phenomenon between charges that influence each other, a reciprocal phenomenon, a charge not knowing if it comes from a generator or from a load.
The "free energy experts" talk nonsense about it and prove their ignorance by their inability to reach any operational result for decades, in their derisory fight against Lenz's law. The "futility" you speak of is only there.

Can the Coulomb force be used to induce a current? 
Rotate a charged object in a circular track, or on a flat disk.  Have a conductor around this track/disk so that the charged object drags electrons along  with it.

Sounds almost like an electrostatic generator.

Edit:
an attempt?
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=113627

(haven't time to read it)