If you knew how simple it was you would laugh

[lfarrand]

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

[lfarrand]

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

[lfarrand]

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



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

[Grumpy]

99.3% of 20kV = 19,860V

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

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

1 Joule = 1 Watt/second

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

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

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

[lfarrand]

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

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

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

Are you sure that Hz X J = W ?

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

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

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

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

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

[Vasik041]

99.3% of 40kV = 39,720V

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

[lfarrand]

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

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

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

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

[F6FLT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Cadman]

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

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

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

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

[F6FLT]

Good grief F6, let the man present his thoughts and his experiment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Cadman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Frederik2k1]

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

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

From: Stationary Field Generators.pdf in Reply #3

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

[F6FLT]

You presume too much. You know his thoughts and can read his mind can you....
I think he came here to show his work and get feedback and suggestions for improving what he does have, not to be condemned ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

[F6FLT]

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

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

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

[Hakasays]

The author talks about charge, and this object is scientifically defined. Moving charges in a potential difference provides or consumes energy

What's the COP of moving charges via UPS?

[F6FLT]

What's the COP of moving charges via UPS?

It all depends on the potential of the handler!

[AlienGrey]

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

[Classic]

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

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

[Verpies]

It all depends on the potential of the handler!

[whitelightningwizard]

@Ifarrand

Don't be discouraged by naysayers.

Your idea is very good! 

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

It takes bravery to blaze new trails others have not.

Cheers,
wlw

[Aking.21]

Stanley Meyer finally wins?

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

[AlienGrey]

Stanley Meyer finally wins?

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

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

Sil

[Classic]

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

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

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

[whitelightningwizard]

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
wlw

[Paul-R]

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

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