Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 81837
  • *Latest: ganpath

  • *Total Posts: 488371
  • *Total Topics: 14369
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 7
  • *Guests: 266
  • *Total: 273

Facebook

Author Topic: Simplifying what we have observed  (Read 11475 times)

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2948
Simplifying what we have observed
« on: January 07, 2017, 06:37:31 PM »
I am trying to keep this to what we observe and not trying to explain why or what a charge carrier is,, staying with only we see this when that.

Lets consider what actions we are aware of without over-thinking them.

When current "flows" it creates a flux.

When flux "flows", or changes, it creates a current "flow".

When charge carriers are moved from one place to another without being able to fill in the starting spot there is a voltage difference.

A charge separation creates an electric field potential difference.

With no resistance to the "flow" of current and no separation there is no voltage.

Opposite electric fields attract.

Opposite magnetic fields attract.

Current "flow" to flux is independent to voltage, except with respect to resistance to that flow creating a voltage.

Voltage is independent from current "flow" except with respect to charge separation while current is "flowing".

Current is to flux and voltage is to separation. ( any resistance to "flow" will separate the charge )

Without over-thinking this then it looks like you have 2 independent interactions with a common medium that can allow for 2 different reactions to changes within this medium.

A slow build up of flux slightly causes charge separation, a rapid change in flux builds a larger charge separation.

Please feel free to change this,, I am trying to simplify things so that any person reading it can understand it.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Simplifying what we have observed
« on: January 07, 2017, 06:37:31 PM »

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2948
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2017, 08:28:51 PM »
How fast can you discharge a cap? and does that rate of change change the energy value?  does it change the quantity of charge carriers moved?

The same for charging a cap.

How much force is present between the plates of a charge cap?  does this force value change with the rate of charge\discharge?


Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2017, 02:58:51 PM »
What we observe, is that the charge value
is a quantity. An amount.


The time it takes to discharge this amount
  - defines the current.
I do not mean defines like a wordly description.
But like the two are observed to be directly proportional.
Slow the rate of discharge, decrease current.
Increase the rate of discharge and you see more current
but it is discharged over a shorter time.


The quantity remains constant.


We also see that (at amplitudes that exceed ohms law)
resistance to flow decreases as
the value of the charge increases.


 For example
Resistance at 12v is much greater than resistance at 13Kv
We observe an impedance breakdown process on
an atomic/molecular and macrocrystaline level.


[are graphs ok? I know they are theoretical but the data ]
[they are made from comes from observation]


If you were to graph resistance it is a reverse graph.
(right to left)
When flow increases, resistance to flow is observed to increase.
This is graphed left to right, and if you overlay these graphs
There is a point where the two meet.
If you follow this point as both current and voltage are increased
There is a 'time derived' rate of increase at which
resistance/impedance remains constant.
Each medium is different in regards to the rate of change.
Or (unimpeded) rate of change.
Going outside of this rate by increasing voltage or current too faster than the other
Not only changes resistance but the very value of the other quantity.


What we observe is too much current depletes the potential
Or too much potential increases the current.


And by this the two are bound to their medium.


Further we observe that one does not exist without the other.
If there is a charge potential, there is a flow.
When a charge is said to be contained, what we actually observe
is that the charge is simultaneously replenished and depleted.
Thus, there is a flow. (However impeded it may be).


Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2017, 03:06:05 PM »
With an isolated flux differential (such as a permanent magnet)
We can observe the flow of an isolated potential.
With an isolated electric charge we observe only half of this.
The other half exists in the surrounding medium.
The insulator acts as both the impeder and the replenisher.


By observing all 3 interactions, we can follow the electric field currents
of the isolated charge and find them to be just like the magnet.


Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2948
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2017, 05:05:36 PM »
Graphs are fine.

My intent is to simplify back to that that is actually observed,, as in I can not observe a field but I can observe its reaction, so instead of trying to conclude what or how just stay with what is observed.

There is something,, call it a field if needed, that happens around a conductor when current flows, not trying to conclude what current is or what the field is, only that it is there and it has a reaction to and with the environment that we can observe.

I have observed an almost instantaneous discharge of a capacitor, I have observed a time rate of charge and discharge of a capacitor that is dependent of the resistance or impediment to current flow.

I have observed a longer time with current flow to charge a capacitor to a higher voltage.

These observations can go on for a while,, but the intent and or desire is to sum them all up in a very simple way and with as few assumed definitions as possible.

Voltage is  a measure of some potential difference.
Current is a measure of some quantity of something moving.

If then we ASSUME that Voltage is charge separation and Current is charge motion how would it be stated as to what we can observe in a simple fashion,, understanding that we might need to change the base assumption.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2017, 05:05:36 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2948
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2017, 05:52:49 PM »
Funny computational observation.

For the same quantity of charge carriers that are moved and stored you can have different amounts of stored energy.

1V @ 1F compared to 10V@0.1F,, both are 1 coulomb of charge carriers moved and stored,, 0.5J and 5.0J,, interesting :)

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2948
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2017, 07:48:17 PM »
Going off topic a little bit  :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_material

If I take the simple observations of a charged capacitor and use the accepted formulas, they predict that there will be a loss when charging a capacitor from another capacitor or any fixed voltage source.

If I charge the capacitor with a source that starts at 0V and moves up as the capacitor charges then I will have spent the same energy to charge the capacitor as what is stored, this is predicted by the formulas.

This infers to me then that the dielectric behaves as a Maxwell fluid.

With that in mind,  if I were to charge a capacitor up to some voltage and then short the capacitor until it just hits ZERO volts and then open the capacitor again I would have the condition where the "spring" is un-sprung but the fluid has not re-balanced and so I would expect to see a voltage rise on the cap after the ZERO volt open condition while the "fluid" part is re-balancing.

Has anyone noticed if after you short a cap there is a voltage rise on that cap?

How many times do you need to short that cap to make sure it is at ZERO volts??? or how long do you need to hold it shorted???

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2017, 07:48:17 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline shylo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2017, 08:24:34 PM »
What I find interesting is how one cap bank identical to the other, can charge the bank that is of higher value.
That is, the left bank is rated for 64 volts at 1500uf, the right bank is identical.
The left bank has 24volts stored, the right only has 10.
As the right drops, the left increases. It's averaging about volt for volt.
When the right bank hits zero, the left has risen to almost 34.
It only works till the right bank hits zero then, the left bank starts to drop.
Just what I,m seeing for now.
artv

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2948
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2017, 08:37:55 PM »
Indeed,, I have noticed similar things.

Funny that if that is NOT what you want to happen it is an annoyance,, like chasing the charge around a cap bank to bring the whole bank to zero.

Makes me wonder how many things there are to observe that are missed just because we are not looking.

Offline partzman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2017, 09:06:41 PM »
What I find interesting is how one cap bank identical to the other, can charge the bank that is of higher value.
That is, the left bank is rated for 64 volts at 1500uf, the right bank is identical.
The left bank has 24volts stored, the right only has 10.
As the right drops, the left increases. It's averaging about volt for volt.
When the right bank hits zero, the left has risen to almost 34.
It only works till the right bank hits zero then, the left bank starts to drop.
Just what I,m seeing for now.
artv

This is interesting!  The left bank with 24v in 1500ufd equates to .432J and the right bank with 10v in 1500ufd equates to .075J for a total = .507J.  At the end of the transfer, the left bank is ~34v in 1500ufd for an energy of ~.86J for a COP = 1.71.  Is this true?  If so, would you mind showing your test setup?

pm

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2017, 09:06:41 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2017, 04:01:02 AM »
Aside from the normal specifications of your capacitor
I.e. - charge rate / discharge rate
You must also consider the type of capacitor
Two plates with and insulator behaves entirely different from
Two plates with a dielectric.
The latter has its own secondary capacitance, within the dielectric.
And its' own discharge rate. These things are not handled in the standard equations,
But only accounted for in the more advanced variations of those equations.


Also the number of and orientation of plates makes a difference.
In capacitors in which secondary plates are charged by induction,
These internal ( not electrically connected) plates can retain a charge,
Resulting in a reverse induction (recharging) of the primary plates.

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2948
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2017, 06:45:42 AM »
Indeed, the matrix can be more convoluted than a simple rolled parallel plate capacitor.

We might choose to use elastance like  O. Heaviside.

Or it can stay with the simple model of the understood capacitor.

Are you saying then that you have not observed this behavior from regular rolled caps?

Are you suggesting that the basic formulas do not cover the regular cap?


Offline shylo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2017, 10:23:02 AM »
@ Partzman,
I apologize for those numbers. They were speculation from watching the transfer for only a few minutes.
I just did a complete test, left was 22.8, right was12.89. It took over an hour for the transfer to complete.
The left stopped at 31.8, right dropped to 1.48. Now the right is still dropping, when it hits zero then the left will start dropping.
I would like to know how you calculated the joules, the book I have doesn't show it.
Sorry artv

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2017, 12:29:03 PM »
Indeed, the matrix can be more convoluted than a simple rolled parallel plate capacitor.

We might choose to use elastance like  O. Heaviside.

Or it can stay with the simple model of the understood capacitor.

Are you saying then that you have not observed this behavior from regular rolled caps?

Are you suggesting that the basic formulas do not cover the regular cap?


Well, basic formulas are just that... basic.
Of course this depends on how accurate you want your math to be.
In standard electronics it generally does not matter to be accurate
down to the atomic level. A general or average charge value is acceptable.


One can simply take the area divided by the distance for a parallel plates


Or 2(pi) x area / radial distance for rolled plates.
But for more accuracy you would choose to include
the permeability of the dielectric (and probably the free
space constant), and if you want your equations to be more accurate
You might want to include the materials constants for the plate metals
And the operating temperature of the capacitor along the voltage and frequency curves.


The simple equations taught at basic electronics level, work fine for most applications.
But if you want to know what's really going on inside a capacitor, you must take
into account all sorts of variables, in complex equations that can be half a page of
numbers, symbols, and constants.


Each capacitor will have a maximum rate of charge, meaning regardless of source
the cap will only charge at a certain rate (max). The same can be said on the
discharge. The cap will only discharge at a certain rate (max).
There are inductive factors when one plate is charged and the other is allowed to
charge via induction. This results in inductive coefficients and associated loss or gain.


There are ionic factors with some capacitor types that are ignored in basic equations.
To a technician this simply means the capacitor has specific polarity or voltage bias.
But to understand why, involves complex mathematics that explain how the charges
Actually exist on the plates.


The more accurate we try to be, the more we find that we cannot know exactly.
Even down to the atomic and molecular properties of the metals and the dielectric.
We can take it even further and include quantum factors that tell us precisely how much
we do not know.


This is further complicated by the fact that our point of reference is unknown.


So, how much charge is on that capacitor again?
Our observations are relative to our perspective.


From a point outside our ambient field, the capacitor may appear to have a great charge,
Or from another perspective, be negatively charged.
We say it is 0, because we chose that to be our 0 point.



Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2017, 12:44:09 PM »
Potential is relative
Where we place our ground, which tabletop we set our devices on
These things can alter the quantity of charge perceived.


Take your volt meter around and measure things.
Do the same with an electrostatic meter
An infrared camera
A magnetometer


Potential is everywhere, just depends on your point of reference.
If we negate our unknown value, we are taking two plates that are
already charged and adding/subtracting charge to/from them.
All we really know is what we took from or added to the plates.
Even the constants themselves are derived in controlled environments.
Standard temperatures and pressures, etc.
change environments and these things may need considerations.


Does a capacitor behave the same if we place it in a strong field?
Does a capacitor behave the same if we remove it from our ambient field?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2017, 12:44:09 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: