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.

# New Book

### Statistics

• Total Posts: 496352
• Total Topics: 14607
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 4
• Guests: 249
• Total: 253

### Author Topic: Simplifying what we have observed  (Read 17132 times)

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2017, 02:58:50 PM »
I would like to know how you calculated the joules, the book I have doesn't show it.
Sorry artv

J = 0.5*(C*V^2)

C=1500uf =1500*0.000001
V^2=24*24
J = 0.5*(((1500*0.000001)*(24*24)) =  0.432

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2017, 02:58:50 PM »

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2017, 03:12:14 PM »
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?

I would assume no to the first, within a range of "strong", why do the space craft need heavy shielding if not.

The second one,, remove to where.

The more complexity you add does not change the basic observed interactions.

Simplifying the observations allows for a "new" method or reference frame to manifest, adding in the complexities of prior knowledge will only build the same reference frame we use.

Knowledge,, the explanation that makes sense with the knowledge we already have.

If I simplify the observations and not employ any prior knowledge I am then allowed to view things fresh,, the very thing you are using to respond was built from knowledge gained from those that had none.

#### partzman

• Full Member
• Posts: 168
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2017, 03:29:15 PM »
@ 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

Hey that's OK!  Your new numbers still show an apparent increase in energy however.  Left start energy is 22.8^2 x 1.5e-3 x .5 = .389J, right is 12.89^2 x 1.5e-3 x .5 = .125J for a total starting energy = .514J.  The left ending energy is 31.8^2 x 1.5e-3 x .5 = .758J, the right is 1.48^2 x 1.5e-3 x .5 = 1.64mJ for a total ending energy = .76J.  If there is no outside source of energy applied to the circuit, this is an apparent gain of 1.48.

Still curious about the circuit you're using to achieve these results.

pm

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2017, 07:11:39 PM »
Keeping the observations simple and to what is actually observed,,

If I start with my assumption that voltage is charge separation I would need to set up an experiment to test it.

2 identical parallel plates held at say 10mm apart,, short them and all that to try and make sure they have no reading between them, pull them apart to say 20mm and see if there is a reading between them, if not make some kind of change and repeat, note what change was made.

Then do the same experiment but this time moving them together, so going from 10mm down to 1mm.

Repeat both test setups again using a known starting state of charge, make notes.

Take the starting assumption and the test results with notes and see if the starting assumption is good "as is" or if it needs to be changed, does it need some kind of qualifier, or is it just not valid?

While doing all this also look for outside changes or interactions,, is there a magnetic presence?  does something like small pieces of paper close to the testbed move or anything?  Make notes of these as well since they may also appear with other tests for other things.

The chances of you being able to "ignore" your knowledge are really small, so instead of using your knowledge to determine what test you should run to confirm your knowledge use it to ask "what else", "what if" and so on.

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2806
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2017, 05:39:16 AM »
The first assumption was about what it was you were measuring.

Let us short the plates and have no reading between them.
Thus, no potential.

But is there voltage?

When we compare the voltage of the two plates to each other,
We do not perceive a voltage.
But what happens when we compare the plates to something else?
Naturally, if the other thing has a higher or lower voltage than our
two plates, we would perceive a positive or negative voltage on the plates.

Ok so we short both plates out with the 3rd thing, now we have 0 volts, right?
No, we just have 0 potential between those things. Add a 4th, 5th thing and you see
This problem perpetuates itself,
We do not know the initial voltage. Therefore we cannot make any assumptions based on this
lack of knowledge.
We can assume that our potential is our voltage.
But that is incorrect.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2017, 05:39:16 AM »

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2806
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2017, 05:45:21 AM »
Two humans can have a potential between them at any time of
several hundred thousand volts.

If you and I performed this exact same experiment in two different
laboratories, our measurements and readings might match, but
We would be operating our capacitors at different voltages.
Especially if we touch them during experiments or set-up.

The search for some sort of "0 electrical kelvin" scale has eluded us.
Potentials are everywhere, in extremities. Even across a distance as small as the Earth,
there is enough potential to rip apart matter.

Between two points it is convenient for us to label one as "0".
Or choose a "0 point" in the center and label + and - so many volts.
But that only applies to those 2 points, from our perspective.

When this experiment was performed in a real life situation,
We found that when brought together from a long distance,
The two sets of capacitors in fact had a potential between each other.
Even when both read "0volts" across their shorted plates.

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2806
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2017, 06:17:03 AM »
"0 volts" is an arbitrary point of reference.

Even if we choose a common earth ground as our "0"
What we find is potentials between parts of the ground.
None of it is "0", if it were really "0", we wouldn't be here.

There are places of space that have billions of volts of potential
Both + and - with respect to us on Earth.
We have no reference except that which we choose to be "0".

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2017, 06:17:03 AM »

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2806
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2017, 06:31:43 AM »
I give you 3 capacitors to measure.
and you label them as you perceive them.
1: "0volts"
2:"10 volts"
3: "20 volts"

Then I hand you a 4th capacitor that is 10 volts lower than your first one.
Well now you have to relabel them with the 4th one now being your "0".

(How? Maybe the testing equipment in your lab with the tile floor makes
the whole lab sit about 10v higher than the door hinge just outside that
I tap the cap on when I walk in)

I know the goal here is to simplify what we observe.
But I think first we must identify what it is we are observing.

A set of capacitors can have the same potential between their plates,
Yet have another potential between each other.
It all depends on the "0" reference chosen when they were charged.

Modern electronics avoids this issue by giving everything a common ground.
Hiding it under the guise of safety or to protect the equipment.

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2017, 04:18:49 PM »
Everything is relative, something to learn and something to remember, and that also includes the observation that everything is relative.

You are apparently looking to find the "how" as fast as possible,, try only making observations and look for trends and tendencies.

There may always be things that are just labeled as unknown.

Now on to the labeling,, the scale that is used COULD be compared to a known condition,, or voltage,, maybe there could be a single place where all things measured are compared to,, a place that would have lets say a 1kg weight,, a 10V source,, and so on,, this way the whole world when using a measure would be talking about the exact same thing,,,

When you get to understand that potential of the medium and a difference in potential that we use are NOT the same thing,, things may look different for you.

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2806
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2017, 05:58:32 PM »
Under most other measurements we can and do establish
a standard for measurement. 1atm, sea lvl, standard temp
With electricity, we do not have such a thing.
We only have standard potentials with respect to the source.
A quantitative "volt" is standardized to our other measurements
in terms of potential, referenced from the perspective of observation.
To do this, we give the potential a physical dimension
We can further integrate our potential to the standards by
including time.

Let's take another experiment
We have a single plate which we will "charge" to a potential.
We will each reference our own "0" plate.

First I charge the plate so that it had a100v potential with
respect to my plate.
Your plate is biased 50v above mine, such that when you measure
the charged plate, you have a 50v potential.
This 50v can then be discharged and made to do a quantity of work.
A specific measurable amount of work. From this charged plate.
You can charge and discharge this plate to 50v and repeat the work.
To you, this plate will hold a specific amount of "energy" which you
relate to this work.

If I discharge the same plate, with respect to my "0" reference
I have 100v of potential from which to perform work.
The work done is different, therefore we have two different energy values.
From the same charged plate.

What else do we observe from this experiment?
When you discharge your plate did your bring the charged plate to "0"v?
or did you raise the "0"plate to the charged value?
What we find is that both occur.
Your potential is depleted and therefore immeasurable.
But with respect to my reference, both your plate and the discharged plate

Why is that?

For some t is hard to fathom my reference being different from yours
in the same circuit.
So let's look at this in a different way.
Take 3 plates two are shorted to ground at your "0" reference.
The 3rd is charged to 50v.
Separate the plates and discharge the charged plate to one of the "0"
plates, and you measure 25v potential from those 2 plates to the other
"0" plate.

The charge doesn't "cancel", it balances like water seeking a level.
Where gravity acts on the water, the inverse of impedance acts on
our potential. Lord Kelvin spoke in great detail about the similarities
between electricity and water. He later unified the two, by using water
as an inductor in a gravity powered generator.

In fact, we could also relate electrical potential to gravitational potential
in a more direct analogy. Like going to the lowest point on earth.
Everything is uphill. You have reached the lowest point of possible
gravitational potential.

The electrical equivalent to this would be a point of lowest potential that is
lower than any other charges accessible to us.
We call this a positive dielectric (electrically negative).
These are formed by creating an electret who's negative pole is inside
the material. This gives the equivalent of an electrical monopole.
Or a quasi-permanent negative electrical charge.
With respect to a plate connected to this material, all things have a + charge.
At least all things accessible to us.
We could call this our 'effective 0'. Since we cannot go below that.
But it doesn't matter. Because potential is exactly that.
Like E=mgh
A volt is not a Energy, until we move it over time.
Like a boulder on a cliff does nothing until we let it fall.
How much energy is in that boulder?
That depends on how low the bottom of the cliff is.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2017, 05:58:32 PM »

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #25 on: January 16, 2017, 06:27:12 PM »

Let's take another experiment
We have a single plate which we will "charge" to a potential.
We will each reference our own "0" plate.

First I charge the plate so that it had a100v potential with
respect to my plate.
Your plate is biased 50v above mine, such that when you measure
the charged plate, you have a 50v potential.

Without you knowing that there is a 50V bias? or me knowing that,, how is that bias determined?

Again you are seeming to not understand that we are measuring a difference in potential,, not the potential in full.

To bias one plate relative to the other means there is a potential difference between those 2 plates and  that is set to the common plate so that all 3 plates share the same information.

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2806
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2017, 06:34:14 PM »
Without you knowing that there is a 50V bias? or me knowing that,, how is that bias determined?

Again you are seeming to not understand that we are measuring a difference in potential,, not the potential in full.

To bias one plate relative to the other means there is a potential difference between those 2 plates and  that is set to the common plate so that all 3 plates share the same information.

What I mean is your plate and my plate are not referenced to the same ground. We are simply observing
the charge on the 3rd plate.

This is one of the reasons identical handheld multimeters can have different readings.

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2806
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2017, 06:50:54 PM »
Some point of reference must be chosen, otherwise we cannot relate
our experience of the observation. So we choose a "0".
Now observing a charge in a single conductive plate, or between a pair
of identical plates- we can give this charge a quantity. Related to the magnitude
of the potential and the surface area of the plates.
What we observe is that this relationship remains constant and this potential
on these particular plates represents a quantity of energy.

If performed the same every time, this quantity of energy will be the same.
By altering the dielectric or using semiconductive plates this quantity of energy
per surface area can be increased.
But again if performed the same every time this quantity of energy remains the same
With respect to the potential.

The point of my previously proposed experiments was to initiate thinking along the
lines of multiple points of reference and how the 'work done' or energy observed varies.

Of course if we continued to repeate those proposed experiments and there was not a
source of external energy to replenish the bias, then your "0" would balance out with
my "0", and we would all be on level ground.

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3082
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2017, 07:10:45 PM »
Right,

To simplify the observations then you are only making an observation of a change with respect to another change applied.

Repeat with many applied changes of varying levels and build a graph,, so long as the changed constraint is the same, that is if you change only the distance of separation lets say,, or the charge level,, but not while changing more than one constraint.

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2806
##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2017, 08:09:22 PM »
Actually it goes much deeper than that.
Electrically, we throw away the difference
By choosing our "0".
This differentiates charge from voltage
On a conceptual level.

And on a physical and mathematical level as well.
This difference is important by exponential factors.
In short, the difference between a joule (work done by charge)
And joules per coulomb (volts)

We have to understand what we are observing.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2017, 08:09:22 PM »