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.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 493864
  • *Total Topics: 14514
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 113
  • *Total: 118

Facebook

Author Topic: Ultracaps tested for excess energy  (Read 136225 times)

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #30 on: December 01, 2009, 03:48:14 AM »
Paul is posting his results to discuss them with others and exchange ideas, which is what this place is all about.

Do you have something to say about Paul's test Bill and Wilby?  If yes please post and we can discuss it.

MileHigh

unlike you, i do not arbitrarily invent hypotheses... i will withhold my opinion until i can test it myself.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #30 on: December 01, 2009, 03:48:14 AM »

Offline gadgetmall

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1733
    • Alternative Energy
Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #31 on: December 01, 2009, 04:01:55 AM »
The proof of excess can only be proven beyond doubt to be useful  by using one charged cap and transfer charge to others ..then back to the original
It sounds simple but we have to remove thermal loss.

The measurements look fantastic but they must be of practical use.
We know so little about the limits of our theory

What ever you do, start with one charged cap

Nice to see you have opened up Paul
 

Great work
That is what i said . In Experiment 2 I used ONLY BCAPS . one for the run and one for charge . In each case i used a lower run bcap than the Charge Bcap . My first result was this . Start with a bcap run @ 2.4 volts  charge B cap @ 2.0 volts . End of run Charge Bcap 2.5 volts , Swap Now Run bcap is 2.5 volts Charge Bcap ia . 1.988 volts . End of that swap charge cap is 2.581 volts swap . run cap is now 2.581 . SO what should this little experiment i ran over 5 times and Charge Bcap is ALWAYS higher that RUN BCAP >1 It work like this with a battery as the run . Voltage is proportional with Amps in the BCap there for MUCH WORK can be DONE with the charged Bcap Than the AA battery . Will this ever sink in to the non believers? . NO . who cars? Nobody . Why ? Because they don't have one . this is the only reason . And no I can't sell you one . they are gone . I have two cases and they are for Me Alon .Except the ones I GAVE away to the group tech supporters .


Keep testing Paul . And if you have the time hook it up to a 1 volt battery like i am and see if My  O U Statement is Valid or not . I know it is  and Stephen will see one . Also Dr Stiffler noted the Energy Gain as well . Energy gain  ou same thing  >1= Over Unity

yall Have a good  here !
Gadget
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 04:29:30 AM by gadgetmall »

Offline gadgetmall

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1733
    • Alternative Energy
Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #32 on: December 01, 2009, 04:09:56 AM »
Yo Paul,

I don´t see any solid data to support OU claims in this area yet, do you?

Maybe the whole boost cap thing is just an advertisement to sell caps.

I have vouched $500 toward the OU prize money, at the moment I think my money is safe lol. Of course nothing would please me more than to see Stefan validate GMs bodacious claim.

With regard to your RC timings indicating varying capacitance, I agree you need to use higher constant charging currents and also over a wider voltage range from say 0.5V to 2V. Also use a stout 10 ohm resistor to time the discharge over a data logger or slowtimebase DSO to audit the caps energy.

If, (and thats a big if), any magic is happening then I suspect short sharp pulse charging might encourage it.
! Yacca . Your SOL ! . I don't have anymore to sell and i also don't bluff . !If you want one then you will have to buy from the manufacture now . currently they are 87 dollars from Maxwells Distributor + freight and Hazmat fees . Give me a Break Yaccu . It is a BOLD claim i made I agree but i will do My best  to back Up My claim Sir . Visual proof is something no one can deny and that i will present as i have for free here on the Ou forum .
You all see the numbers from Pl and he did not Believe either + he didn't get his cap from me .

Edit ### Had My brother contact cusdn the Ebay guy . we wanted to buy 20 from him as i paid 50 for mine . He told My brother that there are only a couple left and he don't have that many ..they will not be getting anymore either .

PS .. I do not work for Maxwell (I don't work at all) Nor will i sell anymore caps . This is it and i Don't know  how long before Maxwell gets bought out By big brother because of the findings here . Unfortunately only the ones you will buy now will help you with a home generator  . That what i care about . Self reliance . I Don't care about BIG Steam powered Generator Plants  supplying power to all the homes . I want all the homes to power themselves and be free from conglomerate interference . The ones with a few case of these will have that chance.  . Imagine replacing Solar Storage batteries or Electric cars constantly being Charged while they run .. This is my big picture
The little picture is a self runner producing 1 watt . Bigger picture will be ,well much bigger .
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 05:05:22 AM by gadgetmall »

Offline PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #33 on: December 01, 2009, 04:36:49 AM »
Paul:

I looked at the ADC0809.  Is it set up to convert from 0 to 5 volts or did you change the Vref+ and possibly the Vref-?  For the sake of argument let's assume assume that the A/D converter sweeps from 0 to 5 volts.  5/256 = 19.5 millivolts per digital step.  In addition, the A/D error is +/- one least-significant bit.

The numbers above don't add up so did you change the A/D sweep range?

Here is my main point:  The accuracy of the A/D conversion depends on the programmable A/D sweep range and the fact that the built-in ADC error is +/- one least-significant bit.  Then this has to be related back to your very small delta-V which is typically 10 millivolts.

It is possible that your ability to measure a 10 milivolt change with the ADC0809 is +/-3% or +/-40%, it all depends on the ADC sweep range and the size of the delta-V you are trying to measure.  Can you clarify this issue?

Just the inherent inaccuracy in your ability to measure a 10 millivolt change in voltage ADC0809 can explain your fluctuations in capacitor value calculations.

What about your current source?  Are you using a bench power supply in current source mode and running that through a multimeter on current measurement?  What is your error margin here?

I am just trying to understand your measurement setup.

MileHigh

Hi,

As stated, I have not used the ADC method yet. All  previous measurements were taken on a voltage meter that had 0.1mV resolution, with the exception of the unpublished discharge measurements, which had 1uV (0.001mV) resolution using my Keithley.

Vref for the ADC0809 will be set close to 0.3 volts, not 5 volts. I don't know how well that will work out. We'll have to see during the calibration tests.

Paul

Offline PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #34 on: December 01, 2009, 04:43:02 AM »
Paul:

The above example is a hypothetical example and not from your data.

You are wrong here.  If the capacitance of the capacitor is dynamic and can somehow change with respect to time (to be determined what the speculated change mechanism is) then this will not be indicative of an increase in stored energy.

How can you say I'm wrong, then followed by an "If".  You have taken my example way out of context. It was an example consisting of one value for capacitance. What did you want? You wanted my example be like "At v=0.204V C=549F, @ v=2.10V C=548.5F, etc. etc" ?  Either way the example demonstrates the point.

The reason for data logging is to obtain detailed information about the ultracap over the entire voltage range during a charge and then discharge.



Yucca made the following statement wherein lies the answer:

There is no mechanism in the experiment for there to be any excess charge.  You have complete control over the amount of charge stored in the capacitor with your timed current source.

If the capacitance of the setup is indeed dynamic with respect to time and increases, then this increasing capacitance will cause a decrease in the voltage across the capacitor.  Your example above is incorrect, the voltage will NOT remain at 1 volts if somehow the capacitance increases tenfold.  The voltage will simply decrease so that the amount of energy in the capacitor remains the same.  This test looks like a dead-end to me.

I will repeat my challenge to everyone again:  Try to suggest an alternative method for the apparent increase in measured capacitance in Paul's data.

MileHigh

I've addressed dynamic capacitance. Again, the issue is simply a lack of data. We still need to see how the ultracap handles discharges.


Paul

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #34 on: December 01, 2009, 04:43:02 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #35 on: December 01, 2009, 05:06:18 AM »
Maybe the proposed data logging measurements are not clear. The reason for data logging is to obtain detailed information about the ultracap over the entire charge and then discharge process. Both current & voltage will be logged during the entire process of the ultracap being charged starting at 0.0V to a few hundred milli volts, and then discharged. This will provide the total amount of energy that went into charging the ultracap, and the total energy from the ultracap during discharge. The charge current will be fixed at ~ 22mA. The discharge current will be considerably higher.

Paul

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #36 on: December 01, 2009, 05:12:29 AM »
Paul:

Correct me if I am wrong, but your line of investigation is that you charge the cap slowly and measure the capacitance and voltage you know approximately how much energy is in the cap.  Then if you discharge the cap quickly or in some other fashion and can deduce that the capacitance is larger, the you have shown OU.

What I am saying is that if the capacitance changes and the amount of charge on the capacitor remains the same, then the voltage on the cap will go down all by itself without any discharging.  You will measure a larger capacitance with delta-Q/delta-V, but the voltage on the cap at that instant in time will have dropped.  You will not get more out of the cap than you put into it by changing the discharge rates.

With respect to the apparent increased measurement of the capacitance, I don't think that is related to the temperature of the cap going up.  The effective series resistance of the cap is very low, so my gut feel is that the temperature of the cap will rise marginally, but this will not affect the measured capacitance.

I can offer up a theory.  I am not an expert in supercaps, I only read up on them a tiny bit and I was also skimming.  Since the separation between the "plates" is so small (something like 20-40 microns) and the dielectric layer is some sort of flexible layering of molecules, I am going to assume that it is "spongy" based on your results.  Whatever the dielectric layer is made up of, for sure it is some sort of flexible ultra-thin membrane.

As the capacitor charges up to higher and higher voltages, the attraction between the "plates" of the capacitor gets higher and higher because of the opposite charges attracting.  So as the capacitor voltage gets higher and higher there is an ever increasing attraction force and this squeezes the dielectric layer and makes it a tiny bit thinner.  Suppose for the sake of argument that the dielectric layer separation goes from 40 microns thick to 35 microns thick when the capacitor is charged to its maximum voltage.

This decrease in the thickness of the dielectric layer results in the supercap having a higher measured capacitance.  That's my theory for your consideration.  I would not be surprised with enough Google searching that you would find the true explanation and I may not be right, but at least on track.

Note also that this is what your data is showing.  The higher the voltage the higher the measured capacitance.  My theory is based on your data and my limited knowledge about supercaps and good overall knowledge of electronics.

For those that don't understand why decreasing the thickness of the dielectric layer increases the capacitance, Wikipedia awaits you.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #36 on: December 01, 2009, 05:12:29 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #37 on: December 01, 2009, 06:02:32 AM »
Hey Paul,

A few more thoughts for your consideration.  I will assume that your printer port/ADC chip data logging setup can plot your acquired data.  I will also assume that your current source is a true constant current source, especially considering the low voltages that you are working with.

If the capacitance does not change as you do a slow charge then the voltage vs. time plot should look like a straight line (you can set it to 45 degrees for example).

If the capacitance does increase then the voltage vs. time plot should look like some sort of curved line with the slope decreasing.

If you get this plot than you can test your thermal theory to see if it explains the phenomenon.

It's a bit of a pain but if you put the setup near your sink and somehow arranged for a continuous slow flow of tap water with the cap sitting in the water, then you will remove any excess heat from the cap as the test runs.  Let's assume that your tap water will be a constant temperature.

So with the cap in a flowing "water jacket" you rerun the test.  You know that the cap temp will pretty much remain constant and you can check out what the voltage vs. time plot looks like to see if the capacitance is changing or not.

Finally I want to mention that Poynt gave a link about the issues involved for measuring the values of capacitors.  The effective series resistance does come into play because the higher your current the more energy lost in charging or discharging.  I think that the paper stated that the "safe" way to measure a supercap using the 37% method was to do a very slow discharge over hours using a relatively high resistor value.  It was a very informative paper and you might want to find the link if you haven't read it.

MileHigh

Offline Pirate88179

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8362
Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #38 on: December 01, 2009, 06:58:39 AM »
***EDIT***  POST REMOVED
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 07:34:27 AM by Pirate88179 »

Offline electricme

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #39 on: December 01, 2009, 09:53:47 AM »
Hello Paul,

I think what you are doing here is excellent research, the outcome is to prove or disprove weather the type of cap is capable of doing or not doing what is claimed.

Unfortunatly, the process tends to pull out of the wood work a number of positive and negative comments, remarks etc.

Just go ahead, do the appropiate test, then present your findings, people will then have a choice to accept them as accurate.
If anyone feels otherwise, well, it's a free world, make you own test, but if you do so, be unbiased, make it all transparent and present your testing alongside Pauls.


@ Gadget,
Nice to catch with you, Hows it going cobber.
 
jim

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #39 on: December 01, 2009, 09:53:47 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #40 on: December 01, 2009, 06:00:43 PM »
Paul:

Correct me if I am wrong, but your line of investigation is that you charge the cap slowly and measure the capacitance and voltage you know approximately how much energy is in the cap.  Then if you discharge the cap quickly or in some other fashion and can deduce that the capacitance is larger, the you have shown OU.

Hi,

It's difficult to say with any acceptable accuracy how much energy went into the bcap while charging, and how much energy went out during discharge because the measurements were not logged fast enough. That why we need a data logger.



What I am saying is that if the capacitance changes and the amount of charge on the capacitor remains the same, then the voltage on the cap will go down all by itself without any discharging.  You will measure a larger capacitance with delta-Q/delta-V, but the voltage on the cap at that instant in time will have dropped.  You will not get more out of the cap than you put into it by changing the discharge rates.

Not if there's a dynamic voltage source within the ultracap, which is why it *might* be excess energy.



With respect to the apparent increased measurement of the capacitance, I don't think that is related to the temperature of the cap going up.  The effective series resistance of the cap is very low, so my gut feel is that the temperature of the cap will rise marginally, but this will not affect the measured capacitance.

I agree the bcap temperature does not change much. I've documented the bcap temperature, although this data was not posted. This is only external temp, not internal. What might be happening is high temperatures occurring on small micro structures.

Although there is correlation between the temperature & capacitance.



I can offer up a theory.  I am not an expert in supercaps, I only read up on them a tiny bit and I was also skimming.  Since the separation between the "plates" is so small (something like 20-40 microns) and the dielectric layer is some sort of flexible layering of molecules, I am going to assume that it is "spongy" based on your results.  Whatever the dielectric layer is made up of, for sure it is some sort of flexible ultra-thin membrane.

As the capacitor charges up to higher and higher voltages, the attraction between the "plates" of the capacitor gets higher and higher because of the opposite charges attracting.  So as the capacitor voltage gets higher and higher there is an ever increasing attraction force and this squeezes the dielectric layer and makes it a tiny bit thinner.  Suppose for the sake of argument that the dielectric layer separation goes from 40 microns thick to 35 microns thick when the capacitor is charged to its maximum voltage.

This decrease in the thickness of the dielectric layer results in the supercap having a higher measured capacitance.  That's my theory for your consideration.  I would not be surprised with enough Google searching that you would find the true explanation and I may not be right, but at least on track.

Note also that this is what your data is showing.  The higher the voltage the higher the measured capacitance.  My theory is based on your data and my limited knowledge about supercaps and good overall knowledge of electronics.

For those that don't understand why decreasing the thickness of the dielectric layer increases the capacitance, Wikipedia awaits you.

MileHigh

Yes, it does show that, but to make such an assessment with the data I've posted so far is beyond reason. That effect appears to be minor effect. For instance,  the first measurement of the day during the ultracap *discharge* measurements was 595F and the ultracap with a discharge from 695mV to 685mV @ 188.4mA @ 66.6°F.  Trust me, 595F is nothing compared to the measured capacitance during mid to final measurements, at least according to the data.

As stated, there is the effect of the ultracap voltage changing as it settles down after being used. This voltage change was almost non existent in the charging measurements because the ultracap had time to rest between measurements. Although the discharge measurements consisted of non-stop discharging, and there was a noticeable after effect of the ultracap voltage settling down, which is expected. Even when I consider the ultracaps final voltage after it settled down, it still amounts to far beyond 600F, but I don't like using this data to determine that. We need to do data logging to know for certain.  :)


Paul

Offline PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #41 on: December 01, 2009, 06:02:55 PM »
Hey Paul,

A few more thoughts for your consideration.  I will assume that your printer port/ADC chip data logging setup can plot your acquired data.  I will also assume that your current source is a true constant current source, especially considering the low voltages that you are working with.

If the capacitance does not change as you do a slow charge then the voltage vs. time plot should look like a straight line (you can set it to 45 degrees for example).

If the capacitance does increase then the voltage vs. time plot should look like some sort of curved line with the slope decreasing.

If you get this plot than you can test your thermal theory to see if it explains the phenomenon.

It's a bit of a pain but if you put the setup near your sink and somehow arranged for a continuous slow flow of tap water with the cap sitting in the water, then you will remove any excess heat from the cap as the test runs.  Let's assume that your tap water will be a constant temperature.

So with the cap in a flowing "water jacket" you rerun the test.  You know that the cap temp will pretty much remain constant and you can check out what the voltage vs. time plot looks like to see if the capacitance is changing or not.

Finally I want to mention that Poynt gave a link about the issues involved for measuring the values of capacitors.  The effective series resistance does come into play because the higher your current the more energy lost in charging or discharging.  I think that the paper stated that the "safe" way to measure a supercap using the 37% method was to do a very slow discharge over hours using a relatively high resistor value.  It was a very informative paper and you might want to find the link if you haven't read it.

MileHigh

That's not necessary because I'll be logging both voltage & current. The current does not even have to be constant. I'll use a current source for the charge, but the discharge current will vary some, especially as it approaches 0mV.

Paul

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2009, 08:09:38 PM »
Paul, Will you be posting any new results today.
cat

Offline PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2009, 08:49:52 PM »
Paul, Will you be posting any new results today.
cat

Hopefully. The data logger circuit is right here next to this computer where it's being debugged. Some good news is that it appears to be working now. That is, the ADC along with the PC connection w/ software.  ;D

One issue, although needs further study, is that this ADC0809 does not appear to like a low Vref+ source. It simply would not work! When Vref+ was bumped up to 0.809V, it was happy. Not sure how low it can be. Maybe there's a datasheet comment  on this.

To do list:
1. Adjust Vref+ to the lowest allowable voltage.
2. Calibrate.
3. Move & connect all of the ultracap stuff here.
4. Write the MSVC++ code to do the datalogging. Might take up to an hour.
5. I might use the secure computer that's never connected to any network because I don't want to take the chance of the data being hacked.  ;) The secure computer is Vista, while the computer that I'm using right now is XP. So there might be some Vista issues.

Well, maybe it's fine to leave Vref+ at ~ 0.8 volts. I mean, regardless it will have the same range, which is 0 to 255. My goal is to see if the ultracap is *obviously* > cop 1. If it's like cop 1.01, then someone else can spend the extra time require for such precision. I'm looking for something that's considerably higher.

It's lunch time now!  :)

Regards,
Paul

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #44 on: December 01, 2009, 09:40:29 PM »
Thanks for the update and good luck with Vista ::) ,I would stick with XP myself (reliability)
Great work.
cat

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
« Reply #44 on: December 01, 2009, 09:40:29 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: