To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

Storing Cookies (See : ) help us to bring you our services at . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: The drawbacks of capacitive energy storage  (Read 2003 times)

Offline EHT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
The drawbacks of capacitive energy storage
« on: July 22, 2016, 05:07:59 PM »
Something that has been on my mind for quite some time now is the matter of capacitive energy storage (as opposed to inductive energy storage), as there is an aspect to it which seems to me to be of the utmost importance in OU research;
The following occurred to me after reading somewhere that "inductive energetic  processes can be over-unity, whereas capacitive ones are always under-unity" (or words to that effect).
Perhaps someone here will recognize it?

The moment I read it, I felt a very familiar twang of truth in that statement, although at that very moment, I could not have stated specifically why, except that I had this general feeling that capacitors should be avoided as a means of primary energy storage - and part of that feeling had come from experiences I'd had over the last 45 years working with electronics.
After a short time, I felt compelled to have a closer look at how the two processes  compare - specifically in regards to their efficacy as devices to store energy.

Consider a 12V battery connected to 1 Henry inductor of low DC resistance (ie. wound with thick wire), via a switch.
When the switch is closed, both current and magnetic field strength increase exponentially until a limit is reached, depending solely on the DC resistance of the inductor. Now, prior to reaching that limit, nearly all of the energy supplied by the battery goes towards the creation of the magnetic field - the small remainder being I2R losses in the DC resistance of the inductor.
If the switch is opened, the magnetic field collapses, delivering back nearly full quantity of energy in the form of high voltage DC, again minus the very small I2R losses. In summary, virtually all the energy derived from the battery can be directed to the load.
If however, current is maintained after that limit is reached, whilst the established magnetic field is maintained, ALL further energy expended by the battery will result in I2R losses as heat dissipation in the inductor's wire. If the inductor is hi-Q (ie. low DC resistance), the energy lost as heat will be prodigious and the inductor will overheat in a very short time.
Ok, so from the above, we can conclude that as long as one uses thick wire for all inductive components in an OU system - and avoids saturation in any of them, then all energetic processes will be highly efficient.

Now consider that we replace the inductor above with a 1 Farad capacitor.
When the switch is closed, the current is instantly at maximum - that limit being determined primarily by the battery's internal resistance - and to a lesser extent, the internal resistance of the capacitor (usually very low) and the connecting wires (also usually very low). The current quickly decreases exponentially to zero after the capacitor is fully charged.

Now, one might be tempted to think that this momentary current surge, together with it's attendant I2R losses in the form of battery heating would be pretty negligible - but here is the cruz of the matter:
Only HALF of the energy expended by the battery EVER goes towards charging the capacitor - regardless of how far the capacitor is charged!
As unbelievable as it may sound to some of you, it is a fact. Energy = 1/2 CV^2!
See this link for a detailed explanation of this effect:

The implications of this are of great importance in overunity research IHMO, as many modern attempts at OU circuit design - particularly those involving inductive switchmode techniques - employ capacitors as a means of finally amassing the energy obtained from the circuity prior. One could easily have a front-end (so to speak) that is operating somewhere between 100+% and 150% (or more, depending on other net losses) only to find that the entire unit fails to provide energy gain due to these 'reflective'-type losses caused by the capacitor storage stage.

Even if the capacitor bank is being charged from a transformer of very low impedance together with high current, low operating voltage diodes, then the loss will be reflected back to the stage prior - and if that stage is say, a bunch of low Rds mosfets operating in switchmode and therefore also inherently very efficient, then it will be the stage before that and so on. The energy loss will appear mainly in the highest impedance in the circuit - and if that stage be a high voltage, high resistance coil, then its operation will be compromised by it's "looking into" the low impedance capacitors at the end of the circuit.

In passing, I cannot help but note that the Sweet VTA, together with quite a few other legendary OU devices do not employ capacitors.

Also of note are the remarks of Victor Schauberger pertaining to the superiority of natural (implosive) vs manmade (explosive) technologies. Just like in a combustion motor, where we compress a fuel/air mixture and ignite it so it explodes, capacitive storage is also compression of electrons for final release on discharge, whereas inductive storage is more akin to an implosive process because the collapsing magnetic field "implodes" when current ceases.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this matter.