Most of the results enumerated, and many others still more remarkable, are made possible only by utilizing the discharges of a condenser. It is probable that but a very few--even among those who are working in these identical fields--fully appreciate what a wonderful instrument such a condenser is in reality. Let me convey an idea to this effect. One may take a condenser, small enough to go in one's vest pocket, and by skillfully using it he may create an electrical pressure vastly in excess--a hundred times greater if necessary--than any producible by the largest static machine ever constructed. Or, he may take the same condenser and, using it in a different way, he may obtain from it currents against which those of the most powerful welding machine are utterly insignificant. Those who are imbued with popular notions as to the pressures of static machines and currents obtainable with a commercial transformer, will be astonished at this statement--yet the truth of it is easy to see. Such results are obtainable, and easily, because the condenser can discharge the stored energy in an inconceivably short time. Nothing like this property is known in physical science. A compressed spring, or a storage battery, or any other form of device capable of storing energy, cannot do this; if they could, things undreamt of at present might be accomplished by their means. The nearest approach to a charged condenser is a high explosive, as dynamite. But even the most violent explosion of such a compound bears no comparison with the discharge or explosion of a condenser. For, while the pressures which are produced in the detonation of a chemical compound are measured in tens of tons per square inch, those which may be caused by condenser discharges may amount to thousands of tons per square inch, and if a chemical could be made which would explode as quickly as a condenser can be discharged under conditions which are realizable--an ounce of it would quite certainly be sufficient to render useless the largest battleship.
That important realizations would follow from the use of an instrument possessing such ideal properties I have been convinced since long ago, but I also recognized early that great difficulties would have to be overcome before it could replace less perfect implements now used in the arts for the manifold transformations of electrical energy. These difficulties were many. The condensers themselves, as usually manufactured, were inefficient, the conductors wasteful, the best insulation inadequate, and the conditions for the most efficient conversion were hard to adjust and to maintain. One difficulty, however, which was more serious than the others, and to which I called attention when I first described this system of energy transformation, was found in the devices necessarily used for controlling the charges and discharges of the condenser.
Source:
HIGH FREQUENCY OSCILLATORS FOR ELECTRO-THERAPEUTIC AND OTHER PURPOSES
by Nikola Tesla
The Electrical Engineer.
Vol. XXVI.
November 17, 1898. No. 550
Higher voltage does NOT mean higher energy. Another rookie mistake. Higher voltage generated by whatever means always means lower current. The total energy is actually less because of resistance losses.Higher voltage doesn't mean higher power because P=U*I . And voltage is stepped up the current is reduced to conserve same overall power of less.
Higher voltage doesn't mean higher power because P=U*I . And voltage is stepped up the current is reduced to conserve same overall power of less.
BUT I am not talking about that energy. What I am talking about is higher voltage means HIGHER ELECTRIC ENERGY STORED INSIDE THE ELECTRIC FIELD OF A CAPACITOR. It is energy that does not depend on the current my friend and amounts to 1/2 *C*V squared. Check the first formula in my previous post.
Hi Tajerek. Unfortunately voltage alone does not cause a capacitor to become charged,the HV source will of course have current but you don't need significant current to push charge into a low ESR high voltage capacitor. If you have doubts try it for yourself. And the time it takes for full recharge is 5*RC time constant which is doesn't depend on current either its formula speaks for itself. It is only function of the resistance and capacitance.
it takes current (flow of charge) to charge up a capacitor, which takes time (as indicated by
the RC time constant). Discharging a cap into a resonant tank circuit also does not (under normal
conditions) provide any more energy than what was stored in the capacitor. In order to achieve OU,
something very out of the ordinary will have to be going on, otherwise it should be easy to achieve OU,
but it seems it is not so easy at all to achieve OU. What do you think is very unusual about what
you are describing that will cause excess energy to be drawn into the setup you have described?
All the best...
the HV source will of course have current but you don't need significant current to push charge into a low ESR high voltage capacitor. If you have doubts try it for yourself. And the time it takes for full recharge is 5*RC time constant which is doesn't depend on current either its formula speaks for itself. It is only function of the resistance and capacitance.
As example 3kv cap of 1uF with ESR of 0.3 ohm can store 4.5 joules in 0.000000015 s. This technically means you can charge it and recharge it 333k times per second. with a frequency up to 333khz. The time can be made shorter still by increasing voltage beyond the rating of the capacitor.
I do not discharge the cap into a resonating tank circuit as you stated, but I discharge it into inductor forming together the tank circuit only during discharge then the circuit is opened to recharge the cap again.
Sorry but that is false. Whether a capacitor has a low ESR or not it still takes a flow of charge
to charge up the capacitor.
There is no known way that discharging a cap will get any more power than was put into the cap. That is a fact.That's correct, I am not claiming to generate more than what the cap can store in one cycle, however what is in the cap is not directly related to how much you draw from the source. It is function of the voltage you put across the cap , the combined resistance R and C. Small current is only needed to get the charges across the combined resistance of the circuit, if that's small enough you literally need just voltage.
the current when charging capacitor is not as the current across a resistive load.
The formula for finding the current while charging a capacitor is:
I=C*dV/dt
it is nothing more than the change of voltage over time. It is not related to the current of the source as much as the voltage.
take 9v source across a 3kv cap you will generate 0.0000405 joules in a time constant. Step up the same voltage to 10kv and put it across the same cap you will generate 5 joules in fraction of the time constant. You stored more energy but the power source is the same...that's the secret
That's correct, I am not claiming to generate more than what the cap can store in one cycle, however what is in the cap is not directly related to how much you draw from the source. It is function of the voltage you put across the cap , the combined resistance R and C. Small current is only needed to get the charges across the combined resistance of the circuit, if that's small enough you literally need just voltage.
Don smith showed the devices, I am showing the formulas that prove it and therefore the ways to replicate it scientifically. Don didn't explain the theory and science behind his devices that's probably experimenters were guessing to replicate it. Also I don't think his aircore inductors were as efficient.
understanding what he would have said: that after the deed is done, everybody knows how to do it; [/font][/size]
What you are saying is the amount of water in a glass has nothing to do with the amount of water that ran from the faucet.No that's not what I am saying, what I say is the amount of water in the glass is related to the difference of POTENTIAL of the water and the glass, the quantity of the water source ie. the voltage. Not the current.
You are going to have to build it yourself and then you will understand that it doesn't work like you want to believe it will. Good luck.
Let’s take it a step further and examine the situation when we have
1-2Mv potential
Even at microAmperes,
What is the power level of a discharge?
Is this ‘static’?
Not to mention, at those voltages, energy density is so great
that we begin to affect physical matter itself.
This bridges the gap between electric theory and atomic physics.
All of our equations change at these voltages.
That statement I highlighted is absolutely wrong. Anyone with the most basic understanding of electronics can see the error of that statement. What you are saying is the amount of water in a glass has nothing to do with the amount of water that ran from the faucet.
I think what he is saying is that he has chosen to fill the glass with a small faucet, but massive pressure. It will fill up in the same time as using almost zero pressure and one drop from from a massive faucet.
Size of the glass does not change. Amount of charge is the same. But I would also like to see a video of his system :)
I think the spark gap handles that part for us
Let’s take it a step further and examine the situation when we have
1-2Mv potential
Even at microAmperes,
What is the power level of a discharge?
Is this ‘static’?
Not to mention, at those voltages, energy density is so great
that we begin to affect physical matter itself.
This bridges the gap between electric theory and atomic physics.
All of our equations change at these voltages.
Regauging while not depleting the source... hmmyes this would work with exception that you need HV DC not AC. AC would work but there's loss in energy.
Would this work?
yes this would work, that is the same design I shared in my article. Some more calculations have to fall in place though for optimum results.
for instance the wire gauge used in the L2 inductor should be able to carry the current. The winding ratio also of the coupled inductor. And the rate of discharge across the spark gap to match as much as possible the tank circuit formed by C1 and L1 to guarantee the full energy is dumped from the cap to the inductor core. The choice of the diode also should not strangle the output current.
I suggest we read less textbook. And read more Tesla's literature. Reading too much textbook is bad for our brain and for our future generations.
In your text book, we are brainwashed to believe that increase in voltage will always come with decrease in current. This is a condition to make sure that you will always obey the laws of thermodynamics.
Well, it is not the same, mine is more like Tesla's Hairpin circuit.
I am not using any power from the source, only potential difference of the electric field to seperate the charges between two inner capacitor plates... :)
Not really, if you put the spark gap across the Highvoltage module, you would be arching the High voltage though the spark gap. That doesn't give anything. Moreover without arching through the gap the cap doesn't charge.
the spark gap and the capacitive plates need to be inverted or exchanged with each other...
Not really, if you put the spark gap across the Highvoltage module, you would be arching the High voltage though the spark gap. That doesn't give anything. Moreover without arching through the gap the cap doesn't charge.
What we are after is "the disruptive discharge of the condenser" as Tesla calls it. So we need to maximize the charge flowing directly to the capacitor by directly connecting the cap to the HV side , then when the cap is charged to a full it discharges disruptively through the gap. And by doing so a surge of current flows to L1.
This comes to mind as mentioned in the smith.pdf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3vr6qmOwLw&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3vr6qmOwLw&feature=youtu.be)
The truth of the matter is that you don't even need to throw away the text books, because I am using textbook formulas where overunity is staring people in the face. But when a person is indoctrinated to believe something even if the formula is in front of them they won't be able to see it.
I will list here a known proved text book formulas that any person with engineering background cannot dismiss, they bear the secret to overunity that I am talking about . It all lies in the intrinsec properties of the capacitor itself, most people even in this forum treat the cap as a 'resistive' load consuming power equal to V*I . But that is not the case
Formula 1) The 'displacement' current across a capacitor is I = C*dV/dt
Meaning : it is the voltage change overtime that creates what looks like current across the capacitor, but that is NOT current coming from the source of the varying voltage but current created across the capacitor as a result. It is just displacement current to goes to zero when cap is filled up and then the cap acts like an open circuit to DC. ie no current again from the source.
Notice that the formula defines that 'instantaneous current' in relation to the source voltage and C and Nothing more. --> current from the source is not of any value here.
Formula 2) The Charge on capacitor Q = C* V_source*[1-Exponential(-t/RC)]
This is again great secret for those who can see. Notice how the charge (ie. the energy) overtime is defined in relation only the voltage of the source , R , and C . No mention of current here because it doesn't affect the charge on the cap. Only voltage does. You don't believe it ? look again at the formula. The overunity secret is right there.
Formula 3) The energy stored in a capacitor is E = 1/2*C*V sqr
This sums it all up. The energy is directly related to the voltage across the cap and C. NO source current is present here. What does this mean? it means if you want to increase E, you just have to increase V or C. There's nothing to do with the current of the source.
Formula 4) The time taken to fully charge a cap from a voltage source is 5*R*C
If you think with low current the cap will take forever to charge and therefore impractical, then this formula tells you that the time constant is not in anyway related to the current of the source, but in direct relation to R and C and nothing more.
---------
The rest of the invention is just conventional science to efficiently extract that energy from the cap and convert it into a useful current. I do that by the use of inductors.
“Subject To losses”?
That’s your explanation?
Power is power. V*I
Whatever is lost after that is subtracted from the total.
It doesn’t change the total energy involved.
At what size does a static-electric generator
Equal to the power of a conventional steam-electric generator?
And how much “energy” has to be put into each to achieve this power?
“Static” is only static until you allow it to move.
In the same manner that the potential energy of a battery is “static”.
The same can be said of any capacitor.
The condenser can dump 100% of its energy at one time.
The ‘actual current’ is a large spike. The ‘average current over time’
Is the value commonly used, this is why it is often micro amps in quantity.
Instantaneous current is all induction cares about.
This is an important distinction when dealing with high frequencies.
You can melt steel with a ‘static’ discharge.
To do this with a conventional generator connected to an arc welder
Requires exponentially greater quantities of energy.
The math is available for both of these situations.
If we take an absolute value for the energy required, it becomes apparent that
Our conventional generator and arc welder are less than 1% efficient.
Formula 2) The Charge on capacitor Q = C* V_source*[1-Exponential(-t/RC)]
This is again great secret for those who can see. Notice how the charge (ie. the energy) overtime is defined in relation only the voltage of the source , R , and C . No mention of current here because it doesn't affect the charge on the cap. Only voltage does. You don't believe it ? look again at the formula. The overunity secret is right there.
I have tamed the static.
Some of it anyway. 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-aP7sk48jw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-aP7sk48jw)
You are right if you are talking about a closed circuit. The total energy should be from the source if the environment factor remains normal.
Would be nice if it so easy, but u are wrong.That's Ok it means it charges faster. Then once the Cap is charged it acts like an open circuit to DC. You HV module shouldn't have a short circuit breaker.
Formula 4) The time taken to fully charge a cap from a voltage source is 5*R*C
Yes, formula is true but in your schematics R is very low like a short circuit. So I=U/R, that means a huge amount of current.....
The charge TIME is to be consider for the power transfer.. Look at scopes shot of a disruptive high voltage trough a spark gap and the RAISING TIME occupy most of the screen.. The relation between the L1 and L2 is directly related to raise and surge of L1 because L2 has it`s capacitance and is acting 180 degree trough the curent cycle... This will give the L2 a more sinusoidal wave given a full amplitude.
You lower the charge time by increasing the voltage (even way beyond the rating of the cap) and reducing the R. this means you have to pick low ESR cap. I won't go into the formulas and calculations to prove it but you can test and see.
You lower the charge time by increasing the voltage (even way beyond the rating of the cap) and reducing the R. this means you have to pick low ESR cap. I won't go into the formulas and calculations to prove it but you can test and see.
You will probably ask how come I raise voltage way beyond the rating of my cap ? won't that bend the plates of the cap and it fries and becomes a deadshort ?! well No as long as you are discharging it as soon as it fills up. That's what the spark gap does.
Applying too high of a voltage to a cap will NOT bend the plates. What is does is punch a hole in the dielectric and short out the cap. If the current is high enough it can cause the dielectric to burst into flames and make the cap explode with a very loud bang. And the voltage applied can damage the cap before it fills up. As has already been pointed out to you at least a couple of times you really need to do some basic research before you start expounding theories about OU. Then you would realize that you don't really understand the formulas.Ok your a skeptic who only belies what an expert official tells you right! (that's what you have just told me above well what if i charge up a 100uf 450v valve amp smoothing cap and throw it to you to catch, (shock horror) ever get some one do just that when you were a kid (apprentice) , ? no well what if i dump the energy across a Tesla coil primary ? what would it do if i put your phone in the middle of the coil ? perhaps you could explain whats just happened to the phone ?
Applying too high of a voltage to a cap will NOT bend the plates. What is does is punch a hole in the dielectric and short out the cap. If the current is high enough it can cause the dielectric to burst into flames and make the cap explode with a very loud bang. And the voltage applied can damage the cap before it fills up. As has already been pointed out to you at least a couple of times you really need to do some basic research before you start expounding theories about OU. Then you would realize that you don't really understand the formulas.
Ok your a skeptic who only belies what an expert official tells you right!
I have tamed the static.
Some of it anyway. 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-aP7sk48jw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-aP7sk48jw)
AG,Wax capacitors sure Ive seen them when a kid and the older folk use to slung them out the old radio that looked like church doors from the 20s ;D or an old Phillco radio from the 50s but lets get more up to date on the plates thing they are used in led acid battery's, E V Gray used his spark tube to regulate and dissipate surplus energy while charging a battery by boiling a small section of acid known as de-sulphating at the same time a capacitor is i different kettle of fish oil ;D but where is the formula for this kind of work (out of the window). All this Tesla stuff was around in the 1920s none of it is new just different materials. But what is so called free in the free energy malarkey you asked and i say to you look at the Townsend electron avalanche principle it's a fact you will be luck to find any formula for or teachings on yet exists, even if some like to get up set over on these pages or threads, and they do ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
My post was based on over 50 years of experience with caps. I retired from a career of working in electronics. There are no "plates" in a normal capacitor. There are layers of foil wrapped around each other with the dielectric material in between. When I was a kid my dad had a TV repair shop. He would let us have the bad condensers as they were called then. They were coated in wax. We peeled that wax off and unrolled the foil across the yard. So I know first hand what they are. And the rest of your post doesn't appear to have anything to do with what I posted.
Smokey2,
You can't have it both ways. You're claiming the spark gap will limit the voltage and I agree. But Tajarek is claiming he can go over voltage to charge the cap faster. You can't go over voltage if the spark gap is limiting the voltage. So I still maintain that you will blow some caps and possibly be injured if you insist on trying to charge them with over voltage. I have seen what they do when they explode.
And the comments about me from Void are entirely correct. I am actively searching for OU because I have seen enough to convince me it may very well be possible. But I also try to correct mistaken ideas when I see them. I don't want people wasting their time on false ideas. Now if a person is doing research and experimenting to try and learn that is a great thing to do. But when a person claims to have solved OU and they haven't even built anything yet to demonstrate their claims then I am very skeptical.
Thank you Void for your kind comments.
Respectfully,
Carroll
This one is another example of laughing stock which could illustrate the point:was it worth the floor space, seen it before thought it was a wast of space then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Electric_Bell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Electric_Bell)
There’s only one important question to ask yourselves.
What is the current of charge induction?
i.e.: when we charge a plate (or later) how much “current” moves to induce
an equal and opposite charge on the other plate (or layer)?
[ignore the modern technique of grounding the opposite plate]
And how does this numerical value apply to the “current” drawn from discharging
the capacitor/condenser?
There is a huge difference between debunkers who dismiss everything related to OU out of hand,
and healthy skepticism where one neither dismisses nor believes unless something can be proven
by proper bench testing. IMO, the OU research area needs much more healthy skepticism and a lot less people
just making claims without being able to demonstrate anything to support what they are saying.
charging current across a capacitor is I=V/R * Exponential (-t/RC)
It is ONLY the combined resistance of the circuit that consumes current, which is equivalent to R+ESR . The cap itself needs only voltage to charge.
In practice you cannot really remove resistance but you can lower it to a very small value where virtually just high voltage with very small current is able to charge up the cap.
The charge on the cap is Q=C*V
some people argue that cap takes long time to charge , that's probably because some caps have bleeding resistor (such as microwave oven caps) or high ESR. That resistive part is the one that slows the charging and consumes power P=I*V. not the charging of cap.
Those who argue should really know the science and understand the formulas otherwise y'all be shooting darts in the dark with only 'practice' wishing for overunity because there are infinite ways to experiment. And if by any luck you get it you won't be able to reproduce it, prove it, or explain it.
I don't need to prove textbook formulas. Unfortunately many people want to debunk known textbook formulas as wrong and their lab tests as more correct.
it is astonishing to me how people see the formula that says charge on a capacitor Q=CV and still want to convince me that it depends on current.
with that being said, I have tested what I am saying and confirmed it.
Hi Tajerek. It has already been pointed out to you that you are making major mistakes in
your assumptions and interpretations. The total charge on a capacitor at a given point in time
is equal to C x V, yes, but that in no way means or implies that to build up that charge on
the capacitor that no current has to flow. :) You are showing that you have no understanding
of what the formulas represent.
There is no possible way that you have tested this, because if you did do some actual testing
you would quickly realize that what you have been saying here is false. :) To charge a capacitor
requires a flow of current (flow of charges). The formula which you yourself have posted for the capacitor
charge current clearly shows that the higher the applied voltage, the higher the capacitor charging current will be.
For you to keep saying that when you apply a high voltage to the capacitor there will be little or no capacitor
charge current is not only obviously completely at odds with the formula which you posted, but it shows that
you have not even the most basic understanding of simple electric circuits and how capacitors work. If you did,
you would not be making such obvious errors.
I won't waste further time on this, as anyone with even just a very basic understanding of capacitors will be
able to see that what you are saying makes no sense.
All the best...
To charge a capacitor you need only to apply Voltage to
One plate. (Or layer)
...
You see VOID! Instead of finding trouble with everyone theory, why don`t you try to experiment and come back with SOLID proof that he is wrong???? That`s what I find funny with this forum... COUNTER CLAIMS are not validated but we are supposed to go with it.. That is a crazy world...[/li]
[/list]
:o
Good grief again... ;D
I know it probably won't do any good to point out to you that I am not the one
claiming to know the 'secret' to getting OU. ;) Pointing out that someone is making
obviously false statements does not need to be proven, because this should already be
obvious when looking at the formula for capacitor charge current which Tajerek posted.
That is very basic stuff.
The last full moon was apparently Dec 3, so that is not it... ;D
I just repeat what you have said to me{ Claim without testing is waisting time}... If it`s good for you to tell any person that same phrase, it`s good resonning to serve you the same treatment... 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
On other note, I see perfectly where Tajarek is heading and I`m sure he will get good results...
Hi peper10. As I have pointed out, what is being discussed is not anything
complicated or mysterious in any way. It is very, very basic stuff. To anyone with
even just a very basic understanding of electric circuits and capacitors and that sort of
thing, it will be completely obvious that what Tajerek has been saying is false. That being the case,
how do you think it looks for you to jump into this thread and support what Tajerek is saying? ;)
The question is peper, are you deliberately trying to mislead people with this nonsense of yours,
or are you truly unable to understand anything that has been said here? Same question goes to Tajerek...
What Tajerek has said here is pretty much equivalent to someone saying 2 + 2 = 7.5,
and then saying just look at the 'theorems' for addition to see it is true, when in reality it is
plainly false, and can be very easily proven to be false as well by just simply trying it.
Take two marbles and add two more marbles to it and you will have four marbles. ;D
Tajerek's whole 'premise' is really that absurd, and equally obviously false.
Peper, please stop with the mindless trolling. Just because you have no understanding of
what is being said and do not care what is actually true or not true, it doesn't mean that
other people do not understand what is being said here. I do not like to see people being mislead.
However, I am running a series of experiments and I don't really have time to answer completely
silly comments like this.
:o
There is little hope for this world...
well
maybe we could do two things at once
been wanting to talk to Smokey about this anyway, and I know plenty are interested here and elsewhere.
Graphene
the beauty of this
we can make our own supercaps ,on the kitchen table...and now it seems we can make our own batteries too [in the kitchen or anywhere] ?
on a par with Lithium and with NONE of the environmental or gov't regulation issues.
Robert Murray Smith has done some really nice work in this area
and there are other things which may be good to look at with Graphene
Maybe Mags can start a thread in the moderated section since one of the things to do with graphene involves resonance and ambient harvesting it is an unproven Claim [fuzzy bench lore aside]
seems the Vendors [Graphene suppliers] have caught up with what we need to play here
Graphene ...a fellow use to need an electron scope to play or experiment
Now they [Vendors] can get us one layer oriented samples to play with
that is very important to see results ...ambient harvesting results ...or so I've been told
we have the talent ,we have the materials....
and most of all...the desire to make this world all that it "should" be.
respectfully
Chet K
PS
the good news
Open source of course...
but we would have to do this in a moderated thread ,or section here.
For those who want to claim overunity on something, I suggest they first prove by experiment that their system can perpetually run or self-run.
Proving that the output is greater than the input is not enough. Measurement errors always exist.
We have already seen many discussion threads on overunity spark gaps, overunity capacitors, overunity inductors, OU resistors, 100kW systems, 5MW systems, etc, etc.
I am not ruling out the possibility that self-running systems exist.
We can also charge a capacitor inductively by applying a potential to one
plate.
The other will induce an equal and opposite charge
as a function of the distance between them and change in voltage.
Charging a capacitor without a load has no measurable current.
it is so small it can only be calculated,
You can scope it with an adequately high-frequency oscilloscope.
and we see a sharp spike at the front, and a decrease in current
inversely proportionate to the voltage.
Current at 0 charge is ‘infinite’, current at max charge is 0.
Internal resistance to a single capacitor plate increases with charge.
The large spike (across a the charging time) of current is overwhelmed
by the increasingly low current as it approaches max charge.
This will continue until the potential between the charged plate and the
induced plate equals the potential between the source and our reference.
Resulting in almost no current at all.
Current is a function of time.
The time is so short it destroys the equation.
It is approximately 0 current.
Hope this helps you understand.
Hi Tajerek. It has already been pointed out to you that you are making major mistakes in
your assumptions and interpretations. The total charge on a capacitor at a given point in time
is equal to C x V, yes, but that in no way means or implies that to build up that charge on
the capacitor that no current has to flow. :) You are showing that you have no understanding
of what the formulas represent.
There is no possible way that you have tested this, because if you did do some actual testing
you would quickly realize that what you have been saying here is false. :) To charge a capacitor
requires a flow of current (flow of charges). The formula which you yourself have posted for the capacitor
charge current clearly shows that the higher the applied voltage, the higher the initial capacitor charging current will be.
That's what I was trying to say. And explained in my previous message with formulas that you need current from the source only in proportion to the circuit resistance. If you remove the resistance component you literally don't need current to charge a cap. It is the voltage pressure across the plates that causes the charges that are already on the plates to be displaced, when the charges are displaced there appears current as a consequence. Current is not the cause of the charging cap but the consequence. The current doesn't come from the source but is created by the cap when it is charging, and the cause is the voltage.
Obviously we cannot have zero resistance that's why small current is still needed, but in theory a perfect cap doesn't need current to charge but only voltage.
The applied voltage is the 'pressure' (AKA electromotive force) whichThis is correct , I agree with you here. that there is current and I said it serveral times and in my last message. I used the term 'displacement' current. I say it doesn't have to come from the source.
causes the charges to start to move from one cap plate to the other. This movement of charge from one plate to the other is a current.
Packing electrons into one plate from the other plate takes an expenditure of energy. This powerThis is a misunderstanding. It applies to resistive loads not capacitors. Capacitors do not perform any work and don't consume power. Do your research. https://www.crazyengineers.com/threads/how-to-calculate-power-in-capacitor.12638/
consumption is represented as the applied voltage times the capacitor current at any given point in time.
The formula for capacitorthat formula says i=c dv/dt and it doesn't say the higher the voltage the higher the current :D it links the current in the cap directly to the rate of change of the voltage of the source. This current is NOT the current of the source like you think it is.
current which you posted clearly shows that the higher the applied voltage, the higher the initial capacitor charge current
will be for a given circuit. There is simply no denying that. Just look at the capacitor charge current formula.
This capacitor charge current will fall off in an exponential curve which is accounted for in the cap current formulacurrent will go down exponentially so what? that's not what my circuit is trying to show. my circuit is an illustration that you can draw small power to store high energy into a cap, then covert that electric energy into useful form.
by the exponential component in the formula. Nothing you have shown or described in your circuit diagram
would seem to do anything to bypass this normal type of capacitor charge behavior.
Hi blueplanet. Yes, being able to demonstrate a self-sustaining setup is pretty much the
benchmark for OU claims now, given all the many false claims and setups showing
very obvious improper measurements over the years. It is easy to make claims, but it is
a whole different kettle of fish to be able to back up those claims with a self-sustaining setup.
This quickly separates the real from the fantasy. :)
P.S. If someone can show that they get a very much larger output power than input power
then that is not anything to sneeze at, but the next logical step would be to try to loop it and
make it self-sustaining if possible, as a truly self-sustaining setup is something that is pretty
hard to argue against, outside of the possibility of plain fraud.
All the best...
Hi Void , you missed the point you are thinking in the traditional way of conservation of energy which leads to "overunity doesn't exist".
All your assumptions are based on a false premise that "if there's work it means there's equivalent expenditure which it has to come from the source" that negates any chance of believing in OU every existing. I am wondering what you are doing in this OU forum then ???
This is a misunderstanding. It applies to resistive loads not capacitors. Capacitors do not perform any work and don't consume power. Do your research.
that formula says i=c dv/dt and it doesn't say the higher the voltage the higher the current :D
Void, try charging your capacitor from a high voltage source that is capable
of greatly exceeding the charge current of the equation (max value on the data sheet).
What is the charge time?
Hi Sm0ky2. If you have a high voltage DC power source with very high current capability,
and you have very little resistance and component losses, then the capacitor initial charge
current would be very high. To have a high voltage DC power source that can supply that
kind of current would be quite dangerous to work around. I am not interested in trying it. :)
People have used microwave oven transformers as a fairly high voltage power source with
fairly high current capacity, and if you use something like that (careful, it's dangerous) with a suitable
high current rated HV diode to rectify the AC to DC, even a relatively large capacitance HV cap can be charged
to a high voltage very quickly, and the initial capacitor charge current would be relatively pretty high.
Doing this still consumes power from the DC power supply however in proportion to the voltage you are
charging up the capacitor to, regardless of the power supply voltage you are actually using.
All the best...
My HV source provides infinite instantaneous current.
1+(-1)= (sqrt)-1^2
13.6eV + (-13.6eV) = sqrt(-184.96)
18.2(X10^-31)x(300(x10^6)^2x1.6(x10^-19) =5.1^5Coulombs
That is what is released in the collision
Hi Void.
Yes similar. Below is the culmination of a series of tests with a Franklin style machine I built earlier this year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koJ0qHNWlBM
And yes to your PS. I'm hoping that an Electret, if I can make one that has a static charge of 20 KV per segment will work in attraction mode to a grounded " attractor " pair of plates.
Cheers Graham.
My first venture into electrostatics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-AqL-8RGNc
And....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiqEtigpJaI
Merry Christmas....
BTW, I find Tajerek's approach to be, for the most part, consistent with those that
are sometimes presented when discussing electrodynamics with respect to capacitance. It's not
uncommon to use varying theories when discussing a subject, based on the process you are
attempting to describe.
Merry Christmas Everybody.
A slightly more " pedestrian " video than the one I watched presented by Tinsel Koala.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIwHqV1NpHs
We should be able to move a little Mass with 20,000 volts! ;)
Cheers Graham.
Merry Christmas Everybody.
A slightly more " pedestrian " video than the one I watched presented by Tinsel Koala.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIwHqV1NpHs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIwHqV1NpHs)
We should be able to move a little Mass with 20,000 volts! ;)
Cheers Graham.
Merry Christmas Graham,
An interesting [thought provoking] demo, thank you!
Could you please share some details regarding:
(1) the metal ball diameter,
(2) weight {if you know it}
(3) sphere material {stainless, grade, ... if known},
(4) voltage {20KV DC?}, and consumed current {if measurable},
(5) distance of ball travel and approximate reverse dwell time and speed?
Might be a good CAE/CAD candidate "demo add-on."
Worth a try at any rate - to see if the simulation comes close to the experimental results.
Thanks in advance,
SL
The field equations indicate a spacial surface area effect dominates the electric field
The larger the diameter (and subsequent surface area), the less significant mass becomes.
According to mathematical theory, larger balls will have the potential to move more mass.
As promised. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4XlD4YP5Kc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4XlD4YP5Kc)
Cheers Graham.
Hey guys. See the following video of a test circuit I was testing
with this evening. I'd be interested to get some feedback on these test results:
The circuit is powered with a single AA battery. There are no other sources
of power to the circuit. Output has a 2000uF capacitor connected at the output
to try to collect 'radiant' energy from the oscillator switching spikes. This output capacitor
voltage is fed back to the battery to try to self loop the test setup. The battery voltage is
bouncing between 12.86V and 12.87V throughout the test run shown in the video.
(Sorry for the messy test clip leads, but when I am doing initial testing I often use
test clip leads so I can quickly make changes to the setup to try out and compare
different configurations.)
Blocking Oscillator With Feedback - Self Loop Test Setup
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkbRvD0b2J0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkbRvD0b2J0)
What do you think? Choose one of the following:
a) Looks like probably a self-sustaining circuit, or very close.
b) Looks like it might be a self-sustaining circuit, but not so sure.
c) Can't really tell based on this video.
d) Over unity is impossible, so this circuit just can't be self-sustaining.
e) A light is lighting up quite bright while the battery voltage remains
pretty stable, so it must be over unity.
f) This is the secret to over unity.
g) Void, you must have rocks in your head.
All the best...
;)
h) The meter ACTUALLY says 1.287 V, NOT 12.87 V. :'(
I’m gonna go with G here
did you measure the charging current at the battery?
You probably want to back the V down a bit
closer to the charging voltage of your AA
led should still light up 7.5-8v,maybe lower depending on the diode.
12v (with enough current) will charge a AA, but you risk some events.
The real test would be how much is actually being returned to the battery.
For that you need an oscilloscope to see the frequency, pulse width, off-time, etc.
Or run it for some time, then turn it off and test the battery.
Or you could just wait...... that may take a while, some JT’s can run for months like that.
Well!! For a guy that has no problem hitting others when they say that is possible to get self runners, I SHOULD give you the same treatment... But I will not.. Give us more date on how you have conduct your experiment and we can conclude on results..
h) The meter ACTUALLY says 1.287 V, NOT 12.87 V. :'(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX-jrlGC-aA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX-jrlGC-aA)
:P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqf3bUL4YqE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqf3bUL4YqE)
:P
Hi sm0ky2.
I set up one of the 150 mm/6" spheres using a thread suspended from the ceiling. After a few seconds the sphere became a " wrecking ball " !! This was acting between the Van De Graaff generator collector and another 6" sphere held by me acting as ground.
If I was to fix the sphere to an insulated rigid tube and the other end was attached to a " sprag clutch bearing " I could effectively turn the violent to and fro movement into rotation. With gearing this might have enough energy to drive a reaction machine to provide the supply??
I'm pretty sure there's other ways to do this too.
Cheers Graham.
PS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u53Vwodew_Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u53Vwodew_Y)
;)
As Tk pointed out...the demonstration was of a noisy device capable of producing high current and a little HV...(don't know how the majority feel about it, but high current and a little HV....sign me up...) (haven't seen anyone else do it yet, including TK, and don't think I'll be seeing anyone, TK included, doing it any time soon...)
Sm0ky2 and TK,
The most significant thing in the video is not the generator output.
Fame 2.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqWdxVNnhDc&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqWdxVNnhDc&feature=youtu.be)
....
From what is shown in the video, there is no suggestion there was any OU effect.
While the welding rods were sparking, the generator noise was going down. This suggests the spark has consumed quite a significant amount of energy from the generator.
There was certainly a current in the spark. We cannot assume that the current in the spark was zero. If the current in the spark was high, the circuit would heat up everything around and you would never get OU.
Take a disk magnet, diametrically magnetized
and place it on the shaft of a dc motor slightly smaller than the magnet.
aligned with the coils
when you drive the coil, the energy gets recycled by the greater combined field.
A short pulse can result in extremely long run times (few hundred microseconds=2 mins)
as it slowly winds down
Nothing useful will be drawn from it during wind down
But the demonstration shows that the energy that ran first through it
can be converted into flux and back to current through the motor again and again
until the losses consume it.
This is important - show us video ! Actually generators run on positive feedback, not by converting mechanical energy
my research indicates that you do have current with conventional open circuits, its value is infinitesimal, we need only figure out how to make it useful.
in my open circuit systems, I have both flux and current.....
my research indicates that you do have current with conventional open circuits, its value is infinitesimal, we need only figure out how to make it useful.
in my open circuit systems, I have both flux and current.....
@blue
Magnetic flux can be demonstrated
It is short lived, as it disappears as the conductor reaches the max charge.
the magnetism only exists while the change in potential is occurring.
when the electric field is oscillating, the magnetic does the same.
At high voltages the magnetic field strength is very small
increases in conductivity at high voltages reduce inductivity
but it does still exist.
Any use of relativity theory will lead to discrepancies with maxwells work.
Because Einstein did not finish what he was doing. And left part of the equations
unhandled.
I don’t think this means Maxwell was wrong, but perhaps we need more information
to make his equations fully translatable at all levels.
the orders of magnitude are inversely proportional
In the same way that voltage and current are in the power equation
The same power can be represented by low V, high I
Or high V, low I
The same occurs with the electric and magnetic induction
because of the time constraints
above threshold voltages (800kV+) this drops to roughly
9.3x(10^-21) Joules per Tesla per volt per meter^2
when we factor out the Weber, we find that at high voltages
the magnetic moment is a very short pulse.
imperceptible to us, but not to a low-energy electron.
it stays at this strength until the other threshold, where matter change states.
then there is no induction, magnetic or electric.
Only charge. The electrons (charge carriers) have fled the scene.
(~2MV)
I read somewhere that one cannot fill a cup that's already full....
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00792R000500240001-6.pdf (https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00792R000500240001-6.pdf)
... non-Ohmic materials
There are circuits that require only V to work. Not I. The eventual output power is not VI.
A movement of charge carriers will produce a conductive current, which in turns produces magnetic field. There is no argument against it. The magnetic field which you were talking about was possibly a conductive current of some kind.
A change of electric field also produces a current. This current is called displacement current. This displacement involves no movement of any charge carriers. This displacement current has been proven to be able to do work in some rare situations. But this current does not yield any meaningful magnetic field. Are you sure you have been able to measure a magnetic field with a displacement current?
Blueplanet
Since my machines use permanent magnets, I am going to go out on a limb and speculate that there is magnetic flux operating in "my" systems.... I am pulsing current into coils....current in coils produce magnetic fields....soooo..... we aren't on the same page it seems....
Do you comprehend the difference and or commonalities between the flux of the permanent magnet, and the flux and current of a "current" carrying conductor of a "magneto-dielectric" system?
I do not acknowledge the commonly accepted view of the dipole....as such, the monopole concept as presented makes no sense. When we see the dipole as Nature produces and maintains it, rather than how the learned present it to us, we can say dipole and mean monopole, say monopole and mean dipole. Present geometry of both are fundamentally fucked, no parallels can be drawn between the two..
Yeah......here's the thing....I am not just talking about systems involving them.....I am demonstrating what one can do with systems which produce them....... fire breathing pulse motor.....show me yours!
The purpose of my demonstration is not to introduce the question of the existence of magnetic fields in plasma.... my demonstration questions the established dogma regarding the possibility and feasibility of generating and utilizing "reactive power"...
my system is open circuit.... part of the observable activity in the electrical discharge is AC.
snip...A nice dramatic demonstration too, I might add. You and I are reading from the same book, we're just on different pages with our research.
The purpose of my demonstration is not to introduce the question of the existence of magnetic fields in plasma.... my demonstration questions the established dogma regarding the possibility and feasibility of generating and utilizing "reactive power"...
you aren't paying attention....
Yes, Sir,
I have been working round the clock.
Thank you for your waking me up.
This thread is about secret of overunity, right?
Where is your secret?
(PS. I am talking about electrostatic waves.)
Yeah......here's the thing....I am not just talking about systems involving them.....I am demonstrating what one can do with systems which produce them....... fire breathing pulse motor.....show me yours!
you aren't paying attention.....
We are paying attention to some machines like those mentioned in the following videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VBNn-ids6M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VBNn-ids6M)
And this is what overunity is about.
Sorry man, I am interested in any welding machine.
no....neither simultaneous, nor sequential..... SIMULTANEOUS-SEQUENTIAL! comprehend that!
my purpose is not to convey the (a, or any) path to others.... all lack knowledge till they don't... understanding that your ignorance grows with insight and revelation, respecting that you are a fart in the wind away from your beginnings no matter how far you delude yourself to perceiving "progress being made" is your curse until that glorious day when the ignorance which centers you is replaced with knowledge which is extended to you from we know not where.... we call it inspiration, it hits us in waves which leave one momentary blind...(blind flash of insight....), in higher forms, distilled by ...within us.... impressions are for lack of descriptive language....divine, the latter choice of word has no biblical, spiritual, nor religious connotation.
Honestly.....I am not interested in your ideas...nor sections of devices you may or may not be working on. I am not interested in devices presented (save one or two which I have researched) on the internet. Replicating other peoples failures will not get me where I want to be. I am where I want to be, and share what I want, how I want.
as to what, the reactive cross section of the system.... as to why, to be introduced to the inner workings of the mechanism behind opposition to change....Delay the flow of output current until it can aid the input current is how I am seeing this.
Magnetic coupling is slave to Lenz law.
Electric field coupling is not.
If I wanted input from one of Godre'el's trolls id ask for it, BUT I DIDN'T ! now go away and stop CREATING verbal diarrhea like a gaboladicton and messaging me with it 'respectfully' STOP it!
reactive power generation and utilization.....that's my direction.
the bottom line of all those I have studied is "reactive power generation and utilization". Most were not openly discussing the subject in a language that all could appreciate, reading between the lines was necessary. I read between the lines like any good researcher could/would. The rest were failures, they neither inspired nor delivered working demonstrable concepts.
I am not here to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, not here to give you something to nitpick or replicate. I am sharing what I want how I want. Place me on your ignore list if my post lack the substance you crave.
.
No one I have met has ever produced an air core generator which accelerates under short.....
No one I have met has ever produced an 1000 rpm increase in their acceleration under short demonstrations....
Regards
its a sign of the times......you really believe we are on the same page......we aren't.......
anyway.... nice work as always.
I have done both. Solid state and mechanical. Principle well understood and it far beyond anything that has ever been posted at this site, that's for sure.
That's the funniest thing I've heard all day!
You've shown time and again what page you are on. I'm not even in the same book as you!
Thanks. Maybe you can even learn something by watching carefully, if your cup isn't already overflowing.
you assume that I use common practices to generate what I refer to as reactive power.....
a condition one would be wise to comprehend and multiply.
your statement reveals that you are only aware of one means of "integrating" voltage and current. I am aware of more than the collectively agreed upon you are referring to.
it's clear you don't comprehend the nature of a tank and how energy moves within it. Fortunately my machines don't work based on your logic, I have significant current flow.....and the coils are sightly above ambient...and I know why....
If I were discussing over-unity, if i cared about efficiency, or a self sustaining system, your point would be valid. I am focused on usable phenomena relating to the apparatus and method of conversion.
Mine is not a method through which vars are converted into watts, I process the vars.
we aren't... not even close.
Could you tell us how to process vars?
Solid state lacks a fundamental component, and if you haven't figure that out yet, you will eventually. If you have accomplished what I am suggesting mechanically, I would love to see a demo,
depends... would you be of the opinion that an open circuit generator is a producer of vars?
related but not quite the same thing...
sure....one "can" consider what I am suggesting from this angle, the task then becomes how do you demonstrate this. When I was at this particular point, my demonstration came in the form of an air core motor generator which accelerates when shorted. In that machine,the phase relations between the motor and generator are so arranged that the induced in both augment facilitating a roughly 1000 rpm increase under short.
No one I have met has ever produced an air core generator which accelerates under short.....
No one I have met has ever produced an 1000 rpm increase in their acceleration under short demonstrations....
Regards
the sad truth is folk listen to accept, and limit themselves to this shit..... everything is wrong with what you are saying.....
vars to watts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyEMpY8dC_g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyEMpY8dC_g)
1.257 x (10^-6) Henries/meter
Can you beat that with any ferrous material on Planet Earth?
(P.S. I can hit the toilet from 7.5 ft away.......)
the HV source will of course have current but you don't need significant current to push charge into a low ESR high voltage capacitor. If you have doubts try it for yourself. And the time it takes for full recharge is 5*RC time constant which is doesn't depend on current either its formula speaks for itself. It is only function of the resistance and capacitance.
As example 3kv cap of 1uF with ESR of 0.3 ohm can store 4.5 joules in 0.000000015 s. This technically means you can charge it and recharge it 333k times per second. with a frequency up to 333khz. The time can be made shorter still by increasing voltage beyond the rating of the capacitor.
I do not discharge the cap into a resonating tank circuit as you stated, but I discharge it into inductor forming together the tank circuit only during discharge then the circuit is opened to recharge the cap again.