Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: ckreol1 on September 24, 2021, 12:25:09 PM
-
Can the attached electrostatic idea work?
Just as if you could magically de-magnetize a magnet after it is a attracted to iron, separate the magnet, remagnetize it, then repeat the cycle for free work, why can't you charge two plates, allow two plates to attract, recover the charge using common charge recovery methods which would neutralize the plates, and separate them. Then repeat for free energy.
-
recover the charge using common charge recovery methods which would neutralize the plates,
it can't recharge the plates without loss energy?
-
ckreol1
That's a very good question and the answer relates to energy.
When we move some charges onto the plates charging them the energy in the plates is due to the fact we have concentrated the charges producing a stronger electric field. However if we discharge the first plates into a second set of equal sized plates the charge concentration is now 1/2 because the surface area of the plates is now double. That is, when the charges spread out over both sets of plates they lost energy because they became less concentrated.
Your thought experiment in one I have done many real experiments on called the "two capacitor paradox".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_capacitor_paradox
You can have a 2nd set of plates attract each other however in transferring the charges to the 2nd plates energy is lost. As it turns out the energy lost in the plates would be similar to that gained when the plates attracted each other so we have not gained anything. Nature is very tricky in this respect and always tries to balance everything out in some way.
Regards
AC
-
Capacitors are fascinating to o me, too.
Id love to know the relevant equations to answer the questions on the third image. Then I could see how changing the source capacitance would affect the rest of the system, for example.
I’ve done charge recovery using silicon switching to efficiently drive a piezo. It works very well.
-
I'm going to watch this video. It blew me away the first time I watched it. It speaks to the energy in electrostatic systems: Lec 07: Capacitance and Field Energy | 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002 (Walter Lewin) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgE9oBDIgdc)
Then I'll try to figure out the equations affecting the system I proposed.
Thanks for your replies.
-
I believe these numbers to be correct. Maybe other members can verify.
-
I see now that I made a mistake. The energy stored on .5 uf at 2000 volts should be 1 joule. To early in the morning I guess.
-
ckreol1
I'm going to watch this video. It blew me away the first time I watched it. It speaks to the energy in electrostatic systems:
Lec 07: Capacitance and Field Energy | 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002 (Walter Lewin) - YouTube
Then I'll try to figure out the equations affecting the system I proposed.
I like Walter Lewin because he is more specific, note that in the problem at the beginning of the video he said the force to separate two charged plates is not F=QE but 1/2QE.
Lewin then goes on to say this is true because the charge is on the surface and not in the conductor so they average the electric field by adding 1/2 to the equation.
This is quite common and when we see "1/2" in most equations they are averaging the maximum-minimum of something, lol.
In fact most have no idea where the "1/2" comes from, how it relates or why it was applied.
Think about that, we could take Earths E field 100 miles high, add 1/2, and "average" it. Forget all the facts, the gradient of force,
all the subtle nuances and just pretend it's a uniform average... it's absurd.
So we should understand that the equations seldom if ever actually describe the whole reality of what is happening in a system.
It's often little more than a generalized watered down version of reality in most cases. So we need to be careful what we believe
the equations are actually describing and to what extent.
In many respects this is why most people have no success with free energy technology.
They only look at these systems superficially often ignoring all the finer details of what actually occurs in reality.
To the point, the electric field properties they averaged out in there equations are a large part of why they
failed to find the answers they were looking for. In fact what most people do is completely backwards to what they should do.
The equations come after we understand how the system works not before.
As such they are not a learning tool but used to verify what we should have already learned.
Otherwise were not learning about the reality of a system more so how to manipulate equations and that simply does not work.
Regards
AC