Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) 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:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
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: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'  (Read 144479 times)

nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'
« Reply #270 on: January 08, 2009, 05:27:55 PM »
For example, if we made a cylindrical capacitor consiting of a tube within a tube, not rolled, and magnetized the space it occupies by wrapping a toroidal coil around the two tubes - or make a plate cap with a magentic field perpendiculat to the side of the cap - can we increase our return?

Aspden's view is that (for greatest 'aether-spin' effect) the cap plates should interact with a radial electric field, and apply a magnetic field at right-angles to that - so he definitely supports a cylindrical (ie co-axial) format for the cap

i seem to remember that he proposed a dual cap arrangement with a series inductor between - and although he suggested this should also be co-axial with the caps, i believe his preferred arrangement was to have a cap-inductor-cap setup inline - possibly with perm. mags having poles aligned co-axially also

he suggested that the caps be biased with HT DC, hoping to promote angular displacement of the 'aether' between the cap plates, leading to self-oscillation

i think his intention for power draw was by means of either inductive or resistive load between the caps - if inductive, then the series inductor could be a transformer

sorry - going from memory on these details
[EDIT: actually, having posted, i've a feeling the two caps may have been co-axial with each-other - ie, a multi-layer, concentric arrangement - anyway, all the info is in one of his ESR reports ('Berlin Lecture', perhaps?)]


i've seen some recent experiment reports which describe rotated caps (possibly unpowered externally?), generating anomalous output - but i don't think i've seen the Wilson experiment so far - will Google around


all the best
s.

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'
« Reply #271 on: January 08, 2009, 05:47:38 PM »
Aspden's view is that (for greatest 'aether-spin' effect) the cap plates should interact with a radial electric field, and apply a magnetic field at right-angles to that - so he definitely supports a cylindrical (ie co-axial) format for the cap

i seem to remember that he proposed a dual cap arrangement with a series inductor between - and although he suggested this should also be co-axial with the caps, i believe his preferred arrangement was to have a cap-inductor-cap setup inline - possibly with perm. mags having poles aligned co-axially also

he suggested that the caps be biased with HT DC, hoping to promote angular displacement of the 'aether' between the cap plates, leading to self-oscillation

i think his intention for power draw was by means of either inductive or resistive load between the caps - if inductive, then the series inductor could be a transformer

sorry - going from memory on these details
[EDIT: actually, having posted, i've a feeling the two caps may have been co-axial with each-other - ie, a multi-layer, concentric arrangement - anyway, all the info is in one of his ESR reports ('Berlin Lecture', perhaps?)]


i've seen some recent experiment reports which describe rotated caps (possibly unpowered externally?), generating anomalous output - but i don't think i've seen the Wilson experiment so far - will Google around


all the best
s.

Not self oscillation in this one - that would be like the Hazelton Device and it purportedly put out some serious power when it was replicated.  Many many watts.  I have tried it twice with no luck.

quick test would be a homemade plate cap and wrap a coil ariound it - DC to the coil and see if there are changes to the cap

tak22

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'
« Reply #272 on: January 08, 2009, 07:09:23 PM »
@ Grumpy and nul-points

Wow! Double Karma for you both for your last few posts. Great dialog and very useful insights
revealed. I already had a couple capacitor experiments waiting to be tried, and now you've given
me even more to work with. Thank you!

tak

nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'
« Reply #273 on: January 09, 2009, 06:06:37 PM »
@ Grumpy and nul-points
Double Karma for you both for your last few posts.

hey tak - back at ya!  :)

have i missed a new thread about your LG work?

all the best
s.

nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'
« Reply #274 on: January 09, 2009, 06:32:00 PM »
@all

i have a couple of tests lined up:-

first - repeat tests using the original 2-stage circuit - this time with PC switching control - measuring the circuit performance with a 2-channel PC scope

the object of this test is to check the validity of the textbook position on capacitor charging (which claims the energy used by the work which has to be done in charging the capacitor has the same value as the final energy which gets stored)

the indications from testing with the 1-stage circuit suggested that the charging energy dissipated was not limited to be the same value as the final energy stored on the capacitor


second - run the test proposed by Poynt99: ie. allow the switched charge transfer to continue until both input & output capacitor have the same terminal voltage, noting that final voltage
(and, additionally, i'll attempt to get a measure of the total dissipated energy)


i'm intending to use a capacitor value of 4700uF for i/p & o/p caps in these tests - i'm hoping this value will give a reasonable compromise between being able to measure total dissipation for the duration of the test and maximising the ratio of transferred energy to that needed for the switching circuitry

more later

all the best
s.

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'
« Reply #275 on: January 09, 2009, 11:11:25 PM »
You would do better to charge batteries if you want power.

Better to charge caps if you want energy.

nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'
« Reply #276 on: January 10, 2009, 12:38:33 AM »
You would do better to charge batteries if you want power.

Better to charge caps if you want energy.

at the moment, i just want answers!  :)


nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'
« Reply #277 on: January 10, 2009, 12:51:51 AM »
here's an example of what i've been referring to as the 'textbook' position on the work expended in charging a capacitor:

  "once we have transferred some charge, an electric field is set up between the plates which opposes any further charge transfer. In order to fully charge the capacitor, we must do work against this field, and this work becomes energy stored in the capacitor"
...
  "The work we do in transferring an infinitesimal amount of charge from the negative to the positive plate is simply.."
...
  "In order to evaluate the total work done in transferring the total charge from one plate to the other, we can divide this charge into many small increments, find the incremental work done in transferring this incremental charge, using the above formula, and then sum all of these works..."
...
  "Note, again, that the work done in charging the capacitor is the same as the energy stored in the capacitor."
...
  "...this represents the work done on the constituent molecules of the dielectric in order to polarize them"

(excerpts from lecture notes published by Associate Professor of Physics at Texas University)

all the best
s.

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'
« Reply #278 on: January 10, 2009, 01:19:38 AM »
When they abolished the aether, they had to cover it's purpose so they added charges to the plates, which was have already determined do not exist.

Like I said before if the energy is stored in the dielectric because if you remove the plates the energy stays in the dielectric, then where does this energy reside in a vacuum capacitor?  See first sentence above.

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'
« Reply #279 on: January 10, 2009, 02:58:57 AM »
Thanks.  Those answers are interesting, but don't answer the question.

What holds the polarization of the dielectric?  What force keeps the material stressed?

If the dielectric consists of "dipole molecules" - what "dipole molecule" is in a vacuum capacitor?

If the energy stored in the dielctirc is stored by a stretching and/or alignement of the dipole molecules of the dielectric, then what force keeps these dipole aligned?  It's not a "charge" on the plates as the plates only serve to deliever the energy and to recover it.

What if their is something else within the space between the plates of a capacitor either along with or in place of the material dielectric?  What role would this entity play in capacitance?



A dielectric between the plates of a capacitor is analogous to the "core" material used within an inductor. The dielectric and ferromagnetic cores both increase the concentration of "flux" within the component. The ability of a dielectric core to "concentrate" electric flux is the permittivity of the material, and for ferromagnetic cores it's the permeability.

A "vacuum capacitor" still has a dielectric at its core. There is no perfect vacuum and there will always be molecules floating around near the plates. In fact it you built a simple plate capacitor within a vacuum chamber and removed as much air as possible, then took a capacitance measurement, the value of its capacitance should increase in proportion to the pressure in the chamber as you reversed the process and pressurized it as much as safety would allow.

What keeps the polarization in the dielectric is equal but opposite charge matching from within the plate itself (shortage or excess of electrons) at the surface junction with the vacuum. If you could remove the plates without disturbing the vacuum molecules in their precarious state (we also have to imagine that either other vacuum charges will back-fill where the plates once were, or charge is stripped off the plates as they're removed) ), there would still be two polarized, but invisible walls/regions present. This of course would be much easier to do if the dielectric core was a solid one, but the principle is the same.

No force is necessary to keep things polarized. Net charge is always zero. It's simply charge separation, and since the net charge has neither increased nor decreased in the charging process, no net work has been done to charge the capacitor's dielectric.

.99

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'
« Reply #280 on: January 10, 2009, 05:21:21 AM »
How is charge separation maintained in the dielectric? I have found experiments to determine if their are physical changes to the dielectric and there are none detected.  So, the mechanism is not the same as say a piezo crystal and that is mechanical anyway. 

I know what is going on, but haven't figured out how to prove it.

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'
« Reply #281 on: January 10, 2009, 06:13:18 AM »
What keeps the polarization in the dielectric is equal but opposite charge matching from within the plate itself (shortage or excess of electrons) at the surface junction with the vacuum. If you could remove the plates without disturbing the vacuum molecules in their precarious state (we also have to imagine that either other vacuum charges will back-fill where the plates once were, or charge is stripped off the plates as they're removed) ), there would still be two polarized, but invisible walls/regions present. This of course would be much easier to do if the dielectric core was a solid one, but the principle is the same.

No Physical change.

There will be a shortage of electrons on the negative capacitor plate (which is in close contact with the dielectric), and an excess of electrons on the positive plate of the capacitor (also in close contact with the dielectric). The metal capacitor plates themselves will be polarized as a result of this electron migration. Opposite charges attract, and it is this that retains the polarization of the dielectric.

Remove the metal plates and either charges from the surrounding vacuum spill in to fill the void, or they are stripped off the metal plates via electrostatics (charge exchange, triboelectric effect, charge induction) just as the plates are removed, or a combination of both.

.99

alan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'
« Reply #282 on: January 10, 2009, 03:31:43 PM »
and equal charges repel, also the reason for the separation in/over a cap.

nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'
« Reply #283 on: January 14, 2009, 01:16:10 AM »
hi all

results of the first test are in - here's some context to the test...


the 2-stage test circuit transfers charges by first connecting the low-value switching capacitor, C2 to the input capacitor C1 via inductance L

as is well-known in SMPS design, this is a high-efficiency configuration, so we'd expect a high proportion of the charge removed from C1 to transfer into C2 for each pulse

charge from C2 is then switched to C3 via Rload (in this case 10ohm)

this is the point being tested: the regular 'textbook' treatment of capacitor charging (cf. example in quotes above from Texas Uni lecture notes) states that the amount of energy stored in a capacitor is equal in value to the amount of energy expended as work against the increasing polarisation of the capacitor dielectric


IF  this claim were true, then we could note the final stored voltage on C3 and double it to find the total energy converted by the system in the whole process

this was the basis for the original conclusions relating to my early tests with the 2-stage circuit: ie. since the final energy stored in C3 was greater than half the total input energy then double that amount would represent a net energy gain in the system - ie. overunity


the limited equipment i had available at that time only allowed for measurement of the final stored voltage on C3

so now that i'm able to measure both the input and output simultaneously i've repeated my earlier test to see if the 'textbook' claim is true

i've been able to replicate the situation where the final stored energy on C3, 21.5mJ, is greater than half the total input energy, 36.7mJ


so what's happening at Rload?

i measured the load waveform at the mid-point of input energy conversion - ie. 50% had been discharged, 50% still to go

the average power on Rload at this point was 4.9mW, giving a total charging power draw of 5.15mW when including dissipation from the 0.5 ohm DC resistance of L

the duration of the test run was 3.25s so the total charging energy was approx 16.7mJ


IF it was true that the final energy on C3 represented 50% of the total converted output energy, then the total WOULD HAVE BEEN 43mJ, representing an efficiency of 117%

however, i only got a value of 16.7mJ for the charging energy - so  IF  the 50% work relationship WAS true then there was still approx 5mJ** of energy unaccounted for

as the sum of the measured output energies, 38.2mJ, was so close to the input energy, 36.7mJ, i believe it's MORE LIKELY that the efficiency of the total system was just close to 100% (within experimental limits)


these results suggest that the 'textbook' claim is NOT a general rule - the work done in charging a capacitor DOES NOT have to equal the final energy stored - that's even WITHOUT a series inductor between C2 & C3

so - if there's NO 50:50 split in charging:stored output energy then it's likely there's NO OU here either - it's efficient - but probably not over 100% 

all the best
s.

[EDIT:  ** it's JUST possible that the 'missing' 5mJ could be accounted for in the noise produced by the coil and ferrite cores (an easily audible buzz during test)  but since i can't measure that, i can't include it in the results]
« Last Edit: January 14, 2009, 01:47:22 AM by nul-points »

nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'
« Reply #284 on: January 14, 2009, 01:23:47 AM »
[...continued...]


whilst running these most recent tests, i've uncovered a bug in the PC scope timebase software

running the test on one timebase shows a period of 95ms from start to reach approx 0.57v volt drop on C1; monitoring the same signal using a different timebase, supposedly displaying the same period from start, the C1 volt drop is only 0.39v

using a stopwatch & DVM readings i've been able to confirm that the PC scope timing is out by a factor of over 2x, when changing between medium and slow timebase ranges

the time values in question were displayed as the delta time between the sampling cursors, so they're being incorrectly displayed rather than misread!

you can see this in the Vin/Vout trace in the results just posted above - the actual duration of the test run was 3.25s - its displayed as approx 1.3s on the trace

happy days!


all the best
s.