Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

New Battery systems => Super capacitors => Topic started by: PaulLowrance on November 30, 2009, 06:47:01 PM

Title: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on November 30, 2009, 06:47:01 PM
Hi,

A few users indicated that ultracapacitors, particularly the Maxwell boostcaps (BCAP0650) might produce excess energy. Hence the purpose of this thread.

This thread is a continuation from,

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3457.msg211465#msg211465 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3457.msg211465#msg211465)


The ultracap measurements are found at,

http://globalfreeenergy.info/tag/ultracap/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/tag/ultracap/)

I've posted on the measurements for charging the ultracap. Days ago I took measurements on discharging the ultracap, and the results were so out of this world, if you will, that I'm going to hold back on posting the data until further experiments. IOW, I don't want to be caught saying these ultracaps produce excess energy, if they don't.  :)

So hopefully today the final ultracap testing will begin. For the moment, my old DIY data logger is broken, so I'm trying to fix it. Everything else is ready, which will consist of *slowly* charging the bcap0650 at ~ 22mA for about 4 hours, then it will be discharged up to 1A. All of the current & voltage will be data logged, which will be used to calculate COP.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on November 30, 2009, 07:27:39 PM
Paul:

I am very glad you are doing these tests.  No matter what the results, we will all benefit from what is learned here.

Thanks,

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: powercat on November 30, 2009, 07:48:07 PM
Hi Paul
The measurements on your website are looking promising,it is looking like you are going to confirm there is excess energy.
Great work
cat
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on November 30, 2009, 08:24:27 PM
Thanks. If it does not show excess E, then some people may not believe me. So I'll welcome others to do the tests, which are easy to do. You only need a data logger, which can be built from a cheap ADC (few $), a 555 timer, a parallel port cable (the old printer cables) that will goes to your Windows PC.

I'll provide the Windows source code (MSVC++), and the .exe if people want it. And there you go, a data logger.  :)

What if it is > cop 1?  This forum is scary! Who knows who's lurking here, just waiting for the first detailed data on the smoking gun. Seriously, it would take someone a few minutes to find my home address!

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: powercat on November 30, 2009, 08:34:21 PM
Paul
I know you worry about your security, but all you are doing is testing someone else's idea you have not invented anything, in this case.

If you really are that worried Then send the information to Stefan.

cat
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on November 30, 2009, 09:07:42 PM
Actually for now all I'm testing is an ultracapacitor, not someones circuit. Gadgets & other people have said these caps are OU.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Kator01 on November 30, 2009, 09:44:04 PM
Hi,

some member in this thread :http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7987.480 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7987.480)

 posted a document on low-loss-charging of capacitors.

In the file attached one should read first the reference-document of Heinrich which was the first report on this phaenomenon.8 See first reference at the end of this file

Regards

Kator01
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: powercat on November 30, 2009, 10:08:30 PM
Paul,from the testing so far
you are saying that you get better results when the capacitor is warm  :o
how many times have we seen circuits that gives off heat, which normally has no use at all

I wonder how much heat the capacitor can take before it loses its maximum benefit

cat
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on November 30, 2009, 10:09:11 PM
Actually for now all I'm testing is an ultracapacitor, not someones circuit. Gadgets & other people have said these caps are OU.

Paul
You are Not alone . Go ahead and Say what your numbers represent . I will take the Rap. It was just a matter of time until someone actually used these bcaps for other than tank cranking and regenerative braking . So what if this opens the door to a home generator that powers it self . Your numbers indicate i was right >1  is an understatement : I respect you Analysis  and now welcome you to Join our team . Thank you for taking your time to explain these fascinating energy storage devices . They also work on Bedinis as both the run and the charge . Just swap and it tells all . If you made the Proper capture circuit . We are busy making a new coil to increase  or decrease charging time on a simple Jt . the effect can be increased by using a tip3055 transistor and a darlington . Also keep in mind that the Bcaps can be charged any number of ways ,solar ,jt ,bedeni , newman , what ever . I was already approached By unknowns who offered me a great amount of money to stop My e-light research . I refused . They know My address already . Black Helicopters regularly hover and buzz over My house .. Very loud and uncomfortable . this is why I went open source on this information so you guys can at least know how its possible and scalable .

Gadget 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on November 30, 2009, 10:51:21 PM
Hi cat,
 
 Yes, the capacitance has so far increases at what I'd call an alarming rate with respect to even a slight temperature increase. What if you had a capacitor that was say 550F when you charged it, but was say 5500F when you discharged it?  ;) ;)   I'd call that excess energy.

Hi gadget,

Good to see you around. I agree there are probably a lot of ways to use these bcaps. It will be interesting to see how things go over the next month.


Paul
 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Mannix on November 30, 2009, 11:09:47 PM
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 origional
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


Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on November 30, 2009, 11:59:23 PM
Paul:

May I ask what were you using to measure the voltage and the current for your setup?  Is it some sort of microcontroller-based setup and you are using the A/D in the microcontroller?

Also, how are you measuring the capacitance?  It's a serious question, you are not indicating how you are doing it.

I can see a possible alternative explanation for your observations.  I ask you, and everyone reading this thread to look again at Paul's data again and try to come up with an alternative explanation.  It's a challenge.

Quote
If confirmed, then it appears the bcap behaves as if it has less capacitance when high current is used. When the bcap was charged at 199mA, the capacitance was 535F. So if we place a load across the bcap and drain it at 42.1mA, would it have 632F? If true, then it indicates excess energy.

You have me puzzled here Paul.  Why would this indicate excess energy?  Again, this is a serious question, how do you arrive at this conclusion?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: broli on December 01, 2009, 12:09:17 AM
PL it seems you have the means to go all out. I think you should do a few high resolution tests. Meaning sampling voltage and current every hundreds of a second and plotting it. So you take C=I*t/V and make dC=I*dt/V out of it. This way you can get a very accurate graph of the behaviour of the capacitance during the charging period and maybe learn the exact behavior even better and exploit that.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 01, 2009, 12:52:02 AM
Paul:

May I ask what were you using to measure the voltage and the current for your setup?  Is it some sort of microcontroller-based setup and you are using the A/D in the microcontroller?

Also, how are you measuring the capacitance?  It's a serious question, you are not indicating how you are doing it.

I can see a possible alternative explanation for your observations.  I ask you, and everyone reading this thread to look again at Paul's data again and try to come up with an alternative explanation.  It's a challenge.

Measurements taken from last week were simple. A current source was placed on the ultracap, and it was timed how long it took for the ultracap voltage to change by a certain amount. The equation is,

F = I * t / dV

where F is the capacitance in farads, I is DC current, t is time, and dV is the change in voltage.

These experiments were done at a slow rate. The ultracap voltage changed less than 0.1mV after removing the current, except a few cases where it changed by ~ 0.1mV, which is negligible relative to dV.

The recent measurements, days ago, on discharging the ultracap is a different story. I'll talk about this after the data logging.

The data logger I'll be using for now is a DIY circuit. It consists of a simple 8 channel ADC0809 with appropriate circuit connected to a PC parallel port. PC software will log the data on hard drive.




You have me puzzled here Paul.  Why would this indicate excess energy?  Again, this is a serious question, how do you arrive at this conclusion?

It's conventional physics,

E = 0.5 * C * V^2

Using the example, the energy required to charge to capacitor to say 1V is 0.5 * 550F * 1V^2 = 275 joules. The energy gained is 0.5 * 5500F * 1V^2 = 2750 joules. Ten times the energy gain.



Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Yucca on December 01, 2009, 12:56:20 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.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 01, 2009, 01:10:09 AM
Yucca,

I don't have substantial proof yet, but the present data does suggest > cop 1. It's possible there's something very odd going on with the ultracap, which could explain the data, and thus show no excess energy, but this effect is unknown as far as I'm aware. So in the least, we'll learn something interesting about these caps.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Yucca on December 01, 2009, 01:14:48 AM
Yucca,

I don't have proof yet, but the present data does suggest > cop 1.

Paul

Well I hope the apparent capacitance variances are indicative of excess charge and not just some peculiarity of the cap. I´m pleased it´s you paul because one thing I´m certain of is that you will be honest and truthful in your findings unlike some other charlatan carpet baggers I could mention.

p.s.
maybe you havent read my above post because I think I edited it while you were reading unedited?
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: broli on December 01, 2009, 01:20:36 AM
PL is there a reason you avoided my post?
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Yucca on December 01, 2009, 01:25:14 AM
So in the least, we'll learn something interesting about these caps.

Paul

Yes, with your good measurements and objective reporting we will learn about the behaviour of these interesting caps. They have TREMENDOUS plate area thanks to the microstructure of the carbon, no doubt casimir forces are quite strong in some nooks and crannies.

P.S.
I´m a little disheartened that Poynt99 was banned, and so the subject holds some emotional charge.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 01, 2009, 02:04:33 AM
Hi Broli,

Sorry, I didn't see a question in your post. I agree with what you said. The data logger should be able to log far faster than 100Hz. Probably several KHz, but I may not go that high. That's, what, nearly a gigabyte @ 20 bytes per log in 5 hours! So far the data logger is not working. My ADC0809 might be bad.
 
Paul
 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 01, 2009, 02:49:40 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
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 01, 2009, 03:03:18 AM
Paul:

Just do you tests and ignore the peanut gallery.  If it is so, then we will know, if not, we will know that too.  I have faith in you.

As I have always said for the past year, these caps are different but, I kept getting comments on how much I don't know about caps, etc.  Well they are different and, I think you have seen that, at least as a possibility, as well.

I like interacting with folks that have open minds.  poynt was banned because he posted nothing but negative comments and also, many private pm's to Stefan from members here and abused his moderator privileges.

Carry on and we will see what is what.  If your tests should still indicate OU then, I am sure it can be evaluated by others and confirmed, or not.

Like I have said, these caps are "different", and we shall see.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 01, 2009, 03:03:43 AM
Paul:

Quote
Using the example, the energy required to charge to capacitor to say 1V is 0.5 * 550F * 1V^2 = 275 joules. The energy gained is 0.5 * 5500F * 1V^2 = 2750 joules. Ten times the energy gain.

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.

Yucca made the following statement wherein lies the answer:

Quote
Well I hope the apparent capacitance variances are indicative of excess charge and not just some peculiarity of the cap.

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
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 01, 2009, 03:10:15 AM
Bill:

With respect, don't call me the "peanut gallery."  You seem to have a strong desire to stifle opinion, which is the antithesis of what this place is all about.  I am trying to HELP Paul understand what is going on and your comments are not appropriate.  This is not a Joule Thief thread and discussing the accuracy of his measurements is absolutely relevant to what is going on here.  Dismissing this as a "peanut gallery" comment is just another form of book burning.

There is nothing special about supercaps and Paul's testing can help confirm this.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 01, 2009, 03:20:43 AM
MH:

"There is nothing special about supercaps"  Again, this is quoted from your post.  You say it like it is law.  Talk about book burning.  This fellow Paul is trying to determine what is what and was big enough to say that he sees something unusual.  He does not have an agenda, and neither do I.  We just want to find out the truth but yet, you again post your posit as if it were proven, which it has not been.

Also, I did not refer to anyone in particular with my peanut gallery comment but, evidently you thought I meant you.  That is another one of your assumptions.

What I meant by that was....just let this guy do his work, which he is doing for free, on his own time, for his own reasons, and then we will see what he comes up with.  If the results do not match what you THINK you know about supercaps, then we can discuss other ways to verify or reverse his findings.  This is the way of science.

Gadget, and I have postulated that these caps are different, you say no.  Fine.  You still might be right.  We will see.  I have an open mind and I suggest you consider that option as well.  In other words, let the man do his tests and if you don't think he did them right, do your own and post your results.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 01, 2009, 03:25:52 AM
Bill:

Forget the verbal ping-pong.  You did not want me to express my ideas to Paul and I am telling you to stop this.

Also, if the proposition is that there is something special about supercaps then the burden of proof rests with those that claim this.  Plus they have to define what "something special" is, and back it up with measurements, and ideally suggest a model that can explain the alleged observed phenomena.  There is no burden of proof required when saying that supercaps are just another form of capacitor.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 01, 2009, 03:32:58 AM
Bill:

Forget the verbal ping-pong.  You did not want me to express my ideas to Paul and I am telling you to stop this.

MileHigh

What is verbal ping-pong about me saying let the man do the tests his way?  Again, if you don't agree with his methods, do your own tests.  What is so difficult about that?  I would love to see your evaluation of these caps.  Then your results could be compared to Paul's.  If there is a difference, we can then explore why.  I have seen this difference with my experiments so I suspect it is there.  But, if hard science and good testing says no, that's fine.  Then I must look for another way to explain my results, which I will then do.

I suggest you wait and see what the result are.  If Paul needs your help, I am sure he will ask for it.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 01, 2009, 03:35:04 AM
Bill:

With respect, don't call me the "peanut gallery."  You seem to have a strong desire to stifle opinion, which is the antithesis of what this place is all about.  I am trying to HELP Paul understand what is going on and your comments are not appropriate.  This is not a Joule Thief thread and discussing the accuracy of his measurements is absolutely relevant to what is going on here.  Dismissing this as a "peanut gallery" comment is just another form of book burning.

There is nothing special about supercaps and Paul's testing can help confirm this.

MileHigh
your opinion, milehigh, is just that, an opinion... and just what is this place all about? opinions? i think you are mistaken...
where is your experiment? where are your measurements? all you have is assumption and conjecture and opinion. which by the way we have heard again and again. we know what your opinion is, what we would like to know is where your experiment is and what your measurements are.

paul has enough knowledge to test it properly, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and help out by doing your own experiment, which as bill so astutely noted, can then be compared...
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 01, 2009, 03:42:18 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.

Note that Paul has already posted some results.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 01, 2009, 03:46:49 AM
MH:

I already did.  I said let him do his tests and we will see.  Look, this is Paul's topic and I don't want you to try to turn it into a shooting match, OK?  Wait for his results, or do your own tests with what you call "The right way", and then we will all know.  As I said, if Paul needs your help, I am sure he will ask for your opinions.  Until then, please, let's just see what he comes up with.  This is simple.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated 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.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall 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
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall 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 .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance 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
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance 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
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance 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
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh 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
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh 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
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 01, 2009, 06:58:39 AM
***EDIT***  POST REMOVED
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme 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
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance 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
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance 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
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: powercat on December 01, 2009, 08:09:38 PM
Paul, Will you be posting any new results today.
cat
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance 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
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: powercat 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
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 01, 2009, 10:28:40 PM
Heck with Vref+. The best way is to just stick it up close to Vcc, and use an op-amp. That's 2 op-amps, 1 for V, 1 for I. So add another 30 to 60 min. to the task list.

People have sent PM voicing interest in the data logger. Yes, data loggers are awesome!  :)   It will work for any input so long as it's within range of the ADC. That includes JT circuits. IOW, connect the JT to a battery or ultracap and you can data log the ultracaps voltage.

A few webpages I used to brush up on parallel ports,

http://www.codeproject.com/KB/vb/PortAccess.aspx (http://www.codeproject.com/KB/vb/PortAccess.aspx)

http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/Control_e_appliances/1.gif (http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/Control_e_appliances/1.gif)

Warning, massive pdf, 6.26MB,
http://www.fimee.ugto.mx/profesores/dohernandez/documentos/Parallel_Port_Complete_Programming,_Interfacing_and_Using_the_PCs_Parallel_Printer_Port.pdf (http://www.fimee.ugto.mx/profesores/dohernandez/documentos/Parallel_Port_Complete_Programming,_Interfacing_and_Using_the_PCs_Parallel_Printer_Port.pdf)

http://www.adwiens.com/projects/electronics/10/ADC0808_PPORT_SCH_LG.gif (http://www.adwiens.com/projects/electronics/10/ADC0808_PPORT_SCH_LG.gif)

Another fat pdf,
http://staff.iiu.edu.my/zzulkifli/mctlab2/old_manual.pdf (http://staff.iiu.edu.my/zzulkifli/mctlab2/old_manual.pdf)

ADC0809,
http://www.national.com/ds/AD/ADC0808.pdf (http://www.national.com/ds/AD/ADC0808.pdf)

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 01, 2009, 11:58:06 PM
Hi Paul,

It looks pretty much based on your data that supercaps are nonlinear devices.  So I did a search on "supercapacitor nonlinear" and here is what came up:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4592311

<<<
The role of supercapacitors in designing fuel cell powered portable applications
Harfman-Todorovic, M.   Chellappan, M.   Palma, L.   Enjeti, P. 
Dept. of Electr. Eng., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX;

Abstract
In this paper, the role of a supercapacitor in the design of fuel cell powered systems is discussed. First, the electric equivalent circuit model of the fuel cell and the supercapacitor is obtained using frequency analysis, which is essential in establishing a design procedure to size the required supercapacitor. It is evident from the nonlinear model of the supercapacitor that the capacitance increases with voltage. Since the fuel cell voltage is inversely proportional to the output power supplied, it is shown that combining fuel cell with supercapacitor is particularly advantageous to guard against load transients as higher energy is stored while supplying lighter loads.
>>>

So there you go, it is exactly like I speculated.

Good luck with your measurements, but the bottom line is that your supercap or ultracap will not give you more out than you put in.  It is easy to get thrown off by nonlinear devices.  Using LEDs to measure power is a classic one.  LEDs are nonlinear devices and are notoriously difficult to measure power with, not to mention the fact that almost no one seems cognizant of the issues related to the persistence of human vision and how that makes it basically impossible to use your eyes to gauge the relative power between flashing LEDs in separate circuits.  Then the Big Daddy of all nonlinear devices is the battery, and comparing start and end voltages is basically meaningless data.

Anyway, I am pretty much done with your thread and good luck.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 02, 2009, 12:10:49 AM
So there you go, it is exactly like I speculated.

Good luck with your measurements, but the bottom line is that your supercap or ultracap will not give you more out than you put in.  It is easy to get thrown off by nonlinear devices.  Using LEDs to measure power is a classic one.  LEDs are nonlinear devices and are notoriously difficult to measure power with, not to mention the fact that almost no one seems cognizant of the issues related to the persistence of human vision and how that makes it basically impossible to use your eyes to gauge the relative power between flashing LEDs in separate circuits.  Then the Big Daddy of all nonlinear devices is the battery, and comparing start and end voltages is basically meaningless data.

MileHigh,

I have already discussed the topic, which is why the last posted data covers a wide voltage range.

What you have posted shows nothing new. To be honest, all you have done is posted information that is so basic that it goes without saying, but yes, I have already posted about this. Nothing new.



the bottom line is that your supercap or ultracap will not give you more out than you put in.

I have no idea if the ultracap will show cop>1, we'll find out for certain, no speculations, but sadly enough one fact remains, your statement clearly shows a closed mind.


Anyway, I am pretty much done with your thread and good luck.

Done? What have you shown here? Anything besides what I've already discussed, and what everyone here already knows?


Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 02, 2009, 02:52:50 AM
and Heres the rest you left out :The other advantages of connecting the supercapacitor in parallel with the fuel cell are shown to be: (a) increased steady state stability when powering constant power loads, (b) voltage and system performance stability during fuel cell dynamics (purging), and (c) increased fuel efficiency (i.e. reduced hydrogen consumption). For transient stability analysis, the effect of fuel cell internal impedance (extra element), along with the impedance of the nonlinear supercapacitor, on the transfer function of the DC/DC converter is analyzed. Finally, experimental evaluation and comparison of fuel consumption in the conventional and hybrid systems is performed, showing that the hybrid source has improved fuel utilization. From these results, it is shown that the proposed approach permits optimization of energy management and improvement of dynamic performance of the power conditioner. The experimental results obtained on 20 W and 30 W PEM fuel cell/boost converter systems demonstrate the validity of the proposed approach.

Ans then again these are ULTRA capacitors and not Super capacitors . There are sizes see . Mini maxi super and Ultra
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 03, 2009, 12:45:00 AM
Hi,

Part of today was spent on getting the ADC input noise lower. It's now as quiet as a church mouse.

The other part of the day was spent on software. Making it a lot fancier. The file log system is being cached in memory and then it periodically dumps the cache into a file. Also keeps a file backup of the ongoing log in case something happens to the main log. The software also shows a plot of both ADC channels like an oscilloscope view. On top of that is channels in text. Above that is a bar that shows how fast it's logging the data. On my Windows XP machine it's doing ~ 800 logs per second. Another addition is an alarm that goes off if the software cannot connect to the ADC. It would be devastating if after 5 hours of logging data and something happens.

Unless another unexpected thing happens, everything should be ready to go tomorrow.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: broli on December 03, 2009, 01:01:29 AM
Hi,

Part of today was spent on getting the ADC input noise lower. It's now as quiet as a church mouse.

The other part of the day was spent on software. Making it a lot fancier. The file log system is being cached in memory and then it periodically dumps the cache into a file. Also keeps a file backup of the ongoing log in case something happens to the main log. The software also shows a plot of both ADC channels like an oscilloscope view. On top of that is channels in text. Above that is a bar that shows how fast it's logging the data. On my Windows XP machine it's doing ~ 800 logs per second. Another addition is an alarm that goes off if the software cannot connect to the ADC. It would be devastating if after 5 hours of logging data and something happens.

Unless another unexpected thing happens, everything should be ready to go tomorrow.

Paul

Wow. This post seriously oozes what this community is all about. Thank you for performing the data mining and in advance for sharing the data.

@MileHigh: I wish this forum had an ignore feature, your posts are utter and complete trash and your self rewarding behavior ruins the flow of any thread I read. I'm starting to think that that armchair of yours has a built in toilet. Do us a favor and remove this website from your bookmarks.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 03, 2009, 01:07:13 AM
i know a good one when i see 1 ....  :)

thank you paul for all your effort work and questioning point of view ...  i saw you fly in the door ...


im like here we go  .....   

agin thank you sir!

william
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 03, 2009, 02:02:32 AM
Broli:

You have an issue with me because you only have a vague understanding of electronics and you know that I have a good understanding of electronics.  Perhaps that frustrates you and you are venting some anger?

Plus the talk on some of the threads has been tough lately and you think this is your opportunity to be a "tough guy" and not too many people will notice, correct?  You know what you are saying is out of line and totally inappropriate yet you are willing to take the risk because of your frustrations.  Maybe you will get yourself booted off OU.com.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: broli on December 03, 2009, 02:10:44 AM
Your armchair is making this thread smell. What happened to starting your own forum????????? Please leave I'll even help you set it up if your deadly fumes end up disappearing. Also MileLow the day YOU can get me "booted" from here is the day you invent overunity. Since we both know that will never happen, don't count on it.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 03, 2009, 02:33:57 AM
Broli:

I said that you would get yourself booted off, all by yourself.  I don't have to do anything.

Do you have something to contribute to Paul's thread or are you here just to make trouble?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: broli on December 03, 2009, 02:41:51 AM
Do you have something to contribute to Paul's thread or are you here just to make trouble?

MileHigh

Wait what? What did you contribute? It seems like you feel bad about someone putting a halt on your streak of ignorance and negative behavior. In nature there's no - without a +. Sadly for you I'm here to balance you out. I agree that my posts are trash but they are the counter trash of yours, so both deserve to be deleted. This thread should be about helping paul out in any way getting the needed data out of the bcap. If you step out of that border I'll be there to bite.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 03, 2009, 03:06:00 AM
@ Paul,

Well done Paul, you should be commended for your effort over the last days, it's no small feat to put a software package together in the middle of a flame war.
This is one of the best software research tools I have heard about, and we need them to keep our real time data records.

BTW people, there are more big surprises coming up regarding Paul's mighty effort here. That's all I'm saying.

I am looking forward to being a BETA tester if that's OK by you Paul.

@IST,
Hello old friend, nice to see you here, I been irradiating me self wif Ultra Violet radiation by a MOT and the Bedini, wow groovy greens and light blue stuff, ha ha.
I betta get out the lead shields

jim
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 03, 2009, 03:09:17 AM
broli:

I admire your tenacity in your posts.  Do not get upset here.  As I have tried to explain to Milehigh for a while now, Paul's test will prove something one way or the other.  I commend him for doing this for all of us.

As I have tried to get across to Milehigh many times, either Paul does the tests correctly, or he doesn't.  The opportunity for others to do their tests is wide open.  IF those tests differ from Paul's then we can discuss it.  I, personally, have faith in Paul's testing ability but, no one here has to take my word for that.  Milehigh can perform his own tests and then we can compare.  This is how we can learn what is real.

So, I would not bother to try to get Milehigh to see this.  He won't.  I have tried.  He is locked onto some things he thinks he has learned and there the learning has stopped for him, which is sad really.  He does sound like an educated guy with a lot of knowledge but, sad to say, a closed mind can not do science.  This is unfortunate but, I don't see a way to change that.

So, broli, we will let Paul continue along the path that he thinks is correct.  And, if anyone differs, they are MORE than welcome to perform the same tests THEIR way.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 03, 2009, 03:32:22 AM
Bill:

The "testing" argument is nothing more than an attempt by the "believers" to put up a protective shield and pretend that they should not listen to someone else's input because they are going to hear things that they don't want to hear.  Hearing other viewpoints "breaks" their fantasy, they only want to read postings that are in line with their own train of thought.

For example, I stated in one of the JT threads that there is nothing special about supercapacitors and you deleted the posts.  You were so sure of the "research" done in the JT threads that you had to hit the delete buttton because what I stated was "upsetting."  Meanwhile in reading some of your posts I can see that you are a beginner in electronics.  Another example:  I looked at Paul's data and speculated that the capacitance of a supercap increases as the voltage across the cap is increased.  Then the next day I found an IEEE paper that confirmed my speculation.  Broli calls that "utter and complete trash."  Go figure.

I am not stopping Paul from doing his testing and I tried making some suggestions to him for doing his tests.

With respect to supercapacitors, I can think of a crazy but applicable story for you.  You have a high-end Intel i7 gaming machine.  The Intel i8 chip comes out and you say to your friends, "The first thing I am going to do is see if I can get free energy out of the i8 chip.  After all, it's a new Intel chip so you never know it might be a free energy device."  It is as crazy as that with respect to looking for a source of free energy with a supercapacitor.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 03, 2009, 04:20:15 AM
MileHigh,
 
 You seem to ignore the obvious. I keep telling you that measured ultracap capacitance changes far more with respect to temperature than voltage. In fact I gave you measurements of where the capacitance was far higher at a lower voltage, and I gave you measurements where the capacitance was far higher at a higher voltage-- both ways.
 
 Personally I don't think it's very big of you saying these utracaps do not exhibit excess energy. Especially when your theory absolutely fails to explain the *main* effect. I'm not saying it's excess energy. Maybe it is. Maybe it's not. Anyhow, sure enough if you think as you've demonstrated, then 99.99...% of the time you'll be correct? Big deal. It takes nothing to say it's impossible. It takes a lot more to explore the unknown. The problem is that such a closed minded mentality prevents you from discovering something that conventional science does not understand, ... unless you just happen to be extremely lucky.
 
 Paul
 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 03, 2009, 04:43:42 AM
Paul:

My impression is that the capacitance is affected by the voltage much more than the temperature.  When you did your tests I am assuming that the cap temperature was more or less constant but the voltage was changing.  Certainly there may be an effect from temperature, I am not doubting this, but I guess that it would be at least two orders of magnitude lower than the effects from voltage.  Perhaps you will be doing more tests where you vary the temperature and then you can look at the data.

If I am right, it would be nice to see you come back and post a small acknowledgment that I was right.  I am truly trying to help you with some ideas and suggestions.

"Closed mindedness" is a relative thing Paul.  It can just as easily be argued that learning how capacitors actually work first before you speculate on their behaviour would be the first thing that you should do.  I mean "you" in a general sense here.  For sure there are people here that are "open minded" about capacitors that don't understand how they work.  So they are making speculations from a position of relative ignorance.  I would argue that it's those people that are the closed minded ones.  Opening your mind requires that you be prepared to learn.  Once you learn enough about car engines, you know that you can't put diesel fuel in a gasoline engine and you know that it is futile to do so.

What I don't want is to be bashed or harassed for expressing my thoughts around here.  Not only for this thread but in a general sense.  I know that you tend to stay out of the fray and this statement is not directed at you.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 03, 2009, 05:01:23 AM
Paul:

My impression is that the capacitance is affected by the voltage much more than the temperature.  When you did your tests I am assuming that the cap temperature was more or less constant but the voltage was changing.  Certainly there may be an effect from temperature, I am not doubting this, but I guess that it would be at least two orders of magnitude lower than the effects from voltage.  Perhaps you will be doing more tests where you vary the temperature and then you can look at the data.

I already gave you the measurements that disproved it's the main effect. It's your right to ignore data.



"Closed mindedness" is a relative thing Paul.  It can just as easily be argued that learning how capacitors actually work first before you speculate on their behaviour would be the first thing that you should do.  I mean "you" in a general sense here.  For sure there are people here that are "open minded" about capacitors that don't understand how they work.  So they are making speculations from a position of relative ignorance.  I would argue that it's those people that are the closed minded ones.  Opening your mind requires that you be prepared to learn.  Once you learn enough about car engines, you know that you can't put diesel fuel in a gasoline engine and you know that it is futile to do so.

I made good contribution at WikiPedia on kTC noise. Do you even know what kTC noise is? Hurry up, go run over to wikipedia so you can pretend that you knew.


I stand by my statement that you are closed minded to claims that go against convention physics.


Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 03, 2009, 05:36:43 AM
Bill:

The "testing" argument is nothing more than an attempt by the "believers" to put up a protective shield and pretend that they should not listen to someone else's input because they are going to hear things that they don't want to hear.  Hearing other viewpoints "breaks" their fantasy, they only want to read postings that are in line with their own train of thought.

For example, I stated in one of the JT threads that there is nothing special about supercapacitors and you deleted the posts.  You were so sure of the "research" done in the JT threads that you had to hit the delete buttton because what I stated was "upsetting."  Meanwhile in reading some of your posts I can see that you are a beginner in electronics.  Another example:  I looked at Paul's data and speculated that the capacitance of a supercap increases as the voltage across the cap is increased.  Then the next day I found an IEEE paper that confirmed my speculation.  Broli calls that "utter and complete trash."  Go figure.

I am not stopping Paul from doing his testing and I tried making some suggestions to him for doing his tests.

With respect to supercapacitors, I can think of a crazy but applicable story for you.  You have a high-end Intel i7 gaming machine.  The Intel i8 chip comes out and you say to your friends, "The first thing I am going to do is see if I can get free energy out of the i8 chip.  After all, it's a new Intel chip so you never know it might be a free energy device."  It is as crazy as that with respect to looking for a source of free energy with a supercapacitor.

MileHigh

MH:

With all due respect, this post is way off of the mark.  Yes, you did state in the JT topic that super caps or B-caps were "nothing special" and that you could predict what would or would not happen.  That was fine.  That was your opinion and you did have the right to express it.  What you left out of this scenario was that you posted the same thing, over and over.  You were warned not to keep doing that, but, yet, somehow, you felt it necessary to do so.  We all got your point from your original post.  The folks there can actually read.

The problem is that you were telling many folks that supercaps were no different, to the same folks that have already proved to themselves, and others, that they are.  They posted their experimental results, you again posted what it is that you have "learned".  I posted many videos about how supercaps are different, you posted that "I would expect that from what I have learned".  Great.  Good for you.  What I did not see, and no one has seen, is your experiments and videos substantiating your proclaimed position on the matter.  Where are they?

The good folks you are preaching to have already seen the difference and have moved on to newer and better things.  And here you are saying that we are all wrong and did not see the results we have seen with our own eyes.  This would be funny if it were not so sad.

For the last time, if supercaps or b-caps are no different than ordinary caps, post your own results backing this up.  If Paul is not capable of ever measuring these devices, post you own test results.  If you can't do this, or won't do this, then I say, move out of the way and let real science and new discoveries take over.

Saying the same thing over and over without backing it up is not productive, and is really counterproductive.  Show me your devices and test results and I will be glad to look at them.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 03, 2009, 05:50:11 AM
Paul:

I think that we would all agree that on face value one would conclude that supercapacitors are not a source of free energy.  Then someone comes up with a proposition that supercapacitors are a possible source of free energy.  That's fine, but let's not loose sight of the fact that the burden of proof lies with those that are making the proposition, and not with those that state capacitors are not a source of free energy.

So you are doing some tests to see if the proposition is true.  Great and more power to you.  The debate should be open to both schools of thought with respect to the proposition, for and against, with the burden of proof clearly on the "for" side.  It's a logical fallacy to accuse me of being closed minded because I am on the "against" side.  I can just as easily accuse the people on the "for" side of being closed minded for different reasons.  The burden of proof rests with the "for" side.

Just for the heck of it, a little thought experiment for you:

Suppose that your tests show the capacitance goes up with temperature.  So you charge a supercap to 1 volt at room temperature of 20 C.  You then put the charged supercap into a thermal chamber and bring the temperature of the supercap up to 30 C.  You know from previous testing that the capacitance will increase by 10% when you do this.

I am not sure if you think that when you take the cap out of the thermal chamber if you can then get more energy out of it.  In fact you will not.  When you take the cap out of the thermal chamber you will observe that its voltage has dropped such that it stores the same amount of energy in it from the start of the test.  The voltage in the cap will drop as the temperature increases.  I am assuming that there are some people reading this that did not realize this simple fact.

The same thing effectively happens when you increase the voltage across the capacitor.  As the capacitor voltage goes up, the capacitance increases, such that the observed voltage increase on the cap will be progressively lesser and lesser than you would normally expect because of the dC/dV phenomenon associated with supercapacitors.

What I speculated earlier was that dC/dV may be at least 100 times a greater effect than dC/dTemp.  Either effect can not possibly produce any form of free energy.  We know that V = Q/C.  We also know that Q is a constant.  Therefore if C increases and Q is a constant, then V has to decrease for increasing C.  We also know that E = 1/2*C*V-squared.  When you punch in the numbers for any combination of C and V, and knowing that there is a fixed relationship between C and V where V = Q/C, then you will find that the solution for the amount of energy in the capacitor will remain constant as C and V vary for a fixed Q.

All of the above relationships apply just as much to supercapacitors as they apply to any other form of capacitor.  There is no rational reason as far as I am concerned to believe that supercapacitors might be a source of free energy.

If you are going to try to be scientific, shouldn't someone be able to suggest a model or a rational explanation for the proposed free energy effect as the basis for their proposition?  I don't think one exists, it is based on hearsay from Gadgetmail.  May I suggest that you qualify Gadget for his electronics knowledge also by reading his postings so you can attach a "confidence grading" to Gadget's hearsay.  "Hearsay" is a fairly tough word to attach to this information and in this case in my opinion it is justified.

Good luck with your testing.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 03, 2009, 06:08:57 AM
Milehigh:

Did you even read your post?

 "I think that we would all agree that on face value one would conclude that supercapacitors are not a source of free energy."

A lot of suppositions here.  "I think".  "We would all agree".  "Face value."  "Supercaps are not a source of free energy."

I posit that you are incorrect on all of these.  Why do you do this?   Where is your proof?  Experiments?  Why do you feel the need to keep posting this over and over?

Prove us wrong.  Do a single experiment or test that backs up your repeated statements.  Where do you come up with this "I think we would all agree...."

I will say, for the record, that "I don't think we all agree.  if we did there would be no discussion.  Paul would not have to do any tests.  These are the tests that you "KNOW" the results beforehand so, to me, this means you are not the guy to do the tests.  But, please feel free to do them anyway.  We would all love to see something that backs up all of your suppositions. 

Please do that or please refrain from posting the same diatribe over and over with nothing to back it up.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 03, 2009, 06:28:11 AM
Bill:

Quote
The problem is that you were telling many folks that supercaps were no different, to the same folks that have already proved to themselves, and others, that they are.

Quote
The good folks you are preaching to have already seen the difference and have moved on to newer and better things.

What are the differences?  Can you give us at least a two or three paragraph response please?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 03, 2009, 06:34:51 AM
Milehigh:

This is my last attempt.  Do you remember when you were pm'ing me about this very subject?  I asked a question that I did not receive an answer to.  Like why, with my earth battery only putting out 1,9 volts at about 19 mAs can charge a b-cap to 2.6 volts and 650 Farads?  I have an answer that might or might not be correct.

After seeing the scope shot wave forms from my EB I saw a lot of high voltage spikes.  I concluded (not proven) that these supercaps, b-caps, can take these spikes and make them real energy...usable power.  I have seen that and done that and documented that.  I am not sure this is why it is happening but, I have seen the results.

I have built 3 Bedini motors (SSG) and used regular batteries.  My guess, or posit if you will, is that supercaps can handle these spikes and convert them to real power.  A battery can "sort of" do this, after conditioning,  but not as efficient.  This is what I have seen by trying this.

This is where I feel the "extra" energy is coming from.  It does, after all, have to come from somewhere.

So, let me state this for the record here on OU.com.  If Paul's tests fail to show anything "interesting", and Gadget does not win the OU prize, and it turns out that you were correct all along, I say here that I will be one of the first ones to acknowledge that, and that I will publically apologize to you.

I am here to learn.  And if I learn something different than expected or what I thought was reality?  Then I will be the first to say I was wrong.  No problem.  I can do this easily because then, everyone else here will have learned something and, so will I.  This is good.

I am here to learn.  My wish and hope would be that everyone else is too.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 03, 2009, 07:05:12 AM
Bill:

I am not going to rebut your three technical points and just say that there is noting special or remarkable going on in what you are observing.  I know that you have heard that response before from others including Poynt but this is not the place to go into those details.

So please don't be offended but you haven't convinced me at all with your examples and I have to point out that you did not actually describe any differences between run-of-the-mill capacitors and supercapacitors.

Your comments on the desire to learn are welcomed.  Perhaps one day you and your JT group will get to the point where you see the real deal with respect to your three examples and you might share my viewpoint.  Time will tell.

A little thought experiment for you:  You are in a park and are sitting next to a merry-go-round.  It is an ideal merry-go-round on frictionless bearings and there is no air friction.  You have a small ball-peen hammer in your hand and you hit a rail on the merry-go-round and it starts to turn.  Every second you hit the merry-go-round with your ball-peen hammer and it slowly starts to speed up.  Just like there are frictionless bearings and no air friction, you have a near "magic arm" and can still hit the merry go round with your hammer so that keeps on speeding up faster and faster.  Eventually you decide that the merry-go-round is spinning fast enough and you stop hitting it with your ball-peen hammer.  The merry-go-round then just spins "forever" since there is no bearing or air friction.

That is what is going on with your first example, the earth battery charging the supercap.  That is what the electric circuit is doing.  Perhaps it sounds crazy and incomprehensible to you, but if you keep on learning perhaps one day it will make sense to you.

Anybody that says that this was a junk posting can kiss my ass.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 03, 2009, 07:39:35 AM
Well, I say it was a junk posting so, you did not have, once again, any answers to offer.  You dodged, very poorly I might add, very direct questions.  Thanks for the physics 101 example of the merry go round.  You must have such a high opinion of yourself that you think we don't know anything.  Have you designed and built parts that are now on Mars?  (I have)  What have you done...exactly?  Why should we listen to you?

No answers?

Exactly.

So, unless you have something to add to the conversation, I suggest you join poynt and take all of your great and wonderful knowledge that none of us will ever have, and go somewhere else.  Your mind is closed.  You have demonstrated that to all of us repeatedly.  I give up.  It is not my job in life to educate you.  You probably know more about electronics than I will ever know, but, you don't know everything and, you have quit learning.

This is very sad.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 03, 2009, 07:51:41 AM
Bill:

You are forgetting that I asked you to answer my question about the differences between ordinary capacitors and supercapacitors, which you failed to answer.  I was just asking you to back up your own statements, which you can't do.  Don't try to twist that into a pop quiz related to the "mysteries" from your JT thread that you are a asking me to explain.  I could answer each one of your questions/examples with ease, but this is not the place to do that.  I am pretty sure that you would not even understand my answers if I gave you the "straight technical goods."

You _think_ that you are pushing the envelope, but you are in reality in your own self-imposed Dark Age with no Renaissance in sight.  And don't tell me not to speak one more time.

Back to Paul's research....

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 03, 2009, 07:59:29 AM
Milehigh:

Yes, Paul's research.  His results will answer your question.  I am willing to wait for the results....are you?

I never said don't speak.  I did politely ask you, again and again, not to keep positing the same things over and over and over, with nothing to back them up.  No experiments, no research,...nothing. I do believe everyone on this forum knows where you stand.  I also say that, you might be right.  We just do not need you to keep repeating yourself over and over, the same thing with nothing to back it up.

We now officially have your opinion MH. (for like the 300th time)   Let's see what the experimenters and testers results show.  Fair enough?  OK?  if you do not like the outcome...again I say, do your own testing!!!!!!!!!!

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 03, 2009, 09:04:10 AM
@ MileHigh,

I have been quietly reading the posts from the beginning, I don't want to get into a flame war, as it won't achieve anything constructive.
As an off sider, I "can" see both points of view.

In this day and age there are remarkable discoveries made, and many more will be made in all different sciences, and it so happens that a "new" type of capacitor has been discovered, to add to the range of capacitors.

This capacitor is able to hold a lot more energy than what has been able to be crambed into the humble aluminium canister.
I have read on the internet stories of some of the older generations (valve generation) who when confronted with this new technology who say it is impossible.

Well, fair enough, I also read somewhere in a school book back in the early 60s that man said if a car went faster than 100 miles an hour, then he would be squashed flat, Malcolm Campbell in his bluebird was able to do it and lived to tell the tale, and he went a lot faster.

We also were told that the aeroplane couldn't fly faster than the speed of sound, ha ha, look at the BlackBird, doesn't it go faster than mack 3.

So we in this day and age hear there is a new thingi-what-cha-a-ma-call it that can store more energy than a battery, I say wacko, lets see it and lets see it tested.
 
If someone makes a claim for overunity, then you can be assured this super cap willed be grilled over like a shrimp on a barbie, it will be tested and tested over and over again and again.

Mile High, I live in another country, in Australia, and you can bet I will have my eyes glued to the screen to see the outcome of these tests that Paul is doing.

We have an Electronics magazine out here called Silicon Chipp, they have heard of the super cap, and they have done a story on it, you can read the beginning of it here   http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_110327/article.html

To test them here is a link to a circuit that someone has made (not I), but it mentions super capacitors http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_30372/article.html browse down almost to the end and you will see it.

Then there is the Super Super Capacitor, these people are taking it seriously   http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/super-super-capacitor_1220.htm then scroll down to the end to a link for further reading.

MileHigh, it is a new technology, and with a doubt, there isn't a single sole here who knows all there is to know about it, it is exciting stuff, so lets all work together to try and understand it.

jim


Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 03, 2009, 02:45:50 PM
I think that we would all agree that on face value one would conclude that supercapacitors are not a source of free energy. [snip] It's a logical fallacy to accuse me of being closed minded because I am on the "against" side.

Once again you demonstrate closed mindedness. You keep saying the main effect is due to voltage, when I've presented data that contradicts your claim. And you ignore my statement, time after time you keep using that false claim to back up your claim that it's not excess energy.


I can just as easily accuse the people on the "for" side of being closed minded for different reasons.  The burden of proof rests with the "for" side.

It is illogical to say that people who are doing the experiments are being closed minded. You might want to rethink your stance.



Just for the heck of it, a little thought experiment for you:

Suppose that your tests show the capacitance goes up with temperature.  So you charge a supercap to 1 volt at room temperature of 20 C.  You then put the charged supercap into a thermal chamber and bring the temperature of the supercap up to 30 C.  You know from previous testing that the capacitance will increase by 10% when you do this.

I am not sure if you think that when you take the cap out of the thermal chamber if you can then get more energy out of it.  In fact you will not.  When you take the cap out of the thermal chamber you will observe that its voltage has dropped such that it stores the same amount of energy in it from the start of the test.  The voltage in the cap will drop as the temperature increases.  I am assuming that there are some people reading this that did not realize this simple fact.

One has to assume, give your above quote, that you are unaware of an irreversible effect, or your mind simply did not see the obvious. There are reasons for it could be an irreversible effect. Charging the UC could producing microscopic temperature changes, which in turn could cause increase the electrolytes effectiveness. You are aware of the inner workings of a UC, hopefully. The UC consists of a material with high surface density. Anyhow, it's a waste of time explaining this to you. You cannot replicate all of the microscopic effects by applying a macro temperature change.

I'm afraid this is a waste of time. IMO you have clearly demonstrated your closed mindedness.

In my next post I'll re-outline my thoughts on what might be occurring in the UC.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 03, 2009, 03:00:40 PM
This is pretty much a re-post of what I've already said because the thread is getting cluttered up.

Existing measurements have show how the UC (ultracap) measured capacitance varies with UC usage. That  is, usage in terms of the amount of current for a given per time period. When the UC is used, measured capacitance increases by a noticeable amount. As seen in the measurements, which were posted, this effect was seen at various voltage levels, and therefore this effect is not due to the non-linearities of the UC, which are far less noticeable.

The two possible explanations that I'm aware of are,

1. Excess energy (yes, that is still a possibility).

2. Dielectric absorption. Also know as dielectric hysteresis, or dielectric relaxation, and sometimes as dielectric soakage.

3. An unknown effect.


The only logical conclusion, if one wants to know the above answer, is to do the experiments.

Regards.
Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 03, 2009, 03:56:06 PM
In case a few people are wondering, an example of an irreversible effect is when a DC voltage is applied to a resistor where the resistor heats up, but the opposite does not occur. When we heat up the resistor, a DC voltage is not produce.

It's safe to say there are a lot of irreversible effects within an ultracap. UC current would produce microscopic, actually it's probably closer to nanoscopic temperatures on the surfaces of the micro globular structures within the UC.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 03, 2009, 04:51:47 PM
Bill:

I am not going to rebut your three technical points and just say that there is noting special or remarkable going on in what you are observing.  I know that you have heard that response before from others including Poynt but this is not the place to go into those details.

So please don't be offended but you haven't convinced me at all with your examples and I have to point out that you did not actually describe any differences between run-of-the-mill capacitors and supercapacitors.

Your comments on the desire to learn are welcomed.  Perhaps one day you and your JT group will get to the point where you see the real deal with respect to your three examples and you might share my viewpoint.  Time will tell.

A little thought experiment for you:  You are in a park and are sitting next to a merry-go-round.  It is an ideal merry-go-round on frictionless bearings and there is no air friction.  You have a small ball-peen hammer in your hand and you hit a rail on the merry-go-round and it starts to turn.  Every second you hit the merry-go-round with your ball-peen hammer and it slowly starts to speed up.  Just like there are frictionless bearings and no air friction, you have a near "magic arm" and can still hit the merry go round with your hammer so that keeps on speeding up faster and faster.  Eventually you decide that the merry-go-round is spinning fast enough and you stop hitting it with your ball-peen hammer.  The merry-go-round then just spins "forever" since there is no bearing or air friction.

That is what is going on with your first example, the earth battery charging the supercap.  That is what the electric circuit is doing.  Perhaps it sounds crazy and incomprehensible to you, but if you keep on learning perhaps one day it will make sense to you.

Anybody that says that this was a junk posting can kiss my ass.

MileHigh
. Your Words don't prove anything . If you want to prove something you have to Build an example .

Mh can you make even 10 amps  1. 5 volts from a 1.4 volt battery for slow release  ? ?  Show that little example in a model . If you can do that then you prove your point  .


However . I am Storing 2.6 volts at 1000's of amps from a 1.4 volt battery only requiring a few millivolts for LONG RELEASE . Remind you again the battery is rated @ 2500MAH .. SHOW US  ? You can't and why you can't see a very high cop from that simple little experiment i did alone is sad . sure you can charge up an electrolytic cap up to several hundred volts at many joules and blow the tip off your screwdriver but you cannot use that energy for more than a few seconds . If you could everyone would have a self runner . this is not  Ou and therefor < 1 Only when you can have a secondary higher than your primary current and volts is this  Ou explained in WIKI ! that what we have here . and it work on Bcap to bcap so without a doubt you cant explain experiment facts with calculations and conjectures . Thats what us experimenters do all the time . No one lit 400 leds up before us with an earth battery as the source . either  Fl tubes . I know its "NOTHING Special "  ha yea right .
and poynt said that  the Jt has been around for over 20 years ,This is Just another person claiming to know it all ,Also not true . It was Named Joule Thief By big Clives and the circuit was introduced in 1999  . only 10 years  at best and its in its infancy still and being constantly perfected and altered  to do incredible things . enuff said about the simple vampire circuit.and Ultracaps are liquid Electrolyte  unlike super cap which contain a solid electrolyte


 


   Also Show Us A capacitor  @ 1volts and Charge another one up to 2 volts  ?  Go ahead .  Show us that you Already have a self runner and a cop >1 and this is "NORMAL "
  .. cause  owners of an ultra cap already did show all this . Explain By showing real models not words . 

And i Love This One Liner from a another TRUE EXPERIMENTER Dr. Stiffler  "to play in the sand box you need your own shovel. "



Albert
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 03, 2009, 05:53:07 PM
that is a great line... lmao 

i have not followed his work ...  cuz i know where MINE  goes lol

hehehe

but how true is that ..... 

lol

btw ... i have showen miles more then your remaining time on earth alows for ... if ya hear that!

perhaps if there is a dream intertupter in the house ...   what does it mean when you float off in the sky looking at the world beneth you waveing good bye ? ...... the world was still here ...  i was told ... there only so many seats ... 

ali's words ...  daddy there only so many seats .....   ali blyss

thank you 

william
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: powercat on December 03, 2009, 06:03:22 PM
@Paul, I really appreciate your thoroughness on taking these measurements  :)

@gadget, The ultimate test will be an open source self-runner  :-*

@M H, Looks like someone's got sand in thear face  :(

cat
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 03, 2009, 06:36:42 PM
This will be fun testing the UC. If it's not excess energy, then it's still not a reflection on gadgetmall's claim since he's using his JT circuit with the UC.

... More data logger fine tuning. It's now hopped up, over ten times faster at ~ 8300 logs / second. That's cooking for this simple ADC chip. Opps, I shouldn't say that work cooking around chips. It's zooming, ... how's that. The software will never be the limitation now. There's a parallel port limitation, which depends on your computers pp hardware. ECP (enhanced capabilities port) mode is ~ four times the rate of unidirectional mode. You could get about 1MB/s, and faster with some pp hardware.

The next level up would be USB or a MCU. The MCU would cache the data, and periodically upload it to the PC unless your MCU has lots of memory. I don't have the luxury of buying anything right now unless it's absolutely necessary. The UC tests don't need high speed, and actually even 1 data log / sec. is fine. 8300 is a bonus!



2. Dielectric absorption. Also know as dielectric hysteresis, or dielectric relaxation, and sometimes as dielectric soakage.

Add: The idea is that the UC current / usage increases the dielectric absorption.


Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 03, 2009, 06:40:57 PM
@gadget, The ultimate test will be an open source self-runner  :-*

I 2nd that! I hope gadgetmall does not take any chances with a self-runner. Personally I'd hit the road and make sure such technology made it into public hands. Too many insane people in the world who would bump such a person off for far less. I don't assume for one second they can't find your location even if you post anonymously. With some time & $ I could get the location of anyone at this forum.

Don't take the chance.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 03, 2009, 07:37:58 PM
I 2nd that! I hope gadgetmall does not take any chances with a self-runner. Personally I'd hit the road and make sure such technology made it into public hands. Too many insane people in the world who would bump such a person off for far less. I don't assume for one second they can't find your location even if you post anonymously. With some time & $ I could get the location of anyone at this forum.

Don't take the chance.

Paul
Thanks Paul but this is NOT my first Self runner . I have several BEDINI that self charge and run with excess power . An i posted what i know about them in the Forum Fusionchip's Feedback to Source Bedini . Like i said They Know Me Already and know where i live . I am Listed in the Federal Communications Bureau and Several City Business Directory's , ICANN and a Also Have Level 4 Clearance with the FBI  for the US post office and also So i can chaperon Kids at School .  . iF THEY TRY TO COME GET ME AND SNUFF ME OUT > THEY WILL HAVE TO GO THRU A COUPLE PINEAPPLES AND A FEW HUNDRED POUNDS OF AMMO FIRST AND HOPE THEY DON'T FORGET TO CLOSE THERE EYES CAUSE  I HAVE A 30 WATT INVISIBLE infrared LASER  THAT BURNS STUFF AT A LONG DISTANCE  :)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 03, 2009, 07:56:46 PM
dont worrie gadget ... 

sheesh this is how humans are controlled ...  aliens do it all the time to the foolish humans ...  and ALL SIT UNDER ME ..

thank you!

so stop fearing ...

there was 1 real bad one well bad as in bad the real bad ones are in there home ...  i REFUSED THE RETURN OF the higher self being of the bad one ... i sent it back ... 

i had to be back here and STAND ON EARTH TO DO SUCH A THING ...

it did not fit my plan ...  and explaind why ...  this was understood .. ON ALL LEVELS!

peace ... in! 

now fix the garden please...
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 03, 2009, 08:46:19 PM
LOL, I hope you guys are right, but I don't care what anyone says, if I ever see a self running, then I myself will be a self run, running like the wind far & fast. Nobody will know where I'm at, and I'll demo the device & spread the good news like wild fires! End of story, and nobody can change my mind.

No chances will be taken here. So if I disappear from this forum, you'll know what's happening.  :)

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 04, 2009, 12:54:02 AM
Just going to reply to a few comments.

Paul:

Quote
I keep telling you that measured ultracap capacitance changes far more with respect to temperature than voltage.

I am really not sure why you are concluding this.  In your measurements I see that you speculate that the internal temp is higher when you put more current into the cap.  Do you really know this for sure?

I simply looked at your data and looked for a general trend.  From top to bottom you are continuously charging the capacitor and making the voltage higher and higher, irrespective of the current.  I simply applied a "low pass filter in my head" to your data and concluded that the real trend is capacitance going up for increasing cap voltage.  Also, I found a corroborating link in the abstract to the IEEE paper, remember?

In my opinion you are throwing yourself off the trail with respect to the temperature issue, based on your data.  You are simply seeing the wrong thing.  Take another look at the trending with respect to voltage.

With respect to "micro or nano areas of high temp in the globules" (paraphrasing) giving you more capacitance, that doesn't make sense simply because there can't be any nano areas like this.  Any temperature differences on a nano scale will be equalized in a nanosecond.  Finally, there is no evidence to back up this speculation nor is there any logical reason for this to increase the capacitance.  Also, any production of heat represents lost energy, which you are trying to avoid.

I also did the V=Q/C treatise showing how increased capacitance will give you lower voltage anyways, so speculating on a mechanism that increases the capacitance will simply not give you any more energy.

Quote
I made good contribution at WikiPedia on kTC noise. Do you even know what kTC noise is? Hurry up, go run over to wikipedia so you can pretend that you knew.

What the hell with the attitude?  I haven't a clue what kTC noise is.  I will guess it has something to do with thermal noise.

Bill:

Quote
I did politely ask you, again and again, not to keep positing the same things over and over and over, with nothing to back them up.

This is pure spin-doctoring and enough please.  I made a several posts with different technical points about Paul's project that were basically an attempt to shed some light on the situation so your characterization of my activity is simply a bold-faced lie.  I have no clue why the "believers" fall silent and completely mute when it comes to these types of postings, seemingly afraid to comment or ask a question.  Saying I have nothing to back them up with is another lie.  Don't give me the "experiments" line.

Why don't you apply the same standards to every second wild crazy statement from Gadgetmall?  Is this your cue to fall mute?  Challenge Gagdetmall on his totally unproven statement about being able to power your home if you have 35 or 40 ultracapacitors to work with.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 04, 2009, 01:22:12 AM
Some more comments:

Electricme:

The flat Earth/Wright brothers argument is a tired old cliche.  The rebut to that is that it is actually the scientists and enlightened people that knew that powered flight was just around the corner at the beginning of the 20th century - not the other way around as it is always stated.  Many people perfected gliding tests in the 19th century and they knew that all they needed was an engine with a good enough power to weight ratio to get off the ground.

Paul:

Quote
And you ignore my statement, time after time you keep using that false claim to back up your claim that it's not excess energy.

What exactly is your proposed mechanism for getting excess energy with an ultracap.  Please explain it clearly, I am truly not clear on what you are talking about here.

You are saying that I am making a "false claim."  I have said a fair amount, so what precisely is my "false claim?"

Also, what is the "main effect" that you are talking about?  Is it the higher current discharge equaling higher capacitance?  Again, I am not clear here.  Is the "main effect" also an over unity effect?

Quote
It is illogical to say that people who are doing the experiments are being closed minded. You might want to rethink your stance.

If I discuss point "A" then you should respond about point "A" and not point "B."  Point "A" is the fact that people want to believe that supercaps can be sources of free energy without doing the due diligence and learning about energy and electronics first before they form an opinion.  Making uneducated opinions about things is closed minded because you should have the wits and wherewithal to refrain on forming an opinion before you know most or all the facts on the ground first.

Some people following this thread might believe that supercaps can be a source of free energy because "somebody said so."  In contrast, in the real world capacitor technology has never in a million years been considered to be a source of energy.  Why should supercaps be unique in this domain when all other types of capacitors are not a source of free energy and have never been a source of free energy?  Because Gadget said so?

Quote
Charging the UC could producing microscopic temperature changes, which in turn could cause increase the electrolytes effectiveness.

Effectiveness to do what?  What do you really mean here?

Also, like I said there are no areas with microscopic temperature changes.  Is this a pet theory of yours?  What's behind it?  Do you think a microscopic area of higher temperature will be a miniature "bud" of free energy or something?

Quote
It's safe to say there are a lot of irreversible effects within an ultracap. UC current would produce microscopic, actually it's probably closer to nanoscopic temperatures on the surfaces of the micro globular structures within the UC.

Basic physics Paul:  Two extremely small volumes of material of different temperature in a thermally conducting medium will equalize in temperature in an extremely small amount of time.  They will vanish the instant that they are created.  For all practical intents and purposes the inside of a supercap will be at an even temperature.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 04, 2009, 01:31:38 AM
Jim:

Very good points there.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 04, 2009, 01:47:12 AM
Finishing off...

Gadgetmall:

It's evident that you don't know very much about electronics and energy but I can see that that is not stopping you.

Quote
Mh can you make even 10 amps  1. 5 volts from a 1.4 volt battery for slow release  ? ?  Show that little example in a model . If you can do that then you prove your point  .

That's an awkwardly worded question and in science you can't get away with saying "slow release," you have to be more precise.

The short answer for you is that just about any capacitor can produce ten amps of current at any voltage, the larger the capacitor the longer the time you can sustain the 10 amps.  You need one helluva variable resistor to "sustain 10 amps" though.

Quote
However . I am Storing 2.6 volts at 1000's of amps from a 1.4 volt battery only requiring a few millivolts for LONG RELEASE .


No you are not doing that.  I suggest that you start learning your stuff so that you can at least express yourself when it comes to electronics in a coherent manner.  You are storing a certain amount of charge at a certain potential in your ultracapacitor.  B.S. on the "LONG RELEASE" - 1000's of amperes would discharge your supercap in a very short time.  I suggest that you look up "RC circuit" on Wikipedia and learn how the voltage and the current undergo an exponential decay when a capacitor discharges through a resistor.

Quote
It was Named Joule Thief By big Clives and the circuit was introduced in 1999  . only 10 years  at best and its in its infancy still and being constantly perfected and altered  to do incredible things .

The Joule Thief circuit would merit about 20 minutes worth of discussion in an Electronics 101 class as an example of what you can do with inductors.  This presumes that in the previous classes inductors and transformers were fully explained.  That's it Gadget, the JT circuit does not even merit a footnote in the history of electronics.  It is just a simple and fun way to charge and then discharge an inductor typically with a battery as the energy source.  There is no great "future highway" of research that is going to be going into the JT to "discover it's mysteries and applications" - it's just a fun little circuit to play around with and you see them used in little gizmos that you can buy at the Dollar store.

Quote
Also Show Us A capacitor  @ 1volts and Charge another one up to 2 volts  ?  Go ahead .

Easy, put a JT circuit between the two capacitors.  V = L di/dt.  If you can turn the inductor off fast enough, the sky is the limit with respect to the voltages you can produce.  Ho Hum.

Quote
I have several BEDINI that self charge and run with excess power.

You think that they do but in fact that is not the case.  Swap your batteries back and forth, over and over, and eventually you will end up with two dead batteries, guaranteed.  Don't believe me?  Do the experiment.

Some of you guys should hook up with Jethro Bodine and become Double Naught spies.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: broli on December 04, 2009, 01:51:23 AM
Look at how all that poor forum space is being violated by the troll.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 04, 2009, 02:02:14 AM
Look at how all that poor forum space is being violated by the troll.

I'm now ignoring him, and when time permits will add him to my forum ignore list here. since he's proven to be closed minded and offers no circuits etc. to contribute. As far as I can tell, he only offers to stall & waste peoples time.

I'm a little bit annoyed that I've spent over half the day on the recent excellent global warming graph that ATT executed himself, with my own additions, then followed by my findings on how Exxon Mobil oil company is in the news on just how much $$$$$$ it's contributing to anti global warming organizations, and is actually in a bit of legal trouble now over all  of this. I'll never buy gas from Exxon again, period. So I'll get up ~ 4-5am tomorrow and try to not spend much time on the forum to finish this data logger & UC measurements.

Regards
Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: powercat on December 04, 2009, 02:11:30 AM
@MH
We are all more than aware of your opinions on this topic    Ow how we are  :(
Argument Clinic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
cat
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 04, 2009, 02:27:19 AM
Quote
I'm now ignoring him, and when time permits will add him to my forum ignore list here. since he's proven to be closed minded and offers no circuits etc. to contribute. As far as I can tell, he only offers to stall & waste peoples time.

There is a prime example of closed mindedness for all to see.  There are many interesting technical points raised and Paul is going to pass on responding to them under the guise of "he only offers to stall & waste peoples time."

Strangely enough, a few pages back Paul tried to assume "ownership" for a bunch of my points and has flip-flopped on some of his points in a very Orwellian fashion.

Anyways, let's see what kind of data Paul produces.  If he has the smarts to correctly interpret his data he will find no free energy.  You have to factor in the "self-blinding bias factor" that many enthusiasts have and that may indeed come into play for Paul also.  There are no guarantees that he will correctly interpret his data.

A capacitor is a device that stores energy, it does not produce energy.  It is as simple as that.  If you are going to split hairs, capacitors, like any other passive and active components are devices that dissipate energy as heat.  All capacitors are COP < 1 devices.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 04, 2009, 02:31:58 AM
@milehigh
u need a bex n a good lie down, ur toooo worked up

jim
Title: 22222222 many comments
Post by: stprue on December 04, 2009, 02:37:37 AM
Deleted
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: stprue on December 04, 2009, 02:40:17 AM
I wanted to make this in a new topic...what did I do wrong?
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 04, 2009, 02:56:14 AM
stprue:

Go to the forums section and select the board under which you want to start your new topic.  Go up to the right and select "start new topic" and there you go.  PM me if you have any questions.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 04, 2009, 03:00:08 AM
MH :

If you don't listen to words, mabey this will help  :-*

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 04, 2009, 04:58:06 AM
MH :

If you don't listen to words, mabey this will help  :-*
Ah Jim another great desktop background there mate !.


@ milehigh . It's obvious you work for the oil company's . I have 4 years college and 37 years in electronics down to the computer component level . It;s Obviousness  you don't READ and  It's obvious you don't  know what your talking about . My bedini has been running for 9 months . I have knife switches that swap them . If i don't swap them then the Secondary Cooks ,already cooked 4 SLA's this year because i forgot to swap them . And Its obvious you haven't watched any of my Video documentation  on that subject  . 4christonly1  on youtube . I bet you don't have one documented experiment at all !DO YOU ? Nothing but constant annoying  utterances . It would be good stuff if you could actually show SOMETHING to back up your text book CRAP ???
just Leave us Free Energy Experimenter Alone to procure Our free energy . We will not listen anymore . And Yep SCREW the Energy Misers who want to Control everything in afree persons like. you wont control this Bud!

SLOW RELEASE is like a Battery in that we release it's energy slowly and you cant discharge these bcaps in a few seconds , they last for weeks . We release large or small amounts of current and voltage slowly. No you cant do that with a capacitor . you can with an ultra cap /Battery cap . . They run stuff for weeks on end . Not just leds but motors and dc to dc converters and thermo modules . and well just about anything . And STILL you have NO PROOF other than  words no one is listening to now . You Lose either way cause you don't have any gumption to show one freakin thing to back up any of your old school text book garbage . Your a plant for the oil misers and a free energy stomper !

I'll ignore you too and as i you give a hoot you already tried to degrade me enuff with your fast talk . You are a real Bummer of a person . AH MH


@Paul Please Keep up your work  what ever the outcome and your are right we need someone else besides closed minded always negative  seemingly plants to stop free energy  by any means  .. I will prove without a doubt to Stephan i am right just as soon as we finish the Ou controller. It's provable with out it but i want to mount it in a box so it does not  not have to be touched . . I have Chained several together and the effect is even more Stronger with 2 bcaps in series  . I'll hook My 200 mzh digital storage scope up this week to give everyone an idea of what the Bcap is collecting from the JT output . . Paul you should sell kits for your logger . We all could use one . I have several Spare Computers Doing Nothing . I used to program in assembly  way back in CPM days . Took it in College . Earth battery users could use one as well .

Gadget
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 04, 2009, 05:43:40 AM
@All

A bedini making Ultraviolet Light and OZONE via a MOT, (I can smell it) whacko!
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: broli on December 04, 2009, 10:27:54 AM
Paul you should sell kits for your logger . We all could use one . I have several Spare Computers Doing Nothing . I used to program in assembly  way back in CPM days . Took it in College . Earth battery users could use one as well .

Gadget

I agree. Loggers that are accurate to 1mv are hard to come by and usually very expensive. You should release the circuit and maybe circuit pcb layout under an open source license and sell DIY kits if you can.

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 04, 2009, 02:59:56 PM
Paul you should sell kits for your logger .

Actually I'm surprised someone at this forum has not provide exact instructions to make an awesome MCU data logger. The problem with MCU's is the learning curve. It's true that a lot of newbies can buy one and plot in some existing code, and it works. Yet there are EE's who've pulled their hair out trying to get one to work on their PC.

Anyhow, I'll get off the forums now. The circuit will be posted after testing. Also, people who don't have to watch their pennies, like me, can buy a faster ADC & get higher data logging speeds, probably over a million / second.  :)   Or better yet, also buy a USB chip, and yeeehaaa! Sorry guys, I'm flat broke.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 04, 2009, 03:23:04 PM
Actually I'm surprised someone at this forum has not provide exact instructions to make an awesome MCU data logger. The problem with MCU's is the learning curve. It's true that a lot of newbies can buy one and plot in some existing code, and it works. Yet there are EE's who've pulled their hair out trying to get one to work on their PC.

Anyhow, I'll get off the forums now. The circuit will be posted after testing. Also, people who don't have to watch their pennies, like me, can buy a faster ADC & get higher data logging speeds, probably over a million / second.  :)   Or better yet, also buy a USB chip, and yeeehaaa! Sorry guys, I'm flat broke.

Paul
Hello ? this is a way for you to make a little income with your knowledge !
Start with one kit , the parts , and make a few dollars on your Pc program and cover your shipping and paypals damn cut  and I guarantee you can see some . I will even help you ! I cant afford much right now . I have a partner that funds most of stuff . I certainly did not buy 2 pallets of bcaps by my self . after all i am on disability and that's not much at all considering i still have a truck payment o 450 buck and almost 11,000 still owed  on a new Toyota 2006  Tacoma .I bought it when i was working and did not expect to retire so early in life . Also you know i have a baby girl who needs a lot of care and so i don't eat but once a day to make sure she has what she needs and the little bit of internet sales ,well its peanuts because i don't jack up stuff like others . How ever there are the FREE stuff . I am constantly getting all the parts i need . piles and piles of micros leds toroids batteries you name it . its all in a post i posted on the JT thread so a poor experiment has access to free electronics fo life basically . i have ordered from st micro 3 times already . you can get 10 of 7 items once per week . so Guys take advantage of it !
Albert
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 04, 2009, 08:30:23 PM
Looks like there might be joy today. Both of the data logger op-amps are in and working. The dual channel data logger seems happy.

It's lunch time, and after that will spend a few hours testing everything like a mad man, and then will start testing the UC.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: jadaro2600 on December 04, 2009, 10:27:47 PM
@All

A bedini making Ultraviolet Light and OZONE via a MOT, (I can smell it) whacko!

What kind of device is this tube? ...

I'm wondering if it is safe to use such tubes, I'm aware that there may be consequences for using vacuum tubes, as such things are used in produce radiation(?).
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 05, 2009, 12:13:54 AM
Electricme:

That's a pretty appropriate drawing that you posted.  The "enlightened" people pulling blinds down over their own eyes so that they can't see anymore.  No one has ever stated that capacitors are a source of energy in the history of electronics going all the way back to the mid nineteenth century.  But the "blinded" ones are going to push on anyways and spin their wheels until they finally concede that we got it right the first time round.

Seemingly Paul has a few unsubstantiated "hunch" theories to follow up on but is not willing to talk about.  Bill makes a few definitive statements declaring that supercapacitors are different but when he is asked to back up his statements he has absolutely nothing to offer.  All in a day's play.

Gadget:

You played the "oil company" card!  What took you so long?  Laughable nonsense.

Quote
My bedini has been running for 9 months . I have knife switches that swap them

Is that sort of like the TV show "Lost" - you have been flipping knife switches every four hours for the last nine months?

Quote
If i don't swap them then the Secondary Cooks

Why does the secondary cook?  You da big 'lectronics man, why does that happen?

Quote
We release large or small amounts of current and voltage slowly. No you cant do that with a capacitor . you can with an ultra cap /Battery cap.

You consistently demonstrate that you only have a vague knowledge about electronics so I don't buy the "37 years in electronics" pitch for a second.

So good luck on Paul generating some data.  You are welcome Paul for explaining to you that you have to know what the digital step is for your A/D converter.

If all of you can pull together and work hard at it, you will come to the correct conclusion that supercaps and ultracaps are not sources of energy, they are just energy storage devices.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 05, 2009, 12:18:47 AM
lets call it a time storage device .... and it stores borrowed time ...


need the pattend ...

w815

omg  the cap is a time machine....  lol

you got it right the first time round ...  you built and displayed the 7 harmonic transformer .. built working and tuned ...  i dont think so... 

and if ya did you probally built the other half too...  eh...

next ill here you reduced its size  sectioned the rings... and solved entanglement ... yea right ...

yet you fail to show human respect ... 

GO BUILD SOMETHING...   with all do respect!

i just guessing you know for FACT  i designed that unit and comprehended it .. and i can build what i just explained ...  no sir/mam it will not be built because of you nor for you..

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Mk1 on December 05, 2009, 12:27:48 AM
Question ?

What can you make from 2 different type of metal in electrolyte?

Hum , that's is weird ! i swear its a battery , but no its a cap. 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 05, 2009, 12:37:36 AM
Question ?

What can you make from 2 different type of metal in electrolyte?

Hum , that's is weird ! i swear its a battery , but no its a cap.

welcome ...

mk1 

i swear it runs on nothing .. but how can it .. its black ...  no wate  its white ...   yikes

its everything and nothing .. its half full its half empty .. 

very quantum ...

ist!   

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 05, 2009, 12:49:43 AM

Bill makes a few definitive statements declaring that supercapacitors are different but when he is asked to back up his statements he has absolutely nothing to offer.  All in a day's play.



MileHigh

You can't be serious here.  I have attempted to point out all of the differences to you so many times, my fingers have blisters from typing so much.  You "claim" I have nothing to offer only because what I have told you, and been telling you does not agree with your 1918 Electronics 101 Beginner's Handbook that you must sleep with under your pillow.

Many folks here have offered you good, solid responses to your continued incorrect posits about ultracaps but you choose to ignore them.  Now you even dare to call into question Gadget's many years of electronics experience.  You claim you do not believe it.  This fits your pattern exactly.  His life experience with electronics allows some great devices that, since you never built any and don't know about, you have to deny that he even has this experience.  The same with the caps.  All of the information presented here, and elsewhere, about how these b-caps ARE different does not fit what you believe to be true so, you have to deny that we have even tried to explain it to you.

I would sure hate to have to be you man.

Please SHUT UP about things you have obviously demonstrated that you know nothing about.  You keep saying the same things over and over and you are incorrect.

I don't know how to say it any clearer than that.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 05, 2009, 01:20:25 AM
@ Jadaro2600,

What kind of device is this tube? ...

I'm wondering if it is safe to use such tubes, I'm aware that there may be consequences for using vacuum tubes, as such things are used in produce radiation(?).
Yes, it is a Mercury Vapor Lamp, this is how I received it, thrown away in the dump.
I assume its exhausted the ability to make light, but it sure puts on a display that is very interresting indeed.

Does anyone know what type of UV shielding one can use for the UV radiation, but still be able to observe the striation patterns?

Here is what it actually looks like when it is not turned on.



 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 05, 2009, 01:24:17 AM
Jim:

It depends.  Glass and some plastics shield long wave UV but it is the short wave UV that does the damage.  (I hope I don't have this backwards...I don't think so)  I don't know of anything that will shield the short waves and still allow visual monitoring except maybe by filming with a video camera that has "night vision" and playing it back thereby preserving your eyes.

As an aside, in the PI business we use those hand held spot lights of like 2 million candlepower (Q-beam, etc) to which we add an IR filter.  Then we can shoot on night scope and paint the area we want to video up to about 600 feet away. (It shows up like shooting in broad day light)
I know UV and IR are different but, for some reason, I can also see UV on my camera on this setting as well.


Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 05, 2009, 01:41:23 AM
Bill:

V = Q/C
The voltage across a capacitor is directly proportional to the charge on the capacitor and inversely proportional to the size of the capacitor.

i = C dv/dt
The current flowing through a capacitor is the product of the capacitance and the rate of change of the voltage across the capacitor with respect to time. 

In this case the capacitor is acting as a voltage differentiator, where the current is indicating the rate of change of the voltage across the capacitor with respect to time.

E = 1/2 C v-squared.
The energy in a capacitor is one-half the capacitance times the voltage across the capacitor squared.

In electronics voltage is the "though" variable current is the "across" variable.  In a capacitor, the through variable, current, is absorbed by the capacitor resulting in an increased voltage across the capacitor.  This is a process called integration.  If the current changed direction then you integrate i(t) dt where i(t) is negative, resulting in decreased voltage across the capacitor.

This is analogous to a moving mass where the through variable is force and the across variable is velocity.  E = 1/2 M v-squared.  The mass integrates the force resulting in increased velocity.

This is analogous to a spinning merry-go-round where the trough variable is torque and the across variable is angular velocity.  The merry-go-round integrates the torque imparted on it by the ball-peen hammer resulting in increased angular velocity.  This represents stored energy:  E = 1/2 Moment_of_Inertia * Angular_velocity-squared.

v = (t=t0)Integral(t=t1) 1/C i(t) dt
The voltage across a capacitor is inversely proportional to the size of the capacitor times the integral of i as a function of time from t=t1 to t=t2.

In this case the capacitor is acting as a current integrator, where the voltage is indicating the amount of charge (current * time) stored on the capacitor.

Capacitors, moving masses, and merry-go-rounds are power integrators giving you stored energy.  That means that they absorb and store the power that is put into them.  Power is the product of the through variable and the across variable.  Voltage times current, force time velocity, and torque times angular velocity are all forms of power.  You can just "pick your capacitor" and watch as it performs the integration of the incoming power with respect to time and converts it into stored energy.  That can involve integrating voltage times current with respect to time, force times velocity with respect to time, or torque times angular velocity with respect to time.

At zero hertz the impedance of a capacitor is infinity.

At infinity hertz the impedance of a capacitor is zero.

When you connect a battery to a discharged capacitor, the instant the battery connects to the capacitor, the capacitor looks like a short circuit.  After the capacitor charges up, it looks like an open circuit.

When you short out an ideal charged capacitor with an ideal short, you get an infinite amount of current for an infinitesimally short amount of time and the capacitor voltage drops to zero in 1/infinity seconds.

When you charge a capacitor through a resistor, it takes an almost infinite amount of time to fully charge the capacitor.  In theory it takes infinity seconds to fully charge, but the electron represents a discrete quantum of charge so there is a limit.

Quote
Please SHUT UP about things you have obviously demonstrated that you know nothing about

What is this, Bill's Cognitive Dissonance Hour?  Mr. 1984 himself?  War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Knowledge is Ignorance?  Is your brain hurting?

You are the one that is doing all the demonstrating and it is mind blowing to see you adamantly refuse to try to learn something while on the JT pages you are this soft teddy bear thanking people for explaining to you the differences between batteries in parallel and in series.  Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hide himself, with his head firmly buried in the sand.

Also, you should never put batteries in parallel.  That's a potential recipe for disaster.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: powercat on December 05, 2009, 01:46:20 AM
UltraCapacitors.org Forum
Each bank rates at 13.8 volts with 500 Farads. The amp rating is 100 for charging (20 amps cycling) maximum. Each bank is composed of 6 - 2.3v 3000F caps with active voltage balance for each cap. These are bigger then the caps I have to replace "AA" and "AAA" batteries. These are for powering a boom box or other "C", "D" battery devices. I can charge the smaller cap paks with these, using car plug adapters. Each cap bank weighs in at about 10 pounds.
http://www.ultracapacitors.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=99&catid=8&func=view&id=215
Michael C Moderator UltraCapacitors.org Forum
========================================
cat  ;)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Mk1 on December 05, 2009, 01:48:28 AM
@all

The question is how many times a man without ulterior motive , will repeat him self !?
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 05, 2009, 01:49:06 AM
MH:

All of what you posted most, if not all of us are familiar with, but thanks anyway.  No where in your post did you refer to anything other than capacitors.  Not supercaps and certainly not b-caps.  I know why you did this.  You think they are all the same, but you are wrong.  If they were all the same, why did somebody bother to invent and produce them?

I was being nice to that new fellow who was telling me about batteries in series and parallel.  Why you might ask?  Well, if you read his first post, he said he has over 35 years as an EE BUT he wanted to read every post on that topic before posting.  I believe he said it took him about 2 weeks to do so.  So yes, he has earned my respect right off the bat.  if i recall, you said you would not bother to read more than 5 pages back.  Notice a difference here?

If you look at my videos posted 3 years ago, I think you will see that I already knew that information.  Just because someone tells me something does not mean I did not already know it.  Did NASA used to call you for your advice as a consultant?  Well, they not only used to call me, they actually paid me too.  So I think it safe to say I understand Ohm's law.

But, you don't believe Gadget's history so, I do not expect you to believe mine.

These caps are different.  You can accept that, or do the experiments and testing to prove that incorrect.  Are they OU devices?  I think so but, that is why were are here to TEST that posit.  Please feel free to do so.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: broli on December 05, 2009, 02:08:29 AM
@MileTroll

"You who make a policy of automatically rejecting 'crazy' ideas without first giving them a fair hearing, you would have joined the experts in 1905 who refused to view the Wright Flyer in action, and whose continuing public ridicule eventually forced the Wrights to abandon the USA and move to France."
- William Beaty

I can sense that the time for MileStupid on this forum is close to stopping.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 05, 2009, 02:22:14 AM
Some brain food:

http://powerelectronics.com/mag/power_ultracapacitor_technology_powers/

Ultracapacitors as Circuit Elements

The equivalent circuit used for conventional capacitors can also be applied to ultracapacitors. The circuit schematic in Fig. 2 represents the first-order model for an ultracapacitor. It's comprised of four ideal circuit elements: a capacitance C, a series resistor Rs, a parallel resistor Rp, and a series inductor L. Rs is called the equivalent series resistance (ESR) and contributes to energy loss during capacitor charging and discharging. Rp simulates energy loss due to capacitor self-discharge, and is often referred to as the leakage current resistance. Inductor L results primarily from the physical construction of the capacitor and is usually small. However, in many applications, it can't be neglected — particularly those operating at high frequencies or subjected to hard switching.

Resistor Rp is always much higher than Rs in practical capacitors. Thus, it often can be neglected, particularly in high-power applications. In that case, the impedance of the Fig. 2 circuit model is:

Z = R + i (2pfL-1/2pfC), where L is the inductance in [Henrys]. The impedance is purely resistive when 2pfL-1/2pfC = 0, or f = 1/2 p(LC)½. This particular frequency is referred to as the resonance frequency of the capacitor. Thus, the impedance of circuit is simply the resistance at self-resonance. However, ultracapacitors exhibit non-ideal behavior, which result primarily from the porous material used to form the electrodes that cause the resistance and capacitance to be distributed such that the electrical response mimics transmission line behavior. Fig. 3 shows a more realistic circuit representing the real ultracapacitor's electrical response.


DC Behavior of Ultracapacitors

Ultracapacitors used in electric drivelines to load-level the battery experience large-steady (transient) dc, much like the battery, rather than small amplitude ac signals. The dc charge or discharge time (tdisch) of the capacitor is related to the fundamental characteristic frequency (fAC in Hz) of the ac voltage on the capacitor by tdisch » 1/4fAC. Hence, for several backup time applications, the ac signals are lower than 10Hz.

In testing ultracapacitors, it's convenient to model them as a simple series RC circuit when inductive effects are unimportant. In this case, Q = CV, E = 1/2 CV2 and Vo - V = iR + (Qo - Q / C), where Q is charge on the capacitor, V is voltage on capacitor, E is energy stored in the capacitor, and Vo and Qo are voltage and charge at t = 0, respectively.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 05, 2009, 03:06:30 AM
#$!@%$^&%**x(pi2)/666=MH
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 05, 2009, 03:10:56 AM
#$!@%$^&%**x(pi2)/666=MH

Well said Al.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 05, 2009, 03:34:45 AM
Save your soul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 05, 2009, 04:02:31 AM
Save your soul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
The bit about the Magic powder is real . A man Grew his chopped off finger above the knuckle completely back , finger  nail and all . From his Scientist Brothers powder made from Pig intestines/bladder . . Believe it or not . http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/24/pig-bladder-powder-r.html
http://multi-medium.net/2008/03/31/the-magic-of-pig-bladder-powder

Some things cannot be explained like >1 that can be SEEN and are POTENTIAL science :
Lee Spievak cut his finger off and then regrew it using pixie dust.

    "I put my finger in," Mr. Spievak says, pointing towards the propeller of a model airplane, "and that's when I sliced my finger off."

Wow, Lee, wow. Reminds me of the time I stuck my tongue in an oscillating fan.

    Today though, you wouldn't know it. Mr Spievak, who is 69 years old, shows off his finger, and it's all there, tissue, nerves, nail, skin, even his finger print. How? Well that's the truly remarkable part. It wasn't a transplant. Mr Spievak re-grew his finger tip. He used a powder - or pixie dust as he sometimes refers to it while telling his story. Mr Speivak's brother Alan - who was working in the field of regenerative medicine - sent him the powder.

The pixie dust, or more appropriately "pigsy dust", is actually made by scraping the cells from the inside of a pig's bladder, treating them with acid, and turning them into a powder. In addition to smelling like urine, the magical substance can regrow fingers lost in the propellers of model airplanes. Scientists hope that within 10 years we will be able to regrow arms and legs. Cool, scientists, but let's think outside the box for a second.

So whats this got to do with Pauls Ultracapacitor thread ....OPEN MINDEDNESS !!
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: fritznien on December 05, 2009, 05:39:55 AM
The bit about the Magic powder is real . A man Grew his chopped off finger above the knuckle completely back , finger  nail and all . From his Scientist Brothers powder made from Pig intestines/bladder . . Believe it or not . http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/24/pig-bladder-powder-r.html
http://multi-medium.net/2008/03/31/the-magic-of-pig-bladder-powder

Some things cannot be explained like >1 that can be SEEN and are POTENTIAL science :
Lee Spievak cut his finger off and then regrew it using pixie dust.

    "I put my finger in," Mr. Spievak says, pointing towards the propeller of a model airplane, "and that's when I sliced my finger off."

Wow, Lee, wow. Reminds me of the time I stuck my tongue in an oscillating fan.

    Today though, you wouldn't know it. Mr Spievak, who is 69 years old, shows off his finger, and it's all there, tissue, nerves, nail, skin, even his finger print. How? Well that's the truly remarkable part. It wasn't a transplant. Mr Spievak re-grew his finger tip. He used a powder - or pixie dust as he sometimes refers to it while telling his story. Mr Speivak's brother Alan - who was working in the field of regenerative medicine - sent him the powder.

The pixie dust, or more appropriately "pigsy dust", is actually made by scraping the cells from the inside of a pig's bladder, treating them with acid, and turning them into a powder. In addition to smelling like urine, the magical substance can regrow fingers lost in the propellers of model airplanes. Scientists hope that within 10 years we will be able to regrow arms and legs. Cool, scientists, but let's think outside the box for a second.

So whats this got to do with Pauls Ultracapacitor thread ....OPEN MINDEDNESS !!
don't be so open minded your brain falls out. a quick google pulls up be for and after pics, he lost just the tip,not the finger not the nail.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 05, 2009, 09:18:43 AM
don't be so open minded your brain falls out. a quick google pulls up be for and after pics, he lost just the tip,not the finger not the nail.
Yes it was ,I saw him on TV Unexplained mysteries  . It was cut OFF to the joint !! besides what difference does it make . the dam thing grew Back .. gEEZ

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3805459n
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 05, 2009, 01:07:22 PM
@ Bill,

Jim:

It depends.  Glass and some plastics shield long wave UV but it is the short wave UV that does the damage.  (I hope I don't have this backwards...I don't think so)  I don't know of anything that will shield the short waves and still allow visual monitoring except maybe by filming with a video camera that has "night vision" and playing it back thereby preserving your eyes.

As an aside, in the PI business we use those hand held spot lights of like 2 million candlepower (Q-beam, etc) to which we add an IR filter.  Then we can shoot on night scope and paint the area we want to video up to about 600 feet away. (It shows up like shooting in broad day light)
I know UV and IR are different but, for some reason, I can also see UV on my camera on this setting as well.

Bill
Wow, 600 feet of area litup and it carnt be seen by the eyes, that I would love to actually see happen.

This UV business, I better keep the thing off until I find out more about it, seems safer that way,
Thanks Bill.

jim
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 05, 2009, 01:37:51 PM
@ Paul,

Hi man, after a busy day I tuned in here for a good read, but had a belly roll of laughter instead he he.

Anyway, lets not forget the real reason for this thread, it's to check out Gadgets claim that these SC are pritty smart doovas.

So Paul, how did your day go, hows the software proceeding, and what success have you had with it today?




@ tishatang,
Sorry my friend, I had to fly into town, something more urgent came up, the cow went dry and I don't like just black tea, then the daughters PC picked up a nasty trojan horse so I brought her PC back home to give it the once over.

@Bill,
Thanks for the email mate, TA

@ Gadget,
If MH sits on a ordinary cap, it'l shock him and instant, if he sits on a SC, he will fry for hours, could hurt a lot more.

jim


 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 06, 2009, 02:05:15 AM
@ Paul,

Hi man, after a busy day I tuned in here for a good read, but had a belly roll of laughter instead he he.

Anyway, lets not forget the real reason for this thread, it's to check out Gadgets claim that these SC are pritty smart doovas.

So Paul, how did your day go, hows the software proceeding, and what success have you had with it today?

Hi Jim,

There was a little bit of joy today. Everything's going great so far. Good grief knock on some wood somewhere. I spent my spare time today doing some preliminary tests on a 40000 uF capacitor to make sure it's all working. I've added a new little software feature that shows the continuous total energy, live. So I can see how it's going as the experiment progresses without the need to analyze the data logger files after the experiment. Also there's two new custom buttons, Charge, and Discharge. Anyhow, it took 0.0019 joules (1.9mJ) to charge the 40000uF cap to 0.297 volts, and the total energy that discharged from the capacitor was 0.0015   joules (1.5mJ). For this particular setup that makes the 40000uF cap 79% efficient. Note, this has nothing to do with how efficient the circuit is, but how efficient the capacitor itself is. There was about a minute delay between charging and discharging the capacitor. So the cap leaked a bit, but that probably wouldn't make too much difference.

It's the weekend, but I shouldn't have too many other things to do tomorrow. So lets hope Sunday is the big UC day. After the UC measurements I'll draw nice pretty circuit diagrams of everything, which consists of the data logger circuit, the dual op-amp circuit, and the mosfet current source. I'm not sure where to post the software .exe file, and the source code.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: broli on December 06, 2009, 02:21:51 AM
I'm not sure where to post the software .exe file, and the source code.

Regards,
Paul

Just put it all in a rar or zip file and attach it to your post. You can do the same on your blog by uploading it to a (or several) free file hosting websites like:

http://www.filesavr.com/ (http://www.filesavr.com/)
http://www.filedropper.com/ (http://www.filedropper.com/)

Keep up the good job. This circuit and software will definitely be handy for the free energy tinkerer. Be sure to include an open source and copyright disclaimer.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 06, 2009, 03:11:39 AM
@ Paul,

That's very good news on your progress with the software, excellent work.

broli has a point there, those would be good sites to post the software and maybe a readme file to explain the installation and operation of the software with a disclaimer too.

I have a suggestion for you Paul.
Get a copy of Install Creator, a very good Install making ZIP file utility, it is cheep, (free) from www.clickteam.com
It can create a single Install and a uninstall file if needed by the user.

The only item they didn't explain in their build, is you need to make a couple of icons and put them somewhere you can access them during the ZIP build.
An icon for the desktop, one for original install and one for removal, it helps a lot.

I use my mob phone camera to make the orig ipg then convert it to a manageable icon size. 

Anyway if you want send me the .EXE via my email address, and I will make a example install zip for you and return it to you for your evaluation.

If you have already the means to do the above, that's OK by me also.


jim
 
 
 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 06, 2009, 06:41:44 AM
Paul:

Well, your data is telling you that your test setup for testing that capacitor value is very inaccurate.  I suppose that you are testing an electrolytic capacitor?  You make the intelligent assumption that the electrolytic capacitor is probably at least 99.9% efficient.  It could be much much better that that.  I don't know because this type of measurement almost never comes up in real life.  What you do know for sure is that there is no logical reason for the 40000 uF cap to loose that much energy as heat.  The leads of the capacitor and the capacitor plates are all metal, an excellent conductor that will not really dissipate much energy resistively at all.  It simply doesn't make sense.  Therefore the logical conclusion is that your test setup is extremely inaccurate to the tune of +/-20%.

I suggest that you go back to the drawing board before you start making any measurements on ultracapacitors.

I assume that somebody will send Paul a message because he may have put me on his ignore list.

Just think, if Paul's measurement error was on the positive side, you would all be doing back-flips thinking that Paul had "discovered" free energy with ultracapacitors.

Of course, in this thread I have made an overwhelming case that ultracapacitors are essentially the same as ordinary capacitors with a whole series of technical points and two references from the web.  I don't think that any "believers" out there have made a single comment or acknowledgment of these facts.

This whole thread is a farce.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 06, 2009, 08:45:44 AM
@ Milehigh,

Your pulling our chain's again you big turkey. :D

You say you "suppose" you are testing an electrolytic capacitor, in other words, all your diatribe is "supposition" or made up, pretending its accurate. :D

Please show us all your math where you get the idea that the cap Paul tested is 99.9% efficient, come on, you stated a fact, back this one up with proof.
You are espousing all these calculations with capacitors over all the above posts, you are trying to impress us all, so come on charlie brown, prove to us all you don't have a lost sheep in the top paddock. :-*

Paul in his post addressed to "me" stated a figure of 79% even a 3rd grade primary school kid can see that 79% is exactly 79%, nothing less or more.
 
This appears on the 4Th line down, 10Th across = 79% anyone who reads this can see you made a mistake, A WHOPPER at that tooooooo. ;D

You state it is 99.9%, sooooooo just how can you come at this figure (wheres the missing 21% in your calculations?  (He musta added it in hisself)) when you weren't even present to the actual tester himself, while the test was done HUH, come on MileHigh, pull the other one it's got bells on it. :o

Math according to Milehigh is     1+1=5   2+6=13  4+4= 23             now get this everyone 79% = 99.9% Bahhhha Ha Ha

You want Paul to go back to the drawing board, I suggest you go back to school chum. :(
You say the whole thread is a farce. :D

OK Mile high, the answer is so clear to me and others, clear off, pack you bag and leave, very simple. :-*

jim




Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 06, 2009, 09:34:20 AM
Hey there Jim:

Your posting just conforms what a farce this thread is.

How much do you know about electronics?  How many years of experience?  The last I heard all of the companies that made capacitors that lost 20% of their energy in a single charge-discharge cycle went bankrupt a long time ago.

If you had any brains in your head you would read what I posted and try to absorb it and understand it.  Instead, you do a big song and dance number about 79% vs. 99.9% like a mischievous schoolboy.

79% means that Paul has got it wrong big time.  Remember that he was unaware about the digital voltage step for his A/D converter?  It wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't have enough precision to record the small voltage increases on the cap step by step, and he is getting cumulative errors.  I am not really sure what he is doing but one thing for sure, he did not think to question his own data, a huge mistake.  Nor would I be surprised if his algorithm is flawed.

You really have to think when you work with electronics otherwise you succumb to the "garbage in - garbage out" phenomenon.

And I want YOU to stop telling me to go away.  Instead, why don't you look up a data sheet for an electrolytic capacitor and see if you can find some sort of spec that relates to energy loss in the cap.  You might not even find one because it's an issue that doesn't really come up that often.

If this farce of a thread does come to its proper conclusion then you and Bill will feel like fools for badgering me all the time.  I tried to give you some good solid information and all that you could do was act like argumentative brats and not budge an inch from your limited perspectives that are skewed by your lust for the dream of free energy.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 06, 2009, 10:06:05 AM
MH:

Your posting reveals what a farce YOU are.  WE are living the dream, what are YOU doing? 

Oh, I forgot, you have been busy getting your posts removed from the Rosemary Ainslie topic by the Moderator and banned from further posting there.  Guess they are tired of your "help" too.


Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 06, 2009, 11:07:12 AM
Bill:

How many times did you flip-flop on the Mylow affair?   Perhaps about half a dozen?  I knew from the very beginning of the saga that it was a total fake and I never had any doubt for a second.  Why do you believe that ultracapacitors could be a source of free energy?  You are too susceptible.

Mark my words, everything that I have said in this thread is true, and I am trying to help you understand.

Look at Gadget, for the first week he was shouting "energy source of 3000 amps!" when that data is just the short-circuit current from the spec sheet for the ultracapacitor!  Sometimes things get beyond ridiculous.  Just like you ignoring every point I make about capacitor technology and "doing a Mylow flip" and hoping that the dream will come true.  Why don't you just learn about capacitors instead?

I don't harass you in your JT threads, so why are you harassing me?  I can see you trying to turn that around and claim I am harassing this thread.  Nobody owns this thread, thank God, and I am making solid technical arguments and all that you guys can do is puff out your chests and make a big stink.  It is truly ridiculous.

From what I have read, your JT threads are about 50% reasonably accurate information, 25% informed or uninformed speculation with a reasonable technical basis, and 25% wild and ridiculous nonsense.  You don't see me going after you or anyone else on those threads.  I can see that you are all having fun.  Again, the only reason there was a drop-in was because Gadget made his claim and then locked that thread and tried to run away.

I think back a few days ago when you were harassing me and I asked you what did you have to state about the subject matter at hand in this thread.  Your response was that you wanted me to shut up.  That's your comment about the technical aspects of this thread, to tell me to shut up?  When are you going to stop this?  You tell me I have no clue what I am talking about and then when I take a peek in a JT thread there you are all unsure about yourself asking the most basic of questions about electronics making it very clear to others in the thread that you are unsure about your statements.  I don't buy your claim about knowing all of the points about capacitors that I rattled off from the top of my head and I don't give a shit that you contributed to a Mars probe.  I want this bullshit to STOP.

You want to discuss the technical points about ultracapacitors and Paul's test data and testing method then fine.  If not, then stop harassing me.  You are freaking losing it, be a man.  Have the guts to discuss the technical issues or have the guts to say that you don't know something.  Stop acting like a baby and grow up.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 06, 2009, 11:34:30 AM
To Mile High,

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, ain't you funny, thanks for asking me about how long I have been associated in the electrical game, 50 odd years .
So you think you are on very safe ground here, it's gettin slippery for you.

In the late 50s my dad had a Phillips 5 valve multi band short wave radio, he gave it to me.
One day the main multi tap transformer began to smoke and get extremely hot, black tar was leaking, eventually it stopped working. I grabbed another transformer which was given to me and changed it over. The soldering iron was a 150watt burko, after about 3 hours, I turned the radio on and it worked, in fact I used it for some years after that.
How old was I, just a kid half way through primary school, and before you think to ask, no, I did it all on my own.

On a saturday morning for a couple of years (after I repaired my own radio) I decided to go the the local radio repair mans workshop, just to learn about repairing valve radios instead of going to the saturday matinee pictures. I was taught how to solder, I was the only kid around who could fix his own battery operated toys.

Then the transistor radios came on the scene, I learnt how to use a Analog Multimeter, it had the moving coil back in those days, I was shown how to use a Frequency Generator to line up IF coils, you adjust them from the top of the coil can and can access the bottom slug from inside the radio itself. I was shown how to use a Signal Generator to follow a signal through a valve radio circuit to fault find, in fact I could repair the soldering irons back in those days.
All this was before I left primary school.

Maybe you are too young to know about those above things.

I have been an apprentice at LES, rewinding single phase and 3 phase electric motors, repaired 240 and 315 volt generators, taught how to repair 240volt appliances, did an automotive electricians course also, Fault finding vehicle 12v and 24v electrical systems, repairing C35 and C40 Generators, CAV equipment, Nippon Denso equipment, Mitsubishi equipment, repaired (total overhauls) Alternators, Starter motors for cars and heavy equipment, repaired many house hold appliances. Made a electric 3 phase projectile cannon for a university.
 
My last employment was with Telecom Australia, working in PABX installations, worked also in the Customer Equipment Support Center (Research and Development), making printed circuit boards, drilling correct size holes in them and populating the PCBs, building modems, modifying telephones, make them do what they weren't not supposed to do, then test each one, worked on designing and building phone PMG stuff and test equipment and testing them.
I have built equipment that doesn't officially exist, and NO Im not telling you or anyone what it was.

I'm a Invalid pensioner now, filling my time helping worthy people like Paul, count yourself off the list MH.
You asked for my electrical experience, you got it.


So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

jim
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: powercat on December 06, 2009, 03:15:54 PM
Bill:

How many times did you flip-flop on the Mylow affair?   Perhaps about half a dozen?  I knew from the very beginning of the saga that it was a total fake and I never had any doubt for a second.  Why do you believe that ultracapacitors could be a source of free energy?  You are too susceptible.


MileHigh

@MH
That is an interesting statement, as you only join this forum on August 6, 2009.
I remember Bill was very negative about Mylow,I think he was warned about his negativity.
Anyway interesting
cat
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: broli on December 06, 2009, 03:37:59 PM
MileHigh you are not going to see Paul posting his results if you keep this slander/bashing/belittling/disrespecting up. There's a limit to "healthy" skepticism and you have crossed it a while ago. You should better leave while you still have your pride or be banned like an idiot. Paul is doing what this forum is all about, if you don't agree then you are not welcome in this home.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 06, 2009, 03:56:25 PM
To Mile High,

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, ain't you funny, thanks for asking me about how long I have been associated in the electrical game, 50 odd years .
So you think you are on very safe ground here, it's gettin slippery for you.

In the late 50s my dad had a Phillips 5 valve multi band short wave radio, he gave it to me.
One day the main multi tap transformer began to smoke and get extremely hot, black tar was leaking, eventually it stopped working. I grabbed another transformer which was given to me and changed it over. The soldering iron was a 150watt burko, after about 3 hours, I turned the radio on and it worked, in fact I used it for some years after that.
How old was I, just a kid half way through primary school, and before you think to ask, no, I did it all on my own.

On a saturday morning for a couple of years (after I repaired my own radio) I decided to go the the local radio repair mans workshop, just to learn about repairing valve radios instead of going to the saturday matinee pictures. I was taught how to solder, I was the only kid around who could fix his own battery operated toys.

Then the transistor radios came on the scene, I learnt how to use a Analog Multimeter, it had the moving coil back in those days, I was shown how to use a Frequency Generator to line up IF coils, you adjust them from the top of the coil can and can access the bottom slug from inside the radio itself. I was shown how to use a Signal Generator to follow a signal through a valve radio circuit to fault find, in fact I could repair the soldering irons back in those days.
All this was before I left primary school.

Maybe you are too young to know about those above things.

I have been an apprentice at LES, rewinding single phase and 3 phase electric motors, repaired 240 and 315 volt generators, taught how to repair 240volt appliances, did an automotive electricians course also, Fault finding vehicle 12v and 24v electrical systems, repairing C35 and C40 Generators, CAV equipment, Nippon Denso equipment, Mitsubishi equipment, repaired (total overhauls) Alternators, Starter motors for cars and heavy equipment, repaired many house hold appliances. Made a electric 3 phase projectile cannon for a university.
 
My last employment was with Telecom Australia, working in PABX installations, worked also in the Customer Equipment Support Center (Research and Development), making printed circuit boards, drilling correct size holes in them and populating the PCBs, building modems, modifying telephones, make them do what they weren't not supposed to do, then test each one, worked on designing and building phone PMG stuff and test equipment and testing them.
I have built equipment that doesn't officially exist, and NO Im not telling you or anyone what it was.

I'm a Invalid pensioner now, filling my time helping worthy people like Paul, count yourself off the list MH.
You asked for my electrical experience, you got it.


So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

jim

omg JIM ... SIR TRUELY AN HONOR SIR ...

I HAD NO IDEA...   i guess now i know ... lol 

best advice ... FLY AWAY MILE HIGH ... !!

wow! 

 i cant beleave!   i knew you are a wiz ... but ..  wow!

william ..   

@BILL and for bill...  yes we all get to live the dream ...  we already BUILT IT THIS WAY ..... ; )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmjjAPNJknQ&feature=related

heres my limo  ...  were all comeing HOME! ; )


H
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 06, 2009, 04:50:59 PM
MileHigh you are not going to see Paul posting his results if you keep this slander/bashing/belittling/disrespecting up. There's a limit to "healthy" skepticism and you have crossed it a while ago. You should better leave while you still have your pride or be banned like an idiot. Paul is doing what this forum is all about, if you don't agree then you are not welcome in this home.

Hi Broli,

It's no problem on my end because his posts do not show up since the other day I added his name to my forum ignore list. He kept ignore data that contradicted his own statements, but I drew the line when the guy didn't know about kTC noise. Someone who talks as big as MH should know about kTC noise, and how to derive it.

Anyhow, MH is harmless. My advice is to just ignore the poor guy. If he slanders or attacks people, then Stefan will take care of him.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 06, 2009, 06:02:48 PM
Paul good Luck Brother . your test will show one way or the other and that shows you care and do have a dream unlike some people . I appreciate you and all this hard work just to prove to your self if i am right or wrong with a VALID experiment .

Guys i know the  circuit i made self runs manually and we are well on our way with working  circuitry using micros and Pics . SO get ready for the WORLDS FIRST PUBLIC SELF RUNNER using an ultracap you can build and own !! I would not be spending all this money nor the people in this group if they didn't see it so you can believe what you want naysayers  but its real .
You can follow the progress In Second Stage Joule Thief Circuits but Be warned We will not tolerate anything that is Not contributory to the project . All other post will Be DELETED ! PERIOD !
Gadget
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 06, 2009, 06:14:04 PM
Jim:

With all of your experience how come you are not thinking the following:

1.  40,000 uF sounds like it is most likely an electrolytic capacitor.
2.  It doesn't make sense that Paul concludes that the cap looses 21% of its stored energy.
3.  There must be something amiss with Paul's measurement system.

In my opinion with your background that is what you should be thinking.

Broli:

I will express my opinion.  You should try to talk about the technical aspects of the discussion.

Message to Paul:

You got it wrong, dude, and I sincerely hope that somebody gets that message across to you.  You consistently try to leverage your knowledge way past your true capabilities.  For example, you kept on making reference to transmission line theory in the Rosemary Ainsley thread when that simply made no sense.  You only start talking about transmission lines when the wavelength of your signal is much much shorter than your interconnect medium.  This was not the case for the Ainsley setup but you were unaware.  You are looking at incorrect data from your first test and are not aware of it. 

To ignore me because I am not up on kTC for capacitors is ridiculous, especially when I said that was most likely something to do with thermal noise.  You put me on ignore because I am saying things that make you uncomfortable.  I suggest that you reread this thread from the beginning and consider all of the points that I made.   You are wasting your time with your cap energy measurement system and I have serious doubts that you will be able to pull it off based on reading your posts here and elsewhere.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 06, 2009, 08:08:26 PM
I too have put MH on ignore.  If his personal abuse continues, I am confident that Stefan will step in.

@ Powercat:

Yes, you are correct.  I did not flip-flop on the Mylow affair.  I was warned by Stefan, and a few others, for continuing to express my negativity on his device.  They were correct in doing so.  I said my piece once, so folks knew where I stood (well, evidently ALMOST everyone) and I was wrong to continue to express it until the facts were in.  Others, like TK and I am sorry but I forget the rest, were busy proving how it could have been faked and still others were doing time sampling studies of the videos which ultimately proved the scam as a scam.  I, on the other hand, contributed nothing but my negative comments.  Well, I did enhance a few photos showing possible fishing line but it was the others who came up with the solid evidence.

Thank you for correcting MH's incorrect statement.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 06, 2009, 08:23:10 PM
I'll start the UC tests in about 10 minutes. Although technically I know the UC is safe, but when I see it, I see a bomb! I tested one of my thickest clip leads, although it's also the longest at 3 feet, and it was 60mOhms. Most of that is probably contact resistance. If the UC is 300mV, then the current will be 5 amps. Even if that 5 amps micro welds the metal, and the total resistance is ~~ 20mOhm, the resistance is only 15 amps. Of course the wire will quickly heat up, resistance goes up, and current goes down. 15 amps wouldn't do anything do this UC.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 06, 2009, 08:26:36 PM
Bill:

For what it's worth, I distinctly remember several times when Mylow came up with a new clip and you flipped, only to retract your statement when more data came in from other sources.

And you should stop your personal abuse of me, I am confident that Stefan will step in.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 06, 2009, 09:10:11 PM
Boiling water in a 3kw kettle using ultracaps:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RWaCE_SW8w&feature=related

This is great as it took only about 20 seconds to do this.


Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 06, 2009, 09:21:29 PM
At 4 minutes into the test the UC was 454 farads.

At 9 minutes it said it's taken 0.1640 joules to charge the UC to 25.6mV. I did not time it to get the updated farads.

I'll periodically post the time stamp, total energy, and UC voltage.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 06, 2009, 09:25:22 PM
At 4 minutes into the test the UC was 454 farads.

At 9 minutes it said it's taken 0.1640 joules to charge the UC to 25.6mV. I did not time it to get the updated farads.

I'll periodically post the time stamp, total energy, and UC voltage.

Paul

Excellent Paul.  I am glad you are carrying on with your testing here.  No matter what the outcome, this is still exciting.  I appreciate your taking the time and effort to do this, and I know many others do as well.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 06, 2009, 09:40:02 PM
How about an aa battery that recharges ITSELF using Super capacitor  technology !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x92qqJ5yQnM

                        Honda's New ULTRACAPACITOR  CAR

http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/FCX/ultracapacitor/
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 06, 2009, 10:16:06 PM
Hi,

No problem. Buying the UC was well worth it regardless, and could come in handy for other projects, especially the data logger.  :)

At 30 minutes the total energy was 1.629 joules, UC voltage was 78.4mV.

At 60 minutes the total energy was 6.268 joules, UC voltage was 152.3mV.
 
Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 06, 2009, 10:16:50 PM
Gadget:

The great thing about using ultracapacitors in a vehicle is the regenerative braking.  Instead of turning all of the energy in the moving vehicle into heat in the brake pads it is transferred into the ultracapacitors.  The same thing for rolling down a hill, you can use the gravitational potential energy and put it into the ultracapacitors instead of turning it into heat.

When you brake the car using a generator to charge an ultracapacitor bank you are taking the energy in a mechanical capacitor (the moving car) and transferring it into an electrical capacitor.

The AA battery that recharges itself is not real, just some person's musings in the game Half Life.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 06, 2009, 10:25:43 PM
BTW, if it's not COP>1, then no need for alarm. If it is COP>1, then please quickly spread the word just to be certain this information is not squashed!

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: broli on December 06, 2009, 10:29:45 PM
you are taking the energy in a mechanical capacitor (the moving car) and transferring it into an electrical capacitor.

Thanks captain obvious for your obvious rescue.

@Paul: I wouldn't worry about that. I would worry more about being able to get these ucaps.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 06, 2009, 10:34:46 PM
BTW, if it's not COP>1, then no need for alarm. If it is COP>1, then please quickly spread the word just to be certain this information is not squashed!

Regards,
Paul
Paul  . Just for the sake of curiosity . If your Experiment show < 1 this means that using a steady current and volts  may not be the same as a frequency / pulsed DC i get from the CE junction , correct ? It may charge Different on the Jt junction than a power suppy ?
So what do the number tell you as of right now ?
IF you dare -Good or bad
:)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 06, 2009, 10:43:00 PM
You're right that pulses from the JT could cause different effects. It would be worth trying this with a JT circuit, logging the UC caps charge along with the power from the source battery.

At 90 minutes, total energy is 13.839 joules, UC voltage is 224.7mV

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 06, 2009, 10:57:15 PM
Broli,

If this method of slow charge & fast discharge is COP>1, then it might be difficult to get these UC's at a good price. Stefan started a cool thread on how to makes UC's. There's a guy at another forum that's been making DIY UC's comparable to the maxwell boostcaps.

BTW, I'm more interested in obvious COP>1. If by chance I post that it's COP>1, then please trust me it is obviously COP>1.

If it's COP>1, then I hope people spread the news by Internet & email & even live chat sites, but probably more importantly by phone. So if it's COP>1, then please call all of your OU friends. Web pages can be taken down at the drop of a hat. Doesn't hurt to be prepared.  :)

If COP>1 then of course this would not be the smoking gun since it's not a self-runner, but it wouldn't take much to make it a self-runner circuit.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 06, 2009, 11:12:31 PM
At 123 minutes total energy is 25.432 joules and UC voltage is 301.7mV

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 06, 2009, 11:28:02 PM
BTW, for any newcomers, the data logger has two channels. It's logging the voltage directly across the UC (Ultracapacitor) and the current that flows directly into the UC.

The charge current has been a bit over 22mA.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 06, 2009, 11:41:50 PM
At 150 minutes total energy is 37.450 joules and UC voltage is 365.0mV.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 06, 2009, 11:49:17 PM
Broli,

If this method of slow charge & fast discharge is COP>1, then it might be difficult to get these UC's at a good price. Stefan started a cool thread on how to makes UC's. There's a guy at another forum that's been making DIY UC's comparable to the maxwell boostcaps.

BTW, I'm more interested in obvious COP>1. If by chance I post that it's COP>1, then please trust me it is obviously COP>1.

If it's COP>1, then I hope people spread the news by Internet & email & even live chat sites, but probably more importantly by phone. So if it's COP>1, then please call all of your OU friends. Web pages can be taken down at the drop of a hat. Doesn't hurt to be prepared.  :)

If COP>1 then of course this would not be the smoking gun since it's not a self-runner, but it wouldn't take much to make it a self-runner circuit.

Paul
Paul we are already on it ! . Our little group has the circuit layout and getting factory boards made . Please visit second stage joule thief for our progress . We are ready to put it together . I already know it self runs with a simple jump thru a 1.2 volt flashlight bulb with a tiny drop in the milivolts off the bcap  and keep the aa battery charging while keeping the bcap above unity . The circuit will use micro Ics and a pic to do the deed way better / Its a go ! All the circuitry is ther except for the pic code which Alex is writing to adjust the bcap discharge parameters . . It's as real as it gets !self runner for sure ,but is it enough to snag a prize ? Stephan and other will be intrigued none the less . !!! I acan't wait to see that sparkle in his eye! A video will be sent to him so he can post it on youtube of a bcap charging a bcap . and the unit protype itself before i send him his unit .

We are spreading the work and word and after the units are made i will contact the local Tv and news papers with the news and a video/interview . As others will be reproducing the units i suggest you all  hurry up and get some bcaps from maxwell or anywhere you can ASAP before the news hits !! they will be non existent or extremely unfeasible not far from now .
Gadget
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 07, 2009, 12:45:58 AM
At 150 minutes total energy is 37.450 joules and UC voltage is 365.0mV.

Paul
I admit My Brain is not capable at this moment to know what the numbers are representing to you and other number crunchers ,except Mh who find fault in everything ! . What is this telling you so far Paul ?

Albert
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 07, 2009, 12:49:40 AM
Hi,

Here's the results. This method of slow charge, fast discharge did not show COP>1. The final voltage after charging the UC was 374.1mV, took 40.383 joules, and the charging current was a bit over 22mA. After discharging the UC at a max current well over 400mA, the final result is that 3.265 joules was lost in the entire charge/discharge process, thus making this UC 91.9% efficient, which IMO makes it one amazing capacitor.

The data log file is over 200MB. If anyone absolutely must have this, then let me know. My brother is flying out from out of state, and his plane will land in about 5 minutes. Hopefully tomorrow I can post the circuits & software for anyone who wants to replicate this or build a very simple data logger.

Gadget, keep up the work, and hope you get a self-runner. Like you said, it might be a different way. The secret might be in the pulses. Or it might not be the UC at all, as it might be in the JT, or perhaps a combination of both.

BTW, after watching this experiment all day, the amazing main effect I've observed over the past week appears to be dielectric absorption. There might be other main effects. Who knows until one investigates. As is seen in the charging data, the UC change in capacitance was a minor effect, as expected and as seen in last weeks measurements, but we've gone over this before.

Anyhow, I have to go to the airport a.s.a.p.

Cheers,
Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: broli on December 07, 2009, 01:02:22 AM
Good job Paul this experiment and logger is much needed. Would you like to add some requests to the software logger, for instance being able to change the rate at which the data is dumped ie sampling rate.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 07, 2009, 01:14:09 AM
thank you Paul and that is good information.This tells up that a constant current supply at the very low voltage you charged to is 91% efficiency . What if you charged it to a usable 2.00 volts ?  i see a jump in joules verse charge at one point . Also This in no way deters me and the projects in no way . there is still a working model and still a cap to cap version and still won;t explain the minor drop charging from an aa battery to full bcap . So there is something else involved . Maybe charging it at a Frequency pulsed at 5.5 milliamps is the magic and the cap never heats internally ? Remains to be seen and i am working with the devices and not numbers or theory   so anyone is welcome to do there test . in the meantime we are full steam with the >1  self runner . and so seeing will be your proof also . I know its almost Christmas but being you have it set up . could you start at a voltage of the bcap  @ .521 . the actual cut off point for usable voltage for a silicon transistor . all my caps set here when discharged . this is where they stop running Jt's with silicon . and this is where mine take off from that point  to charge to full . I realize that's a half volt already in the cap but it make no difference in a self runner . the will be running on their own after that point .  our new chip will run as low as .8 volts  and it takes   a few hours to reach this point .
 

Gadget.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 07, 2009, 01:15:02 AM
Paul:

In all likelihood the ultracapacitor is way more than 91.9% efficient for reasons that I have already outlined.

Quote
The secret might be in the pulses. Or it might not be the UC at all, as it might be in the JT, or perhaps a combination of both.

There is no "secret" in the pulses.  The capacitor will absorb and store the power supplied by a  DC current source in exactly the same way it will absorb pulsed energy spikes, there is no difference at all.

The JT circuit is by definition a device that will transfer less energy into the output side as compared to the energy that is being put into it on the input side.  There are energy losses associated with the transistor, the primary coil, and the secondary coil, and the resistor.  The JT circuit can give you increased output voltage but you have to pay for it and you loose energy in the overhead required to run the JT circuit itself.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 07, 2009, 01:19:46 AM
speed is power lol  duh!!  why do you think im back ... ?

hummmm

lol


just like i said i dont know 4 years ago ...  your calculation of horse power is INCCORECT!  lol 

so is you interpertation of the effects ...   high freq ring a bell?   lol  the batteries and caps are TRANSLATING DEVICES ...  they dont care the freq ...  they switch it to PURE DC ....
so if you have a small source running really fast ...  you have a high freq ... and when you slow it back down  it ends up more

and every time you turn it on and off a simple kick is produced much higher in voltage than required to produce the effect ..

so you transmitt and you use only what you recieve ...   

so many thousand times i say the same thing ...  yawn...   



hummmmm

bla bla ... 

w
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: powercat on December 07, 2009, 01:25:16 AM
well done Paul,
91.9 efficiency is promising considering you were not pulse charging the UC,
are you willing to do a comparison test with a pulse charge ?
cat
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 07, 2009, 02:26:48 AM
@mh . FrequencyPDC is different that pure Dc current .The Bcap Will react Differently with Frequency charge  just like an led will react differently but you get the same effect with less power from a source  . and i know leds lit by pulses produce the same if not more light on 1000th the amount of current required to light them and i know they are blinking so fast the human eye cannot detect this . same with Battery caps only they don't require the amount of joules the constant current supply gives them . there's and interruption and a slight rest time to consider when they are charging with a Jt so they shouldn't even see a temperature change like they will with dc constant current.  you are incorrect ! Go ahead and Flame me one more time and say anything pertaining to My work ,education or knowledge from Experiments . You have no way to prove what you are calculating because you have not tried it man . I am waiting for your counter action but i don;t expect you to prove anything without a real experiment .
Thank you so much for your interest . Paul says there 91% with a constant supply and that is good enough for everyone else ! Have a great Christmas Mh and family ! .

Gadget.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 07, 2009, 02:56:16 AM
Gadget:

Quote
The Bcap Will react Differently with Frequency charge  just like an led will react differently but you get the same effect with less power from a source

I think that it is fair to say that this is what you hope.  You think that pulsing DC into the ultracapacitor will give you more energy in the capacitor than you put into it.  In other words the process of pulsing DC current into the ultracap is an over unity process as compared to charging it with pure DC current which is not.

Quote
same with Battery caps only they don't require the amount of joules the constant current supply gives them

The mathematics and the reality say this is not the case.  There is no relationship between an ultracap and an LED.  Whether you put 100 Joules of energy into the cap from a constant DC current, or you do it with pulsing DC, you will end up putting the same 100 Joules of energy into the capacitor.

Here is just an approximate breakdown:

1.  100 Joules of energy made available to put into the ultracapacitor from DC or pulsing source.
2.  At the end of charging the capacitor you have 99.8 Joules of energy in the cap, you lost some energy from the equivalent series resistance of the cap.  0.2 Joules became heat during the charging process.
3.  When you discharge the ultracap you get 99.6 Joules of energy out of the capacitor and 0.2 Joules of energy became heat during the discharging process due to the equivalent series resistance.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 07, 2009, 03:32:36 AM
Gadget:

I think that it is fair to say that this is what you hope.  You think that pulsing DC into the ultracapacitor will give you more energy in the capacitor than you put into it.  In other words the process of pulsing DC current into the ultracap is an over unity process as compared to charging it with pure DC current which is not.

The mathematics and the reality say this is not the case.  There is no relationship between an ultracap and an LED.  Whether you put 100 Joules of energy into the cap from a constant DC current, or you do it with pulsing DC, you will end up putting the same 100 Joules of energy into the capacitor.

Here is just an approximate breakdown:

1.  100 Joules of energy made available to put into the ultracapacitor from DC or pulsing source.
2.  At the end of charging the capacitor you have 99.8 Joules of energy in the cap, you lost some energy from the equivalent series resistance of the cap.  0.2 Joules became heat during the charging process.
3.  When you discharge the ultracap you get 99.6 Joules of energy out of the capacitor and 0.2 Joules of energy became heat during the discharging process due to the equivalent series resistance.

MileHigh
Calculate how many Joules are in an aa battery @ 1.450 volts @2500mah  or 2.5 amps  and then please calculate  joules in a charged bcap 2.7 volts and you know the specs 3500amps  please ?
 And what i said was that the Bcap CHARGED OVER THE UNITY OF THE BATTERY as stated in wiki . that is a fact battery 1.4 volts bcap charged to 2.6volts . energy or not, volts are still 1.4 volts in battery and bcap charged from .5 volts to 2.6 volts .. bcap can light up nichrome wire , aa battey can not .. cap can run more than the aa battery can for a longer period than aa battery after charged .Bcap can run a 5 watt red led on its own after recharge all day and night aa battery on its own wont light it up at all . Normal ? No.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 07, 2009, 04:02:36 AM
Right . you wont answer because this will prove i am right .
i know the battery is 3.5 watts
and the cap is 9100 watts

but i dont know how to calculate joules from this
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 07, 2009, 05:14:03 AM
Gadget:

The energy in the cap is 1/2 C v-squared

E = 1/2 * 350 * 2.7-squared

E = 1275.75 Joules


Now let's forget about the ultracapacitor for a second and look at power levels:

A watt is one Joule per second.

Now, let's look at how much power is being expended if you imagine 3500 amps at 2.7 volts.  3500 x 2.7 = 9450 watts = 9450 Joules per second.

The capacitor voltage goes DOWN as it discharges.  That means that the current goes DOWN as it discharges through a resistive load, and the power level goes DOWN as it discharges through a resistive load.

The only way to have the capacitor power dissipation stay CONSTANT is to discharge it through a VARIABLE resistor.

Let's imagine that you have this variable resistor to keep the power constant.

If you want the capacitor to discharge at a CONSTANT power level of 9450 watts = 9450 Joules per second, and you have 1275.75 Joules of energy available in the capacitor,  then it will take 1275.75/9450 = 0.135 seconds.

Poynt did the battery energy calculation and if I recall the battery has enough energy to charge the 350 farad ultracap to 2.7 volts about 8 times.

Therefore if you imagine that the battery fills the ultracap about 8 times, and you can discharge the cap at a constant power level of 9450 watts, then you can get about (8 x 0.135) = 1.08 seconds of total discharge time from the ultracap at this very high power level.

In other words, all of the battery energy could be consumed in about one second at a power level of 9450 watts using the ultracap to do this in eight separate discharges.

Quote
Calculate how many Joules are in an aa battery @ 1.450 volts @2500mah  or 2.5 amps  and then please calculate  joules in a charged bcap 2.7 volts and you know the specs 3500amps  please ?

I suggest that you work with the people in the JT thread for your project to understand energy and power.  In your question above the 3500 amps is meaningless and is just the short circuit spec for the ultracap in the datasheet.

It is very obvious that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND how energy, time, and power work together.  If you want to be serious about your project then in my opinion you have no choice, you HAVE TO UNDERSTAND these concepts.  It's what the whole web site is about.

Your example with the nichrome wire is totally meaningless.  If you work with the people on your thread to understand these concepts then you would also realize that your example is totally meaningless.

I challenge you to work with the people on your thread so that at least all of you understand what you are doing and what you are trying to accomplish.  I am not going to be your teacher, the people working with you on your project can be your teachers and you can try to teach yourself also.

You are not alone here.  On the Rosemary Ainsley thread the main component in her circuit was an inductor, and Rosemary had no understanding of how an inductor worked when I started speaking to her.  Life is a continuous learning process and you have no choice but to learn if you want to be an active member of the project.  This probably applies to other members of the JT thread that want to build the PCB and make measurements.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 07, 2009, 07:58:46 AM
@Gadget,
Ha ha, welcome to the cartoonists corner, nice feeling isn't it.
I like the colour cartoon, nice one Al.


@ Paul,
Well done, congratulations on the successful running of the data logger against Gadget's Cap test.

When the datalogger circuit and the software are ready, I would love a copy please.

Thankyou.

jim
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 07, 2009, 08:27:37 AM
MileHigh,

>>This probably applies to other members of the JT thread that want to build the PCB and make
>>measurements.

I assume you are referring to me since I'm the only one in the JT thread that "want to build the PCB"?

So what are you saying here? That I do not understand how an inductor works? Or that I do not
understand the relationship between energy, power and time? Or maybe you are questioning my
ability to make a PCB?

Groundloop.

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 07, 2009, 08:30:07 AM
Yes Paul, bravo and well done.  This was a much needed test and I am sure there will be others.  I am inclined to think that the pulses will make a difference but, we will wait and see.  Gadget's circuit seems to work so I guess this is sort of like reverse engineering to try to determine why and how it works.

Anyway, great effort and we all appreciate it.  I know that your datalogger program will benefit many here on this forum.

@ Groundloop:

Just put MH on ignore as most of the  rest of us have.  It will save you a lot of time and trouble trying to explain things to someone that does not want to learn.  In his mind, he will always be right anyway so, why waste your time?

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 07, 2009, 10:29:39 AM
@ all

Thanks to Bill, I am now free of the "pest"
I barred "pest" from my PC  ;D ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, HOW?

Goto Personal Messages
Click on "Change Settings"
Click on "[Find Members]
select the person or non de plume

then save and exit normally
 
OH WHAT A FEELING    :DY :D I :D P :D P :D E :D E  :DE :D E  :D!

jim

 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 07, 2009, 01:25:17 PM
what "HE" don't understand is that the bcap =battery capacitor is not a capacitor at all, its a battery and a direct replacement for lithium ion batteries ! So 3500 amps in the battery cap and 2.5 amps in the battery / each one could be discharged in seconds ,minutes , hours , or days . NO DIFFERENCE !!the word capacitor is throwing him off ! the ONLY different thing about the two is the bcap can last longer than a battery and can be charged the same amount as it discharges. I fully understand that 3500 amps are whats available and i fully understand that the battery has 2.5 available amps . I know the volts go down on both and i know the available watts go with each one. what  ans poynt99 did not explain why an aa battery by it self cannot charge the bcap but yet it can charge the bcap thru a jt 8 times ?? It's not Magic  and the charge process is not an Ou effect but the final  product is the bcap will contain a full charge(BATTERYCAP) and the AA BATTERY Will NOT Require THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY IT WOULD NORMALLY TAKE TO GET THIS BATTERY CAP CHARGED > I am sure he is partially right if this were a normal capacitor But ITS a BATTERY capacitor SO you HAVE TO LOOK AT IT THIS WAY AN AA BATTERY CHARGING ANOTHER larger CELL BATTERY TO 2.6-27 VOLTS AND ITS NOT A GHOST CHARGE ! Someone tell me there is another way to take an AA battery and charge a 12 volt battery to full charge > ? or for that matter  an AA battery charge a  6 volt battery ? Or an AA battery charge a 2.7 volt battery , all without any appreciable loss from the source battery ? Other than the way i am doing it and attaining actually hard current from the result .SHow me your device that will do this in real time . They dont make them .Sure you can buy a boost converter  that runs off an aaa  or aa battery and charge your cell phone but the battery will be dead after you charge it . you have to put another battery in it to charge your 3.7 volt cell phone or mp3 battery up againg .they dont make one that will charge it up 8 times . I realize they do it in a few hours rather than spread the time out so it uses up the AA battery fast and i can do the same by increasing the bias and drawing 200-300 milliamps from the battery and possible charge the bcap up much faster but the battery will be dead fast and wont be able to be recover from the charged secondary but a few times .this is where the "trick" is . Do not discharge your battey so far that it cannot be recovered from the  Over  the unity of the charged battery  to back to the source again . It plain to see this effect as i built it . Math don't tell the story here even though is very smart or has very fast google capabilities . Anyway . It;s up to Me to prove this and my way will be to show it doing its thing. I am very confident it will self run thus proving Over unity exist . that is all i want  it to share this . Why cant it work dont matter at this point  and COP  should tell you when you all reproduce the thing . Its as simple as pie to make one . Alex is the real Genius devising what i call the OU controller circuit . I thank him fro the bottom of my heart and others should as well . It's all there anyone that can take a small risk to build this will not see  disappointment  but an accomplishment that far outweighs and experiment to date thus so far . Also if you can afford two bcaps Get em cause the effect is the same . you can charge one b cap up to 1.4 volts and charge the second one over the unity of the run bcap . I did this experiment over and over and over . I am thru and have convinced myself that i cannot do this with any otehr device except ultracaps . Everyone has always said on bedinis if its ou why do you put caps to cap and do away with the battery . well now its possible as these run a bedini and charge with the output of a bedini and its converted to real energy and not negative static energy .

 I'm done for now . Lots of things to do today so Bye bye .

gadget
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 07, 2009, 02:02:18 PM
im not sideing with anyone on this ..

you know he does raise good points ... and perhaps ther is a reason he continually posts here .. and it may have less to do with covering up the truth than we  rerealize ..  it may be he has come to a true conculsion ..  but he is afarid to speek it ...

i know so far the answers i have arrived at are real but there may be more to it ..  i know i have solved many of teslas little riddles ... but i doubt i have solved them all ...

for the reccord .. i have only read a few of his pattends .. and in all honesty there only a few 1 must study to GRAB A HANDLE ON THIS...

as well im not sure DON SMITHS conculsion is correct!  .. back ground noise ... BULL SH@#

LOL

w

i know you all live in a noisey world .. but is that the source ? .. or is that the cause ...  to me the noise is from a squeekie bearing ... and it messed small human minds all up ... 

so i will say noise is an effect ... of the weekend sclar feilds of the earth ...  so it wobbles .. makes noise .. and simple minds are crowed with junk ...

so get rid of noise ... tune to earth harmonics ... PRPOERLY ... and harvest!  its just that SIMPLE ...

LMFAO!

william 

HERE IS A PICTURE TO REMIND EVERYONE ON THIS SITE WHY PICTURES ARE NO LONGER SHOWEN ON OU ....   THINK ABOUT IT ...  THINK WHY IT IS THIS WAY .. NOW ... THINK WHO DID IT ?

dont think to hard ... i did it ...
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 07, 2009, 02:53:26 PM
Hi,

Thanks for the comments. Yes, it would be worth it to try some JT circuits on the UC to see what happens.

Today I'll add a bunch of features to the data logger software. Broli made a good suggestion.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: powercat on December 07, 2009, 03:47:29 PM
A lead-acid battery has an efficiency of only 75-85%
http://wiki.xtronics.com/index.php/Sealed_Lead_Acid_Battery_Applications
So according to the results Ultracaps at 91.9% are much better for all types of pulse motors and circuits then lead acid batteries.

cat
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MrMag on December 07, 2009, 04:16:25 PM
Maybe they should of called it an UltraBattery or anything other then UltraCap. It may have reduced the amount of arguments here. Not all, but a lot.

IST, not sure what you mean by the scope shot. It's only a ringing signal, nothing special, or am I missing something??
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 07, 2009, 04:33:05 PM
One thing about a UC is that it's perfectly fine if it's at zero volts, just like capacitors. Batteries are not.  :)

UC's are more related to electrolytic capacitors than batteries.
 
Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 07, 2009, 05:03:40 PM
Groundloop:

No I am not referring to you it was a generic statement, nothing specific to you at all.

Pirate:

Quote
Just put MH on ignore as most of the  rest of us have.  It will save you a lot of time and trouble trying to explain things to someone that does not want to learn.  In his mind, he will always be right anyway so, why waste your time?

How supremely ironic.  This place is supposed to be for exchanging ideas and debating and learning and you want to close your mind and put your head in the sand.

Electricme:

Quote
Thanks to Bill, I am now free of the "pest"
I barred "pest" from my PC

Name-calling is immature and inappropriate behaviour.  You never responded to my response to you where I said that a person with your experience in electronics should be questioning Paul's measurements on the capacitor.  I would not be surprised if you are uncomfortable with the whole thing and you secretly agree with me.

You can always put up the pretense of putting me on ignore with your Firefox browser, while at the same time running the Google Chrome browser cookie-free.  Then you can pretend that you are ignoring me and still read me at the same time.  The best of both worlds.

Gadget:

An ultracapacitor is simply a capacitor, and I have given you outside references to show you this.  Don't be fooled by the term "battery-capacitor,"  that's just a marketing term made up by the manufacturers of supercapacitors and ultracapacitors to emphasize the fact that they have a very high energy density by volume and by weight such that they almost "look like" batteries.  It is as simple as that - a marketing catch phrase.  The word "battery" is throwing you off.

Quote
what  ans poynt99 did not explain why an aa battery by it self cannot charge the bcap but yet it can charge the bcap thru a jt 8 times ??

If you connect a battery directly to a discharged ultracap the battery will have a hard time because the ultracap looks almost like a short circuit.  When you put a JT circuit between the battery and the ultracap then the battery can trickle-charge the ultracap.  Now the battery is not overstressed and it can charge the ultracap.

Quote
It's not Magic  and the charge process is not an Ou effect but the final  product is the bcap will contain a full charge(BATTERYCAP) and the AA BATTERY Will NOT Require THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY IT WOULD NORMALLY TAKE TO GET THIS BATTERY CAP CHARGED

This is incorrect.  For example using approximate numbers for illustrative purposes:  If the battery ends up putting 1000 Joules of energy in the ultracap by using a JT circuit, then the battery may have expended 1100 Joules of energy to do this.  50 Joules of energy may have been dissipated as heat due to the internal resistance of the battery and 50 Joules of energy may have been dissipated as heat in the JT circuit itself.

The battery voltage may have decreased by only 0.02 volts after this, but that means nothing.  The battery will still have expended 1100 Joules of energy and will have lost a considerable percentage of its charge.  I will say it again:  Batteries are nonlinear devices and measuring the battery voltage can tell you next to nothing about how much energy was just expended by the battery to charge the ultracap, or how much energy is remaining in the battery.  You simply can not use the battery voltage as an indicator of its state of charge.  This is an indisputable fact.

Quote
you have to put another battery in it to charge your 3.7 volt cell phone or mp3 battery up againg .they dont make one that will charge it up 8 times

Don't loose sight of the fact that if an AA battery can charge up an ultracapacitor up to 2.7 volts about eight times, that means that the AA battery still has a much higher energy density by volume as compared to the ultracap.  You are comparing the volumetric energy density of an energy storage system based on an electric field with one that is based on chemical energy and the chemical energy system wins out and has the higher volumetric energy density.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 07, 2009, 05:31:14 PM
Maybe they should of called it an UltraBattery or anything other then UltraCap. It may have reduced the amount of arguments here. Not all, but a lot.

IST, not sure what you mean by the scope shot. It's only a ringing signal, nothing special, or am I missing something??

mr . m ...   yes you are ... and i care not to argue about it ... if you can build it and have the skills ... i will teach you ..  then you can set them stright ..

mh

im not gonna argue .. you know better ...  nuf said ...

william
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MrMag on December 07, 2009, 05:46:22 PM
mr . m ...   yes you are ... and i care not to argue about it ... if you can build it and have the skills ... i will teach you ..  then you can set them stright ..

mh

im not gonna argue .. you know better ...  nuf said ...

william

Listen, You don't need to be ignorant about this. You know I have the skills and I don't need you to teach me. It is a simple question if I missed something. Is it possible for you to explain to me what you think you see in this scope shot.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 07, 2009, 05:56:28 PM
Listen, You don't need to be ignorant about this. You know I have the skills and I don't need you to teach me. It is a simple question if I missed something. Is it possible for you to explain to me what you think you see in this scope shot.

i am sorry if you read this as ignarnt .. totaly not the intenction  benind my reply ...


yikes ..  i just offered to teach YOU 1 0N 1 ..  THEN YOU SIR CAN SHARE ...

this is what i ment mr.m

o boy .... 

william

 btw im well aware of your skills this is why i offered ... 

dont read my words with my dark eye .... ok   read them with BOTH  ... please
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 07, 2009, 06:07:10 PM
IST/William:

Your waveform is just a standard ring-down associated with an RLC circuit.  For anyone that is interested you can look up "RLC circuit" on Wikipedia.  For what it's worth it will also give you a sense of what the "real world" is like with respect to electronics.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 07, 2009, 06:19:38 PM
IST/William:

Your waveform is just a standard ring-down associated with an RLC circuit.  For anyone that is interested you can look up "RLC circuit" on Wikipedia.  For what it's worth it will also give you a sense of what the "real world" is like with respect to electronics.

MileHigh
Milehigh . Have a nice Christmas Sir . I won't ignore you  if you Please don't call me stupid and i don't know anything . I used to know it all . passing College and  fcc exams was  easy for me before My stroke . I had a brain stroke and it affected my long and short term memory and i am not as sharp as i was  but i am in no way ignorant  and i can experiment and i do have eyes and  a brain  and compassion to keep on keeping on .. I will take what you know and give freely with an OPEN MIND . It appears you have explained away all hope of any free energy at all so you are calling all other inventors wrong and here is My stand  :Protect and Defend Free Energy Inventors. The United States Government must write laws to protect and defend “Free Energy Inventors.” Free energy is simple to create it just requires the political will and protection to flourish. Presently, Obama is nearly ready to pass “Cap and Trade” legislation that will place a cost on carbon pollution. This tax is all ready figured into future budgets. Since this revenue is all ready spent, any free energy device would not be accepted since it could interfere with future/present tax outlays.
•
Free energy inventors are a persecuted class of citizen. Every inventor that shows promise has been threatened, slapped with secrecy orders, stolen, beaten or killed for their ideals and inventions. The powers that be are deeply embedded with the carbon fuel industry. The largest fraud in human history is that of carbon fuels. Ever since Nikola Tesla, 1943, has free energy devices been suppressed. Today, you can Google “free energy” and come across thousands of inventions along those lines. Innovation should be protected; it is our future and without it, this country will die. Stop suppressing the one thing that makes America a great country. I have heard there are in excess of 30,000 secrecy orders on new ideas and technology, since it may clash with the powers that control energy. Reviewing and releasing these secrecy orders could the be fast route in reviving America’s economy.
•
The electric generator has not evolved much since its conception. One unit of energy in resulting one unit of energy out. This is a very inefficient system and it has stayed this way because it very profitable for the carbon fuel venders. I have personally seen devices that implore greater efficiencies in energy creation (web searches), but will never see the light of day because it threatens the carbon venders’ bottom lines. Presidents and congressmen have promised for years to combat the problems of energy but they talk the talk but not walk the walk. Google “free energy” or “HHO gas engine.” You will find its there, but its just being wiped out systematically by those who want your money for heating your homes and filling your gas tanks. Carbon is the greatest con job in human history.
•
I dream of a day when the energy to heat my house, drive my car, and power my electronics was absolutely free. Where a neighborhood banded together to purchase an energy device to power their street thus removing themselves from the grid. The end of the oil age and into the golden age. This is my dream and it can be now, but it is systematically stamped out by the powers that control our daily lives. Innovation which was our nations driving force has ended, but it is not dead, it simply needs your protection to flourish. Innovation is what drives our economy; it supplies jobs and opportunities. Innovation can lift our country from this rut of depression. Innovation is the key that unlocks the next golden age of mankind.

Gadget
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 07, 2009, 06:31:00 PM
IST/William:

Your waveform is just a standard ring-down associated with an RLC circuit.  For anyone that is interested you can look up "RLC circuit" on Wikipedia.  For what it's worth it will also give you a sense of what the "real world" is like with respect to electronics.

MileHigh

now this is a laugh ... 

buzz off or im gonna spinn you ....

william ..  get with the flow or get off my planet!

not to be rude MH but honestly ...    i guy can only take so much ... 

watch this ... 

i have a coil ... i tune it  mass  to mass  the secondairy can be a rlc if i want it to ... or it could be SHORTED.. and as i pulse it the SECONDARY  makes HARMONICS....  AND I THEN CAN TUNE WITH COILS TO EACH ONE ....

humm  do i need to build it to understand it no .. agin i ask you WHY?

i damm well do know why...

thank you

H
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 07, 2009, 07:06:18 PM
Gadget:

I am very sorry that you had a stroke and I admire your courage.  However, if you make statements and I disagree with them I am going to tell you.  If you make statements that are definitive and indicate that your ideas and thought processes are way off track then I am going to tell you also.  You can disagree with me and there is nothing that I can do about it.  We all have a responsibility to try to get at the truth when doing formal or informal research.

If I tell you that you are wrong or don't understand something I am not calling you "stupid."  Look at the example of supercapacitors and ultracapacitors.  I have been telling everyone in the group that suerpcapacitors and ultracapacitors are simply capacitors.  Their one main distinction is that they have very large capacitance values.  The capacitance values are so large that they seem almost inconceivable to people that may have been out of touch with the electronics industry for the past 10 years.  None the less, supercapacitors and ultracapacitors are simply large capacitors.  Yourself and others on the JT threads seemingly don't want to believe this.  It takes away from the idea that there is something "extra special" about supercapacitors.  However, when some of you are put on the spot to explain what makes supercapacitors different and special, you are unable to offer up any substantive reasons for your argument.   Many times you have made statements about supercapacitors being able to burn nichrome wire and batteries can't do this.  Many times you have been told that this is normal and expected behaviour and it is not surprising.  Small batteries have never been able to burn wire because their output impedance is too high and they can't supply enough current.  Any capacitor that's large enough has always been able to burn wire because their output impedance is nearly zero and they can supply enough current.  You don't need a supercapacitor to burn wire, it can be any type of capacitor, as long as it is large enough.

All your comments about government conspiracies can be taken with a grain of salt.  The government is not worried about what is going on here.  We all would like to have a better energy future and I think things will evolve in that direction over time.  It will be based on renewable energy technologies and not "free energy" technologies.  You may disagree and then the burden of proof rests on your shoulders and the shoulders of others that think like you.

Your proposition is that you can put some sort of device inside a transparent glass box and somehow that device will produce heat from "nowhere" or "some other place" or the device will "create heat from nothing."  The scientists say that you can't get something from nothing.

When you look at a battery charging a supercap via a JT circuit, you can make measurements on the energy and see if it is over unity or not.   You can charge the supercap with the circuit, then use the supercap to partially recharge the battery, and then discharge the remaining energy in the supercap as your "free energy."  You think that you can do this cycle over and over and over without end.  Go ahead and test it.  Groundloop is gracious enough to layout the PCB and pay for them, and then individuals just have to buy the components and populate the PCBs and start their testing.

When people do the testing they might be able to run the device through 10 cycles, 15 cycles, perhaps even 20 cycles.  Eventually the battery will run dead, the system will run out of energy.  The battery only contains a certain amount of equivalent heat energy and there is no "magic source" of electrical/heat energy to keep the battery fully charged for every cycle.

Go ahead and build the thing.  I am not trying to stop you, nor is the government trying to stop you.  As long as the people doing the testing are recording and reporting their results accurately then I say bring it on.  However, anyone testing this setup has a responsibility to themselves and to others have a basic grasp of the the electronics and measurement techniques to make their data credible.  You seem to want to ignore this requirement and as the de facto leader of this project, I say that it is incumbent upon you to understand the basic electronics and measurement techniques. 

This requirement to understand is where your JT group comes into play.  How many of you can calculate the amount of Joules in an AA battery based on the ampere-hour rating?  I don't know the answer to that question but I can tell you that all of you should be able to do this if you want to run the tests.  Somebody should raise the issue on your JT thread and you should debate it amongst yourselves until all of your are satisfied that you understand.  I am sure that there is someone in the JT group that does understand how to make the calculation that will be involved in the project so there is no reason that everyone doing the testing can't be up to speed on this issue.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MrMag on December 07, 2009, 07:09:57 PM
i am sorry if you read this as ignarnt .. totaly not the intenction  benind my reply ...


yikes ..  i just offered to teach YOU 1 0N 1 ..  THEN YOU SIR CAN SHARE ...

this is what i ment mr.m

o boy .... 

william

 btw im well aware of your skills this is why i offered ... 

dont read my words with my dark eye .... ok   read them with BOTH  ... please

Sorry if I read it wrong. It would be nice to get together to discuss things. I finally redid my work bench and am getting ready to get back into things.
But you still didn't tell me what you see in the scope shot. I see what MH is saying. Can you please tell me what else you see.

@Gadget
I haven't had a stroke (yet) but I know what your talking about. I am getting those constant brain farts! I used to do it all also. Repair radios, TV's, you name it, from a very early age. I remember when I was around 8 yrs. old building my cat whisker receiver. Probably have a hell of a time doing it now. :)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 07, 2009, 07:17:42 PM
IST:

Now you are "H?"  I thought that you were/are "w" or "william"

I don't know what the point of your posting is, nor do I know why you assume this strange online persona.

To repeat, the waveform you show is what a damped, a.k.a. exponentially decaying amplitude envelope of an RC resonant oscillator looks like.

I have no clue where your strange comments come from especially considering your voice in your YouTube clips sounds perfectly sane.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MrMag on December 07, 2009, 07:55:44 PM
IST:

Now you are "H?"  I thought that you were/are "w" or "william"

MileHigh

He's not MileHigh, he's just High.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 07, 2009, 08:00:32 PM
mh

with all do respect sir ..

we all are ...

like i said it all goes so deep ..

then we realize we are only children to a higher race beond us ...  and they have parents ..

it is a never ending cycle .. we know .. we choose to forget ... then nature reminds us to remember ..

this is how you are human ... nature is so kind it allows you to grow away ... only to reconnect agin .. you see



peace!

w

the scope shot showen is not good to describe the effects of harmonic entanglement ..

basically with a earth resonant coil .. you flick it ... and harvest only the harmonics .. have a tuned coil to primary and grab a bit to allow self run mode ..

mr mag ... if i dont keep high .. i go low .. thank you ... sorry this is true ... my freqs are to high for earth ... i have always  burnt! 

w
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MrMag on December 07, 2009, 08:32:38 PM
mh

with all do respect sir ..

we all are ...

like i said it all goes so deep ..

then we realize we are only children to a higher race beond us ...  and they have parents ..

it is a never ending cycle .. we know .. we choose to forget ... then nature reminds us to remember ..

this is how you are human ... nature is so kind it allows you to grow away ... only to reconnect agin .. you see



peace!

w

the scope shot showen is not good to describe the effects of harmonic entanglement ..

basically with a earth resonant coil .. you flick it ... and harvest only the harmonics .. have a tuned coil to primary and grab a bit to allow self run mode ..

mr mag ... if i dont keep high .. i go low .. thank you ... sorry this is true ... my freqs are to high for earth ... i have always  burnt! 

w

OK, thanks. I see what you are saying. It may not be what is shown directly on the scope, but yes.

I had a knee replaced in Feb. The doctor srewed up and now that leg is 2" longer than my good one. It screwed up my back real bad before I found out. I am still out of commission. And yes, I'm pretty high most of the time too. :) Thank God for Oxy's.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 07, 2009, 09:16:23 PM
and i do see what you are saying ... 

im saying technoalgy can heal almost anything you can imagine exreamly fast .. with percisision

see what im saying ...

the jt i dont care bout it ... the proper understanding i do care for!

this is mostly earthly engery .. there cosmic engeries too and the sun engery ... there many sources ..

as i currently beleave ..

i do not say i know all .. i bairly know any!  im just a beginner ... but ready to learn  safely ...

william
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 07, 2009, 11:08:18 PM
Here's the entire UC data logging measurements compress into a screen shot. This is a new feature to the data logger software, to display all of the channel data on one screen.

The spikes in current toward the end was me adjusting the MOSFET gate voltage to get more discharge current. They may seem like spikes in the snapshot, but actually I did not quickly change the current.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 07, 2009, 11:13:07 PM
Although the graph in the previous post does not show capacitance, I manually calculated the UC capacitance at various points throughout the entire charging period from 0V to 374mV, and the capacitance hardly changed after the UC warmed up. What an awesome capacitor!

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 07, 2009, 11:51:15 PM
Paul:

Excellent work man!  This is a very good beginning to our understanding of these b-cap properties.  Thank you again.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 08, 2009, 12:12:05 AM
@MrMag,

Repair radios, TV's, you name it, from a very early age. I remember when I was around 8 yrs. old building my cat whisker receiver. Probably have a hell of a time doing it now. :)

Another early starter, beautiful  :D

@ IST,
Could you please post the same image as the one on thread page 18, but put 2 side by side.
I have a reason, and will explain it when I see them.
I would do this myself but don't know how.

jim
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 08, 2009, 12:23:57 AM
jim yes i will post some scope shots ...

i have better ones to discribe this in great deatail ..

i can post if you like and we can walk through it ...

perhaps it deserves it own topic...


if some one will make it i will post there might  be better to put it ..

as this is important truth ...

w


Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 08, 2009, 12:26:47 AM
@ Paul,

A good result I see, well done sir.

jim
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 08, 2009, 12:46:08 AM
Hi,

Here's the circuits. Hopefully there's no mistakes in the drawings.

Remember, the pins shown in the parallel port photo are as it appears directly from your computer, *not* from the cable. So you'll have to do some mirroring to figure out the correct pins.

The top circuit is what I used to measure the voltage directly across the UC. The 2nd circuit I used to measure the UC current during the charging phase. The 3rd circuit I used to measure the UC current during the discharging phase.

You can place the op-amp resistors to meet your requirements, depending how much gain you would like. Or if only need a 1-1 input from 0 to +5V, then you don't need to op-amps and you can go directly to the ADC chip.
 
You can use your favorite op-amps. I have a zillion op-amps, and it's funny to me because the LM741 worked just fine.

I used 12V for V+, and -12V for V-.  And +5V for the ADC0809 and 555 timer. BTW, you could easily get a much much better ADC for probably the same price, but this is the only one I could find at home. Somewhere around here I have a very expensive 170MHz 12bit ADC, but can't find it.

People can request the software exe file via email. That way I can always email them an update if there's a bug or additions. Give me a day to make sure it works on non MS Visual Studio PC's who might not have the required DLL's since it's not a static DLL build.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: ZathEros on December 08, 2009, 02:39:35 AM
Just a reminder to the naysayers-
The second law of thermodynamics that many cling so tightly to, were based on hydraulic circuits assuming a closed system.
Period.
Electrical / electronic circuits can at times assume a closed system as well, but the problem comes in where electromagnetic waves go beyond the confines of the conductor and interact with the environment. Resonant tank circuits can entrain the magnetic field of the earth and or the vacuum and produce these effects.
At this point the second law of thermodynamics no longer applies.
This interaction with the environment is the primary source of  over unity gain phenomena.
Any AM transmitter is proof of this, RF engineers have known this for many years.

another fun experiment to try is take two of the identical caps (same size and voltage rating)  measure the capacitance with a reliable meter and record the value for each.
charge one cap up to its full level record the voltage. you can now calculate the charge contained in the cap in coulombs. now briefly connect the second cap to the first in paralell so that the voltage equalizes between the two.
now measure the voltage in each cap and calculate the charge in each cap.
generally you will wind up with more charge than you started with.

kind regards,
zatheros
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 08, 2009, 03:12:55 AM
ZathEros:

I think that you are missing on some subtleties with respect to science and the second law.

I think that "closed system" vs. "open system" concept is interpreted to liberally sometimes and can be applied out of context.

Electromagnetic waves and the environment are all part of a single whole system.  So if a system is radiating electromagnetic radiation into space or receiving electromagnetic radiation from space, then that is all part of the entire system that you are looking at. Therefore all of the energy balances in the system, you can't ignore the EM effects.  Therefore the laws of thermodynamics do apply here.

If you interact with the environment and absorb energy from it, that is not an over unity gain phenomena.  Take the example of a solar panel.  It's not OU, it's just taking advantage of the power source of the sun and harvesting some of the available energy.  The sun will eventually run out of fuel and then you get nothing from your solar array.

An AM transmitter is like a miniature sun.  It follows all of the laws of thermodynamics.  Solar energy -> plants -> fossil fuel -> oil-fired electrical plant -> electrical amplifier -> electromagnetic transmitting antenna radiating energy into space.   That transmitting energy originally came from the sun, and the sun's energy came from the thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium.  It is as simple as that.

For your capacitor experiment there is nothing special also.  A small amount of charge at a high potential can be turned into a larger amount of charge at a lower potential and energy is conserved.  You actually loose 1/2 of the energy in the after case in your experiment.  The interesting thing is for both the before case and the after case, the actual net charge on the capacitor or capacitors is actually zero.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 08, 2009, 04:46:23 AM
Not that it matters much, but R7 in my charging circuit was 1.86 ohms, and R7 in the discharging circuit was 0.100 ohms.

The current & voltage graph are merely the ADC output. Technically the current graph is just the voltage across either the 1.86 ohm or 0.100 ohm resistor. During the discharge phase the voltage across the 0.100 ohm resistor starts off slightly higher than the voltage across the 1.86 ohm resistor in the charging phase, but the resistance is 18.6 times less, so the current is 18.6 times higher.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 08, 2009, 05:59:33 AM
@ Paul,

Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou.

This is going to be one of the tools I will be using in my quest for OU, it truly will be.
We will all owe you a lot Paul, you are a treassure indeed.

My email addy is to the left here if you would email me the software when ready.

jim
 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 08, 2009, 02:54:15 PM
One of My heater circuits has been running two weeks now . The run battery started at 1.355 and the Bcap started at .5 . in approximatly 19 hours the bcap reached 1.800 volts .  the remaining power in the battery is 1.301 as of today / cap is holding its own at 1.801  I then hooked a 1.2 volt flashlight bulb in series from pos to pos  after that two weeks ago y with a screw in socket for about 30 minuits every few days . The battery charges slowley and and the bcap discharges even slower . so today the battery is 1.301 and the cap is 1.8 volts after two weeks  and about 5 jumps thru the flashlight bulb . After the OU control Circuitry is built this will work as i proved without a doubt in my mind that this circuit will hold its own and self run .  Stick that in you Head Scientist !!

Albert
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 08, 2009, 03:14:08 PM
One of My heater circuits has been running two weeks now . The run battery started at 1.355 and the Bcap started at .5 . in approximatly 19 hours the bcap reached 1.800 volts .  the remaining power in the battery is 1.301 as of today / cap is holding its own at 1.801  I then hooked a 1.2 volt flashlight bulb in series from pos to pos  after that two weeks ago y with a screw in socket for about 30 minuits every few days . The battery charges slowley and and the bcap discharges even slower . so today the battery is 1.301 and the cap is 1.8 volts after two weeks  and about 5 jumps thru the flashlight bulb . After the OU control Circuitry is built this will work as i proved without a doubt in my mind that this circuit will hold its own and self run .  Stick that in you Head Scientist !!

Albert

ooouuucchh ...

that one hurts too ...  the truth and facts are damm hard to beat ..

thank you gadget!

w

i herd someone mention the young effect ...  well .. lol   who knows what is actially takeing place ...

reminds me of a spark gap and wires off into space .....  and simply a diffrance in potencial of 2 places ...
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 08, 2009, 04:14:17 PM
Hi Albert,

Sounds amazing! Is this the same circuit you showed me about 3 or 4 weeks ago?

Looking forward to seeing a self-runner!

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 08, 2009, 04:16:00 PM
Albert,

BTW, I would like to replicate your best JT circuit today. Any recommendations?

Thanks,
Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 08, 2009, 04:38:45 PM
Albert,

BTW, I would like to replicate your best JT circuit today. Any recommendations?

Thanks,
Paul
Pau . i use a goldmine 5/1 dollar 1 inch toroid  a 2n2222a metal can transistor  a 2.2k resistor 1/4 watt and a mini 10k pot . # 26 or #24 wire , two wires abot 15 inches wound together 11 turns ,center tap , and 22 turns secondary for the lights . Also i use a germanium diode on the collector to collect the power and the emitter is negative  connections  to battery and bcap . You should see adjustable  volts from 5 to 21 volts from that CE junction . I have not hooked up My new scope to see is there are any anomalies  like  bemf Spikes yet but i suspect there  are some higher that the DVM readings as indicated in other researchers scope shots of that junction .
OOPS forgot i use a 68 pf disk cap across the resistor also . this lowers the input a lot by changing the frequency of oscillations . You can experiment with this with different tank caps . In the past i connect the disk cap across the pot and make a real tank but this way i did it here is considered standard by the JT group .

Albert
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 08, 2009, 04:56:30 PM
Pau . i use a goldmine 5/1 dollar 1 inch toroid  a 2n2222a metal can transistor  a 2.2k resistor 1/4 watt and a mini 10k pot . # 26 or #24 wire , two wires abot 15 inches wound together 11 turns ,center tap , and 22 turns secondary for the lights . Also i use a germanium diode on the collector to collect the power and the emitter is negative  connections  to battery and bcap . You should see adjustable  volts from 5 to 21 volts from that CE junction . I have not hooked up My new scope to see is there are any anomalies  like  bemf Spikes yet but i suspect there  are some higher that the DVM readings as indicated in other researchers scope shots of that junction .
OOPS forgot i use a 68 pf disk cap across the resistor also . this lowers the input a lot by changing the frequency of oscillations . You can experiment with this with different tank caps . In the past i connect the disk cap across the pot and make a real tank but this way i did it here is considered standard by the JT group .

Albert

That's great that you use very common parts that most people have. I have everything you mention. My Ge diode is 1N34A. How would you describe the permeability of your toroid-- ultra high, high, medium, low, or ultra low, etc.?

BTW, anyone who wants a bookmark page of my data logger circuit w/ UC slow charge / fast discharge experiment can go here,

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/12/08/ultracapacitor-experiment/

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 08, 2009, 05:06:43 PM
That's great that you use very common parts that most people have. I have everything you mention. My Ge diode is 1N34A. How would you describe the permeability of your toroid-- ultra high, high, medium, low, or ultra low, etc.?

BTW, anyone who wants a bookmark page of my data logger circuit w/ UC slow charge / fast discharge experiment can go here,

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/12/08/ultracapacitor-experiment/

Regards,
Paul
the toroid specs are unknow but are very common and the conclusion is they are good so i would sayhigh permeability low flux.. What i suspect in this simple circuit ,much like a bedini circuit is the tah out put from the ce junction  contains volts ,amps and High back spikes that this unique  bcap absorb readily and converts that static pulse in energy  unlike a battery that converts it to a static charge (ghost charge)

So simple . The Best Ideas are always simple and right under our noses !Math cant touch it !

Ps . In fact this is a bedini circuit in self oscilation mode . If you were to wind a bifialar coil afouns an iron core you could run a magnet wheel off it for free . A FACT . i have build over 25 Bedini energizers . This is the circuit . trigger will come from the  magnet passing the coil to fire the transistor . RPM can be as high as the transistor oscillates and friction allows  for your mag wheel . Then you can capture EXTRA energy By harnessing is with coils of coper wire without cores in effect  no lenz effect  noticeably .
Albert
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 08, 2009, 05:12:37 PM
I also have lots of NiMH AA, AAA, and 9V, batteries.

BTW, I recall your circuit had an LED as well, but your new one does not?

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 08, 2009, 05:20:16 PM
I also have lots of NiMH AA, AAA, and 9V, batteries.

BTW, I recall your circuit had an LED as well, but your new one does not?

Paul
USE a GOOD NI/MH . and i have LEDS IN ALL OF THEM . I use 1 watt leds off an unfiltered 22 turn Secondary . This is an option but makes a nice perpetual light source and my first design uses it so i stuck with it . I now have BIG 3.1/2 inch high perm toroids that fire CFL bulbs and use tip 3055 . It produced 4 times the voltage but it also draws 4 time the current . I am working on lowering the input  of that one . the Nice thing about the OU controller being make is it will accept any jt  transistor junction as long as its not extremely high output .  . It took me 15 minutes to wind the big torroid  and put that circuit together  to fire off a Fl tube . . its still running since yesterday off one of those aa ni/mh 2500 mah batteries . Energizer from wallmart  > i can wind and solder the one your making in less than 5 minutes without looking at a diagram because i have made hundreds of them . ranging from a tiny ferrite bead that fits on a transistor leg to a 6 inch toroid . The big ones take longer of course as some have ober 300 winds on the secondary .
Albert
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 08, 2009, 05:32:27 PM
i use a 68 pf disk cap across the resistor also .

Thanks for the info. That should be enough to build it, except one thing. In your older circuit I have written down 1000pF across the 2K resistor. That's changed to 68pF? The 2K resistor (now 2.2K) is the one that goes directly to the 2N2222 base.

Thanks,
Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 08, 2009, 05:37:11 PM
yes gadget ...  math does ANSWER ALL ...

if the HU-MANS ever find the MATH OF CREATION ...  hummmmmm

369 ringggggggg 9 bells?  lol

?

ist
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 08, 2009, 05:38:25 PM
Thanks for the info. That should be enough to build it, except one thing. In your older circuit I have written down 1000pF across the 2K resistor. That's changed to 68pF? The 2K resistor (now 2.2K) is the one that goes directly to the 2N2222 base.

Thanks,
Paul
There is no difference in my circuit using 2 or 2.2 k and you will have to play with the capacitors to find the one that matches your wire ,transistor and toroid . I have a lot of 2n2222a transistors and each one is different charistics . Also the toroid might be different as well . Weather 2 k or 2.2 the pot will adjust it out the same . Yes i change it cause i got a bag of 68 pf and a bag of 2.2k. As soon as i recieve a populated board i will update the one on my thread in the prize section to match what the final design looks like . for now its to save the spot ! It works as posted if you use the goldmine toroid
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 08, 2009, 05:41:24 PM
I don't have $ to even spend on S&H right now so I'll use one of my toroids here, but this might help someone else. Here's search results from goldmine on toroids. Is one of these your toroid?

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 08, 2009, 05:44:22 PM
I don't have $ to send on S&H, but this might help someone else. Here's search results from goldmine on toroids. Is one of these your toroid?

Paul
g6683 .. ISt has 500 of them waiting here  !! IST !! I need to get these to ya before Christmas please . Save some of that Green stuff money  :)
Hey if you order from gold mine dont forget to order your self a 5 dollar grab bag . they contain 3 ,4hundre dollars worth of electronics parts ,coils leds , speakers ,switches ,inductors ,connectors ,scrs, supercaps,micro motors and a whole lot more ! .its worth it
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 08, 2009, 05:46:32 PM
Hey Albert,

Have you tried toroids from https://www.amidoncorp.com (https://www.amidoncorp.com) ?  I've bought zillions of theirs in the past. Nothing special, but prices seemed good to me back int the days. As for special cores, I highly recommend Metglas & Hitachi, but not sure how they work out for cop>1. J.Naudin said his MEG was a lot more efficient with a Metglas core.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 08, 2009, 05:59:48 PM
Hey Albert,

Have you tried toroids from https://www.amidoncorp.com (https://www.amidoncorp.com) ?  I've bought zillions of theirs in the past. Nothing special, but prices seemed good to me back int the days. As for special cores, I highly recommend Metglas & Hitachi, but not sure how they work out for cop>1. J.Naudin said his MEG was a lot more efficient with a Metglas core.

Paul
? nope .The Best ones as are determined for Jt research are from MICROMETALS  or magnatics www.mag-inc.com It has been determined thru 1000 pages  that the best torroids are high perm and low flux , At least this is what i am useing . Some toroids dont work at all for transfering to a secondary or starting a transistor in a jt . the BLUE ones SUCK . most out od an old power supply are good . I tor up 10 old computer power supplies and took all the  trorrois out of em . they have 3/4 to one in them also . they work nice. but 5 /1 dollars ones are considered by the Jt group STANDARD  . this is so we all can be on the same page when using toroids . Just like the Jeanna light torrid . I had some that looked like them with gray coating but they Dont work at all . I just got 4 free ones from mag-inc .and a few bigger 5 inch ones . you can order free samples every week up to 10 each  of 7 items(torroids)the biggest i got was the biggest they have 144 MM !!! all i have to do was pay shipping . :) They are very powerful toroids . I got SIX in the last free sample order for 11.95 total . these toroids would have cost hundreds of dollars as the price of the 144 mm is 99 dollars if you buy 158  minimum .The best i have ever wound . Light up cfl bulbs with less than 100 turns off the secondary and only 9 turns on a primary .. please check out joule thief 101 on the first page for an example of a good toroid and the winding by Xee2.
The BIG ring is for something VERY special IST HAS to share with me ! SUPER TPU
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 08, 2009, 06:53:40 PM
I don't have $ to even spend on S&H right now so I'll use one of my toroids here, but this might help someone else. Here's search results from goldmine on toroids. Is one of these your toroid?

Paul

Paul:

A lot of us have used the 5 for 1$ toroid on your chart there, the 5th one down from the top.  That is what we call the Goldmine toroid.  1" od x 1/2" id x 1/2" thick.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 08, 2009, 07:37:24 PM
I emailed goldmine and they don't know the specs on that toroid, so I just grabbed one in the lab that has some good permeability, about the same size as you guys describe. Then I made the JT with 26 gauge magnet wire, 11 turns. It's probably more difficult to use magnet wire since there's higher chance of the wires coming too close, but after winding it I made sure they wires were as far spread apart as possible to minimize capacitance.

All the parts are on the table now, 1N34A, 2N2222A, a variable high frequency capacitor, and 2.2Kohm R, and 10Kohm pot. I'll use a AA NiMH 2000mAH battery to charge the 650F UC.

Sounds like fun. It should be built in about 10 minutes.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 08, 2009, 09:16:06 PM
The JT is working, but I'll post in the JT thread. The joule thief 101 thread, right?

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Mk1 on December 08, 2009, 09:20:06 PM
@PAUL

Put it in the jule thief one.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 08, 2009, 09:22:28 PM
Paul:

Good going with your JT.  You can post in that one or the regular JT topic...your choice.  Also, check out the JT diagrams topic where we put many of the schematics for the circuits that came up in the JT topic.  There are also page numbers there so you can read the posts associated with the particular schematic you are interested in.

I began work on my Lidmotor "Jeanna's Light" replication last night.  It is going to take a while but it will be worth it.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: nitinnun on December 09, 2009, 12:14:21 AM


there are free electrons in the air.
in the form of negative air ions.

these negative air ions, are attracted into the positive half of the capacitor.
either because of the diamagnetic elements in the capacitor,
or because of the capacitors positive charge.



the charge in one half of the capacitor, creates the charge in the other half of the capacitor.
because of lenz law.


Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: electricme on December 09, 2009, 01:17:22 AM
@Paul,
Albert,

BTW, I would like to replicate your best JT circuit today. Any recommendations?

Thanks,
Paul
By the time I got on the net, this has probably been answered already, but extra info is always never wasted.

Gadget has some good info on Joule Thieves, but the person who really knows about the most to ask if you get stuck would be Jeanna on Bills Joule Thief forum.
Have a look see from the 1000 page upwards. :D

I plan to replicate her Jeanna Light as Lidmotor has called it, Lidmotor has given the Jeanna Light positave ratings.

I have 2 iron rings here,  22" Outside Dia 19" Inside Dia 3/4" thick, I want to see if I cam make em ring"""""

If you want to avail yourself of some free toroids, try mag-inc.com, they have the type avaliable for the Jeanna Light (OW48613TC).
 

jim

 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 09, 2009, 03:46:03 AM
Albert:

Quote
One of My heater circuits has been running two weeks now . The run battery started at 1.355 and the Bcap started at .5 . in approximatly 19 hours the bcap reached 1.800 volts .  the remaining power in the battery is 1.301 as of today / cap is holding its own at 1.801  I then hooked a 1.2 volt flashlight bulb in series from pos to pos  after that two weeks ago y with a screw in socket for about 30 minuits every few days . The battery charges slowley and and the bcap discharges even slower . so today the battery is 1.301 and the cap is 1.8 volts after two weeks  and about 5 jumps thru the flashlight bulb . After the OU control Circuitry is built this will work as i proved without a doubt in my mind that this circuit will hold its own and self run .  Stick that in you Head Scientist !!

You are providing anecdotal evidence that your battery can run your JT circuit for two weeks and power a flashlight bulb for a while.  Do you know if your battery can run it for six weeks?  You are going to have to do a lot better than that if you want to make a solid case.  A schematic would be required, a detailed description of what you are doing, the measurements that you are making, etc.  This is a perfectly reasonable and sensible requirement that would apply to anyone making an over unity claim.  If you are uncomfortable with doing this, perhaps you could team up with someone in real life that can work with you that is comfortable with this.  Just a suggestion.

For what it's worth, I know that you all quote battery voltages, but like I said before, that gives you only the vaguest idea about how much energy remains in the battery.  A true, serious electronics experimenter does not cite battery voltages in the context that you are using that data because it is imprecise and basically meaningless.  I will now put on my flame retardant suit.

Nitinnun:

You should read up on capacitors on Wikipedia or a good electronics hobbyist's site because your statements are wrong.  Your comments in reference to negative ions in the air, diamagnetism and and Lenz's Law are pie-in-the-sky.

Electricme:

I retract my comments about you from an earlier posting.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 09, 2009, 04:09:08 AM
Albert:

You are providing anecdotal evidence that your battery can run your JT circuit for two weeks and power a flashlight bulb for a while.  Do you know if your battery can run it for six weeks?  You are going to have to do a lot better than that if you want to make a solid case.  A schematic would be required, a detailed description of what you are doing, the measurements that you are making, etc.  This is a perfectly reasonable and sensible requirement that would apply to anyone making an over unity claim.  If you are uncomfortable with doing this, perhaps you could team up with someone in real life that can work with you that is comfortable with this.  Just a suggestion.

For what it's worth, I know that you all quote battery voltages, but like I said before, that gives you only the vaguest idea about how much energy remains in the battery.  A true, serious electronics experimenter does not cite battery voltages in the context that you are using that data because it is imprecise and basically meaningless.  I will now put on my flame retardant suit.

Nitinnun:

You should read up on capacitors on Wikipedia or a good electronics hobbyist's site because your statements are wrong.  Your comments in reference to negative ions in the air, diamagnetism and and Lenz's Law are pie-in-the-sky.

Electricme:

I retract my comments about you from an earlier posting.

MileHigh
Yep .  Voltage is all this system cares about . its a voltage booster circuit after all . No i don't light the  filament bulb. Using the schematic posted i simply put the 1.2 volt bulb across the two positive terminals thus its a resistive regulator and instead of throwing all the amps from the bcap to the battery the bulb absorbs the massive jolt that would occur if i just jumped it with a solid wire .  and trickles the battery to back to health . No the lamp don't light up at all . ...
the unit just runs without stopping ..A TRUE Serious Experiment like Myself Does Experiments and Don't play with BS numbers ! You cant calculate this because there is an unknown factor . BEMF of varying strengths . Already proven By bedini and others in tpu and Jt experiments . Pulsed energy from a Jt is not the same as direct current !
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 09, 2009, 04:45:31 AM
Albert:

I will assume that your circuit is the same as the one Jenna always posts where you replace the LED position (in the schematic "BJTL") with a diode and your ultracapacitor.   I will also assume that you connect the flashlight bulb between the ultracapacitor positive and the battery positive when you want to recharge the battery.  I will also assume that you have no "extra secondary" windings to drive a CFL or something similar.

Quote
Voltage is all this system cares about.

No, what this system cares about is the amount of energy in the battery over time.  You are claiming that the energy in the battery may fluctuate, but will never go down to zero.  Measuring the battery voltage over time is not really going to tell you how much energy there is in the battery.

It's possible that your setup will run a very long time with an AA battery if the configuration uses very little power to charge the ultracapacitor and you have very little lost power as heat to drive the Joule Thief circuit itself.

Your variation on the JT will take some battery energy and put it into the ultracapacitor very slowly.  Then when you attach the bulb two things happen, 1) you recharge the battery with some energy that's stored in the capacitor, and 2) you loose some of the energy stored in the capacitor as heat.

If everything is running so that the average power dissipated is very very low, and this is very possible, then a single AA battery could possibly run the circuit for months.

However, the battery will eventually go dead.

So, if you had some idea of what your true average power consumption of the circuit was, and you knew how much energy was in the battery at the start of your experiment, then you would at least have an idea of how long the circuit would run.

Since you apparently don't have that information, you observe the the JT/ultracapacitor circuit running for two weeks and jump to the conclusion that you have an over unity device.  The reality is that the setup might be able to run a very very long time, a few months.

An analogy would be when you put an AA battery in a digital clock.  The battery could run the clock for years.  In your case, the battery may be able to run your setup for months, and then it will die.

If you don't want to wait for months, you could start with a battery where you know or have carefully measured how much energy is stored in it.  Then run the setup for one month and carefully measure how much energy is remaining in the battery.  If there is less energy in the battery after one month (which will be the case) then the experiment is over and you have proved the setup is under unity.

Quote
A TRUE Serious Experiment like Myself Does Experiments and Don't play with BS numbers !

This whole thing is a numbers game and don't try to pretend it isn't because it is.

Quote
You cant calculate this because there is an unknown factor . BEMF of varying strengths

Actually you can measure the amount of energy per BEMF pulse from your JT circuit going into the ultracapacitor, it's a quite easy measurement to make.  A lot of people around here would tell you that Bedini has proven nothing, including myself.  There is a whole thread somewhere here where everybody states that they tried and tried but could never get extra energy from their Bedini setups.

MileHigh

P.S.:  So you took my advice to not connect the battery directly to the capacitor to recharge it?
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 09, 2009, 04:51:52 AM
simply wind a pickup .. rectify to cap.. dump to source ...  use a super and remove battery all togather ...  battery only used to charge SELF RUNNING SUPER CAP ... might work ...  might even run at 3 vdc insted of 1.5 lol


see ya !

ist!
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 09, 2009, 04:57:13 AM
IST:

If you put instant coffee in a microwave oven you might be able to go backwards in time.

- Steven Wright
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 09, 2009, 05:04:46 AM
I knew the battery connected directly to the Bcap was way too much . these Ni/mh batteries are designed to be fast charged in 1 hour from dead to charged . SO the logic  and  conclusion is to make the charge cycle like the battery likes it . and yep its holding its own fine with the Bulb  regulator . This is temporary until i get My populated Ou controler in a few weeks . We wil be controling these adjustments with a PIC program .This test the experiment with the Ni/mh battery showing to me that the battery will remain charged to its original resting voltage of 1.3 volts . Also it proves to me that after such cycle the bcap regains its ground  and above unity over and over . same thing with bcap to bcap one the second duplicate circuit . .. I'll start another experiment . i'll charge a bcap to 1.3 volts and run it to a bcap charged to half that .650 volts and i can prove that the charge bcap will go above the 1.3 volt run cap and then do my bulb regulator trick and bring that run bcap right back if not higher than 1.3 volts . what would this tell you if i can do that  ? no one else can or ever has done this experiment and succeeded  except me with bcaps .how can you explain this away ?Its totally replica table and easy as pie to do . so dam simple and yet so hard for a scientist to comprehend   .Also remember this . I Do use a secondary on all the models ! It runs a 1 watt led all the time and stays lit .It gets BRIGHTER and BRIGHTER as the charge BCAP increases and when i do the bulb trick it gets brighter still then back to about half bright until the bcap charges above  the run and gets brighter and brighter . this is how i can tell its time to cycle when its bright bright and the charge bcap don't need to be higher than 2 volts to do this . more like 1.8 v
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 09, 2009, 05:33:53 AM
Albert:

Let me put it another way for you:

Battery percentage of full charge: "%FULL"
Resting battery voltage: "RestV"

%FULL  RestV

100%   1.3 V
90%    1.3 V
80%    1.3 V
70%    1.3 V
60%    1.3 V
50%    1.3 V
40%    1.3 V
30%    1.3 V
20%    1.3 V
10%    1.3 V
5%      1.2 V
2%      1.1 V
1%      1.0 V

So you can be continuously be loosing battery energy and the resting voltage will be the same.

Just be sure that you don't connect the two BCAPs together directly.  That's a short circuit condition and the wires in your hand could turn white hot in 1/5 second.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 09, 2009, 05:45:54 AM
Albert:

Let me put it another way for you:

Battery percentage of full charge: "%FULL"
Resting battery voltage: "RestV"

%FULL  RestV

100%   1.3 V
90%    1.3 V
80%    1.3 V
70%    1.3 V
60%    1.3 V
50%    1.3 V
40%    1.3 V
30%    1.3 V
20%    1.3 V
10%    1.3 V
5%      1.2 V
2%      1.1 V
1%      1.0 V

So you can be continuously be loosing battery energy and the resting voltage will be the same.

Just be sure that you don't connect the two BCAPs together directly.  That's a short circuit condition and the wires in your hand may turn white hot in 1/5 second.

MileHigh
well this circuit will run with as low as 0.5 volts and  probable less than 1 ma . I have one running (JT) at  0.18 v and 0.80 ma running 4 white leds all year long off an aaa rechargeable  so this could be an easy win . we all might be dead by the time it stops IF it stops . And i know what your saying about the battery supplying more joules than a bcap but when my batteries start going dead the volts drop . A simple test it put a resistor in series with a ni/mh battery and the volts steadily drop . until a few thousandth of volt exist . this is how batterys  i have discharge . not 1.3 100 1.3 90  1.3 80% NOPE no way hosea . it goes like this 1.3 100% 1.2 90% 1.1 80% 1.0 70% . No one will agree with your fictional battery number % wise . ANYONE  ?
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 09, 2009, 05:47:54 AM
Albert:

Quote
I Do use a secondary on all the models ! It runs a 1 watt led all the time and stays lit .It gets BRIGHTER and BRIGHTER as the charge BCAP increases and when i do the bulb trick it gets brighter still then back to about half bright until the bcap charges above  the run and gets brighter and brighter . this is how i can tell its time to cycle when its bright bright and the charge bcap don't need to be higher than 2 volts to do this . more like 1.8 v

This is where you need to make a schematic diagram and post it for any real comments about what you are observing.

Quote
well this circuit will run with as low as 0.5 volts and  probable less than 1 ma . I have one running (JT) at  0.18 v and 0.80 ma running 4 white leds all year long off an aaa rechargeable  so this could be an easy win . we all might be dead by the time it stops IF it stops .

With all due respect you are trying to change the subject.  The point here is that voltage measurements are meaningless as a gauge for the amount of energy in a battery.

Quote
it goes like this 1.3 100% 1.2 90% 1.1 80% 1.0 70%

You are wrong.  Just develop an experiment yourself and run it to check this and you will see that I am right.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 09, 2009, 05:55:37 AM
Albert:

This is where you need to make a schematic diagram and post it for any real comments about what you are observing.

With all due respect you are trying to change the subject.  The point here is that voltage measurements are meaningless as a gauge for the amount of energy in a battery.

MileHigh
DAMN . the circuit IS posted @ overunity prize thread and SECOND STAGE Joule THIEF CIRCUITS > GNITE
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Mk1 on December 09, 2009, 05:59:04 AM
@gadget


Albert , don't wast time with him , even if you convince him , a smarter one will come .  :D :( ::)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 09, 2009, 06:05:45 AM
MK1:

The old "don't waste your time" cliche.  Why don't you actually try to say something and join in the debate?  We can always agree to disagree.

MH
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 09, 2009, 01:01:09 PM
MK1:

The old "don't waste your time" cliche.  Why don't you actually try to say something and join in the debate?  We can always agree to disagree.

MH
Ok before i have a heart attack i agree to disagree ;) Your WRONG ! I have been playing with batteries since they were  zinc carbon  in the 60's . the volts DROP when you use them and so does the percentage . . Have you got a battery ? a resistor  ? a voltmeter ? you do the experiment  as NO ONE will agree with you on that Statement you made about volts staying at 1.3 for its entire life or 20% . PLUS you can't conceive evev to mention the bcap to bcap experiments . You Avoid them . I think i'll go strictly with bcap to bcap and forget batteries. Then what  ?
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 09, 2009, 01:58:36 PM
Albert:

The resting voltage means that you disconnect the battery from the circuit and wait one hour and then measure the unloaded battery voltage with your multimeter.

What makes you think that the resting battery voltage drops linearly with the percentage of remaining charge in the battery?  That is just an old wives' tale that most of you believe but it is NOT  TRUE.

If you do the experiment like I said then you can find out for yourself.

I may comment on your BCAP to BCAP experiments later.

I have explained to you why the circuit runs for so long, and that the battery will eventually die.  I have also explained to you that you are making a mistake by looking at the battery voltage only.   All that you need is some patience and your battery in your experiment will run out of juice.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MrMag on December 09, 2009, 02:14:08 PM
MileHigh is right. The "standing voltage" will stay high for most of the battery life.

I can't count how many times I looked for a battery for a flashlight and found one with 1.5 volts just to have the light dim after a few seconds.

A battery under load is a different story.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 09, 2009, 04:51:26 PM
After just logging in today I made a post in the joule thief main thread about doing two new experiments. 1) Find out how many times my fully charged AA 200mAh NiMH battery can charge the UC. 2) See how much energy is in the fully charged AA battery by connecting a load and data logging. After reading the recent posts in this thread, it seems experiment #2 is more important right now.

It's a fact that the voltage from any battery begins dropping after using it. The rate at which the voltage drops is slow at first and increases at a faster rate over time. Every type of battery has different characteristics.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 09, 2009, 05:48:47 PM
i do agree

i did do extencive tests on batteries ...  wile expairmenting with pulse motors ..

to gain a PROPER mesurement ..  you must drain your battery and record the amount of time it lit xx load recharge it and repet 3 times .. base calculations on avarge of the 3 tests then you know EXACTALLY HOW much IS THERE TO START WITH ...  then  recharge the 4th time and run jt .. till battery is drained ... lol

count how many times ubc is recharged ... base calculations on engery stored in ubc...

then find input vs output!

and properly calculate cop .. : )

ist!

now if you find yourself to have a jt that the voltage cuts off....  as mine are designed to do at .5 volt ... so i dont have to fill the hole damm thing agin ... : )

you can then drain battery out as low as jt will drain it ... and repete load study from first test ... record time load ran from remaining engery in battery ... and  compair ############ :)

have fun ... you all know im right ... lol
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 09, 2009, 05:59:39 PM
MileHigh is right. The "standing voltage" will stay high for most of the battery life.

I can't count how many times I looked for a battery for a flashlight and found one with 1.5 volts just to have the light dim after a few seconds.

A battery under load is a different story.
Exactly . This is the condition I am talking about Discharge Charistics . I tried explaining  DISCHARGE % .We are talking run battery for My circut.  My Standing volts from my experiment is after the battery is Charged and set for a day . He is Wrong and says a battery is 1.3 volts 100% and 1.3 volts 20%  Under load . BS.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 09, 2009, 06:08:58 PM
After just logging in today I made a post in the joule thief main thread about doing two new experiments. 1) Find out how many times my fully charged AA 200mAh NiMH battery can charge the UC. 2) See how much energy is in the fully charged AA battery by connecting a load and data logging. After reading the recent posts in this thread, it seems experiment #2 is more important right now.

It's a fact that the voltage from any battery begins dropping after using it. The rate at which the voltage drops is slow at first and increases at a faster rate over time. Every type of battery has different characteristics.

Paul
Hey paul For your experiment to be Valid you need a fairly NEW NI/mh 2500 ma rechargable Energizer or equilivent .Ni/cad will drop  as alkiline or lithium ion . I have charged on a ni/cad that i brought to lafe a few time over 7 years but this was to charge it only and i did not attempt to recharge it with a bcap . No sence in that i will be using all new stuff anyways . also i might just abandone the battery all togeter and get this whole conversation about batterys out of the way and use strickly Bcaps ..Cost for Stephans units will be about 300 dollars plus between 200 or 300 labor cost . This is because it will now use two bcaps.  Or not . i may just keep the bcap units  for myself and devise a cheaper way . the battery is the cheapest but too much contraversy for me . Paul appreciate your Experiments . I really would like to know aboutthe anomilious pulse's and the way the bcap converts these into enengy . pirate used his Eb to charge up his over night . My Eb will charge them up to 1.5 volts in a few days .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 09, 2009, 06:25:33 PM
i think that is a perfect choise gadget then we can get rid compleatly the bs crap talk ...

we can use a solar as a back up charger for base cap ... keeps it really simple ...  want the solar to shut off when cap is full ...  the darn driveing cap will run a jt likely a month or more on 1 4 hour solar charge ... that means all output cap can be used ... and you will always have a reserve ...


IM TELLING YOU THERE 10000000000 MILLION WAYS ... but they all work on 1 thing ... :)

hummmmmm

IS
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MrMag on December 09, 2009, 07:31:26 PM
Hey paul For your experiment to be Valid you need a fairly NEW NI/mh 2500 ma rechargable Energizer or equilivent .Ni/cad will drop  as alkiline or lithium ion . I have charged on a ni/cad that i brought to lafe a few time over 7 years but this was to charge it only and i did not attempt to recharge it with a bcap . No sence in that i will be using all new stuff anyways . also i might just abandone the battery all togeter and get this whole conversation about batterys out of the way and use strickly Bcaps ..Cost for Stephans units will be about 300 dollars plus between 200 or 300 labor cost . This is because it will now use two bcaps.  Or not . i may just keep the bcap units  for myself and devise a cheaper way . the battery is the cheapest but too much contraversy for me . Paul appreciate your Experiments . I really would like to know aboutthe anomilious pulse's and the way the bcap converts these into every . pirate used his Eb to charge up his over night . My Eb will charge them up to 1.5 volts in a few days .

Using 2 bcaps and removing the battery would be the best way to prove OU. Start with a partially charged bcap on the jt that will charge a completely drained  bcap on the secondary. If this is truly OU, in time both caps should be fully charged
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 09, 2009, 08:50:41 PM
yep i agree ...

thank you mr. m

you require enough reserve to keep its pace ...  menaing .. i dont think you could use a 10 f on in put and a 650 f on out put and expect the same results ... unless.... 

well thats a story for later ......

william
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 09, 2009, 09:25:04 PM
I got some 30f coming i might try those . And just to add to the "mystery of the Bcap" a bedini will charge them up to full power . No mystery . the high  normaly wasted not in any electronics book BEMF spikes are converted to usable energy in the form of AMPS and VOLTS !
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 09, 2009, 10:17:51 PM
I got some 30f coming i might try those . And just to add to the "mystery of the Bcap" a bedini will charge them up to full power . No mystery . the high  normaly wasted not in any electronics book BEMF spikes are converted to usable energy in the form of AMPS and VOLTS !

Gadget:

That is exactly what I have been seeing over here as well.  Otherwise, I can find no reason why or how my EB, with 1.9 v, 19mA output could charge a 650 F b-cap to 2.7 volts.  It has to be the spikes and they do appear to store/convert them into usable power.  After seeing all of those random spikes all over my scope this is what I have figured out must be happening.  Also, this explains why, over 2 years ago now, that I could light an led with my original EB experiments (very small electrodes) as I had used a supercap in the simple circuit. (5.5 volt .22 F)

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 09, 2009, 10:49:06 PM
Gadget:

That is exactly what I have been seeing over here as well.  Otherwise, I can find no reason why or how my EB, with 1.9 v, 19mA output could charge a 650 F b-cap to 2.7 volts.  It has to be the spikes and they do appear to store/convert them into usable power.  After seeing all of those random spikes all over my scope this is what I have figured out must be happening.  Also, this explains why, over 2 years ago now, that I could light an led with my original EB experiments (very small electrodes) as I had used a supercap in the simple circuit. (5.5 volt .22 F)

Bill
I think so too and i also think three things are charging this bcap up . volts ,current and  spikes from the kick back . and i believe the reason i don't see it charging on the 22 turn secondary is there is one of those three components missing  or too small .This is on a standard Jt . other Jts with more power could do it or maybe its taking a charge so small it can't over come the tiny leakage or the bcap .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 10, 2009, 05:50:01 AM
Okay gadget:

Here is the Cadillac version for you:

*** CASE 1 ***
Battery percentage of full charge: "%FULL"
Resting battery voltage: "RestV"

%FULL  RestV

100%   1.3 V
90%    1.3 V
80%    1.3 V
70%    1.3 V
60%    1.3 V
50%    1.3 V
40%    1.3 V
30%    1.3 V
20%    1.3 V
10%    1.3 V
5%      1.2 V
2%      1.1 V
1%      1.0 V

So you can be continuously be loosing battery energy and the resting voltage will be the same.


*** CASE 2 ***
Battery percentage of full charge: "%FULL"
Battery voltage when connected to a load resistor: "LoadV"

%FULL  LoadV

100%   1.300 V
90%    1.298 V
80%    1.297 V
70%    1.294 V
60%    1.293 V
50%    1.295 V
40%    1.289 V
30%    1.296 V
20%    1.241 V
10%    1.201 V
5%      1.178 V
2%      1.104 V
1%      0.877 V

So you can be continuously be loosing battery energy and voltage will trend down very slowly, and it might even go UP as you loose battery energy.  The voltage will start to fall off more sharply as the battery nears the end of its life.  The temperature of the battery might be different which is one possible explanation for the voltage INCREASING slightly as the battery loses energy.  Another possible explanation is that the randomly moving molecules inside the battery just by chance expose more "fresh" chemicals that for a short while will give you a more robust chemical reaction inside the battery which will INCREASE the output voltage under load, even through the battery has less available energy in it.

The moral of the story is the battery voltage reading, whether it be the resting battery voltage or the loaded battery voltage, is not a reliable indicator of the state of charge of the battery.  So when you do a test where the battery voltage only drops by 0.002 volts you don't really know what's going on.

However, if you know that your battery is powering a circuit, then you know for sure that the battery is going down in energy, irrespective of the battery voltage reading.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 06:51:57 AM
Hey paul For your experiment to be Valid you need a fairly NEW NI/mh 2500 ma rechargable Energizer or equilivent .

I've hardly used my NiMH batteries. As far as size difference between 2000mAh & 2500mAh, it's probably only a difference in the amount of material in the battery. That's why AAA NiMH have much less Ah ratings than the AA made by the same company. Same material, just less of it. For instance I could place two of my AA batteries in parallel to get more Ah.  :)

Anyhow, looks like my NiMH batteries are in good shape, as it's already at 6000 joules and still plenty to go. The predicted value is 10000 joules.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 10, 2009, 07:09:01 AM
Paul:

If you have ESP you might get this message through the subliminal bits.

Even small batteries should never be put in parallel.  The battery with just slightly more resting voltage will discharge into the battery with slightly less resting voltage.  The increased heat in both batteries could set up a positive feedback loop and the two batteries could go into thermal runnaway and both batteries could cook and get very sick.

IST:

I looked at your two clips.  That was a jaw-dropping experience.  I just don't know what to say.  Don't put pulsed DC into a coil.  The coil will become a short circuit in no time.

Plus, you sparking display was... <drum roll> basically a hand-held Joule Thief.  Also, that's old-hat and looks like a Carney trick at this point in time.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Anothertruthfinder on December 10, 2009, 10:06:32 AM
 hi, @MH Im afraid i disagree with you about the batteries in parallel, ive done that many a time and there's no issue providing that voltages are the same and the 'ah' are the same. If the 'ah' is too radical in difference then they will normally 'equalize' to the lowest 'ah' rating in the pack and your overall current will be that of the lowest rated 'ah' x 2. If you place a 650mah and a 2500mah parallel together then the 650mah will 'drag' the current from the 2500mah down to about 650 but i have never experienced runaway or heating cause there's no overvoltage between them so the electolyte is not getting that stressed over it. This is repeatable and proven through hard physical data.

EEL  ;)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 10, 2009, 01:55:58 PM
DIITO . . total nonsense . you can put any battery in parallel to get more current if there the same volts . Done it all my life and as a matter of fact most solar systems do this as well . Mine does and it quite happy for the last 15 years .

Gadget 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 02:24:53 PM
hi, @MH Im afraid i disagree with you about the batteries in parallel, ive done that many a time and there's no issue providing that voltages are the same and the 'ah' are the same. If the 'ah' is too radical in difference then they will normally 'equalize' to the lowest 'ah' rating in the pack and your overall current will be that of the lowest rated 'ah' x 2. If you place a 650mah and a 2500mah parallel together then the 650mah will 'drag' the current from the 2500mah down to about 650 but i have never experienced runaway or heating cause there's no overvoltage between them so the electolyte is not getting that stressed over it. This is repeatable and proven through hard physical data.

EEL  ;)

Is EE101 MH stuck on how to parallel batteries, LOL?  It takes a rocket scientist to figure it out.  ;)   Here's a real example of my AA batteries, which have ~ 50mOhm per battery. Out of 5 good charged batteries, the highest was 1.412V, the lowest was 1.387V. Diff is 0.025 volts. The current is 0.025 / (50mOhm * 2) = 250mA. Oh boy, that's a lot of current, huh MH.  ;) What happens is the batteries in parallel reach equilibrium.

And if someone's afraid of too much current, then discharge the batteries and parallel them.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 02:44:41 PM
The NiMH 2000mAh AA experiment is done, and it's deader than a door nail with only 0.05 volts left while connected across the 10 ohm resistor. The final energy was 6873 joules, which is a bit lower than factory spec, but that's no surprise since they probably cherry pick the best one they could possibly find, and then over charge it. Who knows, that's capitalism at its best,  ;) , but I did not over charge mine.

So, 6900 joules is a good figure for 2000mAh NiMH batteries, and 8600 joules for 2500mAh.

My UC is ~ 550 farads at low voltages (less than 0.4V), and lets just assume it's 650F at 2.7V, for an average of 600F, which comes to 2200 joules. So 6900 J / 2200 J = 3.1 times.

As far as I'm concerned, one can prove a JT is cop>1 without doubt by either self-running, or by using one 2000mAh to 2500mAh NiMH battery to charge a BCAP0650 4 times. I'll try doing this today to see how many times my first JT can charge the BCAP0650. ... How long will it take to do this. I mean, discharging the AA battery at 130mA took nearly one day. Albert, what is the maximum current I should use for my JT?

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 10, 2009, 03:22:09 PM
Paul .
 I am so glad to have that logger setup . . there is still an unseen factor and that is the BEMF being collected with diode at the c e junction . that diode add to the total power coming from that's junction that would normally be wasted in conventional electronics as described by john bedini in his experiment over the past 30 years or so . It is here where the magic really begins and the REAL magic is that an ultracap can convert that into real energy . If there was an icon praising you i would use it . AND you were an unbeliever  and i am so glad to went the distance and got you a good cap .
Stephan !  I recommend Paul Should be put as an elite member for his courage and extream efforts to prove me wrong OR right . Any one second this motion  ?
edit .. Oh i see you are already an elite Member .. :)

Also it ain't over till the fat lady flys ! If you could adjust your Jt to  draw less than 20 ma and measure your V and I after the diode so i can get an idea of how close you are to My setup . Should be  13 ma in and between 5-21 volts @5 ma out . this does include part of the flyback being captured and allows  Hv spikes to still come thru . Then hook you bcap to it  and log .I would love to see one of those pretty graphs of you work so far and i might ask if i can use them in descriptions in My pdf for the OU prize ? IF i win you will certainly get a percentage of the money . If not then you will still be included in access to a factory board for your private use and receive credit where its due and i consider you a valuable member to this project and  a member of our group efforts.  I didnt inven the Jt  nor the Bcap . all i did was put the pieces together . Explanations are beyond me except for the ones i have described and  i need your expertise  . As far as having a 2000mah battery i am using a 2500mah and have kep one running ver 16 days and recharged the bcap 7 times above unity of teh source . battery remains at 1.300 where i regenerate it with the light bulb regulator . I forgot one time to unscrew it and the battery got a bit higher and the bcap went to 1.385 but today's its back up to 1.8 and the battery is holding its own at 1.3 -1.299 . next recharge about lunch time .

Albert
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: powercat on December 10, 2009, 03:58:28 PM
Gadget,
I recommend Groundloop Should be an elite member,he has helped many people over the years with their circuits, does anyone think this is a good idea ?

cat
This is the second time I have suggested this
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 04:20:44 PM
What's an elite member anyway? Sorry, I probably don't stick around here long enough to deserve a title of anything.  :(
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 10, 2009, 04:26:15 PM
let me ask you ...

do i have an elete title ...  perhaps it means something .... lmfao

my my my

im a HERO MEMBER.... is an elete enlightened ?

hummmmm

ist!
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: powercat on December 10, 2009, 04:34:41 PM
Pual
You are an elite member, I seem to remember you got the title soon after joining the forum  this was for your diode research work.

cat
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 04:49:44 PM
Albert,

When I adjust the JT to 19mA input, the DC current through the 1N34A diode is 7.2mA. At 10.25mA in, the 1N34A current is 4.9mA. Does that sound correct?

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 04:50:24 PM
I bumped it to 10.70mA in, and 1N34A went to 5.0mA
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 04:55:46 PM
That's using the DMM in-series with the 1N34A, but maybe it's interfering too much. Give me a few min to connect a 0.1 ohm R and then use the Keithley to measure the voltage across it to see the current.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 04:58:43 PM
Using a 0.1ohm resistor in-series with the 1N34A to determine the 1N34A current, instead of the DMM, there's 19.07mA input, and 1.074mV on the 0.1ohm resistor, which comes to 10.74mA through the 1N34A.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 05:42:52 PM
As far as having a 2000mah battery i am using a 2500mah and have kep one running ver 16 days and recharged the bcap 7 times above unity of teh source . battery remains at 1.300 where i regenerate it with the light bulb regulator .

Wow, that's incredible. Are you saying that your 2500mAh NiMH battery has recharged the bcap0650 from 0 to nearly 2.7 volts seven times without regarging the 2500mAh battery??

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 10, 2009, 05:55:43 PM
great mesurements paul !

you gotts what it takes ...

i would say it works as designed to ...

gadget see why you were first ..

?

w
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 06:09:24 PM
Did gadget go to the mall?  ;D   Just kidding. Oh well, I'll wait awhile longer for him to give the thumbs up for my JT before I'll just go ahead and connect it to my bcap0650.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 10, 2009, 06:14:08 PM
Wow, that's incredible. Are you saying that your 2500mAh NiMH battery has recharged the bcap0650 from 0 to nearly 2.7 volts seven times without regarging the 2500mAh battery??

Paul
No i didn't mean down to 0 volts . none of My bcap have ever seen 0 volts . even from the factory all of them carried at leat .100 volts . Where they are dead here and wont run silicon transistors is .5 volts . this is where they start when they are being charged . I have not discharged one on this design down past .8 volts so i guess that invaladate My post above :) However if you had two bcap you can see then charging each other and swaping each time teh charged bcap reaches about .4 volts over the run bcap . got one swapping now for the 6th time . Just Bcaps. I am confident the battery version i posted will hold its own well past the three month prize limits .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 10, 2009, 06:22:45 PM
Albert,

When I adjust the JT to 19mA input, the DC current through the 1N34A diode is 7.2mA. At 10.25mA in, the 1N34A current is 4.9mA. Does that sound correct?

Paul
Sounds good actually a bit higher than mine . at 21 volts out from the diode i get 5.5ma  so your good to go .


I agree .: STEPHAN   . I second the motion to promote Grounloop to Ellite Member Status for his Over abundunt talent and gifts to the fourm community In free energy Research ! If anyone deserves it he does!

Albert

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 06:23:04 PM
I better start the test now because at 19mA it will take 23 hours to charge the bcap0650 from 0 to 2.6 volts. To do that 4 times is 4 solid days.

19mA is about the maximum you recommend for this JT in terms of efficiency?

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 10, 2009, 06:29:41 PM
I better start the test now because at 19mA it will take 23 hours to charge the bcap0650 from 0 to 2.6 volts. To do that 4 times is 4 solid days.

19mA is about the maximum you recommend for this JT in terms of efficiency?

Paul
I do as the people in the Jt thread were the first to product a circuit lower than 20ma which was the first published Jt from Big Clives and Evilmad scientist . So anything below that is Super Jts. Mine are adjusted to 13 ma which is low but enuff to do the job . At that point i didntcare about charge time and was looking more for battery life not sinking so fast it couldnt be regenerated  so to me 10 -15 ma is a good place . I am not seeing any real current change from 5 ma regardless if i adjust to 13 ma or 21 ma .  a .5 difference . Its propably the china 2n2222a transistor . Some other brand will be different like fairchild .  i also change the diodes to 1n60 . I had a bunch of old germaniums . They can still be bought and are still manufactured .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 06:39:56 PM
Here we go, I'll use my 700mAh AAA NiMH battery instead. That's only 2400 joules. If the JT can charge the UC from 0 to 2.6 volts, and then from 0 to only 1.5 volts that would be amazing. That's only 1.5 days to do that.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 06:44:02 PM
Darn, my AAA is not fully charged. It's 1.27 volts. I just read that the maximum recommended charging current for a NiMH is its rating. That is, if its rating is 700mAh, then it's okay to charge it at 0.7 amps, which is what I'll do. That should get it charged in no time.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 07:35:06 PM
I just realized what gadget was saying. He does not discharge the UC all the way because it's not as efficient charging something near zero volts. That makes sense. I'll charge the UC to about 1 volt with a power supply before using the JT, and use the JT to charge the UC to 2.6 volts. At 600 farads, that's 1730 joules. Do that twice & it's way over cop>1.

The AA has been charging a 610mA for about 25 minutes now. That's more than enough since it nearly charged to start with.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gyulasun on December 10, 2009, 07:42:10 PM
Darn, my AAA is not fully charged. It's 1.27 volts. I just read that the maximum recommended charging current for a NiMH is its rating. That is, if its rating is 700mAh, then it's okay to charge it at 0.7 amps, which is what I'll do. That should get it charged in no time.

Paul,

Normally a battery is recommended to charge at its 1/10 of its Amperhour capacity i.e. in your case charge it with 70mA for 10 hours if you wish a normal treatment.  Otherwise you abuse the battery, its durabilty etc.
Even so called quick chargers do not give the same charge current as the Ah capacity number, max a few times higher than the 1/10 Ah rate, so do not charge yours with higher than say 200-270mA and notice its temperature too.

Gyula
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 07:56:22 PM
I did. The temperature only went to 80F, but it was only on for 25 minutes. When I leave it on my battery charger, which is at 90mA for these AA, the temperature is far higher than 80F. I think the 1/10 rating is for long term battery life. Charging it 610mA is something I wouldn't do all the time.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gyulasun on December 10, 2009, 08:00:15 PM
Ok Paul, you are welcome.

Gyula
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 08:41:08 PM
The JT / UC experiment is now starting.  :) The UC started at 1.13 volts.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 10, 2009, 09:31:51 PM
Great testing Paul!  I can't wait to see the new results.

@ All:

Here is a video from Youtube of a new Coleman cordless screwdriver that, using supercaps, FULLY recharges in 30 seconds!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VA88eJ9V-8&feature=rec-fresh+div-r-6-H

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 09:34:29 PM
Same here Bill! The UC has already charged to 1.21 volts. Although my JT is probably not up to Alberts standards yet, but I'm too anxious to see what happens anyway.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: powercat on December 10, 2009, 10:36:36 PM
Inside Coleman Flashcell Screwdriver
http://www.ultracapacitors.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=99&catid=14&func=view&id=617

cat
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 11:20:11 PM
UC is 1.217V, AAA is 1.215V
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 11, 2009, 12:04:36 AM
To no surprise the AAA voltage is hardly decreasing now, 1.210V, but the UC is going up at a good rate, 1.254V.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 11, 2009, 12:27:47 AM
LOOKIE HOW QUICK THIS PUPPY IS CHARGEING ...

sure i can do that ...  lol

ist!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DAFKa4oxu4&feature=related
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 11, 2009, 12:35:24 AM
IST,

Do you have an old PC around. They usually have 30+ amp supplies. That'll get it up fast.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 11, 2009, 12:37:19 AM
IST,

Do you have an old PC around. They usually have 30+ amp supplies. That'll get it up fast.

i do but i was gonna use them for a heater ring power banger ...  but NOW I DONT NEED  to  : )

ist!

i know i can expolde those with ease ... i have filled caps b4  just the basic jt way ... and i have melted thick wires other ways ....

: )
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: powercat on December 11, 2009, 01:47:20 AM
Coleman 5.4V Flashcell Cordless Screwdriver,
Interesting information obtained from my last link, you get two 360F capacitors with this screwdriver, from $35 including shipping (maybe cheaper elsewhere)
http://www.amazon.com/Coleman-5-4V-Flashcell-Cordless-Screwdriver/dp/B001U8FF5Q
Compare the information PDF link to the picture, it looks the same to me.
http://fullpowerinc.com/PDF%20Documents/Ness360.pdf
cat
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 11, 2009, 01:54:54 AM
Maybe there's something serious wrong with my JT because the AAA battery is fading fast now at 0.911 volts, and the UC is only 1.316 volts. The UC started at 1.130 volts.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 11, 2009, 01:58:08 AM
powercat:

Great info!  Those look to be wired in series...I suppose they need the higher voltage to run the driver motor.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 11, 2009, 02:18:20 AM
Maybe there's something serious wrong with my JT because the AAA battery is fading fast now at 0.911 volts, and the UC is only 1.316 volts. The UC started at 1.130 volts.

Paul
eitehr that or you gat a battery that is half life . Need you input current this tells most all . Also are you running a secondary . One of the side effects of my secondary is the current consumption goes down . the oppisite of what you would expect and i also run leds on the secondary . Something is wrong because mine has been running for weeks and still 1.3 volts on the run battery . bcap is now 1.905 .Also i made three of them and they are all the same so i know its replica table . I suspect a bum battery or the current was set to high or the capacitor was not right . when i put my capacitor i=on it brightens up a bit so it changes the frequency slightly . The is a stupid question and i did know it . how are you measuring the frequency without a frequency meter  ?
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 11, 2009, 03:13:00 AM
Truthfinder:

Quote
Im afraid i disagree with you about the batteries in parallel, ive done that many a time and there's no issue providing that voltages are the same and the 'ah' are the same. If the 'ah' is too radical in difference then they will normally 'equalize' to the lowest 'ah' rating in the pack and your overall current will be that of the lowest rated 'ah' x 2.

Your comments about the ampere-hours don't make sense.  It doesn't work like that for ampere-hours.  However, you acknowledge the issue of one battery discharging into the other battery, as does Paul.  This is not a healthy situation.  It can also happen towards the end of the life of the two batteries.  The one that starts to die first and becomes the load for the healthier battery.  So at the beginning and at the end, you loose energy and potentially damage the batteries.

Chances are noting is going to happen in most cases with small batteries.  However you never know, a small alkaline battery can source quite a bit of current.  It is simply bad practice and should not be done.

I had a glance at a Magnacoaster instruction manual once.  That fool Richard shows a diagram with big car lead-acid batteries wired in parallel.  That is insane and very dangerous.  If you submitted a product like that to UL for approval they would refuse you and behind your back laugh in your face.

For higher-voltage batteries you can give them a common ground and then use diodes to bridge all of the positive outputs together.  Then you can get your big current and avoid thermonuclear meltdown at the relatively small price of a diode voltage drop.

Albert:

Quote
DIITO . . total nonsense . you can put any battery in parallel to get more current if there the same volts

I hope that you studied my mini treatise on battery voltages for you.

Paul:

Quote
And if someone's afraid of too much current, then discharge the batteries and parallel them.

Love your swagger.  I find it very ironic that you say "discharge the batteries."

Quote
My UC is ~ 550 farads at low voltages (less than 0.4V), and lets just assume it's 650F at 2.7V,

Are you acknowledging that the UC capacitance is a function of voltage, which is what I have been saying the whole time?

Quote
As far as I'm concerned, one can prove a JT is cop>1 without doubt by ... by using one 2000mAh to 2500mAh NiMH battery to charge a BCAP0650 4 times.

This is where you loose it.  Forgetting about the JT, all you can say when you run a test like that is you were able to make a measurement of how much energy could be extracted out of the battery under these conditions with a certain error margin.  You can't make any sort of statement about COP.  Plus a certain type of battery will have a certain average energy content with some sort of standard deviation, and if you want to get picky the mean and standard deviation would be set on a batch by batch basis.

Albert:

Quote
It is here where the magic really begins and the REAL magic is that an ultracap can convert that into real energy .

Let me briefly describe what's going on when a JT generates a spike.  The transistor switches on and current flows through the coil in the JT "transformer."  When the transistor switches off the energy in the coil (1/2 L i-squared) will become a voltage+current spike that goes through the diode and then into the cap.  It can be a cap or an ultracap, either one will absorb the energy in the spike.  That's it, there is no magic.

I can suggest a little experiment.  Take a standard JT circuit and connect your scope to the LED to see the pulses on your scope when the LED fires.  Then replace the LED with a 50-ohm resistor, and look at the scope.  Do the same for 500 and 5K ohm resistors.  You will see that the larger the resistor value, the higher the voltage in the spike, and the shorter the time of the spike.  This is showing you how a discharging inductor reacts to different loads.

Then change the 5K resistor for a regular 25-volt 20,000 uF electrolytic cap and look at the scope.  The voltage spikes are now gone - completely gone.  However, each time the JT fires the voltage on the cap increases, like a step.  You will also notice that the rate of the voltage increase starts to slow down the higher the voltage on the capacitor.  Do you know why this is happening?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 11, 2009, 03:25:27 AM
Double-check on Paul's battery Joule calculations:

Quote
Here we go, I'll use my 700mAh AAA NiMH battery instead.  That's only 2400 joules.

Do we assume 1.3 volts for the battery?

That gives 1.3 x .7 x 3600 = 3276 Joules.   What the deal?

Quote
I just realized what gadget was saying. He does not discharge the UC all the way because it's not as efficient charging something near zero volts. That makes sense.

I assume that we are talking about using a JT to charge here.  The JT will charge the ultracap with the same efficiency at any ultracap voltage.  The reason for this is that's the way discharging inductors work, they will raise or lower their voltage to whatever voltage is required to discharge their energy into a load.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 11, 2009, 03:54:57 AM
I ended the experiment. AAA is 0.491V, UC is 1.313V. I'll have to wait till tomorrow to see what was wrong with it.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 11, 2009, 03:57:25 AM
how are you measuring the frequency without a frequency meter  ?

Actually I used a frequency meter, but I think you're right. The input current was 40mA, but the output was only 11mA. I didn't plan it that way, but 40mA just so happens to be the current the JT wanted from the battery. I guess tomorrow I'll adjust the pot to get lower current.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 11, 2009, 04:07:26 AM
Quote
I ended the experiment. AAA is 0.491V, UC is 1.313V. I'll have to wait till tomorrow to see what was wrong with it.

I am not an expert on Joule Thieves but I can make some generic comments that apply to JTs.

The real way to make sure your JT is running as efficiently as possible is to check the timing with a scope, it's all about the timing.  You don't want the main transistor to be on for too long.  If it's on for too long then you are dissipating energy in the JT firing coil for nothing, just producing heat energy that is lost forever.  You also want the base resistor to be as high as possible so that you don't waste any extra current going through the transistor for nothing.  By the same token you want enough base current going through the transistor to be sure that the transistor collector-emitter junction is saturated and the transistor is really on 100%.

I will assume that it is harder to control the running frequency and you have to start playing with the numbers of turns in the trigger coil, not so easy.  However for the purposes of charging an ultracapacitor, it doesn't really matter.  The higher the running frequency the better in fact.  The real critical issues are making sure the transistor is not on for too long and that the base resistor is the correct value.  That way you will transfer the maximum possible battery energy into the ultracapacitor and loose the minimum amount of battery energy as heat.

Oops one last thing.  The battery output impedance is a pain in the butt.  In theory you want a DC load on a battery to be as high an impedance as possible.  Jenna said it, "the faster you discharge a battery the less energy you get out of it."  That's because the higher the discharge current, the more energy lost in the battery itself due to its internal output impedance.  With a JT it's a pulse load with a fairly high pulse current.  It's hard to gauge how this issue affects the battery, since it's a pulse load, not a DC load.  It could get complicated though and if you were hard core you would investigate this.  One possibility would be to use a high inductance inductor and switch off the transistor before the maximum current is reached.  This implies a longer transistor ON time coupled with a bigger coil.  That way the battery doesn't dissipate too much energy internally because the current is lower.  There is another bonus here, the inductor will be more efficient, burning less energy as heat and having proportionally more energy available for the spike.

I almost forgot ha! ha!  There is something to keep in mind about the inductor.  If you make a larger inductor, then you use more wire, so there is a higher resistance in the wire -> more lost energy.  However, the inductance is proportional to the square of the number of turns in the wire.  So your increase in inductance rises faster than your resistance, which is good news.  If you wanted to "pimp out" your JT and avoid loosing energy in the battery, and in the firing coil, then you want a large inductor with a low resistance and you don't switch on the transistor for too long.  That implies the bigger the inductor and the thicker the wire the better.  I have a 4000 watt water-cooled power supply for my computer, and the whole computer is sitting in an aquarium filled with mineral oil!  IST built it for me.  lol

I also forgot to mention the toroid or ferrite core to increase your inductance - how could I forget that!  I think that different core materials have different properties optimized for different applications.  I am no expert here - but I would think that you would want the lowest loss possible ferrite core.  If you are going for a toroidal core as most are, I would guess that you can get laminated low-loss cores for transformers - the typical square form that you can use to build and wind your own transformer with - an off-the-shelf lowest-loss-as-possible laminated transformer core.  They may actually make special low-loss square/toroidal parts.  They would probably be expensive.

I think it is worth investigating cores because for sure some must be cheap and relatively lossy designed for applications where this is not a critical design issue.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Vortex1 on December 11, 2009, 04:48:55 AM
From MileHigh

Quote
You will also notice that the rate of the voltage increase starts to slow down the higher the voltage on the capacitor.  Do you know why this is happening?

No one answered so I'll give it a go:

Since there is a finite amount of energy per pulse, it takes more pulses of energy to charge the cap from say 4 to 5 volts than it does from 1 to 2 volts

 E(J) =1/2CV^2.





Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 11, 2009, 05:08:51 AM
Vortex1:

Quote
Since there is a finite amount of energy per pulse, it takes more pulses of energy to charge the cap from say 4 to 5 volts than it does from 1 to 2 volts

 E(J) =1/2CV^2.

Exactly.  This also implies the following:  If you take your 20,000 uF electrolytic capacitor and charge it to 20 volts then you can discharge it with a precision resistor to make an accurate measurement of it's capacitance.  Pick a 1% resistor so that it discharges by 63% in at least a minute or more.  Measure the seconds to reach the 63% voltage discharge point to measure the RC time constant.  Then just punch in the numbers and get your accurate capacitance value.

Then connect the fully discharged capacitor to the JT and time how long it takes the JT to charge the cap to 10 volts.  Then take your scope and measure the JT frequency as accurately as possible.  Put at least 20 cycles of the JT waveform on the scope display.  Then pull out the 10X time-base button and fiddle with the horizontal offset and make a precise period measurement for 20 cycles.  Crunch that back and get the precise running frequency of your JT.

Now you know how many seconds it took for the JT to charge your precisely measured capacitor value to 10 volts.  You know exactly how much energy is in the capacitor and you know the precise JT frequency.

You have all the numbers to calculate the JT output power in watts and the energy per spike in milli-Joules.

To go the full distance, you could use Gotoluc's average DC current measuring meter that he built with big capacitors and a shunt resistor.  This was designed by Poynt .99.   You could make an accurate power consumption measurement for the JT circuit itself as viewed from the batteries perspective (actually the DC current measuring output, factoring out the shunt resistor).  From above, you have an accurate power consumption measurement of the output power from your JT.

It is a bit of work to set up, but once you got good at it you could make performance measurements of any JT circuit setup in 20 minutes and then start experimenting with tweaking the design.  The only measurement that counts is power out vs. power in.

One big caveat as I think about this a bit more.  There is a problem with using Gotoluc's DC current measuring system - you are changing the load on the battery from what it is supposed to be; pulsing current of a low amperage value to an even lower DC current value.

This problem can be worked around.  You would have to measure the output impedance of the battery first, and I am not going to get into that.  Now that you know what the output impedance of the battery is you can make quite accurate inferences of how much energy is being lost in the battery for the actual very low DC current flow, vs. what would be happening in "real life" if Gotoluc's measurement jig was not there.  It is a little bit complicated and it would probably only make a very marginal difference on your output power vs. input power calculations as described above.  The important thing is to be aware of it.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Vortex1 on December 11, 2009, 05:36:14 AM
MileHigh

How would you feel about putting the capacitor under test in the negative feedback loop of a power op-amp. Using the dual slope integration method you could autozero the cap, then ramp to vthreshold with the +input on vRef+, at the threshold, switch to vRef-. Count time on ramp up and ramp down. Compare the times, should be equal (if vRef+ and vRef- are equal) unless dielectric absorption or excess energy is present in the cap. Also vRef- can be made much larger, say 10x for 10x faster discharge, thus time differences would be a ratio of the reference voltages.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 11, 2009, 05:46:32 AM
Hi Vortex1:

It looks perfectly feasible, I assume that's how capacitance meters work.  For a large cap though the old tried and proven exponential decay way is easy and accessible to anyone and can be quite accurate.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Vortex1 on December 11, 2009, 05:55:52 AM
Agreed, but finding the 63% point can be a little tricky on an analog scope. I have used the integration technique with a few more parts than is shown and a counter timer chip to get very accurate measurements of dielectric absorption etc.

In spare time I am a consultant to High Energy Corp, capacitor manufacturer. Catalog pdf's available from their site http://www.highenergycorp.com/
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 11, 2009, 05:57:04 AM
Truthfinder:

Your comments about the ampere-hours don't make sense.  It doesn't work like that for ampere-hours.  However, you acknowledge the issue of one battery discharging into the other battery, as does Paul.  This is not a healthy situation.  It can also happen towards the end of the life of the two batteries.  The one that starts to die first and becomes the load for the healthier battery.  So at the beginning and at the end, you loose energy and potentially damage the batteries.

Chances are noting is going to happen in most cases with small batteries.  However you never know, a small alkaline battery can source quite a bit of current.  It is simply bad practice and should not be done.

I had a glance at a Magnacoaster instruction manual once.  That fool Richard shows a diagram with big car lead-acid batteries wired in parallel.  That is insane and very dangerous.  If you submitted a product like that to UL for approval they would refuse you and behind your back laugh in your face.

For higher-voltage batteries you can give them a common ground and then use diodes to bridge all of the positive outputs together.  Then you can get your big current and avoid thermonuclear meltdown at the relatively small price of a diode voltage drop.

Albert:

I hope that you studied my mini treatise on battery voltages for you.

Paul:

Love your swagger.  I find it very ironic that you say "discharge the batteries."

Are you acknowledging that the UC capacitance is a function of voltage, which is what I have been saying the whole time?

This is where you loose it.  Forgetting about the JT, all you can say when you run a test like that is you were able to make a measurement of how much energy could be extracted out of the battery under these conditions with a certain error margin.  You can't make any sort of statement about COP.  Plus a certain type of battery will have a certain average energy content with some sort of standard deviation, and if you want to get picky the mean and standard deviation would be set on a batch by batch basis.

Albert:

Let me briefly describe what's going on when a JT generates a spike.  The transistor switches on and current flows through the coil in the JT "transformer."  When the transistor switches off the energy in the coil (1/2 L i-squared) will become a voltage+current spike that goes through the diode and then into the cap.  It can be a cap or an ultracap, either one will absorb the energy in the spike.  That's it, there is no magic.

I can suggest a little experiment.  Take a standard JT circuit and connect your scope to the LED to see the pulses on your scope when the LED fires.  Then replace the LED with a 50-ohm resistor, and look at the scope.  Do the same for 500 and 5K ohm resistors.  You will see that the larger the resistor value, the higher the voltage in the spike, and the shorter the time of the spike.  This is showing you how a discharging inductor reacts to different loads.

Then change the 5K resistor for a regular 25-volt 20,000 uF electrolytic cap and look at the scope.  The voltage spikes are now gone - completely gone.  However, each time the JT fires the voltage on the cap increases, like a step.  You will also notice that the rate of the voltage increase starts to slow down the higher the voltage on the capacitor.  Do you know why this is happening?

MileHigh
[/quote

mh : )

yes richard in my opinion has no idea what he is building ...
sorry but true .. 

any how .. i have over come this ... lol

and sir yes i do know why you speek of this problem ...

YOU SEE I HAVE PULSE MOTORS THAT ACCELERATE INSTED OF SLOWING WHEN I TAKE WORK FROM THEM... hummmmm

i find the more i remove the faster they spinn ... so if i remove a high voltage .. i get a verry high spin factor ...  and if i only burn a tiny amount ...  it allows a constant highspeed spinn ... i then can pulse from any number if coils i like ... rectify to a cap ... and it WILL NOT SLOW down sir!


WILLIAM : ) im no richard.... lol  ; )
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 11, 2009, 06:02:06 AM
Vortex1:

You are the man!  lol   Instead of a scope, I was thinking of using a digital multimeter.  Perhaps more like two minutes to reach the 63% level so that the DMM display update rate issue is minimized.

Also a few questions about the dielectric absorption.  Does charge get "pressed" into the dielectric such that it looks like a parallel "phantom" capacitor with a quasi-exponential decay?  What is the quasi time constant?  A few minutes?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 11, 2009, 06:06:00 AM
beleave me i understand how many things run and i have met  some people one could say ....


if ya know what i mean

peace !

ist
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 11, 2009, 06:11:47 AM
Ist:

A little song dedicated to you....  May it play in your head for days and days!  lol

Quote
Well there's gonna be a freakers ball
Tonight at the freakers hall
And you know, you're invited one and all

Come on babies grease your lips
Grab your hats and swing your hips
Don't forget to bring your whips
We're going to the freakers ball

Blow your whistle and bang your gong
Roll up something to take along
It feels so good it must be wrong
We're freakin at the freakers ball

Party on Ist!!!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Vortex1 on December 11, 2009, 06:29:24 AM
MileHigh, you are correct

From wiki

Dielectric absorption (soakage)

Some types of dielectrics, when they have been holding a high voltage for a long time, maintain a "memory" of that voltage. After they have been quickly discharged to zero volts, if they are then left disconnected, the voltage across the capacitor will slowly recover some fixed percentage -- up to 10% -- of the "remembered" voltage. This percentage is a measure of the dielectric absorption, and depends on the type of dielectric.

In the construction of long-time-constant integrators, it is important that the capacitor will not retain a residual charge when shorted. This phenomenon of unwanted charge storage is called dielectric absorption or soakage, and it effectively creates a memory effect in the capacitor. This is a non-linear phenomenon, and is also important when building very low distortion filters. This is also why, for safety, high voltage capacitors are stored with their terminals short circuited.

For long-time-constant integrators and sample-and-hold systems, good designers pick capacitors that have almost no dielectric absorption hysteresis -- capacitors such as those employing polystyrene, polypropylene, NPO ceramic, and Teflon dielectrics.

For more info on modeling, download da.pdf from the wiki site

MileHigh I agree with your earlier comments on cores, wire size etc.

It is useful to note that "copper and iron" are designed out of power supplies for size and cost of materials reasons in favor of "copper and exotic ferrites" and semiconductors as the switching frequencies go higher and higher.

If cost and size are not important, one could minimize switching losses by simply operating at low frequencies and use oversize magnetic cores and a minimum of heavy guage wire (fewer turns).

Of course the switcher would be much bulkier.

I don't know if anyone has ever taken engineering of switchers in the direction opposite the cost/size trends, but it would be interesting to see how far one could go in that direction.

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 11, 2009, 06:46:19 AM
Vortex1:

Thank you for all of that great information, it was the icing on the cake.  I realize that what I posted tonight with a "top level" engineering-style description of the issues involved in designing the most efficient Joule Thief possible.  For a lot of people around here the devil is in the details and they won't know to get from top-level point A to how to build it point Z.  However, there is some good stuff on the table for discussion and if there are any keeners out there they can find friends around here that can flesh out the details and hopefully have a lot of fun doing it.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 11, 2009, 01:17:46 PM
Mh with over 1000 pages on the Jt topic we have already determined the the best and cheapest core a long time ago  and also provided a way to tune those cores to their resonate frequency and there for maximizing the battery life and efficiency . I am experimenting with a 140 mm (5.51")W core right now . With just 6 turns it has taken out 5 transistors and 4 leds and with just 7 turns a secondary it lights over 20 leds to maximum overdrive from very little input from an aa battery and also lights one from the B C junction and the C E junction all at the same time .  Not athing new here as jeanna,Mk1 ,Xee2, groundloop, and others have already documents 1000's of experiments finding the best of the  best and the worst of the wort . It boils down to high permeability /low flux toroids are the best for a JT . We also have suppliers for as low as 5/$1 and giant 3.3/4 for 2 bucks each!
Albert
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 11, 2009, 04:54:57 PM
No one answered so I'll give it a go:

Milehigh is on the ignore list of a lot of people. He's on my ignore list because he's filled with a lot of half truths, and he's an out right  liar. He'll twist the truth, make up stuff just to inflate his ego. I feel bad for the guy.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 11, 2009, 05:14:45 PM
Albert:

I have a feeling that I brought a lot of interesting issues to the table that may not have been raised before.  Cores themselves don't have a resonant frequency.  It's the coil inductances in combination with the toroid core and the transistor that determine the resonant frequency.

Paul:

Quote
Milehigh is on the ignore list of a lot of people. He's on my ignore list because he's filled with a lot of half truths, and he's an out right  liar. He'll twist the truth, make up stuff just to inflate his ego. I feel bad for the guy.

What a load of crap and don't you dare call me a liar.  Anybody that reads this thread from start  to finish can decide for themselves who is telling the truth and who is lying.

You are so Orwellian that it is almost scary.  You are a junior amateur electronics guy with blinders on obscuring 75% of your vision sitting in your little Orwellian fishbowl filled with murky water.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 11, 2009, 05:15:52 PM
The AAA is recharged again. Lets give this another whirl.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 11, 2009, 05:27:37 PM
Ist:

A little song dedicated to you....  May it play in your head for days and days!  lol

Party on Ist!!!

MileHigh

id just like to say thank you to MH!

we must realize each and everyones importance ..  and this im sure MH  understands  !

so we will carry on in the safest mannor ...

thank you

w815

Well there's gonna be a freakers ball
Tonight at the freakers hall
And you know, you're invited one and all

Come on babies grease your lips.......... its a fast car!
Grab your hats and swing your hips......the H hat on and ready to go ..
Don't forget to bring your whips...........been swing in mine ... lol
We're going to the freakers ball ..........come 1 come all! ...

Blow your whistle and bang your gong
Roll up something to take along        dont you kno.......
It feels so good it must be wrong  ...... lol
We're freakin at the freakers ball

from now on for all!

you know MH the more i read it the more i like it !

lol
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 11, 2009, 05:37:12 PM
After connecting the AAA, the input current is 60.5mA, output is 13.8mA.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 11, 2009, 05:42:19 PM
This is better. After adjusting the 10Kohm pot to as far as it goes, the input is now 20.0mA, and output is 8.8mA. Since the bcap0650 voltage is about the same as the AAA, that would make this JT about 44% efficient, which is a lot better than yesterday!  ;D

Maybe if it had more resistance on the base the efficiency would increase even more.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 11, 2009, 06:37:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onH7klOTnfQ

if everyone cared ...

we'd see the day!

in the end fire flys .. 

show the world they were WRONG! teach them all to sing along! 


william!

if they could all love like you and me ... imagine what the world could be! 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 11, 2009, 06:43:04 PM
Ist:

In case you don't already know, it's Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show, "Freakin' at the Freakers Ball."  The rest of the lyrics are too racy.

Hey, I got lucky and found a YT clip that looks like it may be if interest to you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzDGfmEl8Ac

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World...   Did you see the movie?  lol

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 11, 2009, 06:50:17 PM
This is better. After adjusting the 10Kohm pot to as far as it goes, the input is now 20.0mA, and output is 8.8mA. Since the bcap0650 voltage is about the same as the AAA, that would make this JT about 44% efficient, which is a lot better than yesterday!  ;D

Maybe if it had more resistance on the base the efficiency would increase even more.

not being rude paul in any way .. ok

but if we tuned our secondary jt wire to a HIGH SELFINDUCTANCE.. you can then remove the pot all resistors and it will scare you sir!

: )

w

lol great video...   lol

there is still much to learn tho ...   MH..  i assure you this!
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 11, 2009, 06:59:15 PM
not being rude paul in any way .. ok

but if we tuned our secondary jt wire to a HIGH SELFINDUCTANCE.. you can then remove the pot all resistors and it will scare you sir!

: )

w

No doubt. Removing the base resistance would probably draw some real juice from the battery. You must have one heck of a transistor.  :D
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 11, 2009, 07:17:28 PM
yes it will to the PRIMARY ONLY... THAN BOUNCE IT BACK...

lol

it is a shift of current that is only borrowed ..  the shift in current causes a huge colpase .. and the second tuned wire is your resistor  et choke..

so it is verry cool .. 

i can configure it tonnes of ways to do many things ..

and only the choke engery is used and it is not used at that ... simply shifted .. to the output cap along with the colpase ...

agin ... milions of ways  but

up  pops THAT 1 THING ... agin

one  thing       maybe she is ready to listen now ....  may be not ...  but guess what ... my words are the same ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI0OcZKbk6w

so i picked up MY OLD GUITAR ... and began to MAKE IT SINGGGG

1 day ..  some day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCPSv5bLw_c

: )
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 11, 2009, 11:56:32 PM
Albert:

I have a feeling that I brought a lot of interesting issues to the table that may not have been raised before.  Cores themselves don't have a resonant frequency.  It's the coil inductances in combination with the toroid core and the transistor that determine the resonant frequency.

Paul:

What a load of crap and don't you dare call me a liar.  Anybody that reads this thread from start  to finish can decide for themselves who is telling the truth and who is lying.

You are so Orwellian that it is almost scary.  You are a junior amateur electronics guy with blinders on obscuring 75% of your vision sitting in your little Orwellian fishbowl filled with murky water.

MileHigh
again  NO ONE WILL AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT . a CORE RESONATES WITH THE CIRCUITRY . ONE HAS SUGGESTED TO TAP IT HUNG ON A STRING AND HEAR IT RING AND THEN TUNE THE JT TO MATCH IT . ..  o boy boy forget it know it all . no one can say sH!* hit without your counter BS.Only Experimenters know for sure bud . you dont have an experiment to show this . and you have never heard a toroid or led sing . As can the wires and transistor sing as well . no kidding .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 12, 2009, 12:26:11 AM
This is better. After adjusting the 10Kohm pot to as far as it goes, the input is now 20.0mA, and output is 8.8mA. Since the bcap0650 voltage is about the same as the AAA, that would make this JT about 44% efficient, which is a lot better than yesterday!  ;D

Maybe if it had more resistance on the base the efficiency would increase even more.
Yes put a resistor in series with your pot and a cap across the resistor . IST dont  care about conservation of energy which is essential in my circuit  in order for the OU controller to work . I use less than 13 ma with 5 ma out . with your AAA battery i recommend lower than 13 ma . The Goal and my purpose was to make it efficient and run the longest it can without pulling the  battery down below a certain limit . My limit is 1.255 at which point i recycle the bcap energy back into the battery to bring it back to 1.3 . I also believe the negative back spike are more random when the transistor is powered below saturation and still provide a nice current to charge a bcap . Scope will prove this later on . .

Q  :)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 12, 2009, 12:36:35 AM
In a bit I'll repeat the JT experiment using the AA 2000mAh instead of the wimpy AAA 700mAh. I sure hope it increases the UC more than 0.2 volts.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 12, 2009, 12:39:46 AM
Yes put a resistor in series with your pot and a cap across the resistor . IST dont  care about conservation of energy which is essential in my circuit  in order for the OU controller to work . I use less than 13 ma with 5 ma out . with your AAA battery i recommend lower than 13 ma . The Goal and my purpose was to make it efficient and run the longest it can without pulling the  battery down below a certain limit . My limit is 1.255 at which point i recycle the bcap energy back into the battery to bring it back to 1.3

Q  :)

In those tests I had the 10Kohm pot and that was in-series with a 2.2Kohm resistor. So I already have an R. I'll try playing with the capacitor. Right now there's a 68pF capacitor in-parallel with the 2.2Kohm R, which is what you said. Also, I'll use the bigger battery.


Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 12, 2009, 12:45:25 AM
In those tests I had the 10Kohm pot and that was in-series with a 2.2Kohm resistor. So I already have an R. I'll try playing with the capacitor. Right now there's a 68pF capacitor in-parallel with the 2.2Kohm R, which is what you said. Also, I'll use the bigger battery.


Paul
Well being you dont have a secondary with an led to verify an increase performance with the capacitor i would try  .01  .001 .0001  and see which one drops the current intake If none do then leave it off . Its a fine tune for the goldmine toroid and i love tank circuits at the base . way better is put the cap across the pot and get a better effect on frequency's .When its right mine takes a 100 of a volt hit every 20 seconds or so .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 12, 2009, 01:01:53 AM
I just tried no capacitor, 820pF, and 0.1uF. It made hardly no difference. No I'll replace the 10Kohm pot with a 200Kohm pot and vary the range.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 12, 2009, 01:13:54 AM


After trying a wide range or resistance, the best is about 15.5mA in and 8mA out, which is a bit over 50% efficient since the battery & UC voltages are about the same. The highest I've seen.
 
 
I use less than 13 ma with 5 ma out .

I'm confused about what you're saying. If the bcap & battery voltage are about the same, and the input current 13mA, and output current is 5mA, then that's 38% efficiency.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 12, 2009, 02:14:19 AM

After trying a wide range or resistance, the best is about 15.5mA in and 8mA out, which is a bit over 50% efficient since the battery & UC voltages are about the same. The highest I've seen.
 
 
I'm confused about what you're saying. If the bcap & battery voltage are about the same, and the input current 13mA, and output current is 5mA, then that's 38% efficiency.

Paul
Yep. Yours is better . this is a plain Jane Jt at its worst and probably cause  i use 2 cent  china transistors . :)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 12, 2009, 03:03:20 AM
Albert:

In the 1000+ pages of the JT threads, did anyone ever run a test where they compared the running frequency of the JT while changing the number of turns of wire on each of the coils?  I would not be surprised if the test has been done, but I would also not be surprised if this test was not done.

I tried to find a good link for you about this but I could not.

Don't confuse the mechanical resonating frequency of the toroid with any electrical resonance, they are two different beasts.

Since I could not find a link for you, let's discuss the transistor ON time and OF time, because that defines the running frequency of the JT.

1.  Transistor ON time

When the transistor switches on, it starts energizing the drive coil, and then it switches off after the drive coil is nearly fully energized.  The larger the inductance of the drive coil, the longer it will take to fully energize the inductor.  Therefore, larger drive coil inductance equals lower JT frequency.

2.  Transistor OFF time

When the transistor switches off, current starts to flow through the trigger coil.  Eventually enough current is flowing through the transistor base input to switch on the transistor.  The moment this happens the transistor "snaps" on fully.

The larger the inductance of the trigger coil, the longer it will take to reach the point where there is enough base current going through the transistor initiate the "snap on" of the transistor.  Therefore, larger trigger coil inductance equals lower JT frequency.

So, how do you calculate the inductance of a coil of wire wrapped around a toroidal core?

Here is the link:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/magnetic/indtor.html

You can see that the inductance of the coil is dependent on the size and shape of the toroid and its magnetic permeability.  Most importantly, you can see that the inductance is proportional to the square of the number of turns of wire wrapped around the toroid.

Therefore, the more turns that you wind for the trigger and the firing coils of your JT, the lower the resonant frequency of the JT.   Certainly the dimensions and permeability of the toroid itself affect the resonant frequency.

So, the most important thing to remember here is that the toroid itself does not have a natural electrical resonating frequency, but it plays a part in determining the natural electrical resonating frequency of the system as a whole.  Changing the number of turns of wire in the trigger and firing coils will change the natural electrical resonating frequency of the JT.

Notice that link is from the "hyperphysics" series, which has a great wealth of information for experimenters.  It is worth it to "drill up to the top level" from the above link to check out the site.

In my searching, I found a great technical JT link with scope shots and Spice simulations for those that are interested:

http://www.prc68.com/I/JouleThief.shtml

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 12, 2009, 03:05:37 AM
Albert:

Quote
you have never heard a toroid or led sing . As can the wires and transistor sing as well . no kidding .

I believe you.  The real question is why do they sing?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 12, 2009, 03:16:50 AM
MH

things must apply diffrently to air core ...

anyhow i wound my w core ...

here ya go this will piss fire ...  trigger 6"  pulse 24"  collector 18' 12gage solid  good for 600vac or dc
40 amp plus!  wire rateing ...   

w
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 12, 2009, 04:12:27 AM
Nice Ist . i know it will piss fire . Use a good transistor better than 2n3055 . I bet a darlington 121 will make it go above 1000



Mh . O yes we are well aware of tuning a primary to a certain toroid . Jeanna and mark have gone into full details with volts  per turn .etc.. The toroid we are working on now is 3 38 inch and tuned with two  turns on the base and 10 on the collector  and 80 turns on the secondary light a cfl bulb with a one volt battery and a tip 3055 . That one ist has i blew 5 transistors last night and 4 leds . I only have 6 turn primary 2 wires wound togetehr  and a 7 turn secondary and it light 20 leds off the secondary and one from the b c on the transistor and another off the c e junction on the transistor .. Its a powerful core ! The most powerful i ever saw and it sings loud everywhere and everything on it sings .. I have high frequency hearing loss and i hear it good .
Albert . Check outthe last 4 pages on the second stage Jt circuits section

We are well aware of resonanate inductance and how to tell if a core is anygood or not . The bad one wount work no matter how many turns you wind // Thanks for the link. Interesting i like the current checker on each transistor idea .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 12, 2009, 03:17:42 PM
Nice Ist . i know it will piss fire . Use a good transistor better than 2n3055 . I bet a darlington 121 will make it go above 1000



Mh . O yes we are well aware of tuning a primary to a certain toroid . Jeanna and mark have gone into full details with volts  per turn .etc.. The toroid we are working on now is 3 38 inch and tuned with two  turns on the base and 10 on the collector  and 80 turns on the secondary light a cfl bulb with a one volt battery and a tip 3055 . That one ist has i blew 5 transistors last night and 4 leds . I only have 6 turn primary 2 wires wound togetehr  and a 7 turn secondary and it light 20 leds off the secondary and one from the b c on the transistor and another off the c e junction on the transistor .. Its a powerful core ! The most powerful i ever saw and it sings loud everywhere and everything on it sings .. I have high frequency hearing loss and i hear it good .
Albert . Check outthe last 4 pages on the second stage Jt circuits section

We are well aware of resonanate inductance and how to tell if a core is anygood or not . The bad one wount work no matter how many turns you wind // Thanks for the link. Interesting i like the current checker on each transistor idea .

thanks bro

i was thinking something else i may try : ) : )

lol

and im sure you know what i mean ...  none the less i can fire it like a jt ... like a tpu .. or a magnifing amp ...

if i use mosfets ... i loose the trigger wire an FORCE FEED AT THE FREQ OF MY CHOISE

with a 4401 npn ...  im way off myscope ...  20mhz...   i call this VHF...  it will charge caps fast ...


any how on with it ... 

i wish i only had to learn basic tesla ... and simple coils ... but this journy goes light years beond that !

EYES ON THE SKYS ...  u will see much more !

w815H

b day aint far away ......   look to the sky!  upon this day!   i have herd .. sights shall be seen far and wide in the day time sky !


Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 12, 2009, 03:36:59 PM

After trying a wide range or resistance, the best is about 15.5mA in and 8mA out, which is a bit over 50% efficient since the battery & UC voltages are about the same. The highest I've seen.
 
I'm confused about what you're saying. If the bcap & battery voltage are about the same, and the input current 13mA, and output current is 5mA, then that's 38% efficiency.

Yep. Yours is better . this is a plain Jane Jt at its worst and probably cause  i use 2 cent  china transistors . :)
 


Tried tuning the pot & capacitor together. Nothing much over 50% efficiency.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 12, 2009, 04:08:04 PM
Albert:

In the 1000+ pages of the JT threads, did anyone ever run a test where they compared the running frequency of the JT while changing the number of turns of wire on each of the coils?  I would not be surprised if the test has been done, but I would also not be surprised if this test was not done.

I tried to find a good link for you about this but I could not.

Don't confuse the mechanical resonating frequency of the toroid with any electrical resonance, they are two different beasts.

Since I could not find a link for you, let's discuss the transistor ON time and OF time, because that defines the running frequency of the JT.

1.  Transistor ON time

When the transistor switches on, it starts energizing the drive coil, and then it switches off after the drive coil is nearly fully energized.  The larger the inductance of the drive coil, the longer it will take to fully energize the inductor.  Therefore, larger drive coil inductance equals lower JT frequency.

2.  Transistor OFF time

When the transistor switches off, current starts to flow through the trigger coil.  Eventually enough current is flowing through the transistor base input to switch on the transistor.  The moment this happens the transistor "snaps" on fully.

The larger the inductance of the trigger coil, the longer it will take to reach the point where there is enough base current going through the transistor initiate the "snap on" of the transistor.  Therefore, larger trigger coil inductance equals lower JT frequency.

So, how do you calculate the inductance of a coil of wire wrapped around a toroidal core?

Here is the link:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/magnetic/indtor.html

You can see that the inductance of the coil is dependent on the size and shape of the toroid and its magnetic permeability.  Most importantly, you can see that the inductance is proportional to the square of the number of turns of wire wrapped around the toroid.

Therefore, the more turns that you wind for the trigger and the firing coils of your JT, the lower the resonant frequency of the JT.   Certainly the dimensions and permeability of the toroid itself affect the resonant frequency.

So, the most important thing to remember here is that the toroid itself does not have a natural electrical resonating frequency, but it plays a part in determining the natural electrical resonating frequency of the system as a whole.  Changing the number of turns of wire in the trigger and firing coils will change the natural electrical resonating frequency of the JT.

Notice that link is from the "hyperphysics" series, which has a great wealth of information for experimenters.  It is worth it to "drill up to the top level" from the above link to check out the site.

In my searching, I found a great technical JT link with scope shots and Spice simulations for those that are interested:

http://www.prc68.com/I/JouleThief.shtml

MileHigh

if you are so interested that you feel the need to comment, why don't you have the interest to read the jt thread? all you're doing is repeating what has been said before... show a little respect instead of pompous pedantism and actually read the thread you THINK you know all about. if you actually had read the jt thread, you would find your www.prc68.com link ON PAGE 3!!!
"for those that are interested..." ::) good grief milehigh, those that are interested, have or do actually read the thread.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 12, 2009, 05:58:05 PM
I knew it looked familiar . Yes he not helping because the real deal is building and experiments . That tells all and there are Still unexplained territories in the Jt field being discovered everyday .

Paul  Try Different transistors like 2n3904 2n2222 2n2222a tip3055 2n3055 mps 05 mps o6 and a whole lot more have been experimented  with Including darlingtons which can output twice the current  but takes a bit more to run them . We have also experimented   or at least i have  with two transistor npn pnp and small inductors using no toroid at all . Using Nails ,washers ,wires, iron  you name it its been done all at the JT thread !. Wish someone would Compile it into a book . I would buy it  cause its some good reading when the internet fails .
gadget 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 12, 2009, 06:09:55 PM
i told T to write the book perhaps she has ...

i dont know....

w

btw gadget ..  my 6 freq 555 fired fet  mac switch can go fast ...  and handle pnp and npn in sync .. and i get recovery off the relay coils ... : )

yes i have built toooooo many things ... I CAN TUNE TO 1 FUN AND 5 HARMONICS SHOULD I CHOOSE .


no limits...

i have 3 fiber nodes now ...  i can fire  fast ... should i choose ... and 25 large 1MHZ - 1GHZ RF AMPS ...

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Vortex1 on December 12, 2009, 06:46:02 PM
1000 pages, 1000 monkeys, 1000 typewriters.....not a hint of real applied engineering principles.

Read some good books on switchmode power design.......graduate from electronics 101
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 12, 2009, 06:59:20 PM
1000 pages, 1000 monkeys, 1000 typewriters.....not a hint of real applied engineering principles.

Read some good books on switchmode power design.......graduate from electronics 101
i'm not quite sure how to read your insult... are you saying that the www.prc68.com link has no hints of 'real applied engineering principles'? if so, then you are calling milehigh a monkey? if not, does that make you a monkey then? furthermore, one invective pedagogue is more than enough... ::)

regardless of whatever foot you stick in your mouth, this thread is about testing ultracaps is it not? try to at least be on topic with your pedantic vituperation...
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 12, 2009, 07:25:33 PM
1000 pages, 1000 monkeys, 1000 typewriters.....not a hint of real applied engineering principles.

Read some good books on switch mode power design.......graduate from electronics 101
Another Creep who can't read and won't get his hands dirty.You need to study OU 101 Then you might learn something  besides sounding like parrots !!


Paul . Where you . SHopping ? WEll i'll get up with you later  im going to own and buy some stuff and see if i can find some  Ni/mh D cells .

Gadget
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 12, 2009, 07:30:35 PM
it almost smells of richard ...

lol

no...  vortex ...  hummmm

maybe

ist!
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 12, 2009, 07:57:47 PM
it almost smells of richard ...

lol

no...  vortex ...  hummmm

maybe

ist!
are you talking about Richard of Magnacoaster ? no not him . I know him .
.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Vortex1 on December 12, 2009, 08:01:37 PM
Quote
invective pedagogue

Quote
pedantic vituperation

 ho hummmm.....yawn.....
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 12, 2009, 08:11:10 PM
ho hummmm.....yawn.....
i couldn't quite tell from your red herring response what your answer to the question was...
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 12, 2009, 08:11:47 PM
Electronics 101  . Try a 2nd Class Fcc Exam .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 12, 2009, 09:03:40 PM
Albert:

That's somewhat of an ironic image.  Look at recent events in this thread.  Paul can't get a JT to transfer energy efficiently, and his ultracap measurements show no excess energy.  I am not confident in Paul's ability to make measurements but I will take whatever data I can get for now from him.  What usually happens is that an inexperienced experimenter makes measurements that incorrectly show over unity, so it's a pleasant surprise to see that Paul is showing under unity.

As far as reading the 1000 pages of the JT thread goes, I would rather read War and Peace.  I have read enough of the JT thread to know what it is all about.  It is just some nice people in an electronics sandbox playing with electronics toys instead of building sandcastles and playing with shovels.  They talk electronics "baby talk" amongst themselves, as do you.  They are having lots of fun so more power to them.  They get upset if ideas are presented to them that go against their common understanding of what they think is going on.  You have probably learned more about Joule Thieves on this thread than on the 1000+ pages of the JT threads.

Most people around here don't have much of a technical knowledge base to work with.  Going to your local community college and taking Electronics 101 and Physics 101 would really help.  After reading your postings it is fair to say that you don't really know how transistors, capacitors, and inductors really work, nor do you really have much of an understanding of how energy works.

Sometimes it's a challenge to discuss some points and get the information to sink in.  For example, you read what I had to say about unloaded and loaded battery voltages, but haven't acknowledged it.  Quoting battery voltages in the JT crowd will continue unabated, but at least you will know in the back of your mind that the data is nearly useless.

I have spent thousands of hours on an electronics bench doing experiments and designing things.  I don't need to do it around here.  I have made the measurements on capacitors and inductors and transistors.

Again, it can be fun and a challenge to try to work with experimenters to get to the truth with respect to their circuits.  You have probably called me an idiot about 20 times now and I still am trying to provide you with some good information.

Going back to the real reason we are here, when you build and test Groundloop's new PCB design to try to recycle the battery energy using an ultracap, you are going to demonstrate the principle of conservation of energy, and nothing else.  From the perspective of any scientist with a background in electronics, you have not made a single convincing argument to advance your proposition about your device.

One thing for sure you know right now after following this thread, is that there is so much about electronics that you DON'T know.  If what myself and others tell you bounces off a wall and never gets to you and you simply dismiss it, that your loss.  However, perhaps it is sinking in for others that are reading this thread, who knows.

Your most recent advice to Paul to get his JT running better is to "throw the kitchen sink at it" - advising him to try nails, other transistors, etc.  That's not very scientific.  We are trying to be a bit more scientific in this thread, to do things and make measurements for logical, rational reasons.

All of the logic and rational thought about your circuit says that it will be an under unity device.  You would "win" if you investigated this and proved it for yourself, and gained a true understanding of what actually is going on.

Going back to the meat of this thread - there is nothing special about ultracapacitors, they are just large capacitors.  They do not do anything special or out of the ordinary, they are just big.  There has not been a single demonstration to date showing anything unusual about ultracapacitors at all.  You can claim all you want with the examples that you have mentioned, and I have never failed to give you sound logical reasons to explain your comments and observations.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Mk1 on December 12, 2009, 09:11:47 PM
@MH

One of the problem we have is the toroid material , we have no way to test them (and know what to buy), i have a toroid that do amazing stuff , but i will never find another one .

Since you know so much , help us there ...

Mark
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 12, 2009, 10:57:54 PM
I have read enough of the JT thread to know what it is all about.
you obviously didn't read the first three pages or you wouldn't have re-posted the prc68.com link. ::) i know you're too pompous to be bothered with reading what you consider 'baby talk', but even a simple search for 'prc68.com' would have kept you from looking so foolish... and speaking of logic, obviously if the prc68.com link you posted was already posted on the jt thread on page 3, then the thread can't be all 'baby talk' now can it? after all, it's "a great technical JT link with scope shots and Spice simulations" in your own words. ::)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 12, 2009, 11:41:40 PM
Get lost MH !  your on Ignore now . There are better people here i would rather accociate with who dont critise and condem every dame thing they  do . Now lets have some FUN !
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 12, 2009, 11:47:15 PM
This is hilarious. ... Stefan might want to check if MH is posting under two usernames.

Maybe we should all log in under another name and pat our self on the back, LOL. No thanks!

MH should 1st learn how to parallel batteries before inflating his ego. MH, what were you correct about? You're dead wrong about dynamic capacitance being the main effect in my UC experiments.

I don't mind someone who wants to learn, but a big ego who has a weak understanding of conventional physics is a disturbance.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 12, 2009, 11:48:35 PM
Gadget:

I have had MH on ignore now for about a week and I have to say it has been most pleasant not having to listen to his lies and outright incorrect assessments of things he has not done, nor will never do.

I see from Wilby's post that MH posted a link that we all needed to know about in order to do our experiments and, ha ha, it had already been posted on page 3 of our JT topic.  This is too funny for words.  Nice post Wilby, thanks for the laugh.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 12, 2009, 11:51:10 PM
This is hilarious. ... Stefan might want to check if MH is posting under two usernames.

Maybe we should all log in under another name and pat ourself on the back, LOL. No thanks!

Paul:

I recognized the syntax and I am looking into who Vortex1 is as we speak.  I won't say anything else until I know.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 13, 2009, 12:09:09 AM
Hi Bill,

It's not a big deal for me. It just seemed odd that another person would praise MH. That was my MH comment for the month. I can't stomach anymore.  :D

Anyhow, any new JT circuit breakthroughs this weekend? I'd like to build something better than 50% efficiency. Even 101% would be great. A self-runner would be the icing on the cake.
 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 12:17:26 AM
Heh heh... What a farce!  Just don't forget my advice about running a different browser so you can pretend that you aren't reading me with your main browser and read me in your alternative browser.

Pirate Bill is "investigating" somebody?  The only other person around here that has shown that they know what they are talking about, Vortex1, is being "investigated."  It sends a cold virtual chill down my spine.

Another "project" where the main participants simply don't want to learn from an "alternative" viewpoint (which happens to be the truth) and instead they can remain stagnant and stuck in their own little corner of the Internet safe and comfortable with their blinders and earplugs and gags.  It's supremely ironic considering this site is supposed to be about the exchange of ideas.

It's easier to run away than it is to think.

MileHigh

P.S.:

Paul:

Quote
It just seemed odd that another person would praise MH.

That's because you are so incredibly dense Paul.  You position yourself as one of the "Big Guns" - Step aside!  Paul Lowrance is coming into the thread to make measurements! - The truth is that you barely know what you are doing and just talk a lot of BS talk.

Quote
I don't mind someone who wants to learn, but a big ego who has a weak understanding of conventional physics is a disturbance.

That's laughable and you are a pathetic joke, a clueless hustler.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 13, 2009, 12:26:46 AM
i had to go see what this site was all about i was ther for the first  time ... 


some one did a bit of work ... lol 

quite some time ago .. 

great work on that site .. prc68.com

: )

nice!

william

however .. do keep in mind ...  things i have built since the basic jt ...  are WAY BEOND...

and do not operate as a NORMAL jt .. 101

some do way beond ...  like the 5555 coil

it is 2 freq npn or pnp 3 phase .. with generator coils  transformer coils and a collector coil ...

neat little thing ...  lol
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 13, 2009, 12:41:36 AM
Paul:

I just got in from working a case a while ago and if I get a chance, I will make a video of my Jeana Light replication.  I used two 3 3/8" ferrite toroids and 330 turns of 28 ga. magnet wire on my secondary, 3 turns solid copper 22 ga. on the primary and 13 turns 28 ga mag wire on the pick-up.  I used a 20 ohm rheostat on the plus coming from the battery and a 15 turn variable 1k resistor to the base of a TIP 3055 transistor.  It lights a 40 watt equivalent cfl up pretty nice.  It is all mounted in a small wooden box like Lidmotor did.  I will post links to the video on the JT topic and also on the SSJT topic when I get the video made.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 12:54:43 AM
Mk1:

Quote
One of the problem we have is the toroid material , we have no way to test them (and know what to buy), i have a toroid that do amazing stuff , but i will never find another one .

Pose your question to the brilliant minds in the JT thread.  With their collective brainpower they should be able to come up with something.  Don't forget to mention the -3 dB cutoff point measurement!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 13, 2009, 01:05:14 AM
@MileHigh,

I will give you a chance to prove how smart you are. Please explain how the attached
circuit is transferring power from the input to the output.

No, I'm not trying to be an "smart ass" or something, I ask because I do not know.

I have tested this circuit and can confirm that when the switch is closed then the
light bulb light up. What I can't understand is how the power can be transferred
to the output when no magnetic lines is crossing the output coil windings because all
magnetic lines is inside the Ferrite core. The same goes for the center winding, all
magnetic lines is inside the first core, so how can the power be transferred to the
second core if no magnetic lines is crossing the wire?

Alex.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Mk1 on December 13, 2009, 01:29:47 AM
Mk1:

Pose your question to the brilliant minds in the JT thread.  With their collective brainpower they should be able to come up with something.  Don't forget to mention the -3 dB cutoff point measurement!

MileHigh

I asked you , you can say you don't know , i don't .

Or you only help when it serves you . Giving an impression of a noble purpose.   
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 01:33:13 AM
Alex:

Whenever you talk about transformers it's important to remember that they transfer energy based on changing magnetic flux with respect to time.

The AC voltage source causes an AC current to flow through L1.
The AC current flowing through L1 creates changing magnetic flux in the first toroid.
The changing magnetic flux in the first toroid causes AC current to flow in L2.
The AC current flowing in L2 creates changing magnetic flux in the second toroid.
The changing magnetic flux in the second toroid causes AC current to flow in L3 lighting up the light bulb.

The critical point is that the second toroid in not influenced buy the changing magnetic flux in the first toroid.  The second toroid is only affected by the AC current in L2.  From the second toroid's perspective, the AC current flowing in L2 looks the same like it would look if it was generated by an AC voltage source.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 01:36:30 AM
Mk1:

Quote
Or you only help when it serves you . Giving an impression of a noble purpose.

No I'm pissed off because the JT crowd think I know nothing.  I suppose that I should restate that and say that they try to claim that I know nothing because they don't like to hear what I have to say, and they don't have the character to admit their own ignorance at times.  Ask them first and if they can't answer then I'll try to answer.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Mk1 on December 13, 2009, 01:44:27 AM
@Mh

LOL , just say you don't know , stop changing the subject .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 13, 2009, 01:46:47 AM
@MileHigh,

Thank you for taking time to answer my question.

My other question was:

How is it possible to transfer ANY power when we know for sure that the magnetic flux
is inside the Ferrite toroid, and the copper windings is outside that magnetic flux?

As I see it, there is no magnetic lines crossing the copper windings that can generate
current in the wires.

Alex.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 01:49:07 AM
Mk1:

Quote
LOL , just say you don't know , stop changing the subject .

I didn't say I didn't know.  I am serious about you going to the JT crowd first.  If they can't answer then come back here and post that they could not answer or you are not satisfied with their answers.

Beyond that, you have to pose a real question.  What aspects of a toroid are you talking about?  What you said is way too vague.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 13, 2009, 02:00:35 AM
remember what you told  me ....  SHUT UP AND PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS ... ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CYuAcTEkU4
so i did so ...

mix a little brain power and will power in with that ...  and   there ya go ...  now there star gates ... lol

lol

and MH is BICKERING BOUT JT'S lol  silly humans ...

its just a music video ...  but i do a LOT OF TALKING THROUGH MUSIC ... dont i?  lol

anyhow it was sedjusted by the fedreation to set up a gate on earth ...  stright through to the "HOTEL"

i agreed ... and it was done ...

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 13, 2009, 02:03:55 AM
William,

When I try to see your video I get this:

"This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions."

Alex.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 02:34:24 AM
Alex:

Quote
How is it possible to transfer ANY power when we know for sure that the magnetic flux
is inside the Ferrite toroid, and the copper windings is outside that magnetic flux?

As I see it, there is no magnetic lines crossing the copper windings that can generate
current in the wires.

When you make a loop with a copper winding, then the only thing that counts is if there is any changing magnetic flux inside the loop made by the wire.  The changing flux can be through the air or through a toroid  So if you run the ferrite toroid through the loop of the wire, and there is changing flux inside the toroid (what you call magnetic lines),  then you can get an energy transfer.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 02:42:00 AM
Ist:

Quote
anyhow it was sedjusted by the fedreation to set up a gate on earth ...  stright through to the "HOTEL"

Does the gate connect to The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?  How about a connection to the Guardian of Forever?  I want to have a date with the 1960s Joan Collins in the 1930s.  Just transport me to the Guardian of Forever and I will jump through it at just the right time to meet Joan (before Kirk does).

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 13, 2009, 02:45:26 AM
MH stop beating up the reserchers ... lol

if your gonna share 

come to the sand box .. 

you will always be welcomed if you can play nice ...

w



: )
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 13, 2009, 02:52:56 AM
Whos Mh ? I don't see no Mh anywhere   ;D

IST put some power to that big ring . No not a 12 volt transformer a battery so you will be ready to charge up some big Bcaps . Can you borrow some money from mom for Christmas  ? Half will do . I will Santa you the rest . And call it a Present plus the cells for being a good boy . I just found out the PO is open until 22nd . I might Take Ashia to the Mountains if it don't Snow real soon and rent a cabin up there so she can go sledding for the first time . Its her birthday the 31st . so i will be gone more than likely . Only of it dont snow befor then .

Q
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 13, 2009, 02:56:28 AM
Whos Mh ? I don't see no Mh anywhere   ;D

IST put some power to that big ring . No not a 12 volt transformer a battery so you will be ready to charge up some big Bcaps . Can you borrow some money from mom for Christmas  ? Half will do . I will Santa you the rest . And call it a Present plus the cells for being a good boy . I just found out the PO is open until 22nd . I might Take Ashia to the Mountains if it don't Snow real soon and rent a cabin up there so she can go sledding for the first time . Its her birthday the 31st . so i will be gone more than likely . Only of it dont snow befor then .

Q

wish her a happy b day for me!

31 .. special ... : )

ill fire the thing ...  lol dont you worrie ..  : ) : )

w
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 02:56:29 AM
Ist:

I am just playing "real," I left the sandbox a long time ago and I don't fight and bicker over pails and shovels anymore.  Rude little boys will be rude little boys.

It's not anything special when a JT lights a string of 20 LEDs.  If you are inside the sandbox it seems wonderful and magical.  From outside the sandbox it's just ho-hum normal.  Aluminum and magnesium can oxidize and produce electricity!  The revelation of the 21st century!

Can your gate send me to see the Rolling Stones at Madison Square Garden in 1969?

I met a gig-soaked barroom queen in Memphis, ya know.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 13, 2009, 02:59:47 AM
Cool i can;t wait to see it charge up one . I am busy winding mine now  and that was a great idea uing # 12 . The bigger the better ! . Biggest i have is #22 . Need to find some  cat wire or telephone wire will do .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Mk1 on December 13, 2009, 02:59:56 AM
Mk1:

I didn't say I didn't know.  I am serious about you going to the JT crowd first.  If they can't answer then come back here and post that they could not answer or you are not satisfied with their answers.

Beyond that, you have to pose a real question.  What aspects of a toroid are you talking about?  What you said is way too vague.

MileHigh

Unlike you i have been part of a great group of people working on the jt , and i know there answer .

So quit playing game , are you part of the solution or the problem .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 13, 2009, 03:03:10 AM
Ist:

I am just playing "real," I left the sandbox a long time ago and I don't fight and bicker over pails and shovels anymore.  Rude little boys will be rude little boys.

It's not anything special when a JT lights a string of 20 LEDs.  If you are inside the sandbox it seems wonderful and magical.  From outside the sandbox it's just ho-hum normal.  Aluminum and magnesium can oxidize and produce electricity!  The revelation of the 21st century!

Can your gate send me to see the Rolling Stones at Madison Square Garden in 1969?

I met a gig-soaked barroom queen in Memphis, ya know.

MileHigh

mh truely 400 leds was soooooooo LAST CHRISTMAS...... lol  from a aaa ooouuucchhh 

i can lite 100watts im sure like leds .....   lmfao

w

you see i got me 1 of those 1/4 megga watt high freq rectifier bridge ...  ; )  but i dont use oil filled coils ... thats so old SCHOOL....  lol
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 03:08:14 AM
Mk1:

So are you not satisfied with their answer?  What did they say?  Also, what precisely is your question about toroids?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 13, 2009, 03:18:33 AM
@MileHigh,

You are not answering my question. I know that I get a current in a wire loop
when there is a changing magnetic flux inside the wire loop. My Electronics101
is telling me that it is so. My Electronics101 is also telling me that if I want a
current in a wire then the flux lines HAS to cross the wire at some angle greater
than zero.

We both know that there is no flux lines or field outside the Ferrite core. We also
both know that ALL the wire loops is outside the magnetic flux.

So I guess my question is, how does it really work? What transfer mekanism is
at play here?

Alex.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Mk1 on December 13, 2009, 03:29:49 AM
Mk1:

So are you not satisfied with their answer?  What did they say?  Also, what precisely is your question about toroids?

MileHigh

You know the question , otherwise why would you say that you know the answer , the question cycling game , grow up .

You only goal here is to disrupt the flow of idea and work .

If you are to lazy to go back one page and look at it again then ...

Ok just go find me a answer on WiKI ...
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 03:39:38 AM
Alex:

You can do your searching online for more information.  I don't want to prejudge you but can I almost smell a setup where you say, "Ah! Ha!  So you don't really know what magnetism is!!"  I am not going there.

Mk1:

I was being serious and you have attitude.  Go find your own answer on Wikipedia.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 13, 2009, 03:39:47 AM
gl

1 many term this INRUSH... 

in reality ... nature is restoring .. balance ..

ist!

your load is on her balance side ...

if done right useing this teck .. will strgenthen the the feild ..   and  possibally move us 4th dencity ..

time will tell
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 13, 2009, 03:54:49 AM
@MileHigh,

No setup. I really like to know. And I have tried to find information on this
online and in books. I'm not able to find any clear answers. Well, I do not
know, and there is no shame admitting that. If you ever find out how it
works, let me know.

Alex.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Mk1 on December 13, 2009, 04:06:30 AM
Alex:

You can do your searching online for more information.  I don't want to prejudge you but can I almost smell a setup where you say, "Ah! Ha!  So you don't really know what magnetism is!!"  I am not going there.

Mk1:

I was being serious and you have attitude.  Go find your own answer on Wikipedia.

MileHigh

Yes i do have attitude since i had to make 5 post , and now you confirmed you did not know you could have said that the first time.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 13, 2009, 04:29:17 AM
Well well . So there is UNKNOWN FACTORS after all . That is what i have been saying all along .no? YES.. unexplained  phenomenon in a Jt . See there is more going on than old electronics and physics can tell us. .. And so end another chapter in Days of our Lives .  .
Come on snow !
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Mk1 on December 13, 2009, 07:07:36 AM
@MH

So how do you like , being played , i can play that game just as good as you .

@gadget

You need snow ? If you pay the shipping i can get you a boat load... :D
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 08:47:21 AM
Albert:

So what is the ultimate Joule Thief?  How can you really get more efficiency?

The answer is to abandon the whole Joule thief concept and do it with a microcontroller or a pair of CMOS 555 timer chips.

What is a Joule Thief really?  Did you ever pose that question to yourself?

A Joule thief is nothing more than an inductor connected to your voltage source on one side, and a switch that connects to ground on the other side.  The end of the inductor that connects to the switch also connects to a diode to collect the energy spikes and pump them into a load or into a capacitor.

When you reduce it to its basic form, a Joule Thief is a pulsing inductor that gets its energy from a voltage source, typically a battery.  The pulsing inductor discharges it's energy into a load, typically an LED.

A timing source controls the switching of the Joule Thief.  You pay a price in power consumption and have limited control over the timing source when you make a standard Joule Thief circuit.

Therefore the solution is to switch over to a more intelligent timing source and get rid of the Joule Thief circuit altogether.

The more intelligent timing source could be a microcontroller.  All microcontrollers have built-in hardware timer registers that can control the frequency and duty cycle of a square wave on an output pin.  This gives you the ability to have software control over the timing signal generated by the hardware that is built into the microcontroller.   You could write a simple program that reads some of the I/O bits that are configured as inputs.  You could have switches that control frequency up and down and duty-cycle up and down so that you could adjust your frequency and duty cycle of your timing source "live" while the microcontroller runs.  The microcontroller would consume a small fraction of the power that the Joule Thief consumes in overhead to do the timing function.

Another option would be to use two CMOS 555 timers.  One 555 runs at a variable frequency and connects to a second 555.  This gives you the running frequency. The second 555 runs in "one-shot" mode and gives you an adjustable pulse width to turn on the switch.  This setup would consume a small fraction of the power compared to the JT also.

There you have two options for a rock-steady, reliable, and flexible timing source for switching the inductor current on and off.  Both of them would consume almost no power.

Then, it would be up to you to pick the switching transistor and inductor/toroid setup.  You would have the ultimate flexibility here, pick your transistor, pick your toroid, decide how many turns of wire.  There is nothing stopping you now.  You know that you have a reliable and flexible timing source, and you can mix and match any coil configuration you want.  You could probably fire Xenon flash tubes from disposable cameras, neons, as many LEDs as you want, charge any capacitor at any rate that you want, control exactly how much energy you put into the coil before it discharges, the sky is the limit.

For example, if you want to light a CFL, then you could lower the switching frequency to 70 Hz, just above the human eye's ability to perceive flickering.  Then you could chose your coil/toroid, and then play with the "on" pulse width to put the exact amount of energy that you want into the CFL  for every "burn."  Like I said, the sky is the limit.

Time to "think outside of the box" Albert, and break yourself free of the chains of the Joule Thief circuit.  By using a microcontroller or a dual CMOS 555 timer setup, an astable multivibrator triggering a monostable multivibrator, then you have complete control over efficiency and power consumption.  For every load there is an optimal configuration of inductance and switching time to give you the best performance.

One serious option is to go air core.  Why go air core?  Because all toroid cores burn off energy, they are "lossy."  If you use an air core inductor, then there are no energy losses associated with a ferrite core because there is no ferrite core anymore.

What I described above is the next logical step in experimenting with Joule Thieves - move past them and do a completely new design that does away with the constraining Joule Thief "transfomer" and switch over to a computer-controlled or programmable-555-timer-controlled switching function that drives your choice of transistor and coil.

Are you listening Ist?   The sky is the limit!!!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 09:31:42 AM
Bonus round just for fun on the mircocontroller.

The desire is to have a microconrtoller that generates a rock-solid timing source for turning on and off your choice of transistor switch that is connected to your choice of inductor.  It would be great if you could adjust the frequency and duty cycle of the timing source "live" while the microcontroller is running.

Let's assume that you have eight programmable I/O bits to work with, and you configure them all as inputs.  Thee is a separate "programmable timer out" pin on the microcontroller that connects to the switching transistor.

So here is an example of what you could do with the eight input bits:  (Remember the code running on the microcontroler is in a loop reading these bits "live" and that is how you control the frequency and duty cycle)

Let's assume that the microcontroler has some "e-squared" non-volatile memory where you can store some bytes.  We are going to use this e-squared memory.

Bit 0 - "frequency slew up" - when you push on this button the frequency slowly increases

Bit 1 - "frequency slew down" - when you push on this button the frequency slowly decreases

Bit 2 - "pulse width increase" - when you push on this button the pulse width slowly increases

Bit 3 - "pulse width decrease" - when you push on this button the pulse width slowly decreases

Bits 4 and 5 - "waveform store selection A, B, C, D"  - these are two switches that define which of the four waveform storage registers you are currently using

Bit 6 - Store waveform - push on this button to save waveform A, B, C, or D into the e-squared memory

Bit 7 - Load waveform - - push on this button to load waveform A, B, C, or D from the e-squared memory

Now wouldn't that be cool?  A little microcontroller-based timing waveform generator that lets you save or load up to four waveform presets, all operating "live" with separate controls that allow you to adjust the frequency and pulse width (a.k.a. duty cycle) of your timing waveform in real time.

Think outside the box jay-tee gang!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gyulasun on December 13, 2009, 12:10:45 PM

....
I have tested this circuit and can confirm that when the switch is closed then the light bulb light up. What I can't understand is how the power can be transferred to the output when no magnetic lines is crossing the output coil windings because all magnetic lines is inside the Ferrite core. The same goes for the center winding, all magnetic lines is inside the first core, so how can the power be transferred to the second core if no magnetic lines is crossing the wire?

Alex.

Hi Alex,

May I tell you my understanding on your question as I see it. I do not claim I can fully explain it from A to Z but may shed some light on it from different angle.

Induction takes place also when the flux changes in a ferromagnetic core (that is able to guide magnetic flux) AND this core is placed inside of an (previously air cored) coil like a solenoid or a multilayer, multiturn coil.
No need for flux line crossings, the periodic movement of the flux INSIDE the core is enough to induce voltage in the coil. No matter what makes the periodic movement of the flux, be it a sine wave or another core that mechanically opens or closes the magnetic path of the first core with coil around it.
So the core serves as a flux guide, keeps the flux inside its own volume and whenever the flux changes inside the core's body voltage is induced in the coil wound around the core.
Or you do not really have to wind the coil around the core but say in case of a toroidal core you pass a piece of wire through the middle of the core, flux will change in the toroidal core when you change the current in the wire. (Clamp-on current meters utilize this.) 
This works backwards too: if you wind some turns of wire onto a toroidal core and change the current in this wire, then it induces voltage in the single pieace of wire you place and guide through in the middle center area of the toroid,  some people call it the A-field that causes this kind of induction.

So I imagine the changing flux inside a core to be the same phenomena as when you place a ferrite rod inside a solenoid coil and then you pull it out.

(So called parametric induction can also occur in LC tank circuits when you change either the C or the L values by either mechanically or electronically and this change has a definite relation to the LC circuit resonant frequency; choosing the corrent parameters the mechanical movement of the iron core for instance can maintain the resonant voltage/current in the tank, maybe after some starting voltage kick to the tank or the core may have a small remanent magnetism to start up the process.

In case of your circuit above, when you close the switch, current starts flowing in the middle coil L2, this would be a short-circuit current if the second core with L3 and a load were not there. So the changing current in L2 makes the flux also change in the second core on the right hand side and voltage can induce in coil L3 in the same way it would have been wound onto core 1 on the left hand side. And the induced voltage in L3 drives current through the bulb, this is the load that will reflect back to the input 12V AC source.

Maybe you have not learned much from my rantings but if anyone else finds it useful then it have been worth spending some time.
Of course Maxwell equations surely include the explanation but it takes much effort to work through them and make conclusions, establish initial conditions for integral / differential equations, then interpret the calculations to real world.

rgds, Gyula
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 13, 2009, 03:08:43 PM
Albert:

So what is the ultimate Joule Thief?  How can you really get more efficiency?

The answer is to abandon the whole Joule thief concept and do it with a microcontroller or a pair of CMOS 555 timer chips.

What is a Joule Thief really?  Did you ever pose that question to yourself?

A Joule thief is nothing more than an inductor connected to your voltage source on one side, and a switch that connects to ground on the other side.  The end of the inductor that connects to the switch also connects to a diode to collect the energy spikes and pump them into a load or into a capacitor.

When you reduce it to its basic form, a Joule Thief is a pulsing inductor that gets its energy from a voltage source, typically a battery.  The pulsing inductor discharges it's energy into a load, typically an LED.

A timing source controls the switching of the Joule Thief.  You pay a price in power consumption and have limited control over the timing source when you make a standard Joule Thief circuit.

Therefore the solution is to switch over to a more intelligent timing source and get rid of the Joule Thief circuit altogether.

The more intelligent timing source could be a microcontroller.  All microcontrollers have built-in hardware timer registers that can control the frequency and duty cycle of a square wave on an output pin.  This gives you the ability to have software control over the timing signal generated by the hardware that is built into the microcontroller.   You could write a simple program that reads some of the I/O bits that are configured as inputs.  You could have switches that control frequency up and down and duty-cycle up and down so that you could adjust your frequency and duty cycle of your timing source "live" while the microcontroller runs.  The microcontroller would consume a small fraction of the power that the Joule Thief consumes in overhead to do the timing function.

Another option would be to use two CMOS 555 timers.  One 555 runs at a variable frequency and connects to a second 555.  This gives you the running frequency. The second 555 runs in "one-shot" mode and gives you an adjustable pulse width to turn on the switch.  This setup would consume a small fraction of the power compared to the JT also.

There you have two options for a rock-steady, reliable, and flexible timing source for switching the inductor current on and off.  Both of them would consume almost no power.

Then, it would be up to you to pick the switching transistor and inductor/toroid setup.  You would have the ultimate flexibility here, pick your transistor, pick your toroid, decide how many turns of wire.  There is nothing stopping you now.  You know that you have a reliable and flexible timing source, and you can mix and match any coil configuration you want.  You could probably fire Xenon flash tubes from disposable cameras, neons, as many LEDs as you want, charge any capacitor at any rate that you want, control exactly how much energy you put into the coil before it discharges, the sky is the limit.

For example, if you want to light a CFL, then you could lower the switching frequency to 70 Hz, just above the human eye's ability to perceive flickering.  Then you could chose your coil/toroid, and then play with the "on" pulse width to put the exact amount of energy that you want into the CFL  for every "burn."  Like I said, the sky is the limit.

Time to "think outside of the box" Albert, and break yourself free of the chains of the Joule Thief circuit.  By using a microcontroller or a dual CMOS 555 timer setup, an astable multivibrator triggering a monostable multivibrator, then you have complete control over efficiency and power consumption.  For every load there is an optimal configuration of inductance and switching time to give you the best performance.

One serious option is to go air core.  Why go air core?  Because all toroid cores burn off energy, they are "lossy."  If you use an air core inductor, then there are no energy losses associated with a ferrite core because there is no ferrite core anymore.

What I described above is the next logical step in experimenting with Joule Thieves - move past them and do a completely new design that does away with the constraining Joule Thief "transfomer" and switch over to a computer-controlled or programmable-555-timer-controlled switching function that drives your choice of transistor and coil.

Are you listening Ist?   The sky is the limit!!!

MileHigh
MH Don't call me uneducated in the electronics field one more time . I also have been on the bench not 1000 of hours but 1000's of days months years . I know electronics . I know micro's and i certainly know transistors .I have the ultimate JT many moons ago . I sell the plans for it and i also posted a version so long ago in the jt thread . It at least 98% efficient . . It draws 0.80 ma from 0.18 volts and lights 4 white leds full bright in parallel . I call it  Extremely low powered Jt .Uses a Museum quality HEP638 . This i s the most efficient JT on the internet as of today . If you can find the transistor which i did find one and bid 50 dollars on it and lost to a hig bid of 220 US you can build one / It has been running all year long and i put it in a clear cube to pass it on to my daughter . Mh you don't know everything SIr . No one does . cause and effect is only done by trial  not el 101 old school stuff . think out of the box is all i do . you think in a box. you try to tidy every thing i or we do in a neat little package and really have no idea . What is a microwave over ? Its a light speed particle accelerator  . And i believe this is where IST has Created His transporter theroy/machine possibly and why it dont work on metal objects ;)(isT JUST AS WELL LET IT OUT ,IT CAME TO ME IN A DREAM )  just a guess but everyday people have no idea whats in there homes . Jt are along the same principal . you say it dosnt matter the size core is not responsible for transistor oscillations or Magnetic flux . I say your wrong and have done experiments from small to larg core . LARGER CORES PRODUCE MORE VOLTAGE AND CURRENT VERSE A SMALLER CORE WITH THE EXACT SAME SETUP . ANYWAYS I AN STILL IGNORING YOU BE JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE THE OPTION TO SEE IF YOU COULD SAY ANYTHING REMOTE POSITIVE TO OUR GROUP AND PROJECT . MERRY CHRISTMAS STILL . I THINK YOU HAVE A HEART AND HEART GOES A LONG WAYS HERE SO KEEP IT SIMPLE . YOU MAY THINK I TALK LIKE A CHILD AND AM SIMPLE MINDED BUT I AM KIND AND RESPECT FOLKS THAT WANT TO LEARN WHAT I KNOW . THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD LOVE TO LEARN HOW TO BUILD THESE AMAZING DEVICES LIKE LIGHT THERE CHRISTMAS TREE WITH A ONE VOLT BATTERY LIKE WE DID LAST YEAR . NOW ITS ON TO LIGHT OUT HOUSE WITH A ONE VOLT BATTERY THIS YEARS AND SELF RUNNING POWER SUPPLIES . SECOND STAGE . SORRY FOR THE CAPS TO WORN OUT TO TAP IT .  PEACE AND BE PEACEFUL AND A LITTLE BIT MORE CONSIDERATE OF YOUR FELLOW MEN . iTS GREAT WHAT YOU KNOW BUT I WOULD RATER NOT HEAR IT BECAUSE I HAVE WOULD RATHER BUILD  AND  ITS FUN AND RELAXING EVEN AFTER WORKING ON  BENCH ELECTRONICS SINCE THE EARLY 70'S ., AND ALSO I REMEMBER WHEN BLACK SABBATH WAS JUST A GARAGE BAND AND WAS PRACTICING AT THE vfw IN VA  A FEW YEARS BEFORE THEY GOT FAMOUS , SAME WITH GODSMACK .skullY IS A FRIEND OF MINE AND I JAMMED WITH HIM BEFORE HE BECAME THE SINGER HERE IN A GARAGE  IN NC IN HIS OLD BAND LEX LUTHER . SO THE OLD DAYS I KNOW ABOUT AND STILL REMEMBER A LOT OF THINGS THE BRAINSTROKE DIDNT WIPE . OUT . YES MY  THOUGHTS JUMP AROUND BECAUSE THERE IS SO MANY THINGS I THINK ABOUT AND HAVE TO DEAL WITH ..Also stabilizing the oscillation is not the answer . The circuit i posted of a standard jt is more efficient because i believe it needs random oscillation to produce the third component the irregular back spike that is is normally wasted and considered useless buy current  electrical laws and is suppressed . Actually a buzzing relay instead of a transistor could increase bcap charging effeciancy . This is where i stand . stable oscillator will produce stable peaks . we dont want that for my project .

also remember this Board or forum is in Germany not US and pig language is the acceptable way  so keep it simple and remember they were the first in pretty much everything the US has today . Believ in the unbelievable .I have a relative who is a scientist in nasa . He talked to me one day in private . All i can tell you is anything you could possible dream up is real . including anti gravity , proton weapons , over unity  and other elements that current science is unaware of and do not exist in nature on this planet or the periodic  element chart that exhibit these phenomena . i Dont care if you don't believe me .This is why your rants are useless to me and why i pursue and experiment rather than try to explain them .  l8r
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 13, 2009, 03:41:07 PM
@gyulasun,

Thank you for trying to explain how it is possible to make current in a coil
with a magnetic flux.

Alex.

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 04:26:24 PM
Albert:

Stop trying to demonize me.

A JT does not produce an irregular oscillation it normally produces a regular periodic oscillation.  The whole notion that the back spike is "suppressed" by "current electrical laws" is an old wives' tale that the experimenters around here say.  To say that stable peaks are unwanted for your project is another myth.  If you produce irregular spikes with your setup or regular spikes, either way the coil will discharge it's stored energy that comes from the battery.  Again, it is really fairly simple:  When the transistor switches on, the inductor starts to store battery energy in its magnetic field and also starts to dissipate battery energy resistively.  The time constant for reaching 63% of the maximum current in the inductor is L/R.  If you switch on the transistor for three or less time constants, then you maximize the energy stored in the magnetic field and minimize the energy lost resistively.  The JT circuit does this more or less automatically but you have very little control over its running frequency.  If you use an external timing source then you gain complete control of its running frequency and you can decide exactly how many L/R time constants that you want to switch the transistor "on" time to be.  When the transistor switches off the inductor will discharge into some sort of a load.  How the inductor will discharge into a resistive load is essentially the same as the charging process but this time the inductor is discharging it's stored energy with a different L/R time constant.  It is all very very straightforward and fully understood.

You shouldn't get sidetracked by the idea that you need to have astable oscillation to get more benefits from your circuit.  You just think that is the case because you see more power output from the back spikes with astable oscillation and think that it is better.  What you are not seeing is that you are consuming more battery power when you do this, so there are no real advantages to astable oscillation.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 13, 2009, 05:02:14 PM
You are what you are . and if you took what i said a demonizing then your really off your rocker . I was polite  and considered you had a bit of Soul and understanding . You don't your heartless computer orientated mind can't get past the FACT you don't know a jt function from an experiments point at all . nor do you understand that  Tesla ,bedini and bearden are  the ones who discovered .published and explained positive electricity and exploited  :Quote"high electrostatic scalar potentials by capturing them  or vacuum oscillations without tapping the energy embedded  in the oscillations itself . It is not conventional science Nor is it Electronics 101 theory  or laws and yet you claim it was known . It is unrecognized  principals  of nature . Forces may be manipulated and engineered in  force free fashion by directly manipulating their force free percursors .  The Manipulations is considered re-guaging . Electromagnetic energy can be transmitted from a source to a reciever by scalar-curvature R, and that electromagnetic energy is available in NON-Eucidean spacetime .The charge obtainable from a given curvature R in a given volume is about 12 ordered of magnitude  greater than the mass obtainable from the same curvature R for the same Value  The charge and concomitant electromagnetic energy available from curvature induced by mass is amplified by about 12 order of magnitude "Thisis why big toroids produce BIGGER effect and Why a controled oscillation wont produce the same effect as a random one does .  A simple experiment for you . take a battery wire and two leds . but the leds in parallel opposite each other . connect the leds, one will light THEN remove the wire . the other will light (blink). tap the circuit on and off and you can see that random arcing makes the off led blink brighter . BEMF force This is the energy that would be wasted in conventional science. another easy experiment is a common transformer put the leds on a secondary and spark a battery on the primary  same thing same a a Jt also. Just look at Motors that use coils and imagine they can be made 100times for efficient if they would only utilize this force. 

ALbert
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 05:19:52 PM
Albert:

All Bedini motors work based on classical electronics principles and there is nothing special about them at all.  A Bedini motor is just yet another variation on the Joule Thief concept.  This stuff is really all about exploiting the fact that inductors can produce high voltage spikes and to many enthusiasts this is "sexy" and "exciting" and "mysterious."

Inductors can produce high voltage spikes and capacitors can produce high current spikes.  They are in all ways mirror images of each other.  However current spikes are not "sexy" because they don't have the high visibility of voltage spikes.  So capacitors get the short end of the stick and inductors get all of the glamour.

I can see that you were quoting some Tom Beardenese.  It seems that Tom has a problem though.  Now he is an aging old man and for all his esoteric theories, he does not have a single device that produces free energy at all.  He's got nothing.  The same thing for John Bedini.   Did you notice Johnny-boy endorsed Mylow and even did a "glamour clip" where he pulled out Howard Johnson's magnet track array that doesn't work?

Yes the world is indeed a mysterious place.  There is perhaps more mystery in the character of men than there is in the natural phenomena that is out there for us to observe and explore.  If you open your mind to what is really going on you may find more things bizarre and out of the ordinary when you look at the former instead of the latter.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 13, 2009, 05:37:53 PM
I was quoting John not bearden and John has Patents and sells real machines using his principal and has his own business and manufacturing company . . I know some one who have one and it cost over 2000 dollars and are manufactured today . They are Bedine energizers .Thats how much you know !
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 05:38:46 PM
Albert:

Quote
A simple experiment for you . take a battery wire and two leds . but the leds in parallel opposite each other . connect the leds, one will light THEN remove the wire . the other will light (blink). tap the circuit on and off and you can see that random arcing makes the off led blink brighter . BEMF force This is the energy that wold be wasted in conventional science. Just lok at Motors that use coils and imagine they can be made 100times for efficient if they would only utilize this force.

You are dreaming when you talk about making motors "100 times more efficient" here.  And I assume what you are really saying is that you only need 1/100th the amount of electrical input to get the same mechanical power from the motor.  So you are really implying free energy here.

BEMF force is used or not used, it all depends on the application.  Designers are FULLY AWARE of it and you are just propagating your myth.

As far as your experiment goes, on first impression I am surprised that the normally off diode flashes.  I would need to see it on paper just the same.  However, here is the real point:  You are using that as an example of "something special."  In fact, that is NOT something special.  I can't give you a direct explanation right now, but for sure there IS an explanation.  The explanation is most likely related to the inductance of the wire discharging somehow through the second LED.

For the Bedini energizers, they are just battery chargers, BFD.  Take a look at the Bedini "CD Clarifier," the deluxe version costs $400 USD.  Do you know how an audio CD works Albert?  Because if you did then you would know that a Bedini "CD Clarifier" is just a piece of electronics quackery - a rip off.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 13, 2009, 06:02:40 PM
Wrong again. His product line exceeds 4000 dollars and they are not JUST battery Chargers  . They utilize radiant energy . the fellow i know takes peoples dead old batteries and gives them another fully restored battery for 20 bucks . It take him a few hours to restore a battery to new condition and says they are better that they were new .
here is Johns company and he is not a scammer http://energenx.com/products.html

Also his Class A amplifier using his audio techniques are also very expensive and the reviews are outstanding comparable to Bose or dolby technology .. DUHH!
Needless to Say Bedini knows a lot more than you do .

The led lights because of a collapsing electrical field BEMF and it is not utilized at all except by FREE ENERGY  experimenters .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2009, 09:12:10 PM
Albert:

Quote
They utilize radiant energy

You saw how above I said that spikes are "sexy."  The "radiant energy" is just the "sexy spikes."  It sounds mysterious, "radiant energy" like it must come "from the vacuum" or the "Dirac sea."  You can make it even more mystifying by talking about "positive radiant energy" and "negative radiant energy."  Another line from the enthusiasts is "we know it's there but we can't really measure it" and "we use a Bedini motor to tap into radiant energy to 'bring it to the other side' as conventional energy that we can measure."

All of that is bullshit Albert.  All that you have to do is do the experiments.  All that you have to do is make careful measurements of how much battery energy you are using and compare that to how much BEMF "radiant spike energy" you can measure.  You will find that ALL of the energy in the "radiant spikes" comes from the battery and from nowhere else.

So a Bedini battery charger uses a discharging inductor to force energy into a dead battery.  It might indeed give it a better ability to recharge a dead battery.  As far as making them "better than they were new" - it's possible but I really doubt it.  The real point is that they are just battery chargers, BFD.

I know that Bedini makes audio amplifiers, they're of course legitimate.

Quote
The led lights because of a collapsing electrical field BEMF and it is not utilized at all except by FREE ENERGY  experimenters

You are back to dreaming again.  There is no free energy in BEMF spikes and you have been brainwashed by the "free energy cottage industry."  They want you to believe this so they can sell you books and DVDs.  DO THE EXPERIMENTS and prove to yourself that all of the energy in back spikes is fully accounted for and comes from the battery.

Look at Ist's recent clip where he burns out the DC transformer.  He is holding a wire in his hand that comes from a big coil.  He touches the wire to chrome metal and you see big sparks, the "back EMF spikes."  The big sparks happen when the wire disconnects from the chrome metal.  You are seeing a discharge of the energy that was stored in his big coil.  The energy in the coil came from the overstressed DC transformer.  When the wire touches the chrome, current starts to flow and the inductor charges.  When the wire disconnects, the big spark comes from the coil discharging its stored energy, and that stored energy was supplied by the straining DC transformer.

So Ist's clip was nothing more than a big hand-held Joule Thief setup.  The "pissing big sparks" was the same old same old story - back-EMF spikes are "sexy" - and you can exploit that "sexiness" if you want to and sell books and DVDs.

Going back to John Bedini, his three versions of the "CD Clarifier" are just junk electronics quackery products that exploit the weakness and gullibility of hard-core audiophiles.  They will spend almost anything to make their sound systems sound better, and John Bedini is there with his totally fake "CD Clarifier."  The "CD Clarifier" is just a box filled with about $10 worth of electronics that probably makes cool sounding electrical discharge noises.  So you put your audio CD inside this box and hear some high-voltage crackling sounds and you are duped into believing that this will make the CD "sound better."  Four-hundred dollars for a piece of junk that does nothing that costs ten dollars to make.

You can make your own "CD clarifier" - just get a soft damp cloth and gently wipe the clear side of your CDs clean.

Like I said Albert, open your eyes and _really_ see what is going on.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Vortex1 on December 13, 2009, 09:45:51 PM
Now is a good time to pick up some Energenx stock if you really believe in Bhoudini and his brother.

Low for the year: 0.05
High for the year: 0.35
Last sale: 0.23
Current ask: 0.23
Current bid: 0.05

http://www.pinksheets.com/pink/quote/quote.jsp?symbol=EENX#getQuote

I won't be buying any, but for those who would be interested, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 14, 2009, 12:33:23 AM
quote :All of that is bullshit Albert.  All that you have to do is do the experiments.  All that you have to do is make careful measurements of how much battery energy you are using and compare that to how much BEMF "radiant spike energy" you can measure.  You will find that ALL of the energy in the "radiant spikes" comes from the battery and from nowhere else."unquote



Did do em . DID you ? Hell no . I have built over 25 bedinis . Gave a bunch away last Christmas . They Loved Them. I Have 5 here right beside me . Two run 24 7 for a year now on there own . .. Yes I  know what they Do . They tap the Aether . Another word for your sultty synonim .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 14, 2009, 01:25:47 AM
Albert:

Quote
They tap the Aether.

"They" want you to believe that they "tap the Aether" but it is simply not true.  There is no documented evidence that this is the case.  It's a con job to sell you crap.

I did make the measurements and I did them before Bedini became known in the world.

As far as Energenx goes, they are on the Pink Sheets as Vortex1 noted.  Did you notice the split between the bid and the ask?  The Pink Sheets basically mean the company is bullshit.  They made an SEC filing at the end of 2008 stating that they will not be making any SEC filings anymore.  In other words, the company is dead.

This is from their filing from September 30th, 2008:

Quote
As shown in the accompanying financial statements, the Company has incurred an accumulated deficit of $3,346,165 through September 30, 2008 and has a history of recurring losses. The financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of recorded assets, or the amounts and classification of liabilities that might be necessary in the event the Company cannot continue in existence. Management has developed technology that has resulted in a marketable product, but sales have been limited at this time. Management is currently seeking new sales markets, which if successful will mitigate the factors which raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.  Management intends to seek additional capital from new equity securities offerings that will provide funds needed to increase liquidity, fund internal growth and fully implement its business plan.

Here is the key phrase:  "which raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern."

That's SEC filing-ese for "the company is about to die and go bankrupt"

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Gobaga on December 14, 2009, 03:14:06 AM
Nice to see people hacking through the BS.

Don't be so hasty to write everything off.  There might be something under the mask...
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 14, 2009, 03:41:33 AM
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” - Carl Sagan
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 14, 2009, 04:46:27 AM
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 14, 2009, 07:21:32 AM
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

this little cridder ramps up to resonance then stays there ... 

1 transistor 1 pot 1 diode 2 cores .. 

i have 4 outputs ..  that will go to hv ramp up  ..

regards

w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQkL5igZuT8
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 14, 2009, 11:28:02 AM
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

extraordinary claims DO NOT require extraordinary proof. sagan said some great things, this was not one of them. you are positing  a hopelessly flawed argument.

case in point, big bang theory. summed up as, 'at first, there was nothing...then it exploded.' now that is arguably the most extraordinary claim ever... big bang theory 'defies gravity' and violates innumerable laws of physics, it remains a HYPOTHETICAL mathematical model, yet it is promoted as truth by NASA and institutions of higher learning around the world. and that's only one example among many. your most sacred 'truths' of popular science are in reality EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS which have never required EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.

and make no mistake about it, that is what your science is... popular science.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 14, 2009, 02:31:27 PM
MH what are you Doing Here ? You don't believe in free energy nor the terminology and your are not wanted here if you are not a free energy researcher . This  is OVERUNITY .com and its for that purpose us experimenters and inventors are here . You are a Hopeless Flawed Argument and well you suck at it because no matter what you say your Digging your own grave and are completely ignored  because it evident  you have never built anything remote amazing like 99 percent of of have to prove to ourselves free energy is here and here to stay . How many watts is your Christmas tree burning this year from house current . Mine is running free !~!

Albert
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Vortex1 on December 14, 2009, 02:49:38 PM
Quote
free energy is here and here to stay . How many watts is your Christmas tree burning this year from house current . Mine is running free !~!

No it isn't a pure FE device. Don't know what you are using to light your lights, you do not say, only imply, maybe some secondary effect like solar, wind or captured radio waves. Somebody paid for it usually in the manufacturing costs of the transducer, then it is either free or intercepted.

Even if it is from nearly dead batteries that the JT scavenged a few extra joules, somebody initially paid for the batteries.

Put up or shut up, Albert. Enough of the BS already. Show your circuit that lights many watts of tree lights for free, and save the world, be a hero.

I do agree with Wilby on at least one point....the big bang does appear to be "big bogus". There are several competing theories. This one is acceptable because it doesn't rattle the church's belief systems.

I'm willing to place a bet that I was building and optimizing JT circuits before Albert was born......any takers?
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 14, 2009, 06:20:28 PM
No it isn't a pure FE device. Don't know what you are using to light your lights, you do not say, only imply, maybe some secondary effect like solar, wind or captured radio waves. Somebody paid for it usually in the manufacturing costs of the transducer, then it is either free or intercepted.

Even if it is from nearly dead batteries that the JT scavenged a few extra joules, somebody initially paid for the batteries.

Put up or shut up, Albert. Enough of the BS already. Show your circuit that lights many watts of tree lights for free, and save the world, be a hero.

I do agree with Wilby on at least one point....the big bang does appear to be "big bogus". There are several competing theories. This one is acceptable because it doesn't rattle the church's belief systems.

I'm willing to place a bet that I was building and optimizing JT circuits before Albert was born......any takers?
I built My first 12vcd to 115 volt ac inverter in 8th grade when every one else in the class was building electromagnets So i (little brother and I)could watch My 9 inch B/W tube Tv in Dads car when we took Three hour trips every other weekend .. Yea i'll bet you Fool  the jt was introduced in 2001 . I'm almost 53 what are your  90 or 30 something ?! And lighting up 300 400 lights was last years project DUDE . Posted over a year ago . You Guys cant read . . Matter of fact we light from an earth battery . I pioneered the fix for fuji low draw . . Pirate runs them as all the other experimenters in Jt  . old news last year . we are now producing 10,000 of thousands of volts from dead batterys . Its free alright . just pick them up from the side of the road and have friends save em .DUH ! You cant top My experience or inventions . that's why I'm Gadget and That's why i am here . To build and share Experiments with others who want to build Fe also .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iINoVWbdBpk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YAQ9MSrq5Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaUBxUJrGzY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agqKEed7AOI

Pics are taken in the day time . Real bright at night one little battery last over 28 hours . And this is nothing compared to  Others that zLove Ou research .

 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 14, 2009, 06:47:19 PM
Yes, I ran all of my Christmas lights, over 400 leds, for free last year.  EER to supercaps to modified Fuji.  It didn't cost me, or anyone else, a dime.  It works and just about anyone can do it.  I just love it when "educated" folks tell me it can't work but then, I look at all of my lights lit up and I feel sorry for them. 

So, since this has all been known and has been around for 50 years then no one plugs their Christmas lights into the grid any more....right?  Do you?  Oh, so you would rather pay the power company instead of lighting them for free, even though you know how and have known for 50 years...is this what you are saying?  Is this supposed to make sense to us?  To anyone?

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 14, 2009, 06:49:31 PM
I looked for your Christmas tree last year but could find it Bill.

Al

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 14, 2009, 06:52:13 PM
Al:

I just went back and added 2 photos to my last post of 300 leds and then 400 on my tree.

Merry Christmas

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 14, 2009, 07:02:55 PM
:) Thats the ones . Man Vortex(farra ? )and MH are True Slackers . They have No idea whats going on here at Ou and the amount of work that Has been done and it being done . If they are so smart why do they keep repeating crap we did years ago? Cause they are Slackers ,bums .Ou haters . Scrooges and a few more nasty names i invented for people i don't like . 

Merry Christmas OU  Experimenters !! We have a Great NEw Year Comming  Up and It will surPRIZE everyone !
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 14, 2009, 07:58:43 PM
No it isn't a pure FE device. Don't know what you are using to light your lights, you do not say, only imply, maybe some secondary effect like solar, wind or captured radio waves. Somebody paid for it usually in the manufacturing costs of the transducer, then it is either free or intercepted.

Even if it is from nearly dead batteries that the JT scavenged a few extra joules, somebody initially paid for the batteries.
if he didn't pay, it was free to him. all of your elaborate euphemisms and moving of the goalposts don't change that fact. ie: if someone buys a solar cell and gives it to me, it didn't cost me a dime, it was free to me, and that's what matters, the bottom line so to speak.

what kind of twisted logic are you trying to applying here? if you are going to argue... at least present a cogent one.

Put up or shut up, Albert. Enough of the BS already. Show your circuit that lights many watts of tree lights for free, and save the world, be a hero.
indeed enough of the bullshit, it's in the jt thread that you mental giants refuse to read...

I do agree with Wilby on at least one point....the big bang does appear to be "big bogus". There are several competing theories. This one is acceptable because it doesn't rattle the church's belief systems.
i never said it was bogus, don't go putting words in my mouth that i haven't said. i'll repeat it again since you seem a little slow on the comprehension. the big bang theory is an extraordinary claim which has never required extraordinary evidence,

I'm willing to place a bet that I was building and optimizing JT circuits before Albert was born......any takers?
i'm willing to bet you will avoid doing so, just like you avoided answering my last pointed question and responded instead with a red herring logical fallacy. in your own words, put up or shut up. answer my previous question and post your 'optimized' jt circuit...

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Vortex1 on December 14, 2009, 10:35:58 PM
Around 1956 at age 10, I was given a personal tour of the Philco Transistor Plant in Lansdale PA. Back then they were manufacturing point contact and surface barrier type transistors. I witnessed firsthand the Czochralkski method of growing germanium crystals and all aspects of transistor manufacturing.

I was already building transistor circuits at this time since the CK722 and CK709 had become available to experimenters for around $0.99.

I was pleased to be given a small bag full of the Philco germanium transistors various types...I still have a few. One of the bright engineers from the Philco operation volunteered his time in the evenings to teach me and a few friends in the neighborhood the ins and outs of applying transistors.

I built many JT type oscillators in that time period and rather enjoy to this day seeing how much I can get from a single transistor circuit.

There is a way to optimize this single transistor circuit you call the Joule Thief....we called it the blocking oscillator. Perhaps when the signal to noise ratio improves on the forum I will post it.

But here's a warmup: http://mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/electron/elect37.htm

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 15, 2009, 01:06:26 AM
Vortex1:

It was not called a transistor when invented and patented, (1947) it was called a Semiconductor amplifier.  My father used to eat lunch with William Shockley (The inventor of the transistor, well along with the other 2 fellows) every day...so what is your point?  Or do you even have a point?  I guess not.

Bill 

PS  This team from Bell Labs won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1956
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Vortex1 on December 15, 2009, 01:50:07 AM
Quote
My father used to eat lunch with William Shockley

lmao
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 15, 2009, 02:08:22 AM
lmao

He worked down the hall from him at Bell Labs, Murry Hill, NJ.  Since it took you 10 years to get into transistors from their inception, I guess you are still behind?  Otherwise, all of your flashlights would only need one battery like ours, and your Christmas lights would be free.  So you have been working with these circuits for 30 years and you still can't even do that?  And we should listen to you why?

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Gobaga on December 15, 2009, 03:08:30 AM
Running LEDs from a battery is just an efficient way to light a Xmas tree.  Even if the battery is free, someone payed to build the battery and the battery doesn't last forever. 

While efficiency is a good thing, the goal of this site and the few others like it is true energy freedom.  To some this is as much as they want or need at no cost, anytime, anywhere.  That's true energy freedom.  To others it is just something that doesn't cost as much as the grid - like solar or wind.

I want it all for nothing and as much as I can get.  What about all of you?
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Mk1 on December 15, 2009, 03:20:59 AM
Running LEDs from a battery is just an efficient way to light a Xmas tree.  Even if the battery is free, someone payed to build the battery and the battery doesn't last forever. 

While efficiency is a good thing, the goal of this site and the few others like it is true energy freedom.  To some this is as much as they want or need at no cost, anytime, anywhere.  That's true energy freedom.  To others it is just something that doesn't cost as much as the grid - like solar or wind.

I want it all for nothing and as much as I can get.  What about all of you?

The idea is that it is easier to find a way to generate 1.5 volt then it is to 12v or even 120 ...

So yes we use battery for now  ...
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Gobaga on December 15, 2009, 03:32:03 AM
The idea is that it is easier to find a way to generate 1.5 volt then it is to 12v or even 120 ...

So yes we use battery for now  ...

OK mate.  Point taken. 

Have you tried other technologies? 

Tesla was able to charge capacitors for free - Joule thief ala cosmic rays (or whatever charged the capacitor)

I've seen a lot of  people claim to charge batteries with hv but I have yet to see it in real life.

Ever hear of an atomic battery?  I always wondered if you could make one from the Americium 242 in a smoke detector.  I think that is an alpha emitter, so might not work.  Atomic batteries last for several years.

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 15, 2009, 03:56:49 AM
the gold ring and the BOOK OF LOVE ...

W

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 15, 2009, 04:01:58 AM
Running LEDs from a battery is just an efficient way to light a Xmas tree.  Even if the battery is free, someone payed to build the battery and the battery doesn't last forever. 

While efficiency is a good thing, the goal of this site and the few others like it is true energy freedom.  To some this is as much as they want or need at no cost, anytime, anywhere.  That's true energy freedom.  To others it is just something that doesn't cost as much as the grid - like solar or wind.

I want it all for nothing and as much as I can get.  What about all of you?

I agree with you mostly here with one exception.  I lit those 400 leds from my EER (Earth Energy Receiver) which is free and, although it may run out eventually, (that remains to be seen) it has been going strong now for two years.  This is energy that is already in the earth and the b-cap and JT circuits allow us to tap into it to make it more usable.

I agree with Mark in that if we can get very good amounts of light for a long, long time on 1.5 volts, this opens the door to powering the circuits with other alternative means be it solar, wind, EER's, water wheels, etc.  I use very little grid lighting in my home now, mostly leds from dead batteries and other JT circuit lighting.  Soon, I hope to be able to run my heat pump from a larger version.  It may or may not be possible but I won't know if I don't try.  My electric bill is down to about $30/month and I am aiming for 0.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Vortex1 on December 15, 2009, 04:24:06 AM
Here's a little theme song for the inspector

Hope you all enjoy......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcpofztr19E
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 15, 2009, 04:30:53 AM
Here's a little theme song for the inspector

Hope you all enjoy......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcpofztr19E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcpofztr19E)

Those guys are great!  I used to have a telecaster like that blond tone one.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 15, 2009, 04:32:49 AM
Here's a little theme song for the inspector

Hope you all enjoy......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcpofztr19E

hope you all enjoy i turned down the cussing ...

PEACE ?

LOL

w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKu3NAAWdWw&NR=1&feature=fvwp

inspector and gadget beatboxing ... lol
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 15, 2009, 05:04:10 AM
Albert and Bill:

You guys should relax.  Especially you Albert, just relax and don't overstress yourself considering your health issues.

There was lots of trash talk today.  You have to realize something important.  The whole point is to talk about what you guys are doing and bounce some ideas off of you.  It's not about fighting, it's about understanding.  It would be very cool if you actually understood what you are doing.  I can see just that statement making both of you angry - don't - open up your minds.

I have read your claims before, but for me the real issue is just to get you to see and understand the nuts and bolts behind your claims.  That's it, as simple as that.  To shed some light on the issues.

There is a difference between understanding and doing.  You can wander through the JT thread and read about all of your different configurations and watch the clips, and see the reported results.  However, and it's a big however, the signal to noise ratio is really really low, something you might not be conscious of.

Going back to the understanding, let me take a few examples.

Okay, so you can get a JT to light four LEDs brightly.  Then 10 brightly, then 50 brightly.  Great.

Here is the question for both of you:  Please explain how that works.  I am being dead serious.  How come you can keep on adding LEDs and they stay bright, and eventually when you add a hell of a lot of LEDs finally it starts to go down in intensity?  How can a 1.5 volt battery do this?  I would really like to hear what you have to say.

For Bill, okay so you use your Earth Energy System to light your Christmas tree lights for "free."  Yes, euphemistically the light is "free."  But can you explain how it works?  You know some energy is coming from somewhere, what's the process?

That's what I'm interested in.  You can apply-apply-apply and try multiple secondaries on your JT circuits or charge capacitors or change diodes or transistors or whatever - but the real issue for me is _how_ is all this stuff working at its basic level.

I don't know why there is all of this going at loggerheads - it's crazy.  So again, it's not so much the doing, it's the understanding.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Vortex1 on December 15, 2009, 05:42:58 AM
From MileHigh

Quote
Okay, so you can get a JT to light four LEDs brightly.  Then 10 brightly, then 50 brightly.  Great.

Here is the question for both of you:  Please explain how that works.  I am being dead serious.  How come you can keep on adding LEDs and they stay bright, and eventually when you add a hell of a lot of LEDs finally it starts to go down in intensity?  How can a 1.5 volt battery do this?  I would really like to hear what you have to say.

This is easy to answer but out of courtesy I'll give the other guys first crack. I'll PM my answer to MileHigh. He can post it later if he likes.

Kind Regards.....V
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 15, 2009, 05:47:40 AM
Thank's Vortex1, because the question is really for Albert and Bill.  Not to start a fight but to really try to get to the bottom of this issue, and shed some light on it.

Another one for Albert, a 'big picture' question.  You stated that you just want to make enough free energy for your yourself and your loved ones, your home.  Forget about everybody else, start with your own space.  That stance or philosophy has a real flaw, and I wonder if you can state what the flaw is with that philosophy.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 15, 2009, 08:21:03 AM
From MileHigh

This is easy to answer but out of courtesy I'll give the other guys first crack. I'll PM my answer to MileHigh. He can post it later if he likes.

Kind Regards.....V

Well the example given by MH is incorrect so I disagree with his premise.  Because you can light 400 leds brightly with just a small JT circuit from an AA battery before you notice a decrease in brightness from adding more, and you can light 1,000 leds from a JT circuit based upon the large toroid (Jeanna's circuit) before noticing a decrease.

LEDs, we have found, will light using high voltage in the correct frequency ranges. We do not need many mA's to do this.  (Tesla discovered this fact many, many years ago with gas filled tubes) If you load down the circuit with too many LEDs for that particular output voltage and/or the load forces the output frequency to go outside of the parameters required by the LEDs, they will get progressively dimmer and, at the saturation or tipping point, not light at all. 

We also found this to be true of gas filled tubes as well.  We light them by exciting the gas inside the tube with high voltage and within the proper frequency range and they light.  We do not need or use the element inside the tube which would require much more power, and much of that power would be wasted as heat.  This has been discovered and discussed in the early pages of the JT topic which MH, admittedly, has not read.

Bill

***EDIT***  I see that I misread the quote from MH by Vortex1.  I thought MH had said when you light 50 LEDs they start dimming so my first sentence is incorrect.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 15, 2009, 02:19:33 PM
Thank's Vortex1, because the question is really for Albert and Bill.  Not to start a fight but to really try to get to the bottom of this issue, and shed some light on it.

Another one for Albert, a 'big picture' question.  You stated that you just want to make enough free energy for your yourself and your loved ones, your home.  Forget about everybody else, start with your own space.  That stance or philosophy has a real flaw, and I wonder if you can state what the flaw is with that philosophy.
Bill Answered it . I am a Texan .We shoot first and ask questions later .The Flaw is you twisting every dam thing i say ! I said My dream is Energy independence and it starts by me sharing with the ones i know . I shared what i did so anyone can replicate it and I don't care about BIG STEAMPOWERED HYDRO CORPORATE BS! IT is true i experiment to get free power by anymeans . But i share and that means your twist everything like i am greedy or somthing . Fact is all the builders share and we could care less about you being left in the dark because you quite a long time ago . Why should you  build when you had 1000 hours of electronics already " Well be in the dark . And keep twisting everything and explain it all away but we aint going nowhere nor straying from what we do . Personally i could give a rats ass how it works as long as it does . IF you want to explain it away that's your problem not mine . If others actually cared how it worked then let them build it and diagnose it ! Like a Doctor . I'll just reap the benefits and keep on building . The S!!! is getting ready to hit the Fan boys . ARE YOU READY  ? Words will not save you but your hands will !And will over 1000+pages  of Jt examinations and Experiment that should tell you somthing . That OUR Jt circuit is something specila . It's not being utilized by any one but us . It every light in the world used Jt technologht the power companies would lose moeny because the demand  would drop by half.if every Flashlight used high powered 7 watt leds running on a few milliamps with one volt ,then we take care of the greedy battery companys . So step by step the energy problems can be eliminated . Forget Sun and wind .the Earth Itself is a generator and one volt technology is what we are all about . Its easy to extract 1 and 2 volts from the Magnetic Ley of the earth , Proven and factual there is an interaction other than galvanic . Stubble field research continues . I also power and charge up Baps from the ground and easily convert that low power in to HV  . SO if you really want to know then make it and explain away . There are hidden Secrets of our earth that will always be hidden but tapping it is a reality if you just do it. Free  energy has a cost ,but its much less if you spend on something you can hold in your hand rather than flush that money down the drain buying power and batteries . The first step is taken by a few . One person can change the world . I would like to show the world My inventions . I do . I sell them . I want to show something Ou you can hold in your hand . The proof is in the pudding as you say .I make pudding ! BTW my little experiments are still running and AA battery is still 1.301 and Bcap is still Charging going on what over 3weeks now. hehhehe ..I told you . I don't bluff and i know what to look for .

Albert
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 15, 2009, 03:49:50 PM
dj #5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVNpbrMaVmw


tempture is rizeing  im about to explode...
WATCH ME IM INTOXICATED TAKE IN THE SHOW ...

time is right keep it tight cuz its pulling you in ...
pump it up... cant stop .....cuz it feels like an overdoze  zzzzzzzzzz yawn !

--------

now guess whos back with a brand new track?
they got everybody in the club going MAD
so everybody in the back
get your back up on the wall and shake that BANG
GO CRAZY
YOUR LADY
YO BABY
let me see you wreck that BANG
drop it down low low
let me see you take it to the dance floor YO

eveaquate the dance floor im infected by the sound
Stop this beat is killing me !!

HEY MR DJ #5  LET THE MUSIC TAKE ME UNDERGROUND!

; )

FILL THE FLOOR! 
you want to accelerate it ... push it to the top! : )

EVERYBODY ON THE FLOOR!

ist

a video i made of my  cap motor .. this is the driver board ..

powered from 1.5vdc ...  i have mesured 460vdc and 870vac @150 ma!

i guess im a digg out this old toy ...  : )

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=innovationstation#p/u/29/R-S-4YO3UbM
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=innovationstation#p/u/30/S-NxOrp8gAU





Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 15, 2009, 04:24:45 PM
@ gadget ...

do you care to apply your mod to my board ...

so it will run days insted of hours ...

104 cap was it .. lol

: )

when ever you want to ..

ist!
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 15, 2009, 05:18:08 PM
bill, gadget, mk1, ist...
please, don't feed the trolls. that's all we are doing here is feeding these two...

both of them CLAIM to be experts, however, these claims of theirs are unsubstantiated so they are really only experts in their own minds. neither of them have shared any of their experiments, circuits or otherwise. they haven't even helped measure someone else's circuit or otherwise... you can take the time if you wish and go over all their posts like i just did to see this is true. honestly, i wouldn't recommend it, it was a rather boring read and time you won't get back...

all they do is sit in their ivory towers (not under bridges) of wikipedia gleaned knowledge, looking for someone to belittle to fill their ego. it's not worth your time to engage them, they are talkers, not doers. all they are ever going to do is talk in an attempt to goad you, to get you not to build or to build it 'their' way, don't fall for it any longer, it's just playing into their game. they are pushing your buttons, calling you out by name, etc. resist the urge to respond, we don't need their 'approval' to continue doing while they continue talking...

the earth battery /jt combo is a great thing, and truly free energy. too bad they are too full of themselves to see it. i love the logical fallacy arguments posited against it...
us: "hey everyone, check out this earth battery/jt circuit combo. it's free energy!

them: "well, m harumph, harumph. you see mmm it's not really free because you had to pay for the magnesium and carbon"

us: "i got the circuit components free from the camera shop and the magnesium and the carbon free from the dump..."

them: "well, m harumph, harumph. you see mmm it's not really free because someone had to pay for the magnesium and carbon"

us: "no, it's really free to me if i didn't pay anything for it. furthermore, your argument is flawed from the start. the energy from the earth (also wind, hydro and solar) is free, the 'appliance' that gathers, coheres, uses, consumes or whatever term you fancy of course has manufacturing costs for someone at some point but the energy it gathers, coheres, uses or consumes is free. you are confusing the 'appliance' with the energy it 'uses'...
for example your table lamp is an energy 'appliance' that you paid a set price for. however, you also pay the utility company for every unit of energy it uses. this applies to your lights, furnace, tv, stove, etc. with our earth battery/jt combo things are different. you don't pay for a single unit of energy used, even if you had to pay for the 'appliance'... free energy.

them: "well, m harumph, harumph. you see mmm, harumph..."


Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: tinu on December 15, 2009, 06:58:13 PM
“harump, harump …. oil is free energy, isn’t it?! bingo! how do I get some?”
Sorry for asking here; I just couldn’t locate the proper thread. lol
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 15, 2009, 07:04:31 PM
“harump, harump …. oil is free energy, isn’t it?! bingo! how do I get some?”
Sorry for asking here; I just couldn’t locate the proper thread. lol
no, it isn't, unless you own an oil well. please clarify your position...
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: tinu on December 15, 2009, 07:44:58 PM
My position?  :D
Hmmm…make three out of those two you refer to in your previous post. ;)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 15, 2009, 07:46:56 PM
My position?  :D
Hmmm…make three out of those two you refer to in your previous post. ;)
yeah, your position... clarify exactly how it is that you consider oil to be free energy, instead of positing random illogical statements like your previous two posts. ie: make three out of what two? could you possibly be any more vague?
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: tinu on December 15, 2009, 07:58:28 PM
I do not consider oil to be free energy (as I am sure it is free energy);
but you do consider so, unless your oil comes from air:
the energy from the earth (also wind, hydro and solar) is free,


that's all we are doing here is feeding these two...
"those two", darlin'.
I may be vague but "posting random illogical statements"?!
well... you better read again your last posts...  ;D
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 15, 2009, 08:01:00 PM
I do not consider oil to be free energy (as I am sure it is free energy);
this is a contradiction...

but you do consider so, unless your oil comes from air:
from the context of the post you quoted it is clear that by the 'earth' i meant the earth battery or EER... which is obvious from this statement. "hey everyone, check out this earth battery/jt circuit combo. it's free energy!". you do know what context is don't you darlin'? ::) furthermore, i made it more than clear that oil is not free energy unless you own the well. for example if i light a lamp with solar, wind, hydro or earth BATTERY (happy now?) i am NOT paying anyone per unit for the wind, water, sun or "earth's" energy. however, when i use oil to light a lamp, unless i own the well the oil came from, i am paying someone else for each gallon/liter/whatever unit of measure... see the difference? probably not. what's your purpose little troll? are you just trolling or do you have a cogent argument? because you haven't presented one so far...

"those two", darlin'.
I may be vague but "posting random illogical statements"?!
well... you better read again your last posts...  ;D
i see, so your position is that you are a troll like the other two. we will add you to the list.
don't misquote me darlin'... i didn't say "posting random illogical statements" i said positing... now why don't you try and clarify exactly how it is that you consider oil to be free energy with a cogent argument, instead of avoiding the question and positing random illogical statements like your previous three posts.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 15, 2009, 11:13:18 PM
“harump, harump …. oil is free energy, isn’t it?! bingo! how do I get some?”
Sorry for asking here; I just couldn’t locate the proper thread. lol
Oh Its easy Justs stick a pipe up your posterior . I see your full of it !
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: tinu on December 16, 2009, 12:10:01 AM
Did you check my posterior? Like it? ;)

Oh, you two come in pairs? Same price?  ;D
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 16, 2009, 12:21:05 AM
Did you check my posterior? Like it? ;)

Oh, you two come in pairs? Same price?  ;D
No, i saw it running out of your mouth and then i knew !
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 16, 2009, 12:25:03 AM
Did you check my posterior? Like it? ;)

Oh, you two come in pairs? Same price?  ;D

i see you are still avoiding backing up your claim that "oil is free energy" with a cogent argument and instead are choosing to respond with a logical fallacy known as a red herring... how typical.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 16, 2009, 12:34:57 AM
So, another day with a lot of trash talk.

Bill took a try at explaining how the JT works but his comments were more based on his observations from his extensive work with them and some speculations.  Albert had a good rant.

I'll try one more time, see if you guys will respond.

1.  How does the JT work and how come you can keep on adding LEDs and they stay the same brightness?

2.  What's the real explanation for the energy in an earth battery - JT combo?

3.  What's missing in the taking the position that you are only interested in providing power for yourself?

I hope you guys will reply.  If in fact you don't know how the LEDs stay bright as you add more and more, do you want to understand how that process works?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 16, 2009, 12:39:05 AM
So, another day with a lot of trash talk.

Bill took a try at explaining how the JT works but his comments were more based on his observations from his extensive work with them and some speculations.  Albert had a good rant.

I'll try one more time, see if you guys will respond.

1.  How does the JT work and how come you can keep on adding LEDs and they stay the same brightness?

2.  What's the real explanation for the energy in an earth battery - JT combo?

3.  What's missing in the taking the position that you are only interested in providing power for yourself?

I hope you guys will reply.  If in fact you don't know how the LEDs stay bright as you add more and more, do you want to understand how that process works?

MileHigh

i think they are ignoring you... ::) and with good reason i might add.
since you want to remain so far off topic, tell your buddy poynty to get rid of the frontpage extensions on his new apache server, it will give him security issues with SMF, and i know how paranoid you believers are about your 'anonymity'...
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 16, 2009, 12:40:31 AM
Message to Ist:

Quote
i have been forced to scrap my huge rf amps .... : (

in doing so i get lots of odd parts... : )

also i discover there a few bucks of GOLD in them!  : ))  maybe 1/2 ounce in each

More like a few microns worth of gold coating on the connectors perhaps?  Chances are you have an unbelievably tiny amount of gold to harvest from your old equipment.  SOL!   lol

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: tinu on December 16, 2009, 12:43:37 AM
this is a contradiction...
from the context of the post you quoted it is clear that by the 'earth' i meant the earth battery or EER... which is obvious from this statement. "hey everyone, check out this earth battery/jt circuit combo. it's free energy!". you do know what context is don't you darlin'? ::) furthermore, i made it more than clear that oil is not free energy unless you own the well. for example if i light a lamp with solar, wind, hydro or earth BATTERY (happy now?) i am NOT paying anyone per unit for the wind, water, sun or "earth's" energy. however, when i use oil to light a lamp, unless i own the well the oil came from, i am paying someone else for each gallon/liter/whatever unit of measure... see the difference? probably not. what's your purpose little troll? are you just trolling or do you have a cogent argument? because you haven't presented one so far...
i see, so your position is that you are a troll like the other two. we will add you to the list.
don't misquote me darlin'... i didn't say "posting random illogical statements" i said positing... now why don't you try and clarify exactly how it is that you consider oil to be free energy with a cogent argument, instead of avoiding the question and positing random illogical statements like your previous three posts.

Ok, for the sake of logic, assuming you are familiar with the term:

1. Considering is not equivalent with knowing. I “consider” that for sure. Huh?! Check a dictionary.

2. Oil is free energy like wind, solar and every other form of energy known to man into this universe. We do not know how to create energy but just how to mere transform (some of) it. A great leap was made by Einstein, yet transforming mass into energy and vice-versa is still a transform. Yup, nuclear energy is free energy too.

3. What is not free in respect to oil is the access to it. I see a difference between oil-energy and mere access to oil. Can you see a difference too? Hopefully you can. Hint: unit price can change but the energy contained in it remains pretty much the same.

4. The fact that I position myself as a troll in respect to you is for your benefit only. It doesn’t make me a troll except in your mind. Although I “do consider” your mind vast, hopefully you can see the line where it ends. Well, I’m beyond that line. ;)

5. I was posting here because I’ve got enough nonsense. “Earth battery” is a non-free crap. Or, if you prefer, it is exactly as free as any other battery one can make without ever making use of Earth. Just use the damn magnesium, carbon and some electrolyte (water and salt, or just piss in it – you may be surprised; I’ve also heard that troll piss is better but hey, don’t take my word for it). Such a battery, built in a bare glass/container, will be smaller, cleaner and it will function wherever placed, even in outer space, if properly designed. So where is your “Earth” involved into that battery? Don’t bother; it’s rhetorical.

6. Add me to your list freely. Is it black or gray? Lol! Never mind, make that list longer but cut the nonsense shorter. I’d be happy and probably others too.

It was a pleasure talking "logic" and "science" to you.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 16, 2009, 12:46:02 AM
Ok, for the sake of logic, assuming you are familiar with the term:

1. Considering is not equivalent with knowing. I “consider” that for sure. Huh?! Check a dictionary.
for the sake of logic? there was no logic in what you said...
you said this:
I do not consider oil to be free energy (as I am sure it is free energy);
as you are "sure it is free energy" by your own words then it is also true that you consider oil to be free energy...

3. What is not free in respect to oil is the access to it. I see a difference between oil-energy and mere access to oil. Can you see a difference too? Hopefully you can. Hint: unit price can change but the energy contained in it remains pretty much the same.
exactly my point, access to oil isn't free unless you own the well. thank you for your agreement to my argument. however, access to solar, wind and earth battery power is free... can you see the difference? probably not as i went over this once before.

4. The fact that I position myself as a troll in respect to you is for your benefit only. It doesn’t make me a troll except in your mind. Although I “do consider” your mind vast, hopefully you can see the line where it ends. Well, I’m beyond that line. ;)

5. I was posting here because I’ve got enough nonsense. “Earth battery” is a non-free crap. Or, if you prefer, it is exactly as free as any other battery one can make without ever making use of Earth. Just use the damn magnesium, carbon and some electrolyte (water and salt, or just piss in it – you may be surprised; I’ve also heard that troll piss is better but hey, don’t take my word for it). Such a battery, built in a bare glass/container, will be smaller, cleaner and it will function wherever placed, even in outer space, if properly designed. So where is your “Earth” involved into that battery? Don’t bother; it’s rhetorical.

6. Add me to your list freely. Is it black or gray? Lol! Never mind, make that list longer but cut the nonsense shorter. I’d be happy and probably others too.
more red herring irrelevance...

It was a pleasure talking "logic" and "science" to you.
what you said (mostly logical fallacy and contradiction) can be construed as many things, however science and logic are not among them.

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 16, 2009, 12:55:19 AM
I haven't had a chance to test the data logger software on a non-development PC. It might be awhile since I'm working on another project.

BTW, here's the links to my tests.

Joule Thief tested:
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/12/11/joule-thief-tested/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/12/11/joule-thief-tested/)

Ultracapacitor tested:
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/12/08/ultracapacitor-experiment/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/12/08/ultracapacitor-experiment/)

Battery energy test:
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/12/10/battery-test/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/12/10/battery-test/)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 16, 2009, 12:56:40 AM
Message to Ist:

More like a few microns worth of gold coating on the connectors perhaps?  Chances are you have an unbelievably tiny amount of gold to harvest from your old equipment.  SOL!   lol

MileHigh
why are you responding to that post from a different thread in this one? ever heard of a PM? are you mental?
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 16, 2009, 01:07:10 AM
@ tinu:

Quote from tinu: " 5. I was posting here because I’ve got enough nonsense. “Earth battery” is a non-free crap. Or, if you prefer, it is exactly as free as any other battery one can make without ever making use of Earth. Just use the damn magnesium, carbon and some electrolyte (water and salt, or just piss in it – you may be surprised; I’ve also heard that troll piss is better but hey, don’t take my word for it). Such a battery, built in a bare glass/container, will be smaller, cleaner and it will function wherever placed, even in outer space, if properly designed. So where is your “Earth” involved into that battery? Don’t bother; it’s rhetorical."

Well, this displays quite a bit of ignorance of the EER and how it works.  Go ahead, use the mg and carbon rods like you say, and then attempt to do what I can do and then, 2 years later, see if it is still working.  I already know the answer to that one.  Electrodes that are NOT in the earth can't tap or receive telluric currents, it is as simple as that.  I have dug my system up 2 times now, first after one year and, almost a year after that.  I have posted photos of my electrodes...guess what?  No degradation as Stubblefield has predicted. IF you had read of all of our work in this area, you might already know that.  To make comments and false observations and draw false conclusions as you have done without doing any research is really a waste of time.

So, go ahead and make your EER your way.  Try to light 400 leds or even just a single 48" tube.  I am waiting to see your results posted as well as your videos. Here is a clue for you, you do NOT want to add water as you suggest, the output is much higher when dry..all of this has been posted about many times now.

For anyone that wants to know how an EER works, just Google Nathan Stubblefield.  It is all explained in his patents and interviews.  Then, you can check out our many earth battery/EER topics here on OU.  Also read my topic on Tariel Kapandze who is getting over 100 kw out of the earth, yes for free, with his system.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 16, 2009, 01:13:34 AM
@ tinu:

Quote from tinu: " 5. I was posting here because I’ve got enough nonsense. “Earth battery” is a non-free crap. Or, if you prefer, it is exactly as free as any other battery one can make without ever making use of Earth. Just use the damn magnesium, carbon and some electrolyte (water and salt, or just piss in it – you may be surprised; I’ve also heard that troll piss is better but hey, don’t take my word for it). Such a battery, built in a bare glass/container, will be smaller, cleaner and it will function wherever placed, even in outer space, if properly designed. So where is your “Earth” involved into that battery? Don’t bother; it’s rhetorical."

Well, this displays quite a bit of ignorance of the EER and how it works.  Go ahead, use the mg and carbon rods like you say, and then attempt to do what I can do and then, 2 years later, see if it is still working.  I already know the answer to that one.  Electrodes that are NOT in the earth can't tap or receive telluric currents, it is as simple as that.  I have dug my system up 2 times now, first after one year and, almost a year after that.  I have posted photos of my electrodes...guess what?  No degradation as Stubblefield has predicted. IF you had read of all of our work in this area, you might already know that.  To make comments and false observations and draw false conclusions as you have done without doing any research is really a waste of time.

So, go ahead and make your EER your way.  Try to light 400 leds or even just a single 48" tube.  I am waiting to see your results posted as well as your videos.

For anyone that wants to know how an EER works, just Google Nathan Stubblefield.  It is all explained in his patents and interviews.  Then, you can check out our many earth battery/EER topics here on OU.  Also read my topic on Tariel Kapandze who is getting over 100 kw out of the earth, yes for free, with his system.

Bill
well said bill, thank you. i started to explain that in my response but decided it was a waste of my time and just called his statements what they were, a red herring logical fallacy.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 16, 2009, 05:54:36 AM
As far as the earth batteries go, it's counter-intuitive to look at a slab of metal and think of it as chemical energy like a conventional battery.  However, when magnesium or aluminum oxidizes it produces electric current which you can capture.

I read somewhere that the production of aluminum consumes 10% of the annual electrical production in the US, which is a fantastic amount of electricity, or to be more precise, electrical energy.  I think that I also read that the production of magnesium requires even more electrical energy than aluminum per kilogram.

So the earth battery is primarily (I'm guessing > 99.9%) producing energy due to the reversal of the chemical/electrical reaction that produced it in the first place.  It's a very slow reaction and if you crunched the numbers for the amount of usage Bill got out of his slab of magnesium vs. the amount of corrosion observed, I am pretty sure that all of the numbers would add up.

Telluric currents in the ground result in something like 10 volts per kilometer... perhaps less?  So 10V/km means that the induced voltage in the ground is around 10 millivolts per meter.  If you put two stakes of the same metal in the ground one meter apart you would get 10 millivolts with a very high output impedance.  Really not much energy there and you would get a very very anemic JT response from that amount of available power.

That level of voltage in the ground would probably be buried in the background noise mix with other sources of electrical energy like thermal noise, power line noise, galvanic currents generated by other decaying matter, even minute voltages generated by the bodies of worms and other insects.  Granted it is DC and you should be able to see it anyways if you looked hard enough.

Telluric currents are simply a manifestation of solar energy, and a basic solar panel setup would give you perhaps tens of millions of times more energy than a basic telluric current energy extraction system anyways, so what's the point?

So the bottom line is that "earth batteries" are really batteries that get their energy from corroding metal.  It took a *massive* amount of electrical energy to produce the slab of magnesium or aluminum in the first place so the true source of energy for the earth battery came from the electrical energy used at the metal production facility.

If you want to do the full energy chain the earth battery's energy comes from the sun.

Solar energy -> plants -> fossil fuels -> electricity -> magnesium production plant -> corroding metal in ground ->  JT circuit ->  LEDs or charged capacitor.

I am not going to look it up but if you found out how many Joules of electrical energy it takes to make a one kilogram slab of magnesium you might be shocked.  Then equate that back to how many Joules Bill typically extracts from his earth battery per year, and you will probably conclude that Bill can get many more years worth of use from his earth battery.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 16, 2009, 06:03:36 AM
Just to clarify this statement from Bill:

Quote
Try to light 400 leds or even just a single 48" tube.

The earth battery is charging his capacitor first, and then the capacitor powers the lights at a much higher current than the earth battery can sustain itself.

That's because the earth battery has a very high output impedance.  So there is a unknown statistic about the earth battery.  The stat is for 24 hours worth of earth battery energy accumulation, how long can you light up a single 48" fluorescent tube?  It would help to be more precise about the tube illumination level also because most JT setups that fire fluorescent tubes don't do it at full standard brightness.

Just keepin' it real.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 16, 2009, 06:40:41 AM
@ Paul. I read your experiment . There is something wrong with your joule thief . I would like to send you one free of charge for Christmas  if you accept. There is no way it went dead that fast unless it was not tuned properly with your primary windings . remember we have Studied the thing of the Goldmine Toroid so 11 is the proper turns on that one . It may not be on another one and unless you know how to do it well them it will run ineffectual for what we are doing . . None of three replications are dead on any of mine running for weeks and weeks , I would rather give you one i know works with the parts i use  except for the batter . They are at Wallmart ,on sale AA 2500 Ni/mh Energizer two pack for 9.95 . they also have c and d cells same price !! This is what i use and i tried one in my camera after three weeks of running a Jt heater and it took pictures still so there  is plenty of power available even after three weeks of steady Bcap Charging and recycling . I also got my Max 856's today so I'm building just the Ou part of a controller until a Boards arrive to me  populated in a week or so . It will contain the PIC to control discharge to a load .. Let me know and Pm me your Address if interested ?One more thing comes to mind .A secondary running leds reduces the amount of current the primary requires . yep its reverse of what you would think so if you don't add it it might be another problem causer .

Albert
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 16, 2009, 06:54:18 AM
Hi,

The only thing I can think of is my NiMH battery was 700mAh and yours is 2500mAh.

I can email you my address, but no PM because someone periodically logs into my account and checks my PM's. So they might be doing it to yours ass well.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 16, 2009, 07:11:56 AM
Hi,

The only thing I can think of is my NiMH battery was 700mAh and yours is 2500mAh.

I can email you my address, but no PM because someone periodically logs into my account and checks my PM's. So they might be doing it to yours ass well.
Ill go to your contact me link on your Blog and give you and email or just use this one . fusionchip@yahoo.com
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: tinu on December 16, 2009, 12:16:19 PM
@ Bill,

I appreciate your experiments but it can not change the status of Earth battery. Earth battery is a useless piece of technology. Its applicability was low even in times when electricity was a rare commodity.

Few aspects defining the main characteristics of an Earth battery:
Power is very low. Voltage can not be increased by series connecting two or more batteries.
Internal resistance is very high and, even worst, it is variable.
Battery picks up electrical noises and it can not be shielded in a convenient way.
Cost of setting it up is huge compared to the power it delivers.
Complete and almost unbelievable waste of valuable materials and metals, whereas a regular battery would need only grams or milligrams to perform better.
Electrodes do consume.
Flexibility in use is awful. Zero mobility, etc. etc.

The fact that electrodes catch some currents (either man-made or natural) is not a relevant feature; power so gained is insignificant or the electrodes could have been made from the same material. I’d like to be very clear about this point: the main feature of the contraption is not capturing the telluric currents but generating emf from redox potentials (meaning the contraption is mainly a “battery in a container”, to be more clear). The day an Earth battery will generate power using electrodes made of exactly the same material I will look again into the telluric currents issue but until then it is futile to do it. Until that day, it is just another typical free-energy manipulation: speaking about something (“telluric currents”) that is hidden behind something else (“electrochemical potentials”) and moreover, the well known part of the story (in this  case the “electrochemical potentials”) is twisted around and dragged into dirt (literally here) until no normal person could discern the truth from the lies.

So, I apologize if you felt offended and rest assured that I am not ignorant and that I fully understand the bitter taste you might have felt after conducting some experiments just to find out the final applicability is inexistent. Welcome to the world of shadows and please don’t let the surrounding lies be traps for others.

Cheers,
Tinu
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 16, 2009, 02:28:44 PM
Oh, also that JT test was only 5% efficient, which explains why the AAA 700mAh battery died so fast. Afterwards I increased the pot resistance to maximum 10Kohm and efficiency increased to over 50%. That's also mentioned in the blog.

So taking that plus your batteries hold 3.6 times as much energy comes to 36. It could last 36 times longer.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 16, 2009, 03:14:00 PM
Right your run time on you battery is not enuff to charge a bcap from .5 where i start  to well overunity of the run AA with a minor loss so let me send you one . I only ask you get some of My batteries to do the test properly .D cells will work even better . also i tried it a while back with a nicad 850 ma and achieved the same results so i suspect jt efficiency is not like mine . Mine is more like 99% . I need you to check to get a real number if you like .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MrMag on December 16, 2009, 03:24:58 PM
Free energy is a wide open term left to ones own interpretation. I agree with Tinu and MileHigh but at the same time can see Pirates and Gadgets point of view. Wilby is just an idiot.

So anyways, I have discovered free energy also. I have attached a picture.

P.S. Paul, glad to see someone focused and on topic :)

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 16, 2009, 07:26:56 PM
@ Bill,

I appreciate your experiments but it can not change the status of Earth battery. Earth battery is a useless piece of technology. Its applicability was low even in times when electricity was a rare commodity.

Few aspects defining the main characteristics of an Earth battery:
Power is very low. Voltage can not be increased by series connecting two or more batteries.
Internal resistance is very high and, even worst, it is variable.
Battery picks up electrical noises and it can not be shielded in a convenient way.
Cost of setting it up is huge compared to the power it delivers.
Complete and almost unbelievable waste of valuable materials and metals, whereas a regular battery would need only grams or milligrams to perform better.
Electrodes do consume.
Flexibility in use is awful. Zero mobility, etc. etc.

The fact that electrodes catch some currents (either man-made or natural) is not a relevant feature; power so gained is insignificant or the electrodes could have been made from the same material. I’d like to be very clear about this point: the main feature of the contraption is not capturing the telluric currents but generating emf from redox potentials (meaning the contraption is mainly a “battery in a container”, to be more clear). The day an Earth battery will generate power using electrodes made of exactly the same material I will look again into the telluric currents issue but until then it is futile to do it. Until that day, it is just another typical free-energy manipulation: speaking about something (“telluric currents”) that is hidden behind something else (“electrochemical potentials”) and moreover, the well known part of the story (in this  case the “electrochemical potentials”) is twisted around and dragged into dirt (literally here) until no normal person could discern the truth from the lies.

So, I apologize if you felt offended and rest assured that I am not ignorant and that I fully understand the bitter taste you might have felt after conducting some experiments just to find out the final applicability is inexistent. Welcome to the world of shadows and please don’t let the surrounding lies be traps for others.

Cheers,
Tinu

Tinu:

I don't know where to start here.  If you had read of our early experiments you would have seen that a number of us did some testing to rule out galvanic only as the reason for the energy.  In different areas of the world, we took a copper pipe and cut 2 sections of it from the same pipe, stuck them in the ground and aligned them as required and...guess what?  You guessed it, we still received real energy from them.  I don't remember exactly but I believe mine were putting out about a volt and a few mA's. (These experiments were documented on our other topics.)  so what you said is incorrect.

Also, Jim (Electricme) in Australia has hooked a number of his electrodes in series and has achieved over 16 volts, so, you are incorrect about that as well.

Tariel Kapanadze has achieved over 100kw from his system and that is documented on yet another topic.  I call that real power don't you?

I have also heard the old and tired explanation that this is just current "leaking" from the grid.  That was worth looking into so we did.  Guess what?  Grid power that "leaked" should be (at least here in the states) 60 hz right?  So how come our scopes show about 4hz from our EER's?  This low freq. is what we would expect to see according to the work done by Stubblefield, the Russians, etc.  Do you think this "leaked" power suddenly changed freqs.?  Also, Stubblefield lit his farm and home and heated his home and ran the telephone system of Murry, KY all on his electrodes.  Was that "leaked" power from the grid too?  Oh wait, there was NO grid in Murry, KY at that time where he lived so I think we can rule that out.

I am only offended that you would post things that we as a group have tested and confirmed without doing so yourself, or even reading about those that did.  You post things that you "believe" to be correct but as you can now see (hopefully) they are not.  I just don't want yours or anyone else's disinformation, or misinformation to discourage others from working with these devices.

The fact of the matter is that anyone can do these simple experiments as we have been doing them and get similar results.  It seems that it is only the folks that "know" this can't work that don't do them that post absolutes about why they don't work.  It is NOT a battery.  We were incorrect about that too in the beginning.  Stubblefield, in order to get his patent, was forced to change the name of his device to include the word "battery".  That is why we now refer to them as EER's or earth energy receivers.  We learn along the way as we go and are not afraid to admit when we had something wrong.  I believe it was Jeanna that pointed this out to all of us.  Just about all of my videos of my experiments I had been calling them earth batteries, which we now know is wrong.

I may never get to the output level of Tariel Kapanadze but I will continue to try.  Jim was the first in our group to be able to run an electric motor from his EER and later I operated my Bedini motor from mine.  Are EER's going to save everyone from the power companies?  Probably not. 

So, I have no problem with you personally, just please refrain from posting things as facts when they are not.  I mean, if Jim reads this and finds out he can't put his electrodes in series, he will laugh. So will any of us that have seen his videos of him doing it.  So if you have a real interest in learning about these devices, start reading and experimenting, you might like it.  Then you too will know.

Thanks,

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 16, 2009, 09:17:55 PM
Free energy is a wide open term left to ones own interpretation. I agree with Tinu and MileHigh but at the same time can see Pirates and Gadgets point of view. Wilby is just an idiot.

So anyways, I have discovered free energy also. I have attached a picture.

P.S. Paul, glad to see someone focused and on topic :)
lol, that picture is a fake. obviously you have never even made a simple potato battery before... seriously, do you really think a single potato can light up an incandescent of that size? ::) you would have better luck trying to light a bulb with a PMM. fail, epic fail...
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MrMag on December 16, 2009, 09:30:58 PM
lol, that picture is a fake. ::) you would have better luck trying to light a bulb with a PMM. obviously you have never even made a simple potato battery before... seriously, do you really think a single potato can light up an incandescent of that size? ::) fail, epic fail...

Well, I guess that proves what you know.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 16, 2009, 09:31:47 PM
Well, I guess that proves what you know.
try it and find out... do you even have a clue how much voltage a single potato puts out with copper and zinc electrodes? ::) or amperage? ::) grab your favorite meter, break out a penny, a zinc nail and a potato and find out, then ask yourself who the idiot is...
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MrMag on December 16, 2009, 09:39:28 PM
try it and find out... and then ask yourself who the idiot is.

Believe me, I am not an idiot. Take a look at the bulb. Have you ever seen one like this before? I have, but it was quite some time ago. It was in science class in high school. I don't have one myself or I could show you.

Anyways, it was to prove my point, not start a flame war, especially from someone who hasn't the knowledge of these things.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 16, 2009, 09:42:13 PM
Believe me, I am not an idiot. Take a look at the bulb. Have you ever seen one like this before? I have, but it was quite some time ago. It was in science class in high school. I don't have one myself or I could show you.

Anyways, it was to prove my point, not start a flame war, especially from someone who hasn't the knowledge of these things.
you are if you think that single potato in the picture you posted can provide enough amperage to cause that filament to heat... yes, i have. point of fact i have several bulbs like that. now back to the question you have been avoiding, do you even have a clue how much voltage/amperage a single potato puts out with copper and zinc electrodes? obviously not...

you didn't "prove" anything by posting a faked picture... i think you are lying about your intentions also, otherwise why would you resort to ad hominem?
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MrMag on December 16, 2009, 09:56:20 PM
you are if you think that single potato in the picture you posted can provide enough amperage to cause that filament to heat... yes, i have. point of fact i have several. now back to the question you have been avoiding, do you even have a clue how much voltage/amperage a single potato puts out with copper and zinc electrodes? obviously not...

you didn't "prove" anything by posting a faked picture... i think you are lying about your intentions also, otherwise why would you resort to ad hominem?

Take your famous "ad hominems" and shove them up your A$$.

And yes, I did prove something. You even admit that you can get a voltage with amperage out of a potato. Hence, FREE ENERGY :)

Plus, this is off topic anyways, you want to bitch and whine at me, PM me. Don't fill this thread with your crap.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 16, 2009, 10:08:25 PM
Take your famous "ad hominems" and shove them up your A$$.

And yes, I did prove something. You even admit that you can get a voltage with amperage out of a potato. Hence, FREE ENERGY :)

Plus, this is off topic anyways, you want to bitch and whine at me, PM me. Don't fill this thread with your crap.
more ad hominem logical fallacy... imagine that.

every 10 year old knows you can get free energy from a potato or a lemon... just like every 10 year old knows you can't light a incandescent bulb from a single potato. yes, the potato is free energy as long as you didn't pay for it, no one is debating that fact.

no one is bitching and whining at you, and it was you that set the precedent for posting crap along with milehigh and vortex. you posted a fake picture, someone called you out on it... nice try at a red herring argument. ::) now, back to the question you have avoided three times. do you even have a clue how much voltage/amperage a single potato puts out with copper and zinc electrodes?


edit: watch this and learn something mr. mag... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FITxr6bJmd8 since it is obvious you don't have a clue how much voltage/amperage a single potato can source.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 16, 2009, 10:48:24 PM
Wilby:

That was a nice video.  That kid did a great job making it.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MrMag on December 16, 2009, 11:03:18 PM
more ad hominem logical fallacy... imagine that.

every 10 year old knows you can get free energy from a potato or a lemon... just like every 10 year old knows you can't light a incandescent bulb from a single potato. yes, the potato is free energy as long as you didn't pay for it, no one is debating that fact.

no one is bitching and whining at you, and it was you that set the precedent for posting crap along with milehigh and vortex. you posted a fake picture, someone called you out on it... nice try at a red herring argument. ::) now, back to the question you have avoided three times. do you even have a clue how much voltage/amperage a single potato puts out with copper and zinc electrodes?


edit: watch this and learn something mr. mag... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FITxr6bJmd8 since it is obvious you don't have a clue how much voltage/amperage a single potato can source.

Oh, so I see. I agree with what Milehigh and Vortex are saying about free energy, that's why your whining. I also finally agree with what your saying that every 10 year old knows you can get free energy from a potato or lemon. THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE WHOLE THING - IT'S FREE ENERGY. Stop whining and move on. If you can't accept it, so be it. I'm done trying to explain things to you. Silly human.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 16, 2009, 11:25:56 PM
thanks bill.


Oh, so I see. I agree with what Milehigh and Vortex are saying about free energy, that's why your whining. I also finally agree with what your saying that every 10 year old knows you can get free energy from a potato or lemon. THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE WHOLE THING - IT'S FREE ENERGY. Stop whining and move on. If you can't accept it, so be it. I'm done trying to explain things to you. Silly human.
that's four times you have avoided a simple question. furthermore, you haven't "explained" anything, all you have done is posted a fake picture and engaged in numerous logical fallicies all the while avoiding answering a simple question... and it's "you're" not "your". ::)

if that was the point of the whole thing then what was the point of this post?
Believe me, I am not an idiot. Take a look at the bulb. Have you ever seen one like this before? I have, but it was quite some time ago. It was in science class in high school. I don't have one myself or I could show you.
where you claim it is some 'magical' bulb... from radio shack you can get a #272-1139 incandescent bulb which only draws around fifteen milliamps (0.015 amps) at 0.7 volts when lit very dimly in a darkened room. to light this bulb you only need 0.0150A/0.0005A = 30 potatoes wired in parallel. THIRTY POTATOES. and the bulb is so dim that you can't see the glow unless the room is dark. that's the point, to refute your ludicrous argument that it is some 'magical' bulb. your picture is fake and the bulb is not some special 'magical' or 'mystical' component that allows it to light with 0.0005 amps input... and if you had ever actually done the experiment you would know that. this still translates into "your picture is fake." one single potato cannot light up any sort of incandescent bulb. at best you can use several potatoes to light an led.

edit: you can however, use an ultracap to get an incandescent to light from a potato... ;)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 16, 2009, 11:52:23 PM
thanks bill.

that's four times you have avoided a simple question. furthermore, you haven't "explained" anything, all you have done is posted a fake picture and engaged in numerous logical fallicies all the while avoiding answering a simple question... and it's "you're" not "your". ::)

if that was the point of the whole thing then what was the point of this post?where you claim it is some 'magical' bulb... from radio shack you can get a #272-1139 incandescent bulb which only draws around fifteen milliamps (0.015 amps) at 0.7 volts when lit very dimly in a darkened room. to light this bulb you only need 0.0150A/0.0005A = 30 potatoes wired in parallel. THIRTY POTATOES. and the bulb is so dim that you can't see the glow unless the room is dark. that's the point, to refute your ludicrous argument that it is some 'magical' bulb. your picture is fake and the bulb is not some special 'magical' or 'mystical' component that allows it to light with 0.0005 amps input... and if you had ever actually done the experiment you would know that. this still translates into "your picture is fake." one single potato cannot light up any sort of incandescent bulb. at best you can use several potatoes to light an led.

edit: you can however, use an ultracap to get an incandescent to light from a potato... ;)
Or the other way around . The ultra cap can cook the potato then we can eat :)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MrMag on December 16, 2009, 11:55:24 PM
thanks bill.

that's four times you have avoided a simple question. furthermore, you haven't "explained" anything, all you have done is posted a fake picture and engaged in numerous logical fallicies all the while avoiding answering a simple question...

if that was the point of the whole thing then what was the point of this post?where you claim it is some 'magical' bulb... from radio shack you can get a #272-1139 incandescent bulb which only draws around fifteen milliamps (0.015 amps) at 0.7 volts when lit very dimly in a darkened room. to light this bulb you only need 0.0150A/0.0005A = 30 potatoes wired in parallel. THIRTY POTATOES. and the bulb is so dim that you can't see the glow unless the room is dark. that's the point, to refute your ludicrous argument that it is some 'magical' bulb. your picture is fake and the bulb is not some special 'magical' or 'mystical' component that allows it to light with 0.0005 amps input... and if you had ever actually done the experiment you would know that. this still translates into "your picture is fake." one single potato cannot light up any sort of incandescent bulb. at best you can use several potatoes to light an led.

edit: you can however, use an ultracap to get an incandescent to light from a potato... ;)

Jesus murphy, will you stop whining already. I told you I remember seeing it in high school. That was around 30 years ago. And to answer your question, I'm not sure how much voltage and current you get from a potato. As I mentioned, that it was a long time ago and I have been past that stage for a while now.
I hope your satisfied. Now go cry somewhere else.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 17, 2009, 12:05:02 AM
Jesus murphy, will you stop whining already. I told you I remember seeing it in high school. That was around 30 years ago. And to answer your question, I'm not sure how much voltage and current you get from a potato. As I mentioned, that it was a long time ago and I have been past that stage for a while now.
I hope your satisfied. Now go cry somewhere else.
no one is whining other than you. i am merely pointing out your logical fallacies and outright false statements. you didn't see an incandescent bulb light from a potato at any time. stop posting falsehoods. we know you don't have a clue how much voltage or amperage you can get from a single potato or you would have posted a potato powered lcd clock or calculator instead of that faked picture.
yes, it is obvious that you are past the stage of not knowing what a simple potato battery is capable of... ::)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on December 17, 2009, 12:35:51 AM

Say, might this be the ideal 'off topic' time to interject my aunt Hazer story, perchance  ?

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: utilitarian on December 17, 2009, 01:03:02 AM
You even admit that you can get a voltage with amperage out of a potato. Hence, FREE ENERGY :)

I always notice that after christmas, when after two or three weeks of lighting up my outdoor christmas lights quite nicely, my potato batteries finally die and I cook them up for dinner, they do not quite taste as good as fresh potatoes that are still full of charged electrical goodness.

So the energy is not free!!  It comes at a steep price - tastiness!
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MrMag on December 17, 2009, 02:17:03 AM
I always notice that after christmas, when after two or three weeks of lighting up my outdoor christmas lights quite nicely, my potato batteries finally die and I cook them up for dinner, they do not quite taste as good as fresh potatoes that are still full of charged electrical goodness.

So the energy is not free!!  It comes at a steep price - tastiness!

Yeah, I usually go through a bag of potatoes every christmas. What I do is replant them then I get a new crop for next year. This way I only pay for them the first time, after that they're free.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Vortex1 on December 17, 2009, 03:41:10 AM
He may not be running for it but I nominate Wilby as the chief lawyer for the free energy movement. He has all the lingo down pat, just loves to argue, hasn't demonstrated any expertise in the field of electronics and will bore our opposition into submission......Just about the perfect lawyer.

p.s. now what did the scientists and engineers do in "Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy"?
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: utilitarian on December 17, 2009, 03:55:43 AM
He may not be running for it but I nominate Wilby as the chief lawyer for the free energy movement. He has all the lingo down pat, just loves to argue, hasn't demonstrated any expertise in the field of electronics and will bore our opposition into submission......Just about the perfect lawyer.

p.s. now what did the do in "Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy"?

OK, I think I can do a good Wilby here.  (Wilby, you can take a rest, I got this covered.)

"I object, you are committing a logical fallacy, and, and, and a falsehood, too.  I challenge you, a total stranger who owes me no explanation, to prove to my satisfaction the veracity of what you are saying.  And no red herrings!!!!  Or you will be banned from this board for all your logical fallacies, and I will sue you in the Internet Court for defamation, or take other actions, legal or otherwise!!!"
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MrMag on December 17, 2009, 03:59:08 AM
OK, I think I can do a good Wilby here.  (Wilby, you can take a rest, I got this covered.)

"I object, you are committing a logical fallacy, and, and, and a falsehood, too.  I challenge you, a total stranger who owes me no explanation, to prove to my satisfaction the veracity of what you are saying.  And no red herrings!!!!  Or you will be banned from this board for all your logical fallacies, and I will sue you in the Internet Court for defamation, or take other actions, legal or otherwise!!!"

Very good. You forgot to mention the "ad hominem" rant. :)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 17, 2009, 04:39:32 AM
Come on guys, are we not getting just a bit off-topic here?

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 17, 2009, 05:13:31 AM
Quote
I object, you are committing a logical fallacy, and, and, and a falsehood, too.  I challenge you, a total stranger who owes me no explanation, to prove to my satisfaction the veracity of what you are saying.  And no red herrings!!!!  Or you will be banned from this board for all your logical fallacies, and I will sue you in the Internet Court for defamation, or take other actions, legal or otherwise!!!

STOP BUSTING MY BALLS!  LOL
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 17, 2009, 05:20:15 AM
So what if nobody is listening...

My "Gadget" point is simple, if you just produce energy for yourself, what happens when there is no more toilet paper?

Your per capita energy consumption is huge if you live in an industrialized country.  Somebody has to pave the roads and run the potash mines and the trucks have to deliver your food to the supermarket.  I will guess at least 15 times your typical home energy consumption.  You you can't do it all at home.

For my "how does a JT really work" point, nether Bill or Albert know how they actually function.  Do you guys want to know?

In George Orwell's novel "1984" the party said "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."  So what's the deal?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: allcanadian on December 17, 2009, 06:56:00 AM
@Milehigh
Quote
For my "how does a JT really work" point, nether Bill or Albert know how they actually function.  Do you guys want to know?

No not really, if they wanted to understand the JT they could simply google "boost converters" or "self-oscillating boost converters" and have a wealth of information at their disposal from experts in that field of technology. However, it should be considered that expertise and invention are two very different things, the fathers of modern aviation were bicycle repairmen, the father of modern relativity was a patent clerk, in this respect we could say being an "expert" counts for very little in the evolution of technology. How can you be an expert in something that has yet to be invented?, it is just as likely that an unqualified person working in their garage will develop a new technology as any expert. One statistic stated 80% of all patents that have benefited mankind the most were made by persons with no formal training in that field of technology, that makes a person think doesn't it?
Regards
AC
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 17, 2009, 07:05:40 AM
AC:

You are thinking the wrong way.  Knowledge builds on top of knowledge.  People that push the envelope in their chosen endeavor always master the standard aspects of their craft first before moving beyond.  Picasso and Warhol did conventional paintings and commercial art before they branched out.  What's the point in making long strings of LEDs light if you don't know what's happening?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 17, 2009, 07:11:23 AM
@Milehigh
No not really, if they wanted to understand the JT they could simply google "boost converters" or "self-oscillating boost converters" and have a wealth of information at their disposal from experts in that field of technology. However, it should be considered that expertise and invention are two very different things, the fathers of modern aviation were bicycle repairmen, the father of modern relativity was a patent clerk, in this respect we could say being an "expert" counts for very little in the evolution of technology. How can you be an expert in something that has yet to be invented?, it is just as likely that an unqualified person working in their garage will develop a new technology as any expert. One statistic stated 80% of all patents that have benefited mankind the most were made by persons with no formal training in that field of technology, that makes a person think doesn't it?
Regards
AC

AC:

Thanks for your post. Me, and probably most of the folks here have MH on ignore so we don't see what gibberish he may be posting.  I see where you quoted him and he says we don't know what is happening with the JT circuit.  Well, when he can figure out how to light a single led, maybe someone MIGHT listen to him.  He keeps saying stuff like this yet posts no facts to back up his wild claims.  I got tired of him continually showing his ignorance so...POOF...ignore toggle.

Thanks again,

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 17, 2009, 07:28:31 AM
Quoting Bill:

Quote
LEDs, we have found, will light using high voltage in the correct frequency ranges. We do not need many mA's to do this.  (Tesla discovered this fact many, many years ago with gas filled tubes) If you load down the circuit with too many LEDs for that particular output voltage and/or the load forces the output frequency to go outside of the parameters required by the LEDs, they will get progressively dimmer and, at the saturation or tipping point, not light at all.

This is completely wrong, it's nonsense.  It has basically nothing to do with voltage and nothing to do with frequency.  It's all based on current and the persistence of human vision.

Enjoy your bliss.

MileHigh

PS:  I almost forgot.  Paul made his "cop out" posting a few pages back and he found nothing after a few days worth of work.  He won't be doing any more testing, high-powered bench expert that he is.  He showed that a JT circuit can never pass more energy out than in.  He also demonstrated that ultracapacitors act exactly the same as regular capacitors as shown in the graph where you see the linearly rising voltage with respect to time as he charges the capacitor with a constant current source.  His conclusions are correct even though he did not really state them.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: allcanadian on December 17, 2009, 08:08:49 AM
@milehigh
Quote
You are thinking the wrong way.  Knowledge builds on top of knowledge.  People that push the envelope in their chosen endeavor always master the standard aspects of their craft first before moving beyond.  Picasso and Warhol did conventional paintings and commercial art before they branched out.  What's the point in making long strings of LEDs light if you don't know what's happening?
You make some very good points as always and I would agree completely but I think there are exceptions to the rule. Have you heard the phrase--"he succeeded because he did not know any better", I have found this is applicable to the learning process in many ways. Gaining knowledge and learning is very important to me but I have found it can also be counter-productive to the evolution of knowledge--knowledge of the unknown. When we learn from others work a bias develops towards that way of thinking until this bias becomes second nature, that is one cannot know they are bias until they meet someone who is not. Gustav Le Bon wrote a very good paper on this subject called "The Crowd:a study of the popular mind". In essence I have found learning from others work can only take you so far and in many cases stifles true creativity. In many cases I have found success by doing exactly the opposite and thinking exactly the opposite to what one normally would. In this case the "wrong way" was in fact a better way of doing things--it was the right way, I hope you can appreciate the paradox here. This is one reason why I am not so quick to judge people here in the forum when I believe they could be misguided in their thoughts, maybe I am the one who is misguided and if I never give them the benefit of the doubt then I am the one who loses in the end. I am just thankful there are still places like this where a person can go and meet people who are nothing like me, I would not have it any other way. If as you say -- I am thinking the wrong way--, then that is not such a bad thing, it's all about perspective.
Regards
AC
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Yucca on December 17, 2009, 06:56:47 PM
OK, I think I can do a good Wilby here....

So can I...

My key phrase is "logical fallacy", doesn't that sound great, I'll bet some idiots have to look that up in the dictionary because it's a really clever word. I pretend that I can hack and other clever stuff, most people believe it because they are fearful I guess. I like trying to make others feel fear, don't you? I get most of my kicks from undermining the work and thoughts of others, it makes me feel bigger. Also because my supreme battles are trashing the livelihood of this forums owner it makes me feel potent, I have POWER yay! But I will let you in on a secret; my insecurities have forced me to groom and conscript others to fight my supreme battles with me, it seems to be working and that makes me happy! Oh and have you seen my cool avatar, it's george bush giving the finger... how cool is that! YAY! Almost as cool as my handle WilbyInebriated, because it's way cool to drink and I feel really grown up doing that with my fake ID, I laserprinted it and it's way cool, I have to keep it out of the rain otherwise it runs but even so it's like way cool. Anyway that's me guys.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 18, 2009, 01:12:54 AM
i see Mh is at it but i got himeblocked like the other 4 adn they were all mouth and no action . Check this out My Ou experiment has inproved drastically I am way above unity of the battery and bcap after 3.5 weeks getting close to a month charging My ultracap Mh and not a hint if power loss . I even put it in my camer a few days agi and tooks some pictureds with the flash on too. now its Juking evenafter taking picturs running solid withthe exact same battery . READ ALL ABOUT IT !! post 10829 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6123.10829

You guys are Foolish is you explain all that . I have it little closed minded DUDES
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 18, 2009, 04:44:21 AM
AC:

Quote
Have you heard the phrase--"he succeeded because he did not know any better"

Your point is valid but with that strategy progress moves forward at a glacial pace and is mostly spinning wheels.  It's the needle-in-a-haystack approach, monkeys on typewriters, Shakespeare off in the distance.


Bill:

Quote
Me, and probably most of the folks here have MH on ignore so we don't see what gibberish he may be posting.  I see where you quoted him and he says we don't know what is happening with the JT circuit.  Well, when he can figure out how to light a single led, maybe someone MIGHT listen to him.  He keeps saying stuff like this yet posts no facts to back up his wild claims.  I got tired of him continually showing his ignorance

Really?  OK, let's talk about lighting an LED.  Supposing that you have an LED and the spec sheet.  Let's just assume that it's an ordinary LED, nothing special.  You have a 4.5 volt battery source, and a 12-volt battery.  Tell me how you would light the LED.  No Joule Thief here because in the real world people don't use JTs to light up LEDs.

Go ahead Bill and enlighten me on how to light the LED from the two different battery sources because you claim I am too stupid to light one up.

Bring it on Bill, the challenge has been served up.


Albert:

I am glad that you are all excited about your project but many pages back I explained how it appears that your power consumption is very low and the setup could run for months before you notice the battery loosing voltage.

Quote
after the Bcap reaches over  the unity of the battery all it takes is a one wire jump thru a 1.2 volt light bulb to recharge the battery

If you think when the Bcap voltage is greater than the battery voltage then that is some kind of over unity then that's not correct.  It's normal for the Bcap voltage to go higher than the supply battery voltage.

Quote
the group who is helping will reap the benifits while the lazy neysayers will simply not

Sorry but I am not a "naysayer," I am a "truther."

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 18, 2009, 06:29:54 AM
No i aanit saying it I am showing IT . Your ass didnt even look !The battery is higher now 3 1/2 weeks later than when i started . DUH/???? You aint explained shi! Explain why the battery jumped up from 1.301 to 1.333 in almost a month and the bcap is over 2 volts still ??? ITs called OVERUNITY !! hell i took the batteries out several days ago and tooks several pictures with an amp hungry cannon digital camera and flashed a bunch of pictures and put the battery back in My machine and its higher now . YOU LOSE !!! loser
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 18, 2009, 06:39:32 AM
Albert:

I gave you the whole treatise on battery voltages 20 pages back.  A two millivolt increase in battery voltage could be explained by an increase in ambient temperature or simply that there was a more robust mosh pit dance going on inside the battery and more molecules per second were getting it on.  Just random chance.

Eventually your battery is going to go dead.

It's not about me being the loser, I am trying to turn you into a winner.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Mk1 on December 18, 2009, 06:59:18 AM
@MH

I don't get the feeling that your help is wanted , yet we have 50 pages of it ...

Give it a break , you win , you are the bigger ass in this .

Any fool can see they don't care about your reason , anyway like you said the argument is closed .

Based on Paul's test , you are right , so give it up...


If Paul ever gets to a final verdict , you will have to build it because you may never believe it any other way , then botch the job to prove your point .

So all of that , for what ? You got no friend ? You do seem to spend a lot of time here , your daddy didn't love you enough ? Or mommy loved you too much .

Come on !

Go take a walk !

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 18, 2009, 07:08:17 AM
Mk1:

You should just relax.  Do you thing Albert has achieved OU?

I don't think Paul will comment further on his ultracap testing.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 18, 2009, 07:53:28 AM
@MileHigh,

The setup proposed by Gadgetmall will be thoroughly tested and documented in
due time. I'm currentely waiting for the pcb delivery and will populate a couple
of boards as soon as they arrive. My circuit will control the process of discharging
to load and also feed back to input to keep the AA battery charged. I will report
the result of my testing when done. I will report both negative or positive result,
you can be sure on that.

In the mean time, please show some patience and wait for this testing. There is no
need to fill up this thread with endless postings on why it won't work. When the
testing is done, then I will tell why it works, or why it do not work. This process
is called research and by doing the actual implementation and testing I will get
the answers.

Alex.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 18, 2009, 02:51:05 PM
Based on Paul's test , you are right , so give it up...


If Paul ever gets to a final verdict , you will have to build it because you may never believe it any other way , then botch the job to prove your point .

Hi,

Actually I finished unless Gadget mails me one of his units. I mailed Gadget my address, but after that he never said anything else about when to expect it. Should I expect a hitman now? I'm ready!  ;D

I still believe Gadget, but I tried my best to replicate his circuit with what I have here. The source battery voltage never went up, just down. I also tried short runs on the 2000mAh AAA NiMH, but the voltage also just went down. The difference is that he uses a much larger battery. If the experiment was repeated again, and I used a 2500mAh battery, it would run ~ 36 times longer.

If Gadget decides to send me a unit, I'll test it. Until then, I can only say No Joy! The  highest efficiency I've seen while charging the UC is ~ 55%. And ~ 80% with a  resistor instead of the UC.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 18, 2009, 07:10:28 PM
Paul you had my word and i want you to test it like we discussed . I have mailed many free gifts this year . yours is packed but i have a cristist . I lost a cruser U3 computer key . 4 gig and it had all my passwords bank account credit cards email . If you every have an3 computer dongle then you know it has its own GUI and when you plug it in a computer it will basically be your computer with your browser and email and everything . Well i forgot to put a dam password on it the last time i used it and now i am SICK . anyways i cried for a half day and changed my bank account pass and paypal about there are over 3000 passwords on that key and there is no way i can get them back nor change all of them .I just hope if some one reads my email they read a message i sent to myself offering the a 500 dollar reward for its return :( OK Free energy freeks and De bunkers . Here is an E-light i made  several monkish ago that is special from all the other ones i made . This one self runs . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLI0tDd7NnY
 I have mastered the self run stuff a while back and tried to explain it on the bedini. this light i am showing you is running off of recycled dead batteries  Its has ran in a pastic box for over 2 months untouched ., I switched batteries when i made the video . I have dial up I finally got it uploaded today took all morning long and i have not added annotations case i made a slight mistake on a voltage reading cause i could not see it  so tell me what you think !!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLI0tDd7NnY

It is a One of a kind and no the circuit is not released but this is the kind of things that are the easiest to make . all you got to do is do it . Also Jesus posted a self running JT schematic that runs on spice . Jesus don't give up . i promise you you will find what you are looking for .

Paul don't worryman . i see you just didn't make yours with My specs that's all .i gave Alex a Bcap and a few cool things . He is the only one i trust that will replicate it to the tee. and he will see that it works . IF not then i can explaining what is wrong cause i have an exact duplicate and we can take measurements side by side and see what he is doing that i am .All My discoveries are Accidental discoveries withonly one purpose to run from the lowest possible voltage and current and obtain extra work . All the self runners i have running were my own design and i sis not copy anyones work . just basic stuff with My knack for putting parts where they shouldn't and the effect turn into a Discovery . This is my advice to all of the true energy experimenters . Donut use your Electronic books and don't listen to anyone who is a smart ass and has explanations that don't make a bit a sense in the free energy inventions i make . ,

Gadget . Merry Christmas .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 18, 2009, 07:24:45 PM
Al:

Don't worry about your memory stick, you will find it.

Excellent video of your E-Light!!!  But wait, that can't happen so you can't make the light or the video, ha ha.  Seriously, very excellent work my friend.  This shows what can be done here.

I am looking forward to seeing what else we can light up around here.  This has been an eventful year here on OUdotcom.

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 18, 2009, 08:38:10 PM
I thinkit sgone . i carry it on my keychain. I had it monday and inotice it was not there yesterday . It fell off in town some where . I even asked the self wash guy to empty the vacume cleaner there and sifted thru all the junk i=on the one i used monday to cleand the truck . I checked every where . it was a 4 gig one . Some one has a nice U# . they are nice to have . that one cost me 50 bucks a few years back .i am afraid i lost it in a parking lot when i clipped my keys to my belt loop in one of 5 different places . I checked them all for hours and even asked the store keepers if it was turned in . I offered a 500 dollar reward . Nothing . Some one has acces to every part of my life now and that was worth a lot more than 500 bucks . they have everything i own in that key . O It makes Christmas hard having that on my mind. Very depress ed . I used that ket to fix other computers also as it had purchaded software on it and that was alli neded to fix any computer . Bummer big time . I ordered another one a 32 gig one this time but i will attach it to a hole i will make in my belly !
al
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 18, 2009, 09:02:32 PM
Albert,

Sorry for your lost memory stick. Next time you'll probably want to back it up on CD or something. I don't know the lifespan of memory sticks anyway. One good cosmic particle can knock a few bits enough to mess up the file structure, so it's always good to back up.

Nice video. I look forward to testing what you send, but it looks like that's not going to happen anytime soon.  :(

Take it easy!

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: crowclaw on December 18, 2009, 09:58:17 PM
@ All

It's so sad to wickness so much  bickering amongst contributors to this site. Those who have invested so much of their time and money into their projects and delight in seeing their experiments producing a result. Many of these Guy's do not have the benefit of spice simulators_unique test equipment or indeed a superior electronics background, what they all seem to have is a unique bond_ friendship and willingness to share their  knowlege and experiences they have accuired together and no matter what the outcome will bring. I have many of the star qualities but would never sit in judgement to what these guys are doing or what they may believe they can achieve. my answer is this ... if anyone knows more, then offer your advice freely  to guide those who need our help. It's all about learning and if the outcome is not as expected, so be it! those who have tried have gained a hell of a lot more than OU. Merry Xmas all... Be Good and kind. crow
 
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on December 18, 2009, 10:38:57 PM

Personally, I fail to see where anything is to be gained by Gadget 'faking' the data on his self runner.

This seems to be confirmed by the circuit posted by jesus.

Gadget, my congrats seem to have been buried a number of pages back.

I always knew you had it in you...jesus also - you guys are bloodhounds.

Regards...

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 19, 2009, 12:03:18 AM
Personally, I fail to see where anything is to be gained by Gadget 'faking' the data on his self runner.

That's a suspicious statement. If we're talking in general, and not about Albert, then the answer is the same reason Mylow did it. To distract legitimate research. At WikiPedia there are numerous references of Big Oil being caught spending millions on trying to kill the global warming movement. Bil Oil would obviously have a huge motive to prevent free energy machines. There are plenty low lifes in the world who'd be paid under the table by Big Oil to come out with fake "free energy" claims.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on December 19, 2009, 12:10:20 AM
A quote from a famous figure from history JD Clampett

'The skunk is always the first to smell it'.

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 19, 2009, 12:16:02 AM
@ All

It's so sad to wickness so much  bickering amongst contributors to this site. Those who have invested so much of their time and money into their projects and delight in seeing their experiments producing a result. Many of these Guy's do not have the benefit of spice simulators_unique test equipment or indeed a superior electronics background, what they all seem to have is a unique bond_ friendship and willingness to share their  knowlege and experiences they have accuired together and no matter what the outcome will bring. I have many of the star qualities but would never sit in judgement to what these guys are doing or what they may believe they can achieve. my answer is this ... if anyone knows more, then offer your advice freely  to guide those who need our help. It's all about learning and if the outcome is not as expected, so be it! those who have tried have gained a hell of a lot more than OU. Merry Xmas all... Be Good and kind. crow

Crowclaw:

Thank you for this post.  I think you have hit the nail on the head here.  The camaraderie we have achieved on the JT topic, and also what folks have been able to do in a similar manner on some other topics, exemplifies what I believe this forum to be all about. 

It is all about the free and open exchange of information, experiment results and sources for low-cost supplies and components that will allow more folks to learn and grow and maybe produce something amazing.  I personally enjoy working with folks that truly know more than I do because then I will learn more.  I have also tried to pass along the things I have learned to others along the way as well. 

I hope that we can all continue this spirit of cooperation.

Merry Christmas to everyone here on OU.com

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: allcanadian on December 19, 2009, 12:28:12 AM
I was responding to a post and it disappeared, no matter is was a silly post anyways.:)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 19, 2009, 12:35:59 AM
A quote from a famous figure from history JD Clampett

'The skunk is always the first to smell it'.

I'd dump that worthless quote since it enourages people to not investigate. Gee, wonder why you'd not want that. Too bad for Big Oil because they've already been caught. Sorry guy, I can only go by logic & probabilities.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on December 19, 2009, 12:57:01 AM
Actually paul, you 'go by' ignoring referenced linkage and baseless accusations and insinuation.

And that has already been stated by others before..I just summed up your ou.com resume.

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 19, 2009, 01:01:24 AM
I was responding to a post and it disappeared, no matter is was a silly post anyways. :)

AC:

That post was removed by me because it accused a well respected member here of perpetrating a "scam".  That is a pretty serious accusation to make with no basis in fact and no evidence. 

Anyone can disagree with anyone else here all day long, that a good thing really, but when the discussion denigrates to personal insults or other baseless accusations, that crosses the line and will be delt with.

I am glad you pointed this out as I was not able to place a "Post removed by Moderator" in it's place as there were other posts after that one.

Thanks,

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 19, 2009, 01:03:28 AM
All,

Today I played around with my JT and was testing the new battery capacitor I got
from Gadget. Thanks Gadget! :-) I soon discovered that this bcap will discharge at
a unbelievable rate if allowed to do so. I accidental shorted two wires and I have never
seen a transistor fly to the roof before. LOL

But that was not what I wanted to tell you. I wanted to try out regular batteries
since Gadget talked about using discharged normal alkaline batteries. I had a discharged
9 volt Duracell and it was down to 7,3 volt. I connected this battery and hooked a volt meter
to the battery connector. Then I watched the voltage slowly drop as the battery powered
the JT and lit up my single super bright LED.

Now, on this build I use a yellow Iron powder core with 2 x 12 turns and 1 x 44 turns.
I noticed that my out voltage through the Germanium diode was approx. 27 volt.
So I just connected the output wire to the plus of the battery. The voltage in the battery
did not drop so fast now. This was expected since we now have a feed back. Then I did a
mistake. I connected the Germanium output to one of the wires coming
from the 44 turn secondary output.

I noticed a jump in the battery voltage. I then connected my LED to the other end of the
44 turn and back to the collector of the transistor. You never guess what happened.
The voltage in the battery (it had go down to approx. 6 volt during test.) started to climb!!!!!!!!
It has climbed up to 7,8 volt now and has been running for more than an hour.
The ultra bright LED is lit to almost half brightness.

I do not expect the battery to last forever but I will run the circuit through the night and
check the voltage tomorrow.

The JT is a amazing little circuit. :-)

Alex.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 19, 2009, 01:29:49 AM
Actually paul, you 'go by' ignoring referenced linkage and baseless accusations and insinuation.

And that has already been stated by others before..I just summed up your ou.com resume.

What a bunch of cr-p!  "Others" as in your religious biased anti global warming buddies. You and your buddies copy & paste links of non peer reviewed websites. Most of you & your buddies references were garbage websites riddled with religious beliefs and anger. Anyone can go into the global warming thread and see that I've provided graphs & references of peer reviewed data.

Anyhow, you accuse me of being the skunk, huh. I challenge you to background identity exchange. I'll be more than happy to let you do a background check on me if you'll do the same. We can have an unbiased 3rd party do it. Huh? What do you say anonymous "Cap-Z-ro"? I bet anything you don't even answer my question or you'll refuse the offer.

Sorry to everyone else for this discussion, but this guy is such a Obama hater, an anti global warmest to the highest degree. A person who continually posts out right lies on the subject.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on December 19, 2009, 01:42:15 AM

After rolling around in the mud with a pig...after a while[if you're paying close attention]...you'll discover the pig is enjoying it a lot more than you are.

You conduct here speaks for me.

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 19, 2009, 01:47:40 AM
After rolling around in the mud with a pig...after a while[if you're paying close attention]...you'll discover the pig is enjoying it a lot more than you are.

You conduct here speaks for me.

You started it, and I'm ending it. You afraid of a background check, aren't you anonymous "Cap-Z-ro"?

Don't worry, people are getting very suspicious what's happening here at overunity.com. There are a lot of good people here, but there's also something very wrong. The truth will be known one day.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on December 19, 2009, 01:55:52 AM

Neglected to credit famous philosopher JD Clampett for the perceptive pig prose.

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 19, 2009, 01:59:31 AM
Neglected to credit famous philosopher JD Clampett for the perceptive pig prose.

You care to post a valid reference about this famous "JD Clampett"?  Maybe you were talking about the fictitious character "J.D. Clampett" on the Beverly Hillbillies tv series.

Again, for the record, I'll exchange background checks with anyone on my suspect list. It's my opinion, my list, and "Cap-Z-ro" has been on it for sometime. "Cap-Z-ro" wants to remain anonymous.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on December 19, 2009, 02:06:56 AM

JD Clampett referencing J Bodine:

"Pitiful...just pitiful".

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 19, 2009, 02:11:44 AM
JD Clampett referencing J Bodine:

"Pitiful...just pitiful".

This is hilarious. Your so called "famous philosopher" is a fictitious character on an old TV series called the "The Beverly Hillbillies"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beverly_Hillbillies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beverly_Hillbillies)

That's your hero, eh, your tv show. What is sad is that tv show is about Oil. Quote, "The Beverly Hillbillies series, starts with the OK Oil oil Company learning of an inadvertent strike in Jed Clampetts Ozark swamp land."

I'm learning a lot about you over the months. Today was a big one. The picture is beginning to clarify! ... So when are your anti global warming buddies going to come over here in this thread and start ganging up on me?

Anyhow, enough of this garbage that you started. You called me skunk, yet you will not do a background check exchange.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on December 19, 2009, 02:42:48 AM

I do hope people are finding this guy as hilarious as I am.

*does google search for Mr Haney quotes*

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 19, 2009, 02:48:21 AM
Come on fellows, let's please get back to the topic at hand.  Feel free to carry your discussion on in pm if you like.

Thanks,

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 19, 2009, 02:49:02 AM
"Say, might this be the ideal 'off topic' time to interject my aunt Hazer story, perchance  ?"
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on December 19, 2009, 03:29:16 AM
The more rational and less manic among us accept the fact that all threads drift off topic and back again.

Those who do not respect that are oblivious, or simply looking for an excuse to dominate or abuse others...ostensibly to 'maintain order'.

Let us all be real...and civil...and this board will run as it should...focused on the task at hand...while taking the time for normal human communications.

I believe that just about covers it as far as I'm circumcised.

Regards...

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 19, 2009, 03:42:39 AM
Pirate Bill:

Quote
Anyone can disagree with anyone else here all day long, that a good thing really, but when the discussion denigrates to personal insults or other baseless accusations, that crosses the line and will be delt with.

Can you say "self-flagellation, endorphin rush?"
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 19, 2009, 10:21:54 AM
MR Mh thisis for you bro . part one and part two . You cant explain this away can you ? IF you do then your the best !

part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLI0tDd7NnY

part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVmwc9OsyB0

Now i have heard voltage dont matter . well the reason this does what it does and here is a hint . I sacrificed a bit of light to make it self run . HMMM ?

Merry Christmas either way . I cannot hold anything against you as only know what you know . what you don't know bother's me though.NAd i did not get a chance to read  a post that you called me a scammer . well it was uncalled for and i am glad there is a mod here . You best replicate with your hand than your mouth ! I will never try to scam anyone . You might with disinformation but to slander me crossed the line big time . You should be ashamed Mh . Why do you hate the fact that I of all people have Ou and you are so smart that you don't? Jealous people make me sick .

Inspector Gadget
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 19, 2009, 10:41:00 AM
Personally, I fail to see where anything is to be gained by Gadget 'faking' the data on his self runner.

This seems to be confirmed by the circuit posted by jesus.

Gadget, my congrats seem to have been buried a number of pages back.

I always knew you had it in you...jesus also - you guys are bloodhounds.

Regards...
Well the Logic i have is to make sure everyone see's Ou . I have no reason to fake anything . I am not Mylow . I want people to do what i did . This is why i have tried to show how simple it really is to self run a project . It really is right in front of you guys . If i release My schematic of this elight what will that accomplish ? Nothing . I released the most simplest circuit in the world the JT charging a Bcap . What did i get for it ?  Negative remarks and grief . No one replicated it . Well Paul tried but i guess building 100's of jts i have learned somthing a newbe don't know . You know My focus is on low power circuits and i mean low input as possible with the highest output possible . Reason One is you can capture the excess energy not only in Bcaps but electrolytics and special diode configurations . I can tell you that this modified light began as a normal Jt  and not as My patent E-light using special  doped transistors . this one uses mpa 06  and three diodes and two electrolytic caps . Now if you build a jt with two secondaries and rectify one , rectify two and then rectify the EC junction you will have three voltages .. Go from there  ,, here is part two  and the outcome of what you can do with that configuration remember part one volts  . Another clue . I sacrificed some light for the run charger with another cap ,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVmwc9OsyB0
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 19, 2009, 10:55:57 AM
All,

Today I played around with my JT and was testing the new battery capacitor I got
from Gadget. Thanks Gadget! :-) I soon discovered that this bcap will discharge at
a unbelievable rate if allowed to do so. I accidental shorted two wires and I have never
seen a transistor fly to the roof before. LOL

But that was not what I wanted to tell you. I wanted to try out regular batteries
since Gadget talked about using discharged normal alkaline batteries. I had a discharged
9 volt Duracell and it was down to 7,3 volt. I connected this battery and hooked a volt meter
to the battery connector. Then I watched the voltage slowly drop as the battery powered
the JT and lit up my single super bright LED.

Now, on this build I use a yellow Iron powder core with 2 x 12 turns and 1 x 44 turns.
I noticed that my out voltage through the Germanium diode was approx. 27 volt.
So I just connected the output wire to the plus of the battery. The voltage in the battery
did not drop so fast now. This was expected since we now have a feed back. Then I did a
mistake. I connected the Germanium output to one of the wires coming
from the 44 turn secondary output.

I noticed a jump in the battery voltage. I then connected my LED to the other end of the
44 turn and back to the collector of the transistor. You never guess what happened.
The voltage in the battery (it had go down to approx. 6 volt during test.) started to climb!!!!!!!!
It has climbed up to 7,8 volt now and has been running for more than an hour.
The ultra bright LED is lit to almost half brightness.

I do not expect the battery to last forever but I will run the circuit through the night and
check the voltage tomorrow.

The JT is a amazing little circuit. :-)

Alex.
This is exactly how i discovered what i did . By accident . Good job botching up a perfectly good no good for nothing jt and making free energy . darn .. now you will get flamed ;)

Albert
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 19, 2009, 12:35:41 PM
Albert,

My JT has been running for 12 hours now. The battery voltage has dropped to 7,67 Volt.
The ultra bright LED is still lighting at half the maximum (approx). Could you check your
emails? I have sent you a couple of mails.

Alex.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: stprue on December 19, 2009, 02:04:38 PM
MR Mh thisis for you bro . part one and part two . You cant explain this away can you ? IF you do then your the best !

part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLI0tDd7NnY

part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVmwc9OsyB0

Now i have heard voltage dont matter . well the reason this does what it does and here is a hint . I sacrificed a bit of light to make it self run . HMMM ?

Merry Christmas either way . I cannot hold anything against you as only know what you know . what you don't know bother's me though.NAd i did not get a chance to read  a post that you called me a scammer . well it was uncalled for and i am glad there is a mod here . You best replicate with your hand than your mouth ! I will never try to scam anyone . You might with disinformation but to slander me crossed the line big time . You should be ashamed Mh . Why do you hate the fact that I of all people have Ou and you are so smart that you don't? Jealous people make me sick .

Inspector Gadget

That was awesome Gadget!  If that's not OU it must be closer then anyone else has got to unity!   :o
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 19, 2009, 02:40:46 PM
Albert:

I don't recall ever calling you a scammer and I don't think you are one.  I only glanced at your web site for a few seconds and don't remember anything about it.

You are simply a good guy that is misunderstanding what you are seeing.  For example, in your two clips, you can see that the LEDs are low in intensity and we know they are also flashing.  Suppose for the sake of argument the LEDs are dissipating 1/500th of a watt of power.  Then convert the ampere-hours of the two AA batteries into Joules, and then make the estimate of the run time.  Whatever the actual numbers are, I think it is safe to assume that the LED light should run for at least a month or more.

If you were serious about what you were doing, then you would measure the energy in the batteries at the start of your test, then run the LED light for one or two months, and then measure the energy in the batteries at the end of the test.

I can guarantee you that you will measure less energy in the batteries at the end of the test.  It is as simple and as straightforward as that.

If you don't believe me, then just devise a testing plan like I say above and run the experiment.

This is the point where I suspect our disconnect will take place - again.  You will scoff at my suggestion that you actually run a serious test and make some measurements, and instead claim that it "must be free energy" because it has run for a month, you don't see any noticeable voltage drop, and just because you said so.  And I will repeat that battery voltage means almost nothing.

So, have I changed your thought process about your claim of over unity in your last two clips with the LED light?  I don't think so.

Has any claim you have made about your stuff ever surprised or phased me?  The answer is no.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 19, 2009, 03:49:04 PM
Cant measure the batteries dead cause they never will be dead now . I think they were dead dead like maybe .5 .6 somewhere in there , They would not run in anything so they were DEAD.. They are not dead now . Your right i don't care about voltage , even the 1.7 volt battery i removed from it a while back .Noop don't mean a thing to my one cell flashlight it was used it . Hey Everyone VOLTS ARE NOTHING  !!!! Hear that !! MH SAYS SO SO ITS GOT  to be Gospel !
AHH well . No need to make a part three then but the run this morn is 1.554 and the charge is 1.410  and the light lights . SO forget Volts .. forget light . I'll forget everything i know to be true . Hey i got one for ya . CURRENT IS NOTHING !! know why ? because without volts it don't move so its nothing .Whats current without volts .. whats volts without current .  BUT i can short one connection on that light in the video and its FULL BRIGHT !! found that out by accident too.



All i can say is


HO HO HO  Merry Christmas !
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 19, 2009, 04:38:13 PM
When are you going to mail the JT, gadget? Before I gave you my address I had you promise me that you would mail it. After I mailed it to you the only thing you've written to me is about losing your memory stick. You wrote -->

Quote from: gadgetmall
There is something wrong with your joule thief . I would like to send you one free of charge for Christmas  if you accept.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 19, 2009, 04:45:08 PM
Well Paul tried but i guess building 100's of jts i have learned somthing a newbe don't know .

Maybe not because I don't have your core, but IMO that will not make it cop>1, but we'll see if you mail it. Until then I have say that after adjusting everything to the best positions, the highest efficiency was 55%.

I would like to give gadgetmall till Christmas to do what he said he would do and mail me one of his JT's so I can test it. If not, then I'll have to spend much needed $ to buy some of the goldmine toroids and then mine will be just like gadgets.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 19, 2009, 05:10:50 PM
Hi Paul No your not going to get it before Christmas as the mail is snail this time of year . I will try to get to the PO  next week but My daughter is out of school now and santa has to get busy . I told you i would send you on ebut i have no time for this stuff untill after the holidays including My prize machine . so please don't put a dead line on me . you know my situation  . im a single dad and know one knows what that is like haveing to clean,cook wash cloths dry fold feed the 6 animals feed your lirttle girl , do santa , see santa pay attention to her and well you have no idea plus I'm sick! and disabled on top of all that i have someone putting a dead line on me  ? no  no no.. I was kind enuff to give one for free . you will get it on my own time . next year is close enuff .

Albert
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 19, 2009, 05:38:26 PM
Hi Paul No your not going to get it before Christmas as the mail is snail this time of year . I will try to get to the PO  next week but My daughter is out of school now and santa has to get busy . I told you i would send you on ebut i have no time for this stuff untill after the holidays including My prize machine . so please don't put a dead line on me . you know my situation  . im a single dad and know one knows what that is like haveing to clean,cook wash cloths dry fold feed the 6 animals feed your lirttle girl , do santa , see santa pay attention to her and well you have no idea plus I'm sick! and disabled on top of all that i have someone putting a dead line on me  ? no  no no.. I was kind enuff to give one for free . you will get it on my own time . next year is close enuff .

Albert

You know what Albert, forget it. Next year???  It will never happen, period, and you know it. Sorry, but I now see you in different light. I gave you my address after making you promised me by email. I KNEW IT!!!! I KNEW IT AS SURE AS DAY YOU'D SAY SOMETHING TO DELAY IT, WHICH = NEVER. Because of you I now have move out of here A.S.A.P. because I'm doing my research to hopefully help all life on this planet and I'm not going to take chances on anything.

I tested your design, it failed miserably, 55% efficient! Sure, I could use the larger battery and have it charge the UC for weeks on end, but that proves nothing. Now today I'll try to get some money to buy the goldmine toroids.

I'm not done here, as there's something that's been bothering me that I know about gadgetmall. I just might copy & paste a private message that gadgetmall sent me regarding the $30 ultracapacitors sold on ebay. I now see gadgetmall in completely different light.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 19, 2009, 06:45:15 PM
You know what Albert, forget it. Next year???  It will never happen, period, and you know it. Sorry, but I now see you in different light. I gave you my address after making you promised me by email. I KNEW IT!!!! I KNEW IT AS SURE AS DAY YOU'D SAY SOMETHING TO DELAY IT, WHICH = NEVER. Because of you I now have move out of here A.S.A.P. because I'm doing my research to hopefully help all life on this planet and I'm not going to take chances on anything.

I tested your design, it failed miserably, 55% efficient! Sure, I could use the larger battery and have it charge the UC for weeks on end, but that proves nothing. Now today I'll try to get some money to buy the goldmine toroids.

I'm not done here, as there's something that's been bothering me that I know about gadgetmall. I just might copy & paste a private message that gadgetmall sent me regarding the $30 ultracapacitors sold on ebay. I now see gadgetmall in completely different light.

Paul
have a little patience and quit being such a cry baby. it's the holidays and gagdet's real life and children take priority over your 'quest to save the world'... you have to move out because of gadget? ::) how asinine, especially if you "knew it" and did it anyways...

don't put your failure on gadget. we can see by his video that his build is obviously superior to yours. you failed miserably is more like it...

yes of course, the vindictive child now emerges... you're starting to sound like yucca. we see you in a different light too, and your true colors.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 19, 2009, 06:57:26 PM
I just bought 15 of the goldmine cores, G6683

http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/prodinfo.asp?number=G6683 (http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/prodinfo.asp?number=G6683)

There's something fishy going at this forum. I did gadgets experiment, and it was NOT cop>1. Good luck with in getting that cash prize gadget. IMO you'll never get it. I'll still hold back on forwarding the private message I got from gadget a month or so ago.

After I get the G6683 core, I'll replicate your experiment again gadget. And if it's less than 100% efficiency then what will be your excuse? I didn't dangle the wires just right? I'll wait till after the replication to say if you're legit or if you're just another mylow who's here to distract from legit research.

BTW, the 55% efficient circuit was not mine. It's not difficult to build DC - DC converters that are over 90% efficient.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 19, 2009, 08:10:46 PM
Paul:

Look, I don't have much money most of the time but for crying out loud, those Goldmine toroids are 5 for ONE DOLLAR.  So, I would hold off on criticizing Gadget's design until you have replicated it using the same components.  I see that you have ordered them now...that is good.  Build it exactly like he did and then we will see.

Gadget is a better person than I am, if I had offered to send you something for free and you went off on me like that, it would be a cold day in hell before I sent you anything. 

So please stop your insinuations about private messages and stick to the replications and experiments ok?  Threatening to publish private messages that someone sent you does not raise your credibility here at all.  Think about that.

Thanks,

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 19, 2009, 08:17:16 PM
Gadget:

It was NOT MH that posted that your device is a scam, it was a user named ICESTORM.  He is the same guy from over at Youtube on your first e-light video.

MH is correct, the post I removed was from icestorm. I just wanted to set the record straight.

Bil
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 19, 2009, 08:36:59 PM
So please stop your insinuations about private messages and stick to the replications and experiments ok?  Threatening to publish private messages that someone sent you does not raise your credibility here at all.  Think about that.

Don't tell me what to do Bill. If I see someone selling Ultracaps for a lot more $ then what they can get it at ebay, then I post a link to that source so people can save some money, and if gadgetmall sends me a private message asking me to *REMOVE* my post that contains that link, then it's my duty to consider telling people about such an indecent.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Mk1 on December 19, 2009, 10:10:43 PM
to both of you.


Come on guys , go to your rooms and think about it.

What are you guys 12 years old ...

Gadget will send it to you , when he can , lets fight for the right reason , not stupid ones .

Lets postpone the fight.

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: markdansie on December 19, 2009, 10:15:20 PM
Hi here is my address
Mark Dansie
Terania CreeK Road
The Channon NSW
Australia 2480

Phone +61 427245375

I have been involved in various energy projects for years, my expertise (well perhaps the wrong word) is in Hydrogen Injection. I also have travelled the world as part of testing teams evaluating free energy claims ...mainly magnetic motors.

I posted this as I do not understand why people have fears about people knowing who they are or where they live. Is it an American thing?

I am not sure what is to be gained by threatenning people with lawyers, or revealing personal emails etc.It is not a pissing competition here either. Many hundreds of people observe these threads and get great enjoyment out of following people like Bill etc. I also follow the threads from a professional point of view and have enable more than one person here to recieve professional assistance and in some cases financial to continue their work(with no strings attached)
I am no innocent as my humor gets me into heaps of throuble here, and I love taking the piss out of some of the claims made. I am also a skeptic by default rather than choice.
So when I read the posts like I read this morning I feel like banging your heads together and wake up.
However, that is not my job.....just put your differences aside and get on with it.
Kind Regards
Mark


Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 19, 2009, 10:35:03 PM
You need to removed from this site. You said you meant your threats, and I have you quoted. You threatened to use your FBI connections to have me put in a place I don't want to be. You threatened to spread my home address all over the Internet.

You words are very clear. By Stefan removing you from this site he'll be saving a lot of people of time & money, which could be used for legitimate research. I spent a lot of time & energy replicating your claim, I used a core with high permeability, and the end result was 55% efficiency.

Bottom line is you threatened to reveal my personal identity, and Stefan knows what that means. I now firmly believe you are an unstable bomb waiting to go off, a very dangerous person.
holy bucket of hyperbole batman!!!

paul quit with prima donna drama queen bit... your information (including your home address) is available to anyone with half a wit. furthermore, you are the one that is solely responsible for placing that information in public domain on the internet for anyone to see. ie: you have a website, it has a domain record that can be whois'd... don't be daft and pretend that your "personal identity" is even close to private. ::)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on December 19, 2009, 10:37:13 PM
Paul if you send me your photo, wood it be a cartoon ?

Its getting harder for me to believe you are a real person.

Regards...

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 19, 2009, 10:55:04 PM
Paul if you send me your photo, wood it be a cartoon ?

Its getting harder for me to believe you are a real person.

That's funny since I've asked you countless times to do a background check *exchange* and you will not accept. I'm not going to publish my home address to the public because I know there are crazy people out there who don't like what I'm revealing about the endless line of fakes by anonymous people at this forum, but I'd let you see my entire background to know yours. Any day!

IMO the Joule Thief is a distraction! I've given it a chance. The final straw was when Albert said he'd send me one of his to test, but as expected he postponed the delivery, and I know he would have never mailed it because IMO he does not have a cop>1 design. Give legit research a chance. Ian & Koen are doing great work on the Crystal batteries. I think Thane Heins is on to something with his bi-toroid designs.

Paul
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on December 19, 2009, 11:11:30 PM

Paul...I'm afraid there's only one part of my background I wood expose to you.

Up against my monitor screen, it wood have the appearance of the 'pressed ham'...a window framed variation of the world wide practice of mooning.

Regards...

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 20, 2009, 12:01:18 AM
Holy Crap!!

I just got in from work and I can't believe this guys, remember it is Christmas you know.

OK, after some careful thought, I decided to take us back in time from before I left for work.  I removed posts by both Paul and gadget.  I did not count how many of each and I do not care, I just tried to remove the ones with the flames on both sides.

I agree with MK1 and Markdanse, you guys both are better than this so let's just forget about it ok?

If anyone has a problem with any of the posts I removed and wants to discuss it, just pm me and we can talk.  By anyone I mean either Paul or Gadget, or anyone else.  The pm feature is a good one in my opinion.  To me, it is the equivalent of attending a nice party with nice folks and then an argument breaks out amongst 2 of the guests, well good manners would dictate that they take their discussion outside and away from the other happy party goers...and that is what pm'ing allows us to do.

I apologize to both Paul and Gadget for removing the above mentioned posts but I did not see any other way to attempt to deal with this situation.  If anyone has a better suggestion for me for next time, pm me and I will be happy to listen.

Merry Christmas everyone,

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 20, 2009, 12:02:41 AM
Paul:

Please read my above post before posting again please?  I think it might explain some things and, hopefully, you might understand why I did what I did. If not, pm me and we can discuss it as I mentioned.

Thank you,

Bill
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on December 20, 2009, 12:05:11 AM

Don't forget to include all your wacky posts too.

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on December 20, 2009, 12:11:41 AM

*places call to attendants'*

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Kator01 on December 20, 2009, 02:56:14 AM
Hello Groundloop,

I am referring to your post #359 on page 36. You raised a question which even specialist can not answer.
The problem is well known but actually no one knows how energy is transferrd to the secondary of a toroid-transformer.

look at these two videos here :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lqMiZPO9TM&feature=PlayList&p=1E57FE60578F8CD1&index=3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lqMiZPO9TM&feature=PlayList&p=1E57FE60578F8CD1&index=3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsrbaCJo3Qw&feature=PlayList&p=1E57FE60578F8CD1&index=4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsrbaCJo3Qw&feature=PlayList&p=1E57FE60578F8CD1&index=4)

Nali put a video somewhere which showed the same problem but I can not remember where.

Regards

Kator01

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 20, 2009, 03:09:51 AM
Thank you Pirate . . Mh i apologize and you right and thanks for actually called me a nice guy .Thank you for offering Explanations and well I agree to disagree but that only means i will still continue with My experiments . To My Group it is Christmas and i am ashamed of things that happened today . A friend turned against me . I have it in My heart to forgive and forget . Merry Christmas and thank you Bill for setting us straight . I will not post here anymore as this is a breeding ground for fights and My Lord would shun all of us including me . . Have a nice Christmas and know your selfs out  . I'll share like i have always done . Peace and Good will . See you all after Christmas

Gadget
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 20, 2009, 03:13:55 AM
Link to some photos of my gadgetmall replication,

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6123.msg216035#msg216035

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on December 20, 2009, 03:45:24 AM

*ships Paul dead horse and riding crop*

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on December 20, 2009, 03:49:14 AM

*ships Paul another dead horse, riding crop - adds crying towel*

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 20, 2009, 04:37:37 AM
@Kator01,

Thank you for providing the Youtube links.

Alex.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 20, 2009, 11:12:51 AM
Albert:

Apology accepted.

Let me give you my spin on free energy for domestic use.  The desire is to get your house off the grid and not significantly change your domestic lifestyle.

The following scenario is not necessarily cost-effective right now, but the trend line is always in its favour and it's a very possible scenario for sometime in the not too distant future.

Take a block in a typical suburban housing development where ten houses are on lots with their backyards all common.  Each house has an insulated cistern in the basement filled with thousands of gallons of water.  Over the course of the summer, solar heat collectors on the roof slowly heat up the water in the cistern.  Water can store a lot of heat and in the wintertime, you tap back into that heat to heat your house.

Each house will also have a large solar panel array.  In the center of the backyards, there is a "power house" that is buried underground that stores the energy collected by the solar panels on all ten houses.  This "power house" will supply the ten houses with their solar-derived electricity and hopefully provide enough electricity so that none of the people on the block have to get power from the grid.

Inside the power house (more like a power bunker) there is a flywheel connected to a motor-generator.  The flywheel is made of carbon composite materials so that it can spin at a very high RPM without eventually breaking apart.  The flywheel is also sitting inside a vacuum chamber to reduce air friction to a minimum.  There are associated electronics systems (inverters, etc) to convert the flywheel energy into conventional mains power to feed each of the ten houses.

So during the day the solar panels on the roofs of the ten houses pump their energy into the flywheel in the power house and the RPM slowly starts to climb.  At night time when people are consuming power the flywheel RPM slowly starts to decrease.  It would be easy to monitor the power consumption of each house to share the available "free" power in a fair manner.  If the flywheel drops below a certain RPM, then you have to draw from the grid to get your power.  If every day you have a net excess of stored flywheel energy, then you could sell it and pump it back into the grid.

That's how I think domestic "free energy" will eventually come about.  I am talking about real AC mains power, just like we are used to.  It is not cost effective right now, but eventually the trend lines will get to the point where it will be.  It is reasonable for ten new home buyers to split the cost of the communal "power house" and we will push our luck and assume that in ten years the cost of solar panels will have dropped ten-fold.  The carbon composite flywheel spinning in a near vacuum solar energy storage system would also drop in cost if you were to build it in volume.

It's a plausible scenario for the not too distant future.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 20, 2009, 12:12:45 PM
@MileHigh,

Here is my prediction for power generation in a not so distance future.

Humans will soon discover that "The Laws of Thermodynamics" are flawed and that
energy can be created and destroyed at will. Over unity systems will power everything
from mobile phones to airplanes. We will not need the electric grid anymore and there
will be no reason to fight for energy resources. The "Conservation of energy laws" will be
put onto display in museums for the amusement of coming generations.

THAT is how I see the future and the only way to get there is by doing research. NO
mainstream science will ever do that research. So it it up to us "nut cases", basement
researchers and other good people to find a solution to the energy needs of this world.

And that is THE only reason why I use my time and money on this type of research.

Alex.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: ramset on December 20, 2009, 12:44:48 PM
Alex
I believe you and Tesla have the same dream [vision].

Chet
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 20, 2009, 02:53:48 PM
incase you missed it ..

lol


here is my latest stupid simple simply huge output

im building a modulator today ...

this has 2 outputs...  1 recharges driveing supply ...

like  jt standard ...  other charges ubc... 

this is not anyones but mine ..  it is retated simple

1 TRANSISTOR..

william

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5FmO55sBAU

1 DIODE
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 20, 2009, 03:02:57 PM
@innovation_station,

Great. Post a circuit drawing with part numbers here and I will replicate it.

Alex.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 20, 2009, 03:36:45 PM
i have 3 of thease exact same transformers ... 


im selling 2 units ..

100 bucks each  .. i have only the 3 transformers ..

i need to pay my shipping for my 1000 bucks i spent on materials ..

i hope to sell 2 units .. to cover the cost and maybe some one wants to test it ...  : )

ist!
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 20, 2009, 03:48:04 PM
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6123.msg216127#msg216127 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6123.msg216127#msg216127)
"If nobody can't get the joule thief to self-run, then it would nice for you to do some efficiency tests. So far the record is ~ 55% efficient while charging an ultracap. I'm sure that could easily be topped with a different wound core, different transistor, etc. Dare I say that the Joule Thief could go as high as 90% efficiency?  ;D "
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: innovation_station on December 20, 2009, 04:39:40 PM
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6123.msg216127#msg216127 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6123.msg216127#msg216127)
"If nobody can't get the joule thief to self-run, then it would nice for you to do some efficiency tests. So far the record is ~ 55% efficient while charging an ultracap. I'm sure that could easily be topped with a different wound core, different transistor, etc. Dare I say that the Joule Thief could go as high as 90% efficiency?  ;D "

im not gonna cut you down on this paul  cuz i did ask gadget to do the simple basic jt ... 

this is what you tested ...

thank you ..

w815H

i advanced it ... i split the out put ... and pulsed it ...  jt pulses ..  half go to recharge to source cap  other to out put cap  i will make a flip flop er ... to control it and induce this effect ...

as showen in my videos ......   

since i dont have ubc caps cuz i cant afford to pay the shipping ... yet ... lol   i will use my old cap pac or a 12v .5f cap to charge a 12vdc gel cell battery ... and recharge the source ... 

JUST CUZ I CAN ....... ; )

Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 20, 2009, 10:17:54 PM
All,

Today I started to test my version JT against the Boost Capacitor.
Attached is the circuit drawing of my setup.

The test so far:

BCAP CHARGE TEST 01

BCAP 650 Farad start voltage 0,653 Volt.
Will discharge bcap down to 0,653 when reached 2,600 Volt
and will repeat this test until AA battery is discharged.

Joule = 1/2 * Farad * (Volt*Volt)
Watt_Hour = Joule / 3600

AA Battery "Sunrise 1600mA" rest voltage 1,347 Volt.
AA battery maximum output = 2,1552 Watt_Hour.

Date:         Time:   BCAP Volt:   AA Volt:   Remarks:

20.12.2009 1900     0,653         1,347       Running without LED(s)
                1905     0,744         1,318       Changed battery in voltmeter 2.     
                1910     0,793         1,322       
                1915     0,816         1,318       Fluctuate between 1,326 and 1,318
                1930     0,865         1,328       Steady voltage now.
                1945     0,897         1,325
                2000     0,918         1,325
                2100     0,964         1,324
                2200     0,984         1,323
                2215     0,987         1,323
                2300     0,997         1,322
                2315     1,000         1,322

21.12.2009 0000     1,007         1,321       Day 2
                0110     1,015         1,320
                0200     1,021         1,319
                0300     1,026         1,318       Temperature in room down 2 degrees Celsius.
                0400     1,029         1,317
                0800     1,040         1,310
                0930     1,044         1,311       Temperature in room up 2 degrees Celsius.
                1000                                    Test terminated.

EDIT - I have terminated this test for now. It is taking WAY to long to charge that cap.

Regards,
Alex.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: tinu on December 20, 2009, 11:24:46 PM
...
NO mainstream science will ever do that research
because … ?

If you are going to try filling in the dots in good fair, you’ll see the original statement does not hold water.
What are Tokamak (TFTR), ITER and even LHC (to mention just few of them) if not free energy research installations?!

Mainstream science is THE ONLY one doing that kind of research (real& rigorous research, I mean). Science by itself will amend the laws of thermodynamics when/if the time will come; so far it is not necessary and it looks very unlikely to be the case in the foreseeable future. Also, the fact that the law of conservation of energy holds true is not the fault of mainstream, less of the legit scientists making it.

Rest assured that most of the scientists are persons of great vision and very passionate, who will push the limit of knowledge beyond immediate interests (money, power, politics etc). If free energy is attainable, you’ll read papers about it.

Cheers,
Tinu
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 21, 2009, 12:35:31 AM
@tinu,

I'm a firm believer of free speech.
I have read your comments, have a nice day.

Alex.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: MileHigh on December 21, 2009, 08:04:04 AM
Alex:

A few comments about your circuit:

Since one side of L3 is not connected to anything, L3 is not really part of the circuit.  Is it supposed to be doing something?

I don't know what your unit Watt/h is.  Watts per hour is a unit that doesn't make sense since a Watt is a Joule per second; Joule/s.  Perhaps you mean W*h, watt-hours, which are Joules?

Quote
AA Battery "Sunrise 1600mA" rest voltage 1,347 Volt.
AA battery maximum output = 2,1552 Watt/h.

What is the 21,522 number?

If you assume 1600 mAh (milliamp-hours) and keep it simple and assume 1.5 volts, then the Joules in the battery is:

Battery Joules = 1.6 x 1.5 x 3600 = 8640 Joules.

For your test you can see that the battery voltage is not changing.  The very very small changes in the battery voltage are telling you that the battery is still healthy and you can simply ignore them.   You can expect the battery voltage to remain healthy around 1.3 volts for perhaps 90% or more of its life.

When you get the the point where you decide the ultracap is full, it will be interesting if you can make some measurements of the battery recharge process.  Since you know your ultracap starting and ending voltages for the recharging process, you can make an estimate of where the Joules of energy go when you do the recharge.

I am assuming that you are putting a resistor between the ultracap and the battery when you do the recharging step.   Therefore you know that the energy from the ultracapacitor will go to three places:  1) energy dissipated as heat in the resistor, 2) energy dissipated as heat inside the battery, and 3) energy that gets stored as chemical energy in the battery to be reused later.

Good luck with your testing.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: Groundloop on December 21, 2009, 09:16:06 AM
@MileHigh,

Thank you for taking time to read about my bcap testing.

The not connected (NC) end of L3 will be used as a safety method to prevent over charging
of the bcap. Later on I will test what will happen if I connect that NC to the plus of the bcap.

What I think will happen is that when the bcap reach a voltage of batteryvoltage - diodedrop
then a feed back to AA battery will happen and the voltage in the bcap will stop going up,
thus preventing a overcharged bcap.

The other reason for the open ended L3 connected this way is that I found (by testing) that
the output voltage did go from 27 volt to 54 volt when connected this way. I also found that
the JT input usage dropped to almost 1/10 of the input usage than without that connection.
There are some stray capacitance between the windings making the NC a not NC, if you know
what I mean.

My Watt/h is the same as Watt per. Hour. It is just my way of saying Joules / 3600
The Joules in my AA battery at start-up was approx. 2 point 1552 Watt/h.
(2.1552 W/h A little over 2 Watt per. hour. We use comma in Norway not point.)

I'm well aware of the discharge curve of a NiMeH battery. The reason for plotting the AA
voltage is so that I can make a discharge curve in Excel later on to see what discharge curve
I got in this test compared to a standard discharge curve.

I was planning to run this test to the end of the charge in the AA, but this will take forever to do,
and I don't like this test to run unattended, so I will stop this test today. The other reason
to stop this test is that I do not have the same JT as Gadgetmall did use. I will build a better
replica later on when I test the automated feed back circuit I will be building.

I'm also thinking of using my new data sampler and relay board to automate the process of
testing this circuit. This will require new firmware in the data sampler and I don't know if I
have the time to do all this work right now.

I can see that this forum has over 21000 members. Imagine if all of them did actual research
onto something?

Regards,
Alex.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 21, 2009, 04:59:30 PM
Hi Groundloop,

Just wondering if your battery voltage measurements were live, or did you disconnect the battery during each measurement and let it rest every reading. The way I did it was to leave the battery and circuit alone, so I measured the battery voltage while it was connected to the JT.

The reason I ask is because during the 1st 40 minutes or so your voltage measurements are fluctuating a lot, which seems a bit odd. Maybe there's something sensitive with your particular JT circuit.

So the JT charged the bcap 0.3 volts, and the battery dropped 36mV? That sounds reasonable to me. I agree that it takes a long time. That's why I decided to use a tiny 700mAh AAA batteries, otherwise it would have taken days.  :)
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: gadgetmall on December 21, 2009, 05:00:56 PM
Nice . I may have posted this not sure . so much confusion , This was some measurement i did back in November with a bad nicad over a period of a few days showing the voltagae drop and the bcap charging above unity of the battery . this is all that is needed to make this self run . I never claimed the jt was over unity or the bcap but combined is a very interesting device . those that cant make a jt last longer than a week forget it your Jt and battery is not good enuff . I suggests making many Jts and using the battery i specified : energizer 2500mah ni/mh for best results . The numbers show are for a 7 year old battery to show it still can be done with any battery(this battery was an old green China NI cad . about 850mah when new) . Its all about how long your jt runs . I didn't make up anything nor the data i am posting  .the pic chopped of the last measurement it is 1.276 and bcap 1.483 time 12:37: NOTICE something strange happened on the last three measurements As you can see i spent a lot of time doing test where most do not have the patience for days and days of measurements . This was to satisfy me and no one else . The Graph was Done by Friend Broli Thank you Broli ! his project requires a lot of time and for that reason alone it is not for everyone to replicate .  Merry Christmas to everyone who helped .
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 21, 2009, 05:13:36 PM
BTW, thanks for the data Groundloop. I forgot to mention something important. One difference to be noted is that your bcap voltage started out much lower than mine test. Your bcap voltage started at 0.653 volts, while my bcap started at a bit higher than 1.3 volts. The reason I went up to 1.3 volts is because gadgetmall was saying the lower voltages is low.

Anyhow, we know the conventional equation for capacitor energy storage is 0.5 * C * V^2.  The key point is that the voltage is squared. So it takes ~ 1/4th the energy to increase the bcap 0.3 volts at 0.65 volts than it would at 1.3 volts.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: PaulLowrance on December 21, 2009, 05:20:56 PM
Maybe the JT is better tested when the bcap is at higher voltage, probably more efficient. For example the energy required to charge the bcap0650 (using an average of 600 farads) from 0.544 volts to 1.47 volts is 559 joules. A good fresh brand new 2500mAh NiMH could have 11700 joules. So that means a JT at 100% efficiency could recharge the bcap0650 from 0.544 to 1.47 volts 11700J / 559J = 21 times over. That's a tough task.
Title: Re: Ultracaps tested for excess energy
Post by: ATOM1 on June 11, 2015, 09:27:56 PM
Hello !

I have a home free energy generator with what I call a super flux cap bank ! There is no hidden secret to this energy increase its been around for years. The simplicity of it is best kept simple ! Voltage operates at the speed of light current is always lagging behind and not easy to spot on an O S ! Only indirect measurements and a knowledge of back EMF PROVES THAT CURRENT IS SLOWER THAN VOLTAGE.

Also caps have interesting harmonic response to there release of current and quite often electrons in there membranes can rise and fall rather than just receiving electrons which will give gain on the drop. other interesting things to note electrons are made of x and y particles and is why it is possible to split an electron into two and not all ways creating an anti electron .. 

The arrangement of the cap bank with a structure that is set up along harmonic rules stimulate an over yield of electron pressure at its 5th note scale component so play a scale on a piano and check out the 5th note in the scale . You must use a real string piano hold down the 5th note and play the 1st note you will hear that the 5th note will also oscillate indicating harmonic response. That is also a free energy system.

The is a lot of work going on as to zero gravity envelopes with high powered open cap systems, its all about the free electrons not the voltage.

As anyone worried about free energy research and there connection with it calm down and just get on with it we all live on the same planet and no men in black will come and eat you hahaha !!! I am government funded but with peanuts, its a new world we are building so think openly and that is how we all stay protected.

Get that currant up to light speed with forward currant avoid all back emf by reverse feed back in a magnetic transformer you will also find it will increase the amps as the electrons will accelerate towards it , a bit like gravity increasing the speed of mass ! You don't need special caps I use 35v 22000u and they have an EQ satiability storage at 25v... Protect your cap banks or you will drill a large hole in your pocket.

Also be fully a wear that some caps can store up negative charge if you tap an on off on off pulse from them with coils in magnetic fields ! They can blow when you try and youse them as normal after a change of use...

There truly should be a central funding programme here and not just for USA OU researchers the problem is men tend not to unite and share its all to do with there dog brain hahaha The last thing is avoid anything to do with research that has no finite plan count your electrons in and out dnt just rely on an electric metre ! use indirect methods like lifting weights ect or water pumps ! spiting hot water with caps than cooling the gas before burn is most productive but dnt store the combined gas...

Try also and measure all types of capacitance but remember 1f at 1 v over 1 second and 1 watt 1 amp is 1 coulomb of electrons time delay over charge is due to back emf  and be very careful when heating the cap bank if you are going to release the energy on a low resistance load or its a big bang rather than a fast bun out on the cap ...

All in all its all been done before but if you share you data and develop technology try and remember that greed and a paranoid mind
ruin everything !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Regards


ATOM1