Hey Loner  ;]

Just as you say, I put some "maybe's"  and "possibly s" just in case i am wrong, even though at times I think Im right.  ;]  I have to because I dont think I would like the taste of my foot. ;]

When you spoke of the flywheel, I thought of my separate descriptions between the inductor and the physical wheel.

The physical wheel is different. A lot of energy is expended to get it started and that energy that is further put into the spinning, need not be as much once it is already spinning. And once it is at full speed, very little is needed to keep it there. ;]

The inductor on the other hand, requires voltage(pressure) to get it going, but the current is low in the beginning. The power is low when starting the inductor flywheel. As it speeds up, more energy is required to accelerate, more current flows, more power required.

So in my frame of mind, with a cap in series with the inductor, we are charging the cap, but the inductor is in the way of getting it done NOW. It is just a form of decreasing resistance in the path of getting the cap to become equal or leveling out with the source.

If we forget that the inductor actually stores any energy that had gone through it,  and we see that it just has a decreasing resistance as the cap charges, we can then say that the cap, when it reaches the same level as the source, holds an equal amount of energy that was taken from the source.  Agreed?  ;]

Now we look at the energy stored, per say the flywheel is spinning, freewheeling weighted wheel. While the resistance is decreasing and the flywheel is accelerating, where can we say that energy was used to get it spinning?
 We could look at the action that is happening in the inductor is just as I described, a decreasing resistance value, and we could calculate that and be accurate as to the amount of energy being fed through the inductor and ignore the flywheel other than it is just an artifact of the current that had gone though the inductor.

I would say that in the series circuit presented, when current flows, that current is the same throughout the circuit at any given time.
I dont think anyone could argue this.

So I dont see the spinning up of the inductor as an energy loss between the source and the cap getting charged, just a delay of sorts.
I dont see it as a hole in the water pipe where we lost something before the water gets to the bucket.

I dont see it as a place in the circuit that took anything from the source, that didnt make it to the cap.

If it did, and this is key, then our current in the circuit would be different on the input lead to the inductor as compared to the output lead of the inductor.  But we know that current in the circuit is a constant per time of flow, especially being that the circuit has no branches and is just a closed loop.

As for the differences in voltage vs current in the inductor, that is easy.  Imagine the inductor being 1 ohm in resistance. That would be when the inductor is not in circuit.
So when we present a voltage across the inductor, the resistance (impedance) of the coil will be very high in the beginning, thus high voltage and low current. As the wheels get spinning that resistance decreases, more current flows and the resistance becomes even lower.
Once the resistance finally becomes 1ohm, high currents will flow and the voltage measured across that resistance will be low, when measured across the inductor, especially if the source cant hold its own against the very low resistance, and other resistances in the circuit will affect this also.

So, did we use any energy from the source to get the wheel spinning, as in actual energy taken from the source and not provided to the charge cap?  Did all of the energy that came from the source, from no charge in cap to full charge in cap, reach the cap? 

So in my circuit description in the above post, if we got rid of the diode that is across the bat/switch, and we disconnected the batt when the cap reached 5v(source =5v), did we consume more from the batt than it took to get the cap charged to 5v?  I say no. I say we are left with a spinning flywheel that has nowhere to put the energy instilled in the inductor. And I think its free if we capture it properly.

Lets get rid of the cap and the diode across the batt/switch so we have batt, switch inductor and diode in loop.  Now when we close the switch, the inductor starts spinning and currents are accelerating.
But now we are just discharging the battery, and getting the wheel spinning. In the circuit we still just have a decreasing resistance seen in the inductor, and electrons are just filling holes in the + side of the battery. Our loss is the battery just having a load on it that varies as the circuit continues to flow current.
We can say that we stored the energy in the inductor, but only to the point that the inductors field cannot increase any longer because the source cannot provide more pressure than 5v. Beyond that, the battery just sees a resistance load, and the action of being drained because the batteries - and + want to equal out.

If we have a water fall and we can figure how much water per min is falling, then we add a paddle wheel under the falls, can we still say that the amount of energy from the source had a loss or conversion of energy between the amount of water that begins to fall and the amount that made it past the paddle wheel to the river below? No, it is the same amount. Plus we got the wheel spinning. =]
This is not a perfect example, but it gets the message across.

=]

Mags

HI  every one

Hi Mag and all

Nice theory i will reread to get it totally.

In the mean time i have made a small experiment after my last video and the correction i have received about it..

I decided to charge a cap with a battery at 10 volts and than to discharge it in parallel in a same value (63 volt and 47 micro F) cap and the efficiency is about 50 %.  See test 1 in the pix 1.

Than i redo the same but this time the cap is discharge through the diode and inductor (always MOT primary) and this time the efficiency of the transfer is about 74 %.  See test 2 in the pix 1

So without the freewheeling the direct transfer is 50 % efficient and with the freewheeling (that is to say with one diode and one 220 mH inductor and all the added resistance  of them)  the efficiency climb to 74 % that is to say  1.48 time better.

What do you think of this result

good luck at all

Laurent

Hi Mag

Please read better my post . In the second circuit the result is 8.4 in a cap and 1.9 in the other (not 7.9). Which should be slightly over the 10 original voltage. but it is probably due to the scope shot imprecision.

But there is something anyway and i have tried a crude explanation see the pix. I think that if you try to replicate my drawings in the real life  (for instance the blue color should be water ) it will be impossible to recreate a potential difference with the flywheel (because what you explain in your previous post ).

But in electrical reality it is possible and this is fantastic  . It seems that the transfer with freewheeling effect "IN ITSELF" is 130 % efficient.

Will reread your post to better understand.

Good luck at all

Lasurent

hey all

While Im at work, Im thinking all the time, and not about work. The work just automatic and my brain is on the bench. =]

Sorry for the mistake on the 7.9 value. Imagine the smile on my face at the time. But when I went back to work, I remembered that this config can only produce so much, as is. So when you replied that I read it incorrectly, I felt assured that we are still in the ball park. ;]

Lets say that if through testing that we are certain that we are at least getting more out than in, we can then at least have something that will help our beliefs in what we are searching for. We now know for certain that it is possible. We can hold it in our hands, finally.

This is a very basic circuit. Not any complication to it. This is a circuit that Rosemary should put on the table. It would not be as hard to defend the theory against the wolves.  Simple and to the point.

In Woopys second circuit above, was thinking that of the voltages he had shown, the diodes drop could be figured in and his numbers show accordingly.  So I suggest using a higher voltage, maybe 20v as the source. I believe our output numbers will increase for the good and help lower the percentage of the diodes drop on the whole.
If your source were 2v, that diode drop will affect the output in a huge way. Our numbers will be far short of 100%, as the diodes drop could be .7v to upwards of 1v. So 20v will show an improved output ratio. ;]

As for losses, it is weird I admit that I see things in what could be in a different light.

But my theory that the inertial forces that is built in the inductor come at only the cost of the changing impedance effect on the circuit, and not a loss of power, can very well explain why we are able to get more in the cap, after we disconnect the battery at the point that the cap has reached battery voltage level of 5v.

Run this through your noggin. ;] 

If we hit the switch and wait for the cap to reach 5v, and then we very quickly removed the whole inductor from the circuit. Would you say that if we measured the cap and it has 5v measured and the source was 5v, did we lose anything in the transfer? Do you believe that some of the current that was flowing in the inductor(conductor), some how kept something that never got to the cap?

Well I do believe that electrons and or charge is compressible. Could it be that some electrons, per say, were compressed in the inductor, and when we took the inductor away, we lost those extra electrons that it held and the battery is missing those plus the ones put into the cap? Is that the loss you are speaking of.  ;]

Well if we consider the source as having potential for motive force, and the cap has potential of accepting that potential from the source, I could say that the source is pushing and the cap is pulling. Just those functions should be like a push and pull situation on the inductor, there by where was there really any compression?

The source sees the cap as a destination, but the impedance of the inductor is like breathing through a coffee straw to begin with. No mad rush of current, just an increase as the current flows through the inductor. Why would we call impeding or resisting a current from flowing a loss? i would say its conserving energy by not draining the battery so fast. And thats all the source sees in the inductor is a changing resistance.

If we have a 12v battery and a 12v motor that does some job.
We connect the motor to the battery and the motor does work, just as it should.
Now we add a 0.5ohm resistor in series with the motor. Now we connect the circuit and we notice that we are not getting as much work done. Oh, we have a loss in the resistor, and thats why the motor isnt putting out as much work now.  loss?
No.  There is just not as much current flowing now due to total resistance of the motor and resistor. AND less is being pulled from the battery. We are not pulling the same amount of power as before with just the motor as a load.

Loss?  Ok yes there is loss. Loss to the output of the motor because for the amount of current flowing through the circuit, the resistor is helping to determining the current in the total circuit. It is lowering the total current. We are drawing less from the battery because the total resistance is higher. 

It is not as if we are pulling the same amount of current as with just the motor and battery alone, with the resistor added.
And we have just losses in the resistor? so thats why the motor doesnt put out as much work because of losses?
"The resistor is just a limitation"  not a loss.

If we add the resistor, less will be pulled from the battery. "LESS". ;]
Thats why the motors output is not as high, because we have added a limiter, a valve that is half closed. We didnt lose anything other than what the eff of the motor allows as physical output. Thats just the fault of the motor design. We only lost a desired effect from the motor, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT PULLING ENOUGH CURRENT FROM THE BATTERY TO RUN THE MOTOR PROPERLY.     This is not a loss, but a limitation in the application.

We only lost the desired amount current to run the motor properly for its job title. It doesnt mean that electrons and or charge is being spilled on the ground and wasted.

So if we look at the inductor in the same view, it may come clearer to you that the varying resistance of the inductor in the circuit is not a losing deal. It is just in control(valve) of the currents in the circuit and thats it. Where is the loss? Especially if we have a gain. 

I think it would be a hard argument for someone to come in here and tell me where the losses are, and how we lost them.  I dare ya! 
I just may be able to fend for myself in debate with only what I know now, and find some good friends on my side along the way.


I can see losing rf through holes in our capture device and not being able to recapture and bring it all back to where it came from. But in a basic circuit, Im seeing things differently, and seem to have explanation for so called anomalies we are encountering, and the explanations seem to fit. So far. ;]

So until we have a better explanation or reason to not believe, then I say we go with it for now and see what comes of it.

I am going to name this circuit, The Believe Circuit.  Because thats what it does.  =]

Back in a bit.  Showwa and eats.   

Mags

hey Loner

Lol  dont take my post as me arguing with you. ;]  It may have seemed that way. What I am saying is for everyone that reads it.  ;]

I will stick to just the inductors flywheel idea for now and Ill get back to losses and things later.  My statements on losses and where the energy went if not to the cap, is all based on if any of the circuits energy were actually converted to another energy(inductors production of mag field) then the gain must be just magical. But if the circuit doesnt consume(lose) energy in the production of that field(flywheel), then that can explain why we got more out, because we produced that field for free, and the circuits reaction to that field build was just a lengthened time period to charge the cap due to impedance(changing resistance and or "negative resistance").  =]   Just a theory is all Im presenting.

I read in a thread here the other night, dont remember which, but someone stated that when it comes to inductors and transformers, information is a little on the light side. I agree.  I yahoo searched inductance. I found that answers.com had a few definitions from different sources.
http://www.answers.com/topic/inductance

They are not all coinciding informations. What is the truth? What is all the confusion?  Well im determined to find out. ;]

Think about it. If tesla had invented a transformer in 1890 that was capable of more out than in, but all we ever seen is transformers that ALWAYS pull more in than out, even with no load  , I say there is a coverup.   And if that is so, what else do we need to question?  Im asking some of those questions, whether they are absolutely valid yet, time and testing will tell.

Im like everyone else. If we have a gain, where did it come from? And maybe the answers are not necessarily from the vacuum or aether. maybe it is just a function that common physics does not describe. And probably most or all people into physics, just go by the book and never notice anything otherwise.

Woopys latest test where he charges a cap from the source and uses that cap in the Believe Circuit as a source, leaves us with something to be considered.
We now have a finite amount of energy as the source in that cap, and we still obtained a gain. Did we lose anything?
Im not saying losses do not exist.
What I am saying is, some things or functions just might not be or have a loss as we might think from what we are told. ;] 

Im going to get into some bench work this evening and try not to post long non understandable information for now. I may be premature as to anything that I have stated. But consider it all just theories at this time.

Stick around Loner. I think it will sink in as we go.

I think your catching on forest. ;]

Mags

Hi all

just a small video of my understanding and questions on the subject

good luck at all

laurent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjOG7OJslgA