Author Topic: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin (Read 251444 times)

Montec · « **Reply #615 on:** April 06, 2011, 09:15:38 PM »

Hello Magluvin

Since you are basically moving energy from one capacitor to another it seems that you need to think in units of energy and not in units of volts.

Energy in a capacitor is U = 1/2(CV²)

V = applied volts
C = capacitance

BTW the 1/2 comes out of the integral used to calculate the area under the capacitor charge curve vs time period.

Hyperphysics has a good explanation http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capeng.html

woopy · « **Reply #616 on:** April 06, 2011, 10:18:36 PM »

Hi all

the real thing is if we apply the formula, which is written in all text book, the energy transfer from a cap to a cap of same value is 50 % efficient.

and of course the question is where did those other 50% go

In heat or something else ? in this case the 50 % energy are fully lost and unrecoverable yes or not

. and in this case it is simply not possible to recover them or a part of them , because they are no more there ?? yes or not ?

So my question is , from where the energy of the Inductor and diode ( "believe circuit" as Mag named it ) comes from , to recreate much better efficiency in THE SAME ENERGY TRANSFER.

My bench experiment shows around 50 % efficiency in a direct transfer, that is transferring a cap to a cap without any resistance and about 85 % efficiency by ADDING RESISTANCE OF INDUCTOR AND DIODE

Please explanation

Hi wayne
i do not understand your 200 % gain in your calculation, for me the result is the same , if i charge 2 cap of 10 uF at 10 volts, they store the same energy as those same charged cap mounted in serie of course as per the bloody 1/2 X CAPACITY X VOLTAGE ^2.

good luck at all

Laurent

woopy · « **Reply #617 on:** April 06, 2011, 11:10:16 PM »

Hi Montec

thank's for the post concerning the , as i named it " bloody formula " there is no insult here against the formulator people but this formula puzzle me and really derange me on this research.

I know that this formula is used all over the place concering the kinetic energy and it is in general used with atmost efficacity .

as i can understand , this formula says that a single cap of 10 uF and 10 volts , is discharged in a same empty cap of 10 uF .and by doing this it loses 50 % of the stored energy.(as per hyperfhisics link )

So i can understand that the voltage is a pressure or a spring. So at 10 volts the spring is streched with a lot of force, or work. Than we decide to split in the same capacity the stored force, so the concentrated energy will be diluated in 2 entities. So you you simply distreched the spring to release more space, in order to refill the 2 capacities at half the voltage. or half the spring tension .

So more volume at less concentration. and of course because the bloody formula 50 % lost energy.

OK but now we are at the end of the releasing phase and every thing is calm and equalised... but where are the bloody energy come from and says " please wake up everybody , we can not stay at this point and we will pile all above the other and recreate some more energy. So we will rebuild from 50% of the standard transfer up to 85 % or more.

where is this staff of people comes from ?

sorry to repeat me , but explanation and discussion is welcome

good luck at all

laurent

poynt99 · « **Reply #618 on:** April 06, 2011, 11:24:13 PM »

Laurent,

I assume you are in general, "OK" with the equation in question, because you have seen first-hand on your bench that the equation seems to be true to your results. That is, when you use no inductor, and have a pure resistance between the two capacitors, energy seems to be "lost".

You are having difficulty accepting it, but it is true, when using a piece of wire, 50% of the energy will be lost in heat in that interconnecting wire.

When you insert an inductance (and a diode) between the two capacitors, the situation is now different. Now, rather than a dissipative element (the piece of resistive wire), you have a less dissipative element (an inductance and lump resistance) between the two capacitors. This less dissipative element stores some of the energy that otherwise would be lost if only a wire was used. The inductor not only stores some of this energy, but it releases it again in the direction of the empty capacitor.

You can continue to improve the efficiency of this energy transfer by increasing the inductance, while trying to maintain a relatively low lumped resistance.

Eventually, you will approach 100% energy transfer, but you will not quite get there, due to the finite resistance we always have in inductors (not super-cooled).

Hope that helps.

.99

woopy · « **Reply #619 on:** April 07, 2011, 12:14:56 AM »

Thank's Point99

i have to go sleeping

and i will be dreaming of this

in my mind, a wire of respectable diameter (probably 0.8 to 1mm diameter )as the one comming out of my cap, can probably transfer some amps in a very short time, in other words a lot of energy.

the transfer of the very low power cap (10 uF at 10 volts that is to say 500 uj)
this is very low energy can be transported really easily through the wire without really heat creation.

So my question is if i measure the resistance of the 1mm diameter (Cap wire ) on the 5 centimeter length of this wire , none of my meter will be able to detect a so small resistance,

But if i measure the resistance of the inductor (the secondary winding of a MOT) i get 107 ohms .

So adding "a huge resistor" under the form of an inductor has a better efficiency than a bare solid wire ( with almost no resistance) ??

I am very open to all explanations

good night at all

Laurent

wayne49s · « **Reply #620 on:** April 07, 2011, 12:52:07 AM »

Quote from: woopy on April 06, 2011, 10:18:36 PM

In heat or something else ? in this case the 50 % energy are fully lost and unrecoverable yes or not . and in this case it is simply not possible to recover them or a part of them , because they are no more there ?? yes or not ?

So my question is , from where the energy of the Inductor and diode ( "believe circuit" as Mag named it ) comes from , to recreate much better efficiency in THE SAME ENERGY TRANSFER.

My bench experiment shows around 50 % efficiency in a direct transfer, that is transferring a cap to a cap without any resistance and about 85 % efficiency by ADDING RESISTANCE OF INDUCTOR AND DIODE

Please explanation

Hi wayne
i do not understand your 200 % gain in your calculation, for me the result is the same , if i charge 2 cap of 10 uF at 10 volts, they store the same energy as those same charged cap mounted in serie of course as per the bloody 1/2 X CAPACITY X VOLTAGE ^2.

good luck at all

Laurent

The efficiency of the inductor comes from the inductance part of the impedance which does not dissipate heat. Without the inductor, the impedance is the wire resistance + capacitance. With the inductor, the efficiency is demonstrated to be much higher. From what I read about Tesla, he was always thinking of resonance, and its importance may be in storing energy (parallel LC) or transferring of energy (series LC) as shown here and is of importance.

Woopy, since you asked, I just realized my error in the thinking about the parallel to series, there is no change in the total energy. Thanks for pointing it out. Had that mental error for a while.

/Wayne

poynt99 · « **Reply #621 on:** April 07, 2011, 01:00:51 AM »

Laurent,

You are correct. Even though the lead resistance is very low, it is a finite resistance, and therefore will dissipate energy, no matter how small. 50% of the energy in the source will be converted by the wire or leads to thermal energy, even if the wire resistance is only 1 milliOhm. It does not matter what the resistance is, the same 50% will be lost in the wire.

Now, if you introduce an element that can store and release energy in the form of a magnetic field (an inductor), and if this element has a relatively high Q (high inductance to resistance ratio L/R), then you have the right tool to transfer your energy efficiently from the source capacitor to the load capacitor.

If you could make an ideal inductor, your energy transfer would happen with 100% efficiency.

You may find it helpful to read the document attached to this post:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8334.msg210142#msg210142

poynt99

Tito L. Oracion · « **Reply #622 on:** April 07, 2011, 06:37:31 AM »

Quote from: Magluvin on April 06, 2011, 12:16:25 AM

Ok folks. this is getting nuts. Good nuts. ;]

Something that is strange is, the way we think about how a circuit works when we even see it in a schematic. We forget things or we dont always see the "what ifs" in what is presented.

Remember me saying that it would be difficult to accomplish the switching and conversions of sometimes caps in parallel and then series throughout the process of running a starting source to the end result?

Well I was at work putting circuits together in my head. Well I decided to go against my instincts on something I had thought earlier. ;]

I have only the last part of the circuit to figure, and it is just a bunch of switching. And the timing for cutoff I think I will go with timing from a 555, possibly.

This sounds like we are making things worse. But the results are....

start with a 10uf "capacitance" at 1000v and process that through 3 stages of Believe Circuit, and we get 1320v into a 10uf "capacitance"

I will disclose this week. I have the switching down on the 3 stages, and its simple. Im not pulling a tito here. I just want to see if anyone gets it. Its an important exercise for the mind. It will open a door that you have never walked through and the door is here for the opening.

Tito keeps showing us the radiant energy receivers. And I think that many know of these and believe that you can get free energy there, but wheres the beef? Not everyone is interested in having 100 wire antenna in their back yards, as he suggested to make 100 of those circuits. No fun and try portability with that one.
The believe circuit needs no antenna. Just inductors and 1 precharge to get it started. Maybe the antenna can give you the precharge if you dont have a source to begin with.

I am flabbergasted at the level we have gotten to this point. And guess what, with more switching, we can add more stages.
And get this, with each stage we have less voltage each time.
I dont believe for 1 single solitary second that we loose anything in power transfers. If there is any, I really dont care cuz I dont see it.

Common woopy, I know you and forest will figure this out. Run the sim, and start with any voltage you wish, I just like high as we lose less from voltage drop of the diode overall.
Then run 3 stages, 1 at a time. after each stage, reset the sim, replace the caps with succeeding larger values of double previous and just edit the source to the last voltage gotten, as I have described earlier. But run 3 stages.

At the end, what do you do with a "capacitance" of 40uf at 350v to get 1320v into a 10uf cap. If I told you that an 80uf "capacitance" at about 225v would give us even more, would you believe? lol

Looks like we are losing here. lol Just think. My feet love me and no longer fear being on a plate.

If you give in and cannot wait, I will tell. Just give it a shot. I have given some clear clues. But I wont tito anyone here. Sorry Teets. Its just how it is.

Thinking caps men, the party has begun.

Mags believes You betcha

Actually for hundreds or even thousand of the same pattern, we always have a shortcut, i just said that for those lazy ok ?

like in mathematic equation, there is very long method and there is very short method, but one answer, as simple as that

OK! sorry but we don't actually need stages by stages technique, but its okay for the meantime.

its just actually a matter of D,C2,R technique we can reach that.

As i always say battery is the best and reliable source as a starter.

no worry bro, i'll just be at the back watching and i am very very happy no matter where you come up

Even you discover the best secret in coil technique then i am very very happy, no worries bro.

sorry for my interference don't worry i'll just cross by

goodluck happy scruitinizing

Magluvin · « **Reply #623 on:** April 07, 2011, 07:07:57 PM »

Hey All

Well, after beating my head in since yesterday morning, I realize a big mistake I had been making along the way. It was the calculating the caps in series that gave us over the top voltages.

Big mistake. I had several tomes caught myself and kept doing it.

Yesterday mornings posts were where I had came to my senses on this.

I now have a chart made up to reference these issues in the future.

I have to apologize to all and especially Point and Tito as I had, in my feelings of big accomplishment, wrote some things that should not have been written.

So, the only thing that we have gained here is compensation for losses through transfer from source to receiver. Where normally we would lose 50% total, we can mostly eliminate that loss.

Its crazy that if we have a 10uf at 10v, connect another cap and each cap only holds 1/4 of the original energy. Total half. Sucks dont it?

Maybe it is better that we think of it in terms of tanks of air pressure than weighted water.

An issue that still sticks from yesterdays posts is, if we lost 50% in heat losses, how does the inductor overcome those losses?

Is the heat not generated any more with the inductor? As Point had said, that the inductor stored enough energy to overcome the heat losses. Well, if energy from the source was used to get the inductor going, did the inductor only consume half of the energy from the source and had the ability to overcome those losses? How is that?

Im not nearly done here. Even with my big mistake, last night I went through it all very thoroughly as to dotting my Ps and Qs. I ran through the 3 and 4 stages, and from a source of 1kv, still ended up in the mid to upper 900v range in a 10uf cap.

So have we gained anything? Have we avoided loss in energy transfer? Well it certainly looks like it. Can we save by using inductors in our circuits to avoid losses that exist everywhere?

Can we run a load with this circuit to get 2 times as much work done from our source, by overcoming these 50% losses?

Im not going to bring myself down over the mistake. It was a hard and good lesson learned. it wont be made again.

Ok, again, really sorry for bringing any false hopes here, as it truly was not my intention.

Mags

Magluvin · « **Reply #624 on:** April 07, 2011, 07:13:58 PM »

One more thing

I did a test on the sim. A direct transfer from 1 cap to another wit a diode and very low ohm resistor. It gave a complete transfer from on to another. I increased the resistance ad we fell back down to half the voltage in each.

I will do some real tests tonight on this. Were the wires acting as the inductor in this case, along with all the conductive plates in the cap and the diode?

So if I cannot get a complete transfer in the real world, did the sim perform a superconductive process with the very low ohm resistor?

Mags

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #625 on:** April 07, 2011, 07:27:05 PM »

Hi Magsy - In my book there's NOTHING lost. Just a good lesson learned - and for that you need the kind of integrity you've shown us here. Endless respect for that. I hope - if we're proved wrong - to be able to do the same. You've set a good example.

AND WELL DONE - nonetheless. Always a pleasure to challenge mainstream. Even if it's not an outright win.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Groundloop · « **Reply #626 on:** April 07, 2011, 08:05:45 PM »

poynt99 · « **Reply #627 on:** April 07, 2011, 08:13:43 PM »

It shows a lot of integrity and security to admit when one is wrong mags. You've earned my respect.

Thanks for setting a good example for others.

.99

MrMag · « **Reply #628 on:** April 07, 2011, 10:13:04 PM »

I know it's pretty hard not to get overly excited when you think you've discovered something great. It's even harder to listen to others when they try to explain things. You get the impression that they don't understand what you mean or are just trying to confuse you. Everyone needs to just calm down, sit back, and really think things through. It sounds like that's exactly what you did. kudos. I give you a lot of credit and respect for the work you do. You just ran into one of those "aw shit" moments. Keep up the good work and don't give up. You'll get it yet.

woopy · « **Reply #629 on:** April 07, 2011, 10:55:38 PM »

Hi all

Thank's Point 99 for the link , i have printed it and will study

no problem here Mag

You are right ,because if i am interested in those forum,it is to,learn something and of cousre from a lot of trial and error . I have made all my life like this and i am very happy because sometime you get big succes and some time big " fessee" ( another bloody thing when you do a "connerie " you have to pay for this and receive a fessÃ©e which is in general very injuste because all the experiment can be transfered on the very simple woopy formula ( 1 to 1 ) so one bad experiment = 1 good experience. So in this respect it is without any doubt OU . But you know it anyway.

But Mag please take the time to read the post of Groundloop here above, it is really interesting and relevant of what we are working on.

Further more ,for my blablating tonight , i think you are really right . And i am very aware that until now, nobody in this world can claim to have SEEN an atom, right ?, nobody here in this worl can claim to know how MASS is consisted from ( and there is a lot of phisicist here in Geneva who are trying to prove that the theory of MASS is correct by finding the BOSON OF HIGGS. And if they do not find it. all the theory wiil be to redirected from the beginning. Does photons exist out of mathematics and trace on complicated captors , and neutrinos .... ??. And so on so the the big bang is not sure at all only theory .

i am not saying that phisic is wrong at all. Because i use it every days in my work, and especially when i let my loan fall on my foot (it does not hurt very much $:-\$ ) but the effect is real especially on the smile of my wife.

So Mag you are right and go on freeing your spirit and your sense. You will kill no body unless you you eat your feet and legs and disappear in a Black hole of

... and in this case we will miss you

Lot of pleasure here .. and i will go on the experiment

good luck at all

Laurent

and

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin (Read 251444 times)

Montec

Re: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin

woopy

Re: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin

woopy

Re: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin

poynt99

Re: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin

woopy

Re: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin

wayne49s

Re: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin

poynt99

Re: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin

Tito L. Oracion

Re: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin

Magluvin

Re: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin

Magluvin

Re: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin

Groundloop

Re: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin

poynt99

Re: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin

MrMag

Re: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin

woopy

Re: Electrical igniter for gas engines A keystone to understanding by Magluvin