View Single Post
  #1313 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 05:12 PM
Hoppy Hoppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armagdn03 View Post
Cant say how long I have known, but I dont really think it is understood by almost anybody. I was watching a guy speak, who was a former "black ops" who said that the military had circuits which only "spent time". At the time I thought he was full of crap, but now I can clearly see what he is saying. This goes deeper than just heat, it goes to the heart of all energy, and the assumption that there is, was, and has been a finite amount.

A condenser charged, will share its charge with another condenser of the same properties. The energy dissipated in doing so will always be the same. If you place different loads in-between you will always end up with the same balance, how long it took will be the only difference. Bulbs, motors, resistive loads, doesn't matter, same energy is lost. Energy is apparently lost because we have spread a potential over a larger surface area (higher total capacitance). This need not be the case, for inductors themselves look like the perfect "negative resistor" sucking up every last drop of energy in the condenser. (this cannot happen if we keep sharing between caps).

Placing loads in between the cap and inductor complicates things. Anything that diminishes the flow, (resistors etc.) spreads out the TIME it takes for the interaction to take place. This means the inductor will not rise to as high an energetic state, which then also means it has less energy stored. It will return less when it becomes source, and cap becomes sink, your coefficient of restitution will suffer. This is mostly due to ohms law.

Take a motor for instance though, one like Dr. Lindemann is touting. A capacitor discharges into a motor winding. Because the motor creates no secondary current opposed to the first, energy stored in the inductor is not limited in any way, and is free to return to the capacitor. (especially if built so the reluctance does not change). You basically have a delay line tank circuit, or this one way tank. Now there is nothing in the way of collecting as much as possible back from the inductor, and you get rotation on top of it all.

Put in one pulse of energy, and it will be recirculated, over and over until it slowly runs out. The more run time you have off of a single pulse, the more judiciously you have managed your time expenditure.

I have a transformer which "rings", each ring pumps a charge in a secondary circuit. If a load is attached, the ring does not die faster, Try this with a normal transformer, and the load will kill the ring right off the bat.

Edit:

I didnt see Luc's latest video, excellent compliment to what I am trying to explain.

This all sounds reasonable to me and highlights the need to reduce resistive elements to get best power transfer between capacitor and inductor in the case of the motor example. However, given that the inductor and capacitor will be far from 'pure / perfect' devices, a state of unity cannot be achieved in the physical circuit and under unity efficiency optimisation is all that can be hoped for.

If there is any hope at all towards overunity, the focus should perhaps be on the battery as John Bedini has said so many times. The 'motor' might possibly generate the necessary 'trigger' to cause the battery to self-charge but I'm certainly not holding my breath on this claim ever being proved correct.

Hoppy