2015 ENERGY CONFERENCE SUMMARY & PRESENTATION RELEASE DATES  ENERGY CONFERENCE

2015 Energy Science & Technology Conference
Presentation Summary & Release Dates

 Energetic Forum Charge conserving Capacitive Spring.
 Register FAQ Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 Eric Dollard Magnetizer Products Tesla Chargers 2015 Energy Conference Energy Science Forum Donate Energy Times Advertising

 Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

#31
10-19-2010, 10:44 AM
 Mario Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 279
Ok, I want to calculate it anyway .

We have:
C1 (now in series) which is 0.0235F with a charge of 0.0235F @ 20V = 0.47J
C2 which is 0.094F with a charge of 0.094F @ 10V = 0.94J

To find the final voltage:

Ctot.= 0.0235F + 0.094F = 0.1175F
Qtot.= 0.47Q + 0.94Q = 1.41Q
Vtot. = 1.41Q / 0.1175F = 12V

So you were right, even if we were not talking about the same exact setup.
This confirms the loss I am seeing by measurement.

regards,
Mario
__________________

 Sponsored Links DUE TO A FEW CANCELLATIONS, THERE ARE 11 SEATS AVAILABLE! 2015 ENERGY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE REGISTER NOW http://energyscienceconference.com
 Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets
#32
10-19-2010, 12:54 PM
 Armagdn03 Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 902
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mario Ok, I want to calculate it anyway . We have: C1 (now in series) which is 0.0235F with a charge of 0.0235F @ 20V = 0.47J C2 which is 0.094F with a charge of 0.094F @ 10V = 0.94J To find the final voltage: Ctot.= 0.0235F + 0.094F = 0.1175F Qtot.= 0.47Q + 0.94Q = 1.41Q Vtot. = 1.41Q / 0.1175F = 12V So you were right, even if we were not talking about the same exact setup. This confirms the loss I am seeing by measurement. regards, Mario

You are not seeing a loss in measurement, unless you are not completing the cycle.

For example at this point:

C1 = .094F @ 12V
C2 = .0235F @ 12V

If we switch C2 into parallel again, we have .094F @ 6V.

C1 = .094F @ 12V
C2 = .094F @ 6V.

Which gives us a charge of
C1= 0.094c * 12v = 1.128q
C2 = 0.094c * 6v = 0.564q

Qtot = 1.128 + 0.564 = 1.844

And we have a capacitance total of .094 + .094 = 0.188

Now knowing we that Vtot = Qtot/Ctot 1.844 / 0.188 = 9.85V across C1 and C2, and they started at 10v each.

which is 98.5% of the original energy, and I would be willing to bet that the 1.5% missing is due to rounding error.

So where is this loss?
__________________

#33
10-19-2010, 03:45 PM
 Mario Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 279
Hi Andrew,

there's a mistake in your calculation:

Qtot = 1.128 + 0.564 = is 1.692 not 1.844

Capacitance total of .094 + .094 = 0.188

So Vtot = Qtot/Ctot 1.1.692 / 0.188 = 9V across C1 and C2.

So we started with C1+C2 (0.094F + 0.094F)= 0.188F @ 10V = 9.4 Joules
After we switched C1 to series and back to parallel we end up with C1 + C2 = 0.188F @ 9V = 7.614 Joules
This means in one complete cycle we've lost 19% of the initial energy. Btw 9V is what I actually measured when connecting back to parallel.

If we summarize the individual steps:

At start C1 is in parallel, total energy of C1+C2 0.188F @ 10V is 9.4 Joules.

1) C1 gets switched to series (20V) and discharges into C2 (10V) resulting in 12V across C1-C2. Energy left is 0.5*((0.0235F + 0.094F)*12V^2) = 8.46 Joules. In one passage we have lost 10% of the initial energy.

2) C1 gets switched back to parallel (6V) and receives discharge coming back from C2 (12V) resulting in 9V across C1-C2. Energy left is 0.5*((0.094F + 0.094F)*9V^2) = 7.614 Joules. In this step too we have lost 10% of energy with regards to the 8.46 Joules of the previous step. But in one complete cycle (back and forth) we have lost 19% of energy since we are left with 7.614 Joules with regards to 9.4 Joules we had at start.
Does this sound right?

regards,
Mario
__________________

#34
10-19-2010, 04:22 PM
 Jetijs Gold Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,134
Hi guys
I am following this thread with interest. I think that charging caps and putting them in series and parallel is not the same as physically changing a capacitance of a single cap. There mist ne a difference. To test the concept out I would use a variable capacitor that is made so that it can rotate around full 360 degrees and put a small high speed motor on the shaft. Then I would put this small cap in parallel with a standard cap through a low impedance load (transformer primary). I guess to see the difference with a capacity that small, I would need to use several hundereds of volts.
Thanks,
Jetijs
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.
#35
10-19-2010, 05:33 PM
 Mario Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 279
Hi Jetijs,

this is actually the next thing I wanted to ask Andrew, maybe moving plates is different than switching caps, then again the calculations seem to work for the switched caps too and reflect what I measured in the real world. So, who knows...

regards,
Mario
__________________

#36
10-19-2010, 05:44 PM
 Armagdn03 Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 902
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mario Hi Andrew, there's a mistake in your calculation: Qtot = 1.128 + 0.564 = is 1.692 not 1.844 Capacitance total of .094 + .094 = 0.188 So Vtot = Qtot/Ctot 1.1.692 / 0.188 = 9V across C1 and C2. So we started with C1+C2 (0.094F + 0.094F)= 0.188F @ 10V = 9.4 Joules After we switched C1 to series and back to parallel we end up with C1 + C2 = 0.188F @ 9V = 7.614 Joules This means in one complete cycle we've lost 19% of the initial energy. Btw 9V is what I actually measured when connecting back to parallel. If we summarize the individual steps: At start C1 is in parallel, total energy of C1+C2 0.188F @ 10V is 9.4 Joules. 1) C1 gets switched to series (20V) and discharges into C2 (10V) resulting in 12V across C1-C2. Energy left is 0.5*((0.0235F + 0.094F)*12V^2) = 8.46 Joules. In one passage we have lost 10% of the initial energy. 2) C1 gets switched back to parallel (6V) and receives discharge coming back from C2 (12V) resulting in 9V across C1-C2. Energy left is 0.5*((0.094F + 0.094F)*9V^2) = 7.614 Joules. In this step too we have lost 10% of energy with regards to the 8.46 Joules of the previous step. But in one complete cycle (back and forth) we have lost 19% of energy since we are left with 7.614 Joules with regards to 9.4 Joules we had at start. Does this sound right? regards, Mario
Thank you for catching my mistake! This exchange has been very fruitful, thanks again Mario!

While the system that you (mario) are describing is different, i couldn't put my finger on why, but thanks to your checking my numbers and forcing me to do some calculations I believe I have nailed it.

First I setup a spreadsheet, and checked various values.

The 3 columns represent the various switching of the capacitors. Column 1 is our starting conditions capacitors equal.

Column 2 is after capacity is reduced by factor of 4, and voltage is doubled, as you can see the joules stay equal as they should. The 3rd column represents the switching back to the original position.

At the bottom of each column you can see I have the total joules for each step, and as you can see each step throws away 10% of the total energy, going from 1000 to 900 to 810.
Good catch Mario.

Here is the large difference between Mario's example, and what I propose:

When capacitors are switched from parallel to series, and then allowed to discharge by an amount, A certain amount of charge is nullified, never to return.

If you imagine a capacitor which has (generating random number)...+10 charge on one plate and -10 charge on the other.

This capacitor has +10 and -10 charges to nullify into each other to produce work.

If you place two in series (C1,2) (see image above) The outer plates have +10 and -10, and the inner plates have +10 and -10. As the outer plates discharge into our other capacitor (previously labled C3,4) the charge is conserved. However the inner plates nullify directly into each other, nullifying charge.

The outer plates conserve charge shuttling into the other cap, while the inner plates nullify their charge into each other to an extent.

Thus each time you go into series mode, and discharge a portion, you "loose" some of your total charge...Thus what you have shown is NOT as charge CONSERVING capacitive spring.

In my proposition, Charge is 100% conserved omitting leakage.
__________________

#37
10-19-2010, 05:46 PM
 Armagdn03 Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 902
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mario Hi Jetijs, this is actually the next thing I wanted to ask Andrew, maybe moving plates is different than switching caps, then again the calculations seem to work for the switched caps too and reflect what I measured in the real world. So, who knows... regards, Mario
Quote:
 Hi guys I am following this thread with interest. I think that charging caps and putting them in series and parallel is not the same as physically changing a capacitance of a single cap. There mist ne a difference. To test the concept out I would use a variable capacitor that is made so that it can rotate around full 360 degrees and put a small high speed motor on the shaft. Then I would put this small cap in parallel with a standard cap through a low impedance load (transformer primary). I guess to see the difference with a capacity that small, I would need to use several hundereds of volts. Thanks, Jetijs
Hopefully my previous response outlines the difference between proposed systems.

Cheers!
__________________

#38
10-19-2010, 06:01 PM
 Armagdn03 Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 902
Quote:
 Originally Posted by DrStiffler @Armagdn03 People have tried 10k RPM motors driving disks etc., and I have never heard of one going farther than the initial work and observation. Theory look nice, yet what is the missing part?
Quote:
 To test the concept out I would use a variable capacitor that is made so that it can rotate around full 360 degrees and put a small high speed motor on the shaft. Then I would put this small cap in parallel with a standard cap through a low impedance load (transformer primary). I guess to see the difference with a capacity that small, I would need to use several hundereds of volts.
@DrStiffler
@Jetis

This is a photo of Chris Carson device. According to Dr. Lindemann...

Quote:
 The machine has two sections where stator plates and rotor plates rotate in-between each other, varying the capacitance. These two sections are 180* out of phase with each other, so when the rotor plates are connected to a source of 5,000 volts, and spun at 10,000 rpm, the two sections of the stator produce an AC signal between them. Drawing power from the machine produces no drag on the input motor.
http://www.free-energy.ws/images/ccvcg2.jpg

If there were a second capacitor, with a load in series, this would be a great rotational candidate for a Charge Conserving Capacitive Spring. Beautiful model, however I do not plan to take the mechanical route, as the limitations are......big.
__________________

Last edited by Armagdn03; 10-19-2010 at 06:06 PM.
#39
10-19-2010, 09:26 PM
 Mario Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 279
Hi again guys,

Andrew, just trying to be logic: If the theory and calculations we made work for the cap switching setup (in line with my actual measurements), does this mean that theory doesn't apply to your system? Can't work for both if you say your system doesn't have the losses my setup has....

About your explanation about the inner plates being the cause of the loss, not sure about that. I just did a few more tests and calculations following the last ones I did. I wanted to replace the C1 in series (0,0235F) of the previous setup with a similar sized cap also charged to 20V, to avoid the inner plates and just have two plates. I didn't have a 23'500uF cap so I used a 47'000uF cap, C2 still being a 94'000uF cap. I made 3 tests with C1 at 3 different voltages discharging into the same C2 @ 10V as the previous setup.

1. C1 charged to 20V
2. C1 charged to 25V
3. C1 charged to 15V

I'm not going to rewrite all the calculations but they follow the ones of the previous setup.

results:
C1 @ 20V: Start energy 14.1 Joules. Charge at end of discharge across the system: 12.527 Joules. Loss: 11.15%

C1 @ 25V: Start energy 19.388 Joules. Final charge: 15.862 Joules. Loss: 18.183%

C1 @ 15V: Start energy 9.988 Joules. Final charge 9.596 Joules. Loss: 3.92%.
The calculations are in line with the measurements I made. This means the losses are not due to the inner plates since C1 in this case is only one capacitor.
These tests also confirm what I said about the losses getting bigger the greater the voltage difference between C1 and C2.

regards,
Mario
__________________

#40
10-20-2010, 01:02 AM
 Armagdn03 Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 902
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mario Hi again guys, Andrew, just trying to be logic: If the theory and calculations we made work for the cap switching setup (in line with my actual measurements), does this mean that theory doesn't apply to your system? Can't work for both if you say your system doesn't have the losses my setup has.... About your explanation about the inner plates being the cause of the loss, not sure about that. regards, Mario
Mario,

My setup has losses, like all do, leakage etc. When I spoke of a difference between the two I was referring to the loss of charge due to the direct action of the circuit. The capacitor switching device nullifies part of its charge as the series connected capacitors are discharged. This can be shown looking at this sheet again.

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...tyswitcher.jpg

As you can see the system starts out in equilibrium with a charge of 200 coulombs. Durring the next cycle we have 150 coulombs, and we end at 180 coulombs. As you can see the charge does not stay constant through the cycle.

Also note that begining = 200q and ending state = 180q, so where did the 20q go?

When one set of caps is switched to series configuration, it goes from having 100 coulombs on it to 50 across it with a doubling of voltage bringing it 20v. When discharged into the second cap (of parallel configuration) the voltage drops from 20v, to 12v.

The difference in potential is obviously 8v,

If we only look at the series configured cap, we have 2.5Farads, and an 8v loss...Q=VC so, 2.5c*8v = 20 coulombs. Thus, the 8v drop caused a 20 coulomb loss in this capacitor.

The other capacitor is at 10f and 12v giving it a 20 coulomb gain.

however when we continue to work through,

Now we switch it back to parallel, giving it 6v @ 10farads = 60 coulombs

The parallel cap is siting at 12v @ 10 farads, = 120 coulombs

Combined = 60c + 120C = 180C total when all is said and done. The 20 coulombs lost from switching to series follows through to the end, for a loss of 20 coulombs for the cycle. This means that when the next cycle starts, there is less than there was previously to work with, constituting loss.

Think good and hard about why switching to series makes 50% of the charge appear to go missing. About how any apparent loss of coulombs from this state, is actually Doubled, since what ever is lost on the outer plates is also nullified on the inner plates as they discharge directly into, nullifying one another. (example, parallel cap has 100q, switched to series it has 50q, discharge 20 of that and you have 30q. Switch back to parallel and you will have 60q only. Though you lost 20 in series, you really lost 40 total.

In my version however, the charge stays 100% the same through the ENTIRE process, since there is no series switching, no charge can ever be nullified.
__________________

#41
10-20-2010, 09:48 AM
 Mario Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 279
Andrew, ok. But did you read the whole last post I made? I replaced C1 comprised of two caps by C1 made of only one cap. No inner plates, and when I discharge this cap to C2 I still have the losses I had in the previous setup. Please read my last post and tests again.

I also repeat the question: If the theory and calculations work for my setup (and they do since measurement confirmed it), does it mean they don't apply to yours since you don't seem to have losses except minimal ones? How can the same theory support both our systems?

regards,
Mario
__________________

 Sponsored Links DUE TO A FEW CANCELLATIONS, THERE ARE 11 SEATS AVAILABLE! 2015 ENERGY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE REGISTER NOW http://energyscienceconference.com
#42
10-20-2010, 12:56 PM
 Armagdn03 Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 902
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mario Andrew, ok. But did you read the whole last post I made? I replaced C1 comprised of two caps by C1 made of only one cap. No inner plates, and when I discharge this cap to C2 I still have the losses I had in the previous setup. Please read my last post and tests again. regards, Mario
@ Mario,

There will always be loss whenever a cap is discharged into another cap, this is not my argument.

My arguement is that action and reaction are separated by time with my setup, so that they may both be used.

step 1. Rise the energy state of the system. Work is accomplished. Work input = work output.

Step 2) let the system free, and let it return to its own equilibrium. again work is accomplished.

note: The energy of my system is exactly the same when the process is completed as when it started. If you start with X volts and Y joules, you end with X volts and Y joules.

When the capacitor switching system completes one cycle, it is at a lower energy state than it began, that is a large clue as to how these are very different systems.

Quote:
 I also repeat the question: If the theory and calculations work for my setup (and they do since measurement confirmed it), does it mean they don't apply to yours since you don't seem to have losses except minimal ones? How can the same theory support both our systems?
You are correct. What applies to yours, does not apply to mine and vice versa. I wanted to work on what you proposed anyways because it is similar, but I could not pin point why charge went missing for a bit. Once I did you can see that I posted that they were not the same, and the same maths, analysis can not be used. As for theory, one theory should describe everything, but different things will have different explanations!

Quote:
 Armagdn03: Thus each time you go into series mode, and discharge a portion, you "loose" some of your total charge...Thus what you have shown is NOT as charge CONSERVING capacitive spring.
Your method allows a nullification of charge, mine does not, therefore they are fundamentally different.
__________________

#43
10-20-2010, 02:36 PM
 Jbignes5 Gold Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: NY, USA Posts: 1,014
Why not?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Armagdn03 @ Mario, There will always be loss whenever a cap is discharged into another cap, this is not my argument. My arguement is that action and reaction are separated by time with my setup, so that they may both be used. step 1. Rise the energy state of the system. Work is accomplished. Work input = work output. Step 2) let the system free, and let it return to its own equilibrium. again work is accomplished. note: The energy of my system is exactly the same when the process is completed as when it started. If you start with X volts and Y joules, you end with X volts and Y joules. When the capacitor switching system completes one cycle, it is at a lower energy state than it began, that is a large clue as to how these are very different systems. You are correct. What applies to yours, does not apply to mine and vice versa. I wanted to work on what you proposed anyways because it is similar, but I could not pin point why charge went missing for a bit. Once I did you can see that I posted that they were not the same, and the same maths, analysis can not be used. As for theory, one theory should describe everything, but different things will have different explanations! Your method allows a nullification of charge, mine does not, therefore they are fundamentally different.
Why not do the twin variable cap setup and loose nothing except for the losses in the small traces that are linking the caps. Have two caps as tanks and use the variable caps to slosh the bucket so to say and generate from the side to side motion you create with the variable caps. It would be like a 10 foot bucket with a small radius. Only variate a small portion on the top. If the caps were of a higher quality I bet you would loose little from the process. You could even design a way to make the variable cap better as well by vacuum or oil filled methods. With the oil filled the best in dielectric strength but slower to turn.
__________________

#44
10-20-2010, 05:14 PM
 Armagdn03 Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 902
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jbignes5 Why not do the twin variable cap setup and loose nothing except for the losses in the small traces that are linking the caps. Have two caps as tanks and use the variable caps to slosh the bucket so to say and generate from the side to side motion you create with the variable caps. It would be like a 10 foot bucket with a small radius. Only variate a small portion on the top. If the caps were of a higher quality I bet you would loose little from the process. You could even design a way to make the variable cap better as well by vacuum or oil filled methods. With the oil filled the best in dielectric strength but slower to turn.
you are spot on.

Two variable capacitors would be ideal for increase in power output, however for sake of simplicity, and ease of explanation, I am describing the system with only one variable capacitor.

I have designed my own special variable capacitance for this. It requires no moving parts, however the voltage across my system is 10KV - 12KV before the decrease in capacitance takes place, meaning that even with good insulation, leakage will be something to watch.
__________________

#45
10-20-2010, 05:28 PM
 Jbignes5 Gold Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: NY, USA Posts: 1,014
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Armagdn03 you are spot on. Two variable capacitors would be ideal for increase in power output, however for sake of simplicity, and ease of explanation, I am describing the system with only one variable capacitor. I have designed my own special variable capacitance for this. It requires no moving parts, however the voltage across my system is 10KV - 12KV before the decrease in capacitance takes place, meaning that even with good insulation, leakage will be something to watch.
Ok there is a big difference in a single variable cap and twin ones. One would be harmonic(twin) and the other non harmonic(single). The harmonic one would be like putting a teeter tawter in the system and the other would be like jacking the one side up. The harmonic one would be the less leaky since it would have an increase with the associated decrease on the other side. This would make it more powerful as well and you wont have to have extreme high voltages like you are talking then.
On the subject of leakage you could always shield any wires with static shielding(not connected to anything) This would reflect the leaks back to the source of the leak and contain it better especially if you stay with higher voltages. Cheap static shielding would be a heavy aluminum foil tape or just foil glued onto the wires. If you do them in bands and overlap the bands it should make an effective static shielding for your high voltage app..
Also drop by our thread in the "don't kill dipole" I am working on the same kind of system to get an ac output with a high voltage pair of leyden jars type setup with twin variable caps on a motorized rotor. Weather or not this will work it would be nice to have your setup to compare to as well.
__________________

Last edited by Jbignes5; 10-20-2010 at 05:36 PM.
#46
10-20-2010, 05:51 PM
 Armagdn03 Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 902
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jbignes5 Ok there is a big difference in a single variable cap and twin ones. One would be harmonic(twin) and the other non harmonic(single). The harmonic one would be like putting a teeter tawter in the system and the other would be like jacking the one side up. The harmonic one would be the less leaky since it would have an increase with the associated decrease on the other side. This would make it more powerful as well and you wont have to have extreme high voltages like you are talking then. On the subject of leakage you could always shield any wires with static shielding(not connected to anything) This would reflect the leaks back to the source of the leak and contain it better especially if you stay with higher voltages. Cheap static shielding would be a heavy aluminum foil tape or just foil glued onto the wires. If you do them in bands and overlap the bands it should make an effective static shielding for your high voltage app.. Also drop by our thread in the "don't kill dipole" I am working on the same kind of system to get an ac output with a high voltage pair of leyden jars type setup with twin variable caps on a motorized rotor. Weather or not this will work it would be nice to have your setup to compare to as well.
I agree with the difference and utility of using two variable capacitors. What I was initially trying to get across is the barriers of understanding in "action reaction separation" and the concept that the time constants dictated by the load impedance and capacitance at a point in time (involves differential and integral calculus to calculate) and how this affects your maximum attainable frequency.

For example, with a resistive load, you may have a time constant of 1 second. This means in 5 seconds you would have moved 99 percent of the available movable charge.

However within the first second 63% of the charge is moved. During the remaining 4 seconds only 36% of charge moves. Therefore, your time constants might dictate an operational frequency of X, but in reality you will accomplish more work per unit time if you reduce your frequency 80% or 1/5th of what it was.

Frequency also must be taken into consideration with respect to how fast you can switch the capacitance. if you can only do it a few thousand times per second, and you are in the PicoFarad range, you are not going anywhere fast.

I will perhaps show a video soon showing how to find the ionization time of fluorescent tubes, as this is my frequency limiting factor.
__________________

#47
10-20-2010, 06:22 PM
 Jbignes5 Gold Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: NY, USA Posts: 1,014
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Armagdn03 I agree with the difference and utility of using two variable capacitors. What I was initially trying to get across is the barriers of understanding in "action reaction separation" and the concept that the time constants dictated by the load impedance and capacitance at a point in time (involves differential and integral calculus to calculate) and how this affects your maximum attainable frequency. For example, with a resistive load, you may have a time constant of 1 second. This means in 5 seconds you would have moved 99 percent of the available movable charge. However within the first second 63% of the charge is moved. During the remaining 4 seconds only 36% of charge moves. Therefore, your time constants might dictate an operational frequency of X, but in reality you will accomplish more work per unit time if you reduce your frequency 80% or 1/5th of what it was. Frequency also must be taken into consideration with respect to how fast you can switch the capacitance. if you can only do it a few thousand times per second, and you are in the PicoFarad range, you are not going anywhere fast. I will perhaps show a video soon showing how to find the ionization time of fluorescent tubes, as this is my frequency limiting factor.
What about ultra caps? They can store and discharge even faster and really since Wimshursts machines are just caps that are variable you get the same effect. The trick would be to increase the dielectric value and lessen the gap to increase the capacity ratings. Vacuum does a good job and so will oils that are reduced by boiling to expunge contaminants. Although boiling of the oil will raise the viscosity I'm sure disk design would help in getting the blades to move through the oil very effectively.

You do have a point about charge response and that needs to be looked at more closely. As to reducing the frequency of the switching of the variable cap you make sense but that only will increase the resistive reactance of the cap. Meaning that the longer the charge stays in the cap the more self discharge that would happen increasing the loss.

Anyways my system should employ twin variable caps that will only have to variate 120-160v back and forth. This might allow a lower operating base voltage to apply the swing to but I have not built a test rig yet. I want to stay in the high range for voltage but we will see what static like voltages when applied to a variable capacitor will do.

Using a vacuum does present a problem of maintaining that vacuum but that might be workable. Using oil is a simpler method but might be harder to turn. I'll have to see for myself i guess...

Tesla did make an open ended tube on one of his devices and could maintain a vacuum with that method I'll have to research that more to see if it is possible to use that method.
__________________

#48
10-20-2010, 08:16 PM
 Armagdn03 Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 902
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jbignes5 What about ultra caps? They can store and discharge even faster and really since Wimshursts machines are just caps that are variable you get the same effect. The trick would be to increase the dielectric value and lessen the gap to increase the capacity ratings. Vacuum does a good job and so will oils that are reduced by boiling to expunge contaminants. Although boiling of the oil will raise the viscosity I'm sure disk design would help in getting the blades to move through the oil very effectively. Agreed, however I would need a very large and fast Wimshursts for what I want. but as a method of attack not a bad idea for people to peruse....one disk can control 2 capacitors very easily......."Testatika" ??? You do have a point about charge response and that needs to be looked at more closely. As to reducing the frequency of the switching of the variable cap you make sense but that only will increase the resistive reactance of the cap. Meaning that the longer the charge stays in the cap the more self discharge that would happen increasing the loss. I think you misunderstood me, I was pointing to increasing frequency, by using only 1 time constant vs 5, thus decreasing the reactance, besides this it also moves more coulombs per second. My wording was poor now that I look at it "my bad". Anyways my system should employ twin variable caps that will only have to variate 120-160v back and forth. This might allow a lower operating base voltage to apply the swing to but I have not built a test rig yet. I want to stay in the high range for voltage but we will see what static like voltages when applied to a variable capacitor will do. Look forward to your results! Using a vacuum does present a problem of maintaining that vacuum but that might be workable. Using oil is a simpler method but might be harder to turn. I'll have to see for myself i guess... these are a few of the reasons i do not want a mechanical method, besides my lack of fabrication ability, it is just overall more difficult. Tesla did make an open ended tube on one of his devices and could maintain a vacuum with that method I'll have to research that more to see if it is possible to use that method. This was a clever way to draw a vacuum with HV, but i cannot say if this is any more effective than a vacuum pump. I opened up a CRT analogue o-scope the other day, the the cathode ray tube still had a perfect seal and negative internal pressure and it was over 35 years old, so perhaps with quality manufacturing this is not a problem, but like I said before, i don't have the tools!!!

My response is in red. This is obvious, but it is making me type some sort of a 10 character plus message besides the quote to submit this post, lol.
__________________

Last edited by Armagdn03; 10-20-2010 at 08:26 PM.
#49
12-02-2010, 07:36 PM
 Armagdn03 Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 902
Hello all,

Progress has been made in this area although a bit slow. I have a good friend who is helping with an incredible driving circuit, for this very device.

However, what I want to post, and what other people can use, for many parametric purposes, is this modification I have designed based on the Hiddink Patent mentioned earlier in the thread, and alluded to as the preferred method.

Quote:
 you have two caps, 4 sets of plates, inner and outer. If you remove the inner plates, you have much much less capacitance, because the remaining capacitor is dictated by the two outer plates. But how to physically remove the inner plates???? With a modified version of: Capacity Changer Why not add and remove a virtual plate. This of course throws out all of the "force on plates" mumbo jumbo, but that was still important to realize the mechanism in its simplest embodiment.
So, the problem with the patent as it stands, is that there needs to be a complicated switching scheme to remove completely one of the sources of power. The patent actually dictates two separate power sources!

Well among the many people I have talked to who have replicated this, (Dr. Stiffler has videos of his replication I believe), the switching has always been the problem with bringing this patent to realization.

Well, there is a solution!

YouTube - Solid State Capacity switching Tube 2

If a person could build a circuit which operates around one of the large capacitance jumps (correlated to the phase changes of the particles in the tube) then you have an easy capacity switching device, to run all sorts of parametric circuits.
__________________

Last edited by Armagdn03; 04-19-2011 at 07:14 PM.
#50
04-19-2011, 07:26 PM
 Armagdn03 Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 902
testing connection,
__________________

#51
05-29-2011, 05:52 AM
 Web000x Silver Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 539
Andrew,

I am impressed with your line of thought on this thread. I am very certain that you laid a golden egg on the forum.

I completely see where the use of the middle wire capacitance component was killing the charge in mario's system.

The conversation between Jbignes5 and yourself easily conveys the idea behind Chris Carson's device. His Device was operating on a negative phase shift where each capacitance was on the opposite half cycle producing an AC signal of "energy synthesis" from the dielectric field.

Thanks for pointing me to this thread. You are certainly looking at things clearly.

Dave
__________________

 Sponsored Links DUE TO A FEW CANCELLATIONS, THERE ARE 11 SEATS AVAILABLE! 2015 ENERGY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE REGISTER NOW http://energyscienceconference.com
#52
05-29-2011, 06:53 AM
 Aaron Co-Founder & Moderator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 10,035
opposite half cycle AC energy synthesis

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Web000x the idea behind Chris Carson's device. His Device was operating on a negative phase shift where each capacitance was on the opposite half cycle producing an AC signal of "energy synthesis" from the dielectric field.
Dave,

Would you mind elaborating on that?

Are you talking about the potential difference between two negatives
that alternate?
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

#53
05-29-2011, 07:40 AM
 Web000x Silver Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 539
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Aaron Dave, Would you mind elaborating on that? Are you talking about the potential difference between two negatives that alternate?
Sure,

Eric Dollard mentioned the importance of inductance/capacitance parameter variation with respect to time for the "synthesis of energy". In Mr. Dollard's book titled "Symbolic Representation of the Generalized Wave", Read Pg 57 where at the bottom of the page it lists the quantity called -HB; H is receptance or negative resistance, and B = mhos in farads per second.

That quantity suggests energy production from the dielectric field by a varying capacity. I have yet to verify this experimentally, but this idea is due to standing on the shoulders of giants if you will.

Armagdn03 spoke about the exchange of charge between a dielectric parameter variation which stood the test of equations for realistic and theoretical application.

Peter L Quote:
Quote:
 The sixth picture shows another, lower angle shot of the whole machine. It also shows how one section is out of phase with the other.
If you were to have two capacitors that vary out of phase like Chris Carson had, you would have a setup that could move a maximum amount of charge by the equation Ψ=eC (Ψ = Total Dielectric Induction in Coulomb, e = electrostatic potential in Volts, and C = Capacitance in Farads) between capacitor plates. The displacement current due to the potential differences can then run through a load while the capacitors are moving towards equilibrium. From my understanding, the Ψ=eC stays in balance.

Armagdn03's description of using conservation of charge (variable capacitance) vs. time manipulation has me convinced you can indeed change the energy of a system and collect a bit extra.

Dave
__________________

Last edited by Web000x; 12-12-2011 at 03:37 AM.
#54
05-30-2011, 08:53 PM
 Armagdn03 Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 902
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Web000x Andrew, I am impressed with your line of thought on this thread. I am very certain that you laid a golden egg on the forum. I completely see where the use of the middle wire capacitance component was killing the charge in mario's system. The conversation between Jbignes5 and yourself easily conveys the idea behind Chris Carson's device. His Device was operating on a negative phase shift where each capacitance was on the opposite half cycle producing an AC signal of "energy synthesis" from the dielectric field. Thanks for pointing me to this thread. You are certainly looking at things clearly. Dave
Thank you!

I also gave one really great solution to the switching problem encountered with the Hidink patent a couple posts back. There was the need for complicated switching schemes, which no longer exist with the method of accomplishment I showed. This device is in itself over-unity. I know personally of at least one person who has this down pat however out of respect to the original inventor, (which may still be alive) he has kept quiet.

Chris Carsons device was a super simple demonstration, but a mechanical implementation for energy production on that scale is a little silly when you consider the limitations of the system! 10,000 rpm on a spinning multi plate cap??? Wow talk about model building difficulty. Using phase changes of ionized gas, OR using uv light to excite a layer of phosphorus as depicted in these patents.

Keep in mind for this system the critical parameters for power generation.

1)Capacitance of the capacitors (total charge held)
2)Starting voltage across caps (Total charge held)
3)Impedance of the load (Time constants, dictates coulombs per second or watts)
4)Switching speed (directly related to time constants)
5)Limit on how quickly one can switch between between conductive plasma phase and non conductive phase. User Tecstatic has released some information on this in the private part of Heretical builders forum, and I will ask permission to re post here.
__________________

#55
05-30-2011, 09:03 PM
 Armagdn03 Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 902
For those who enjoy the work of Eric Dollard this is a direct application of his theory. I will be posting with reference to four quadrant theory for a bit, but am a bit predisposed at the moment.
__________________

#56
05-30-2011, 11:46 PM
 7imix Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 380
Great thread, thanks for pointing me at it.

Also, which one is the hidink patent you mentioned?

I like the line of thought about using plasma tubes to control the switching, but I'm not clear on what that would look like. I have spent a lot of time studying the schematic of the voltage converter Eric uses in his car and trying to understand how I could create a solid state embodiment of that, but all the ideas I came up with are far too complex. Using plasma tubes is a great suggestion.

What kind of tubes are available? Would transient voltage suppressors be suitable at all? I have had a difficult time designing a circuit that uses them in a manner similar to how don smith uses them, but I have not spent too much time trying.
__________________

#57
05-31-2011, 02:38 AM
 Raui Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 284
Quote:
 Originally Posted by 7imix Great thread, thanks for pointing me at it. The two google patent links you just posted are 404. Can you re link them? Also, which one is the hidink patent you mentioned? I like the line of thought about using plasma tubes to control the switching, but I'm not clear on what that would look like. I have spent a lot of time studying the schematic of the voltage converter Eric uses in his car and trying to understand how I could create a solid state embodiment of that, but all the ideas I came up with are far too complex. Using plasma tubes is a great suggestion. What kind of tubes are available? Would transient voltage suppressors be suitable at all? I have had a difficult time designing a circuit that uses them in a manner similar to how don smith uses them, but I have not spent too much time trying.
Here are the patents your after;
Louis O'Hare Patent 1

Louis O'Hare Patent 2

Joseph Hiddink

Also just a note on Dollard's voltage converter. It may have been modified from that schematic I posted a while back since logic tells us that it will loose charge in the same way as Mario's device did earlier in the topic. I don't question any of his work in any way shape or form but I don't think this device is worth bothering about too much for reasons Andrew posted earlier. I had a friend replicate the circuit solid state and he said that it operated in just the same way as a boost converter does and was quite inefficient.

I don't wish to deter you from your study but I thought I'd put that out there.

Raui
__________________
Scribd account; http://www.scribd.com/raui
#58
05-31-2011, 04:22 AM
 7imix Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 380
Yes, I am aware that the voltage converter is a common device and does not produce large amounts of excess energy... But I still want to study it so I understand how it works and can build something like it. This thread is helping with that a lot.

Also, there has to be SOME reason Dollard talks about this device. I would like to know what it is he is trying to teach us by talking about it.

When I build "normal" electrical devices, any misconceptions I may have about theory are easily dispelled since I get direct experience with measuring the device.

I am very curious if there is a good way to use transistors to charge capacitors in parallel and discharge in series, or vice versa. What I came up with seems horribly complicated. I have not been able to find any schematics or even learn about any common devices that do this.
__________________

#59
05-31-2011, 06:12 AM
 SuperCaviTationIstic Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 331
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Armagdn03 I also gave one really great solution to the switching problem encountered with the Hidink patent a couple posts back. There was the need for complicated switching schemes, which no longer exist with the method of accomplishment I showed. This device is in itself over-unity. I know personally of at least one person who has this down pat however out of respect to the original inventor, (which may still be alive) he has kept quiet.
I personally have contacted Joseph Hiddink. Facebook! He's alive and well, but VERY saddened and obsessed with his discovery/invention because no one (governments, manufacturing, r&d) has taken him seriously and helped him develop it.

Aaron, would you think it's ok for me to post his Facebook id? He seems to not be able to accept instant messages, and it sometimes takes him a while to respond to messages, but we have conversed a few times.

I really believe that if he saw a great interest in this, he would love to help out.... He does want to develop it commecially, but it's so simple and he doesn't seem to mind, and actually encourages its development.

And one more very interesting side note:

RogerArrick.com Roger Arrick Mystery Orb

more pictures are on the page

A metal sphere was found in a rive and x-rays were taken. It is 2 concentric spheres with a gas discharge tube in the middle surrounded by a metal cylinder. A wire runs to each sphere, the cylinder, and each end of the discharge tube. I've downloaded and backed up these pictures because it's vital PROOF that the government/militarily/machine uses this technology, and poor Joseph doesn't get a dime.

That's right, this not only produces high voltage, but the negative pulse has a matter repulsion effect and a positive pulse has an attraction effect.

Incase you didn't connect the dots....it's a flying saucer propulsion device
__________________

#60
05-31-2011, 06:35 AM
 SuperCaviTationIstic Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 331
and if you think that's weird, it get WAY WAY WAY WEIRDER
Tom Swift and his Polar-Ray Dynasphere

I was doing a google search and I forget the term I was looking for, but I think I was trying to find out if anyone had made a piezo-electric concentric-spheres-capacitor oscillator out of quartz.

Guess what, young Tom Swift did! To power his Polar-Ray

from the text:
["Well, as you know, that double-walled crystal sphere at the stern is my electrostatic-field device. I've decided to call the gadget a 'Dynasphere' -- or 'Polar-Ray Dynasphere,']

also very weird that Keely invented a thing with that name, but that's completely different. (Or is it?)

Tom Swift's 'fictional' device is VERY similar to hiddink's device, yet acting as an osccilator with the medium of the highest Q known (correct me if I'm wrong) QUARTZ

And the whole electrostatic field shaping of his electro-propulsion ship is very clear and accurate.

Tell me I'm wrong.
__________________

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Forum Rules

Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

 Choose your voluntary subscription \$5 : \$5.00 USD - monthly \$7 : \$7.00 USD - monthly \$10 : \$10.00 USD - monthly \$25 : \$25.00 USD - monthly \$50 : \$50.00 USD - monthly \$75 : \$75.00 USD - monthly \$100 : \$100.00 USD - monthly \$175 : \$175.00 USD - monthly \$250 : \$250.00 USD - monthly

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:27 AM.