Captret - Perpetual Light with Dead Batteries

[Magnethos]

@Groundloop

I don't fully understand your explanation. You say "... by shorting out the + and - wires and use the can, then I could short the CapTret as
many times as I like without depleting the voltage..."

You say that if you join the + and -, then you can short out the 0 and + as many times as you want?

[Groundloop]

@Magnethos,

Thanks for the links and drawing. I have been testing the CapTret
for a many days. I have found that by shorting out the + and - wires and
use the can (O connection), then I could short the CapTret as
many times as I like without depleting the voltage. This led to the
conclutions that capacitors really can't be depleted at all. There is
always a self charge present. So I desided to design a pcb that will
take 100 CapTrets in series. I will then put 10 PCBs in parallel to get
higher current. So in total I will modify 1000 capacitors and solder
them to 10 PCBs. I will post more when I have soldered the PCBs.

Groundloop.

[Magnethos]

thanks

@Magnethos,

>>Now the next step is building a "capacitive power source"

That is what I intend to do. I will have my new PCBs in a week
and the 1000 capacitors has already arrived.

See this thread at ou forum:
Captret - Capacitor and Electret

Groundloop.

Thank for the advice. I forgot that in ou.com this thread also exist.
I will post there also.

Here you've a document about Capacitors that recharge themselves (and how to make them. It's like an electret. We can study more this thing and extract some interesting data.
(eBook) - Free Energy - Capacitors That Recharge Themselves

But the first thing is to know if powering a load using the + and case connection can run the load without depleting the battery.
1) Charge the cap closing the Switch #1 (S1); the capacitor is charged. Disconnect from the battery.

2) Close S2 to run the load (small light bulb in this case). The energy stored in the 0 and + poles run the light bulb. In this process the main charge (+ and -) is intacted. But if you connect again the charged (+ and -) capacitor to the power source, then the captret poles (0 and +) will charge again without depleting the battery because the main charge (+ and -) is not discharged.

I think you can do this test using 2 relays. But the 2 relays need to be feeded from a secondary battery and let the main battery runnin only the caps. I have attached a schematic of what I've just explained.

[Groundloop]

@Magnethos,

>>Now the next step is building a "capacitive power source"

That is what I intend to do. I will have my new PCBs in a week
and the 1000 capacitors has already arrived.

See this thread at ou forum:
Captret - Capacitor and Electret

Groundloop.

[Magnethos]

one more step...

So i performed the test to see if the captret drains the power of the capacitors + and -.

I'm happy to say that it doesn't. I've tested a 10F 2.3 volt, 10000 uf 35 volt, and 47uf 50 volt caps. All caps showed the same result, they all were not affected by the captret. I performed a dead short from + lead to case, the only thing that drained was the captret part but soon bounced back up as if it was a electret while keeping the + and - of the capacitor unaffected by the captret short.

Be careful with testing this out. The meter will drain the capacitor so don't let that trick you. Hook the meter up for a couple of seconds and monitor how fast the voltage drops and then check to see if that rate changes when you dead short out the + lead with the case.

So what does this mean?
It means that the captret makes one capacitor into TWO capacitors.
Why is this so important?
Because for the price of one charge to one capacitor you get two capacitors, and one of the capacitors (the captret) will stay self charge so long as there is power in the first capacitor. Two for the price of one.



I'll post a Youtube video of what i did soon.

So, we know that we can recharge as many times as we want the captret part without affecting the +/- part (at least apparently).
Now the next step is building a "capacitive power source". I mean, to charge some capacitor in parallel (+ and -), put them in series (+ and 0) and discharge them to a load (light bulb, motor...).

In theory, the battery won't drop the charge.

[ibpointless2]

Video of the captret not affect the voltage inside of the + and - of the capacitor when dead shorted out.

YouTube - Captret dosen't drain capacitors power

[ibpointless2]

So i performed the test to see if the captret drains the power of the capacitors + and -.

I'm happy to say that it doesn't. I've tested a 10F 2.3 volt, 10000 uf 35 volt, and 47uf 50 volt caps. All caps showed the same result, they all were not affected by the captret. I performed a dead short from + lead to case, the only thing that drained was the captret part but soon bounced back up as if it was a electret while keeping the + and - of the capacitor unaffected by the captret short.

Be careful with testing this out. The meter will drain the capacitor so don't let that trick you. Hook the meter up for a couple of seconds and monitor how fast the voltage drops and then check to see if that rate changes when you dead short out the + lead with the case.

So what does this mean?
It means that the captret makes one capacitor into TWO capacitors.
Why is this so important?
Because for the price of one charge to one capacitor you get two capacitors, and one of the capacitors (the captret) will stay self charge so long as there is power in the first capacitor. Two for the price of one.



I'll post a Youtube video of what i did soon.

[Magnethos]

ok, try the test. I hope that works.
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...5TRGbE2aW639TA

you can try a manual mechanical switch like this one and perform some hundred of ctcles to see if there is an increase of voltage in the battery. good luck.

[ibpointless2]

So here's the order i think will work best.

Hooked in parallel.
Then completely off.
Captret in series and dumped into battery.
then completely off.
The capacitors in series and dumped into battery.
Then completely off.
repeat.



**Important things to note
Being series needs to last longer than being in parallel.

And having that completely off moment is key, if you don't they could short each other out and cause the battery drain.

And being off cause relaxation on the battery, also very helpful.


Goal
Charge the capacitors in parallel. Discharge through the captret part first while in series and then discharge through capacitor in series. Hopefully see a charging of the battery or non discharge while supplying a load.

What i have notice so far doing these simple test is that the batteries don't drain when given a simple load such as a LED. Ill see if i can make a video to show you what i'm talking about.

[Magnethos]

Small capacitance caps could be better

So my first attempt didn't work well. The super caps take to long to charge and i was using a non rechargeable battery.

My second attempt was more promising. It was a very crude setup so i can't confirm yes or no yet. This time i used 220uF 50 volt caps with a rechargeable battery. I performed the test by hand and got what seem like a result. The battery was at 1.298 volts and after performing connecting it in parallel with capacitors and disconnecting it to put it in series many times i got the battery up to 1.299 volts.

I'm going to make a wheel that turns on switches so i can control it better and more importantly faster!

In the website, the guy says 22,000 microfarads, a supercap of some farads didn't work as well as the suggested ones.

Maybe using some mechanical switch it could be better. I have thought about relays. Your idea about the wheel is also useful.
Maybe it could work also with solid state switches, but its not sure.

In the picture is shown the basic idea. Then you need to develop a circuit to perform that operation automatically

Update #1
I've just added the second image where I show how to make the circuit to charge 2 capacitors in parallel and then discharge them in series into the same battery.
It can be done using only 2 mechanical switches (the relay could be the best option?)

Note: The circuit is not finished, it must be resolved the problem of the Capacitor 2.
When connected in parallel the + pole is upside and when the same cap is connected in series the pole - must be upside.

Update #2
Problem solved
In the picture number 3 I show how to make a simple circuit to charge the capacitors in parallel and discharge them in series into the battery. You can perform that action using a mechanical switch or other similar switch. Maybe you would need another small battery to close and open the switches. I don't recommend to use the battery shown in this circuit to open and close the circuits. The main purpouse of the battery shown in this circuit is to charge the 2 capacitors and then receive the energy stored in the caps. Nothing else.
This time the circuit is completed.

[Jbignes5]

yup... rofl

Sounds like the "Invisible Electrostatic Wall" at 3M adhesive tape plant.

GB

Yeah ok... I don't know what it was all about I read a report about his adventures with his car and that was one of the weird happenings. Another was that the batteries seem to change just like with the cromwell device. They would not take a normal charge for weeks after being taken out of the system he used. He loaned a battery to a neighbor because they needed it. When put into the car it started and ran but it blew the alternator. After two replacements the shop would not cover the replacement cost because the battery would keep blowing the alternator. The batteries would not take a charge via traditional charging methods. It is akin to the Bedini method and radically changes the batteries internal energetic structure.

We need to change the point at which we draw the energy. Ronald's point was the batteries which I think is not a good idea because it creates this dampening field around the batteries.

[gravityblock]

The problem with Brandts system is that it was reported to have strange field effects if it sat still any amount of time. It seems this field is a dampening field and was based on negative pressure or voltage. This is not the direction I wanted to go and I doubt you want to either since a dampening field tends to affect even humans. It makes all transfers of energy with a depleted base of charge.

The reports were very vague but one was of one of the people next door could not get out of a trailer because they could not move when they entered the field which was at the edge of the trailer. Ronald was out working on his car and had it running while he worked. It seems to me that there was a field of low energy or a depression in the local energy field that his car was sucking from.

That was the report. If it is true then you can see why I stopped my replication attempts and started on other avenues.

Sounds like the "Invisible Electrostatic Wall" at 3M adhesive tape plant.

GB

[Jbignes5]

yeah

It's called surging. The caps tend to dump the voltage faster then it takes to charge the cap. Ronald Brandt used this to run a load and maintain the charge on his batteries. Although this is the Tesla switch which he used I think he used caps to temporarily hold the charges then shuttled them back twords the battery while running his load.

The problem with Brandts system is that it was reported to have strange field effects if it sat still any amount of time. It seems this field is a dampening field and was based on negative pressure or voltage. This is not the direction I wanted to go and I doubt you want to either since a dampening field tends to affect even humans. It makes all transfers of energy with a depleted base of charge.

The reports were very vague but one was of one of the people next door could not get out of a trailer because they could not move when they entered the field which was at the edge of the trailer. Ronald was out working on his car and had it running while he worked. It seems to me that there was a field of low energy or a depression in the local energy field that his car was sucking from.

That was the report. If it is true then you can see why I stopped my replication attempts and started on other avenues.

[ibpointless2]

So my first attempt didn't work well. The super caps take to long to charge and i was using a non rechargeable battery.

My second attempt was more promising. It was a very crude setup so i can't confirm yes or no yet. This time i used 220uF 50 volt caps with a rechargeable battery. I performed the test by hand and got what seem like a result. The battery was at 1.298 volts and after performing connecting it in parallel with capacitors and disconnecting it to put it in series many times i got the battery up to 1.299 volts.

I'm going to make a wheel that turns on switches so i can control it better and more importantly faster!

One other thing i would like to point out when messing with the 220uf caps to see if they would charge a battery, is that they never dropped the battery voltage. Never dropping the battery voltage can also be useful.

[ibpointless2]

So i'm testing out if you can take two capacitors in parallel with a battery and then disconnect them from the battery and hook them up in series to see if they will charge the battery. I'm charging two 10F 2.3volt super caps with a AA 1.359 volt battery.

First off what i notice is that the caps will drain the battery but as the caps fill up the voltage on the battery goes back up.

Of course before testing i shorted out the super caps. Will connect it in series to see if it will charge it. I'll post more later.

So my first attempt didn't work well. The super caps take to long to charge and i was using a non rechargeable battery.

My second attempt was more promising. It was a very crude setup so i can't confirm yes or no yet. This time i used 220uF 50 volt caps with a rechargeable battery. I performed the test by hand and got what seem like a result. The battery was at 1.298 volts and after performing connecting it in parallel with capacitors and disconnecting it to put it in series many times i got the battery up to 1.299 volts.

I'm going to make a wheel that turns on switches so i can control it better and more importantly faster!