Bedini, Meyer, capacitors, batteries and the electret effect

[sucahyo]

Electrolytic capacitor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A major problem was that most electrolytes tended to dissolve the oxide layer again when the power is removed, but he eventually found that sodium perborate (borax) would allow the layer to be formed and not attack it afterwards.

Thanks, I guess that is the reason for why my experiment failed.

I have made a video of some of my experiments.

Thanks for the video .

Interestingly, the white powder appeared on the outside of the positive tube, not on the copper plate at all, where with stainless steel tubes, you get the powder on the negative tube.

That is interesting.

I have also done some experiments with an imhotep fan. This suggests that indeed a capacitor is formed. On the scope I see the fan charging the cap with spikes, and then the cap discharges when the spikes are gone. IIRC the fan was able to keep it charged at something in the order of 1-3V.

Can you see if it also act like a battery? by measuring amp output?


Would the coating remain if you use higher voltage or bring both electrode closer together?

[lamare]

Can you see if it also act like a battery? by measuring amp output?


Would the coating remain if you use higher voltage or bring both electrode closer together?

It appears to act like a battery, indeed. I measured at what's supposed to be the negative plate about 0.8V (IIRC) positive with respect to the aluminum plate. I think this is because I took copper for the negative plate instead of aluminum. This probably also explains why I would get gas production without any voltage source. And this also explains why the industry takes aluminum for both plates when making electrolytic capacitors. If you take different metals, you create a battery...

I did not take current measurements, but when I took two 1k resistors in parallel (making 500 Ohm) and put that in series with my power supply, the voltage across the resistors would still be negative.

According to the theory, the coating (aluminum oxide, *not* the white stuff) should become thicker when applying higher voltages. This is basically how the voltage rating of an electrolytic capacitor is determined. The capacitor should be conditioned at about 125% of the desired voltage rating.

The distance of the electrodes should not make much difference, because the negative plate is extended trough the electrolyte liquid to the surface of the dielectric layer. The distance of the plates should mostly influence the series resistance of the cap, not the capacity nor the thickness of the layer.

However, I think the layer is not stable when using soda, so I'm going to try borax. It may also be that the aluminum I used, which is an alloy, is not pure enough for this. It may be an idea to dissect an old electrolytic capacitor to get aluminum foil with the proper properties.

[sucahyo]

Ok. I look forward for your result .

Do the oxide coating peel off because the voltage exceed dielectric voltage limit? And borax increase it?

[lamare]

I did some measurements on the cap/battery. When I shortcut it, and then measure the voltage, it slowly increases to about 0.8 - 1 V. If I try to measure the amperage, I can't measure anything with my multimeter. It should be able to measure low amperages, but somehow that doesn't work.

Anyway, if we consider that it draws about 15-20 mA when charged with about 15V, then the resistance of the dielectric layer is something in the order of 1-2 kOhm. Then, with a voltage of about 1V, one cannot expect to be able to draw more than about 1 mA. That's the disadvantage of an insulating dielectric layer: it makes a bad battery....

Coming to think about this, it may be that the soda version is not too bad if we want to make a fuell cell, because if the layer becomes too stable, it may grow too much, so we would need ever more voltage in order to get the electret effect. So, with soda, we may have to pay a bit more in terms of energy we need to put in in order to keep the dielectric polarized, but we may get the advantage that the layer can be broken down pretty quickly, so we can keep the thickness of the layer under control as well as shut the gas production down. Assuming this all works as planned, of course.

So, I think I'll experiment a bit more with the current configuration. See if I can get an estimate of the capacity and see what happens if I feed it with high voltage pulses from an ignition coil, etc.

[lamare]

That's the interesting part nature has shown us ways to cheat like this. A lightning storm uses the same stuff to make it's massive energy output. Even the wavelengths of light that are used are at resonance with the oxygen atom, that is better known as the light being absorbed by the atoms. In my summary of Stanley Meyer's work I go over all of this but it needs to be updated as I have learned the last part now and have to add that in.

A lightning storm has three capacitive zones, between the earth and the bottom of the cloud, between the bottom of the cloud and the top of the cloud, and between the top of the cloud and the upper atmosphere. It has the energy to break down the water molecule both ways Meyer found and used. Most of this energy comes from the self-ionization properties of water, and I think that is the key to everything, even life itself, for without water life doesn't exist as far as we can tell. So perhaps water is a conduit to this energy of the vacuum, for a tree has no problems breaking down the water molecule to get at the hydrogen it needs to build it's cells, nor does the rest of the living things on this planet. One thing we all have incomon is we don't use up large amounts of energy to break down the water molecule.

This is an area of some much need research this self ionization property of water and it's role in life and other things seen in nature, like a lightning storm. The suns coherent light also plays a important role in this, as too does the magnetic field of the earth. Anyway this is where the science has lead me to in looking at Stanley Meyer's patents. These type of questions keep popping up and have to be answered, all we can do is give it our best, and follow the rules of science and bend them some if they don't seem to apply.


h2opower.

Certainly a lot of research has to be done, and it is sad to see how "science" has evolved on a few paths that one can hardly call science. If one thing can be learned from climategate, it is that science in general has departed from the concept of open discussion and verifyable experiments. The most important thing science has lost the past hundred years is its objectivity, it has largely become an industry that walks the ways money supply points to.

One of the aspects of this, is that some people are made into unfallable saints no one dares to question anymore. One of the most prominent examples of this is without doubt Albert Einstein. Because he warned the US that the Germans were making an atomic bomb, he and the Los Alamos scientists became heros that are not to be questioned, even to this day. Actually, the making of the bomb is a very interesting story, that appears to be quite different from the story we are told at school:
Critical Mass* - The Real Story of the Birth of the Atomic Bomb and the Nuclear Age

However, Einsteins relativity theory is based on a flaw. I think Thornhill has some very good points about why relativity is wrong: Dr Charles Kenneth Thornhill

Relativity basically says that the propagation speed of light is constant. It has to say that, because the Lorentz transformation that is needed to generalize Maxwells wave equations demands that. However, these wave equations are exactly the same as the wave equations describing waves in fluids. Now what physical ground is there that warrants the choice of a strange, but mathematical correct transformation, that defines away the concept of a physical propagation medium (ether) for electro-magnetic waves, while all you are really correcting for can just as well be considered as a speed difference between the propagation medium, the ether, and the "observer", so you can use the very simple Galilei transformation in both cases?

I mean, we *know* that the propagation speed of light is not constant, and certainly not in the vicinity of matter, which is why light is broken at the contact layer between two different media, for example.

However, if Einstein is wrong on this one, you can do away with a lot of theories that are presented today as "proven facts", most notably the big bang theory, which already has a host of problems assuming relativity is correct, but if you assume a physical ether is present after all, then the floor drops from underneath the whole big bang idea, because if the speed of light is not constant, the basic assumption by which the distance to and relative speed of stars is "measured" no longer holds, and you basically cannot trust these measurements anymore.

If you go for ether physics, as Tesla did and Prof. Meyl does, you can describe everything from the nano to the macro level in terms of ether vortexes, and if you take two opposing vortexes like this:



as both Meyl and Haramein do -- Haramein calls this a "black hole" --, you get a consistant theory that works all the way from sub-atomic levels up to the description of whole galaxies, explains gravity and explains the "dark matter" or "dark energy" astronomers have been looking for for years, to name a few.

However, this is basically an extention of the same theory Tesla used, a theory that allows free energy to be tapped of the ether, as Tesla already did more than a century ago. But Tesla did not walk the ways money supply pointed to, which is the reason he never became a saint and is all but forgotten. And there, the circle is round again. Science has been directed by money far too long to deserve to be called "scientific" anymore. Today, it serves its money masters that don't want free energy, because free energy puts the masses out of control of the money masters, even though there are holes in the theory one can easily ride a truck trough. Any critics that have a point, like the German professors Meyl and Turtur and Dr. Thornhill, are simply ignored and ridiculed, exactly the same way as serious climate researchers are treated by the IPCC and friends.


Having said that, I do wonder if the explanation that electrons are stripped of of their nuclei holds out eventually. It may be much more simple in that the electric field in the micro-capacitors actually splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen much the same way as described elsewhere in this thread. If that were the case, it could still be much more efficient to use the field with small water droplets, because the ions inside the droplets have a much shorter distance to travel, and it could still be true that the water droplets tend to split, much the same way as with Kelvins generator.

Then, you would indeed get (tiny?) charged water droplets, which would react to the electric field and would give you a problem, since they would start moving in the direction of one of your plates. Because, if charged water droplets would be allowed to touch your plates, you would get an electric current, meaning you would not only have to pay the energy bill, but would also be confronted with water droplets at places where you don't want them to be.

That could be prevented by using an alternating field, varying at such frequencies that the water droplets have no chance to actually reach the plates.

If this were true, then you would have to optimise your systems for solving this problem and choosing voltages and frequencies according to the electric forces acting upon the moving, charged water droplets, droplets with a certain weight, speed and direction...

[lamare]

Electrolytic Capacitor theory

Just stumbled on a website with a 30's book about how to make electrolytic capatitors:

FaradNet Electrolytic Capacitor Book Contents

Especially chapter 5 is interesting, since it deals about different types of electrolytes and how to form layers on the aluminum foil:
FaradNet "Electrolytic Capacitors" Chapter 5

[lamare]

The aluminium oxide float. They don't form on aluminium surface. Aluminium will still corrode, and it will be very rapid. I think at 1 amp it would only last 24 hours.

According to "Electrolytic Capacitors - Theory, Construction, Characteristics and Applications" there are different kinds of layers that can be formed. FaradNet "Electrolytic Capacitors" Chapter 5 :

The formation of the anodic film can take place in either an acidic or basic electrolyte. The presence of acid ions in the electrolyte favors the formation of the anodic film whereas, in some cases, the presence of alkali ions favors the actual removal of the oxide film.

Experience has shown that there are two distinct types of films: a thin film of aluminum oxide (A1203) and a comparatively thick film of hydrated aluminum oxide or aluminum hydroxide which also may contain other elements such as aluminum sulphate, oxalate, chromate or other acid reaction products.

The type of electrolyte used will determine, to a great extent, the type of film produced but there are other factors such as temperature and magnitude of applied electrical potential.

If aluminum is immersed in an aqueous solution of sulphuric, phosphoric or oxalic acid and made the anode, it will be found, upon passage of current, that the aluminum surface will acquire a tough film of a rather gelatinous nature. It will also be found that the same magnitude of current will pass with time. In other words, the film does not show a current limiting action as it is built up. This demonstrates that the film will continue to be increased in thickness as long as voltage is applied. It has been noted that the thickness of such a film is determined by the time of current application and the acid concentration.

This type of film does not possess the asymmetric characteristics of the aluminum oxide film and is therefore known as an inactive film to distinguish it from the extremely thin dielectric film of aluminum oxide known as the active type of film. The inactive type of film is apparently a form of hydrated aluminum oxide which contains some aluminum salts of the acid used in the electrolyte. Although not a satisfactory dielectric, the inactive film may be rendered conductive in the presence of alkali ions, which fact may permit the subsequent formation of an active oxide film on the aluminum surface, beneath the inactive film. The presence of an inactive film, however, reduces the effective capacity and increases the equivalent series resistance of a completed capacitor of either the wet or dry electrolytic type. On the other hand, the inactive film is sometimes used as a mechanical protective coating for the active oxide film. This will be referred to again in later chapters.

The true active dielectric film of aluminum oxide is best formed in an aqueous solution of ammonium or sodium borate and the concentrations of the borate salt are desirably such that the electrolyte is sufficiently conductive but definitely on the acid side of neutrality. To accomplish this, boric acid is added to the electrolyte. As the phenomenon of sparking or voltage breakdown of the active anodic film is a function of the log of the ion concentration and temperature of the electrolyte, the net result is that for satisfactory anodic film formations the electrolyte consists, in practice, of an aqueous solution of boric acid with a comparatively small content of either ammonium or sodium borate.

I have lately done some experiments with just aluminum tubes and demineralised water, feeding it with a solid state Bedini coil. It produces quite some gas, but after a while I get white flocks in the water. Since in my previous experiments the water would stay clear when using soda, I think it is important indeed which type of electrolyte solution is used. As is stated in the book quoted above, the wrong type(s) of oxide do not limit the current while forming, which means that the corrosion process is not stopped by the formation of a non-conducting layer. That means the aluminum will corrode and keep on corroding indeed.

[sucahyo]

According to "Electrolytic Capacitors - Theory, Construction, Characteristics and Applications" there are different kinds of layers that can be formed. FaradNet "Electrolytic Capacitors" Chapter 5

Many thanks .

[WeThePeople]

Here is an HTML copy of the book packaged with Win-RAR.

It has relative, not literal links.

So it should work fine, let me know if not.

Launch the table of contents with "book_toc.htm".

Hope this helps.

FaradNet Electrolytic Capacitor Book.rar

Attached: 991-KB (1,015,742 bytes)


UPDATE:
Sorry guys, can't upload it...sorry...sigh

Are we really limited to 3-MB per human
in total possible contributions to share?

Two lousy floppies worth ??? Wow ...

I looked for a file upload area instead,
is there one we all share I can link to?

[sucahyo]

try
4shared.com - free file sharing and storage
Free file hosting. File sharing. File upload. FileFactory.com

[WeThePeople]

TY Sucahyo,
I have in the past done this with other sites
by recommendation by another forum member.

The opinion changes a little forum to forum,
but essentially one problem persists.

Free file servers tend to only keep active files.

I am willingly and with great hope trying
yet another suggested file server.

Do you know if they will keep serving a file
if no one downloads it in a period of time ?



Here are a pair of options.

One is just the capacitor book,
the other the whole website.

I knew of this resource already,
and have written them before too.

I asked if it was OK to convert the book
into a .DOC or .PDF for people to read offline.

I have never received a reply.

Both of these are available publicly,
but lousy or dialup connections make it
less than convenient to read them online.

Packed with Win-RAR...

The Capacitor Book 08-20-10.rar

Book Packed:
3.83-MB (4,023,213 bytes)

Book Unpacked:
103-Files, 3-Folders
1.25-MB (1,317,009 bytes)
(Launch "book_toc.htm")



FaradNet.com Captured 08-20-10.rar


Website Packed:
3.83-MB (4,023,213 bytes)

Website Unpacked:
7,590-Files, 62-Folders
42.3-MB (44,433,484 bytes)
(Launch "index.html")

[WeThePeople]

A day later I received my welcome email,
it is 30 days for these people too.

Just with a different twist.

"PLEASE NOTE: You have to log into your free account
at least once per 30 days. Failing this, your free account
and all your files will be automatically deleted!
In this case, lost information can not be restored."



Thank you anyway Sucahyo for the new site,
but this book will be outdated in a month probably.

It appears to be an ongoing body of work
that grows regularly.

Anyway, hope this helps people with dialup and such.

[sucahyo]

A day later I received my welcome email,
it is 30 days for these people too.

I see. thats too bad . Thanks for the file .

[lamare]

Lol

ahoi pap IK REAGEER NUTELOOS OP JE ARTIKEL... :P ERG INTRESSANT OVERIGENS :P