Magnetic Energy Secrets by Paul Babcock

[Aaron]

capacitor

E = 1/2 mv**2

Newtonian kinetic energy Kinetic energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Capacitor - Energy Stored
The energy stored in a capacitor can be expressed as

Capacitors - Energy Stored

W = 1/2 CV**2 (1)

where

W = energy stored (Joules)
C = capacitance (Farad)
V = potential difference (Voltage)

pt

edit: EE teaching tends not to emphasize E & M as forces. Babcock (and Dollard) do make this connection. I was suprised when I saw in Heaviside (about page 22, vol 1 ET) how the capacitor energy equation was derived. It is the line integral of potential. The similarity to the kinetic energy is eye opening (for me at least :-).

Just a simple question about a capacitor.

If you "charge" up a capacitor, what was changed in the capacitor for the voltage reading to go up? Was anything actually added to the capacitor?

[pault]

thanks

Aaron, that is the most lucid explanation I've read.

Thank you for helping me further down my learning curve.

Please continue and explain what happens "in" a capacitor and a coil.

(And, if you could, explain an example of something that doesn't kill the dipole).

Your comments are shedding more light on Babcock's lecture.

Thank you!

pt

[sykavy]

That is the problem - when the ball hits the ground, it doesn't not release any potential because there was none ever stored in it.

When you lift it to begin with, you can account for 100% of the input in the LIFT in and of itself. That means 100% of what you put in is dissipated at the peak of the lift. There is zero potential stored in the object at any height.

When you lift it, you dissipate everything and now you have created a dipole - you created a potential difference between the object and the ground. That isn't potential stored in the object, it is simply a potential difference and based on the mass of the object, the height and gravity (MGH), that will tell you how much potential work is possible when than object is released for only one single cycle.

When you leg go of the ball, it is fresh NEW gravitational potential input that is imparting an ACTIVE push on the ball towards the ground. See - the potnetial was not stored in the ball. The intrinsic characteristic of the ball never even changed.

We lift it - 100% dissipation.
We release it - NEW potential comes into the object from gravitational potential and that contributes to more work - just like the magnetic coil. The magnetism can do work just like gravity can do work.

The entire notion of storing potential is a hoax and no potential is ever stored. Doesn't need to be. The gravitational potential is never ending so new potential comes into the system, just like new potential enters a circuit where magnetism is just like the coil.

This shows that there is no such thing as conservation of energy and energy does NOT transform from one form to another. There is only always ONE single form of "energy" and that is when the source potential moves from a higher potential to a lower potential imparting a push on the mass of an object, matter, etc... and when that push encounters a resistance, the dipole is reduced so that there is less of a potential difference and thus less potential enters the system.

The gravity analogy is exactly what Paul's experiment shows.

When you drive a car up a hill, you can account for ALL the energy dissipation in the work the car did to get up the hill. There is zero potential stored in the car. When you put it in neutral and coast back down the hill to a flat road, that is NEW gravitational potential entering the system and when you account for any work that is done on the roll down and over the flat road, the TOTAL amount of work counting the climb up the hill and the roll back down is 2X what we put into it by driving it up the hill to begin with.

Nature always gives a freebie. You put in 1 part work under such circumstances and you get a total of 1 MORE back for a total of 2 parts work for 1 part input. This is assuming an experiment that does not allow the object, car, etc... rise back up against gravity in order to establish a new (but lower potential difference) dipole with each successive dipole becoming less and less.

Anyone can do the simple math. It is irrefutable. It proves that gravity is a source of potential that can do work just like magnetism is a source of potential that can do work and 100% of ever text book that says anything different is 100% wrong.

Add up the Force X Distance of the car going up the hill. That is the real amount of energy dissipated. Then at that peak, MGH will tell you how much MORE work potential there will be when the car rolls back down. That is 2 TIMES the original force x distance in getting it up the hill to begin with.

Take a ball of clay - bouncing efficiency is about less than 1% efficient.

If you lift a ball of clay to 1 meter, the energy dissipated to get it to 1 meter can be determined by Force X Distance. That is REAL dissipated energy and 100% of that can be accounted for in the LIFT. That's it.

Now MGH will tell you that at 1 meter, it will have x amount of potential energy "stored" in that ball of clay, which of course is a fraud. There is no potential stored in that ball of clay. But watch this, let go of it, NEW (not stored) potential comes from gravitational potential and imparts a push on the ball downwards and when it hits the ground, there is heat, deformation of the clay, etc... it doesn't bounce, it just goes flat. Now, calculate the amount of REAL WORK done AFTER it was released, it was EXACTLY the same as the Force X Distance to lift it.

Add up the FXD to lift it and then add up the work done AFTER it was released and it is 2 TIMES the original F X D. That is a COP or coefficient of performance of 2.0 with a bouncing efficiency of near 0% efficient.

Conservation of energy is a hoax.
Storing potential in an object when lifting is a hoax.
Energy transforming from one form to another is a hoax.

There is only always...
1. X amount of work done from energy dissipation.
2. New dipole is established.
3. New source potential enters and does work (energy dissipation).
4. Goto #2

I know this is hard to believe for many people that think the basics can't be questioned, but this argument wins 100% of the time. There is nobody in the world that can debunk this argument, because this shows what is going on. It is 3rd grade math with 8th grade equations.

Because of the FACT that there is a calculable amount of work, which exceeds the input and if it is with a bouncing ball for example, all the Force X Distance that happens on EACH and EVERY lift added together is MANY times more than the initial lift.

"Overunity" is required by nature with open non-equilibrium systems and the only thing that mainstream science has proven is that mass-hypnosis works.

NICE

Aaron you are a good teacher like your friend Peter

This explanation matches-up with research I have done with compressed air. Compress air into a tank. All text books will tell you a 100% of the energy was used up in compression. BUT the air under pressure can still do work! Ask any mechanic who uses air powered tools. So where does the "extra" energy come from when the air is released through an air power tool?

From the environment--the ambient temperature or the air is re-absorbed into the compressed air.

Air is like a wet towel. The wetness is ambient temperature. Squeeze out the wetness, which is compression, and it will want to reabsorb it when it gets a chance, like dropping a dry towel in a tub of water.

The losses are in the heat dissipated while compressing the air. If one could find a way to use this dissipated heat then you have over unity


I saw the video very good interesting and clear. I especially liked that he used real science to refute the status quo.


The coil experiment reminded me of Tesla. He also saw similar effects in his high voltage coil experiments. But in this case no high voltage was necessary.

If we think of electricity like a fluid, air is considered a fluid, then it would make sense when in certain kind of situations, like air under pressure, electricity will absorb something from the environment, maybe electrons from the copper coil..

[Peter Lindemann]

Excellent!

NICE

Aaron you are a good teacher like your friend Peter

This explanation matches-up with research I have done with compressed air. Compress air into a tank. All text books will tell you a 100% of the energy was used up in compression. BUT the air under pressure can still do work! Ask any mechanic who uses air powered tools. So where does the "extra" energy come from when the air is released through an air power tool?

From the environment--the ambient temperature or the air is re-absorbed into the compressed air.

Air is like a wet towel. The wetness is ambient temperature. Squeeze out the wetness, which is compression, and it will want to reabsorb it when it gets a chance, like dropping a dry towel in a tub of water.

The losses are in the heat dissipated while compressing the air. If one could find a way to use this dissipated heat then you have over unity


I saw the video very good interesting and clear. I especially liked that he used real science to refute the status quo.


The coil experiment reminded me of Tesla. He also saw similar effects in his high voltage coil experiments. But in this case no high voltage was necessary.

If we think of electricity like a fluid, air is considered a fluid, then it would make sense when in certain kind of situations, like air under pressure, electricity will absorb something from the environment, maybe electrons from the copper coil..

Dear Sykavy,

Your musings here on compressed air are PRECISELY the point! The fact is, the simple act of compressing air IS an "over unity" event that has been misunderstood since the days of James Joule.

This thread is about Paul's lecture at the conference, so I don't want to be off-topic here, but I am going to open a thread soon on the subject of compressed air, because it relates back to the lecture I gave at the conference.

A thorough discussion about the energy dynamics of compressed air is much too important a topic simply to be a "side bar" here. I hope you don't mind, but we can pick up your discussion there soon.

Thanks,
Peter

[sykavy]

Dear Sykavy,

Your musings here on compressed air are PRECISELY the point! The fact is, the simple act of compressing air IS an "over unity" event that has been misunderstood since the days of James Joule.

This thread is about Paul's lecture at the conference, so I don't want to be off-topic here, but I am going to open a thread soon on the subject of compressed air, because it relates back to the lecture I gave at the conference.

A thorough discussion about the energy dynamics of compressed air is much too important a topic simply to be a "side bar" here. I hope you don't mind, but we can pick up your discussion there soon.

Thanks,
Peter

No I wouldn't mind at all! I'd love to learn more from you and all on the thread! Scott Roberson aka "Luther", was at one time a participant here on the forums. I learned most of my stuff about air from him. If you could get him to travel from the Philippians, he would be a great speaker for your next conference. I doubt anyone knows more about air than him!
The only problem with compressed air is it can get expensive for the average experimenter, much more so than say a School Girl "Motor". And it can get dangerous too for those not well versed in variables like moister etc...

I didn't want to derail the thread.

My point was if we think of electricity as a "fluid" it might help to conceptualize what is going on in a coil.

For example I was thinking of the resistance in Babcock's coil, in my mind thinking of it as a fluid. If time is part of the key then a 40 ohm coil made in magnetic wire would create more time for the equal amount of resistance but it would be a really big coil! Also I was thinking that most coils are back and forth wound. But wouldn't it be better to wind a coil in only one direction to keep the flow in one direction? I hope that doesn't sound stupid. I haven't been following a lot of the discussions on the forum for awhile.

One idea that I thought of that is crazy but hey, I'll through it out anyway. You all can remove this post if it is a distraction. We seem to be able to focus different radiation into beams, like light is made into a laser. I was wondering if anyone has ever tried to make magnetic forces into a "laser" like force? I hope this doesn't derail the thread. It is just that Paul's lecture just started me questioning and imagining, What do we really know about magnetism?

[Turion]

If you wanted to limit the postings to folks who actually bought the video you could do it by having them use the code they received when they purchased it to log in here.

It was the collapse of the magnetic field that added to the spark. If you stretch the wire out, you don't have that electromagnet that you created by wrapping the wire around the iron core, so you don't have the same collapse of the magnetic field, therefore you do not have the big spark.

My first thought after viewing the video was WOW! All I need to do is make a giant electromagnet out of a spool of wire, but then reality set in, and I started thinking about those things that prevent that from being the simple solution. Paul talks about all three of them and what he did to get around them in the construction of HIS motor.

One of the big issues is the impedence of a long length of wire that you try to send current through. Don't we get around that by using shorter length of wire in parallel? Don't you get the same magnetic flux when you have a hundred foot wire wrapped around a core as you do when you have four 25 foot pieces wrapped around that same core? And isn't the impedence of the four 25 foot pieces less than the 100 foot piece?

If so, there are only two other issues to solve. NOT that solving those is easy. Paul said it took him 30 years. So let the battle begin.

[peacepenguin]

I disagree turion, the magnetic field is present whether the wire is wrapped as a coil or stretched out. once the energy is removed the field collapses. coiling just combines all the wire into one area, no difference in the amount of flux generated either way. unless your referring to an electro magnet with a core of some type. if the core material has something to do with the fly back effect, maybe we need to look at why he used pellets of steel instead of a solid core? from the video it looked like the pellets were free to move about. strange.

[pault]

I understood that he used granules in the core for the same reason JB uses R60 welding rod - to thwart the formation of eddy currents.

I think that the cup of loose pellets on top of the core were placed there only to demonstrate, for the video, that a magnetic field was being created.

pt

[peacepenguin]

Turion,

we may be talking the same thing with different terms. the magnetic flux that shows up in a coil is because any wire carrying current inherently has a magnetic field around it. in a coil, the magnetic field is allowed to combine with the other lengths of wire so it can build up the field into an "electromagnet". the current carrying wire, whether in a coil or not, is producing magnetic flux.

I think your referring to a coils field as the magnetic flux. all I'm saying is that the current in the wire is creating the flux, the geometry of a coil simply combines all the flux into one area. the flux is created no matter how the wire is strewn about.

once iron is introduced into the coil, things get a little beyond my understanding. somehow the iron amplifys the magnetic field, so you get a stronger electromagnet. that amplification may be what your refering to as the flux. if that's the case then I understand why your saying you can't have the flux without the coil.

I'm basically going off the "right hand rule" for my understanding of magnetism in a wire. it's a very elementary rule, so I may be off track. let me know what you think because I could be missing something. or our use of the term "magnetic flux" could be off too.

-Ben

[mbrownn]

First I must say thanks to the member who sent me a copy of the lecture

I found this lecture very interesting as 90% of what he was saying is the conclusions I have come to myself. I agree totally that the magnetism produced by a coil has no relationship to the power put in it, as field strength is all to do with the number of amps multiplied by the number of turns.

My question is, How do you get round the problem of the inductance limiting the current and still discharge the coil to zero on each pulse? In normal PWM we allow the current to rise by not totally discharging the coils after each pulse causing a ramp up of current, but if we do this we do not capitalize on the gain of the inductive kickback.

As Mr Babcock says we can build huge coils that will work but they are impractical because of their size and cost when compared to the output.

On DC circuits, everything is according to the laws we know but on pulsed DC we have the gain of the current produced in the inductive kickback, This current also adds to the motive power of the motor and in a perfect system would double the power for a given input. When we collect this current in a capacitor we can use it to power the next pulse thus negating the need for any more input. In the real world we have losses, so we find we do have an input requirement to make up these losses. This input could be provided by a standard generator mounted to our motor as Paul says, but as yet, I haven't succeeded The reason being I cant get enough current flowing in my motor without increasing voltages and so ohmic losses or building a huge motor.

peacepenguin, As I see it the iron causes the flux to follow a path that we want and not tightly fit round the wires of the coil although I could be wrong.

[gyula]

....
My question is, How do you get round the problem of the inductance limiting the current and still discharge the coil to zero on each pulse?:
....

Hi mbrown,

I apologize for chiming in without seeing the lecture. Your question above I believe has got an answer in a German patent application. (I have seen the patent application referenced already at the ou forum, the topic was independent from the topic here.)

The principle is to use a "capacitive" winding, see this link what it means:

Espacenet - Bibliographic data


The Abstract in English is here:

"The invention relates to a capacitive winding which is made of copper wire, has an inductive reactance of zero, is composed of two parallel conductors (1, 2), and is wound like a coil on the soft magnetic core (8). Both conductors (1, 2) are electrically connected at the beginning of the coil by means of a capacitor (3) and are also electrically connected to a capacitor (4) at the end of the coil. The first conductor (1) is connected to a pole of an oscillating power generator (5) at the beginning of the coil, while the second conductor (2) is connected to the second pole of the oscillating power generator at the end of the coil. The capacitive winding is arranged in the stator and rotor grooves of an electric motor, and the capacitors (3, 4) are mounted outside the motor structure.; Capacitive current that flows through the windings of an electric motor generates a magnetic field in the gap between the stator and the rotor such that the apparent electric power is converted into effective mechanical power."

I also believe that a second possible answer to you question above is to use Tesla's patent Coil for Electromagnets, you surely know:
Nikola Tesla's "Coil for Electromagnets"

Tesla wrote: "I have found that in every coil there exists a certain relation between its self-induction and capacity that permits, a current of given frequency and potential to pass through it with no other opposition than that of ohmic resistance, or, in other words, as though it possessed no self-induction. This is due to the mutual relations existing between the special character of the current and the self-induction and capacity of the coil, the latter quantity being just capable of neutralizing the self-induction for that frequency."

I hope this helps.

Greetings,
Gyula

[Space]

Hi Aron, Peter and everyone else,

this is my first post on this forum and I have been following this thread with great interest and decided to create a post to clear up some of my remaining ambiguity.

Let me state first, that I have NOT come here to "prove anyone wrong" or to defend conventional science. I have come here to honestly seek knowledge on my journey to free energy.
I know that some of conventional science's laws are not complete yet.
I am a student of electrical Engineering and I spend a lot of my free time tinkering in my home lab since experimenting and researching is my passion.

This distinction is important because conventional scientists have absolutely no idea what energy is or what potential is and they always misuse the terms. Conventional science says energy is the thing while potential is the abstract but the opposite is actually the case.

Aaron, I am wondering what people mean by saying Energy is "the thing"?

In Europe you learn that energy is the ability of a physical system to do work on other physical systems. What do you think of this definition?

Now I want to get to the really important aspect:

If you lift a ball of clay to 1 meter, the energy dissipated to get it to 1 meter can be determined by Force X Distance. That is REAL dissipated energy and 100% of that can be accounted for in the LIFT. That's it.

Now MGH will tell you that at 1 meter, it will have x amount of potential energy "stored" in that ball of clay, which of course is a fraud. There is no potential stored in that ball of clay. But watch this, let go of it, NEW (not stored) potential comes from gravitational potential
and imparts a push on the ball downwards and when it hits the ground, there is heat, deformation of the clay, etc... it doesn't bounce, it just goes flat. Now, calculate the amount of REAL WORK done AFTER it was released, it was EXACTLY the same as the Force X Distance to lift it.

Add up the FXD to lift it and then add up the work done AFTER it was released and it is 2 TIMES the original F X D. That is a COP or coefficient of performance of 2.0 with a bouncing efficiency of near 0% efficient.

I have read this part like 3 times and have been pondering over it for quite some more time. Now, I don't see how this example proves a COP of 2.0 because:

If I lift a ball of clay to 1 meter, it was ME or any machine that did the work. So, I, or my machine first had to DO WORK in order to move the ball of clay to 1m height. So far, I haven't won anything. (actually, the balance is negative at this point) Because as you said, at 1 meter height, we have 100% dissipated energy. I totally agree with you and understand what you mean.

Now, on the university we didn't learn that Epot = m*g*h is the potential energy "stored" in the ball (that is, as you say, a miss-interpretation or "fraud"), but much rather the energy which is won after the ball drops back down to the ground due to gravitational acceleration.

As you say "NEW (not stored) potential comes from gravitational potential". I agree again. Thats exactly what you learn on European Universities.

next, you yourself said "Now, calculate the amount of REAL WORK done AFTER it was released, it was EXACTLY the same as the Force X Distance to lift it. "

Once again I agree.

But, now you're telling me to add up the work done to lift the ball (W= - F*D) and the work done by gravitational acceleration (Epot=mgh) to move it back down, and this is the point where i don't see why.

you are adding both works which were done as if they were both positive works and this way you would get "2.0" of course. But, then again, I wonder whether this is truly useful/logical because after all, the work done to lift the ball was NEGATIVE WORK done by myself (negative insofar that i haven't won anything, i had to perform work to bring the ball to this level!) so if I really added them as you suggest it would (should in my opinion) look like this:


W lift = - F*D (the minus expresses the work that I myself had to do first)
W pot = m*g*h

Now, if both as you say, are EQUAL (lets say 100J for example just for demonstration) and if I added them now, the mathematical result would be:

W total = -F*D + m*g*h = -(100 J) + 100 J = 0 J

==>>> W total = 0 J

So, according to these mathematics our Co-efficiency of Performance wouldn't exceed 1.0
(we have lost as much energy as we gained)

Practical example why I consider this first work done to lift the ball of clay as "negative" with the minus:
If I had a robot and programmed it in such a way that it lifts this ball of clay to 1 meter, my robot will require electrical energy first to do this! so at 1 meter of height, I have only dissipated (lost!) energy!

I hope that I have stated my point in such a way that it isn't confusing.

Conservation of energy is a hoax.
Storing potential in an object when lifting is a hoax.
Energy transforming from one form to another is a hoax.

I agree with point nr.1.. Tesla has proven this years ago.
But, point number two? I also agree but where do people say this? if a student said this on my university at an exam he would FAIL right away! Perhaps its a matter of interpretation? This really makes me wonder.

anyways, I don't understand how "Energy transforming from one form to another is a hoax." Lets again take our Ball of clay as our example.

you stated that:

when it hits the ground, there is heat, deformation of the clay, etc... it doesn't bounce, it just goes flat.

So essentially, you said that there is "heat", which essentially is Thermal Energy! Also, you said that there will be a deformation of the clay, which is the natural result of very strong vibrational energy of the atoms which again results in tremendously high breaking loads which exceed the binding energy of the clay's matter!

Now, I thought that gravitational energy is transformed into Vibrational Energy which at the same time increases the Thermal Energy of the object when the ball hits the ground.

My question here is, that if transformation of energy is a hoax, where does the gravitational energy go and where does the Thermal Energy and Vibrational Energies come from once the Ball of Clay hits the ground?

I am looking forward to receive an answer and learn more
Best regards from Austria!
Respectfully,
Dominic

p.s.: excuse me for this long post but I really put a lot of effort in this to make sure that my explanations and thoughts can be clearly understood

[mbrownn]

Hi mbrown,

I apologize for chiming in without seeing the lecture. Your question above I believe has got an answer in a German patent application. (I have seen the patent application referenced already at the ou forum, the topic was independent from the topic here.)

The principle is to use a "capacitive" winding, see this link what it means:

Espacenet - Bibliographic data


The Abstract in English is here:

"The invention relates to a capacitive winding which is made of copper wire, has an inductive reactance of zero, is composed of two parallel conductors (1, 2), and is wound like a coil on the soft magnetic core (8). Both conductors (1, 2) are electrically connected at the beginning of the coil by means of a capacitor (3) and are also electrically connected to a capacitor (4) at the end of the coil. The first conductor (1) is connected to a pole of an oscillating power generator (5) at the beginning of the coil, while the second conductor (2) is connected to the second pole of the oscillating power generator at the end of the coil. The capacitive winding is arranged in the stator and rotor grooves of an electric motor, and the capacitors (3, 4) are mounted outside the motor structure.; Capacitive current that flows through the windings of an electric motor generates a magnetic field in the gap between the stator and the rotor such that the apparent electric power is converted into effective mechanical power."

I also believe that a second possible answer to you question above is to use Tesla's patent Coil for Electromagnets, you surely know:
Nikola Tesla's "Coil for Electromagnets"

Tesla wrote: "I have found that in every coil there exists a certain relation between its self-induction and capacity that permits, a current of given frequency and potential to pass through it with no other opposition than that of ohmic resistance, or, in other words, as though it possessed no self-induction. This is due to the mutual relations existing between the special character of the current and the self-induction and capacity of the coil, the latter quantity being just capable of neutralizing the self-induction for that frequency."

I hope this helps.

Greetings,
Gyula

I am aware of this method of using a bifilar coil but unfortunately it does not work as we loose the effect we want unless the coil is switched between a series and parallel state, it being parallel on the current rise and series for the rest of the cycle

[wayne.ct]

Energy is a Hoax

@Dominic, I hope you get a clear answer because I have some of the same questions. It appears there are two ways to view the world and it is not clear to me which way is correct.

[Aaron]

potential and energy

Dominic and Wayne,

I'll answer in this thread: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...icate-com.html

That was setup to expose some scam artists posing as "experts".

By the way Wayne, this isn't directed at you but in "which way is correct" - all I have to say is how is the conventional way treating this world so far? That is rhetorical of course, but basically, the conventional way violates common sense, which can be deduced by simply observing nature.

Anyway, I'll carry the conversation on this at the thread listed above so we can keep this thread on topic about Paul's talk.