A Free Energy Idea

[p75213]

I've been doing some electronic tutorials over at allaboutcircuits.com. The idea comes from this lesson: https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/tex...-and-calculus/
At the bottom of the topic there is a circuit showing a neon bulb in parallel with an inductor and the sentence "If current through an inductor is forced to change very rapidly, very high voltages will be produced."
Well I am thinking why not change the bulb for a capacitor and capture the energy? I did some googling and found that the formula for energy of a capacitor is .5CV^2. Also the capacitor voltage would = the breakdown voltage of the inductor which is V = L di/dt. di is large and dt small which gives a large V. The capacitor current is I = C dv/dt. Here again dv is large and dt small which gives a large I.

I'm not sure how this would be done. But why not siphon of some of the energy to repeat the procedure instead of using a battery. The rest could be used to power a load. This should be able to continue indefinitely as the breakdown voltage is much larger than the voltage required to charge up the inductor.

One idea I have is to use 2 capacitors in parallel with the inductor. One with a small capacitance to keep the circuit running and a larger one for the load. The load capacitor would have to use diodes? (I guess) to prevent it emptying back into the inductor. It would also be necessary to employ some switching arangement (transistor?) to obtain the high breakdown voltage.

The idea seems a bit too simple so I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't work. I've put the topic up at the allaboutcircuits forum and so far nobody has given me a convincing argument why it wont work. Somebody said you can't get out more than you put in. But that's not what the maths (pretty simple stuff. Just what I have mentioned in this post) is telling me.

[ricards]

I've been doing some electronic tutorials over at allaboutcircuits.com. The idea comes from this lesson: https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/tex...-and-calculus/
At the bottom of the topic there is a circuit showing a neon bulb in parallel with an inductor and the sentence "If current through an inductor is forced to change very rapidly, very high voltages will be produced."
Well I am thinking why not change the bulb for a capacitor and capture the energy? I did some googling and found that the formula for energy of a capacitor is .5CV^2. Also the capacitor voltage would = the breakdown voltage of the inductor which is V = L di/dt. di is large and dt small which gives a large V. The capacitor current is I = C dv/dt. Here again dv is large and dt small which gives a large I.

I'm not sure how this would be done. But why not siphon of some of the energy to repeat the procedure instead of using a battery. The rest could be used to power a load. This should be able to continue indefinitely as the breakdown voltage is much larger than the voltage required to charge up the inductor.

One idea I have is to use 2 capacitors in parallel with the inductor. One with a small capacitance to keep the circuit running and a larger one for the load. The load capacitor would have to use diodes? (I guess) to prevent it emptying back into the inductor. It would also be necessary to employ some switching arangement (transistor?) to obtain the high breakdown voltage.

The idea seems a bit too simple so I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't work. I've put the topic up at the allaboutcircuits forum and so far nobody has given me a convincing argument why it wont work. Somebody said you can't get out more than you put in. But that's not what the maths (pretty simple stuff. Just what I have mentioned in this post) is telling me.

It really is easy to do the math, but to figure out the RIGHT math.. that is rather hard.. based on my own experience...

You have to get the grasp of what is REAL and what is ABSTRACT.. based from your post.. I would assume you would want to get more V (voltage) and I (Current) based on what I've learned so far they are both ABSTRACT.. what is REAL is.. the Inductor and its Magnetism.. the Capacitor and its Charge..
they are the things that you can manipulate...
meaning if you would want to get more voltage you would either have to increase your magnetism to generate more EMF or charge the Capacitor without using it (open circuit), and if you would want to generate more current you either charge a big capacitor and discharge it to a low impedance coil or low resistance load, or pass your Alternating current in a Step-down transformer (this will lower your voltage).

Voltage can be 2 things :
Electrostatic Potential
Electromotive Force

Current can also mean 2 things:
Conduction current
Displacement Current

"If current through an inductor is forced to change very rapidly, very high voltages will be produced."

I'm guessing this is AC.. via a Transformer
but can also be Pulse DC.. via a boost converter..

this is a standard meaning you can see it in almost all power supply... they do not produce more energy.

I would not tell you you can't get more energy out than in, because that's actually our goal too.
it is really good to start with an Idea (even though its not feasible). but an understanding of what your dealing with is necessary to generate the RIGHT IDEA.

[Matthew Jones]

I would not tell you you can't get more energy out than in, because that's actually our goal too.
it is really good to start with an Idea (even though its not feasible). but an understanding of what your dealing with is necessary to generate the RIGHT IDEA.

What do you think a Bedini monopole already does?
Do some homework..

[p75213]

I've been giving this some thought. It all comes down to the formula for energy in a capacitor: w = .5CV^2. If we have 2 capacitors both of the same capacitance. One we charge from a 6 volt voltage source at 1 amp. The other one we charge from a 24 volt voltage source at 0.1 amps. In the first case the power is 6 watts and in the second case 2.4 watts. However the second capacitor would have more energy -> 0.5C24^2 joules as opposed to 0.5C6^2 joules. Therefore the second one should also have more power as power is defined as the rate of using energy.

[citfta]

You would be wise to pay attention to what Matthew Jones posted. He as well as many of us on this forum have been at this for a long time. You can learn a lot here if you are willing to spend some time reading and studying.

[p75213]

You would be wise to pay attention to what Matthew Jones posted. He as well as many of us on this forum have been at this for a long time. You can learn a lot here if you are willing to spend some time reading and studying.

I don't doubt that. Getting the time is the hard part. Same goes for everybody I guess. However I'm just tossing this idea around to see if its a goer. It seems like the bedini monopole may do something similar. It's on my to do list while ploughing through the allaboutcircuits site.

[ricards]

What do you think a Bedini monopole already does?
Do some homework..

I do not remember stating Bedini Monopole is not feasible.. maybe you got the wrong Idea... I was talking about the thread starter's Idea of doing things mathematically..

and I don't see the reason why you should show such attitude.

[lotec]

You cant get more energy out than you put in?? Just got to love that one. Sounds like someone never heard of nuclear energy, solar panels, or a caveman lighting a piece of wood.

Its ok to throw ideas out there, someone might make a believer out of you one way or an other and save you some time. Sometimes there is no such person, and one experiments according to their instincts. Although it is the slower path, eliminating how stuff isnt, takes one closer to how stuff is.

After a while it may turn out that the second capacitor took 10 times longer to charge, or those circuits posted only swapped amperage for voltage, where as the Bedini SG shows that the magnetic fields and their CMMF's can also be used to produce physical work by turning a motor , also opens up the concept for motor speed controllers to recover alot of the energy used to run the motor, if the right strategy is employed and the motor design is tweaked a bit.

[dR-Green]

You cant get more energy out than you put in?? Just got to love that one. Sounds like someone never heard of nuclear energy, solar panels, or a caveman lighting a piece of wood.

That's not quite how it works. A solar panel converts about 20% of the sun's energy that goes in into electrical energy. Just because "you" personally didn't put it in, you are in no way getting more out than goes in to it. Also, the caveman's pile of wood didn't spontaneously appear at his feet. Work and effort is required to gather it. How many years did it take the tree to grow?

[BroMikey]

You cant get more energy out than you put in??
Just got to love that one.

These guys are locked into the idea that what the schools teach
is the only true science. They can't see beyond so we need to show
them. PHD, BA, MA oh and BS

This statement "You cant get more energy out than you put in" is all
they know. They have never seen anything else mainly because first
of all they think it impossible, next it could be and is right under their
noses and still miss the whole enchilada.

Now that is what I call spirit, call a wondering air head by his real name
a foolish talker. It is amazing to me that most do not see how the
extra is all around them.

If people have any IDEA about extra energy production let them ask
the guys here for years about it and there will be no silly one liners
claiming the impossible.

Good to see you coming around LOTEC

[dR-Green]

Yeah but you didn't address the nuclear option because you can't fit
that into you little one liner caveman nonsense. Where does the energy
come from on the atomic level when smashing atoms, HUH? Where?

You can't explain it so don't even try. The pile of wood analogy is a pile of
what? Never mind.

Perhaps you forgot that I'm not the one who brought up the caveman and wood analogy. You should take up the issue with the other fellow who seems to be on your own side of the argument.

Nuclear energy is harnessed through producing steam to drive turbines. That's not 100% efficient either. You are not getting out more than you put in.

And in that respect, what does it matter if it's the sun, nuclear energy, or a pile of wood? What part of it are "you" supposed to be putting in to be able to claim that you're getting more out, unless you have a generator attached to your bicycle wheel? If you burn a pile of wood then of course you're getting more energy out of it than "you" put in. You didn't make the wood. But I think you know very well that's not what your friend was saying, unless you chose to overlook it in favour of attempting to argue against that which you are simultaneously defending.

[Aaron]

distinctions

I think that a useful distinction for a "free energy" system is one that does not have more output than input, but more output than we have to put in. That obviously implies that there is extra input from somewhere. We can pay a little to leverage environmental potential that is waiting to be put to work so the total work done can exceed what we personally contributed.

The whole point of COP or coefficient of performance is to compare the total work done only to what we personally pay for not including free environmental source potential (free to us).

[Aaron]

our contribution vs total work done

If you burn a pile of wood then of course you're getting more energy out of it than "you" put in.

What dR-Green said.

[BroMikey]

I think that a useful distinction for a "free energy" system is one that does not have more output than input, but more output
than we have to put in. (free to us).

Hey that is a great way to say it Aaron, I never thought of it just
like that but it is true. Like the steam engine for instance, they use to
say they could move a 1000 pounds 1 mile on a pound of coal which in
the beginning was more like 10 pounds of coal with the early inefficiencies.

So it is all in how we look at it. With all of the information releases
you would think that someone would be saying they tapped into the
endless aether by now. Or that they are able to recycle energy by
pumping it around in a circle.

Something, anyone, please, instead all we hear from the so called adepts
is that it ain't so "Can't get the extra" oh well I'll go back to my coils
and then report back later.

I am on #18 coil right now, soon to reach 24. BRB

Keep up the great work.

[lotec]

I think you are both right

Its a statement that can be taken both ways depending on how it is worded.

If the statement is " You cant get more out than what goes in. ", there would be no argument from me.
If the statement is " You cant get more out than what you put in ", then I can think of a few.

What gets me is when someone says the second one to someone, and when they are called out about it, they scurry away and hide behind the first one to save face. The people aren't buying it anymore.

One person drags a log of wood 6 miles in the pouring rain and after many hours of rubbing finally gets a small fire going.
A trucker driving through a drought ridden part of the country flicks his cigarette but out the window and nearly burns down half the state.

When it comes to nuclear power, because of the nasty pollution, I sure hope that more energy comes out than what people put into it, otherwise we are in even more trouble than I thought.

Bro Mikey nice to hear from you, been a while .