unimaginative textbook sycophants

[smw1998a]

Hi Lee
With all respect, I would say, that this is not the case,
And I would say again, we are talking conventionally here, we have some charge in C1, that is likened to some pressurised gas inside a capsule. So

If you have Capsule 1 with gas pressure P and another capsule the same size, with pressure 0, if you connect the capsules, what would happen?

Yes gas would flow from capsule 1 to capsule 2 and at last you would have the same amount (mass) of gas in the whole system, and the pressure of the both capsules would be halved. Similar to experiment 1.

But ... In experiment two we end up with more gas (charge) and more pressure at the end. And I want to point out that how this extra gas (charge) got into the system? unless the system was open and drawing new gas from the HIGH PRESSURE environment (The Aether)?

If you are not convinced that new charge is introduced to this system, lets try another experiment.

Experiment three:

We have got three capacitors C1, C2, C3.



Event A:
C1 is charged to 24v
C2 discharged to zero
C3 discharged to zero
C1 = C2 = C3 = C = 10000uF
Q_A = CV1 + CV2 + CV3 = 24C = 24000uC

Event B:
C1 is discharged trough an inductor to C2 while switching with S1,
If you switch fast enough you will end up 12v in C1, 12v in C2 and perhaps around 10v in C3.
So
V1 = 12v
V2 = 12v
V3 = 10v

Q_B = 12C + 12C + 10C = 34C = 34000uC

Obviously: Q_B> Q_A
Now this shows clearly that we have got more gas in the end.

Elias

Hello Elias,
Thank you for taking the time to produce this circuit, it really helps when trying to deal with complicated topics.

The formula for calculating energy stored in a capacitor in Joules is:
0.5 x capacitance in farads x voltage ^2

Initially capacitor C1 is charged to 24volts. The stored energy is:
0.5 x 0.01 x 24 = 0.0144 Joules

Capacitor C1 is discharged into capacitor C2 via the inductor. By your calculation capacitors C1 and C2 now have 12v each and the stored energy is:
0.5 x 0.01 x 12 = 0.0036 Joules. Multiplied by 2 = 0.0072 Joules. We now have half of the energy shared between twice the capacitance.

Capacitor C3 is charged from the collapsing field of the coil to 10 volts. The energy stored in capacitor C3 is:
0.5 x 0.01 x 10 = 0.0025 Joules

All three 10000uF capacitors now store 0.0108 Joules between them. Based on calculation alone, there is a loss of 0.0036 Joules. These are ideal numbers from ideal capacitors with no account for losses anywhere in this circuit. There is also the difficulty in returning the circuit to the initial position where C1 = 24v, C2 and C3 = 0v.

To my knowledge, nobody has produced a circuit based on these principals that does not have the same losses, therefore nobody has made a valid claim of overunity using a circuit based on this typology.

Regards Lee..

[elias]

Hello Elias,
Thank you for taking the time to produce this circuit, it really helps when trying to deal with complicated topics.

The formula for calculating energy stored in a capacitor in Joules is:
0.5 x capacitance in farads x voltage ^2

Initially capacitor C1 is charged to 24volts. The stored energy is:
0.5 x 0.01 x 24 = 0.0144 Joules

Capacitor C1 is discharged into capacitor C2 via the inductor. By your calculation capacitors C1 and C2 now have 12v each and the stored energy is:
0.5 x 0.01 x 12 = 0.0036 Joules. Multiplied by 2 = 0.0072 Joules. We now have half of the energy shared between twice the capacitance.

Capacitor C3 is charged from the collapsing field of the coil to 10 volts. The energy stored in capacitor C3 is:
0.5 x 0.01 x 10 = 0.0025 Joules

All three 10000uF capacitors now store 0.0108 Joules between them. Based on calculation alone, there is a loss of 0.0036 Joules. These are ideal numbers from ideal capacitors with no account for losses anywhere in this circuit. There is also the difficulty in returning the circuit to the initial position where C1 = 24v, C2 and C3 = 0v.

To my knowledge, nobody has produced a circuit based on these principals that does not have the same losses, therefore nobody has made a valid claim of overunity using a circuit based on this typology.

Regards Lee..

Hi Lee

101% agreed ... I am not talking about energy, I am talking about charge. I have experimented with various coils. And the point is that it "seems" that the charge in C2 is always less that the final charge gone to C3.

I am only saying look it seems that we have got new "charge" introduced to the system, and it also seems that the charge we got at first triggered the coil to extract charge from the vacuum. When you apply the gas, capsule analogy, it really becomes clear that we have got new gas in our capsules(capacitors) which have flown in from a high pressure medium. That is all I am saying, we need to look at what differs from convention. My point is that we have got the energy from the vacuum from the coil, but the energy extract seems to be always less than the energy delivered, unless the energy or the new charge flowing to the system has other unknown properties, that we are missing.

The convention says charge is always conserved in a circuit, but this does not hold true in this circuit, also it says that energy is stored in an inductor, which seems not to be quite true, and the inductor stores the energy in the vacuum which contains new charge. Thus the charge triggered from the coil which is stored in C3 is not the same charge which has already flown through it and have been stored in C2.

Ok? ;-)
I also agree with you that we should respect the conventional wisdom, I myself have graduated in computer hardware engineering , and am quite familiar with conventional electrical and electronic circuits.

Elias

[elias]

Hi Elias. Another really NEAT circuit. Blown away here. Very nice indeed.

Dear Rosemary,
Thanks!
This is the basic circuit that utilises the principle of the Tesla Switch and inductive Collapse, with capacitors and coils, it is only useful for demonstration.
Splitting the positive, or Tesla Switch as I have found so far, does not increase the energy of the system, but conserves the charge and prevents it to be wasted, this is the extra gain in these systems. It might increase the charge in the system if switch at a high frequency, because every wire is an inductor and can add new charge to the circuit.

But, I highly suspect that maybe, maybe, we could trigger the vacuum to provide more charge than that applied to the coil, with high frequency and high voltage circuits, as Tesla did a century ago. Who knows.

We really need to go high voltage and frequency to see a real gain I suppose.

Elias

[nilrehob]

@nvisser

unable to reply to you
tried pm and email
neither works

/Hob

[Jbignes5]

Dear Rosemary,
Thanks!
This is the basic circuit that utilises the principle of the Tesla Switch and inductive Collapse, with capacitors and coils, it is only useful for demonstration.
Splitting the positive, or Tesla Switch as I have found so far, does not increase the energy of the system, but conserves the charge and prevents it to be wasted, this is the extra gain in these systems. It might increase the charge in the system if switch at a high frequency, because every wire is an inductor and can add new charge to the circuit.

But, I highly suspect that maybe, maybe, we could trigger the vacuum to provide more charge than that applied to the coil, with high frequency and high voltage circuits, as Tesla did a century ago. Who knows.

We really need to go high voltage and frequency to see a real gain I suppose.

Elias

Wow someone is finally seeing the light. What Tesla did was shield the positive voltage from receiving the charges from the environment except for which he wanted them to come in and out. The load is set in between the in and one side of the hv source. Anything else was statically shielded on that end of the circuit creating a focus or pulling of the smallest charges via the frequency.
If one looks at the experiments done a long time ago with sound, water and sand, one can see that the medium doesn't move but the sand sure does. it forms patterns at the specific frequencies that match the shape of the object allowing them to become very energized and imparting organized fielding effects. This is resonate transfer at it's finest. And this is what I suspect is happening with the crystal conductors on the finest level. The motion is a pizzo effect and that effect is lower on the natural level. When we channel more charges into the area the effects become larger, more pronounced and reach further out from the source. The voltage is extremely separated from the charges. They pull the charges twords the source via an attraction both to the threads and twords the source. This action causes a spiraling effect once you figure out that the conductors have 2 channels. one on each side of the conductor. The charges repel each other as well as they travel up and down the threads. They lead charges because the charges flow into the system via all the wires just by being attracted to the voltage potential that is radiated from the wires.
Radiative event is just these minute conductors lining up into needle like extensions into the environment allowing the circuit to pull in charges from farther away. These extensions can be seen in any corona "discharge" Picture.
Here is such a collection on our very own forum:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...discharge.html

Pay attention to pictures 9-10. These pictures show exactly how radiative events happen.

In the extreme it shows the minute. This event happens on any circuit just it doesn't reach as far or is as pronounced as these effects are. If you look at the thin rods going up to the tips you see the radiating events all along that rod. Why is it that it is visible? Well two things comes to mind. The pull is so powerful that is overloads the capability of those lines to contain the charges and they leak off of the conductors and is radiated back into the environment through a cycle. You will also notice a hue of charge around these devices and that is actually the build up of charge twords the source. If if can't pass thru the device it will build up and lightly radiate in the same method as the lines but more finer.
These conductors that I am talking about are so fine that they react to the voltage source and line up and space themselves out with some of them organizing into bunches of lines. The bunching I believe is because of the central thread attracting less potential threads around the central higher potential thread.

[smw1998a]

Hi Lee

101% agreed ... I am not talking about energy, I am talking about charge. I have experimented with various coils. And the point is that it "seems" that the charge in C2 is always less that the final charge gone to C3.

I am only saying look it seems that we have got new "charge" introduced to the system, and it also seems that the charge we got at first triggered the coil to extract charge from the vacuum. When you apply the gas, capsule analogy, it really becomes clear that we have got new gas in our capsules(capacitors) which have flown in from a high pressure medium. That is all I am saying, we need to look at what differs from convention. My point is that we have got the energy from the vacuum from the coil, but the energy extract seems to be always less than the energy delivered, unless the energy or the new charge flowing to the system has other unknown properties, that we are missing.

The convention says charge is always conserved in a circuit, but this does not hold true in this circuit, also it says that energy is stored in an inductor, which seems not to be quite true, and the inductor stores the energy in the vacuum which contains new charge. Thus the charge triggered from the coil which is stored in C3 is not the same charge which has already flown through it and have been stored in C2.

Ok? ;-)
I also agree with you that we should respect the conventional wisdom, I myself have graduated in computer hardware engineering , and am quite familiar with conventional electrical and electronic circuits.

Elias

Hi Elias,
I would have to concede on this one as even my basic energy analysis failed to explain the energy on C3 when it had already been divide between C1 and C2. I simply do not have the knowledge to analyse the circuit in a way that can prove your conclusion beyond a doubt. To this end, it is a very interesting conundrum.

Regards Lee...