Captret Destroys Capacitors

[Jbignes5]

No I agree...

jbigness. i have a few captret experiments going right now. i have taken precautions for the devices as i leave them unattended. i have heard others say that after a few days the captret just fizzles out and that caps can be damaged. i have seen no such happenings. (not that it wont, thats what experiment is for) your kinda coming down hard on the doctor saying he had to do his experiment wrong. that he was using new batteries. i understand where you are coming from in your argument. but what difference does it make about the battery beinf new or charged or not. if you started witha dead 9v that was at 5v or 4 dead 9v at 20v hooked to the same captret the results would be the same would they not? so you are telling me a fully charged 9v is more dangerous than 4 dead 9v in series? please explain that to me. i want to be as safe as possible. or lasersaber is using just capacitors with no battery. is his dangerous since hasnt followed the exact experiment? im not taking any sides here so please dont take me the wrong way. for whatever reason this thread has caused a lot of animosity and i cant figure out why.

I am not the one who started this thread. This threads was designed to discredit the Captret for some unknown reason.

To answer your question because it was asked here, yes I believe that when a dead battery or what we designate as a dead battery lacks the push that a good or fresh battery has. Even if you double up or whatever amount you want to put together it still does not have the ability to push current at all. It will however provide a pure potential that we can separate from the current to a degree except for leakage in the cap. So yes I do not believe that multiple dead batteries are the same as a single battery would be capable of. If that was the case then we could just put 20 batteries together and continue to squeeze them till they are dry for which we can not.

The captret is very interesting in the way it changes it's properties from a relatively light current in the beginning to almost nothing as it charges up. once that charge is built up it uses nothing of the current that should be flowing between the led and battery. Since it is isolated from the battery except for an ac signal it pretty much doesn't use any current in the flow. When I first strung my 8 parallel caps and ran that I was finally able to heat up my 3.7vf bright white led but then again it was only lukewarm. I could feel heat on my lips but not my finger tips. I compared that to a led that I blew earlier and was room temp, there was quite a difference. So I decided to parallel a couple leds and the heat disappeared. So there was real current there but it had changed into a flow of a different kind. This was a flow of potential only I suspect since one plate was at 7 volts and the other was battery potential. When you parallel the caps they increase the flow and can support more lumins from the led.

This I suspect is actually based off of a concept that Tesla figured out a long time ago. Since the caps are polarized this gives a direction of flow for the potential to follow and since we are using a light emitting diode that further gives a polarity to that flow. It doesn't use the traditional current that we are taught about. It uses what nature uses to run it's great machine off of. The flow of potential. The problem with using a polarized cap in this case is the polarization breaks the way the cap operates normally. This is because it is not designed to run backwards in between that plate and will degrade the caps ability to work the longer it goes. We have seen caps that are more inclined to work longer and actually get some that continue to work in this new method without failure.

The only time the battery supplies current is to open the led. Once it is conducting it will conduct until there is very little potential to hold it open which from my observations is very very small of a potential difference.

The one problem I have now is that you said hey I'm not gonna give it to you then you say "You see I feel that if someone points you to the fact that just (maybe?) you came up with the same idea as what has been explored and documented by someone else, that at the very least you could admit that." Again you are looking for credit to be given to you. Fine... Credit given. Now can we get back to the real experiment and not have to defend ourselves and this effect. It's kinda like saying hey I want the credit for observing the earth revolving around the sun. Why because I saw it first? It is a natural event not something you designed. But hey you did design the sec which I tell you is rf(ac) not pure potential. It has current and that means a direct connection in the "Exciter" circuit. We get the same effect with out an oscillator and without being exposed to all the fields that your device makes. Who knows what you have emitting from that device. Who knows what kind of deep burns and mutations of cells you are causing with that device that might not show up for years afterwards. My point is no one can think of everything but we can explore it to find our observations and report them here.

[electricity]

Calling all Naysayers ..

Dr. Conrad & Dr. Stiffler,
Please prove me otherwise as my captrat has completed 6 successfully cycles repeated charging a 9v.

Use a 250v 50000 uf electrolytic capacitor or similar capacitance cap.

[electricity]

Improved Capret charger

Or try this one.

Use dead 9v alkaline disposable battery.

I discharge mine to 7 volts and it gets charged back quickly to 9.5v

[conradphd]

Or try this one.

Use dead 9v alkaline disposable battery.

I discharge mine to 7 volts and it gets charged back quickly to 9.5v

*electricity

Boy you got us there, how could we ever argue these circuits.

[electricity]

Simplicity

*electricity

Boy you got us there, how could we ever argue these circuits.

Don't let it's simplicity fool you.

Too bad you've lost your connection to nature, it will be worthwhile a trip to the the rain forest, all you see is nature in harmony, beautiful simplicity!

[boguslaw]

I think DrStiffler has a point here that it may form kind of diode inside captret but surely it would also form LC oscillating circuit.With a big cap it would be a harmonic of mains frequency thus self-oscillating from a little kicks around :-)
Seems I have to check if I could make it recharging 9V battery

[conradphd]

I think DrStiffler has a point here that it may form kind of diode inside captret but surely it would also form LC oscillating circuit.With a big cap it would be a harmonic of mains frequency thus self-oscillating from a little kicks around :-)
Seems I have to check if I could make it recharging 9V battery

*all
Well another point is the sloppy connections with all the alligator leads all over the place. Unless you are out in the middle of a desert or the ocean how can one expect not to pickup external fields. I never cease to be amazed at some of these builds with wires all over the place.

[Joit]

Seriously,
that whould be the first time,
that someone would charge his Source with loose Alligator clips and running a Led beside.
But talking about external fields even would no proove if it cause a loss anywhere else or it comes from your Installations,
only because your Power Company tells you so.

[DrStiffler]

For CosmicFarmer

@CosmicFarmer

I won't go to the Captret thread because 'pointless' has asked all to stay away that do not agree with what they think they have. I would suggest they also stay away from here with the silly remarks and baseless information.

Anyway I did want to respond to the results you posted over there on your testing.

I just want to present some information that you may or may not be aware of and maybe you can match it to or integrate it into your results.

Electrolytic capacitors are a breed unto themselves and exhibit many strange behaviors. In the days of HV power supplies using EL capacitors we experience a use it or loose it condition. El's had and many still do the habit of modifying the thin film barrier that allows for the voltage stand-off. Older caps needed conditioning after extended non-use in order to bring them back to full standoff voltage. This was done via application of lower voltages and gradually increasing to rated value.

Additionally these are chemical based devices and as such can exhibit a battery effect (albeit not very useful). They for sure exhibit the phantom diode affect or call it polarization if you must. Anyway that is very easy to demonstrate.

Now to you batteries, again chemical in nature. What have many claimed to take place with many of the pulse charging systems (desulfication), and a battery can appear to take on a new life. This is also expressed in many other battery types, (use it or loose it again). You either start or jolt the chemical actions back to a point of marginal function again.

How to you calculate Power? So who has ever proven that potential alone can do anything? See I want a current device to show me, not some book of John Doe having done it. Maybe in some small cases you can get a small rise in these batteries, but it is not worth a hill of beans. Show me potential alone powering my lab and I will forever remain silent.

[wetissues]

Screw the captret

It isn't an exciter, its just a cap in parrallel with a cell and an led. This exciter is stupid, don't waste your money or time with this.

[CosmicFarmer]

@Dr Stiffler
Hey! Thanks for the post.

I just read this thread so far and I would like to say I have not seen any bulging yet... however I do sleep next to them so if you don't hear from me again then you know what happened...

Yes I was given the fear of electrolytics in the many electronic schools I went to, everyone had their own horror story of a cap blowing due to some inadvertent mistake.

I do agree that at the rate of "charge" that is being observed, I could actually go outside, hammer a copper pole in the ground, and AV plug it like you did, and the charge might be faster, work included. However, if this effect is linear, that would mean that an entire roomful of gigantic caps might power your lab. I will leave the purchasing arrangements of that to the people who are not currently in debt.

For me, the learning about batteries really started with me about 3 years ago with the Bedini research. Before that was just good ol' rule of thumb advice such as don't short batteries, drain them fully and recharge, etc. I would have to say that the chemistry in batteries is very interesting and detailed, and I still have not fully come to grips with exactly how everything happens. I did make a connection in my mind that a "EL" cap might be a type of a battery. Aren't both plates made out of aluminum?


Also... I would like to say that the capacitors here aren't the things with the highest risk to explode. I would say its people's heads, or their ego, have been inflating recently, and it seems sides are being drawn. I do not want to see this happen. Some claims have been made that are amazing and hard to prove, and some debunking has been thorough and almost violent.

In today's world of certificates and degrees, you must respect those who have had the patience to finish something big, however it should not go to your head and make you think you are in any way better then someone. Maybe someone's opinion may be wrong, but you are not better then them just because you think you are right. (I am not talking to anyone in paticular this is just general guidance) The person who is wrong needs to accept correction, and the person correcting needs to do it gently and with respect.

We do not really have a wrong party here, since both sides seem to be correct.

I do believe that personal attacks on past accomplishments are unwarrented since this thread is devoted to the dangers of a "captret" and not mud-slinging about trying to get people to stand around in huge rf fields.



Ok thats enough from me. I hope everyone stays safe and cools down.

[Jbignes5]

The thing is...

The one problem I see with this thread that was started by Mr. Stiffler is this. I have seen ZERO other threads from him telling of the dangers of anything else being researched here.

This is what led me to believe this was about something else entirely different. One of EGO from Mr. Stifflers camp. In the first place his research on the "Captret" was only with his device and not a simple battery. When someone went down the avenue of exploring the battery issue he took extensive time to say he did that already. Really if you had done it already why did you have to setup the experiment for yourself?

Again this has nothing to do with the "Captret" This has more to do with Mr. Stifflers EGO and that he could have missed something in his investigation. Yes it has simularities with his experiments but that is about it for the simularities.

So I ask that either Mr. Stiffler requests for the admin to delete this or he takes the time to tell everyone the dangers of their experiments as well, no matter what they may be.

Mr. Stiffler says that this isn't running of of potential only but again my setup has lost zero voltage in over 4 days on a rather dead battery. Here it sits at 9.30 volts for 4 days and it is running the led all that time so the proof is in the pudding. Deal with it... I'm getting tired of defending this experiment to someone who obviously can not fathom there is something to look at here. You say "I won't go there." yet you sit here attacking this concept because you damaged your cap. Again that was from not following the experiments layout.

I used to think Mr. Stiffler was a professional and now I see he is not.

[miki02131]

Here is a test if anyone is serious about putting all doubt about the Captret to rest.

FACT: Normally during operation, the commercial EC cathod and Case are at the same potential coupled by the cap electrolyte. Which means they are not isolated or open as one often think.

Now the test:

1- Build a homemade EC and make sure the electrolyte is not in contact with the Can. Use some insolator to isolate them from within.

2- Build a captret using your newly built homemade Cap.

3- Conclusion all captret effects would have disapeared. If you observe any "captret effect", then Captret has done the impossible.

Miki Out.

[conradphd]

The one problem I see with this thread that was started by Mr. Stiffler is this. I have seen ZERO other threads from him telling of the dangers of anything else being researched here.

This is what led me to believe this was about something else entirely different. One of EGO from Mr. Stifflers camp. In the first place his research on the "Captret" was only with his device and not a simple battery. When someone went down the avenue of exploring the battery issue he took extensive time to say he did that already. Really if you had done it already why did you have to setup the experiment for yourself?

Again this has nothing to do with the "Captret" This has more to do with Mr. Stifflers EGO and that he could have missed something in his investigation. Yes it has simularities with his experiments but that is about it for the simularities.

So I ask that either Mr. Stiffler requests for the admin to delete this or he takes the time to tell everyone the dangers of their experiments as well, no matter what they may be.

Mr. Stiffler says that this isn't running of of potential only but again my setup has lost zero voltage in over 4 days on a rather dead battery. Here it sits at 9.30 volts for 4 days and it is running the led all that time so the proof is in the pudding. Deal with it... I'm getting tired of defending this experiment to someone who obviously can not fathom there is something to look at here. You say "I won't go there." yet you sit here attacking this concept because you damaged your cap. Again that was from not following the experiments layout.

I used to think Mr. Stiffler was a professional and now I see he is not.

*Jbignes5
Civility and ignorance do not coexist. Really you need to grow up and learn something. Ignorant Jackass.

Yes if the moderators wish to remove this so be it as they without doubt depend on hits from people like yourself.

[DrStiffler]

The one problem I see with this thread that was started by Mr. Stiffler is this. I have seen ZERO other threads from him telling of the dangers of anything else being researched here.

This is what led me to believe this was about something else entirely different. One of EGO from Mr. Stifflers camp. In the first place his research on the "Captret" was only with his device and not a simple battery. When someone went down the avenue of exploring the battery issue he took extensive time to say he did that already. Really if you had done it already why did you have to setup the experiment for yourself?

Again this has nothing to do with the "Captret" This has more to do with Mr. Stifflers EGO and that he could have missed something in his investigation. Yes it has simularities with his experiments but that is about it for the simularities.

So I ask that either Mr. Stiffler requests for the admin to delete this or he takes the time to tell everyone the dangers of their experiments as well, no matter what they may be.

Mr. Stiffler says that this isn't running of of potential only but again my setup has lost zero voltage in over 4 days on a rather dead battery. Here it sits at 9.30 volts for 4 days and it is running the led all that time so the proof is in the pudding. Deal with it... I'm getting tired of defending this experiment to someone who obviously can not fathom there is something to look at here. You say "I won't go there." yet you sit here attacking this concept because you damaged your cap. Again that was from not following the experiments layout.

I used to think Mr. Stiffler was a professional and now I see he is not.

@Jbignes5
What a shame indeed as you have actually made sense on some fronts in other threads, yet it appears you do not have a firm understanding and maybe not even a basic understanding of electronics. That is indeed unfortunate, yet you can appear in print many times over and appear to have an agenda towards preventing real and accurate research. I still sit back and laugh at how many of you talk about potential, rise in voltage, inductance when in the real world it is capacity. A person that really had a vested interest in furthering this research would be posting data and accepting assistance from all knowledgeable sources, yet you feel you are the exclusive member of the motley crew with concepts and ideas that are so left field it just causes anyone with any knowledge at all to roll over with amazement at the utterly ignorance of the misguided statements.

If you do indeed have a 2 year Associate Degree then that should at least allow for you understanding capacitors and LED's. Where does one obtain an associate degree today where LED's are not covered in detail?

You want to play hard ball and impress your friends and followers, go for it, neither Conrad nor myself need to play with you, have at it, hell its only bull anyway, right?