Captret Destroys Capacitors

[Jbignes5]

Lets get this straight..

First off! Dr. Stiffler was using a fully charged battery.. We told him not to. Have you ever shorted out a 12 battery that is only putting out 7-10 volts standing? Nothing happens.. I know lol...

Please stop spreading bs like this. I have brand new caps running the original circuit and have seen no such effect on the caps. I even have a bunch of old caps all rated at 200v with zero effects after running for 5 days now. Obviously Mr. Stiffler did a fopah and used a battery with a good amount of charge on it. This setup "Captret" is only designed for use with dead batteries. It was this way so we could see what is really going on with it.

If the good Doctor did something for which it was obviously stated you should not then thats his fault. That would be like saying hey I used a capacitor that was rated for 10 volts on a system that was running 24 volts. We have always said to use the captret on a dead battery that was not charged but had a standing battery voltage of less then 3/4 of the original voltage. End of story.

The reason why caps will do that is not because of a chemical reaction although that might be a little why is does but the main reason is because of the forces that get setup in the caps. they tend to get squeezed and end up popping open because the ends are designed to do that at a very standard pressure of 7 atmospheres. In a normal mode of operation this would be very loud and a little messy but other then that if he had followed the directions he should have used a dead battery and not one of his test batteries with a good charge on it. Isn't that what experiments like this are for? If you understand what is going on in the cap the way we are using them you can see why they would squeeze out. They were not designed for this but at very low voltages in the 5-10 volt range they work ok. Since both plates tend to charge positive in relation to the negative of the can this squeezes the plates as they try to push away from each other. So the plates having no where to go move axially, once they are out of alignment that movement can have considerable pressure in a direction that it was not designed to have such pressure except for a safety release.

[DrStiffler]

First off! Dr. Stiffler was using a fully charged battery.. We told him not to. Have you ever shorted out a 12 battery that is only putting out 7-10 volts standing? Nothing happens.. I know lol...

Please stop spreading bs like this. I have brand new caps running the original circuit and have seen no such effect on the caps. I even have a bunch of old caps all rated at 200v with zero effects after running for 5 days now. Obviously Mr. Stiffler did a fopah and used a battery with a good amount of charge on it. This setup "Captret" is only designed for use with dead batteries. It was this way so we could see what is really going on with it.

If the good Doctor did something for which it was obviously stated you should not then thats his fault. That would be like saying hey I used a capacitor that was rated for 10 volts on a system that was running 24 volts. We have always said to use the captret on a dead battery that was not charged but had a standing battery voltage of less then 3/4 of the original voltage. End of story.

@Jbignes5
Maybe you should get an electronics education, then just maybe you would understand what you think you see and really do not see.

[Jbignes5]

Really...

@Jbignes5
Maybe you should get an electronics education, then just maybe you would understand what you think you see and really do not see.

Hm... I do have an electronic technician degree. That is a working applied electronics degree. Not just theory but the application of that theory in the real world.

I think your time would be better spent on informing the people what you sec really is.. What are the dangers of that device? RF burns..
RF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS
This tells of rf burns and dielectric heating. Since most who play with your device are in the direct field I would have thought you would have warned people about it.

If you use something beyond it's ability to hold back such currents then you are gonna get what you got. Our setups don't even have the capability to provide such forces. Obviously you went to the max or even beyond the caps capability to hold those additional forces. It would be like attaching a garden hose to the bottom of the Hoover dam and expecting it to hold back that pressure.

[conradphd]

Debinking Captret

For those interested please see the web page that Dr. Stiffler and I put up which looks into this Captret device or shall I say an improper use and misunderstanding of capacitors and batteries. Stay informed and be sure to see both sides. Read and see how many people have come forth debunking this whole concept.

Whats all the Buzz About Captret

[DrStiffler]

Hm... I do have an electronic technician degree. That is a working applied electronics degree. Not just theory but the application of that theory in the real world.

I think your time would be better spent on informing the people what you sec really is.. What are the dangers of that device? RF burns..
RF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS
This tells of rf burns and dielectric heating. Since most who play with your device are in the direct field I would have thought you would have warned people about it.

If you use something beyond it's ability to hold back such currents then you are gonna get what you got. Our setups don't even have the capability to provide such forces. Obviously you went to the max or even beyond the caps capability to hold those additional forces. It would be like attaching a garden hose to the bottom of the Hoover dam and expecting it to hold back that pressure.

@Jbignes5

What are the dangers of that device? RF burns..

That is a real possibility if one is stupid enough to place their finger into the light socket. Ever tried licking a 9V 2U6 battery, come on now have you? and what was the result?

This tells of rf burns and dielectric heating. Since most who play with your device are in the direct field I would have thought you would have warned people about it.

Correct to a point. To the best of my knowledge no one has been able to build a real SEC Exciter that is capable of over a few watts and with the UWB the power from a 1.5W Exciter is spread over a very wide spectrum, heck you should already know this, right? So I would love to see any evidence that a SEC Exciter is more dangerous than a cell phone and indeed is less so.

Don't try and cover the silly Captret observation by turning the subject back to me, thousands of people, world wide have built my Exciters and the Slayer Exciter and seem great results. Battery charging by Captret, bull, do some real scientific load test, then maybe informed people would listen.

[Jbignes5]

The thing is...

@Jbignes5


That is a real possibility if one is stupid enough to place their finger into the light socket. Ever tried licking a 9V 2U6 battery, come on now have you? and what was the result?


Correct to a point. To the best of my knowledge no one has been able to build a real SEC Exciter that is capable of over a few watts and with the UWB the power from a 1.5W Exciter is spread over a very wide spectrum, heck you should already know this, right? So I would love to see any evidence that a SEC Exciter is more dangerous than a cell phone and indeed is less so.

Don't try and cover the silly Captret observation by turning the subject back to me, thousands of people, world wide have built my Exciters and the Slayer Exciter and seem great results. Battery charging by Captret, bull, do some real scientific load test, then maybe informed people would listen.

I'm not covering anything. Obviously we who theorize and experiment here know what the results could be. We were experimenting with the caps like that because at very low voltages and near nothing for current we were seeing a rise in voltage on the battery. When you take the experiment out of the context for which it was proposed then you get what you got. We know the dangers of doing the experiments and we accept those dangers. Good experimenters will take precautions bad one won't.

The effect we are seeing, which unfortunately you didn't because you used to high a potential source, was that the battery would charge some. This effect needs to be looked into. Fine it's not your bag or you believe this is nothing. We on the other hand know the dangers and even protect ourselves and the area we work in. Hopefully others will see that there is an apparent danger in any experiment and take appropriate precautions. They were constantly warned by the poster in this case.

On a side note the rf warnings say the minimum voltage field would be 38 volts to be worried about. Weather you know it or not your sec field is much higher and at the frequency you are using that could become very dangerous yet I hear nothing for you in your thread of the true nature of your device. Call it what you will but it is rf none the less. Spacial energy coherence is a fancy word for rf...

[ibpointless2]

First off! Dr. Stiffler was using a fully charged battery.. We told him not to. Have you ever shorted out a 12 battery that is only putting out 7-10 volts standing? Nothing happens.. I know lol...

Please stop spreading bs like this. I have brand new caps running the original circuit and have seen no such effect on the caps. I even have a bunch of old caps all rated at 200v with zero effects after running for 5 days now. Obviously Mr. Stiffler did a fopah and used a battery with a good amount of charge on it. This setup "Captret" is only designed for use with dead batteries. It was this way so we could see what is really going on with it.

If the good Doctor did something for which it was obviously stated you should not then thats his fault. That would be like saying hey I used a capacitor that was rated for 10 volts on a system that was running 24 volts. We have always said to use the captret on a dead battery that was not charged but had a standing battery voltage of less then 3/4 of the original voltage. End of story.

The reason why caps will do that is not because of a chemical reaction although that might be a little why is does but the main reason is because of the forces that get setup in the caps. they tend to get squeezed and end up popping open because the ends are designed to do that at a very standard pressure of 7 atmospheres. In a normal mode of operation this would be very loud and a little messy but other then that if he had followed the directions he should have used a dead battery and not one of his test batteries with a good charge on it. Isn't that what experiments like this are for? If you understand what is going on in the cap the way we are using them you can see why they would squeeze out. They were not designed for this but at very low voltages in the 5-10 volt range they work ok. Since both plates tend to charge positive in relation to the negative of the can this squeezes the plates as they try to push away from each other. So the plates having no where to go move axially, once they are out of alignment that movement can have considerable pressure in a direction that it was not designed to have such pressure except for a safety release.

Thank you!

I've stop listening to the doctor when he couldn't read a simple diagram and hook the positive of the battery to top of the cap, because thats what he thought was right.

I'm sure a lot of us here have been taught the proper electronics theories and real world uses, but that doesn't matter any more when we think about captrets. We're seeing new and exciting things that really make no sense when we use conventional theories, because after all they're just theories.

This guy who started this bs about capacitors exploding need to stop, i've been running my setups for weeks with no caps exploding or bulging. Just use common sense when you explore the captret.

The caps will not explode if you use common sense.

Plus we shouldn't bow down to the "DR." No offence but you're just another guy like me and everyone else.

Everyone at my thread are there to learn and explore, and we don't need people spreading lies and making fraud experiment that differ from what we're working on. We see what we see, and its different then what any professor, doctor, or textbook has taught me.

[DrStiffler]

I'm not covering anything. Obviously we who theorize and experiment here know what the results could be. We were experimenting with the caps like that because at very low voltages and near nothing for current we were seeing a rise in voltage on the battery. When you take the experiment out of the context for which it was proposed then you get what you got. We know the dangers of doing the experiments and we accept those dangers. Good experimenters will take precautions bad one won't.

The effect we are seeing, which unfortunately you didn't because you used to high a potential source, was that the battery would charge some. This effect needs to be looked into. Fine it's not your bag or you believe this is nothing. We on the other hand know the dangers and even protect ourselves and the area we work in. Hopefully others will see that there is an apparent danger in any experiment and take appropriate precautions. They were constantly warned by the poster in this case.

On a side note the rf warnings say the minimum voltage field would be 38 volts to be worried about. Weather you know it or not your sec field is much higher and at the frequency you are using that could become very dangerous yet I hear nothing for you in your thread of the true nature of your device. Call it what you will but it is rf none the less. Spacial energy coherence is a fancy word for rf...

@Jbignes5
Okay I guess it's time that we bring out all the 'Truth' here. For some reason, either because no one has cared to look or they flat out will not admit it, but, I published a link to my work in late 2008 and early 2009 on this method of utilizing capacitors.

ESEG - Exciter Stimulated Energy Generation

(granted a stupid name because you don't generate energy)

The short of it is I and a number of associates, many that post on this forum, have hundreds of hours devoted to this exploration. I can categorically state you folks have not even scratched the surface and have no real idea of where to go with it.

Now I will say we are able to substantiate by load testing that we did indeed get some worthwhile results, but not the Captret way, low and behold it might require a special EXCITER configuration.

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. God you all jump to tell me that I am only doing what Tesla did (hi folks).

Well this in a nut shell explains why I no longer share real progress here, why should anyone, who really listens and cares a tinker anyway? It's all about getting hits and a following is it not?, vanity, fame or build some internet credential to woo the troops?

[redrichie]

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.

[seth]

@Jbignes5
Okay I guess it's time that we bring out all the 'Truth' here. For some reason, either because no one has cared to look or they flat out will not admit it, but, I published a link to my work in late 2008 and early 2009 on this method of utilizing capacitors.

ESEG - Exciter Stimulated Energy Generation

(granted a stupid name because you don't generate energy)

The short of it is I and a number of associates, many that post on this forum, have hundreds of hours devoted to this exploration. I can categorically state you folks have not even scratched the surface and have no real idea of where to go with it.

Now I will say we are able to substantiate by load testing that we did indeed get some worthwhile results, but not the Captret way, low and behold it might require a special EXCITER configuration.

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. God you all jump to tell me that I am only doing what Tesla did (hi folks).

Well this in a nut shell explains why I no longer share real progress here, why should anyone, who really listens and cares a tinker anyway? It's all about getting hits and a following is it not?, vanity, fame or build some internet credential to woo the troops?

Stifflers been there, done that, and bought the T - shirt, and yet has the gaul to lecture us all on vanity. You're a strange character Stiffler - you moaned when i called my exciter a sec, and then seemed to be angry with me for calling it a slayer exciter. You accuse others of vanity, and then seem mortally offended when someone doesnt call you doctor. Is it not vain to believe that a qualification makes you better suited to understand the nature of the physical world? Are you not searching for internet fame when you start your own website dedicated to alternative scientific research?

I enjoy your experiments - i think you have lots of interesting results. But as a person i find your attitude extremely hard to endure - not being a doctor, nor having a scientific education, doesnt necessarily make an unsuccessful scientist. Nathan Stubblefield had neither. There are many here with neither....but as long as they build and experiment (as ibpointless has) they will make progress. The important thing is to explore the world around you and come to your own conclusions.

[seth]

Here is a good tutorial on EC:

Electrochemistry Encyclopedia -- Electrolytic capacitors

In particular, pay close attention to the Package Section. I will quote it here for you again:

"...The can into which the capacitor section is placed is made of 1100-alloy aluminum, which is of around 99% purity. For 25 to 50 mm (one-inch to two-inch)-diameter capacitors, the wall thickness is 0.022 inches. A butyl rubber gasket is placed on top of the header before the spinning operation, in which the case opening is folded over and pressed into the gasket, forming an effective seal of the system. The package is at the same potential as the electrolyte and cathode during capacitor operation, so when electrolytic capacitors are connected in series, care must be taken to insulate the cases from one another. Although the aluminum electrolytic capacitor case is at the cathode potential, it may not be used for the negative electrical connection because of high electrolyte resistivity and the long effective path from the cathode to the can. If the electrolyte were of much lower resistivity, eliminating the cathode and using the can instead might be a possibility. A safety vent is provided in capacitors so that the capacitor may relieve excessive pressure buildup in a controlled manner. This occurrence is known as venting, and is considered a failure mode. The vent may be installed as a rubber plug in the header or as a die-set slit impression in the can wall. The pressure at which the capacitor vents is predictable, and is usually designed to occur at about seven atmosphere pressure or even higher. The allowable pressure tends to be higher for small capacitors. After a capacitor vents, the electrolyte may evaporate out until the capacitance diminishes. "

After reading this you will quickly realize that the captret and its supposedly effects are complete misunderstandings on the part of non-linear thinkers.

I have a few high quality and mil qualified caps available for cheap. Those who are intersted, let me know. First come, first serve.

Miki Out.

Thanks Miki!

[DrStiffler]

Stifflers been there, done that, and bought the T - shirt, and yet has the gaul to lecture us all on vanity. You're a strange character Stiffler - you moaned when i called my exciter a sec, and then seemed to be angry with me for calling it a slayer exciter. You accuse others of vanity, and then seem mortally offended when someone doesnt call you doctor. Is it not vain to believe that a qualification makes you better suited to understand the nature of the physical world? Are you not searching for internet fame when you start your own website dedicated to alternative scientific research?

I enjoy your experiments - i think you have lots of interesting results. But as a person i find your attitude extremely hard to endure - not being a doctor, nor having a scientific education, doesnt necessarily make an unsuccessful scientist. Nathan Stubblefield had neither. There are many here with neither....but as long as they build and experiment (as ibpointless has) they will make progress. The important thing is to explore the world around you and come to your own conclusions.

Really seth I can't bring myself to respond to (You).

[Jbignes5]

Listen Doc.

@Jbignes5
Okay I guess it's time that we bring out all the 'Truth' here. For some reason, either because no one has cared to look or they flat out will not admit it, but, I published a link to my work in late 2008 and early 2009 on this method of utilizing capacitors.

ESEG - Exciter Stimulated Energy Generation

(granted a stupid name because you don't generate energy)

The short of it is I and a number of associates, many that post on this forum, have hundreds of hours devoted to this exploration. I can categorically state you folks have not even scratched the surface and have no real idea of where to go with it.

Now I will say we are able to substantiate by load testing that we did indeed get some worthwhile results, but not the Captret way, low and behold it might require a special EXCITER configuration.

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. God you all jump to tell me that I am only doing what Tesla did (hi folks).

Well this in a nut shell explains why I no longer share real progress here, why should anyone, who really listens and cares a tinker anyway? It's all about getting hits and a following is it not?, vanity, fame or build some internet credential to woo the troops?

Listen I know what you did. I have read it. How many times must I sit here and state the fact that this is an effect that you looked at earlier. Can you say without a shadow of a doubt that you have explored every avenue in that venture. Every avenue that others might go?

So is this what this thread is all about? You getting credit for something? Fine have your credit but do not tell us that replication or even a unintentional rediscovery of your earlier discovery isn't warranted. I mean why should anyone do anything here at all. Why should we try to educate ourselves in anything by reproducing others work. Weather it was intentional or not. In this case I believe Ibpointless2 genuinely thought he saw this for the first time. He did not know you did the same experiments and if he did why did you then have to do it yourself if you have done this before?

The only one I see looking for Whooo is you atm. Why sit here and do the experiment wrong and not within the experiments guidelines then say it is dangerous when it fails. Kinda sounds like what happened to Tesla when he was having the battle with Edison over AC/DC. I mean we know we are not using the caps in the designed way. We expect them to fail but while they hold up we can observe something which you overlooked. At extreme low voltages and current we can manifest a battery to charge beyond it's relaxed state. Would you admit that the battery is designed to self discharge? Then why would they be going up in voltage in the designed experiment?

[DrStiffler]

Listen I know what you did. I have read it. How many times must I sit here and state the fact that this is an effect that you looked at earlier. Can you say without a shadow of a doubt that you have explored every avenue in that venture. Every avenue that others might go?

So is this what this thread is all about? You getting credit for something? Fine have your credit but do not tell us that replication or even a unintentional rediscovery of your earlier discovery isn't warranted. I mean why should anyone do anything here at all. Why should we try to educate ourselves in anything by reproducing others work. Weather it was intentional or not. In this case I believe Ibpointless2 genuinely thought he saw this for the first time. He did not know you did the same experiments and if he did why did you then have to do it yourself if you have done this before?

The only one I see looking for Whooo is you atm. Why sit here and do the experiment wrong and not within the experiments guidelines then say it is dangerous when it fails. Kinda sounds like what happened to Tesla when he was having the battle with Edison over AC/DC. I mean we know we are not using the caps in the designed way. We expect them to fail but while they hold up we can observe something which you overlooked. At extreme low voltages and current we can manifest a battery to charge beyond it's relaxed state. Would you admit that the battery is designed to self discharge? Then why would they be going up in voltage in the designed experiment?

I pointed to the web page that this was studied in various ways, including charging from an earth ground only.

What I want is the respect that if I offer advice that there is a foundation under which I make the comment. I would not have destroyed my reputation as an academic by coming into the public and working in an area that is forbidden by the main stream and flown from the flag poles as impossible, unless I felt it had been worth it.

So don't attempt to lecture me, I have spent my OWN money and retirement on my research and guess what fellow and the rest of you, do you honestly think it was for fame? at my age? Christ get real here.

It was the same way when I was teaching, a student would ask, 'well can't you just show us how its done?'. They could not understand that the doing was part of the learning and I was not to do it for them, but to direct them in how to do it. The knowledge gained by doing allows for further creativity and advancement.

But, low and behold I could not get the point across. So fellas all I can add is enjoy you trip and hope for that hand out some day.

[seth]

It was the same way when I was teaching, a student would ask, 'well can't you just show us how its done?'. They could not understand that the doing was part of the learning and I was not to do it for them, but to direct them in how to do it. .

Ibpointless didnt have to be ''directed'' into doing it by the wise and learned professor. He just touched the back of a capacitor and saw the the led flash. He then went on to build his own captret, and share it with others. I say 3 cheers for his very own discovery.

You're right doctor - its much better when students learn for themselves. And thats what these forums are all about. its certainly why im here.