Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX


ONLY 150 118 99 71 63 SEATS AVAILABLE! - 2019 ENERGY CONFERENCE

Monero XMR

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Two Capacitor Paradox

  1. #21

  2. #22
    Hehe, ouch, sorry Notsure. Wanted to wrap this thread up as it seemed well pretty much wrapped up, transfer of charge between two capacitors follows conservation of charge not conservation of energy. We can talk about it a bit more though. If we go back to our initial example of a 1mF capacitor at 20 volts as we noted per energy in a capacitor = 1/2cv2 we have 200mJ in that cap. To recap when the cap is discharged into an identical 1mF cap both caps are seen to come to rest at 10 Volts which again per 1/2cv2 gives only 50 mJ in each cap after discharge so 100 mJ is missing. What should the resting voltage of each cap have been if conservation of energy had been obeyed? The 200 mJ should have divided evenly leading to 100 mJ in each cap, not 50mJ after discharge. So if we know a capacitor has 100 mJ in it we can solve for V since we know C. 100= 1/2 Cv2 so to go step by step 200= CV2, 200/C =V2 sqrt (200/C) = V or V= sqrt((100*2)/C)

    Just need to be sure we keep the figures in Joules, Faradays and Volts so V =sqrt((0.1J*2)/.001F) =14,14V The voltage "should" have been 14.14 in each cap to accord with conservation of energy. What we saw instead was the voltage experimentally was 10 and this also agrees with conservation of charge i.e Coulombs = Voltage * Capacitance. We initially had .001F at 20 Volts = .02 Coulombs. This charge was then distributed over two equal size caps giving 0.01 Coulombs in each cap after discharge. As Coulombs = V*Farads then V=Coulombs/F So V=0.01/0.001 = 10 which is what we experimentally saw, yeah.

    I won't repeat the math for each example but you can discharge a 0.1uF cap at 20 volts into an empty 1000 uF cap. If you look at what you actually got and what you "should" have got if conservation of energy was obeyed you will see in this case you lose something like 99 or 99.9% of your energy. You will also see that your experimental value accords perfectly (well a a few percent lower in my case using a cheap $20 volt meter) with the predicted value from conservation of charge. Similarly if you discharge the same 0.1 uF cap at 20 volts into a 1000 uF cap which is initially at 10 volts look at what you actually got and what you "should" have got per conservation of energy you find you lost less than 0.1% of your energy. Actually it is 99.99005% efficient (I've got it all in a spreadsheet now).

    This finding pretty much lays waste to the "its real world losses going on" banner that I believe it was James in another thread rightly and bravely took up. Same cap has two orders of magnitude difference in energy transfer efficiency dependent only on what the voltage and capacitance of the cap it is discharging into happens to be. I can say that in either experimentally recording voltages or just in looking at what the conservation of charge law says will be the ending voltages I have not found a single case where conservation of energy held true. I am perhaps only half joking here, but if I were a mathematical mind at the level of a Tom Bearden or such there may even be a mathematical proof there where you could demonstrate definitively that if conservation of charge is held as valid in transferring energy from one cap to another (which is what I've seen experimentally in every case) than in no case may conservation of energy also be true. Wouldn't that be some good clean fun!

    So yes, ready to wrap up this thread and am pretty much at a loss for words, amused, mortified, embarrassed for MIT experts. This isn't the one in 10,000, one in a million case where maybe just maybe there is an exception, "You know I think we may have spotted a neutrino Dr. Quisling". No, in the simplest electrodynamics energy transfer I can think of discharging one cap into another, the "law" is flat out wrong in every single stinking case it is just a matter of if it is close but still demonstrably wrong or spectacularly, horrifyingly, hilariously wrong with its predictions, and it can be demonstrated with a few nine volt batteries an assortment of caps and a 20 dollar volt meter. What the heck is going on?

    So previously I also questioned does energy in a cap actually =1/2cv2? Really if you thought of an isolated system where you were only transferring charge/energy between caps does 1/2cv2 have much relevance as the "energy" in a cap in a sense isn't there if it can't show up in another cap. Then again under different conditions energy in a cap does = 1/2cV2 doesn't it, so yes I think a logical and decent next question is under what conditions does energy in a cap follow 1/2cv2 and when, as at least in transferring charge between two caps, does it not?

    So I have no more to say at the moment on this and this is a rare example where I looked at something and it wrapped itself up nicely in a few days/weeks. As this thread has been all over the place I will say one thing I would like to look at sometime fairly soon is has anyone compared the radiant spike obtained with say thirty winds of biflar 22 gauge wire as compared with say an identical coil only with one strand 22 gauge and one strand say 32 gauge. I will say from experimentation of just discharging a cap at a set voltage into a coil and measuring the radiant, that for a given number of winds you get a bit better radiant with thicker gauge wire, though the thicker wire eventually allows for fewer winds that are close to the center of the coil, so a tradeoff. By this reasoning if I have a small 30 wind bifilar coil that is 22/32 gauge it should have a weaker radiant than a 30 wind 22/22 gauge bifilar. Then again ... was thinking about Tesla's counter wind bifilar pancake coil, first that it seems like a real pain in the neck to try and make but also if I understand him correctly Tesla is saying as the discharging coil has the two winds discharging in opposite directions to one another the voltage difference between the two will sum to the voltages of each wind. This would contribute greatly to the radiant so worth trying to look at though as I said likely not the most fun to try and wind. So going back, the resistances in the wires in the 22/32 gauge bifilar will be different, at this point I was thinking nahhhhh, no, no, no, but ya know, maybe. If the current is travelling faster in the 22 gauge wire then the 32 gauge, the pulse will be one nanometer one femtometer ahead in the 22 gauge wire. Does it then look across at the 32 gauge wire and see 0 volts, if so you would get a bit of the sort of action going on in the Tesla pancake coil in this case simply because the two wires are discharging at different rates. In that case the 22/32 gauge bifilar would give a stronger radiant than the 22/22 bifilar. At this point I feel I can say with confidence the 22/32 gauge bifilar will either perform better or worse, or maybe the same, as the 22/22 gauge coil. Should take maybe an hour or so to look at, sounds fun. Also if anyone has looked at bifilar, multifilar coils with differing gauge wires, I'm all ears, figuratively speaking.
    Last edited by ZPDM; 06-26-2016 at 09:25 PM.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Faraday88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Bangaluru, Karnataka, India
    Posts
    1,485
    Quote Originally Posted by Notsure View Post
    Hi Notsure,

    Was just wondering, what has this schematic to do with your Two Capacitor paradox??, however the schematic is interesting.. try Swapping the places of the Collector and Emmitter Coils position...makes more sense... and then it is Monopole triggered and not free running i guess..!
    Rgds,
    Faraday88.
    Last edited by Faraday88; 06-26-2016 at 11:33 PM.
    ‘Mass is the Spatial density of Matter (Particle) and the Temporal Intensity of Space (Field)’.

  4. #24
    Alright I crack myself up, the way these things are supposed to be proved or disproved is the 1950s era set with lots of lab equipment around a whiteboard with lots of equations and the two of them in starched pressed white suits.
    "You know I think we may have spotted a neutrino Dr. Quisling"
    "Well, that may be Judith, but just the same I'd like to recalibrate our instruments and try again"
    "There, you see, we forgot to take into account the drift of our measurement instruments from the minute variations in our power supply"
    "Once again the law of conservation of energy is demonstrated to be true, but you were right to ask the question Judith, we scientists should base all our conclusions off the experimentally verifiable observations, even when these observations, (chuckle), seem to conflict with the very laws of physics."
    "Oh Dr Quilsing, thank you, at least I didn't publish"
    "Well, that's fine Judy, may I call you Judy" ... err different play.
    It is not supposed to be some hayseed sticking his finger in his ear saying, "Golly, you all must have manure for brains I don't never seen no conservation of energy, leastwise these parts."

    Ya know I think there may be a reason no name is attached to the law of conservation of energy. Newton's law of gravity, Faraday's law of Induction, Maxwell's equations. I am very guilty of not doing this myself but a great way to learn is to just go back and look at what bright, honest, people said. I spent maybe a half hour on Wikipeida and some such, and you know Maxwell came up with what he called the "curl" operator (very hard to follow) to describe at any point the circular motion of the magnetic field, that is the circular motion of the magnetic field. While they didn't have it all figured out, a lot of the math on this stuff may literally have been done 150 years ago.

    No, one likes to see something more like the cold fusion debate, hey maybe there is something here, no we recalibrated and tried again and there is nothing there, well we tried and there just may be something there, no really there is nothing there.

    So to wend this back to the topic, we see in the two capacitor discharge that conservation of charge holds true experimentally. It may also be shown very easily that with a Bedini SSG charging set up with capacitors one ends up with an excess of charge if not necessarily "energy". So where did this excess charge come from? And here perhaps many of us must take a leap of faith, but if you have say a battery that is "backpopped" and driving a rotor indefinitely (haven't done that one yet, year on year, the excess charge can not come from the battery as eventually you run out of internal charges to separate. You are then left with the problem that charge is being created. At least per conventional wisdom, charge does not exist as an abstract, it exists as charged particles, electrons, yes that's what we call them. Particles have mass. As Olinto De Pretto was perhaps the first to point out energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, one has a whole nother can of worms to consider. If a device runs from excess charge, charge exists, expresses itself, as electrons with mass, or at least so they say.
    Last edited by ZPDM; 07-02-2016 at 08:52 PM.

  5. #25
    I am more of an electrical guy then a mathmetician...that may be a paradox itself! but when I look through this thread something popped into my head. if you do as stated and take one cap at 20 volts and discharge into an identical to make two 10 volt charges...according to what has been read you state that 100mJ is gone...but if you series up the caps after equalizing them then you would end up with the original 20 volts at 1 mF capacitance witch if the equations still the same you would take the 50mJ in each cap and by simply connecting them in series would again have 200mJ. so if you did this backwards and charged 2 caps with 50mJ then series them up and discharge are you doubling the joules?

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Bradley Malone View Post
    I am more of an electrical guy then a mathmetician...that may be a paradox itself! but when I look through this thread something popped into my head. if you do as stated and take one cap at 20 volts and discharge into an identical to make two 10 volt charges...according to what has been read you state that 100mJ is gone...but if you series up the caps after equalizing them then you would end up with the original 20 volts at 1 mF capacitance witch if the equations still the same you would take the 50mJ in each cap and by simply connecting them in series would again have 200mJ. so if you did this backwards and charged 2 caps with 50mJ then series them up and discharge are you doubling the joules?
    Hi Bradley,

    I had the same thought, been there done that. If we go back to out trusty Forrest Mims Electronics book from radio-shack we find the equation for capacitance of two caps in series is (cap1 x cap2)/(cap1+cap2). So in the above (1x1)/(1+1)= 0.5mF capacitance once hooked in series. So ((20*20)/2)*.5 = 100mJ. So 100 remains missing theoretically, and this can be confirmed if one discharges the two caps in series. So no idealized gain, on the bright side, no idealized loss this time either. I've ranted more then I intended to on the topic, I don't see how I am qualified to evaluate all this but just find it disturbing that there seems to be such a glaring issue with no clear cut solution. But yes I wondered the same.

  7. #27
    Bradley,

    Here's yet another fun thing, yes if you join say two 1mF caps in series the capacitance becomes 0.5 mF (i.e. one fourth of what they are in parallel) and the voltage doubles, this matches up fine with conservation of energy and is what is seen experimentally as well. The only problem is when you joined the caps in series as the capacitance went to 1/4 you lost half your Coulombs, your charge. The charge loss persists if you discharge the series caps. I at first thought, well you have connected a negative and positive plate when you connected in series maybe the positive and negative plates you connected mixed their charge together. That doesn't work though because if you disconnect the series wire the two caps are back at their initial state. My guess now is that when you join the caps in series you double the distance between the pos/neg plates and this distance in relation to capacitance must follow a square law.

    I'll tell you why I am so interested in cap discharges, heck no one visits this site (I've checked the Alexa rankings) so if I make a fool of myself that's fine. I mentioned this in passing some time ago but for some reason (along with realizing sometimes it's okay to use actual relays) the implications didn't sink in until after I got home from the recent conference. If you cap discharge any coil, air core, iron core, transformers, it doesn't matter, Lenz is irrelevant. Was tempted to start a thread "Lenz be Friends" but thought JB and Aaron might sick a Ninja on me for such a fauxpaw.

    So what do I mean. Conventionally, say in a microwave oven transformer or some such, one pulses a coil for a discreet unit of time. If power is pulled off a secondary wind, or in the case of an SSG power pulled off the primary it changes the behaviour of the circuit, i.e. any power you pull off a secondary leads to a compensatory increase in amp draw through the primary. In order for this compensatory increase in amp draw to have happened the resistance though the circuit must have decreased, the magnetic choke effect of the coil is lessened when one rectifies it off either with an SSG set-up or through a secondary wind, so one is chasing one's tail (assuming we are canine). Now let's change things so that instead of pulsing a coil for a discreet unit of time one pulses with a discreet unit of power, i.e. a small cap which mimics the amount of power you might have previously sent through. In this case again Lenz's law holds but what does it do if power is pulled off? It decreases the resistance to the cap discharge, hey great, bring it on Lenz. More power can not be drawn as the amount of power is set by the cap. So to summarize if a coil is pulsed for a discreet unit of time Lenz' Law will serve to increase amp draw from the source (battery/grid/etc.) during said time that power is drawn off, if a coil is pulsed for a discreet unit of power Lenz' Law will serve to increase the rate of discharge of available power during said time that power is drawn off.
    Last edited by ZPDM; 07-20-2016 at 10:29 AM.

  8. #28
    thanks for that ZPDM. I happen to have a few microwave transformers around and a relay shield for my arduino...also finally have my oscope back so i think i am going to be doing some testing.

  9. #29
    Great to hear, I don't really know the implications but it is clear that you can't draw more power out of a bucket Lenz or not, than is in the bucket.

    Going back to the two cap issue once again, it occurs to me that the problem may be expressed mathmatically. You have conservation of charge which states that the product of capacitance x voltage is conserved, i.e. the product will not change given either a change in the capacitance or voltage term. So if we term charge Q, then Q = C x V is conserved. At the same time one says that 1/2 of C x V2 also must not change given a new value for C or V. As neither can change this means that C x V must also equal 1/2C x V2 for any and all changes in C, which is of course nonsense. In the case first discussed we see that if C is doubled then for conservation of charge to hold V must be halved but if V is halved then 1/2CxV2 is no longer conserved, it is half what it was previously, and so on so forth for other changes in C. There may be one or a few instances where you could change C and both C x V and 1/2C x V2 remained equal but not the vast majority of times and perhaps never.

    It may also be seen that this "problem" is not confined to electromagnetics. Momentum is defined as mass x velocity, MV. Kinetic energy is defined as 1/2 M x velocity squared, 1/2MV2. In the case of an inelastic collision where the two bodies stick together after colliding, you have the same analogous situation as the two capacitor discharge, i.e. both the Law of conservation of momentum and the Law of conservation of energy can't by definition both hold true. Both velocity and voltage follow a square law in relation to energy. I don't know but it seems to me if I were pushing someone on a swing or a small merry go around with pushes of equal force, say the first push gets to 1 mph, does it really take three more pushes to get to 2 mph?
    Last edited by ZPDM; 07-22-2016 at 10:16 PM.

  10. #30
    http://www.digikey.com/en/resources/...-time-constant

    Fun to look at peak watts, for however long, and capacitance.

    Also and this is entirely off from the two cap paradox, but hey I started the thread I can go off topic unless it gets deleted for profanity or nonsense. So **** it, here is a discussion on Wheeler's equations for inductance of a coil http://electronbunker.ca/eb/CalcMethods3b.html Not sure I've even read the whole thing but there it is. It does give one an idea of what are the parameters in a coil that determine inductance. I started a thread a good while back on engineering for the radiant spike, that one went over like a lead Zeppelin, and yes, yes inductance is not the radiant but it gives one a place to start. It as far as I can tell, might be wrong, is related to the spike by di/dt, but what does that mean? Neumann, had this crazy idea (and I am reminded of the story of physicists who told another, "we are all decided your idea is crazy, we are only not in agreement whether it is crazy enough to be correct) that it is not the current creating the magnetic field but a response from the conductor, some sort of alignment of copper magnetic domains. I don't know but he presents some ways in which that model fits well. When a field collapses what is really happening? It is not simply energy put in and stored in the coil running back out as it is far too variable for that. I side with Bruce De Palma on this who questioned whether the electricity is created "in-situ". But what is the changing magnetic field responding to? The rate of collapse must in part be dependant on the "voltage" of the field at the instant of collapse. There are no equations for this (that I know of) but it is clear that voltage is transformed in any Bedini, radiant spike set-ups. I suppose the electricity is generated from the change in magnetic field, per Faraday, and likely the field can not collapse until the electricity dissipates itself from the coil, this second part in turn is dependant on two factors 1) the resistance in the coil and 2) the decreasing back emf from the field itself (which would explain why a superconducting coil doesn't destroy our universe). Likely an increasing inductance leads to a higher voltage, though I don't know, but if so, would mitigate per Ohm's law the resistance effect on time of discharge.

    I've BS'ed enough. Anyone happen to put a rotor beside a window motor to see if it spins on the lines of force like a ZFM?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •