Soit. Prennez
2 condos identiques de, disons, 0.1 Farad.
Munissez vous
également d'un petit moteur Courant Continu de jouet qui fonctionne
de 12 à 2 volts (ou moins).
N'oubliez
pas le compteur mécanique d'un vieux magnétophone à
cassette.
Couplez les
deux avec un élastique par exemple.
Le compteur
servira de charge au moteur et constituera un indicateur du travail de
ce dernier.
Une batterie
de 12.5 volts ne sera pas inutile.
Before all, please have the look at he 'Officicial Version' here.
Well, lets
take 2 identical caps (C1 and C2), saying 0.1 Farad each.
Lets also
get a small DC toy motor which can operate between 12 and 2 volts
(or less).
Do not
forget a mechanical 'meter' from and old K7 recorder.
Lets connect
the meter and the motor with, for example, a rubber.
This 'meter'
will be usefull as a load for the motor and as a 'work-gauge'.
A 12.5
bat could also be usefull..
Le condo :
The capacitor:
Le compteur
et le moteur :
The meter
and the motor:
Got It?
Expérience 'Officielle'
Les chiffres sont des moyennes approximatives.
Toutes les expériences
ne sont pas des expériences imaginaires façon Einstein.
'Official' experiment
Rough average numbers.
All the experiments are not
thought experiment ala Einstein.
| Etape n° 1 :
Le condo C1 est chargé à 12.9 V avec la batterie. On le déchage à travers le moteur. A la fin le compteur indique 1000 tours. First step:
|
| Etape n° 2 :
Le condo C1 est chargé à 12.9 V avec la batterie. On le déchage dans C2. Le voltage de C1 et C2 est de 6.45 volts. Step N° 2:
|
| Etape n° 3 :
Le condo C1 est déchargé à travers le moteur. A la fin le compteur indique 250 tours. Step N°3:
|
| Etape n° 3 :
Le condo C2 est déchargé à travers le moteur. A la fin le compteur indique 250 tours. Step N°4:
|
|
Selon la Science officielle on a 'perdu' la moitié de l'énergie (= elle a été transformée en une autre forme). According to Official Sscience we 'lost' half of the energy (= half of the energy had beeen transformed into another form of NRG. |
Expérience 'Herétique'
Les chiffres sont des moyennes approximatives.
'Heretical' experiment
Rough average numbers.
|
On n'a rien perdu! C'est quoi c'bordel? Actually we 'lost' nothing!
|
| Et maintenant Mesdames et Messieurs, l'expérience qui 'tue'
proposée par un des futés membres du forum Overunity
point com. Pas faite. Vas-y trouver un deuxième vieux
compteur de K7 identique!
And now Ladies and Gentlemens, the 'killing' experiment suggested by a clever member of the Overunity dot com forum: actually I did not get into it due to a lack of old K7 'meter'. |
| A moins que l'experience qui 'achève' soit la suivante proposée
par Jean Louis Naudin?
Pas encore faite mais j'ai tout le matos.
Not already done but I have all the stuff.
|
I have done the proposed experiment. It works. I mean: I could see a "charge conservation" anomaly. (Q= C* V - wise). Some Coulombs seem to appear from 'nowhere'. The total charge Q1+Q2 in step 3 is more than the Q1 charge in step 2. However, I was not able to recover all the Energy. (W=1/2 * C * V*V - wise). Farther are some pictures of my set-up. As soon as I can figure out where these bl' "lab's note" are, I give more precisions.
Please, first consult: http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc/
(Doc
Ringwood's Charge Conservation Anomaly).
It sounds like this 'Doc' was also able to verify - with a circuit
of his own - a Charge Conservation Anomaly but even to recover more
NRG out than NRG in! (COP >100%).
Actually, his name is not Ringwood
and he is not a Doctor! Doc Ringwood is the guy named "Nul-Points"
on the overunity very forum. Please also onsult: www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419
BTW, and 'off topic', 'Doc Ringwood' is also a very 'efficient' Guitar Bass Player: http://swampfish.org/
Here is my JLN experiment setup.
Please clic on the images to have them enlarged.
 |
 |
 |
 |
ELSE : a very interesting document which
I even do not remember where it comes from:
http://freenrg.info/Condos/The_Condenser_Problem.doc
Here are the results of my replication of the JL. Naudin's proposed circuit. I do not claim any 'Overunity' just, like 'Introvertebrate', an anomaly in the charge conservation (extra Coulombs).
The values of the capacitors have been measured
with the Doctor Ringwoods'method.
which utilise the 'RC' constant. If you charge
a 'C' (Farad) capacitor through a R (Ohm) resistor with a V volts bat,
the cap will reach 63% of the bat voltage in T (Second)= R* C. Conversely,
if you discharge a C (Farad) Cap initialy at V (volts) through a resistive
load, the cap. will lost 37% of is initial voltage in T (Second)=
R* C.
I used the charging process. I measured the Bat. voltage, the resistor value and the time taken by the cap. to reach 63% of the bat. voltage.
Example:
Measured resistor= 2492 ohms.
Measured Bat. voltage = 12.94 Volts.
63% of 12.94 = 8.15 volts
Time taken by the cap to attain 8.15 volts = 261
sec.
T = R * C ---> C = T / R . [ C Farad, T Second,
V Volt]
C = 261/2492 = 0.104 735 F = 104 735 uF.
I repeated the measurements. Approx values retained:
C#1 = 104 700 uF (nominal
= 100 000 uf, 01 Farad)
C#2 = 107 500 uF (nominal
= 100 000 uf, 0.1Farad)
#1 is the 'main' capacitor that is charged at at V. Volts and then discharged into #2 throught the coil and the circuit. Capa. Circuit (C1) = 9.5 nanoF. R1=100K
March 21 2008
|
|
|
|
| 13.12 | 0 | 0 |
| 9.5 | 6.2 | ??? |
| 9.4 | 6.3 | ??? |
| 9.22 | 6.4 | ??? |
| 9.06 | 6.51 | ??? |
| 8.98 | 6.59 | ??? |
March 21 2008
|
|
|
|
| 12.94 | 0 | 0 |
| 11.0 | 5 | 25 |
| 10.23 | 5.96 | 40 |
| 9.96 | 6.2 | 56 |
| 9.68 | 6.4 | 120 |
| 9.46 | 6.59 | 138 |
| 8.78 | 7.04 | ??? |
March 28 2008
|
|
|
|
| 12.98 | 0 | 0 |
| 10.38 | 5.4 | 32 |
| 9.78 | 6 | 51 |
| 9.54 | 6.16 | 108 |
| 9.34 | 6.30 | 123 |
| 9.18 | 6.40 | 137 |
| 9.06 | 6.49 | 150 |
#2 is now the 'main' capacitor that is charged at V. init volts and then discharged into #1 throught the coil and the circuit. Capa. circuit (C1) = 9.5 nanoF. R1=100KExperiments Type 2
March 28 2008
|
|
|
|
(seconds) |
| 13.1 | 10 | 6.6 | ??? |
| 12.98 | 10 | 6.5 | ??? |
| 12.98 | 10.35 | 6.5 | 54 |
| 12.98 | 10.25 | 6.5 | ??? |
| 12.94 | 10.52 | 6.47 | 47 |
This is the more favorable configuration as C#2 >C#1.
Using 2 * 12.5 Volts Batteries
Changing the circuit capacitor C1 (adding caps
in //)
#1 is the 'main' capacitor that is charged at V. init volts and then discharged into #2 throught the coil and the circuit.
Two 12.5 volts bats were wired in series. Differents values of cap were used for the circuit. The 'base' circuit cap (C1) is 9.5 nanoF. R1=100K. Differents capacitors were added in paralell (//)..
Date: April ??? 2008
| V.init (C #1) (Volts) | V. end C#1 (Volts) | V. end C#2 (Volts) | Capa. (C1)
(NanoF) |
Comments |
| 25.4 | 17.6 | 15.1 | 9.5 // 4.6 | |
| 25.8 | 17.7 | 14.9 | 9.5 // 3 | |
| 25.8 | 17.9 | 14.9 | 9.5 // 2 | |
| 25.8 | 18.1 | 14.8 | 9.5 // 0.8 | |
| 25.4 | 17.6 | 14 | 9.5 // ??? | |
| 25.6 | 18 | 14 | 9.5 // ??? | |
| 25.6 | 18.4 | 14 | 9.5 // ??? | 25 seconds |
| 26.0 | 18 | 15 | 9.5 // 46 | |
| 25.8 | 16.9 | 15.3 | 9.5// 82 | |
| 25.6 | 17 | 15.5 | 9.5// 82 |
Using 2 * 12.5 Volts Batteries
Changing the circuit.
#1 is the 'main' capacitor that is charged at V volts and then discharged into #2 throught the coil and the circuit.
Two 12.5 volts bats were wired in serie.
Differents capacitor (C1) and resistor (R1) values
were tested.
Date: April ??? 2008
|
|
|
|
(NanoF) |
Comments | Exp# |
| 25.8 | 20.1 | 10.9 | 3 | R1=100K | 1 |
| 25.8 | 20.6 | 11.4 | 3 | R1=100K | 2 |
| 25.8 | 20 | 12.9 | 3 // 2 | R1=100K | 3 |
| 26 | 20.6 | 12.8 | 4.7 | R1= 100K/25 sec. | 4 |
| 26 | 20.2 | 13.2 | 4.7 | R1=100K. 35 sec. | 5 |
| 26 | 20.1 | 13.3 | 4.7 | R1=100K | 6 |
| 26 | 19 | 14 | 4.7 | R1 = ??? (<>100K) | 7 |
| 26 | 15 | 11.5 | 4.7 | R1 = 55 K | 8 |
Experiment #5
Charge (Coulomb)-wise:
2.11 + 1.42 = 3.53 > 2.72 . 3.53 /2.72 =/= 1.3. Charge gain: 30%
Energy (Joule)-wise.
26 Volts on a 104
700 uF Cap ===> Winit = 1/2 * C * V * V = 35.39
Joules
20.2 Volts on this 104 700
uF ===> Wend1 = 1/2 * C * V * V = 21.36 Joules
13.2 Volts on a 107 500
uF Cap ===> Wend2 = C * V = 9.36 Joules
21.36 + 9.36 = 30.72 < 35.39 . 30.72/35.39 = 0.87. Energy Lost: 13%
The Official Science states that half the energy is lost into heat or electromagnetic radiations or else (depends upon the book). That sounds not to be the case.
Charge (Coulomb)-wise:
1.57 + 1.24 = 2.81 > 2.72 . 3 /2.72 =/= 1.03. Charge gain: 3%
Energy (Joule)-wise.
26 Volts on a 104
700 uF Cap ===> Winit = 1/2 * C * V * V = 35.39
Joules
15 Volts on this 104 700
uF ===> Wend1 = 1/2 * C * V * V = 11.78 Joules
11.5 Volts on a 107 500
uF Cap ===> Wend2 = C * V = 7.11 Joules
11.78 + 7.11 = 18.89 < 35.39 . 18.89/35.39 = 0.53. Energy Lost: 47%
That is more conform to Official
Science!
Are the skeptics (inconsciously)
botching thier circuits to be 'Konform'.
>>> The circuit must
be tuned!!! <<<
Morality: tuning and serendipity
are the secrets of Free NRG!
As my bifilar coil is actually
a trifilar one - see picture - (I mean: with L1/L2 interweaved and
L3 wound apart (but on the same plastic tube)) I used this L3 coil
to charge another cap. I just added a diode. This L3 circuit had no connection
with the main CCT. The measured value of this third cap is 126 000 uf (0.126
F).
The results are the following:
>>> 2 Experiments (Sept 11 08). Sept 11???
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPERIMENT Nø
1 ( 3 Measurements - V Cap1 init = 25.3 Volts)
Measurement Nø1
V Cap1 = 17.8
Volts (0.104700 Farad)
V Cap2 =
8.4 Volts (0.107500 Farad)
V Cap3 = 10.7
Volts (0.126000 Farad)
Q init=
2.649 Coulombs - Q end = 4.124 Coulombs - Ratio = 1.56
W init= 33.509
Joules - W end = 27.678 Joules - Ratio =
0.83
Measurement Nø2
(few
seconds later)
V Cap1 = 16.3
Volts (0.104700 Farad)
V Cap2 =
9.2 Volts (0.107500 Farad)
V Cap3 = 10.9
Volts (0.126000 Farad)
Q init=
2.649 Coulombs - Q end = 4.067 Coulombs - Ratio = 1.54
W init= 33.509
Joules - W end = 25.927 Joules - Ratio =
0.77
Measurement Nø3
(few
seconds later)
V Cap1 = 16.0
Volts (0.104700 Farad)
V Cap2 =
9.4 Volts (0.107500 Farad)
V Cap3 = 10.9
Volts (0.126000 Farad)
Q init=
2.649 Coulombs - Q end = 4.057 Coulombs - Ratio = 1.53
W init= 33.509
Joules - W end = 25.619 Joules - Ratio =
0.76
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPERIMENT Nø
2 ( 2 Measurements - V Cap1 init = 25.3 Volts)
Measurement Nø1
V Cap1 = 18.0
Volts (0.104700 Farad)
V Cap2 =
7.7 Volts (0.107500 Farad)
V Cap3 = 10.5
Volts (0.126000 Farad)
Q init=
2.649 Coulombs - Q end = 4.033 Coulombs - Ratio = 1.52
W init= 33.509
Joules - W end = 27.068 Joules - Ratio =
0.81
Measurement Nø2
(few
seconds later)
V Cap1 = 16.0
Volts (0.104700 Farad)
V Cap2 =
9.5 Volts (0.107500 Farad)
V Cap3 = 11.1
Volts (0.126000 Farad)
Q init=
2.649 Coulombs - Q end = 4.098 Coulombs - Ratio = 1.55
W init= 33.509
Joules - W end = 26.050 Joules - Ratio =
0.78
As you can see, the charge gain is more important (more than 50% versus 30% in my best previous result) ) but the NRG lost is slightly worse: about 20% versus 13% (best previous result). This is because of the bl' squared voltage in the formula.
Does that mean that I would be able to add coils to gain more charge (and lost more NRG?)... I have a 'quadri filar coil' (L1&L2 interweaved, L3 wound apart but on the same plastic tube and L4 coil wound on another concentric plastic tube). Sounds clear? I will try this coil.
I have also made the following experiment: adding a small (non loaded) motor into the circuit.
I was thinking about my first experiments when I discharged a cap into another same one through a small motor without any lost.
Here, the results are discouraging....
The motor runs (turns) indeed
but at the expense of the C#2 cap voltage (charge):
Date: Sept. 12 2008
|
|
|
|
(NanoF) |
Comments | Exp# |
| 25.1 | 20.0 | 11.4 | 4.7 | R1=100K
No motor |
1 |
| "" | 19.6 | 12.8 | "" | ""few sec. later | 1 |
| 25.0 | 19.6 | 12.33 | "" | R1= 100K
No motor |
2 |
| 25.1 | 19.6 | 7.71 | "" | R1=100K
With Motor |
3 |
BTW: between these 2 sets
of experiments, I made a mistake and charged the C#1 cap in reverse mode.
It reached about -8 volts before I figured something out and promptly discharged
it via K4 (which is, BTW 'before' K2 in my CCT).
We are both still 'working'
...:))
Date: Sept. 13 2008
|
|
|
|
(NanoF) |
Comments | Exp# |
| 25.8 | 21.9 | 5.75 | 4.7 | R1=100K
With Motor |
1 |
| 25.9 | 20.4 | 13.10 | "" | ""No motor | 2 |
| 25.9 | 21.3 | 11.61 | "" | "" No motor | 3 |
| "" | 20.5 | 12.35 | " Few sec. later | 3 |
Please do no ask me why the
2 input bats voltage is about 0.8 volts higher than the previous day. I
have changed nothing! ????
Is it the short reverse
mode charging sequence effect???