UPDATED SEP/07/2008

UPDATED MAY/25/2008

Les Condos et la Science Officielle.
Un lézard?

Capacitors and Mainstream Science.
It smeels a rat?

Avant tout, merci de consulter cette page  relative à la 'Version Officielle'.

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 useful as a load for the motor and as a 'work-gauge'.
A 12.5 bat could also be useful..

Le condo :

The capacitor: Le compteur et le moteur :
The meter and the motor:  Vous y êtes?

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: Lets charge the C1 capacitor with the bat. I got about 12.9 volts. Lets discharge this C1 cap into the motor. The motor runs for a while. After it stops the meter is showing 1000 turns. 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: Lets charge the C1 capacitor with the bat. I got  12.9 volts. Lets discharge the C1 cap into the  C2 cap. The C1 and C2 Cap voltage are  6.45 volts. Etape n° 3 : Le condo C1 est déchargé à travers le moteur. A la fin le compteur indique 250 tours. Step N°3: Lets discharge the C1 cap into the motor. The motor runs for a while. After it stops the meter is showing 250 turns. Etape n° 3 : Le condo C2 est déchargé à travers le moteur. A la fin le compteur indique 250 tours. Step N°4: Lets discharge the C2 cap into the motor The motor runs for a while. After it stops the meter is showing 250 turns.

 250 + 250 = 500 tours versus 1000 tours. 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 been transformed into another form of NRG.

Expérience 'Herétique'
Les chiffres sont des moyennes approximatives.

'Heretical' experiment
Rough average numbers. 1000 versus 500 + 250 + 250 On n'a rien perdu! C'est quoi c'bordel? Actually we 'lost' nothing! What the f' b' heck is this?

 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 Gentlemen,  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'. The Jean Louis Naudin's proposed Experiment. http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tepcoil.htm 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.

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:
The_Condenser_Problem.doc

Update Sept. 07 2008

A guy (Introvertebrate) is also obtaining similar results (
apparent non charge conservation) with a circuit that also includes a coil.

Title : "OverUnity Demonstration ... 12v + 0v = 15v???"
Actually this is not 'Overunity' as the Energy is not conserved (even with a gain in the charge). But it is a non conventional result.

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 utilizes 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 initially 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)

Experiments Type 1

#1 is the  'main' capacitor that is charged at at V. Volts and then discharged into #2 through the coil and the circuit. C1 cap =  9.5 nanoF.  R1=100K

March 21 2008

 V.  C#1 (Volts) V. C#2 (Volts) Time (sec) 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

 V.  C#1 (Volts) V. C#2 (Volts) Time (sec) 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

 V.  C#1 (Volts) V. C#2 (Volts) Time (sec) 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

Experiments Type 2
#2 is now the  'main' capacitor that is charged at V. init volts and then discharged into #1 through the coil and the circuit. C1 cap =  9.5 nanoF. R1=100K

March 28 2008

 V.init (C #2) (Volts) V. end C#2 (Volts) V. end C#1 (Volts) Time  (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.

Experiments Type 3

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 through the coil and the circuit.

Two 12.5 volts bats were wired in series. Different values of cap were used for the circuit. The 'base' circuit cap  (C1) is 9.5 nanoF. R1=100K. Different capacitors were added in parallel (//)..

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

Experiments Type 4

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 through the coil and the circuit.

Two 12.5 volts bats were wired in series.
Different capacitor (C1) and resistor (R1) values were tested.

Date: April ??? 2008

 V.init (C#1) (Volts) V. end C#1 (Volts) V. end C#2 (Volts) Capa. (C1) (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:

26 Volts on a  104 700 uF Cap  ===> Qinit   = C * V = 2.72 Coulomb
20.2 Volts on this 104 700 uF   ===> Qend1 = C * V = 2.11 Coulomb
13.2 Volts on a 107 500 uF Cap ===> Qend2 = C * V = 1.42 Coulomb

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.

Experiment #8

Charge (Coulomb)-wise:

26 Volts on a  104 700 uF Cap  ===> Qinit   = C * V = 2.72 Coulomb
15 Volts on this 104 700 uF   ===> Qend1 = C * V = 1.57 Coulomb
11.5 Volts on a 107 500 uF Cap ===> Qend2 = C * V = 1.24 Coulomb

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 (unconsciously) botching their circuits to be 'Konform'.

>>> The  circuit must be tuned!!! <<<
Morality: tuning and serendipity are the secrets of Free NRG!

Update Sept. 13 2008

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

 V.init (C#1) (Volts) V. end C#1 (Volts) V. end C#2 (Volts) Capa. (C1) (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

 V.init (C#1) (Volts) V. end C#1 (Volts) V. end C#2 (Volts) Capa. (C1) (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???

UPDATE NOV/20/2012

ASAP,  The Ibpointless2's CAPTRET  (Capacitor + Electret).

OK!  Here we are (DEC/O4/2012)! Some 'know-it-all' individuals are using 'Circular reasoning'.

Souffrez, lecteurs, que j'utilisasse le même procédé pour vous diriger sur cette page :
http://freenrg.info/CAPTRET/

Page, qui, elle même, va vous mener ici...