Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!!

Author Topic: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! (Read 14566 times)

Topic Options

Aking.21

Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #175 on: 2025-03-03, 22:29:21 »

Sr. Member

Posts: 489

Quote from: Itsu on 2025-03-03, 19:56:26

The calculations seem OK by me.

But why do you think the results are "a little strange"?

They follow a similar path (although we only have 2 data points) as in my last experiment, shown in post #152 above.

But you still have a long time to go, i reckon for a complete dataset.

Itsu

Well, there's an energy increase. Where did it come from?
That's what I meant.

---------------------------

Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KV charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

Magluvin

Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #176 on: 2025-03-04, 02:09:51 »

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member

Posts: 676

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025-03-03, 18:11:17

Results after 12 hours, which are a little strange.

start C1 2.79 7254c (coulombs)
start C2 0.08 208c
start C3 0.03 19c Total 7481c

Ater 12 hours
C1 2.30 5980c
C2 0.72 1872c
c3 0,24 156c Total 8,008c

Remember this experiment is the closest to Lagace in both the size of the caps and the use of the trafo, which is not HF but an ordinary mains ac trafo
C1 and C2 are 2600F C3 is 650F
C3 is 4 x 2600 F in series.
I am however using the positive side of caps 1 and 2 through the FG rather than Joel's negative side.
Maybe I've made an error in calculation, but the voltages are correct,

In any case, when I look at the initial losses between cap1 and cap2, (if you look at one of my previous posts), this is a massive increase.
The caps seem to be behaving better.

However, 1 metre below this experiment is my constant mains battery charging equipment that is disturbing the electrons in the air around the experiment.

so after 12hrs c3 has greater energy that c1 started with?

if so then you apparently got it..

i would stop at that point, take cap1 and cap2 and boost converter whats left in them into c3 to go even higher.

then start again from c3 and repeat.

mags

web000x

Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #177 on: 2025-03-04, 02:16:42 »

Sr. Member

Posts: 340

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025-03-03, 22:29:21

Well, there's an energy increase. Where did it come from?
That's what I meant.

You might want to measure you caps similarly to the method Itsu showed before making calculations.

Aking.21	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #178 on: 2025-03-04, 02:37:31 »
Sr. Member Posts: 489	At another 10 hours. Cap1 2.03 5278 Cap2 1.002 2605 Cap3 0.32 208 total 8091 I just noticed that cap3 was disconnected, I have reconnected it now. We started with 7481, now 8091 = cop 1.08 --------------------------- Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KV charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

Aking.21	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #179 on: 2025-03-04, 02:40:47 »
Sr. Member Posts: 489	Quote from: web000x on 2025-03-04, 02:16:42 You might want to measure you caps similarly to the method Itsu showed before making calculations. I will do when I switch the experiment off. It still doesn't alter the fact of an increase, it may alter the numbers but not the relative situation. Anyhow, there are tons of other things to try now. --------------------------- Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KV charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

web000x	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #180 on: 2025-03-04, 02:50:59 »
Sr. Member Posts: 340	Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025-03-04, 02:40:47 I will do when I switch the experiment off. It still doesn't alter the fact of an increase, it may alter the numbers but not the relative situation. Anyhow, there are tons of other things to try now. You aren't calculating energy, 1/2CV^2. You are showing calculations for charge, C*V, which will not show any meaningful COP the way you're calculating it since charge is Coulombs, not Joules. And precise capacitance measurements could very well bring your charge back into a situation showing equality.

Magluvin	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #181 on: 2025-03-04, 03:21:08 »
Group: Mad Scientist Hero Member Posts: 676	why did you use coulomb instead of joules to describe the energies? not saying doing so is wrong necessarily, but no need to change things up. just makes others have to calc to joules to compare. mags

Magluvin	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #182 on: 2025-03-04, 04:52:15 »
Group: Mad Scientist Hero Member Posts: 676	now for the big question.. why use super caps for this? if the caps were 10,000uf, would the results be any different other than the time it takes to do the experiment? the super caps seem to be, according to the claim, necessary. now it is time to test that and compare. it should not take 24hrs to find out. mags

Aking.21	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #183 on: 2025-03-04, 06:29:20 »
Sr. Member Posts: 489	Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-04, 03:21:08 why did you use coulomb instead of joules to describe the energies? not saying doing so is wrong necessarily, but no need to change things up. just makes others have to calc to joules to compare. mags I used an online calculator and it used coulombs that's all. No big deal. If you want to put the measurements into joules that's fine by me. I am more concerned as to why the 4 caps in series are slow to charge. The voltage from the trafo has gone down to 22 volts, which is expected as the potential difference between C1 and C2 is reducing. But the trafo is not geared to HF, as it is a mains trafo, and there are a huge number of different trafos. The trafo will introduce some losses as it is not optimised. As a proof of concept, all I can say is that it is encouraging so far. I may redo the experiment later in the week, and use joules. --------------------------- Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KV charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

verpies

Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #184 on: 2025-03-04, 07:47:41 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 3670

Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-04, 04:52:15

Why use super caps for this?

Because super caps exhibit the highest Dielectric Soak.

Itsu

Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #185 on: 2025-03-04, 09:23:14 »

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 4236

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025-03-03, 22:29:21

Well, there's an energy increase. Where did it come from?
That's what I meant.

OK, then please take a look at post #132 here: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4757.msg114930#msg114930 where Web000x explains where this energy might come from.

Itsu

Itsu	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #186 on: 2025-03-04, 09:28:37 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4236	Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-04, 02:09:51 so after 12hrs c3 has greater energy that c1 started with? if so then you apparently got it.. i would stop at that point, take cap1 and cap2 and boost converter whats left in them into c3 to go even higher. then start again from c3 and repeat. mags No i do not see that "after 12hrs c3 has greater energy that c1 started with", see: Ater 12 hours C1 2.30 5980c 6877 J C2 0.72 1872c 673.9 J c3 0,24 156c 18.72 J Using this calculator to calculate to joules: https://www.calctool.org/electrical-energy/capacitor-energy

Itsu	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #187 on: 2025-03-04, 09:57:55 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4236	Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025-03-04, 02:37:31 At another 10 hours. Cap1 2.03 5278 Cap2 1.002 2605 Cap3 0.32 208 total 8091 I just noticed that cap3 was disconnected, I have reconnected it now. We started with 7481, now 8091 = cop 1.08 I do not see this COP 1.08 We started with: start C1 2.79 7254c (coulombs) 10119 Joule start C2 0.08 208c 8.32 Joule start C3 0.03 19c Total 7481c 0.2925 Joule So a total of 10127.6 Joule After 22 Hours we now have: Cap1 2.03 5278 5357 Joule Cap2 1.002 2605 1305.2 Joule Cap3 0.32 208 33.28 Joule So a total of 6695.48 Joule or a COP of 0.66 For completeness i added the 10 hours of data to the graph: Itsu ------------------------ Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! Aking 2.png (36.88 kB, 1094x523 - viewed 97 times.)

Aking.21	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #188 on: 2025-03-04, 22:09:53 »
Sr. Member Posts: 489	Itsu: Thank you for your analysis of my experiment. I didn't realize that there was such a huge difference between coulombs and joules in terms of analysis and interpretation. I am going to have to do some thinking about this anomaly. --------------------------- Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KV charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

Aking.21	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #189 on: 2025-03-04, 23:37:03 »
Sr. Member Posts: 489	After a further 20 hours The results are: C1 1.87v C2 1.12v C3 0.44v The voltage out of the tafo s now down to 18 v, and I am shutting down the experiment. C3 is not performing as Lagace suggested. --------------------------- Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KV charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

Magluvin	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #190 on: 2025-03-05, 00:01:58 »
Group: Mad Scientist Hero Member Posts: 676	thing is, if Joel has people investing money in his ideas, id be pretty sure he would not show anything that could be replicated. it could be that if he does have something, that he may be showing something similar but different in ways that when someone replicates, it will not work as claimed. so my question would be, why show anything at all? to impress who? could be if he does have something, he has been approached about it and told to put out some vids that absolutely do not work so when people replicate those and it simply does not work, people will be discouraged, lose interest and move on. in the end creating a lot of non believers in the idea of ou. i believe i have seen this situation several times in the past. we are left with countless hours of work. trying and trying again, but still nada bing. sucks like how many people here in just this forum alone have been there done that with claims?? these days i make big, hard decisions before i delve deep into claims. i dont really have time to be fooled anymore. but, i do believe ou should be possible. havnt given up on that no matter how many failures ive had. but here, i had doubts about the transformer in the beginning. its all here in posts, and i presented why.. i also dont like the idea of intentionally losing 50% in caps 1 and 2 in hopes of making up that 50% in cap 3. again, you would get better results by getting rid of cap 2 and kill off cap 1 trying to charge cap 3. Definitely would get better results. thats why my way, again, here in posts, where i want to transfer most or all of cap 1 to cap 2 and THEN if we get anything in cap 3, we are way closer to golden than what we have seen here. way way way closer. my hopes would be that cap 3 has enough in it to boost convert cap 3 to top up cap 2 hopefully higher than cap 1 started with and have a very simple proof of concept. ive even thought of ways to eliminate the diode so as to not have that drop at all. maybe an arduino programed to exactly time the transistor to stay on all the way till cap 2 is finished taking all of cap 1's charge. when that is had, anything in cap 3 would be free. then we just send cap 2' charge back to cap 1 and get another charge on cap 3. say we start with 20v cap1 and end with 19.4v in cap 2. there just may be enough in cap 3 to again, boost convert to top of that 19.4v, even if it were just get our 20v back and repeat would be an awsome thing, let alone getting possibly more than 20v. so tonight im rewinding the toroid winding on the orbo. finer wire, more turns. wish i knew where i put the one i had. with the one i have, using the 2uf dip caps, the transfer was good from cap 1 to cap 2. and i got output on cap 3. but the leaky nature of these caps is not what i want to show. needs more inductance on the toroid wind so larger more stable caps give us a clear view of what is what. mags

Itsu	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #191 on: 2025-03-05, 10:19:26 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4236	Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025-03-04, 23:37:03 After a further 20 hours The results are: C1 1.87v C2 1.12v C3 0.44v The voltage out of the tafo s now down to 18 v, and I am shutting down the experiment. C3 is not performing as Lagace suggested. Added this data to the graph: Itsu ------------------------ Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! Aking 3.png (39.29 kB, 1089x525 - viewed 73 times.)

Itsu	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #192 on: 2025-03-05, 10:22:20 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4236	Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-05, 00:01:58 thing is, if Joel has people investing money in his ideas, id be pretty sure he would not show anything that could be replicated. it could be that if he does have something, that he may be showing something similar but different in ways that when someone replicates, it will not work as claimed. so my question would be, why show anything at all? to impress who? could be if he does have something, he has been approached about it and told to put out some vids that absolutely do not work so when people replicate those and it simply does not work, people will be discouraged, lose interest and move on. in the end creating a lot of non believers in the idea of ou. i believe i have seen this situation several times in the past. we are left with countless hours of work. trying and trying again, but still nada bing. sucks like how many people here in just this forum alone have been there done that with claims?? these days i make big, hard decisions before i delve deep into claims. i dont really have time to be fooled anymore. but, i do believe ou should be possible. havnt given up on that no matter how many failures ive had. but here, i had doubts about the transformer in the beginning. its all here in posts, and i presented why.. i also dont like the idea of intentionally losing 50% in caps 1 and 2 in hopes of making up that 50% in cap 3. again, you would get better results by getting rid of cap 2 and kill off cap 1 trying to charge cap 3. Definitely would get better results. thats why my way, again, here in posts, where i want to transfer most or all of cap 1 to cap 2 and THEN if we get anything in cap 3, we are way closer to golden than what we have seen here. way way way closer. my hopes would be that cap 3 has enough in it to boost convert cap 3 to top up cap 2 hopefully higher than cap 1 started with and have a very simple proof of concept. ive even thought of ways to eliminate the diode so as to not have that drop at all. maybe an arduino programed to exactly time the transistor to stay on all the way till cap 2 is finished taking all of cap 1's charge. when that is had, anything in cap 3 would be free. then we just send cap 2' charge back to cap 1 and get another charge on cap 3. say we start with 20v cap1 and end with 19.4v in cap 2. there just may be enough in cap 3 to again, boost convert to top of that 19.4v, even if it were just get our 20v back and repeat would be an awsome thing, let alone getting possibly more than 20v. so tonight im rewinding the toroid winding on the orbo. finer wire, more turns. wish i knew where i put the one i had. with the one i have, using the 2uf dip caps, the transfer was good from cap 1 to cap 2. and i got output on cap 3. but the leaky nature of these caps is not what i want to show. needs more inductance on the toroid wind so larger more stable caps give us a clear view of what is what. mags Looking at Joel his video's, they do not excel in clearity on details and IMO even are leaving out, intention or unintentional, essenteal information for doing a replication. Perhaps that is on purpose, but indeed then why bother publishing it. Also there is hardly any follow-up in the comment section where questions often are being ignored. I do not think there a way past the capacitor paradox, so we have to live with the 50% energy loss when doing a cap to cap transfer. What we can do to increase the effeciency is to use synchronous rectification instead of a diode bridge to rectify the AC coming out of the transformer. But if it is enough tip it over i doubt it. Example of synchronous rectification can be found here: https://www.ti.com/lit/ml/slup175/slup175.pdf like on Fig. 6 on page 7-4 etc. What i have seen up till now doing my own results and those of Aking is that i have very little doubt that Joel his C3 caps is way lower in value then he is pretending it is. Together with the lower impedance transformer (120V / 2V) like my 1:1 CMC it gives a higer voltage on C3 after some time compared to C1, but this is no indication there is more energy in C3. Itsu

verpies	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #193 on: 2025-03-05, 17:47:50 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3670	Quote from: Itsu on 2025-03-05, 10:22:20 I do not think there a way past the capacitor paradox, so we have to live with the 50% energy loss when doing a cap to cap transfer. Yes, cap-->cap energy transfers are inherently inefficient. This is because caps are voltage sources, yet for the most efficient charging process, they require a current source. This is also the reason why coil-->cap energy transfers are so efficient (coils ARE current sources). It is possible to transfer 99% of the cap's energy to another cap by using a low-loss coil as an intermediary, i.e.: cap-->coil-->cap transfer (C1 --> L1 --> C2 in the circuit below). In such scheme, the switch and diode/synch rectifier play a role of gatekeepers that do not allow the energy to return to the first cap and coil. To see it working click here. The op-amp's/comparator's purpose is to detect when C1 is empty. The R1 is there only to make the simulation well-behaved (in reality it can be omitted). The MOSFET'ized version is here « Last Edit: 2025-03-05, 22:47:29 by verpies »

Magluvin	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #194 on: 2025-03-05, 18:57:28 »
Group: Mad Scientist Hero Member Posts: 676	Quote from: verpies on 2025-03-05, 17:47:50 Yes, cap-->cap energy transfers are inherently inefficient. This is because caps are voltage sources, yet for most efficient charging, they require a current source. This is also the reason why coil-->cap energy transfers are so efficient (coils ARE current sources). It is possible to transfer 99% of the cap's energy to another cap by using a low-loss coil as an intermediary, i.e.: cap-->coil-->cap transfer (C1 --> L1 --> C2 in the circuit below). In such scheme, the switch and diode/synch rectifier play a role of gatekeepers that do not allow the energy to return to the first cap. To see it working click here. The op-amp's/comparator's purpose is to detect when C1 is empty. The R1 is there only to make the simulation well-behaved (in reality it can be omitted). the inductor used to transfer most or all of cap1 to cap2 would need to be absolutely huge if using super caps, if not virtually impossible. im not intending on using super caps for anything other than storage purposes. i think all the testing could have been done with normal caps with similar results and a much shorter time span for the test. mags

verpies	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #195 on: 2025-03-05, 20:07:58 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3670	Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-05, 18:57:28 the inductor used to transfer most or all of cap1 to cap2 would need to be absolutely huge if using super caps, if not virtually impossible. I agree. That's why I called for low-loss coil. That means low resistance and high inductance. Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-05, 18:57:28 I think all the testing could have been done with normal caps with similar results and a much shorter time span for the test. Yes, with realistic coils the transfer would have to happen in milliseconds. The MOSFET'ized version of that circuit is below, if you want to play with it. To see it working click here. D1 must be a low forward voltage-drop Schottky diode. The R1 is there only to make the simulation well-behaved (in reality it can be omitted). Note that in order to eliminate that AND gate, this circuit purposely uses a comparator that has a Hi-Z / GND output ...like the LM393 or TLV1704, etc....

Magluvin	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #196 on: 2025-03-05, 20:18:24 »
Group: Mad Scientist Hero Member Posts: 676	for the one shot full transfer, the indu to needs to rise in current and mag field to peak right about the time the 2 caps are at equalibrium, say start with 10v and at equalibrium each cap would be at 7.07v each, of which if you stopped there and disconnect, those 2 caps with 7.07v would both add up total and equal the same energy as the 10v cap started with. mags

verpies	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #197 on: 2025-03-05, 22:52:11 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3670	Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-05, 20:18:24 for the one shot full transfer, the indu to needs to rise in current and mag field to peak right about the time the 2 caps are at equalibrium, ... What are you talking about ? In this circuit, the caps are never in equilibrium except when they are both empty (initially, C1 decreases from 100% to 0% and only after that C2 increases from 0% to 99% energy).

Magluvin	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #198 on: 2025-03-05, 23:20:32 »
Group: Mad Scientist Hero Member Posts: 676	if you were able to slow down the process, you would see that when cap1 gets down to 7.07v from 10v start, cap2 will also be at 7.07v. even in sim. make a series circuit, cap1, switch, inductor, diode and cap 2. close the switch and see. minus diode drop. now like i said earlier, if you wer able to turn off the switch when cap1 reaches 7.07v, without a diode, you would have 7.07v in cap 2 also. this shouldnt be that hard to understand. some here were questioning my work on this years ago, but only Poynt understood where i was coming from with this. such a basic circuit. again, shouldnt be that hard to understand. once the caps have both reached 7.07v, the inductors current is max and the mag field is 'expanded' to peak also, now the mag field collapses and that energy stored in the inductors mag field is enough to take all of whats left in cap 1 and force it to cap 2. again, minus diode drop if used. mags

verpies	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #199 on: 2025-03-05, 23:26:34 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3670	Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-05, 23:20:32 if you were able to slow down the process, you would see that when cap1 gets down to 7.07v from 10v start, cap2 will also be at 7.07v. This oscillogram represents a slowed-down view of the energy transfer process and the voltages levels you are describing are not occurring in this circuit. Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-05, 23:20:32 once the caps have both reached 7.07v, the inductors current is max... Are you blind ? In this circuit, the caps are never both at 7.07V (initially, C1 decreases from 10V to 0V and only after that C2 increases from 0V to 9.99V). Also, the inductor's current (I_L1) is at maximum when both of the caps are empty (at 0V, not at 7.07V). This oscillogram illustrates that unambigously. Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-05, 23:20:32 make a series circuit, cap1, switch, inductor, diode and cap 2. close the switch and see. Don't change the subject. I am not referring to a circuit connected like the one you are describing. In all my previous messages, I linked this circuit so there would be no doubts to what I am referring to. Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-05, 23:20:32 ...such a basic circuit. again, shouldnt be that hard to understand. Exactly.