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

Author Topic: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! (Read 14574 times)

Topic Options

bfulmind23

Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #225 on: 2025-03-07, 15:34:25 »

Newbie

Posts: 19

Quote from: verpies on 2025-03-07, 03:33:01

That was only MileHigh's hypothetical example, based on the premise: "WHAT IF there were no losses during C2C energy transfers" and the mathematical identity: 0.707...² = ½ which implies that ~70.7% of the voltage represents 50% of the energy, because the energy stored in a capacitor is proportional to its voltage squared (V²).

In reality this does not happen because there are always at least 50% energy losses during C2C transfers and when the energy in two equal capacitors equalizes then each capacitor stores only ¼ of the initial energy,. This means that only 50% of the initial voltage is left in each capacitor ( not ~70.7% ). This happens because ½ * ½ = ¼ and the energy stored in a capacitor is proportional to its voltage squared (V²) thus 50% of the voltage represents 25% of the initial energy.

Reiterating the relationship between voltage and energy stored in a capacitor:
~70.7% of voltage = 50% of energy.
50% of voltage = 25% of energy

There is no charge conservation violation with the true numbers for the voltage and energy in a capacitor.

Apparently you have based your entire thinking on MileHigh's hypothetical thought experiment that does not occur in reality.

It is not always true. In this experiment you lose only 10% of energy. But this is not a direct transfer of energy from one capacitor to another yet in this transfer the coil is involved. JLN circuit attached.

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

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

JLN circuit.gif (18.21 kB, 635x691 - viewed 209 times.)

verpies

Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #226 on: 2025-03-07, 15:35:53 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 3670

Quote from: bfulmind23 on 2025-03-07, 15:34:25

It is not always true. In this experiment you lose only 10% of energy.

That depends on the quality of the selected components.
With low R_DS-ON MOSFETs and a π circuit without a diode, short cycle time and low resistance / high-inductance coil, the CLC energy transfer efficiency can approach 100%, albeit never reach it.

Quote from: bfulmind23 on 2025-03-07, 15:34:25

But this is not a direct transfer of energy from one capacitor to another yet in this transfer the coil is involved.

With C2C/CRC energy transfer, the efficiency is theoretically capped at 50% due to i²R losses.

« Last Edit: 2025-03-08, 00:14:22 by verpies »

web000x

Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #227 on: 2025-03-07, 16:29:14 »

Sr. Member

Posts: 340

Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-07, 05:59:57

one more thing...

ive made analogies that i compare air pressure in tanks and water buckets. can you tell me what i am missing here? am i not correct in doing so even though the results are virtually the same in each case?

voltage is pressure.
current is flow due to pressure.
results are the same. cap to cap, 10v to each having 5v. tank to tank, 100lb to 50lb each tank. 10gal to 2 buckets of 5 gal.

please show me how i should not relate these as all the same.

air tanks, transfer to tank2 with an air motor with a flywheel as the inductor. same with the water buckets, water pressure driven motor with flywheel as the inductor.

can anyone agree with me on that?

if so, in the air tank setup where we just open the valve and let the pressure equal out between tanks. 100lb to 50lb each. 50% loss. did we lose that 50% because of resistance or radiations??? if not then where did that energy go? ?

ill tell you where it went. we stupidly, pumped tank1 to 100lb and just dumped it into a container with twice the volume, which in the end adds up to a 50% loss. why is that so hard to understand when it comes to the cap to cap?? any resistance from air tank to air tank is not the cause of the loss in the end. maybe that air flow through the hose from tank to tank makes a bit of heat due to air friction. but it didnt cause the 50% loss, now tell me about how radiations caused the loss. please tell me how.

you can calculate the amount of energy stored in the air tanks in the form of pressure by volume. you can quantify the amount of work that a 10gal bucket of water can do with the pressure from a hose outlet at the bottom of the bucket.. we can do work with that water flow caused by the weight of the water in the bucket. 10 gal in 1 bucket can do more work than 2 buckets with 5 gal, just like the caps from 10v in one cap to 2 at 5v. same exact thing.

once you get it straght that they are all the same, then you will see that the resistance and radiations are not the cause of the loss. you then should also understand the the electron count on the caps plates that determine the voltage(pressure) are the same as the air molecule count in the tanks or the water molecule count in the buckets. dont assume AI is always correct. AI only has reference to info already out there that may be wrong intentionaly or not.

dont be stuborn. really think about this.

mags

The air tank analogy does not fit an analogy with capacitors, this for an ideal transfer of air between tanks. See Grok's simple analysis. If you ask for the full analysis, you will see some losses due to windage, noise, and heat differences, but here you see that half pressure drops only half the energy vs 1/4 energy drops with capacitors and half-voltage.

Dave

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

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

Grok PSI Energy.png (29.89 kB, 931x272 - viewed 191 times.)

bfulmind23	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #228 on: 2025-03-07, 17:24:30 »
Newbie Posts: 19	Quote from: verpies on 2025-03-07, 15:35:53 That depends on the quality of the selected components. With low R_DS-ON MOSFET and a π circuit without a diode, short cycle time and low resistance / high-inductance coil, the CLC energy transfer efficiency can approach 100%, albeit never reach it. It's true. It is interesting that directly C2C loses so much energy, but if you add a coil the energy loss is much less.

Magluvin

Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #229 on: 2025-03-07, 17:43:51 »

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member

Posts: 676

Quote from: web000x on 2025-03-07, 16:29:14

The air tank analogy does not fit an analogy with capacitors, this for an ideal transfer of air between tanks. See Grok's simple analysis. If you ask for the full analysis, you will see some losses due to windage, noise, and heat differences, but here you see that half pressure drops only half the energy vs 1/4 energy drops with capacitors and half-voltage.

Dave

well if this is so, then we can do work with the flow from tank1 to tank2 and end up being able to do it again from 2 tanks with 50lb to another 2 tanks empty and do more work and still end up with close to the original energy in 4 tanks now and do it again.

theres some free energy for ya.

mags

web000x	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #230 on: 2025-03-07, 20:01:15 »
Sr. Member Posts: 340	Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-07, 17:43:51 well if this is so, then we can do work with the flow from tank1 to tank2 and end up being able to do it again from 2 tanks with 50lb to another 2 tanks empty and do more work and still end up with close to the original energy in 4 tanks now and do it again. theres some free energy for ya. mags http://www.rexresearch.com/neal/neal.htm

Magluvin	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #231 on: 2025-03-07, 22:29:43 »
Group: Mad Scientist Hero Member Posts: 676	Quote from: web000x on 2025-03-07, 20:01:15 http://www.rexresearch.com/neal/neal.htm nice. hadnt seen that before. my grandfather and his dad were inventors. grandpa had an air engine idea back in the 70s. couldnt get funding and never got it done.. so i get ideas like them also. again, thanks mags

verpies	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #232 on: 2025-03-07, 22:35:38 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3670	Quote from: web000x on 2025-03-07, 16:29:14 The air tank analogy does not fit an analogy with capacitors, this for an ideal transfer of air between tanks. Indeed. A better analogy for a capacitor would be a low-mass piston with a quadratic spring, as it is not subject to the evil gas laws and thermal energy loss through the walls of the tank. For an inductor it would be a vane motor/generator with a flywheel. Also, pipes do not convert water current into heat, much.

verpies	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #233 on: 2025-03-07, 22:43:57 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3670	Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-07, 01:22:53 if you use verpies circuit, and started with 10v, and he turned off the transistor when cap1 got down to 7.07v, that inductor will charge cap2 to 7.07v. again, minus diode drops. total energy left idealy in cap1 and cap2 would be equal to the energy we started with in cap1 at 10v. Yes, in the scenario you are describing, each capacitor ends up with 50% of the initial energy and ~70.7% of the initial voltage. But what about the charge balance ? Initially, cap1 had C110V Coulombs of charge (Q1) ...and after the CLC transfer, both capacitors collectively have C17.07V + C2*7.07V Coulombs of charge (Q2), because they are anti-parallel and can be flipped for free to become parallel. I'll leave it to someone else to explain why Q2 > Q1. Why only I should have all the fun ?

e2matrix

Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #234 on: 2025-03-08, 06:13:00 »

Sr. Member

Posts: 352

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2025-02-12, 03:49:08

Some calculation revisions.
Chat GPT suggested they may be 10,000F supercaps (Photo enclosed)

4 in series gives us 2,500 F @2.51 volts = 6,275J or 2.1875 watts

However, there was energy recovery in cap b
Primary cap a = 168.3 J - secondary cap b ie 10% loss? say (- 18) = 150 J therefore net consumption = 18.3 J

So, revised figures give a net input of 18.3 J
Output Power received = 6,275 J or 2.1875 watts
Net COP 342

Sorry for jumping in the middle of this but I've experienced chatGPt telling you what it thinks you want to hear and by asking it in a slightly different way I caught it essentially contradicting itself. And I know those caps Joel shows in the video are definitely not 10,000 Farad caps. I've got a bunch of 3000 Farad 2.7v caps that are way bigger in physicals size than those caps. A 10000 F cap would likely be the size of a quart bottle if not bigger. Maybe he meant 10000 mF? or 10 Farad. I do think you can do some very interesting things with caps and may get COP much greater than one but some things in his video just can't be true based on what I know about capacitor size versus Farad size unless someone has come up with something totally new. BTW I've recently found some Ultra or super cap banks that do 500 Farads at 16 volts out of China for ~ $75 - easily puts out over 2000 Amps which is more than enough to start a big V8 engine. It starts mine faster than any battery ever did

e2matrix	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #235 on: 2025-03-08, 06:18:36 »
Sr. Member Posts: 352	Quote from: web000x on 2025-02-12, 16:38:38 This might be the capacitor he was using for the charge receiving bank. It comes in various capacities including 10KF. https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/new-technology-500f-1000f-3000f-5000f_1600129821347.html?gQT=1 Edit: Upon looking more closely, the radial package depicted in the image doesn't seem to be available in a 10KF size. It says the package is a snap in style at that capacity. However, the radial package does look similar to what he was using in the bowl so maybe he is just using a smaller capacity. The 3000F cap shown on alibaba is 5.5 inches tall by 2.36 inches in diameter and that is just 3000F. The one's Joel has in the video are clearly much smaller than that even.

Frederik2k1

Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #236 on: 2025-03-08, 10:13:38 »

Newbie

Posts: 49

Is it the phenomenon described in the appendix that Joel Lagace is concerned with? He wrote it all down in the document with all the calculations.
Basically, it's about using displacement currents sensibly and recycling them.

In the PDF, especially from page 35.

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

Untitled document.pdf (895.37 kB - downloaded 41 times.)

Smudge

Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #237 on: 2025-03-08, 15:14:26 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 1961

I gave uo reading this when I realized he cannot even do simple math.

Smudge

Magluvin	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #238 on: 2025-03-08, 15:17:11 »
Group: Mad Scientist Hero Member Posts: 676	ok. so in the document, once you complete transfer from capA to capB, each half of the original voltage, and charging capC, then reverse capA polarity so the total potential(voltage) of series capA and capB is back to what we started with but half total capacitance. but it allowes us to discharge cap A and B all the way this time and charging cap C even more, as he is suggesting we end up with all the original charge of capA into cap C. i like that. multiple cycles of cap to cap and losing nothing virtually sort of leans toward my idea that the energy is not lost by way of resistance nor radiation, unless in the mechanism of doing so there is something free that overcomes the losses. but guys, if you try this, try with some regular caps. outcome should be good in a much shorter time. mags

verpies	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #239 on: 2025-03-08, 15:29:54 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3670	Quote from: Smudge on 2025-03-08, 15:14:26 I gave up reading this when I realized he cannot even do simple math. Smudge Who is "he" ?

verpies	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #240 on: 2025-03-08, 15:43:20 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3670	Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-08, 15:17:11 sort of leans toward my idea that the energy is not lost by way of resistance nor radiation, unless in the mechanism of doing so there is something free that overcomes the losses. Would you be convinced by an exploding wire connecting two caps - one charged , the other one discharged ?

web000x	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #241 on: 2025-03-08, 15:51:47 »
Sr. Member Posts: 340	Quote from: verpies on 2025-03-08, 15:29:54 Who is "he" ? Looks like he is referring to Joel in that recently posted document where the first energy calculation is off by an order of magnitude. 10(uF)*100(V^2) does not equal 10000uJ. He almost corrects himself by stating 0.001J but then divides that by 2 and ends up with 0.005J. (Calling things Joules here that are only partial calculations) It appears this error propagates through the whole document. Dave ------------------------ Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! Screenshot 2025-03-08 110940.png (47.95 kB, 797x271 - viewed 112 times.)

Magluvin	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #242 on: 2025-03-08, 16:05:41 »
Group: Mad Scientist Hero Member Posts: 676	Quote from: verpies on 2025-03-08, 15:43:20 Would you be convinced by an exploding wire connecting two caps - one charged , the other one discharged ? i suppose you are talking about wire that cant handle the flow mags

verpies	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #243 on: 2025-03-08, 16:45:04 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3670	Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-08, 16:05:41 i suppose you are talking about wire that cant handle the flow Yes, did you consider what phenomenon makes it unable to "handle the flow" of current and vaporize/explode ?

verpies	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #244 on: 2025-03-08, 16:49:00 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3670	Quote from: web000x on 2025-03-08, 15:51:47 10(uF)*100(V^2) does not equal 10000uJ. Correct, they represent 50000µJ of energy stored in a capacitor. 50000µJ = 0.05J.

web000x	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #245 on: 2025-03-08, 17:03:02 »
Sr. Member Posts: 340	Quote from: verpies on 2025-03-08, 16:49:00 Correct, they represent 50000µJ of energy stored in a capacitor. 50000µJ = 0.05J. Look more closely at the text I attached from his document. The figure 100 is from 10 Volts squared. He has over calculated his initial energy conditions.

F6FLT

Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #246 on: 2025-03-08, 17:14:13 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 2148

Quote from: verpies on 2025-03-08, 15:29:54

Who is "he" ?

Let's play guessing games. Isn't that Joel Lagace?

You can save a lot of time by not even looking at the calculations. When it starts with “Understanding the Don Smith Capacitor Energy Method: Unlocking Hidden Energy Potential”, we understand that we're dealing with a grand master who's going to explain the hidden secrets of a conventional device that a beginner in electronics would understand better than him.

And when it continues with “Energy is everywhere. It surrounds us in forms both seen and unseen”, we understand that he's addressing incompetents like himself, so he has to say things so simple and banal that it will flatter the audience, who will imagine they understand great mysteries, and he, the grand master, will get followers.

The problem of the charge of capacitor has long been solved. Since it's the key to the efficient operation of MOSFETs in switching mode, to reduce losses due to gate capacitance, it's been studied extensively. The general principle of how best to charge a capacitor is well known. It's got nothing to do with special cases interpreted any old way, and all the nonsense of J L. How could he turn such a simple thing into such a twisted story? His text is so pretentiously stupid that it's hard to believe it could have an audience.

The principle is adiabatic charging, which I've already indirectly mentioned when talking about its practical implementation: step-by-step charging or charging by current generator or through an inductor.
It's not very complicated, but a prof will explain it better than I can:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtgOboxMNoU&t=81s

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

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

verpies	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #247 on: 2025-03-08, 17:31:08 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3670	Quote from: web000x on 2025-03-08, 17:03:02 The figure 100 is from 10 Volts squared. Atypical notation. I read it as a 10µF capacitor charged to 100V.

verpies	Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #248 on: 2025-03-08, 19:17:29 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3670	Quote from: F6FLT on 2025-03-08, 17:14:13 The problem of the charge of capacitor has long been solved. Yes, ...and I solved it again here by integrating the i²R losses over time as one capacitor charges another. I marked the final result in red color.

Aking.21

Re: Checking out Joel Lagace - Hang on I'M SERIOUS!! « Reply #249 on: 2025-03-08, 21:02:30 »

Sr. Member

Posts: 489

Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-03-08, 16:05:41

i suppose you are talking about wire that cant handle the flow

mags

When I discharged some of my 2600F caps to start the experiment, I used 15 amp mains wire leads and the connectors got so hot
that I had to withdraw my hand quickly and disconnect and reconnect the wires several times.
I suggest that at the uF level, you cannot see the resistance easily, but when you get into the heavy stuff, wire resistance becomes obvious.
Having said that, I am carrying on with various aspects of reactive power energy extraction.

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

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