PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-29, 20:54:34
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Captret  (Read 26300 times)
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4045
   
Group: Guest
Chet:

That was quite a morning movie!  The "captret" phenomenon has taken on a life of its own.  It looks like the threads will run on for several more months before they burn out.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
what is the problem with the captret? Are you not going to do it also and explain it just sitting in the chair?

Fausto.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
what is the problem with the captret? Are you not going to do it also and explain it just sitting in the chair?

Fausto.

What sort of energy gains are people reporting?

There must be something to this if so many are working on it   :P

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
A morning movie,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbn4vede2us

Chet

With reference to this video and capacitor voltage "creepage", everyone should familiarize themselves with the action of dielectric absorption.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
Hello .99,

look at the overunity forum and these posts from Groundloop (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9878.msg266961#msg266961,
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9878.msg267077#msg267077).

It is indeed a free energy phenomena and we should improve on it.

Fausto.
   
Group: Guest
Fausto:

This is probably more appropriately called a renewable energy phenomenon.

From Poynt's Wikipedia link:

Quote
real capacitors will develop a small voltage, a phenomenon that is also called soakage or battery action. For some dielectrics, such as many polymer films, the resulting voltage may be less than 1-2% of the original voltage, but it can be as much as 15 - 25% for electrolytic capacitors or supercapacitors.

So above and beyond dielectric absorption, there is a "soakage" or "battery action" associated with capacitors, and it is especially noticeable with electrolytic capacitors.

So what can be causing it?  I looked into this briefly and haven't done the full research but I think I have pretty good idea.

In a polarized electrolytic capacitor the electrolytic oil sets up some sort of multi-layered chemical membrane, almost like a living biological cell has an outer membrane wall consisting of several layers of molecules.  You can also think of a soap bubble where there is a very thin layer of soap next to a very thin layer of water.

This chemical membrane in the electrolytic capacitor has an inherent electropotential because of how the molecules are arranged that make up this thin membrane.  Therefore even in a fully discharged capacitor there is an inherent capability or propensity to self-charge because of this electropotential.

The air that we breathe is filled with a continuous stream of positively and negatively charged ions.  A negative ion floating in the air may touch the lead of the capacitor and give up its excess electron and the electron will end up on the negative plate (or membrane layer) of the electrolytic capacitor.  By the same token a positively charged ion may touch the positive lead of the capacitor and absorb an electron from the positive lead, leaving a "hole" on the positive plate (or membrane layer) of the electrolytic capacitor.  The electropotential inherent in the electrolytic capacitor is acting like a "sponge" that is "soaking up" positive and negative ions in the air.  Eventually the "sponge gets saturated" and the electropotential associated with the chemical layers inside the electrolytic capacitor is neutralized by the self-charging process.

So what is the REAL source of energy here?  Well, there is energy in the air itself in the form of negative and positive ions.  What is the source of the energy that created the ions?  The source is the sun.  The sun's energy landing on the Earth causes atmospheric wind and the wind creates the ions in the air.

So there is what I think is your answer.  It's NOT free energy coming from nowhere, it's renewable energy coming from the sun.

What experiments can you do to test for this?  The first one that I can think of is to take two identical electrolytic capacitors.    You ensure that both capacitors are fully discharged with no latent charge due to dielectric absorption.  For one capacitor you do nothing, it is the control capacitor.  Perhaps you wait one day and let it self charge and measure the voltage.  For the second capacitor you cut off the leads so that you only have very short leads.  Then you cover the short leads with epoxy so that they can't come into contact with the air.  You wait one day and then remove the epoxy very carefully and then measure the voltage on this capacitor.

If the first capacitor shows a measurable voltage and the second capacitor shows almost no voltage at all then the conclusion is that contact with the air is necessary for the capacitor to self-charge.  That would indicate that my theory is most likely correct.

I challenge you to copy and paste this into all of the captret threads.  Hopefully somebody will try doing the experiment.

Finally, in many captret experiments done so far a capacitor of a certain size in microfarads increases by a certain voltage in a certain amount of time.  Those are the three critical pieces of information that allow you to calculate the average power production.  Power and energy are the terms we use for the production of energy in whatever form.  So for all these experiments the real question is to crunch the numbers to get the power.  Is it in the microwatt range?  The milliwatt range?  The nanowatt range?  I am going to guess that the average experiment produces power in the tens of nanowatts.

So, if I am right, the conclusion for entire captret project is that you can produce an average of tens of nanowatts of power and the source of renewable energy for this is the positively and negatively charged ions in the air.  The ultimate source of energy for these setups is the sun.

It's kind of fun and interesting but it is of no practical value.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-12-26, 01:16:02 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4045
MH
In the link to OU that Fausto posted,Groundloop agrees with the small out put,but suggests that a large homemade 5 liter of bigger capacitor would be the way to "TEST"

Chet
   
Group: Guest
Chet:

I think there are two relevant issues with respect to this particular flavour of the captret testing where they are investigating the self-charging for the captret crowd to seriously consider.

The first issue is how is the self-charging happening?  That's what my proposed test is all about.  It's not "free energy magic," there is a logical explanation for what's happening.

The second issue is how much power is being produced and what can you conclude from that?  Supposing that you conclude that you need 50,000 self-charging capacitors to power a typical MP3 player?  If that's true then what's the point?  I am just plucking numbers out of thin air here.

If you can resolve these two issues to the satisfaction of the majority of people participating in the threads then you can move on to something new.  At least that's how I would view it myself.

Any form of renewable energy like the phenomenon of a self-charging electrolytic capacitor is up against what a solar panel can do.  If it takes 100,000 "captret" capacitors to produce the same amount of power as a $20 solar panel, then it's pretty obvious which technology is superior.

There is a parallel here with Paul Lowrence and his diodes.  Paul can produce something like a few nanowatts of power with his diodes by converting ambient thermal heat energy into electricity.  Meanwhile the sun shines down on the Earth with a power density of about a kilowatt per square meter.  So there is a 12 orders of magnitude difference there!  So solar panels are a trillion times more interesting than diodes for producing renewable energy.

MileHigh
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 336
@MileHigh,

My first post, so hello to everybody. :-)

I have been researching the electrolytic capacitor self charge effect for a while now. First I will say that I agree with MileHigh
that there is no practical way of getting free energy out of electrolytic capacitors. It is far too expensive compared to other
means of getting free energy. My way of testing this is also very time consuming. It takes "forever" to solder 1000 capacitors
and modify them with a third wire. Now understand that I have shorted my capacitors and uses the two shorted wires as one
connection and the aluminum can as the other. Since I have shorted the capacitor then the two rolls of aluminum plates with
aluminum oxide is one unit with no charge difference between those two plates. The only voltage polarization is between
the coiled up aluminum plates and the aluminum can. I found by testing that the capacitor could be shorted out as many times
as I wanted and that the voltage always climbed back again to a low voltage. I tested this in a Faraday's cage and found that
it worked there also. This rules out RF as a power source. I have also submerged a capacitor into oil and tested that it charged
up anyway. So this rules out that the capacitor gets charges from air to self charge. I have found that the aluminum can always
will be positive and the two shorted legs of the capacitor will be negative. My next experiment was to see if I could add the voltages
by series many (100) capacitors. I found this to be true. I got 4 Volt charged into a 1uF MKT capacitor. The charge time was 4 hours.
So the power output from my 100 series string of capacitors was in the 10ths of pico Watt range.  I have yet to solder 9 more boards
to be put in parallel, totaling 10 boards with 100 capacitors on each board. There has been may speculations on the net on what
the electrolytic capacitor self charge effect is. At this time I will leave it with that, I have no explanations myself other that I'm seeing
this effect happening.

Groundloop.
   
Group: Guest
Groundloop:

Welcome to the forum!

Quote
I have also submerged a capacitor into oil and tested that it charged up anyway. So this rules out that the capacitor gets charges from air to self charge.

You are making a huge assumption here.  How do you know the molecules of the oil you use can't be ionized?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energy

Quote
The term "ionization energy" is sometimes used as a name for the work needed to remove (to infinity) the topmost electron from an atom or molecule adsorbed  onto a surface. However, due to interactions with the surface, this value differs from the ionization energy of the atom or molecule in question when it is in free space. So, in the case of surface-adsorbed  atoms and molecules, it may be better to use the more general term "electron binding energy", in order to avoid confusion. Both these names are also sometimes used to describe the work needed to remove an electron from a "lower" orbital (i.e., not the topmost orbital) to infinity, both for free and for adsorbed atoms and molecules; in such cases it is necessary to specify the orbital from which the electron has been removed.

I am no expert with respect to this stuff but to me it looks like the ionized air molecules can interact with the boundary layer between the air and the oil such that ionized air molecules can create ionized oil molecules.

There is also this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoionization

Quote
Autoionization is a process by which atoms or molecules spontaneously emit one of the shell electrons, thus going from a state with charge Z to a state with charge Z + 1, for example from an electrically neutral state to a singly ionized state.[1]

Atoms can autoionize when either two or more valence electrons are excited or one or more inner-shell electrons are missing. In the latter case, it is called the Auger effect. Molecules, in addition, can experience vibrational autoionization.[2]

MileHigh
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 336
@MileHigh,

You have stipulated a theory that the electrolytic capacitor self charge anomaly is:

SNIP
The air that we breathe is filled with a continuous stream of positively and negatively charged ions.  A negative ion floating in the air may touch the lead of the capacitor and give up its excess electron and the electron will end up on the negative plate (or membrane layer) of the electrolytic capacitor.  By the same token a positively charged ion may touch the positive lead of the capacitor and absorb an electron from the positive lead, leaving a "hole" on the positive plate (or membrane layer) of the electrolytic capacitor.  The electropotential inherent in the electrolytic capacitor is acting like a "sponge" that is "soaking up" positive and negative ions in the air.  Eventually the "sponge gets saturated" and the electropotential associated with the chemical layers inside the electrolytic capacitor is neutralized by the self-charging process.
END SNIP

This was your theory. I have found by practical testing that the capacitor regains it's voltage potential just as fast submerged
in oil than in air. If you theory is correct then Soy oil has the same number of free floating ions that air have. Can you
prove that Soy Oil has the same number of free floating Ions?

Groundloop.
   
Group: Guest
@MileHigh,

 If you theory is correct then Soy oil has the same number of free floating ions that air have. Can you
prove that Soy Oil has the same number of free floating Ions?

Groundloop.

I know almost nothing about soybean oil.  I did a few quick checks and noted that soybean oil contains acids, and acids normally have ionic properties.

I have no clue if soybean oil would increase or decrease the ionic reactions to allow the capacitor to self-charge.  Your logic is stating that soybean oil does not have any ionic properties.  Do you know this for a fact?

MileHigh
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 336
@MileHigh,

No, I can not state as a fact the Soy oil does not have any ionic properties.
But testing confirms that the self charge effect is the same in air as in oil.
It takes the same time for the capacitor to reach a fixed voltage in both
mediums. Since soy oil is a very good insulator there must be less free
ions in oil that in air. So I assume that your theory does not meet the
experimental facts.

Groundloop.
   
Group: Guest
Thank you MH and Groundloop.

I am amazed at how we all can talk about this experiment in gentleman's ways with respect while being very critical (positive criticism is good).

I have been also testing this "captret" and in one of my experiments I am trying to utilize the "excess energy" in short periods of time directly to a battery. I simply switch from 2 sets of captrets back and forth into a lead acid battery.

Voltages are my measurement for the "state of charge of the battery". An LED is used when the "excess energy" is directed back to the driving batteries, in essence getting free light for no measurable cost.

My premise is that if the battery voltage does not go down but goes up in a long run (at least a week) I think I can consider the voltage as a first proof of free energy (at least enough proof to show that the battery is not being consumed).

Diagram attached. Video will be posted soon on my youtube channel.

Fausto.

   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Fausto,

What are you using for your batteries?

If they are relatively large SLAB's, I would encourage you to run an experiment for more like 2 or 3 months in order to get solid proof whether the batteries are depleting or not.

Or change to much smaller  capacity re-chargeable batteries.

;)

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 336
Fausto,

I did take a look at you posted circuit drawing. You may not realize it but when you connect
the can of a radial electrolytic capacitor to the minus wire then you get a normal axiell
capacitor (where the can is the minus wire). So if you circuit works with your setup then
the circuit will also work with normal axiell capacitors.



Alex.
   
Group: Guest
@Groundloop,

funny that I thought the same thing, unfortunately that similar design does not work. I am puzzled why the captret is showing better results.

What I am doing is following the "smoke signal". I went to vacation in Brazil for a little more than a month and left running 6 different captret designs. From 6 one is working well with a 9 volts battery and another one end up being like this one I showed now.

This one is working very, very well. I have free light, the battery voltages are slowly climbing. I dont think I need 3 months to see a change on the battery voltage since I can see the drop in voltage faster than that with the same equivalent light usage.

If this works as I am seeing I will test with very small batteries too.

Fausto.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 336
Fausto,

Thanks for clearing up that. Maybe there is a difference in the design of axiell electrolytic capacitor
compared to a radial electrolytic capacitor. We already know that the can is insulated on a radial capacitor.
If your testing shows that to be true then there must be a difference.

Thanks,
Groundloop.
   
Group: Guest
I started a new thread about the Captret and Tesla Switch experiment I mentioned.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10175.msg268501#msg268501

Fausto.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 336
Fausto,

I'm posting the circuit here also.



If you want to get the current draw down then use a slower crystal, a 4MHz will do fine
for you switching speed. Also, the big current draw is in the leds of the solid state relays.
The relays can be switched with a led current as low as 1mA so compute the resistor
values based on a 5 volt out from pic. The 330 Ohm is for approx 15mA diode current.
Check the data sheet for the AQV252G to see how low led current you can use.

Also remember that in the SW you must make a break before make in the relays.
Check the data sheet and see how fast the relays switch on and off. Make the SW
so that you use those times correct.

Alex.
   
Group: Guest
Thank you Groundloop,

I ordered some of those opt-relays that you mention, they are very light on power consumption.

Today I am testing already with my PIC controller and the old opto relay and mosfet to see if works the same as a mechanical relay. Video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQfWlglLUag.

Fausto.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 336
Fausto,

Great video. :-)

I was thinking about what you said in the video that you need a solid state switch that use little power.
The PIC16F88 is very similar to the one you use now but the F88 can run with a 22KHz watch crystal
and the power usage of the F88 will then be as little as 60 to 80 uA. The voltage regulator must be
of a type with a low loss and drop voltage. The output pins of the F88 will not be able to source the
leds in the relays direct at these power levels but that can be solved by using power from the switch
points. Need to look more at this.

Groundloop.
   
Group: Guest
Thank you Groundloop. That would be great if you design something at that low power consumption.

My goal is to have a true "infinite light system" that we can send to people and let them have it to test and prove that OU does happens and it is achievable.

Fausto.
   
Group: Guest
Fausto:

I watched some of your clip and I have a few thoughts for you.  I assume that you are using your opto-isolated MOSFET to switch the relay on and off, and the relay itself is doing he capacitor switching for you.

For starters I am not so sure that you need to buy fancy solid state switches.  You have MOSFETs available so perhaps you could use them.  It looks to me like you can use one MOSFET to switch the 24-volt dual-battery source to the charging capacitor/captret bank under software control.  Then you could use another MOSFET to switch the charging capacitor/captret bank through the LED and into the first 12-volt battery under software control.  I think that this should be quite easy and you may have to write some simple software to control the switching and implement the "break before make" timing so that you never have both MOSFET switches on at the same time.

You could lower the clock for the micro down to a super low frequency.  I am not sure how low the clock frequency can go because it might be needed for some sort of DRAM refreshing but you can check the specifications.  You might be able to lower it as low as 1KHz and then the micro would consume almost no power.

The logic behind your setup is that both batteries charge the capacitor/captret bank and then there is a delay and you then discharge the capacitor/captret bank into the first battery only through the LED.  So if the "captret effect" is real it is generating a small amount of extra energy and this might even be meeting the energy requirements to flash the LED.

Here is where you should do some number crunching to at least give you some ideas about what's going on.  How much energy is available in your two batteries?  How much energy do you have to put into the capacitor/captret bank to charge it from 6 volts to 12 volts?  How many charge cycles will it take to discharge 50% of the energy in the two batteries?  What is your cycle time?  What is the cycle time multiplied by the number of cycles to discharge 50% of the energy in the two batteries?  Is it weeks?  Is it many months?  Years?

You notice I am not even factoring in that the first battery gets partially recharged each cycle.  The whole point of the exercise is to just have an idea of the time frame that you are looking it.

Fausto in the beginning of your clip you are recording battery voltage variations.  It's hard to say what's really going on here because the "load" is not a DC load that would show you something about the internal resistance of the battery changing.  The load is a short current spike once every second.  The current spike might only last a few milliseconds.  My gut feel is that you are reading the nominal resting voltage of the battery, but I am not 100% certain of this because of the relatively strange load.  You can try doing a test where you just record the unloaded voltage of a similar battery of similar age and condition.  Don't be surprised if you see the unloaded battery voltage drift up and down also.  The ambient temperature can change and there is always a certain amount of randomness associated with the liquid electrolyte of the battery.

If you wanted to measure the internal resistance of the battery you would have to put a load resistor on the battery for a few seconds and measure the voltage drop and then crunch the numbers.  If you did this every few days (for example) you might see the internal resistance start to increase as the battery got depleted.  That is a reliable way to measure the internal resistance.

What you are doing in your experiment is not anything like this, you are just charging a capacitor every few seconds.  If you had a scope on the battery voltage, as the battery started getting closer to a fully discharged state you would start seeing a bigger and longer dip in the battery voltage when the capacitor/captret bank is connected.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-12-30, 02:12:39 by MileHigh »
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-29, 20:54:34