Two Capacitor Paradox

[ZPDM]

Alright I don't where to post this but it is my thread and it does have capacitors involved. It is sort of like when I realized that CONSERVATION OF ENERGY has zero applicability to the most simple transfer of energy between two caps, that really, really, annoyed me. I made a video showing the "Utkin Diode" and the "Bedini Diode" are not exclusive, (one is LC series the other LC parallel) and the more I looked at it (as an aside the easiest thing[the only one i got to work ], if you are running an SSG with a common ground run a coil with a dioide +/+ hard to make the batteries go down then. If (((I explain this well))) sorry, I may not even post the boring video, it is just the simplicity almost that ticks me off. Yes it may take some craftsmanship before one is making shoes for the homeless, or doing something else helpful but it is all quite simple.

So I'll explain it, I don't know why I do this. At the conference I got the ice-ice baby from some, JB talked with me, then the next day he is yelling at me that his favorite apprentice is already plotting to kill me or some such, I'm still laughing as I write (unless he happened to mean it, in which case I am very sorry for however I may have offended him). The conference was something like a cross between an Aspergers's symposium and a ZZ Top concert, it was wonderful, just needed a few unicycles.

Ah enough, here is the insight, as I said before on this forum induction occurs with any flow of energy, induction is free energy. So consider a nine volt battery discharging into ah I don't know 10 uf cap. Is there induction? Now consider a 9V battery discharging into said cap with an inductor placed in series, is there again induction? The answer of course is yes and the only loss in moving a small portion of the battery's power to the cap is the resistance in the coil. In the video I capture this induction with a backwards Bedini diode. But as others have said there is more then one way to skin a cat, you could capture induction off that coil with any number of arrangements of pick-up coils. So let us, as is most easily demonstrated, capture that induction either through pick-up coil(s) or Bedini diode. Let us further say you have discharged a 10 V 1000 uf cap into a 1 uf cap. You have a 1 uF spike that may be captured and at the end you have both caps at say 9.99 V. At this point, with the 1 UF cap you do what is normally done and short it across both ends of the coil for a second spike. You got two spikes, capiche? In the vid I am showing that with a Utkin diode you can transform the voltage into the 1 uf cap and get 2.5 spikes or some such, but the important demonstration is that you can move energy from one place to another and gather induction and move it a second time and again gather induction.

May you be blessed in Christ,

Paul

[ZPDM]

In JB's defense I may have been yammering something at him at the conference about whether free energy was dangerous and what would happen if his favourite apprentice developed paranoid schizophrenia, you know just your regular coffee table talk, when he replied that his favourite apprentice was already plotting to kill me, so in context his remark wasn't uh entirely inappropos. That said I hope ten people here, (not more -see above) and who aren't paid to be here, understand what I said in paragraph three.

[ZPDM]

Alright you bozos, I don't really mean any of that but might as well go with the Court Jester thing at least for the moment, there is a second cap paradox. Bradley touched on it, no one ran with it, I didn't say anything cause I was thunkin, but it certainly is there. Before we even get to that though I finally think I get why caps rebound, it is electrostatic induction, not electromagnetic induction, have no experiments to support or disprove, it just seems like of course that is obviously what it must be. At the conference in the brief interactions I had with JB I was mentioning an approach to energy production involving electrostatic induction and if I recall correctly he said, pretty abruptly and simply, "yeah that will work". Maybe I forgot some part at the end perhaps just before his response where I said, "can I but you a drink?" But all this aside I would just say energy is in a big universe, not just SSG, not just electromagnetic, and really I don't think I bought JB a drink.

You have to admit there is a heck of a lot of overlap on the surface between free energy and mental illness. I never had a clinical practice but spent a rotation on the psych ward. I have listened to mental illness delusions, Wernicke-Korsakoff confabulations, etc. I accept, after a great deal of experimentation and seeing with my own eyes things I find surprising/ astonishing I still have to wonder if there isn't a bit of big fish embellishment going on. The last person I would want to pick a dispute with is a 6'2 West Point graduate from back country Louisiana who happens to be a math genius. But for cripes sake on the internet and publicly available Tom Bearden talks about, well there was a Ruskie ray beam attack on the West Coast, it was going to set off the Big one in California, we discovered it, I will never disclose who discovered it, but we figured out a way to back feed the ray beam back to the source, it could have destroyed half the world if we did so but "we" went ahead and back fed the ray beam right back to the source and that was the real cause of the Cherynobyl nuclear plant explosions. How the fk am I supposed to process that? I have seen mental illness, it is not that terribly uncommon. If you met someone on the street that said this 99.99 (how many nines) percent of the time I suspect you are dealing with a madman. That is why I said I wonder about "big fish" there was a weird signal, we sent up a weird signal, the first weird signal stopped pretty soon after there was the Chernobyl disaster. If Bearden's interpretation is correct he may have saved the West Coast or the nation. Man this stuff just pisses me off, you are all bozos and nuts!

Speaking of nuts, here is that other cap paradox, nothing to do with electrostatic induction, well maybe but not what I am talking about here, but still wacky fun. I like to write about some of this stuff before I have done any experiments because I find sometimes, sometimes, I am right. This all follows from pretty basic accepted stuff though and whatever you find would be surprising. So take two ten volt caps and connect them in series. In this case, experimentally, conservation of energy holds true, yeah! it finally held true, but now conservation of charge doesn't hold true. By that I mean:

Energy in cap 1/2 CV2
charge in cap CV

Separated:
10 Volts 1 Farad charge 10 Qoulombs energy 50 joules
10 Volts 1 Farad charge 10 Qoulombs energy 50 joules Total energy 100 joules, total Coulombs 20 Coulombs

Series
20 Volts 1/2 Farad charge 10 coulombs Total energy 100 joules total Coulombs 10 Coulombs

Ten Coulombs of charge disappeared, up and vanished like a fart in the wind.

Where did the charge go? The first culprit is that you connected a positive and negative plate to make the series connection the positive and negative plates must have mixed and destroyed that part of charge separation and you only have two plates left so 1/2 Farad left. The problem is if you disconnect the series line, your caps go right back to their initial state. Stew on that one for awhile why don't you. By connecting and disconnecting a series line you realize a situation where there is no change in energy but you double/halve the amount of charge (either charge separation or create/destroy charge). Now what does Wikipedia (alright I haven't looked yet) say about the factors that affect capacitance of a capacitor. Well screw Wiki (maybe they say the same) but the first result from Physicsmax says the factors determining capacitance of a capacitor are area of plates, dielectric material, and distance between plates. In the situation of connecting a series line between two "identical" capacitors neither dielectric nor area of plates has changed, therefore your only alteration has been the distance between the positive and negative plates. Oddly in a 30 second scan of the web I don't see whether distance between the plates follows a square law or a straight one to one relationship. If in connecting the plates the charge on the plates is mixed and somehow rights itself when the series wire is disconnected than it follows a square law otherwise a one to one. Either way you have an entirely untenable situation, at least by the conventional bull****.

So again one factor affecting the capacitance of a two plate capacitor is the distance between plates. So now, let's do a Plagerstien thought experiment and connect two parallel plates of a cap separated by 1/2 inch balsa wood through I don't care nine volts. What happens when you bring the two plates 1/16th on an inch apart and discharge to another cap. There are two or three choices, none pretty for J.K. Rowlings Muggles. Either when you bring the two plates closer, in order to stay consistent with conservation of energy, the voltage between the two plates decreases. So potential between two areas could decrease with zero current flow, that would sure upend things. Another possibility is that as you bring the two capacitor plates nearer charge disappears. So as you bring a +/- closer and closer together they suddenly decide they don't repel each other they actually really like each other and want liberty, equality and fraternity eh comrades. The last, which without experimenting I would say is what happens is that as you bring the two plates closer the voltage remains constant as it can't change through the dielectric and the capacitance of your capacitor increases as a function of the distance between the plates per physicsmax. So if you charged the plates to nine volts at 1/2 inch and discharged at 1/16th inch you should get * times the charge out. Again I haven't experimented, am I wrong? I haven't done it, may or may not get to it, but the way to make use of it would be a tall cylindrical outside leg of a capacitor and an elliptical inside leg of a capacitor that is charged when the two legs are distant and discharged when close.

Ciao,

Z

[John W.]

The problem of the energy loss (in the electrical system) arises from the fact that the seeming paradox is false. We try to understand what happens in "free space", but free space does not recognise a switch. A switch, by which I mean the action of connection, is an artificial concept and therein lies the fallacy behind this "paradox".

Please see my publication: www.sorwin.f9.co.uk/capacitorparadox/
in which I represent the switch by a variable capacitor of which the capacitance increases from zero to a notional infinity at the point of closure. I make the point that current passes in and out of the switch even before it is closed.

Hence the energy loss (in the electrical system) is caused by the movement of an electric charge through an electric field, in which a force of attraction acts upon the mechanical system that controls the switch. Electrical energy is thus converted into mechanical energy.

[Faraday88]

The problem of the energy loss (in the electrical system) arises from the fact that the seeming paradox is false. We try to understand what happens in "free space", but free space does not recognise a switch. A switch, by which I mean the action of connection, is an artificial concept and therein lies the fallacy behind this "paradox".

Please see my publication: www.sorwin.f9.co.uk/capacitorparadox/
in which I represent the switch by a variable capacitor of which the capacitance increases from zero to a notional infinity at the point of closure. I make the point that current passes in and out of the switch even before it is closed.

Hence the energy loss (in the electrical system) is caused by the movement of an electric charge through an electric field, in which a force of attraction acts upon the mechanical system that controls the switch. Electrical energy is thus converted into mechanical energy.

Hi John,
im delighted to see your explanation coinciding to mine immediate to your posting of the same.. thats what i meant by the Infinite value of the Capacitance at closure 'ON' (Intrinsic Capacitance of the conductor) and ideally zero as you rightly said when in 'OPEN' state. you have the answer...
and btw look you have infact answered the 'Variable Capacitance' representation in Bedini's 1984 single battery Motor-Generator system..
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Barbaro]

Salve io sono italiano e ho realizzato un circuito 4 batterie
Come swcth sto utilizzando un 4047 onda quadra. Ma la sua resa e poca come posso migliorarlo.x