Theory of how to use Electricity

[Turion]

I've been researching energy and electricity for over 25 years, and it is my belief that we do not understand how to use electricity properly. This specifically applies to the energy contained in a common DC battery, but is applicable to ALL electricity.

Here is a specific, simple experiment, that anyone can do to see whether or not I am full of crap. Collect two 33000UF 50 volt capacitors and a grain of wheat bulb. Using batteries in series or a power supply, CAREFULLY charge one of the capacitors to 25 volts. Connect the second capacitor in parallel to the first. You will see that the two capacitors equalize in voltage. That is because electricity is like water. It wants to move from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration when it can, and equalize. Now, connect the grain of wheat bulb to one of the capacitors, and carefully time how long the light remained lit. It should be approximately 13 seconds. Now connect it to the other capacitor and time how long it stays lit. It should be approximately 13 seconds. You were able to light the bulb for 26 seconds TOTAL using the 25 volts you put in the capacitor.

Now, make sure both capacitors are completely empty by shorting them out. Charge one of the capacitors to 25 volts again. Connect the negatives of the two capacitors together. Now CAREFULLY connect the two positives of the capacitors together using the grain of wheat bulb. Time how long the light is on. You will notice that the light is MUCH BRIGHTER than when just connected to one of the capacitors in the previous test. (Because you are running it on 25 volts instead of 12) When the light stops glowing, measure the voltage in each capacitor. You will see that the 25 volts is still ALL THERE, just evenly distributed between the two capacitors at 12.5 volts each. So ask yourself the IMPORTANT question right now. If the 25 volts is still there, what was used to light the light?

Now, connect the light to one of the capacitors and it will STILL take 13 seconds to use up all the energy in the capacitor. Connect to the second capacitor and it will still take 13 seconds to use up all the energy in the second capacitor. In this experiment you ran the same light off the same amount of energy, and when you total up the three times you ran electricity through the bulb, did it total to more than the 26 seconds in the first experiment? I'll bet money it DID. I will also bet that during the run between the positives the light was MUCH brighter. MUCH.

Where did the extra energy come from? Is this free energy??? NO! NO! NO! We are simply USING the available energy in a different way. OK? Because NOW we are looking at the way we SHOULD have been using it all along. So here comes my theory. Most electrical devices DO NOT USE UP THE ELECTRICITY PUT INTO THEM WHEN PROPERLY CONNECTED. Think about that for a moment and what it means if I am correct.

Focus for a moment on a standard DC battery, and understand the following is an illustration. I DO know that the voltage reading on a 12 volt battery is much higher than "0" when the battery is useless. But bare with me for a few moments longer. Here is what I believe "really" happens when you connect a load to that battery. It is an unbalanced system. There are more charges on one side of the battery than on the other, and when you measure the voltage in the battery, you are measuring the difference between one side of the battery and the other. When a load is connected, it gives a path for the energy to move from one side of the battery to the other THROUGH THE LOAD, WHICH BASICALLY RUNS FOR FREE until the battery is "balanced". At which point our meter reads "zero" voltage because there is no difference between the two sides, and the battery is "discharged" and needs to be charged back up. If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, does that make any sense? Only if you believe all the energy in the battery was converted to heat by lighting the light bulb. And THAT is a JOKE!

SO how do we use the energy in a battery without balancing out the two sides of the battery? It's pretty simple, and I have spent a lot of years working on the BEST way to do it. One of the coolest is a slight modification to an existing solar system which allows you to run many, MANY times longer on the same batteries, and double your load at the same time.

I am not selling anything. Nothing. I have tried for 10 years to make this information available to people who are interested. I'm here to share, but ONLY with people who will take the time to do the simple experiment I have suggested and then will LISTEN and follow directions. Sorry to be a jerk, but I have had my fill of people who won't do the experiments telling me that what I have working on my bench doesn't work. Especially when there are two houses running on this system right now.

[sandy]

Hope you get some takerss Turion......especially those who are running some solar panel systems. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience :handshake:

[ThePythonicCow]

I believe you're confusing voltage and energy. One speaks of "using up" the stored energy in a battery, not of using up its voltage.

Electrical energy is the product of power times time, as in kilowatt hours (kwh).
Electrical power in turn is the product of current and voltage, as in amps times volts.

Since electricity usually seems rather "magical" to many readers, let me give an equivalent example using water.

Your experiment with the two capacitors and small bulb could just as well be done with two pails of water with faucets in their bottom, a water wheel, and some water hose.

For the first experiment of yours, fill one pail to a depth of 25 inches (equivalent to your 25 volts, then connect the two pails, at the same level, with the hose, and open the faucets, allowing the water to equalize in the two pails to a depth of 12.5 inches. Then turn off the two faucets, disconnect the pails, and one pail at a time, drain the water out the bottom faucet over the water wheel.

For the second experiment of yours, do the same as the first experiment, but also find some way (that doesn't leak too much) to insert the water wheel into the hose, between the two buckets, so that it can spin using the water that flows from the first bucket to the second, during the stage when the 25 inches of water in the first bucket is allowed to equalize down to 12.5 inches in both buckets. Then continue as in the first experiment, draining what is now 12.5 inches of water in each bucket over the water wheel.

The second experiment will end up spinning the water wheel for an extra period of time, while the 25 inches of water in one pail is equalizing to 12.5 inches in both pails. Both experiments will then spin the water wheel while each pail is being drained from 12.5 inches to empty.

If you've spent 10 years trying to convince people that this is some thing special ... that was a poor use of your time.

I would discourage your wasting nearly as much of our time here.

[Nick Matkin]

It's nice to read of someone who actually understands a bit about the technical stuff that makes the world work, but I agree with Paul, I think you have some misconceptions with power, voltage and 'energy'.

Unfortunately it's vanishingly unlikely that after 150 years of electrical engineering carried out and developed by thousands of engineers, that you've stumbled upon something missed by everyone - not impossible but...

Consider this; measure the voltage at all of your power sockets, (120 VAC in the US, 230 VAC in Europe). Measure it with an appliance plugged in and working and measure it with the appliance switched off. (There may be a very slight voltage drop with the appliance switched on, but there really shouldn't be unless it's a 3kW toaster and you're at the end of a very long power line!)

Now, measure the current flowing in the live and the current flowing in the neutral power leads going to your home. (I really, REALLY don't advise you actually attempt this as you almost certainly won't have the equipment to do it.) The point is that the current 'entering' your home will be exactly the same as that 'leaving' it, although it will vary depending on what appliances you have switched on.

So... what's going on? The voltage across every appliance is constant. The current entering and leaving the home is always the same. Is there some huge multi-billion dollar/pound/euro conspiracy I have just exposed?

Incidentally, the answer the my rhetorical experiment will explain why your assertion that energy from the battery being converted to heat by lighting the light bulb is a not a 'joke'.

[Turion]

Paul,
Charged batteries contain a specific amount of electrical energy or amp hours. That energy is used to do work, measured, as you said, in volts times amps or watts. A watt is one joule per second. If my circuit is such a "waste of time" please share with me one circuit in a home that uses that specific concept to use the same electrical energy more than once. I would be interested to hear about that. The difference between what I am working with and the example you gave of the bucket is that once the water has drained out of the buckets, YOU have to find a way to fill them again in order to do any more work. My example was simply to show that we WASTE the potential of a given quantity of "energy" because of the way we use it, and that a simple change gives you 30% (or more) work from the exact same energy. That was just an example. It is NOT the way my system is set up. Either what I showed is correct or it is incorrect. Don't judge the VALUE of what I shared quite yet. First let's establish whether or not I am telling the TRUTH. My "buckets", when the circuits are properly built, remain full, circulating the energy through the load over and over, and I can do "work" over and over and over again, exceeding what was "available" (according to current practices in electricity) by many times.

This isn't theory. I modified the solar system at my dad's home to do exactly as I have stated, and I have a close friend who has done the same thing at his place. This is not perpetual motion. There are losses in any system, and eventually the batteries run down and need to be recharged by the solar panels. They KEY to what I am doing is using one set of batteries to circulate energy and run loads while the other set of batteries is being charged by the solar system. In this manner, I can extend both the run time available from a given set of batteries and increase the size of the loads they support. When the sky is overcast, I can still circulate energy to power loads and the system runs far longer than it did originally for the exact same input from the solar panels. To use your flowing water analogy...If you have a moving river and are turning a single water wheel, don't sneer at the guy who has figured out how to get five water wheels turning for the exact same cost.



You are completely entitled to your belief that this is a waste of time. I notice, however, that you did not disagree with anything I said. Nor did you bother to do the experiment. It is my experience that most naysayers do not do the experiments I have done, or do not do them correctly. Those that DO get the exact same results I get. If at any time I make a statement that is not true, I hope someone will call me on it. I make mistakes, and I am the first to admit that. But I have invested a lot of time, energy, and money into this research, and I have working systems as a result. I did not come here to be called a "waste of time" and if that is the attitude of folks here, I see no reason to stick around and share. Which is probably exactly what you want.

[Sunny-side-up]

Here is someone who knows about Electricity and how we don't use it properly.
Eric Dollard - History and Theory of Electricity

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

[Lifebringer]

You have to loop it for continuous generation to a generator. So when the battery goes down the alternator charges it enough to start up and reignite current back in the loop in a continuous power generation. Don't know how I know that one, but it just came to me after watching some videos on looping in EU on youtube.

[Nick Matkin]

@Turion

Please present a circuit diagram of what you claim to have done, with voltage and current measurements at the appropriate places.

[ThePythonicCow]

Charged batteries contain a specific amount of electrical energy or amp hours.
Amp hours are NOT a unit of energy. They are a unit of charge. It depends on what voltage drop they flow over how much energy can be transferred.

I didn't do your experiment because I agreed that your experiment would work, and moreover I provided an analogous experiment using buckets of water, that should also work. In both experiments, there are three opportunities to extract a little work, to light a bulb or spin a wheel: (1) as the charge, or water, equalizes from 25 volts or inches in one container, to 12.5 units in both containers, (2) as the first container drains from 12.5 to 0.0, and (3) as the second container also drains from 12.5 to 0. Obviously, if you choose to take advantage of all three opportunities, then you can get more work done than if you only choose to take advantage of just two of them.

Neither your electrical experiment nor my water experiment accomplish anything magical, unusual, or special.

I disagreed that your experiment shows anything magical. Your statement that I "did not disagree with anything" you said is thus (for that and other reasons) an incorrect statement, thus I now disagree with that statement as well.

Sometimes people disagree with you because they're just being negative, and sometimes they disagree because you're wrong. I conclude that the second alternative applies here, and since you've been at this for a decade, I suspect that you know you're wrong and that you're deliberately throwing up confusion to obfuscate the many legitimate efforts to rewrite the deeply flawed physics (relativity and quantum mechanics) of the last century, which efforts intend to develop a physics able to provide a sound basis for engineering far more advanced energy production and transportation (so called "over-unity" or "free" energy, as well as anti-gravity and dramatically faster than light transportation.)

If, on the other hand, after ten years of this, you really don't yet realize how confused and incorrect your analysis is ... then please offer my condolences to your friends, family and colleagues.

[wnlight]

With the possibility of ending up with egg on my face, I will wade into this discussion. Rechargeable batteries act differently than capacitors. The battery stores energy via a chemical activity which concurrently produces heat. Then, the battery will provide energy to a load via a closed circuit as a flow of electrons. This process also produces heat. During the battery discharge the battery is also an (internal) load and shares the energy. (That is why a shorted battery can get so hot it may explode.) Doing your original experiment with batteries substituted for capacitors cannot produce the same results. I suspect that in the capacitor experiment that you could actually calculate the number of electrons flowing in each phase of the experiment. (This would be very similar to Paul's water analogy.)

BTW, Going back the the second phase of your capacitor experiment, you might notice that the voltage is NOT constant during the time that the first capacitor is charging the second capacitor. The voltage between the two capacitors will drop in a non-linear way. But the glow in the your grain of wheat bulb will lag the voltage change and hide this fact. You will have to watch the voltage on a scope. I will admit that I did not conduct your experiment because I do not have the equipment at hand and do not know where to purchase it here in Cuenca. I assert that I have played with and used capacitors many times back in the 1960s and 1970s. Again, the challenge of capturing the shape and magnitude of a single peak and drop of voltage using a scope is something I did with others many times at the Nuclear Test Site in Nevada.

If you can actually double the load from a solar panel with your non-conventional approach to using electricity, please post your schematics and procedures and measurement results here. You will get a fair review here.

[Nick Matkin]

Thank you wnlight. The OP simply doesn't understand this subject - even after years of his proclaimed study. He needs to check out time constants, Q=CV and a whole lot of other stuff...

I don't want to discourage a new member, but if he thinks he's stumbled upon information that has been overlooked by generations of engineers, or 'suppressed' by some sinister cabal, then perhaps he should post his 'findings' on less critical forums.

[Praxis]

Turion,

I suggest you provide photo or video evidence of what you are claiming. Many times when making claims, words simply fail to convince many people. So rather than argue about it more, show us what you have done and then we can discuss it. You said you have working systems, so show them to us. I also think you should do as Nick Matkin suggests and provide the appropriate electrical data to support your claims.

Also, you seemed to be on the defensive like this community is hiding some secret knowledge that you are dangerously close to revealing. We want you to participate but we also require evidence. Although Paul might seem like he is antagonizing you, I do not think that is his intention(correct me If I am wrong here Paul). I think he wants to apply a skeptical approach to claims and make sure all bases are covered.

If you did happen to find something special, we would want to make sure nothing currently known can explain it away. Dont see the challenges to your ideas as an attack on you. You are not your ideas, they simply pass through you.

[amor]

Over unity patents are piled sky high by all reports. The oil industry simply will not let them happen.

[Turion]

I have no interest in wasting my time arguing. One thing I do know. The lights at my partner's house are still on, and so are mine. Your OPINION cannot change that FACT. I am sure we will all go home tonight smug in the knowledge that "we were right." The question is, who benefitted from that?

If your goal was to run me off, you have succeeded. If your goal was to convince me I am wrong? LOL. Not going to happen. Once you have ridden in a plane it is pretty tough to be convinced that man cannot fly.

[Nick Matkin]

I have no interest in wasting my time arguing. One thing I do know. The lights at my partner's house are still on, and so are mine. Your OPINION cannot change that FACT. I am sure we will all go home tonight smug in the knowledge that "we were right." The question is, who benefitted from that?

If your goal was to run me off, you have succeeded. If your goal was to convince me I am wrong? LOL. Not going to happen. Once you have ridden in a plane it is pretty tough to be convinced that man cannot fly.

Please, just show us what you have done. Fantastic claims are ten a penny, but actual evidence? As common as hens' teeth and rocking-horse sh*t.

[bogeyman]

Well how not to use electricity I found out when I was little and I had an electric shock, that tell me how not to use it.

[Snoweagle]

@Turion As you are now aware, your experiments do not satisfy the electrical characteristic behaviour. The contempt and scorn during re-educating you is quite palpable.

Anyway, just a heads up here. To resolve what your experiments are showing you, you must use magnetic principles. Your resolution is there.

If you don't know how, then I feel rewarded in preparing you for another ten years researching.

[zen deik]

Tesla ?.....is that you?

[dynamo]

...
Now, make sure both capacitors are completely empty by shorting them out. Charge one of the capacitors to 25 volts again. Connect the negatives of the two capacitors together. Now CAREFULLY connect the two positives of the capacitors together using the grain of wheat bulb. Time how long the light is on. You will notice that the light is MUCH BRIGHTER than when just connected to one of the capacitors in the previous test. (Because you are running it on 25 volts instead of 12) When the light stops glowing, measure the voltage in each capacitor. You will see that the 25 volts is still ALL THERE, just evenly distributed between the two capacitors at 12.5 volts each. So ask yourself the IMPORTANT question right now. If the 25 volts is still there, what was used to light the light?

....

Turion, that does not make sense.
You are saying to connect an incandescent bulb in series to two positive polarities on the capacitors.
If connected as you suggest, there is no difference in potential and as such, no electrons will flow and the bulb will not light up.
Please show a video of you doing this, clearly indicating the negative and positive connections on the capacitors.
Otherwise, all of your posts (and points) are useless.
One out of 10000 people here may even remotely consider running out, buying capacitors, a wheat bulb (I had to google what a wheat bulb was, it is an incandescent lamp in case anyone else was wondering), power supplies, a volt meter and wires to connect it all up.
Pictures or videos are worth a thousand words, a schematic would be quite helpful as well (as requested by others).
Thank you for considering my suggestions...

[Nick Matkin]

I think he's describing charging a discharged capacitor with a charged one via a small light bulb.

Anyone familiar with basic electronics would say, "Yes, but so what?" All you have done is equalised the charge in two capacitors.

(I note that no one has challenged by exposure of a global conspiracy in post #4.)

[dynamo]

I think he's describing charging a discharged capacitor with a charged one via a small light bulb.

Anyone familiar with basic electronics would say, "Yes, but so what?" All you have done is equalised the charge in two capacitors.

(I note that no one has challenged by exposure of a global conspiracy in post #4.)
Yes, thanks Nick, now I get what he's saying and that is a cool concept.
Turion, there is no reason to run off because people question you.
Like myself, perhaps they do not understand what exactly it is that you are trying to accomplish.

[Nick Matkin]

I hope Turion hasn't gone. This forum is "Where science and spirituality meet" after all; people can express their ideas and experiences for discussion, although new claims do need to be supported by at least some evidence.

But it's when people come blundering in, firing in all directions declaring that they are right and that all of science is 'obviously' wrong - well that's when it p***es people off. They display all the characteristics of having the Dunning–Kruger effect, and in that case there is absolutely no point trying to reason with them because they simply can't comprehend that they don't understand what they're talking about. Weird I know, but these people seem to be attracted to anonymity of 'alternative' forums and discussion groups.

[Turion]

Let me make one last statement before I give up completely on this forum and the folks here. It is my hope that you are honorable men and your desire is nothing more than to prevent folks from being hoodwinked by film flam artists, and for that reason you are skeptical of both what I posted here and my intent. I did not like the tone of some of the comments made, but perhaps I am reading more into it than was intended. (I doubt it) I showed a simple experiment with two capacitors and a load connected between them. Perhaps I was unclear as to WHAT I was trying to show with that simple experiment. SO I will give the benefit of the doubt.

My claim is this: That you can move electricity (in the case of my example, 25 volts) from a source of higher potential (capacitor one) THROUGH a LOAD (the light bulb) to a lower potential (capacitor two) RUNNING THE LOAD without USING UP that electricity in the process. That is the ONLY thing my simple experiment was designed to prove. You start with 25 volts. You run the light as the electricity moves from one capacitor to the other, yet you STIL HAVE 25 volts when the capacitors have equalized. OR you can simply hook up your light directly to the capacitor charged with 25 volts and it will light up until the capacitor has 0 volts left in it, which is the conventional way. Take your pick. I realize this is a small experiment, but to say that running loads (and I have run BIG ONES) off the potential difference without using up the energy in the source, is of NO VALUE is either from a lack of understanding or a deliberate attempt to discredit my work and divert people away from the truth. If you cannot SEE the value in what I have shown, or refuse to believe it is possible, then I will be on my way.

NO, you CANNOT do it with capacitors because there is no way to take the voltage that is now split between two capacitors and put it all back into one so you can do it again and again and again, but this was only to be a proof of concept EXAMPLE, not a working device.

[wnlight]

I have no problem with your experiment using capacitors. I followed it as a thought experiment since I have had considerable experience using capacitors in the past. I have trouble transferring your concept to rechargeable batteries. Perhaps you could help me there. Also, I have even more trouble trying to visualize your use of solar panels. Should I presume that the panels are connected to make a single source? And the total house load replaces the earlier wheat bulb? Is your load placed between two banks of rechargeable batteries? Help me out.

Also, is the load total D/C or converted to A/C?

[DeDukshyn]

Let me make one last statement before I give up completely on this forum and the folks here. It is my hope that you are honorable men and your desire is nothing more than to prevent folks from being hoodwinked by film flam artists, and for that reason you are skeptical of both what I posted here and my intent. I did not like the tone of some of the comments made, but perhaps I am reading more into it than was intended. I showed a simple experiment with two capacitors and a load connected between them.

My claim is this: That you can move electricity (please, let's not haggle about terms) from a source of higher potential THROUGH a LOAD to a lower potential without USING UP that electricity in the process. That is the ONLY thing my simple experiment was designed to prove. You start with 25 volts. You run the light as the electricity moves from one capacitor to the other, yet you STIL HAVE 25 volts when the capacitors have equalized. I realize this is a small experiment, but to say that running loads (and I have run BIG ONES) off the potential difference without using any of it up, is of TREMENDOUS value. If you cannot SEE that or refuse to believe it is possible, then I will be on my way.

Yes, all that is fair enough. Not a problem there. The issue lies in a lack of distinction between voltage and energy, and once that distinction is added in, the result doesn't appear all that exciting. Maintaining voltage isn't the same as augmenting overall energy. While a few posts may have seemed a bit snappy, it is this distinction that they are trying to inform you about.

You don't necessarily need to leave due to this, people are allowed to disagree and allowed to present their expertise on the matter. Avalon is as much if not more a wondrous place to learn as it is a place to teach. We have some brilliant minds here and sometimes throwing on the "student hat" has more value than trying to hold on to the "teacher's hat" :) Just my two cents, give it some thought!

[Turion]

wnlight,

This is all about using electricity that is moving from a high potential to a low potential. In a solar system you REALLY can take advantage of this. The first thing I will tell you is that if you try to do this with 7 1/2 amp hour batteries, your results will be less than spectacular. Smaller batteries have MUCH HIGHER impedance than large deep cycle batteries, and energy is wasted trying to charge them. Energy is also wasted trying to charge batteries that are being discharged at the same time. Energy is also wasted trying to charge batteries that have been discharging and haven't been given an opportunity to rest. The ions are moving in a specific direction for a while, and you have to expend energy to slow the ions down, stop them, and reverse their direction. So large deep cycle batteries are a MUST if you are going to build a successful system.

Just as an example, I run a 12 volt electric motor. Here is how I set it up. Four batteries. (more are better because some can be resting after charging or discharging) Two highest charged batteries connected in series. This leaves you with a positive and a negative terminal free The other two batteries connected in parallel. Connect the negative of the batteries in series to the negative of one of the two batteries connected in parallel. The positive of the motor is connected to the positive of the two batteries in series. The negative of the motor is connected to either of the positives of the two batteries in parallel. The motor is running between the positives. Just like the light did with the capacitor. The two batteries in series will go down in voltage while the two batteries in parallel will go up in voltage. If/when one of the two batteries in series drops below 12.2 volts stop OR if/when either of the batteries in parallel rises to 14.2 volts stop. Then connect the two batteries that have been in series in parallel and the two batteries that have been in parallel in series, run the motor again, and recharge the batteries you just ran down by sending the electricity back the other way. Keep switching back and forth. With a stock, off the shelf electric motor, you will get extended run times. With a pulse motor (which you have to build or buy) you will get MUCH longer run times because when the coil collapses it sends out a spark that actually helps charge the batteries. Stock motors have their internal coil windings fiddled with to eliminate back EMF and are not as efficient. YES THE BATTERIES WILL EVENTUALLY RUN DOWN, but you get MUCH longer run times. There are other things I do that involve boost modules to keep the voltage up and other things, but this is a simple system that will work and you can SEE it work.

I have run 12 volt electric motors between the positives not HUNDREDS of times, but THOUSANDS of times.

[ThePythonicCow]

The issue lies in a lack of distinction between voltage and energy, and once that distinction is added in, the result doesn't appear all that exciting. Maintaining voltage isn't the same as augmenting overall energy.
Yes.

The two capacitors in the first thought experiment (when they were equalized down to 12.5 volts each, without illuminating the bulb during that phase) presumably held less remaining energy (by a little bit) than the two capacitors in the second thought experiment (when they were equalized down to 12.5 volts each while illuminating the bulb). The 12.5 volt measurement is not a measure of how much remaining available energy is stored in the capacitors, but a measure of the charge on the capacitors.

A large lead-acid battery (http://www.impactbattery.com/lifeline-gpl-8dl-12-volt-255ah-battery.html#) with a nominal 12 volts of charge will hold far more energy than a typical 18V 1.5Ah NiCd power tool Battery (https://www.amazon.com/Decker-HPB18-OPE2-Battery-Outdoor-2-Pack/dp/B00BN5ZOQQ), over 2672 watt-hours vs 27 watt-hours. Notice that fewer volts (12 vs 18) provide almost 100 times the watt-hours of stored energy available (2672 vs 27). I got the 2672 from the specs on that first linked page, by multiplying 12 volts times 8 amperes times 1670 minutes, divided by 60 to convert minutes to hours. I got the 27 from the specs on the second linked page, by multiplying 18 volts times 1.5 amp-hours.

The total energy available for work (such as illuminating bulbs) in a capacitor is the product of (1) the capacitor's charge, such as 12.5 volts, times (2) the quantity of charge available to draw from the capacitors.

On way to measure this energy would be to integrate over the time of discharging or equalizing the charges on the capacitors, the product of the (1) the voltage difference between the two capacitors, times (2) the current flowing between the capacitors or one capacitor and ground.

In short, total energy can be measured as the product of voltage, current, and time, where the voltage and current both vary with time, hence that means an integral over time of the power (voltage times the current.)

[ThePythonicCow]

I have run 12 volt electric motors between the positives not HUNDREDS of times, but THOUSANDS of times.
If one way of doing things, such as you describe, allows you to run a motor many more times than some other (less well described) way of running the same motor, then that tells me you're getting less work done per unit time (motor running slower, perhaps) or wasting less energy in the battery internals, in the the first way.

Until one models the various, dynamically changing, motor load, RPM and temperature, and the also changing battery temperatures, currents, voltages, and impedance, for both methods, and more over validates that model with good measurements, one won't have a good explanation for why one method seems to run the motor much longer than the other. Battery impedance and capacity are quite sensitive to internal battery temperature, for example.

This experiment no more proves the existence of (nearly) "free energy" than does Zeno's Paradox (http://platonicrealms.com/encyclopedia/Zenos-Paradox-of-the-Tortoise-and-Achilles) prove that I can out run Usain Bolt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usain_Bolt).

Your telling us that you've been "researching energy and electricity for over 25 years" or that you have "tried for 10 years to make this information available", is making out your work to be of more value than it is. When at the same time, after all these years, you still have (or at least are still writing) basic confusions as to what are volts and amps, power (watts) and energy (Joules, kwh, ...), and such, you are wasting our time.

I hope you stop wasting our time.

[Turion]

Your wish is my command. I am gone.

[Nick Matkin]

Before you go Turion, I have a suggestion. If you feel your encounter here has not been up to your expectations, I strongly suggest you present your findings to a more receptive group. There are plenty of serious electronics forums, and then there's the free-energy alternative groups.

If you're really on to something they will be more than willing to explore your ideas.

[TargeT]

I applaud the patience I saw on this thread, a person with a strongly held belief paired with little to no understanding of ego will consider information contrary to that belief as not a "helpful hand from a friend" but as an attack that must be defended.

As we've seen here.


It is very difficult to be open and humble when anonymous. Don't be afraid to take an offered hand. :grouphug: