Pulse Charging Capacitors Through Inductors

Introduction

In this pdf I will go through the details of a series of experiments I

performed on the 5th of August 2008 and the 22nd November
2008, the first two of which were posted on youtube under the
name “Overunity Demonstration : 12v + 0v = 15V”.

There has been some controversy over the video as it does not
show an overall gain in energy. However, I used it as an
experiment to demonstrate overunity in terms of Conservation of
Charge and as an indication that energy is entering the system
from outside of the circuit.

It is commonly accepted that pulsing a capacitor into another

capacitor through an inductor increases the efficiency of the
energy transfer between the capacitors. In this PDF I suggest it
doesn't as I believe it increases the COP, not the efficiency.
Although these experiments don't provide conclusive evidence, I
believe they are a strong indication that this theory is correct.

EXPERIMENT 1

I’m sure many of you have tried this experiment.

We start with two equal capacitors. Any size will do but let’s use
two 10,000uf caps and let’s say the C1 is charged to 10 volts and
C2 is at 0 volts. This gives us 0.5 joules and 0.1 coulombs in the
system.

If we close the switch the charge from C1 will discharge into C2

until the voltage in each cap is equal, in this case 5 volts.

So now we have two caps charged to 5 volts and the total charge
in the system is still 0.1 coulombs, but half the energy has
disappeared. There is now only 0.25 joules left in the system.

But this doesn't mean the transfer was 50% efficient. As I said,
there was originally 0.5 joules in C1 before it was discharged.
After the discharge there was 0.125 joules, so in actual fact the
efficiency of the energy transfer was only 25%! Only 25% of the
energy that left the capacitor was recovered by the charging
capacitor.

So where did this energy go? The theory is that it is dissipitated

as heat through resistance in the circuit. Even though we didn’t
use a resistor in the circuit, the circuit itself will have some
resistance and that is where the energy is lost.

EXPERIMENT 2

It is widely accepted that pulsing a capacitor into another capacitor

through an inductor can distribute the energy between the
capacitors with very high efficiency. A simple experiment to see
this will be the circuit below which is very similar to the circuit I
used in the video.

This is a basic solid state oscillator. C1 is charged to 12.45v

(0.7250125 joules) and C2 is sitting on 0 volts. When the switch is
closed the inductor energizes and discharges in very rapid pulses
through C2 and the flyback from the collapsing field is channeled
into C2 as well.

Using this method you could theoretically achieve 100% efficiency

in energy distribution between the two capacitors which would give
you about 8.5 volts in each capacitor. In my circuits the best I can
achieve is something like 8.47 volts in the C1 and 7.24 volts in C2.

C1 = 0.381938 joules , 0.0874 Couls

C2 = 0.262088 joules . 0.0724 Couls

Total Combined = 0.644026 Joules , 0.1598 Couls

(Originally in the System = 0.7250125 joules , 0.1245 Couls)

So 0.366308 joules left the original capacitor (C1) and 0.262088

joules was recovered by the charging capacitor (C2) which is a
71% efficient transfer of energy (compared to 25% efficency
without the inductor).

This time we have saved most of our joules and gained some
charge. So at first glance it appears that pulsing one capacitor
into another capacitor through an inductor can give us far greater
efficiency in energy distribution than simply discharging one
capacitor into another. I have been told by some rather learned
chaps on a popular mainstream physics forum that this is because
an inductor holds back the current while it is energizing so there is
less energy being lost through resistance as heat.

Let's test that.

EXPERIMENT 3

To test the theory posted above, I rewired my oscillator so that C1

discharges into C2 through the pulsed inductor, but the flyback
from the collapsing field is being channelled into a third capacitor
called C3.
If the increased efficiency is due to current being held back by the
inductance during the coil charging, then we should see a
significantly improved efficiency in the distribution of energy
between capacitor C1 and C2 even though C2 is not collecting the
flyback from the collapsing field.

This time we start with C1 charged to 10.4 volts. After we close

the switch, C1 is left with 5.75 volts and C2 has charged to 4.57
volts which converts into these figures:

C1 = 0.54553125 Joules , 0.18975 Couls

C2 = 0.34460085 Joules . 0.15081 Couls

Total Combined = 0.8901321 Joules , 0.34056 Couls

(Originally in the System = 1.78464 Joules , 0.3432 Couls)

This time 1.23910875 joules left C1 and only 0.34460085 Joules

was recovered by the charging capacitor (C2) which is a 27.8%
efficient transfer of energy which is almost exactly the same
figures we would expect to see without the inductor in the circuit!
In my opinion it is highly unlikely that this is a coincidence and it
leads me to believe that 72.2% of the energy is still lost through
heat in this experiment.

Or to put it another way, approximately 75% of the energy will

always be lost through resistance as heat when transfering energy
between one capacitor and another, regardless of whether you
place an inductor or a resistor in series.

But in this experiment we still have the energy being collected

from the collapsing field by C3 which was left with 3.95 volts
C3 = 0.31205 Joules , 0.158 Couls

I believe this is the energy that makes it appear that the efficiency
of the transfer of energy between two capacitors can be increased
using an inductor. And if we believed that this circuit is a closed
system, then this would be a logical conclusion.

However, I believe that this energy has come from the collapsing
field alone, and is independent of the energy input into the system.
The figures above indicate that 75% of the energy that was
transfered through the system had already left the circuit as heat,
so an explanation for the energy in C3 is that the energy of a
magnetic field formed by an inductor is not a storage of the input
energy, but is formed by the space surrounding the inductor
making it an open system.

Of course, the only way to confirm this conclusion would be to

perform the same series of tests in a calorimeter to find out the
actual amount of heat that is released by these circuits.
Unfortunately, I don't have a calorimeter available to do these
tests, but seeing as how we end up with almost the same figures
in Experiment 1 and 3 for Capacitors C1 and C2, I feel that this is
a very likely conclusion.

Sephiroth
24th November 2008