Take it or leave it. I'm giving away the keys to energy freedom for free. I'm going to do my best not to respond to critics because I am right and I don't need to argue. (But I'm not perfect and I can be a victim of temptation)
Accomplishing unlimited free energy is actually very simple and it was staring us in the face for 150 years via power generation devices that weren't even hidden. They hid them in plain sight right in the electrical engineering classroom. I know because I actually had one of the key devices in the classroom at my college, I was told it was useless by idiots.
There are three key ingredients in achieving unlimited free energy:
- Capacitors
- High Voltage (high tension)
- Electrostatics
To understand this you need to understand how a capacitor is rated. It is rated using a unit called the farad. A capacitor that is rated to 1 farad will hold 1 coulomb (6.24e18 electrons) of charge when 1 volt is applied accross the terminals. The formula for this is Q = C / V where Q is in farads, C is charge and V it elevtromotive force (volts)
1 amp-second is defined as 1 coulomb of charge moving past a given point in a circuit averaged over 1 second.
1 watt second is 1 amp second delivered at 1 volt of electromotive force, a watt second can also be called defined as 1 joule of energy as 1 joule = 1 watt second.
Therefore if I charge a 500 nanofarad capactor to 1 volt, the capacitor will contain 500 nanocoulombs of charge. When you discharge the capacitor the average voltage over the discharge is 1/2 the maximum voltage that the capacitor obtained.
So the total amount of work you could extract from a 500 nF capacitor when charged to 1 Volt discharged over 1 second can be defined by the formula P = I * 1/2 V = 5e-7 A * 0.5 V = 2.5e-7 Watt seconds. A very low number, negligible power.
That's if we charge it to 1 volt. What if we could charge it to 450,000 volts? How much work could I do with the energy in the capacitor then?
C = V * Q = 4.5e5 V * 5e-7 F = 0.225 coulombs.
If I discharge that over 1 second, that's 0.225 amp seconds and the avergage voltage of the discharge will be 225,000 volts.
Plug that into the power formula and you get P = I * V = 0.225 A * 225,000 V = 50,625 watt seconds or 50.625 kilojoules if you prefer to call it joules instead.
50,625 Watt seconds / 3600 seconds per hour = 14.0625 watt hours.
This is a much nicer level of charge, but in order to get it, we have to provide extremely high tension and current tranformers have efficiency losses and then you have to rectify the output, or you have to step it up with flyback transformers and even then you still have to supply all the current to the primary to get the voltage out of the secondary.
It's clear that you cant get free energy that way.
But what if you had a low effort way of generating high voltage?
This is where electrostatics come in. Most people are aware of Van Der Graaf generators, these are machines that use friction with the triboelectric to generate static electricity. They can generate millions of volts at a low current level, but they aren't good enough.
There's a different type of electrostatic generator that doesn't use friction, but uses pure electrostatics to work. It's called an electrostatic influence machine.
The most powerful variety I am aware of is of the bonneti and wimshurst designs. Wimshirst machines are actually very popular demonstration devices in classses. They have counter-rotating disks and very little friction and produce currents that are many times greater than a Van Der Graaf generator for the same amount of effort to opperate.
It the following video you can see an example of opperation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb-T8UtqbpM
Each and every one of those sparks in the video is 2.5 Joules or 2.5 Watt seconds. He states that he has 500 picofarad capacitors and that his voltage is 100,000 volts with that arc distance set.
Let's check the math.
1e5 V * 5-e10 = 5e-5 coulombs, over 1 second, 5e-5 Amp seconds 5e-5 A * (1e5 V / 2) = 5e-5 A * 5e4 V = 2.5 Watt seconds or 2.5 Joules
Math checks out.
Now it's important to understant what a Leyden Jar is because it's just a simple capacitor made out of glass bottle and some metal. The important thing to know is that a jar with 568 ml of capacity has an typical capacitance of 1 nanofarad.
The reason the previous set up had 500 picofarads of capacitance is because 2 jars are used in series and the capacitance of two capacitors in series is equal to the reciprocal of the sum of reciprocal capacitance of the capacitors in series, or simply, Q = (1^-1 nF + 1^-1 nF)^-1 = 500 pF.
Knowing that: we know that if we see a layden jar that is that big or bigger, we can resonably estimate that it is a 1 nF capacitor.
This bring me onto the next part to show you. Fast forward to 38:55 for the action to start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kMQJk8HZZg&t=2578s (new, better designed machine, different video, different builder)
We can be overly conservative after he switches to his bigger jars and say that his leyden jars aren't well designed and he needed his bigger jars just to get to 500 picofarads.
Now, he set's his spark distance to 6.25 inches.
The breakdown voltage of air at sea level is 30,000 volts per centimeter. We'll assume he is at sea level.
6.25 inches = 15.875 centimeters
15.875 * 30,000 Volts = 476,250 Volts.
So how much charge does his capactor bank store then?
C = Q * V = 5e-10 * 4.7625 e5 = 2.38125 e-4 coulombs, if disharged over 1 second that's 238.125 microamp seconds.
That doesn't sound impressive until you calculate power.
P = I * V = 2.38125 A * (476250 V / 2) = 56.7 watt seconds per spark, those are 56.7 joule sparks!
Why does this matter?
Well he's producing those sparks at a frequency of about 1 spark per second once he get's his wheels spinning to speed. That's 56.7 Joules per second or 56.7 Watts per second.
A typical basic battery opperated hand drill has a wattage rating from 25-100 watts.
It does not take that much energy to spin these disks. If you attached the same handle to the end of a 56.7 watt PMDC motor is tuned to run at 120 rpm (about the maximum speed the builder turned the handle) produces roughle 3.3 foot punds of tourque.
It doesn't take 3.3 foot pounds to turn those wheels.
If you need more proof of the power these machines generate because this still isn't good enough for you, here's more evidence by using the power directly with an corona discharge motor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDRCKVUO8vw&t=195s
He's using a weak ass (by comparisson) Van Der Graaf generator to power a corona discharge motor, to power a 7/8 spade bit to drill through plastic and wood.
IOW.
You know what to do now.
It's easy and any one who is willing to do a little home manufacturing can get this done TODAY.
Don't trust me, build it yourself, see it for yourself.
PEACE!
EDIT: One remark for the conservative skeptics. Regardless of whether or not these machines are best describe with an efficiency number or a COP rating doesn't really matter.
My point for you conservative skeptics is that you can build these out of cheap and readily available materials. Something that's harder to say for an electromagnetic generator.
One way or another, your average person could build themselves one of these machines and then copy the designs for the atmospheric motor in the third video and they can generate power that they didn't have to pay any one for with machines that a high school student from could put together.
Even if they have to power it with water, wind or whatever else. Regardless of your opinion on COP, we're on the same side.
As an EE, this is interesting. But I'm not sure about your statement, "if discharged over 1 second " . After the voltage reaches the breakdown value and the arc occurs, I'm not sure how to calculate the time to discharge, but I would think it was less than 1 second. If it is, that is higher instantaneous power (power=watts= joules/second), but if it is a few seconds between discharges, that would lower the average power. So, it depends how fast you can repeat the process. As an example, if it discharged in .1seconds, and recharged/discharged in 3 seconds, the duty cycle would be (0.1)/3 or 0.033. The average power would be .033 of the instantaneous power. I haven't done a detailed analysis, but just offering this for further investigation.
...electrical engineers are scary smart people...
I wouldn't go that far... I teach them ...
A few yes...
Most just regular guys who like tech and want a good job
...my father in law was an electrical engineer and one of the most brilliant men I have ever met...
...so I suppose my opinion is a wee bit "biased"....
...doggy winks...
Ahhh... yes the fundamental issue...
Steady state...
Gets em every time...
I'm not saying the discharge is 1 second long I'm averaging the current flow to put in a current flow perspective so that we can calculate watts.
Here's a great resource to do the math fast: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/capacitor-energy
Also, that duty cycle it too low, refer to the second video with the well designed machine.
at 42:43 there is a spark, there are 39 frames until the next spark jumps. and the video is posted at 30 frames per second.
That's a frequency of 0.76 Hz. not 0.33. If you keep watching he plays with it quite a bit and I don't actually think that's the fastest time between sparks in the video, it's just the two sparks I chose to count frames between.
Intrigued. Suspected this since I was a kid. So, I’m prone to believe it. I haven’t watched any of the videos yet, though. Is this something in the ability of an average tinkerer to build? And does one of these videos provide instructions?
Also, the second video is a series in 4 parts building from beginning to end
Also, someone else found and shared the plans.
Yes it is and it's beautiful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_K9bMGcaug
Now is it the most efficient build on the planet.....no....could you spin it with a fan in the wind? probably
Bottom line is; the energy generated is less than the energy required to drive the wheel.
Look at the second link at 41:44. We see those sparks, we see his jars, we have an estimate of the ammount of power in in the spark.
How much power do you think it takes to turn?
Also, do you have issues with heat pumps?
I have two empty rooms of equivalent tempature separated by an insulated wall and I use an air-source heat pump with a COP of 1.8 to transfer heat from one room to the next. I spend 100 watts of power to turn the compressor in the pump, and for every 100 watts worth of electricity I spend I relocate the equivalent of 180 watts of heat from one room to the other.
You have no issues with relocating thermal kinettic energy with less power than you get out.
It's the same here.
The electrons in the cathode side came from the anode side.
Until it can run without adding outside fuel it's not an improvement.
Have you ever heard of a tesla wheel? This guy up about 15 minutes from me powers and heats his shop with gasification and a tesla wheel. He burns tires or whatever he can find for the energy input.
I don't think burning anything is an improvement to level of efficiency we currently have today.
You have to have energy input from something, maybe you can extract it from thin air but I haven't seen the evidence. But burning things to heat and energize your home for free seems good. Better than my $500 energy bill anyway.
When I was a kid (70's) I thought that the key to free energy was anti-gravity.
Generate an electric field that reduces the weight of a big block, raise that block up, remove the field and let gravity bring it back down and drive a turbine. Rinse and repeat.
You would basically be mining the gravity well.
https://youtu.be/TLxU56VcU6w
Would like to see a block and arrow diagram of the energy moving from one component to the next. Then you can highlight where in the device the special process happens where energy is spawned from the void.
One negative mistake in a 2 page proof can spawn energy from nowhere (on paper). Thats how I've discovered I was wrong on some schoolwork before even going back to find the mistake.
Like you explain the capacitor/power equation and the physical meaning behind amps ect... the easy stuff. BUT then you go to make declarations of "A 568ml leyden jar is 500nF" Like WHAT?! Is there a ml of electrolyte to capacitance conversion factor 😂!
I dont blame you for not wanting to argue this. But remember the vaxx? You must ALWAYS question science. Doublely so since its saying "free energy".
Firstly I wrote "Now it's important to understant what a Leyden Jar is because it's just a simple capacitor made out of glass bottle and some metal. The important thing to know is that a jar with 568 ml of capacity has an typical capacitance of 1 nanofarad."
"Originally, the amount of capacitance was measured in number of 'jars' of a given size, or through the total coated area, assuming reasonably standard thickness and composition of the glass. A typical Leyden jar of one pint size has a capacitance of about 1 nF. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyden_jar#Quantity_of_charge
Am I wrong?
so calm your tits I did not say, 500 nF leyden jar, that would be rediculous and I did my calulations with 500 picofarads. "The reason the previous set up had 500 picofarads of capacitance is because 2 jars are used in series and the capacitance of two capacitors in series is equal to the reciprocal of the sum of reciprocal capacitance of the capacitors in series, or simply, Q = (1^-1 nF + 1^-1 nF)^-1 = 500 pF."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimshurst_machine
Excellent block diagram explaining the means of opperation and associated effects.
They just don't realise what they are sitting on because they were invented in 1860 when atomospheric motors sucked and current transformers didn't exists.
These machines were actually relativelly useless for decades after they were invented and even today, they are assumed useless.
Now stop worrying about how it works and build one. It can be done out of recycled materials.
Build it yourself if you're so confident it doesn't work.
This is 100% pure bullshit. This is a reason why people laugh at us. This shit should be removed by mods.
So you think that spinning that machine require more than 56.7 Watts of energy to spin then. Fair enough.
I'm not going to argue with you, but I really think you should look at how easily the wheels spin in the second video.
Do you really think that that is more than 57 Watts of power at the drive shaft?
If so, then cary on, if not, you know what you need to do.
Even if you were right.
You should still be happy, because this is a cheap, effective electric generator that you can build at home for next to free.
Why are you mad?
Absolutely not going to engage with you about how many watts it takes to spin the wheels.
Because your title of 'Unlimited free energy' is fundamentally flawed. There is no such thing. Period. You absolutely cannot get out more energy than you put into a system unless you have harnessed the secret of controlled fusion.
This entire thing is nothing more than a scientific demonstration and curiosity at best. No one is ever going to power shit with it ever. And if I am so wrong, then PROVE IT. You'll be the savior of mankind. Unless the "government kills you" because of your "secret knowledge" of course. News flash: you aren't special. You don't have a secret. You cannot break the laws of physics.
I am working on proving it. But I would very much appreciate it if 1000 other people independantly proved it because the government will kill you.
So I imagine that the reason you don't mind heat pumps is because the differential being created is of an energy type that we are bad at utilizing as well as "the heat already existed, were just talking it from one location and concentrating it in another"
Am I correct? Or are there other reasons... Maybe you hate heat pumps, I don't know.
But I can spend 100 watts electrical energy and relocate 180 watts of thermal kinetic energy even with the cheapest air conditioner around. I could move 700 watts with a ground source heat pump.
If I have two insulated chambers and a heat pump I can create differential energy states that are multiples of the energy I used to make them.
No one bats an eye when you do it with a heat pump. In fact they set the thermostat to 18 and tell you to put on a sweater if you're that cold.
So as far as I'm concerned, creating energy differentials that contain more energy than the work required to make them is possible.
Heat pumps are proof that the phenomena can occur with thermal kinetic energy, what makes you so confident it is only possible with thermal kinetic energy?
One way or another, people can build these for free and generate power for free.
That's still free energy in my books.
OK, go ahead and waste your life working on a proof. The world will still be here when you realize you cannot do it.
I look forward to seeing your setup soon.
I might do even better, I'm going to be sharing all of my stl for my printed parts
If you build it they will come. I'll be one of the first to duplicate it if I see a successful prototype that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
Plans for the one in the second video
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1KHO4WwVWOt7Yosv6SOfAOdVTAMKMqChBXQfSCpYDeEI/mobilepresent?slide=id.gf3645861d3_0_66
Tag for follow up Interesting... we will see
Don't follow me up, follow the link in the second video, learn how to build one, prove it to yourself and then prove it to your friends.
If I have to do this by myself or on a team, I'm going to end up dead, If I get 1000 people to do it independantly and show their friends, the whole world wins forever.
ditto
A insignificant typo should be pointed out for editing and correction. Otherwise, fabulous information. You wrote:
It should be 6.24 x 10¹⁸ electrons. Or write it as 6.24 x 10^18.
I missed that, copy paste error ty
Excellent work! Ty for sharing. Halting microhydro energy storage prototyping, and building one of these.
Well, I helped one person at least. Worse comes to, you could spin it with your hydro project lol.
Free energy bookmark. Thanks
Archived videos:
Somehow this 3rd video always failed archiving https://youtu.be/3kMQJk8HZZg Any volunteer to try archiving it?
https://e-catworld.com/
Holy s#@+
Some of you guys are so smart it makes my brain bleed
I'm not EE myself but one thing I'm quite confident in is the amount of energy that you need to make hydrogen is less than the power that you can generate electricity by burning hydrogen.
The only problem we face today is that we don't have the right material to store hydrogen since it leaks almost through everything. You can compare it to a balloon filled with helium, after some time the balloon deflates because the helium leaks through the rubber itself.
But recently I realized that NASA and other agencies use weather balloons that can stay up in the atmosphere for months on.
So if we could find out what type of material they use to in inflate it with helium we could use that to store hydrogen. And that could solve the problem of creating water powered engines that doesn't blow up.
But I don't know about your method since I'm not smart enough to understand it.
whooooosssshhhh right over my head
Has anyone built an array of these tied in to a stationary bike? I wonder how much energy a fairly in shape man can produce and store in 20 minutes of cycling.
It's makes sense to me now why if you want to buy large capacitors you are put on a watch list. I always figured it was because of "terrorists"
You actually don't want big capacitors for this unless you're gannging multiple disks to work in unison.
Ideally, you would find the max speed that you are willing to opperate the disks at, then you would use a variable capacitor to tune the pulsing to 60 HZ so that you could just run it through a step down transformer transformer to drop it to 120 or 240 V.
From a conceptual point of view I'd like to see what happens when the generator in the second video is coupled with an atmo motor and 12V battery storage array, with AC converters to run household appliances etc., including the drive belt of the spark generator.
Do you really think it would generate extra energy to store in the batteries to run other things?
You would need more of them, but yeah that's basically my plan once I design the most efficient and safe version of this I can.
I'm going to fully enclose my final model so that I can achieve megavolts. I'm building a benotti style one at the moment. It makes AC current due the capacitors overdraining from the suddent release of the extreme high tension.
The caps overdrain and flip the polarity of the entire machine with every spark lol.
It's also less lossy than a wimshurst and can put out higher voltages (megavolts), and it's a simpler design.
Energy can be free. Not good for revenue #'s tho.
TL;DR: what's the energy source? Magic?
For crying out loud man! Nicola Tesla described free energy in his scientific papers back at the turn of the century before they were confiscated by the predecessor of the CIA. Trump’s Uncle, who was an electrical engineer was put in charge of reviewing Tesla’s work.
I remember him wanting to broadcast wireless power for no monetary cost. For "free". I don't recall power without a source. Got a link?
https://www.nuenergy.org/nikola-tesla-radiant-energy-system/
Oh my. This rings a bell, something I'd forgotten. Thank you.
The man was ahead of his time and I'm a huge fan, but he missed on this one. Part of this sounds like trying to capture energy from neutrinos. If the plan starts with energy from a fast moving neutral particle that's so difficult to interact with that it's very existence was in dispute, it doesn't look good as an energy source in the foreseeable future.
The atmospheric energy is a thing. Capturing it on a large scale doesn't seem practical... I'm no tree hugger, but even if we could out might be a bad thing.
A little off topic, none of this is necessary. Thorium breeder reactors can provide all the clean energy humanity will ever need until the earth is engulfed by the sun. We have a real solution. All we need to do is use it.
And he concluded there was nothing there to note. You did not answer the question, did you? Toward the end of his life, Tesla talked a good story. But he also did not believe in the atomic theory (matter is made of atoms), so you can't take him as in infallible prophet.
Trump's uncle concluded "publicly" there was nothing to note. Also, while atomic theory is great, we now know there are substructures below the atom. Perhaps that's how tesla's mind worked. He skipped past matter and went straight to quantum. I agree, he is most certainly fallible.
He didn't believe there were such things as atoms. Atoms are pretty fundamental to the existence of matter, subatomic particle notwithstanding. They are the foundation of chemistry. On this, Tesla was ignorant in a very dismissive way. I admire Tesla, but to promote him to the level of a prophet or wizard is very misplaced, to say the least.
What “question” that I didn’t answer are you referring to?
Elcycs: TL;DR: what's the energy source? Magic?
I did answer Elcycs comments. I suggested that the energy source was described by Nicola Tesla and that it wasn’t “magic”. You suggested that
“Tesla talked a good story. But he also did not believe in the atomic theory (matter is made of atoms), so you can't take him as in infallible prophet.”
while offering no source/proof for your belief that Tesla did not believe in atomic theory and then assumed that folks here believe Tesla was an “infallible prophet” which I don’t believe anybody here suggested. Perhaps you should engage some of the other commenters on this thread that are actually discussing the physics suggested by OP instead of trying to convince everybody how dismissive Tesla was of the atomic theory.
Well, I have read an awful lot about Tesla, especially in connection with his lost papers, and that is what I read. A lot of folks here do indeed regard Tesla as equivalent to a prophet; they entertain the fantasy that phenomenal lost technology was hidden in his papers. Such as "free energy," which source you did NOT explain. Tesla didn't explain it either. It is all an allegation---in other words, magic. He alleged knowledge of a "death ray." Nothing there. We came up with it on our own, thanks to atomic theory and quantum theory. My instance of that weakness in Tesla was intended to counterbalance all the hoopla about his magical mystery science. (He never alleged any magical mystery, of course, but that is what the enthusiast supporters de facto claim for him.)
For an outfit whose motto is supposed to be "Question everything!", there is a surprising degree of ignorant credulity. They don't question whether Tesla had any secrets worth knowing; they just assume they were all stolen and hidden by the FBI. So, on top of credulity and fantasy, they layer paranoid conspiracy theory. Not a good combination.
But as long as we agree that Tesla put his pants on one leg a a time, we are in agreement.
Interesting! Although we have gone far off the beaten path regarding the subject of the OP, I do question everything, I would be interested in reading some of the material that your have read regarding Tesla. Perhaps you can share some of this information?
I think it has to do with siphoning static electrity without returning it. Building an ever growing (and unstable) positive terminal.
Like digging a hole and using that dirt to build a house that needed the flat ground as a foundation.
Yes, exactly
The "ether", aka "electricity". We're swimming in it. It's what makes YOU go too.
Yes, but without a potential gradient you can't get any work done. I used the stored solar fusion energy from food to get that gradient.
This has nothing to do with ether or anything esoteric.
The electrons come from the anode side of the capacitor during the charge cycle. This is just using electrostatic to pull them and concentrated them.
What is this "electrostatic"?
No, think of it like a heat pump. With a heat pump you spin a compresser with X number of watts and you take existing heat from one location and concentrate it in another location and the number of watts of heat that is relocated is determined by the COP of the heat pump.
Q = Pout / Pin
Air source heat pumps (AC units) have COP ranging from 1.8 to 3 and no one bats an eye, ground source heat pumps have COPs going at as high as 7 and no one criticises that. No one complains about the heat pump, they just accept that the produced heat is useless because it kind of is, unless you're pumping the heat out of extreme depth, then you boil water with it and everyone is happy to accept it.
This is like that.
Instead of forcing electrons around with magnetics, we're simply encourageing them to get where we want by contsantly altering their environment.
Like with the heat pump, it's easier to modulate the environment and let the electrons do what they want in that environment, than to force them to do what you want with electromagnetics in any environment.
The result is a co-efficient of perfromance.
It's the difference between forcing it to happen, and allowing it to happen.
Correct. It's not about "free" energy. It's about the the output relative to YOUR input. When you can utilize the environment for the rest, that's where the progress is made. Most people don't know that refrigerators put out more heat than the equivalent energy that we put into the system (COP greater than 1) the rest of the energy is comes from the environment. That doesn't mean it's "free" but if we can get the COP of devices greatly improved then it might as well be free. And if your input to your devices come from environment based generators to begin with then for you it actually would be free, but still at a cost to the environment's energy. Cool stuff.
Do you know of Eric Dollard and his work?
No clue, never heard the name before, I discovered this while studying atmospheric electricity and ways to accelerated charge collection at lower elevations.
He has a lot of material on Youtube and is often focused on the unseen side of electrostatics. He's even written a book about how to calculate multi-phase power systems through Versor Algebra. He's basically taken Heaviside and Steinmetz's equations to the next level so the average lineman could do the math.
That is really what all of this comes down to is the ability to USE electrical energy in ways others have not thought of... the heat pump analogy is a great way to think about it...
Also, the ideas that the earth itself has a resonance like a tuning fork that can be added to or taken away from were things Tesla and others were thinking about 100+ years ago...
People no longer think... and when they do they only think of rules or the word "Can't".