Exper. Confirm. of Energy Cons., not Charge Cons., in Two-Capacitor Problem

[Geo Kaplan]

Based on my paper...I conducted an experiment to see whether energy conservation holds, rather than charge conservation, in the well-known two-capacitor problem.

Well, you are a persistent chap, aren't you?

Of course, my experiment will need to be replicated by other scientists. If it holds up it will mean that conventional electrical theory is dead wrong. The electrons in ordinary electrical circuits are actually uncharged, and there is therefore no conservation of charge. There has to be energy conservation! And that's what the Reciprocal System says, and what the experiment has shown.

Replication won't come. As I pointed out in your earlier thread, if RST were correct, implications would be so broad as to preclude distortion-free amplification. Audio amplifiers would be unlistenable. Cell phones could not function. Radar wouldn't work. And computers would never boot.

Conventional ("correct") theory, on the other hand, conserves energy and charge, and also correctly predicts the proper operation of amplifiers, cell phones, radars and computers. So we already have ample evidence that RST is a failed theory. The successful functioning of our electronic world mocks RST every nanosecond.

[tusenfem]

I've attached two jpegs, one from the Rigol and one from the Fluke. [snip]

Transpower, this is not any proof for your experiment, the two jpgs do not show anything.
If you want to show results, then you do it in the way cjameshuff did it, by showing both voltage curves on your oscilloscope, so people see what you actually measure, instead of a non-informative picture.
Then you will do it in the correct way, namely in the way that gives the most difference compared with mainstream theory, as you want to show that your theory is the correct one, which can only be done when the differences between the two are very significant, which would be (apparently) in the other configuration.
Failing to do this, this thread will be closed, and you will have no chance anymore to state your case.

[cjameshuff]

To be specific:

• Switch your capacitors around. As pointed out multiple times, your arrangement minimizes the difference between RST and mainstream theory, which is not desirable for an experiment intended to test them.
• Attach each channel of the oscilloscope directly to the positive side of a capacitor, and the grounds to the negative sides.
• Keep the negative side switches closed or replace them with a jumper to maintain a common reference for both channels.
• Set the oscilloscope to trigger on the falling edge of whichever channel the charged capacitor is attached to, with the threshold somewhere close to but less than the charging voltage.
• Set the time base and horizontal offset appropriately to capture both the switch closure and the convergence of both traces.

Do not use the Fluke, do not use the peak measurement function of the oscilloscope. You have no series resistance, which (as explained previously) causes an inductive spike. This is not beyond mainstream theory to explain (as you claimed earlier in this thread), it is in fact a result of the same basic principles used by switching power supplies.

Here is a plot showing the inductive spike in my setup with no series resistance. The upper curve undershoots below the ideal exponential falloff, while the lower curve overshoots considerably. This is what you're measuring with the peak detection:


Here is a plot with a large inductor in series showing an exaggerated picture of the effect, with the inductance significant enough to cause prominent ringing:


This plot shows the discharge with a 10 kΩ resistance. Note that the timebase is a full half second per div, due to the slower discharge the inductive effects are practically eliminated. Also note that the equilibrium voltage is unchanged. You're not making any useful difference by trying to minimize resistance, you are only increasing the significance of the inductive effects in the early parts of the discharge.


That peak is why you must either use a series resistance or avoid using peak detection for measuring the voltage of the destination capacitor. The fact that the capacitors self discharge over time is why you can not use peak detection to accurately measure the voltage of the source capacitor. The fact that the bulk of the event takes place over just tens of microseconds is why you can not use the Fluke.

This post does not relieve you of your obligation to address the other questions I repeated in my previous post. Again:

How do you account for the fact that energy is lost to resistance in the circuit? RST predicts that the amount of stored energy is the same after the discharge, despite some of it having been dissipated, a clear violation of conservation of energy. Do not simply repeat your claim that RST conserves energy.

Show that the mainstream accounting of energy loss does not conserve energy. Do not simply repeat your claim that this is so.

[Strange]

Here is a plot showing the inductive spike in my setup with no series resistance. The upper curve undershoots below the ideal exponential falloff, while the lower curve overshoots considerably. This is what you're measuring with the peak detection:

Ah, thank you for that. I was trying to get my head round what he was talking about with his references "Vmax". This just seems to demonstrate once again that he hasn't a clue about what happens in this circuit ...

[primummobile]

I'd just like an explanation from you (and this question has been asked) as to why when we design electronic circuits with multiple capacitors according to what we would expect from conventional theory the circuits work as designed. If RST is correct, those devices would not function as designed.

Everything you are posting is just window dressing. Unless you can tell us why electronic devices function as designed when we are supposedly using improper theory then you have absolutely no argument. It doesn't matter how many experiments you do.

[cjameshuff]

I'd just like an explanation from you (and this question has been asked) as to why when we design electronic circuits with multiple capacitors according to what we would expect from conventional theory the circuits work as designed. If RST is correct, those devices would not function as designed.

For that matter...Transpower, how about a description of exactly how you now believe capacitors behave differently from what is predicted by mainstream electrical theory?

1: You claimed stored energy was directly proportional to voltage, and were quite insistent on this, in spite of being given numerous different algebraic and logical proofs showing otherwise. You haven't retracted this anywhere that I've seen, but in your experiment, you give predicted voltages consistent (given equal stored energy) with mainstream theory, where stored energy is proportional to the square of voltage.

2: You previously claimed the time constant of an RC circuit would be inversely proportional to voltage...you appear to have accepted the mainstream version, where time constant is in fact constant, and "corrected your deductions".

3: And now we seem to be down to the claim all the stored energy of the initially-charged capacitor is divided between the two capacitors. This is obviously incorrect...as I keep pointing out, some energy is dissipated, so you clearly can't end up with all of it in the two capacitors afterward. Oddly, it seems you originally agreed with mainstream theory on the voltages, this being behind claim #1. (edit: actually, it doesn't seem to be even that internally consistent, the jumble of equations in the "Capacitor Theory" PDF coming up with a different voltage...)
(And then to show that those losses don't occur, given one setup where mainstream theory predicts 82% loss and one where the mainstream predicts 18% loss, you for unexplained reasons insist on the setup where the mainstream gives results closest to RST...come on, where's those measurements with the capacitors the other way around? This is not a complicated task...)

So claims 1 and 2 are apparently dropped, and I'm considering 3 to have been dropped as well (as even with the weaker version of the experiment you prefer, properly taken measurements are in clear agreement with mainstream theory, and you haven't provided measurements showing otherwise). So is there anything left? Otherwise, we seem to be down to a claim that capacitors store uncharged electrons and that charges are created and destroyed all the time, but somehow behave in every way as if mainstream theory (which conserves both energy and charge) is correct.

[Strange]

I wonder if we can take the tumbleweed blowing through this thread as a sign he realises he got it all wrong...

[Geo Kaplan]

I wonder if we can take the tumbleweed blowing through this thread as a sign he realises he got it all wrong...

That would be a refreshing outcome, but given how much he's invested in RST...

[cjameshuff]

Well, he earlier (in the first thread) stated that all of physics is based on electrical theory and that being wrong about something as simple as capacitor behavior would bring the whole "house of cards" down. But my guess is that the same doesn't apply to RST, he'll just have to "modify the deductions" again, which will for unexplainable reasons have no effect on parts of the theory that were developed with the assumption that the original claims were correct.

[Strange]

It must be quite tricky to fudge the theory a little bit to make it fit with reality in some areas but still be incompatible elsewhere ...

[Grassman]

Of course, my experiment will need to be replicated by other scientists.

Why do you think any self-respecting scientist will try to replicate a simplistic experiment that is contradicting the elementary knowledge that energy (like momentum) is conserved?

[John Mendenhall]

Why do you think any self-respecting scientist will try to replicate a simplistic experiment that is contradicting the elementary knowledge that energy (like momentum) is conserved?

If for no other reason than to prove it wrong (falsifiable).

[John Mendenhall]

Why do you have so many switches? The largest number that would be useful is 3, one for charging the "source" capacitor, one for discharging the "destination" capacitor, and one for connecting the two. You have 4, and none is connected to be suitable for the second purpose, so you may as well have 2.

(snip)

Cjames (oh my, jameshuff, I just got the pun) is quite correct. Unless the destination capacitor has been fully discharged by being shorted out, your results are meaningless. Add the shorting switch, close the shorting switch, thus discharging the capacitor, open the shorting switch, and repeat your tests.

Also, your setup is very portable. Try taking the whole business to your local junior college, community college, tech school, whatever and ask them to use their equipment to repeat and confirm your tests. In a matter of minutes you should find out what’s wrong with your technique. Just remember, you will have to keep quiet and listen. Good luck!

[Strange]

If the result had come from someone who had demonstrated that they had a good grasp of theory and had shown good experimental technique, including a thorough analysis of possible sources of error, then it may be worth attempting to replicate in order to either demonstrate why it was wrong (or to collect a share in the Nobel prize!).

In this case, there isn't really enough information to know exactly why Transpower is getting such erroneous results (especially given his unfounded assertions about the accuracy of his instruments and techniques).

On the other hand, the experimental methodology is so sloppy it is hardly surprising.

[cjameshuff]

Why do you think any self-respecting scientist will try to replicate a simplistic experiment that is contradicting the elementary knowledge that energy (like momentum) is conserved?

The obvious answer is to put theory to the test with empirical measurements. Of course, to make that argument, Transpower would have to explain why he himself hasn't made those measurements despite having all the needed equipment (or at least why he won't show us what the results were)...and why the entire field of electrical engineering which uses these equations, effectively doing equivalent experiments countless times over, has been as successful as it has.

Typically in this sort of case, the experiment will be something physically impractical or terribly expensive, ensuring it's never done and the proponent can continue to claim that mainstream scientists are unwilling to do experiments that show their beliefs are wrong, or that they're just waiting for measurements to be done. Unusually in this case, RST makes predictions that are quite trivial to test, and I found it worth it to unambiguously show how thoroughly wrong RST is. I already had an identical scope out (developing some software for it, in fact, and needed some waveform data anyway), so it was a matter of a few minutes work.

And yeah, "sloppy" describes his work pretty well. His description was so unclear that I first thought he had a resistor in series. Because he doesn't have a resistor in series, the stray inductance distributed through all the components and wiring causes very significant effects on the discharge and measurements. He's trying to use a Fluke to measure peaks about an order of magnitude shorter than those the instrument is rated to accurately detect, and apparently is using a 2 channel oscilloscope (which is fully capable of capturing and displaying the full waveforms of both capacitors simultaneously) as a voltmeter. He even remarks on how he gets different results if he switches the instruments around, and it doesn't seem to occur to him that this might be a sign of problems with his approach.

[Grassman]

He's trying to use a Fluke to measure peaks about an order of magnitude shorter than those the instrument is rated to accurately detect, and apparently is using a 2 channel oscilloscope (which is fully capable of capturing and displaying the full waveforms of both capacitors simultaneously) as a voltmeter. He even remarks on how he gets different results if he switches the instruments around, and it doesn't seem to occur to him that this might be a sign of problems with his approach.

....and, of course, he will not switch instruments around such that he could get a correct set of measurements.

[Strange]

I guess he is reluctant to do anything that might reveal the source(s) of his errors.

Or maybe he did and that is why it has gone so quiet. It would have been nice if he had come back and said, "I messed up my measurements" but ...

[cjameshuff]

I guess he is reluctant to do anything that might reveal the source(s) of his errors.

Or maybe he did and that is why it has gone so quiet. It would have been nice if he had come back and said, "I messed up my measurements" but ...

It's not as though the measurements he was asked to do are difficult. Swap the two capacitors he already has around...a few seconds work even without that gimmicky, over-priced snap circuit kit. Re-do the experiments he claimed to have done hundreds of iterations of, with an instrument he already has, just actually using it properly.

I do wonder if he actually understands what an oscilloscope does, given the accusation that "it's you who refuse to measure the proper voltages", and the strange claim that "If you use the two channels of the Rigol you may measure the voltage right after the second set of switches is closed, which will then tell you just the second voltage, not the first and the second.". It doesn't appear that he understood anything of the plots I'd posted earlier. Still, he's had nearly two weeks to read tutorials and figure out how to use the scope...

[slang]

Still, he's had nearly two weeks to read tutorials and figure out how to use the scope...

And two more weeks on the ATM clock to come back and answer the questions. Transpower has not logged in since his last post, perhaps he's working hard on doing the experiment better. Time will tell.

[cjameshuff]

And two more weeks on the ATM clock to come back and answer the questions. Transpower has not logged in since his last post, perhaps he's working hard on doing the experiment better. Time will tell.

A few days left. Transpower? Had a chance to switch those capacitors around yet? Hook the other channel of the scope up? Anything?

[Tensor]

He posted a news flash about on his website about the great success of the experiment originally described here on Jul 15 (the day this thread was started) and how RT describes it precisely. Since he has not modified it with the observations here, I doubt you're going to get anything, as that would require retracting his news flash.

[cjameshuff]

He posted a news flash about on his website about the great success of the experiment originally described here on Jul 15 (the day this thread was started) and how RT describes it precisely. Since he has not modified it with the observations here, I doubt you're going to get anything, as that would require retracting his news flash.

I'm not holding my breath. Still, he did retract (or at least delete) his claims about electrolytic capacitors. For a while, RST "predicted" that electrolytics behaved in line with mainstream theory, while the RST equations applied to "ordinary" capacitors. I'm curious what it'll predict next...

It's funny how flexible RST's predictions are, considering Transpower's claim that mainstream theory is a house of cards brought down by mistakes in basic electrical theory, the same area that RST keeps getting completely wrong...

[Geo Kaplan]

I'm not holding my breath. Still, he did retract (or at least delete) his claims about electrolytic capacitors. For a while, RST "predicted" that electrolytics behaved in line with mainstream theory, while the RST equations applied to "ordinary" capacitors. I'm curious what it'll predict next...

It's funny how flexible RST's predictions are, considering Transpower's claim that mainstream theory is a house of cards brought down by mistakes in basic electrical theory, the same area that RST keeps getting completely wrong...

And he keeps ignoring the slight embarrassment that, were he correct, all electronic devices would not work. The fact that cellphones work, computers compute and amplifiers amplify resoundingly refute his nonsense. He can't admit it, though, because he's got too much wrapped up in RST.