Ashton Forbes Over Unity Challenge

[garrettm]

I have a legit over unity device: Take a neon bulb, say an NE2. Wrap it with tinfoil (just enough to cover the glass and not the electrodes). Now ignite the plasma (say 50V through a 100kohm resistor). Now charge the capacitor formed by the tinfoil and the plasma sheath (using the NE2 electrode that has the plasma sheath on it). Disconnect the voltage source from the "capacitor". Now kill the plasma (disconnect the 50V source to the tube using a switch). By the law of conservation of charge, the energy stored in the capacitor has gone up. No work was done by you the builder (aside from igniting the plasma and initially charging the cap). However, the plasma sheath being "extinguished" increased the distance between the two "plates" of the capacitor. That is, the electrodes were physically moved by the plasma and hence work was done. Real work.

This work is orthogonal to the input. Like rolling a boulder off a cliff. No matter how much work it took to coerce it off the edge, the same amount of gravitational potential energy between the ground and the cliff's edge is imparted to the boulder when falling. Like wise, the energy increase in the plasma capacitor is limited by the size of the plasma sheath and the size of the electrode (distance between "plates" in ignited and extinguished states). The amount of time that the tube is ignited (assuming >> 3 tau) has no bearing on the output energy.

Tada. Over unity.

(Do note that success with this experiment does depend on electrode polarity. The plasma sheath should be the positive electrode? I forgot. Just flip the source around and try again. Also use an electrometer to measure the voltage (the capacitance here is tiny) and only charge the cap up to like 10V, or you may damage the input from over voltage. Also, keep everything meticulously clean! Tiny capacitance and high voltages require the glass to be clean and nothing accidentally touching the top electrode to minimize leakage.)

[IanB]

By the law of conservation of charge, the energy stored in the capacitor has gone up.

Charge and energy are orthogonal to each other. It is not possible to make any inferences about energy from conservation of charge. You can, however, make a deduction from the law of conservation of energy. If energy stored in a system has gone up, then either work was done on the system, or energy was added to the system.

If you were able to do a complete and accurate analysis of the scenario you describe and account for every detail, then you would discover how all the energy and work contributions add up to zero change overall.

[TimFox]

If you charge a two-plate capacitor with no conductive path between the plates, and then pull them apart with an insulating rod, the capacitance decreases while the charge remains constant.
The energy in the capacitor E = Q²/(2C) increases, but that was obtained by the mechanical force on the rod required to do the expansion.
If you let the rod go free, the capacitor will collapse, with an inward force on the rod draining electrostatic potential energy from the capacitor to kinetic energy and any mechanical resistance loading the rod's motion.
Since the charge on each of the two plates is the opposite of that on the other plate, the electrostatic force between them is attractive, and mechanical support (or a dielectric between them) is required to prevent the collapse.
In variable capacitance systems, there are two different extreme situations:  constant voltage (from an external voltage source) and constant charge (as discussed above, with insulation).

edit:  started with the description backwards--oops.

[Circlotron]

If you charge a two-plate capacitor with no conductive path between the plates, and then pull them apart with an insulating rod, the capacitance decreases while the charge remains constant.
The energy in the capacitor E = Q²/(2C) increases, but that was obtained by the mechanical force on the rod required to do the expansion.

That’s an interesting situation that I have spent time thinking about in the past. Here’s something - as the plates are drawn apart the PD between them increases both because of the reducing capacitance and because of the energy in mechanical force to draw them apart.

Question 1. Would the PD between the plates increase faster than the distance between them, leading to a separation distance at which they would eventually flash over?

Question 2. Given this increasing PD between the plates from two causes vs the increasing separation, what would a graph of the attractive force between the plates look like? This is beyond my skill set.

[TimFox]

How to calculate the case of mechanical motion of a capacitor with constant charge:
1.  Use the equation for capacitance as a function of spacing x relevant to the geometry.
2.  For a constant charge, the voltage (potential drop) will vary as V = Q/C(x).
3.  The energy then varies as E = Q²/(2C)
4.  The mechanical force is the derivative F = -dE/dx

Edit:  additional note.
It can be complicated to calculate capacitance for some geometries.
Two reasonable cases:
a.  Two plates, each much larger than the gap between them, where the gap is "x".  E.g., condenser microphone.
b.  Two concentric cylinders, with small gap between them, where linear motion parallel to the axis is "x".  Looks like a piston trimmer.

[Refrigerator]

He's posted a video:
https://x.com/JustXAshton/status/1801461955221217301

You know it's true over unity when there's spinny magnets involved.

Why is it always two plastic wheels with magnets in them, spinning against each other, that makes people think "oh yeah, that's some real over-unity right there" 

It gets boring after a while, because every time you find a new nutcase pushing their over-unity device, it's just another spinning magnet contraption.

[langwadt]

He's posted a video:
https://x.com/JustXAshton/status/1801461955221217301

You know it's true over unity when there's spinny magnets involved.

Why is it always two plastic wheels with magnets in them, spinning against each other, that makes people think "oh yeah, that's some real over-unity right there" 

It gets boring after a while, because every time you find a new nutcase pushing their over-unity device, it's just another spinning magnet contraption.

it sucks money out of the pockets of the gullible

[EEVblog]

Oh no, he's going to expose myself and Medhi as frauds! 

[Nominal Animal]

Oh no, he's going to expose myself and Medhi as frauds! 

Why do I feel a need to pat Ashton Forbes on the shoulder and say "There, there, just because you are delusional about this does not mean you are a bad guy, Ashton"?

I like to entertain far-out ideas, especially to understand the pattern and the strongest and weakest points.  There is no need to believe in the ideas, to be able to examine them thoroughly.  In fact, when you truly believe (instead of suspect, consider possible, entertain the idea, et cetera; with emotional investment in the outcome), you're most likely to fall short of an effective/realistic examination. And, like here in Ashton Forbes' case, such beliefs tends to get all culty and claim all non-believers are frauds or conspiracy members...  Such a dramatic step off a proverbial cliff, really.

Oh, wait!  I feel the same about toddlers in a tantrum: all feeling, no capability of rational-logical thought or self-examination yet.