So your 7 month class gives you knowledge that 1000's of Phd'ed EE's don't have?
Capacitor to store lightning?
- Thread starter cato
- Start date
- Status
[People who work for power companies have different goals than I do, so they may very well use a different technology than I plan on putting into my patent application.
I can't even be sure WHAT technology they use, because as I said, my school didn't teach their methods. After teaching one whole graduating class basic electricity, using resistors, caps, and inductors, half of us learned computer electronics and the other half learned radio/tv electronics.
Picture tube TVs have high voltages, even after they're unplugged from the wall, so special techniques are used to work safely on those circuits, but my subsequent electronics classes, the ones that focused on computer circuits, only dealt with chips, where the highest voltages were 12v and where the DC was, for a millisecond at a time, either ON or OFF.
of course not, but Benny has his circuit diagrams that they do not.
Actually, power companies use a lot of the same technology that you will be using. They are one of the few industries that deal with high voltage and high current on a large scale. Many of the components used in your circuit will have been originally designed for use in power companies. Their goals may be different than yours, but much of the equipment is the same.
Not really sure what digital circuits have to do with this discussion. Maybe you can elaborate.
As for the second part. The high voltage in a TV comes from the flyback transformer It uses inductance to store energy. That's why you have to make sure it's discharged before you start working on the circuit.
I guess I have to SPELL IT OUT for Billy's sake.
Power companies are in the business of providing uninterrupted AC to homes and businesses.
My application(s) will demonstrate, in principle, a method of:
1. charging a capacitor, up to its' rated voltage, with DC from any source, including lightning, and
2. charging a capacitor (or a cap bank) with ALL of the DC in any source, including lightning.
The patent claims are still being finalized at this point, but any logician can see that these goals are different than the goals of a commercial power company.
One more time. What is important to the patent examiner is the method of charging the capacitor(s), NOT the nature of the source.
Power companies are in the business of providing uninterrupted AC to homes and businesses.
My application(s) will demonstrate, in principle, a method of:
1. charging a capacitor, up to its' rated voltage, with DC from any source, including lightning, and
2. charging a capacitor (or a cap bank) with ALL of the DC in any source, including lightning.
The patent claims are still being finalized at this point, but any logician can see that these goals are different than the goals of a commercial power company.
One more time. What is important to the patent examiner is the method of charging the capacitor(s), NOT the nature of the source.
But this a basic circuit of electronics, taught to every first year electronics student, and used in countless applications. The trick isn't to design a circuit than can charge caps...anyone can do that...the trick is capture a huge surge of high voltage current that only last for a fraction of a second.
I'm not sure what you mean by "all the DC in any source". Please explain.
MacGyver, please believe me when I say this. I have determined which numbered patent class (and subclass) my patent(s) are LIKELY to go into. The actual text of most patents can be read online at the website for the patent office. The only exceptions are those patents which are subject to national security grounds, such as the design of a nuclear weapon.
I have determined that my patents are likely to be assigned a particular numbered class and subclass. I have seen every single patent in that subclass. I have concluded that nobody has patented the exact technology that I plan on submitting to the patent office.
As for digital circuits, I was merely trying to emphasize my area of expertise. Before I learned about electronics, I learned basic electricity, using resistors, caps, inductors, and transistors. That was during a seven-month period that ended early in 1980.
When the lightning-storage idea first came to me, almost four years ago, I did quite a bit of research into it, and the science seemed to work on paper. The technology, such as the voltage ratings on the highest-voltage caps, has certainly changed in the past 30 years, but I am now confident enough in the science to make serious plans for one or two applications to the patent office.
If they approve either one of my applications, I'll be happy, because a patent is something that many dream of, and I'll be able to say that I did something that certain other people, like Phil for instance, never thought possible.
Strictly for the sake of emphasis, and as I've said before, MANY TIMES, the actual process of buying caps and setting up the equipment won't happen until I find out whether my applications are good enough to win me an actual U.S. Patent.
Benny
You're right. When I was taught how to charge a cap, I was shown an elementary circuit consisting of a battery, a resistor, a cap, and a knife switch, all wired in series. The teacher explained what happened when the switch was closed, and he showed us all two graphs showing the change in voltage over time and the change in current over time.
However, the battery in my textbook or on the blackboard was always one with a potential voltage that was lower than the voltage rating on the cap, so there was no possibility of overcharging the cap. This is a clear difference between what I was taught in class and what I will include in my patent application.
That fork in the road is getting closer and closer. I'll try to explain without giving away the store.
One of my applications will claim that any and all electricity over a certain voltage level will be diverted away from the capacitor being charged. THAT is the distinction that I hope will give my application its' uniqueness. The exact combination of electric devices, such as resistors, inductors, and other kinds of electric "gadgets" has never been used for the purpose of charging a capacitor, which is the name of the patent subclass I intend to apply for.
As I said, I read every single issued patent in the capacitor-charging class and subclass. You can, too, if you click on the right links at the patent office website. I don't have any national security clearances, but I seriously doubt that my circuitry would already be patented by someone who does have these qualifications. I just can't believe that there are any national security grounds for keeping my circuits from the eyes of the public.
Dude...that's called overvoltage protection. It's nothing new, and is commonly used in battery chargers and other circuits.
The other patent application will use a single cap (or a large-scale bank of them) to store a much larger amount of electricity, maybe ALL the voltage of certain well-known sources, including lightning, whose voltage and current levels have been documented by universities. The wording of my applications are still being worked on, and the technology (the method of charging one cap or a bank of them with a large voltage) will be different than the first application.
This second method, the one I've been mentioning most of the time in this thread, could theoretically be used to store hundreds of millions of DC volts, and because of the principles of a current divider, each one of thousands of separate current branches could have a similar string of caps, all being charged to the same DC voltage level, and so you would see a multiplication of the total number of DC volts (at the expense of lightning's current, which can afford to lose a few zeros) if, theoretically, you take all those thousands of caps out of the bank and re-wire them in series.
Please, don't make me repeat myself again. I'm getting tired of it.
This second method, the one I've been mentioning most of the time in this thread, could theoretically be used to store hundreds of millions of DC volts, and because of the principles of a current divider, each one of thousands of separate current branches could have a similar string of caps, all being charged to the same DC voltage level, and so you would see a multiplication of the total number of DC volts (at the expense of lightning's current, which can afford to lose a few zeros) if, theoretically, you take all those thousands of caps out of the bank and re-wire them in series.
Please, don't make me repeat myself again. I'm getting tired of it.
One more time.
I have looked at every single issued patent in the class and subclass that I'm interested in. Nobody (I said NOBODY) has patented either of my methods of charging a cap.
Nobody, unless that applicant has a national security clearance and was able to convince the patent examiner that his application deserved special treatment.
Nobody.
You still never explained why in the hell you would want to "multiply" the voltage of an already unusably high DC voltage to an even higher, more unusable voltage. You can't do anything with a million volts until you bring that voltage level down...what possible reason could you want to INCREASE that voltage? Please explain.
There may not be any patents on it because it's a "common" circuit.
TO ALL READERS OF THIS THREAD:
I"m going to take a few days off. I need to re-examine my goals in posting here, at least on this particular thread. I have enjoyed most of the give-and-take with most of you, but I really am getting tired of questions that seem to want me to spill my best-kept secrets. That may or may not be your goals, but there just isn't much left to discuss except for the size of your dielectrics if I want to keep those secrets hidden, which I do. My ego isn't as big as my wish to receive a patent or two, followed by an intensive examination of the economics of turning water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Once more, I want to thank those of you who have helped me with technical matters including the drawing of Mr. Franklin and an improved education into various physics subjects.
This is not good-bye, it's au revoir, which means until I see you again. I may, however, say good-bye at that time.
Benny
I"m going to take a few days off. I need to re-examine my goals in posting here, at least on this particular thread. I have enjoyed most of the give-and-take with most of you, but I really am getting tired of questions that seem to want me to spill my best-kept secrets. That may or may not be your goals, but there just isn't much left to discuss except for the size of your dielectrics if I want to keep those secrets hidden, which I do. My ego isn't as big as my wish to receive a patent or two, followed by an intensive examination of the economics of turning water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Once more, I want to thank those of you who have helped me with technical matters including the drawing of Mr. Franklin and an improved education into various physics subjects.
This is not good-bye, it's au revoir, which means until I see you again. I may, however, say good-bye at that time.
Benny
Well..when you get back answer post 373. Running away solves nothing. If your idea can't stand up to basic scrutiny, then you are arguing like a woo-woo.
The standard device for that during the last 50 years is called a Zener Diode. They have gotten better in 5 decades, but still can not handle much energy dumped in them. Here is some text from a seller* of "high voltage" zeners:
" ... ideal for capacitor discharge system applications such as ignition systems, lighting systems and lasers. It is a 3,000 Volt, 2 Amp, high current, high surge diode that can handle a 300 Amp (8.3 ms) surge. ..."
Note that 13 of them in series would be a 39,000 V zener diode, which could safely limit the charge build up on a capacitor rated for 40,000 V
Also note that for 8.3 ms or less, the tolerated current is 150 times higher than steady state current. As the lightning is only ~3 ms in duration I bet that 39,000 volt zener string could dump 500 or more amps without self destruction.
500 amps at 40Kv is a rapidly** acting shunt to ground capable of handling 20 Mega Watts. I doubt you will be collecting power at that rate, for the several reasons I have described in past post.
Also note Benny there are no patents on the wheel, fire used for cooking, etc. -Old inventions in common use can not be patented. Most zener diode patents probably expired three or more decades ago.
---------------
*That seller is at:
http://www.globalspec.com/FeaturedP...entsCKE/High_Voltage_High_Current_Diode/11738
/0?fromSpotlight=1 and that particular Zener is HVW3.
** Some lower voltage zeners switch from very high to quite low impedance in 10s of micro seconds, but I think that the high voltage ones are slower as the depletion zone is wider to get the high voltage rating. Perhaps faster now, I have not seen zeners used for "RF clipping" for more than 30 years. (By clipping the peaks off and AM radio wave, you can boost the average power and not distort the audio too much.)
Here is a link to 191 companies selling DC surge suppressors (most with many products):
http://www.globalspec.com/SpecSearc...pressors/Surge_Suppressors_Dataline_DC_Signal
You may want to check them out to see if you idea is commercially available. - Could be why it did not show in your limited field search at the USPTO
Last edited by a moderator:
How many times do we have to say this, getting a patent does not prove your idea is valid, or would work in practice.
You claim to have some qalification it electronics. Let's see it.
He's going to catch lightning in a box. Woowoo!
A great illustration of this is the early 1900s patent for an airplane with plano-convex cylindrical lens wings made of glass to be used on sunny days to fly over WWI's enemy trenches and at least blind, if not set on fire, the enemy troops.
With plano-convex lens wings it might be able to inefficiently fly (assuming the flex load bending the wings when they rather than the wheels supported the plane's weight did not break the glass), but I think at least one of the enemy would put a bullet thru them.
Probably most patents are on totally impractical devices or processes. Benny's will add to that list.
- Status