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.

[unseenninja]

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

[langwadt]

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"?

maybe he's delusional, maybe he's a scam artist...

[EEVblog]

It's funny to note he was all bubby-buddy with Mehdi when he gave him a sniff of being interested in debunking his (not actually his) machine. No he reaises that Mehdi isn't going to give him the time of day on his channel, he's now branded him a "fraud" 

All the engineering Youtubers be like

[ejeffrey]

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.

There are several problems here but the main one is what happens when the arc is extinguished. 

Say you have this system with a capacitor formed by a foil electrode and a confined plasma.  The plasma is a mix of positive ions and negative free electrons, but as it's charged there will be a slight abundance of electrons (or ions, depending on the polarity).  Now when you turm off the power you are imagining that the charges are sucked back to the metal terminals of the arc, increasing the electrode separation and decreasing the capacitance. 

But that's not what happens.  When you turn off the plasma supply, what happens mostly is that the positive and negative charges in the plasma recombine where they are.  The excess charges won't have anything to recombine with so they will just be left kind of hanging.  They will tend to follow whatever electric fields remain -- including from your outer foil electrode.  Depending on the strength of the applied field they may tend to move towards the glass envelope sticking to the glass and charging it up.  They may end up at the arc electrodes.  But whatever happens they are moving "downhill" as it were, not increasing the total system energy.

[SiliconWizard]

The funny part about the NDA thing is that, well, how would that work anyway? If he challenges Youtubers but makes them sign a NDA, then that means that said Youtubers could not use any disclosed information publicly to debunk the concepts, they'd have to keep it for themselves. And so, they could not publicly communicate about the debunk: with no right for the Youtubers to unveil any kind of information deemed "confidential", the guy could invariably say that his claims have never been debunked. By signing, you'd effectively be legally bound to shut up.

In other words, nice try, Ashton.

[EEVblog]

The funny part about the NDA thing is that, well, how would that work anyway? If he challenges Youtubers but makes them sign a NDA, then that means that said Youtubers could not use any disclosed information publicly to debunk the concepts, they'd have to keep it for themselves. And so, they could not publicly communicate about the debunk: with no right for the Youtubers to unveil any kind of information deemed "confidential", the guy could invariably say that his claims have never been debunked. By signing, you'd effectively be legally bound to shut up.
In other words, nice try, Ashton.

Yep, that's the idea. Only a complete fool would sign it.
And the NDA doesn't even have to directly say that, he could still threaten you with a lawsuit based on what he thinks it might imply.

[Bud]

How'd that work though for the opposite case, as far as i remember the guy said you sign an NDA, i'll show you stuff, you see for yourself it works, then you have to go and tell your audience. What can you tell your audience then if you signed the NDA. Does not make sense.

[EEVblog]

How'd that work though for the opposite case, as far as i remember the guy said you sign an NDA, i'll show you stuff, you see for yourself it works, then you have to go and tell your audience. What can you tell your audience then if you signed the NDA. Does not make sense.

Of course not, and that's the trick. He'll promise you can say "anything you like" except reveal how the tech works, but then essentially he's got a generic "gotcha" and can threaten on a lawsuit technicality because you might have slipped up on phrasing some words or some such.
Only a fool signs an NDA for this.
And the 2nd gottcha is that he can spin your content in any way he wants for commercial gain and/or promotional purposes.
This is why he's now so angry that the EE creators won't give him the time of day. He's even threatened to use my refusal to debunk it as "evidence" that his device works, that's in his own words.

[SiliconWizard]

He's even threatened to use my refusal to debunk it as "evidence" that his device works, that's in his own words.

Well, he should go ahead. Pretty funny.

[VinzC]

[...] why taking the risk showing to someone with expertise to debunk it? Isn't it more convinient to sell it to stoopidly rich people with a lack of knowledge of basic physics principles?

A famous French movie maker, Michel Audiard, now deceased, made one of his character say "Idiots dare anything and everything, that's also how you spot them!"

It's not far from a quote commonly attributed to Descartes: "The most evenly distributed thing among humans is common sense because, no matter what amount nature granted him, one always assesses he's got enough of it since that's what he's judging with."

Disclaimer: these are free translations done by me, not official quotes.

Other than that, what I find depressing is the amount of energy required to debunk these fallacies. Even worse it's not even guaranteed to work and in the meantime the disastrous effects of believing that crap spreads like contagion, i.e. relayed by media and all kinds of networks. I know about Brandolini's bullshit asymmetry principle but putting a name on it doesn't make it easier to deal with. Unfortunately.

How'd that work though for the opposite case, as far as i remember the guy said you sign an NDA, i'll show you stuff, you see for yourself it works, then you have to go and tell your audience. What can you tell your audience then if you signed the NDA. Does not make sense.

Of course not, and that's the trick. He'll promise you can say "anything you like" except reveal how the tech works, but then essentially he's got a generic "gotcha" and can threaten on a lawsuit technicality because you might have slipped up on phrasing some words or some such.
Only a fool signs an NDA for this.
And the 2nd gottcha is that he can spin your content in any way he wants for commercial gain and/or promotional purposes.
This is why he's now so angry that the EE creators won't give him the time of day. He's even threatened to use my refusal to debunk it as "evidence" that his device works, that's in his own words.

There should be laws to protect people from being trapped, e.g. requiring by law NDA's to be warranted and validated by a committee of field experts. Otherwise loopholes will always make scams like this profitable.

[EEVblog]

Physics Youtuber Sabine Hossenfelder was just tricked into following Forbes on X today 

[VinzC]

Well, at least we can trust she has enough mind to realize what's wrong at some point and be clear about that.

[langwadt]

Physics Youtuber Sabine Hossenfelder was just tricked into following Forbes on X today 

to get a laugh at his nonsense?

[Haenk]

"Only one has to be right for free energy to be real." (Quote from that guy...)

I'd say one cannot void his argument.
Unfortunately, this does not prove or disprove anything.
However, on the scientific side of things - if you claim $something, you better have a prove to show. Even more so, if the claim contradicts everything of commonly accepted scientific basic rules.

Don't let yourself get pulled to the stoopid side of arguments

[Xena E]

Don't let yourself get pulled to the stoopid side of arguments

Correct. And if you argue with a fool, to bystanders it's just two fools arguing.

Physics Youtuber Sabine Hossenfelder was just tricked into following Forbes on X today 

How do you trick people into following you on X?
😵‍💫
Just because someone is following him it doesn't imply they are validating his bullshit, or does it?

[joeqsmith]

Physics Youtuber Sabine Hossenfelder was just tricked into following Forbes on X today 

Do you?   I would need to sign up to see.