Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY

[Hoppy]

I was posting here thinking I can help the group but instead I will help myself and keep my discoveries....  For a guy to tell me WHERE to post my discovery, you dont even know what lays in Nelson circuit..  If you would have known the function, you would have a self runner by now.... 
LOL     Happy day to you and your loved ones...

Hi Peper,

We are all friends in the asylum where nothing written is taken too seriously. OK, we have a loud banter from time to time and the occasional funny turn and head banging sessions but this is just to relieve a bit of frustration from chasing that OU phantom that plagues our minds.

Anyway, I would really appreciate your thoughts on the modus-operandi of the Nelson device but please be patient with us, as we may ask you some technical questions about anything you are willing to share with us.

[TinselKoala]

The Kacher creates a _common-mode_ high voltage, and the other lower frequency high power oscillator (mazilli, zvs, 494 etc) creates the high current. The Kacher's common-mode HV creates the condition to allow the high current to be transferred between the input and output stages. Combined capacitive coupling for the common-mode HV and inductive coupling for the higher current at lower frequency, which can then be rectified on the output stage. The convoluted Kapanadze construction can be simplified greatly once these principles are grasped.

By the way, it is a myth that Nelson has any kind of self-running overunity device. He does not.

[peper10]

Hi Peper,

We are all friends in the asylum where nothing written is taken too seriously. OK, we have a loud banter from time to time and the occasional funny turn and head banging sessions but this is just to relieve a bit of frustration from chasing that OU phantom that plagues our minds.

Anyway, I would really appreciate your thoughts on the modus-operandi of the Nelson device but please be patient with us, as we may ask you some technical questions about anything you are willing to share with us.

Hi Hoppy!!  What I really think Nelson has foul the people AFTER his findings is : he is using a beefed up joule theif and the output is manipulated to get 2 outputs...Take good care WHY the caps and what function they have on the output???   Is that reminds you the secondary coil of Don Smith??  The SPIKES are CONTROLLED and managed to do first a transformation function by tapping only one LEG of the output and the second leg is the ground.. The next leg of the output is rectified trough the positive like a Bedini type for the low output...  Look at Don Smith secondary cap function and you will find the same contrast with Nelson schematics..    And dont worry for the LOUD BANTER...  I have a tuffer skin then this...     LOL 

[Hoppy]

Hi Hoppy!!  What I really think Nelson has foul the people AFTER his findings is : he is using a beefed up joule theif and the output is manipulated to get 2 outputs...Take good care WHY the caps and what function they have on the output???   Is that reminds you the secondary coil of Don Smith??  The SPIKES are CONTROLLED and managed to do first a transformation function by tapping only one LEG of the output and the second leg is the ground.. The next leg of the output is rectified trough the positive like a Bedini type for the low output...  Look at Don Smith secondary cap function and you will find the same contrast with Nelson schematics..    And dont worry for the LOUD BANTER...  I have a tuffer skin then this...     LOL

Thanks for that peper. However, I dont understand why the two outputs are in some way special. Please give more detail.

[Void]

Hi peper10. There is a very big difference between speculating and being able to actually
demonstrate something that is really out of the ordinary (i.e., something which really appears to possibly be OU).
I asked you directly previously if you have built a circuit which you think shows anything unusual
going on, and you ignored my question. Everyone has ideas and opinions, but it is quite another
thing to put those ideas to the test and be able to demonstrate something that really appears to
possibly be COP > 1.

You have been jumping all over people here complaining that they won't blindly accept that you
know how to achieve OU based on one of Nelson's circuit designs, but it appears that you have not
even made a test setup yet to put your ideas to the actual test. These forums often get people who
claim to have it all figured out, but the reality is the vast majority of them can't demonstrate a circuit or
device or anything else which in any way backs up what they are claiming.

Peper10, frankly, your random capitalization of words in several of your comments here, your claims of
being persecuted here, and your insistence that you have it all figured out when in reality it appears you
haven't built any test setups which can demonstrate anything out of the ordinary does not bode well.   

If you have a test setup  that you think demonstrates something out of the ordinary in regards to OU
then show it, otherwise all reasonable people here will know you are just speculating without actually
having put anything to the test. Please stop all the bizarre and unfounded accusations and either
demonstrate a circuit that shows something unusual going on, or admit you you are just talking
though your hat. Do I expect that to actually happen? It seems highly unlikely given how you have been
acting here, but I think it never hurts to give the benefit of the doubt and to ask nicely ...


BTW Nick, a 'joule thief' and 'SEC exciter' are variations of blocking oscillators, and the circuit diagram
of Nelson's posted here is definitely a type of blocking oscillator, very similar to 'joule thief' and
'SEC exciter' circuits. How power may be taken off such a circuit or how a load is connected doesn't change
the fact that it is a blocking oscillator circuit at its core.

All the best...