ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

[gyulasun]

...
Now I realised that a full bridge rectifier will not help as it sends power to both capacitors at the same time killing the source instead of charging the other capacitor. I replaced the bridge rectifiers with a single diode for each side of the circuit checking the polarity of the coils. Now when cap 1 discharges most of the power goes into cap 2, these where my assumptions then tested and I was right, system is running for about 3 minutes then it stops. The way I  wound the coils is with primary coil on top of the secondary and secondary from first coil connects via diode to the cap 2 then the same here, secondary from the second coil connects via diode to cap 1.
Another test. I replaced the capacitors with 5 100F/2.7v supercapacitors, 5 for each side. Now system is running loosing very little power but not stable or going up.
Conclusions: I believe that replacing the transistors with thyristors we can have better results. Lately I have done many experiments with thyristors and I am very impressed.
Below is a picture with the setup I used.
Best regards,
Romero

Hi Romero,

Thanks for doing tests on this and sharing your results, albeit I myself think it is Tito who would come forward and share some more of his "secrets" he has STILL been withholding...     Of course it is up to him to come forward again...

I have been aware of the bridges's charging both caps at the same time,  (I wrote to totoalas, the winding sense of coils L3 and L4 were mentioned as bridges always conduct in the right direction, here http://www.overunity.com/6763/energy-amplification/msg352243/#msg352243 and I postponed this issue then)  and I have now drawn a schematic with single diodes and indicated the hopefully correct polarities for the coils with black dots.  I think when S1 is just switched off, the voltage spike can drive charging current into C2 via diode D2 (D1 cannot conduct in this instance) and when S2 is just switched off, the voltage spike can drive charging current into C1 via diode D1 (D2 cannot conduct in this instance).

Now that you have found the initial charge tends to be consumed from the capacitors, obviously the "secret" can either be in the coils (Tito mentioned first Tesla bifilar pancake coils and also simple transformers)  or maybe the starting voltage amplitude in the caps is also important, perhaps going up to the some tens of Volts as the initial level (30 - 50V DC or maybe even higher) could help, I am guassing of course.  Higher starting voltages involve at least 400V or even higher rated switching device, also with very low ON resistance with respect to the coil losses.  I am yet to understand why thyristors could be better candidates than (MOSFET) switches if you meant that, albeit this question is not the crucial one of course.
I also think that reducing the ON time of the switches S1 and S2 (duty cycle) may help in reducing input power, this needs further tests of course, together with the increase of the initial voltage levels of the capacitors C1 and C2. (I assume your starting voltage was initially 10-12V in the caps first.)

Greetings
Gyula

[gyulasun]

Hi Magluvin,

Obviously resonance is involved in that Tesla patent you mention.  A good question would be whether a series or a parallel resonance?  In case of parallel resonance were involved, a higher value but purely "ohmic" resistance would be needed to consider for the amount of input current need, and in case of series resonance a small value but also purely "ohmic" resistance would be needed to consider from the input current neccessity. 
So one advantage of this bifilar pancake coil setup is there is no inductive reactance when you switch such electromagnet on provided you use a DC pulse having a frequency that matches that of the such coil setup.  This would involve no bemf kickback like any conventional electromagnet coil  or any coil produces when pulsed in general. However, an electromagnet built with such pancake coils would surely work excellently.

In a transformer with such coil setups I assume it would represent pure "ohmic" resistance to the input AC voltage at the AC frequency, power factor would be always 1 but how it would behave under a load at the secondary, it should be tested...

Gyula

From what I read in the pat., the capacitance 'neutralizes' the self induction.

Neutralize the self induction. Not reduce, but neutralize.

In a transformer, what would this mean?


Here is the pat below. Only 2 pages of text.

Mags

[forest]

ha ha ha haaaa haah haah aaaah ah ah ah 


Sir  gyula-sun

as soon as you drop misleading concepts of parallel or series resonant circuit you could understood what Tesla was searching for 


ask yourself how to build resonant circuit with no reactive power, you will find a way to not kill the dipole...but ....you must limit tarcie to 0.0001 or soemthing
investigate tito circuit with this in mind



freedom freedom
and podmod 








p.s. should I start to talk in own language like tito ? 

[gyulasun]

....
p.s. should I start to talk in own language like tito ? 

Well, I think if you start talking in  English and it is technically has meaning that would be good for everybody.

Thanks,  Gyula

[crazycut06]

ha ha ha haaaa haah haah aaaah ah ah ah 


Sir  gyula-sun

as soon as you drop misleading concepts of parallel or series resonant circuit you could understood what Tesla was searching for 


ask yourself how to build resonant circuit with no reactive power, you will find a way to not kill the dipole...but ....you must limit tarcie to 0.0001 or soemthing
investigate tito circuit with this in mind



freedom freedom
and podmod 








p.s. should I start to talk in own language like tito ? 

Sir forest,
Pls. share what you know so we can have a happy ending...