Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[Hoppy]

Hi gyulasun, Isn't it possible to make a distinction between "reactive power" and "tank activity". In my way of thinking reactive power is returned or returning to the supply.
So when one corrects the power factor isn't the reactive power no longer reactive power as it is not going back to the supply. To my way of thinking the oscillations or the "activity" in the tank is not reactive power in the true sense of the word. I'm not saying I'm right and others are wrong I am just saying I see a difference and what it is.

When say ie. a motor has the PF corrected does that increase the magnitude of the current through the motor or the power it output's significantly or does it just reduce the return (reactive) currents ?

The way I see it if the PF is 1.00 there is no reactive power. Any energy stored in inductors but not used is kept within the device. As with many words, reactive and reaction can be applied to slightly different things in slightly different ways. ie. reactive power could be power returning to the supply or it could be the reaction of the environment to an action.

I think it might pay to make a distinction. Some people talk of the reaction from the environment in ways that make me think they might believe "reactive power" is from the environment. When in actuality reactive power is power supplied by us then returned to the supply when unused during a half cycle or cycle and incurring losses on the way back each time.

The activity in the tank is energy, but it is all supplied by us. However I do believe that the enormous currents produced in a tank circuit could be used to cause the release of
energy from matter or as leverage to gain an out of phase imbalance or something. 

Anyway to illustrate my point, my Tesla coil has a power factor of 0.96 so there is reactive power returned to the supply, however there is also a lot of activity in the tank, so how
could the tank oscillations be reactive power when the reactive power is related to the power factor and the return power to the supply ? The power of the oscillations (activity)
in the tank is much greater than the reactive power returning to the supply.

Does that make sense ? Or is it illogical. 

Cheers

P.S. I hate to be picky but I think it is all of these little (sticking points) confusions or even undetected misunderstandings that make collaboration less effective in my opinion.
I think a lot of people get a wrong picture from some postings because of the differing use of terms.

..

The conventional explanation is that in AC systems, reactive power is a combination of imaginary power and real power. That is the real and continuous power consumed in the load appliance plus the imaginary and unused power consumed from an energy flowing back and forth between the source generator and capacitance / inductance of the load appliance. power factor correction is used to minimise the imaginary power which helps to reduce the size of conductors needed between the grid and consumers load, as this power is consumed in addition to the real power in the resistance of the conductors as heat.

In regards to DC pulsed systems, imaginary energy flows between the capacitive and inductive elements of an LC tank circuit but this energy cannot be extracted without the tank re-balancing by energy taken from the source supply. The only contentious point is whether the pulsating magnetic / electric field set up in the inductive coil can in some way draw / suck-in energy from the environment, which can be additive to the systems source energy to maintain the level in the tank. I find it absurd to think that any system could be maintained self-running just from environmental energy sucked into a coil of wire and energy extracted from an LC tank circuit without the tank receiving continuous, pulsed energy from a source supply, eg grid, battery, solar or wind.

[bass]

x_name41
Have you tested in practice scheme you are proposed? Or is it just only your theory?

Then another possible scheme

[Zeitmaschine]

The only contentious point is whether the pulsating magnetic / electric field set up in the inductive coil can in some way draw / suck-in energy from the environment, which can be additive to the systems source energy to maintain the level in the tank.

Then how to suck in some energy from the environment? Since Tesla and Moray did this 80 years ago it should be rather easy to do. Unfortunately I'm a bit slow to catch on, so I'm still puzzled how to construct a parametric oscillator that keeps automatic resonance so it can continuously suck the environment. Nevertheless the energy of the environment seems to be there and is just waiting for us.

Performing a search for Electric Field Mill results in some interesting stuff to read about the Earth's Electric Field, although when combined with the term Kapanadze the results are rather sparse (yet).

But anyway, isn't it nice to know that we are obviously living between two highly charged capacitor plates, and isn't it also nice to know that on a sunny day there is a voltage difference between head and toes of an average grown human of approximately 200 volts? But on the other hand, isn't it very regrettable that we can do absolutely nothing to discharge this capacitor completely (for safety reasons perhaps) because »the Earth is considered a charged electrical sphere immersed in electric plasma« and therefore the capacitor is recharged continuously by the sun? Or is it?

So what to do with a capacitor that cannot be discharged? It should be good for something, shouldn't it?

[bass]

very similar to the generator of Donald Smith

from here

http://wyst.at.ua/forum/3-4-22

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqiYDxMsayw&feature=player_embedded
In the video, assistant said that the load should be connected between the capacitor and ground. If I correctly understood English
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-TLuMPrnfk

[bass]

...