Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[freshcutgrass]

How I understand Tesla Coil based Devices

The spark or arc gap is a ‘wideband switch’ or a crude inverter, generating a range of AC frequencies for a given input DC voltage and gap.  The input voltage to L1 does not necessarily determine the output from L2, output power is likely also a function of frequency and quality (Q Factor) of the two circuits, maybe other variables too.  I understand fluorescent tubes, valves and electronics can also be used to generate an AC signal from the HV DC, though not necessarily a clean sine wave.

L1 is a parallel LC at its self-resonant frequency, a ¼ wave electric monopole, tuned to one of the spark/arc gap frequencies.  At its self-resonant frequency, voltage drop across circuit L1 dramatically increases â€" maximum impedance (4,11).  This high voltage drop is the standing wave (high VSWR - voltage standing wave ratio).  One end of the open circuit monopole antenna is at high voltage, the other high current (8, pg2).  My guess is that we want the maximum current amplitude â€" the current antinode, which is where the voltage node Vmin is.  This OSHA article (13, Section VI) discusses the risks associated with the rapidly strengthening E & H fields within the reactive near field, as you get very close to a powerful transmitting antenna.  Monopoles and dipoles require a high voltage, low current supply to drive them.  Kapanadze/Smith’s devices have a low current, high voltage DC supply to the arc, indicating their primaries are parallel LC’s.

The same effect can be achieved with a series LC primary (equivalent to a half wave magnetic loop), as we are interested in the high ISWR.  There will be 2 current antinodes and a voltage antinode (7).  Impedance is minimal at resonance, so a series LC primary demands a lot more current to transmit.  I have seen articles and drawings showing the primary circuit as either a series or parallel LC’s, but it seems better to use a resonant parallel LC, as this circuit’s impedance is maximum - input current at minimum, you get maximum standing wave ratio for the minimum input. 
 
A coil at its series resonant frequency is effectively equivalent to a capacitor at its self resonant frequency â€" both are at minimum impedance, at around SQRT3 x SRF.  This is referred to as its Series Resonant Frequency - easily confused with SRF - so I’ll call it Frequency of Series Resonance (FSR).  This demonstrates the complementary nature of capacitors and coils (11) and how they should really be considered as transmission line resonators, not discrete components (12), when driven at high frequencies.

When a coil is driven with a signal above its fundamental self-resonant frequency, it behaves like a capacitor (4,11).  So you can have a secondary made of two coils with two different SRF’s, but, depending upon the frequency, can be a series LC.  Exactly the same can be achieved with a shunt cap across part of one coil, which is how Smith constructs the secondary of his often discussed and pictured HF device.

Voltage across a self-resonant series LC is very low â€" low impedance, great for receiving the magnetic portion of an EM wave.  However, the voltage between L2 & C2 is very high (3), as the received signal oscillates between the two.

“To get the best performance from a resonant circuit, the inductor Q needs to be as high as possible.  …the (circuit) Q peaks near the operating frequency” (11).  I put ‘circuit’ in brackets, I think this is what was meant.  The graphs in (11, Figs 5 & 6) are intriguing - a dramatic spike in impedance at the coil’s self resonant frequency, even though the coil’s Q is at zero.  BUT the circuit’s Q is NOT at zero at peak impedance, perhaps as there is some resistance in the circuit in series with C.  So to improve the effectiveness of L1 circuit, we want to tune in such a way as to get circuit peak Q at the self resonant frequency/peak voltage/VSWR of the coil in L1.
By placing a resistor in the circuit, you can tune the resonant frequency to coincide with the peak current or voltage, at the cost of reducing the value of peak Q in the process (5).

For a parallel LC:   R in series with L shifts resonant frequency down
R in series with C shifts res. freq up
For a Series LC:   R in parallel with L shifts res. freq up
R in parallel with C shifts res. freq down

I think the ‘Holy Grail’ is to achieve a peak circuit Q in the primary at the maximum impedance frequency AND ALSO peak circuit Q in the secondary at the minimum impedance frequency.

So, the low impedance secondary circuit receives the high ISWR generated by the primary.  At SRF, a high voltage is generated between L2 & C2.  The 90 degree out-of-phase current and voltage are fed into the FWBR, converted to DC and then fed into a 50 or 60Hz inverter, ready to be conventionally transformed to a suitable voltage.

Don Smith’s secondary circuit looks like one version of the simple crystal set receiver.  We all know that the unpowered crystal set can amplify a radio signal sufficiently to drive a small speaker.  It is perfectly possible for a basic crystal set to pick up lower frequency RF over 20km away, well into the far field for an AM broadcast.  If you place the same crystal set receiver very close to the ISWR of a resonant primary circuit (wavelength/2pi or less), you’ll be receiving the powerful magnetic field in the reactive near field, not a weak EM signal, so it seems logical this can work, when correctly tuned.

The Tesla Coil, Smith, Kapanadze and others devices are magnetic loop receivers, positioned within the peak current standing wave generated by an electric monopole (or a more amp hungry magnetic loop) transmitter.  They are a clever combination of current and voltage multipliers.

The table (1, pg 5) shows the linear increase in photon energy (electron volts - eV) as frequency increases.  If the device works within the reactive near field (as I have already suggested), there should be a trade-off between the linear increase in energy as frequency increases, and a decrease in the size of the reactive near field as frequency increases (smaller near field, less electrons to excite and collect energy from).  A lower frequency device has lots of electrons from which to draw energy, but each eV is small.  A high frequency device draws from fewer, more energetic electrons.

Problems

The close proximity of the two circuits to each other will alter their SRF, because of stray capacitance between the two coils (there will also be stray capacitance between other nearby objects, like a person, a piece of damp wood, just about anything).  L2 is tuned in the presence of L1, or vice versa and L1 then tuned to L2’s SRF, as suggested in this article (14).  This can’t be an easy task without a signal generator and oscilloscope.

A higher Q circuit will be more difficult to tune, as the bandwidth/sweet spot is narrower (5,6).  Perhaps some are experiencing difficulties as their circuit Q is too high, so not matching primary to secondary sufficiently well.

Spark gap timing must be critical too.  A spark creates heavily damped waves of many frequencies.  The duration of the useable wave (NOT its frequency) may be in hundredths or thousandths of a second and needs to be constantly supplied to maintain the resonance in L1.

Also, as a load on L2 is increased, the resistance increases within L2, which will affect the tuning by the circuit’s resonant frequency and Q.  Even though the circuits will both be 90 deg out of phase, there is still some heat generated as voltage and current waves partially overlap.  Perhaps careful design/tuning of circuit L2 could actually allow for the change in peak Q frequency caused by increasing resistance by, in effect, being slightly ‘detuned’ at lower load and then coming into ‘perfect tune’ as the applied load increases to the desired maximum.

Assuming you can make a working system, you’ll need to rectify and invert to 50/60Hz AC again, before transforming conventionally to a useable voltage, which will cost. 

One Invention

There seems no significant difference in principle between (A) Tesla’s four-tuned radio circuits, (B) the early Coil or (C) the true TC/magnifying transmitter, even though their construction, uses and outputs vary.

(A) Tesla’s radio circuit is an improvement over the Hertz transmitter (where the spark drives the antenna directly).  Tesla used the same spark gap to drive his primary circuit, which, when timed and tuned to resonate it, generated a near continuous frequency, which was amplified by the secondary coil, resonant at the same frequency and transmitted.  Duddell/Poulsen’s HV arc gap, with a continuous frequency, may offer advantages, rather than having to constantly ‘hit’ the primary circuit with oscillations from a spark gap.  It seems no coincidence that Kapanadze and Smith’s ‘spark gaps’ are more like arc gaps.

(B) I think the early 2 coil Tesla Coil is the familiar primary transmitting to a grounded series resonant coil (FSR - low impedance), which will have voltage and current antinodes along its length.

(C) The secondary of the later Tesla Coil/Magnifying Transmitter is either/both:

(i) The familiar grounded secondary coil and one ‘plate’ of the free space capacitor (the top toroid) - a series LC - where the voltage can rise to enormously high values, causing the spectacular voltage breakdown through the air (dielectric) to earth (the other capacitor ‘plate’), thereby completing the circuit.  At the opposite (grounded) end of the secondary, the current will be at a maximum point/current antinode.  The high current standing wave here can cause arcing; high power coils are often shielded in an attempt to prevent arcing between primary and secondary (7, pgs 16-18).

(ii) Two coils, one coil being driven above its fundamental self resonant frequency, the other below its SRF - a series LC again - only instead of discharging to ground via the air gap, it is used to generate reactive power, by connecting to the high current ends and at the high voltage L2/C2 intersection.

Where does the energy come from?  Some speculation.

Stay with me on this one.  One possible explanation comes from paramagnetics - magnetism due to the spin of electrons, a very weak effect and generally ignored in EM.  Most odd numbered atoms, such as nitrogen, are paramagnetic.  Nitrogen makes up most of our atmosphere and no doubt a fair chunk of the soil too.  Tesla reportedly used liquefied air to help earth Wardenclyffe (2, pg 475), but perhaps there is a different reason?

An electron spins on its own axis, and are normally paired (with regard to their spin), where two spinning in opposite directions cancel each other out (14).  I’m guessing that the ‘unpaired’ electron in adjacent odd numbered elements spin in opposite directions to remain neutral, as a pair.  The high frequency alternating/oscillating electromagnetic field from our primary coil ‘shakes’ these unpaired electrons into action and is where the  secondary receives the energy from.  This energy is not from the paramagnetic effect itself, but is collected from a paramagnetic element that is subjected to the HF AC field.

If electrical energy is collected from these electrons, heat seems the most likely source.   All matter above absolute zero has some energy.  So at an ambient 20 Celcius (293 K), there is a great deal of energy in the atoms all around us. This heat is there because molecules are moving around (Brownian motion).  Also, electrons are moving around the nucleus, and we all know that a moving charge is current.  If some of the energy of atoms in the surrounding reactive near field around the transmitter/receiver is being collected and converted to useable electricity, this matter must cool down, if we accept the Conservation of Energy. It will get cold.

Say nearly all the energy in the electrons in the reactive near field around our TC has been collected and the heat from the region outside cannot flow in fast enough to replenish it, the temperature of the matter in the near field will approach absolute zero.  The point at which no more energy can be drawn from a system without some structural change to that system is, I believe, called its zero point energy in ’conventional’ physics - sound familiar?

If the secondary continues to supply the load at absolute zero, then some structural change to the matter around the TC must occur for energy to continue to flow.

Maybe an inner valence electron drops into the nucleus and the matter itself is transformed, mass is lost as it is directly converted into energy or some form of gravitational energy/force or aether is tapped into, as others have suggested on this forum and elsewhere.  I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable to understand these explanations, so I won’t comment on them but I wouldn’t want to push a device to this limit. 

The point is that there may be an explanation for the Tesla Coil (et al), from well documented existing EM and RF theory, without resorting to phrases like scalar wave (standing wave?), cold electricity (VAR?), radiant energy (EM?), aether (real/virtual photons?), ZPE (?) don’t kill the dipole (!!!).  These terms are not adequately defined and/or mean different things to different people.  This makes researching Tesla outside the FE scene a harder task, as expressions have to be interpreted.  They may well be right, but they are only really used within the tight FE circle, where criticisms are sometimes levelled against ‘conventional science’ for being nepotistic. It is possible that some within the FE scene are just as short sighted as the scientists they berate or are being deliberately obstructive, to camouflage the real meaning.  The motive for this could be either benign or malicious.

The device (and variations of it), appear too many times for there not to be some kernel of truth, barring a cleverly orchestrated campaign of FE disinformation, the motive for which is beyond me.  I’m no RF expert or coil builder but I hope my attempt at explanation is at least logical, easy to follow and, more importantly, the references will help the experimenters focus their trial and error approach by giving some definite parameters to aim for.  May you go forth and multiply (your volts and amps) and I wish well to one and all.

Others have already stated or hinted at most of the relevant bits in this thread, so if this is old news, just go to the next post…..

References & Further Reading

(1)   Electromagentics Explained 2nd Edition, Ron Schmitt.  EM/antenna theory
(2)   Wizard â€" The Life & Times of Nikola Tesla, by Marc Seifer.  Not a technical book, but an insight into Tesla.  Reminds us he was human, with many frailties.
(3)   www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/3.html   Series LC circuit
(4)   www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/2.html   Parallel LC circuit
(5)   www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/5.html Effect of resistance on resonant frequency
(6)   www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/6.html Q and bandwidth
(7)   www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_14/6.html Standing waves & resonance
(   www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_14/7.html Impedance transformation
(9)   www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/1631-peter-whatever-happened-eric-p-dollard-3.html#post90090 one contributor is particularly well worth reading - amongst other things, pointing out the obvious flaw in the expression ‘scalar wave’.
(10)   www.hamwaves.com/antennas/inductance.html for its inductance calculator
(11)   www.edn.com/article/489722-RF_inductor_modeling_for_the_21st_century.php  relevant, even though mathematical models are not real world; download the .pdf for the diagrams
(12)   www.ttr.com/corum/index.htm anything by the Corums is worth a look but not easy to read between the lines.
(13) www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/electromagnetic_fieldmemo/electromagnetic.html#section_6 OSHA paper on measuring E & H fields, section VI is the best bit.
(14)   www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGerlach.html Notes on Stern â€" Gerlach electron spin experiment.
(15)   http://www.frontiernet.net/~tesla/html/tuneacoil.htm Tesla coil tuning tips.

[core]

  All that stuff sounds to complicated. It has to be easier. I would imagine to 'fine tune' a device maybe the above would have to be implemented, but not to get basic results.

  I think we lost our way when we stopped talking about the 'Lindsy' condenser and heat exchangers in general.

Respectfully,

Core

[dllabarre]

  All that stuff sounds to complicated. It has to be easier. I would imagine to 'fine tune' a device maybe the above would have to be implemented, but not to get basic results.

  I think we lost our way when we stopped talking about the 'Lindsy' condenser and heat exchangers in general.

Respectfully,

Core

Agree.  Looking at Tariels green box video, it appears to be more simple.
Of course there is some "trick" or "secret" that Tariel is using to obtain his results that we need to uncover.
I'm working toward replicating the device/results Tariel shows in the green box video.
Once that is done then modify it to be more like the glass box version.
Being it's the progression Tariel followed I figure it makes more sense to do the same.

DonL

[freshcutgrass]

Here's the abridged version

My guess

Tesla (et al) L1 circuit as Bolt already described, 1/4 wave electric monopole/parallel LC (high impedance circuit) at self resonant frequency.  To capture HF magnetic disturbance from L1, use low impedance circuit receiver, like half wave magnetic loop antenna.  Series LC circuit at self resonant frequency is low impedance BUT also very high voltage between L2 & C2.  Volts & amps in circuit 2 are 90deg out of phase.

Big sparks TC is functionally the same, toroid is one half of capacitor, air is dielectric and whatever sparks hit first is other side of capacitor, to ground and circuit is completed, if you earth bottom of L2.

None of my words/phrases used, all AC circuit theory, transmission lines, standing waves, antenna theory.  All out there on web or in texts, just pick out right bits of jigsaw.  If I'm wrong, please correct.

[core]

Here's the abridged version

Here's mine.

No.   

Respectfully,

Core