Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[Сергей В.]

Another Great Free Energy site cleaned and wiped-out by US governement.

Check this US site, full of schematics and diagrams of Free Energy devices. It was working until yesterday (10 hours ago) and now is wiped-out and forbidden for public.
Now you know where from grow out legs and who have blocked Free Energy Devices all over the world.

http://www.freeenergyinventions.bugs3.com/KAPANADZE.html
Tesla-Don Smith-Bob Teal-Kapanadze-Ed Gray-Robert Alexander-Bedini ....
http://freeenergyinventions.bugs3.com

Download and spread this books of Tesla Technology untill you have a chance to do it. Direct proofs of Free Energy Tesla Technology !!

Meyl - Scalar Wave Technology - Documentation for the Experimental-Kit to the transmission of ele.pdf
Meyl - Scalar Waves (first Tesla physics textbook for engineers) (2003).pdf
Meyl - Scalar Waves - Theory And Experiments (2001).pdf

http://feynmanslab.com/docs/meyl/english/

and this
http://prezi.com/cp87n819alg2/donzelina-2012/#
http://prezi.com/juxlx7tcqhxb/don-zilano-device-01/
File Jacksons_Tesla-wireless-coil_instructions_Apr-21-2011.pdf
http://www.bergfiles.com/i/bf44cc4a9eh32i0#
http://smartscarecrow.blogspot.com/2011/04/20110428-tesla-meyl-and-jacksons.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78882094/Tesla-Sekrety
http://es.scribd.com/doc/61269899/Chung-s-Negative-Resistance-Experiment
http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/rootes-listerts3/ts3.htm
http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/77080437/?tab=summary

[verpies]

(http://www.overunity.com/Themes/default/images/icons/clip.gif) Autogenerator rev. 2.2.png (2611.72 kB, 1122x793)
  « Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 04:39:27 PM by ronotte » 

@ronotte

Thanks for adding the schematic diagram that matches your photos.

The yellow graphical depiction of the vertical E-Field distribution along the helical transmission line resonantor (secondary winding) was an unusual and nice addition to the schematic.

If that is the real E-Field distribution in your device, then your operating frequency is a little too high.

Idealy for a quarter-wave resonator, the V_MAX should be at the very top of the winding in order to achieve the maximum VSWR - the opposite what most RF engineers do when matching an RF transmitter to an antenna

I do not see how this Kacher/Tesla Coil hybrid can achieve over unity efficiency, though.

[verpies]

Did you read the patent? It clearly says Magnetic amplifier and Saturable reactor. It's related to the mag amp. It clearly states it. look at section 0010. It's a reluctance switch which is very very close to the magmap. Thats why they stated the reference in the patent as prior art.

Yes, I read it.

Reluctance flux switches indeed are used by Magnetic Amplifiers, Saturable Reactors and the Annis Eberly Device described in the patent.

However just because flux switches are used in both the Annis Eberly Device and Mag Amps, does not mean that the Annis Eberly Device is a Mag Amp.

Just like not every device that uses Desmodromic Valves is an Internal Combustion Engine - by the same token, not every device that uses reluctance flux switches is a Saturable Reactor or a Mag Amp.

The Annis Eberly Device described in the patent uses multiple flux switches and has to mention the technology of those switches in the text of the patent in a section "Background of the Invention" as a component of the invention, in order to prevent patent rejection on prior art basis.

Analogically, if I was patenting a water pump using Desmodromic Valves, it would be prudent for me to mention them as a prior art component of the invention or my patent could be trivially busted by claiming that the Desmodromic Valves were already invented by someone else patenting an Internal Combustion Engine, allowing the valves themselves to become the contested innovation appearing in the patent, instead of their mere application.

Just because some words or phrases appear in a patent does not mean that the patent represents those words/phrases.  It's just patentese.

The 6 differences I had listed in my previous message illustrate that the Annis Eberly Device has more differences from a Mag Amp than similarities.


P.S.
The Konrad and Brudny reference to a flux switch controlled by electric current, appearing in section [0011] of this Annis Eberly US20090096219 Patent, might be relevant to the operation of the Yoke device. ( non NMR ! )

[T-1000]

If you think it's time waste than don't read the patents. It's for people which want to learn something new. With that kind of thinking like yours you can close the forum and stay all the life in ignorance. 

The yoke device, the Tesla coil + caduceus primary + ionization effect is all done by my hands as well. The main difference is, I know details down to assembly and they're shared over forums and youtube so everyone can rebuild it. And what you link in youtube - they are hidden circuits from eyes of people and nobody can "replicate" it unless someone reinvents the wheel if they are not fakes in first place.

[jbignes5]

Yes, I read it.

Reluctance flux switches indeed are used by Magnetic Amplifiers, Saturable Reactors and the Annis Eberly Device described in the patent.

However just because flux switches are used in both the Annis Eberly Device and Mag Amps, does not mean that the Annis Eberly Device is a Mag Amp.

Just like not every device that uses Desmodromic Valves is an Internal Combustion Engine - by the same token, not every device that uses reluctance flux switches is a Saturable Reactor or a Mag Amp.

The Annis Eberly Device described in the patent uses multiple flux switches and has to mention the technology of those switches in the text of the patent in a section "Background of the Invention" as a component of the invention, in order to prevent patent rejection on prior art basis.

Analogically, if I was patenting a water pump using Desmodromic Valves, it would be prudent for me to mention them as a prior art component of the invention or my patent could be trivially busted by claiming that the Desmodromic Valves were already invented by someone else patenting an Internal Combustion Engine, allowing the valves themselves to become the contested innovation appearing in the patent, instead of their mere application.

Just because some words or phrases appear in a patent does not mean that the patent represents those words/phrases.  It's just patentese.

The 6 differences I had listed in my previous message illustrate that the Annis Eberly Device has more differences from a Mag Amp than similarities.


P.S.
The Konrad and Brudny reference to a flux switch controlled by electric current, appearing in section [0011] of this Annis Eberly US20090096219 Patent, might be relevant to the operation of the Yoke device. ( non NMR ! )

Ok lets agree that The reluctance switch has the magamp in it as a base. In america you can edit a patent for 20% and will be granted a patent is 20% of the old patent was changed. This is what happened. They change only 20% of the patent to get control of the patent. These are patent games and a great many great inventors have been screwed this way.
The whole patent would not work if the magamp was not there. Seeing that this version you are talking about is only a mirrored copy of the magamp and saturable reactor.


The prudence of mentioning prior art is to tell the patent clerk that there are patents out there already that have this technology in them. This precludes you from originating the art and lets the clerk know that you only need to change 20% of that patent by law to get an issuance of another patent. This in my honest opinion is theft. State sponsored theft. But thats how they want it. Why, because that allows them to do the same thing. Patents in my opinion are only about potential money. Even Tesla hated it but since other take without permission and use that to generate money he decided it was best to play the game so that others could not take his work.


The last link proves his disdain for people who did this exact thing.


So yes the magamp is something that does in fact work. It is a great way to control massive amounts of current with not much at the base. The magamp is sooo hearty and robust that we could finally make a perfect control transistor without the limitations of silicon. Plus the mag amp can be built at home and customized to any situation one would need.


You have to understand that for the most part we will not be using the magamp for very high currents except just before the load, if the load is standard to our current system. If it is designed like the Tesla system where the load actually converts the high voltage low current impulses inside of the load then you only need to switch the high voltage part before the load. This could take a High voltage low current to control a very high voltage very low current load pulse.

I have to agree with your Post subscript. In fact I believe the core didn't have much to do with it and NMR actually got in the way. Thats why the core lost it's ability to maintain the channel and started to permanently polarize. This is exactly how they create magnets. Reversing the flow allows them to line up even more channels and make the permanent part more resistant to demagnetizing reverse flows.

This is the reason I think Tesla used this Bessmer Steel. It's ability to float between polarizations is very unique. In fact compared to regual methods he (Tesla) got 2.5 times the force from using Bessemer steel(very soft iron). Just with that alone one could make a unit way OU. Look at most of the high % motor out there (98% efficient) and replace the channels with Bessemer steel. What kind of % do you think you would get then?

Lets try this with the magamp now.. Very very small amounts of signal can influence very large currents then.