Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[Hoppy]

Perhaps the capacitor bank which is charged up by the generator is able to maintain the circuit to feed resonant power into the L1C tank. In the video the guy doing the hand-cranking of the generator measures something (probably voltage) I am unable to see but the multimeter's tips are tied to the capacitor bank. Then he pulles out something from the board (I think it is an insulating piece to separate two otherwise touching pins, this may be the S2 switch in the schematic by x_name41)  i.e. the guy switches on the rest of the circuit, this happens at 00:12 in the video and the drive to the tank circuit may start.  I watched carefully and I think that 3 or max 4 seconds later the incandescent lamps start to light up very deemly first, then they reach the moderate brightness.  By the way, the output voltage across the lamps was about 155V (if the multimeter was able to measure correctly the modulated waveform) as I figure from the text in the schematic. This means that the output power may not have been one kW if the bulbs were made for 220V...  but still a few hundred watts.
So the capacitor bank was needed to supply enough "juice" for 3-4 seconds, then the feedback transformer  may have been able to supply the circuit from the output power. The primary coil of this transformer was in parallel with the lamps as shown in the schematic by x_name41 and probable worked from the 50 Hz "parts" of the the modulated waveform coming from the L1C tank circuit,  obviously the several hundred kHz "parts" of the output waveform did not drive this normal mains-type-looking toroidal transformer, designed for the mains frequency (50 Hz in Russia).
I observed one more thing: the guy gripped the ground connection on the pipe (see in the video at 01:06) either to show it was not hot (maybe from heat due to the possible lamps current draw) or to show it was not under the 220V mains voltage...  I do not know.

So if this video was not a fake and a part of the high voltage reactive power circulating in the L1C tank was really driven through the ground via the lamp load (by the help of coupling coil L4) then we have seen a self runner... 

EDIT:  Eventually what we can see (and still giving the benefit of doubt) is that 3 paralleled lamp bulbs are grounded at one of their connection points and are driven by a "single wire",  this single wire is one of the ends of coupling coil L4.  (This single wire feeding is like an Avramenko plug, without the rectifier diodes.)  And the coil L4 is driven from the reactive power in the L1C tank circuit, provided this reactive power is high enough to defeat all the wire and ground/soil dielectric losses of the total tank circuit so that the lamp load is still able to receive the some hundred watts 'brightness'.

Gyula

It may be possible to progress further towards an explanation of operation if and when further information is forthcoming from the designer. I don't see the point of people posting videos of devices that supposedly demonstrate self-running and expect them to be taken seriously, when they fail to provide enough technical detail to allow others an attempt at replication. One likely explanation for this is  that they are having a laugh and just wish to sow crap on the FE fora!

[guruji]

Hoppy I don't think that the video is fake cause it's true the bulbs were lit slowly. If hooked to the grid they would not act that way.
Gyulasun can you post a scheme that you're trying to explain please?
Thanks

[Zeitmaschine]

They forgot to draw in the funny white wire on the scheme.

[Hoppy]

They forgot to draw in the funny white wire on the scheme.

Its just a scrap length of PVC insulated mains cable that just happens to have been dropped very close to the water pipe. No suggestion of faking here 

[Farmhand]

So you show the reactive power circulating in the LC tank can be very much higher than the input power, this is okay and known.

Problem is how you extract the reactive power....

One suggestion on the forums is to drive through the reactive current via the ground.  In the video you linked to (1kW with the 3 bulbs) there is only a single ground wire connection to the metal pipe, so how the big reactive power is utilized?

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.

..