Consider a resonant tank circuit, when tuned current at certain frequency does not go through. When power is collected using secondary coil back-EMF is induced to source which drives tank circuit off resonance lowering its impedance (inductive reactance) and more current begins to go through it, power gets used. When using high frequency then amount of wire used in secondary can be less and if such a short secondary coil is shorted then it has no effect on primary side. There is no DC resistance hence it has no effect, I have tested this several times using different coils and also Utkin explains it well. But the instant there is load Mr Lenz kicks in and resonance is destroyed in the tank and current begins to get through.
My idea is simple. What if we could create a second back-EMF which is exactly opposite (180 degrees) to first back EMF ? Then those two back EMF would cancel each other out and resonance is not destroyed. As resonance condition stays tank circuit blocks current coming from source and power is not used. Only reactive power that is running in the tank is copied to load.
Look at the schematic picture, there is tuned tank circuit and CW wound coil, then connected to it is second coil wound CCW and series capacitor to get series resonance. Secondary then goes over two primaries. When there is no load taken, the tank circuit is 'hot', it has all power there as reactive power and it effectively blocks current flow at the resonant frequency. The second primary is 'cold', it is only delivering little power to tank circuit. Next load is connected, what happens ? There are two primaries so both gets back-EMF into them. But now primaries are in opposite direction so we will get a 180 degrees phase shift and back-EMFs cancel each other out.
Input has to be sine wave, as tank circuits can only block sine waves at its resonant frequency. Any attempt to use spark gaps, half sine or square waves at source will not work when using this schematic.
Kind a simple idea isn't it, anyone care to take a closer look or has this been tried before ?
Hello,
What were your results? Which direction is the secondary coil wound (cw or ccw) ?
Secondary direction does not matter. I am doing some testing and already have reached a point where connecting load has no effect on input. But my input trafo is not tuned. I use audio amplifier and I need to step up voltage first to get above 5 volts. Now my problem is that this stepup trafo is not at correct frequency and it uses power though there is no load. If I can make a tank circuit in that also then I should see some good results.
Quote from: Jack Noskills on January 23, 2013, 07:40:22 AM
Secondary direction does not matter. I am doing some testing and already have reached a point where connecting load has no effect on input. But my input trafo is not tuned. I use audio amplifier and I need to step up voltage first to get above 5 volts. Now my problem is that this stepup trafo is not at correct frequency and it uses power though there is no load. If I can make a tank circuit in that also then I should see some good results.
Jack,
You appear to have already made some progress. Can you provide full details of your build, test and measurement setup and results, so that others may experiment along the same lines?
Quote from: Jack Noskills on January 23, 2013, 06:01:09 AM
Look at the schematic picture, there is tuned tank circuit and CW wound coil, then connected to it is second coil wound CCW and series capacitor to get series resonance. Secondary then goes over two primaries.
You are neglecting the mutual inductance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_inductance#Coupled_inductors) between W1 and W2.
There is a huge difference between behaviors of circuits depicted in Diag.1 and in Diag.2.
If you still think that your idea still has merit, let me know...
Quote from: Hoppy on January 23, 2013, 09:22:50 AM
Jack,
You appear to have already made some progress. Can you provide full details of your build, test and measurement setup and results, so that others may experiment along the same lines?
Jack
Can you provide details like the make/manufacturer of the transformer, inductance of each coil, kind and size of caps, how you added the secondary to this transformer.
If you made the transformer, how many turns, wire size, inductance, etc.
I have to say your schematic is very similar to what I'm working on also.
Don
Jack
Good. If you really make it working then I must congratulate you, you are much better experimenter then me. I tried your setup with two 1:1 transformers without big results. Yet I believe you are on good track.
verpies
I appreciate your very valuable knowledge, but can you think outside of the box ? can you imagine a system without symmerical mutual inductance ? or can you imagine RCL circuit with almost no reactive power yet with real power ?
I think Jack would expain it better how it can be 200% efficient (minus resistance looses)
It took me years to understand simple scientific fact however ... because I have no proof (hard to find in garage) I would not tell you....yes, I know you will ridicule me now... ;)
btw how faint and strong should be permanent magnet to levitate in Earth magnetic field ?
verpies, diagram 3 is the same I use, and it does not work if coils are separated from each other, or so it seems. I was unable to find resonance in the tank circuit when they were connected as CW+CCW. With CW+CW I could see resonance, so it matters much how the coils are wound. I got it working using series caduceous winding but bifilar might also work, haven't tested that though.
dllbarre, I am using M-088 nanoperm toroid from magnetec (80000 perm), caps are 220 nf and 110 nf, PC is connected to audio amplifier via phone jack and I use goldwave audio editor (free from www.goldwave.com (http://www.goldwave.com/)) to do sine sweeps. I got halogen lamps so I can see if there is resonance when I do the sweep. Number of knots does not matter, I use enough so I can get resonance below 20 kHz.
I am using two toroids, first one is just a step up trafo which I use to drive the second. I use caduceous primary and caduceous secondary in the step up, enamelled wire maybe 0.75 mm thick. With that I can get easily over 200 watts out even at 20 kHz when using it as normal trafo, my audio amp can put out 260 watts. When I used normal windings I could get power below 10 kHz only. Above that output coil started to slow itself down and output power went down. PC + audio amp is much better config for testing compared to Don's NST, I don't actually have to know what I am doing lol, just sweep.
Yesterday I was able to tune the stepup trafo quite close to output trafo, not perfect but I think points are within 50 Hz, sweet spot is around 1700 Hz now. I should use lower permeability core to get higher frequency but I don't have any. When there is no load connected watt meter showed 33 watts being used. If I crank up the volume more power gets used so must not over do it, stepup tank seems to be leaking. Then I connected 40 watt bulb to load, I got maybe 20-30 watts worth of light and watt meter still showed 33 watts. There is sound which seems to come from the step up trafo and it does not change when power is taken. So this seems to work as it should. For output coil I used bifilar wound all over toroid as it is energy amplifying coil. Since load has no effect on input it gives more power to output. Now I have made bigger output coil, I used 9 strand Litz wire (10 meters * 9) for that and I need to do some tests with it using multi bifilar windings.
I am still missing resonant rise in the source and I got few ideas I can try. I am thinking two bifilar coils interleaved using figure 8 wire wound in caduceous style as primary. So basically just a series caduceous coil using figure 8 wire, I should be able to find resonance point using that since I can find it using caduceous using one wire. There are few options how to connect those four wires, lets see if I can find a sweet spot somewhere.
So here summary of current state and some plans for next. If anyone thinks along the same lines then start experimenting and share what you find so we can get this thing going.
verpies, just remembered that inductance of caduceous coil is zero, this means that mutual inductance between W1 and W2 is also zero in your picture. When connected like this it is possible to tune system so there are hot and cold coils as I have explained, and testing confirmed it. So yes, I do think this has some merit now. What do you think ?
Quote from: forest on January 24, 2013, 01:12:27 AM
...can you think outside of the box ?
What box? I can think about what I have experienced and measured and I have not done that with everything.
Quote from: forest on January 24, 2013, 01:12:27 AM
can you imagine a system without symmetrical mutual inductance ?
You have to be more precise. What system? ...a transformer?
Quote from: forest on January 24, 2013, 01:12:27 AM
or can you imagine RCL circuit with almost no reactive power yet with real power ?
Again, you have to be more precise. Power measured where? At the inductor, capacitor, resistor or the stimulating power source, if there is any...
Quote from: forest on January 24, 2013, 01:12:27 AM
I think Jack would explain it better how it can be 200% efficient (minus resistance looses)
I jack shows O/I>1 measurements or a selfrunner or even a unidirectional induction than I will be interested.
It would not matter if the device contradicted some widely accepted theory.
Quote from: forest on January 24, 2013, 01:12:27 AM
It took me years to understand simple scientific fact however ... because I have no proof (hard to find in garage) I would not tell you....yes, I know you will ridicule me now... ;)
If you look at the history of my posts, you will notice that I never ridicule anyone.
Quote from: forest on January 24, 2013, 01:12:27 AM
BTW: How faint and strong should be permanent magnet to levitate in Earth magnetic field ?
A magnet would not levitate. It would flip and become attracted to one of the Earth's magnetic poles.
Quote from: Jack Noskills on January 24, 2013, 04:08:01 AM
Just remembered that inductance of caduceus coil is zero
If by "caduceus" you mean two layer bucking coils, then the schematic should be adjusted as shown below.
If you mean two layer aiding coils then the former schematics and arguments still apply.
The coil configuration is denoted by the dot convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_convention).
Quote from: Jack Noskills on January 24, 2013, 04:08:01 AM
...this means that mutual inductance between W1 and W2 is also zero in your picture. When connected like this it is possible to tune system so there are hot and cold coils as I have explained, and testing confirmed it. So yes, I do think this has some merit now. What do you think ?
In bucking coil configuration the magnetic flux of one half of the coil opposes the flux of the other half. In an ideal bucking coil the two fluxes cancel each other and the result is zero net flux and zero self-inductance. In real coils there is always some leakage flux and leakage inductance between the two winding halves and if the winding does not span the whole circumference of the core, the flux leakage is increased (see the attachment for an illustration of this effect in a single layer toroidal winding). Flux leakage also is exaggerated in windings with odd number of layers (1, 3, 5...) asymmetrical windings or in high-pitch windings. There is also a very small interwinding capacitance that becomes significant in the MHz range.
Anyway, because ideal bucking coils have no effective self-inductance, then they cannot form an LCR circuit. They can only form an RC circuit, because a coil without self-inductance acts as a resistor. Series RC circuit does not exhibit any resonance, only high pass filtering (parallel RC - low pass).
Also, since ideal bucking coils have no effective self-inductance they also have no mutual-inductance (one without the other, on a common core, would be an anomaly).
Lack of mutual-inductance is good between W1 and W2 but very bad between W1 and W3 as well as between W2 and W3, because without mutual-inductance no power can be transferred to W3 according to conventional theory :(
If you are getting power transfer to W3 anyway, then:
1) The coils are not in bucking configuration (e.g. one W1 dot is moved)
2) The coils are imperfect and have leakage (causing mutual and self-inductance)
3) There is an anomaly worth investigating (mutual-inductance without self-inductance)
Now, don't get excited about pt.3 before you eliminate the possibility of pt.1 and pt.2
I use series caduceus so there is start, middle and end points. Enamelled wires go side by side and no layers, one round for whole toroid. I counted 72 knots. Then secondary on top of caduceus, so far tested plain and bifilar but cannot compare them as number of turns were not equal (I got no meters). Parallel cap is between middle point and start and series cap is between end and source, as depicted in the picture I made. I got resonance point, my halogen lamp dimms and then it comes back to light again slowly so it is not RC filter. Just learned what RC filter is, thanks for that. I have seen this few times when testing other coil configurations and did not understand then.
pt1 is eliminated, but don't know about pt2. How should the circuit behave to eliminate pt2 ? I can take power from it without any change occurring in source, is this enough or is something else needed ?
Quote from: Jack Noskills on January 24, 2013, 07:17:43 AM
How should the circuit behave to eliminate pt2 ?
a) You can measure the self-inductance of W1 with a decent multimeter (the low-quality ones do not have this function)
b) You can measure mutual-inductance by applying e.g. sinewave AC to W1 and measure if any AC voltage is induced at W2. If voltage is induced at W2 then mutual-inductance is not zero.
Both without any capacitors.
Hey jacknoskills, Have you read this page or tryed this circuit schematic???
http://tarielkapanadze.ru/science-eng.htm (http://tarielkapanadze.ru/science-eng.htm)
here is their circuit diagram..
Quote from: elementSix on January 24, 2013, 03:14:31 PM
Have you read this page or tryed this circuit schematic???
I can't open the link.
Are those air cored coils?
@Verpies
I was able open it just by clicking on the link..
http://tarielkapanadze.ru/science-eng.htm
Quote from: 27Bubba on January 24, 2013, 07:51:45 PM
I was able open it just by clicking on the link..
Then I have some kind of local DNS problem.
This may work for you .. Try the ( http://tarielkapanadze.ru ) then click on "Getting free energy scientifically". ;)
Quote from: verpies on January 24, 2013, 06:16:19 PM
I can't open the link.
Are those air cored coils?
I think its Aircored, or ferrit. Im not sure, but I can only post the page as text. So the equations are missing, they are in jpegs.
Try it with a sine wave also.
Here is some info from it...
We are interested in the third variant.
In this variant of the R = 100 Ohm, L = 40 mH и C = 5 mF.
Resonance frequency f = 331 Hz
Critical resistance Rcr= 44.721 Ohm
In the task at the specified parameters - the amplitude of the voltage Ubc equal to 125 volts.
If instead of R = 100 Ом take R = 50 Ohm, get the amplitude Ubc equal to 500 volts.
Lovers of strong sensations can take R = 44.73 Ohms, and get 12600 volts.
That in 100 times more input voltage and reactive energy circuit is increased to 10000 times.
Thus the phenomenon can be called energy resonance, or "resonance in resonance" by Tariel Kapanadze.
verpies, I don't have meters so can do measurements by taking power only. If caps are removed effect is gone. I can say that my caduceous winding is pretty good so I don't think it is leakage flux. Q factor is about 10 frinkinhoivens.
Just to get on the map, you are saying that there should not be RLC circuit in circuit like figure 3 (no resonance point), only RC hence no power transfer to W3. If there is resonance point only then there can be power transfer to W3 ?
Well, when using caduceous style winding I got power transfer to W3 which should not happen.
Yesterday I made caduceous winding using figure 8 wire. Wire itself is stranded and it has plastic insulation. When winding was ready I had two caduceous coils, one in the black wire and second in the blue wire. First I used just one caduceous and placed cap there, I got resonance about 1300 Hz. Then I connected them in series: end of blue wire connected to start of black wire to make the middle point. Then cap C between middle point and start of blue wire and then series cap C/2 between end of black wire and source. I got resonance still at about 1300 Hz, no change. In fact I think I got two resonance points, the other was just below 2000 Hz. Did not look above 2000 Hz though. Have just tested it quickly and need to play more, maybe I made a mistake. But if true, then I wonder what happens if I would drive it using those two resonance frequencies ? Hmm. obviously my tank at source would stop working but maybe there is a workaround, less power in one frequency or something like that. Dunno, just throwing out some ideas. I bet that if there would be more caduceous cols in series there would be more resonance points.
elementsix, I use only coils, caps and sinewave input. I got some diodes but I have learned that only thing I can do with them is to generate heat.
Is there anyone who could test this setup ? Ferrite does not matter, number of knots does not matter, value of caps does not matter and wire to use does not matter. Just double check if you can find resonance as there should not be any. If circuit is still RLC then I think there something usefull going on and worth investigating
Quote from: Jack Noskills on January 25, 2013, 02:59:23 AM
I don't have meters so can do measurements by taking power only. If caps are removed effect is gone.
During this measurement the goal is not to transfer power or induce voltage at W3 but to transfer power between W1 and W2 or induce voltage in W2 by supplying W1 with AC.
Quote from: Jack Noskills on January 25, 2013, 02:59:23 AM
I can say that my caduceous winding is pretty good so I don't think it is leakage flux. Q factor is about 10 frinkinhoivens.
Curious units ;)
The near field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field) of even perfectly wound coils can be significant because of the Biot-Savart law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot_savart), so they can surprise you. The whole purpose of this measurement without caps is to determine how much interaction happens between W1 and W2.
Quote from: Jack Noskills on January 25, 2013, 02:59:23 AM
Just to get on the map, you are saying that there should not be RLC circuit in circuit like figure 3 (no resonance point), only RC hence no power transfer to W3.
Not that there should not be, but that there cannot be an RLC circuit if L is zero. A coil with no self-inductance behaves like a resistor.
Quote from: Jack Noskills on January 25, 2013, 02:59:23 AM
If there is resonance point only then there can be power transfer to W3 ?
Well, when using caduceous style winding I got power transfer to W3 which should not happen.
Power transfer to W3 by near-fields (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field) is not surprising. What would be surprising is if you had power transfer between W1 and W3 as well as W2 and W3 but no power transfer between W1 and W2.
Quote from: verpies on January 25, 2013, 08:27:01 AM
During this measurement the goal is not to transfer power or induce voltage at W3 but to transfer power between W1 and W2 or induce voltage in W2 by supplying W1 with AC.
The near field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field) of even perfectly wound coils can be significant because of the Biot-Savart law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot_savart), so they can surprise you. The whole purpose of this measurement without caps is to determine how much interaction happens between W1 and W2.
Not that there should not be, but that there cannot be an RLC circuit if L is zero. A coil with no self-inductance behaves like a resistor.
Power transfer to W3 by near-fields (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field) is not surprising. What would be surprising is if you had power transfer between W1 and W3 as well as W2 and W3 but no power transfer between W1 and W2.
Removed caps, AC into W1 and there is power in W2, how could there not be dont know. Watt meter showed about 30 watts when load was connected and about 22 watts without load. When caps are in place watt meter showed 33 watts with or without load. If only I could make a proper tank circuit in my step up trafo then I might see something usefull. But it leaks if I push it too hard. I got maybe 5 volts but lots of amps, should there be more volts to make a better tank, any ideas anyone ?
What I think I see is that there is power transfer between W1 and W3 only, that is the whole idea. When load is taken then it makes two back EMFs 180 degrees apart which cancel out. There should be two currents in the primary, lots of power in W1 but little power in W2. Is this what is really going on I don't know and any help to solve this would be nice. I don't have any decent equipment to go further, I might get lucky with my stepup tank but don't count on it.
In Steinmetz times they tend to understand that EMF is a force like name suggest. In other thread I posted the explanation which is Newton third law , everywhere. Does it ring for you ? Famous "ring twice" notice by Ed Leedscalnin. You have it right Jack.
verpies
Sorry,I cannot answer your questions. I can only describe simple experiment which could be done and is today possible because there is a method to produce thin strips of high power neodymium magnets and thin strips of superconducting material. Just make light powerful magnet strip and cover around by superconducting shield (or maybe the opposite way) . Then put it in low temperature (to allow superconduction and Miller effect) . It has to be really light but as light as to be able to be pulled by Earth field (with a strength of magnetosphere as supposed by science). If it would levitate then it would be a proof magnetic field is responsible for gravitation.
Quote from: Jack Noskills on January 23, 2013, 06:01:09 AM
Consider a resonant tank circuit, when tuned current at certain frequency does not go through. When power is collected using secondary coil back-EMF is induced to source which drives tank circuit off resonance lowering its impedance (inductive reactance) and more current begins to go through it, power gets used. When using high frequency then amount of wire used in secondary can be less and if such a short secondary coil is shorted then it has no effect on primary side. There is no DC resistance hence it has no effect, I have tested this several times using different coils and also Utkin explains it well. But the instant there is load Mr Lenz kicks in and resonance is destroyed in the tank and current begins to get through.
My idea is simple. What if we could create a second back-EMF which is exactly opposite (180 degrees) to first back EMF ? Then those two back EMF would cancel each other out and resonance is not destroyed. As resonance condition stays tank circuit blocks current coming from source and power is not used. Only reactive power that is running in the tank is copied to load.
Look at the schematic picture, there is tuned tank circuit and CW wound coil, then connected to it is second coil wound CCW and series capacitor to get series resonance. Secondary then goes over two primaries. When there is no load taken, the tank circuit is 'hot', it has all power there as reactive power and it effectively blocks current flow at the resonant frequency. The second primary is 'cold', it is only delivering little power to tank circuit. Next load is connected, what happens ? There are two primaries so both gets back-EMF into them. But now primaries are in opposite direction so we will get a 180 degrees phase shift and back-EMFs cancel each other out.
Input has to be sine wave, as tank circuits can only block sine waves at its resonant frequency. Any attempt to use spark gaps, half sine or square waves at source will not work when using this schematic.
Kind a simple idea isn't it, anyone care to take a closer look or has this been tried before ?
The thing will immediately go into balance and the momentum is dead. the result is nothing. :(
oops sorry, I pressed Post too fast, this effect is of course no Miller but Meissner
My best result so far is 50 watts in and I got maybe 30-40 watts worth of light out. Watt meter showed 50 watts consumed regardless if there was load or no load. If I crank up the power level it is reflected in watt meter, with or without load. This means that my tank circuit is not blocking efficiently enough.
Seems that toroid shape is not optimum for this setup, I just cannot get the tank circuit to block enough power. So next thing to try is to use solenoid form. There needs to be two separate coils on coil former so they can be moved. One is CW and the other CCW, caps connected as shown in the first post of this thread. Then secondary over both coils. I am not sure if I try this, but I write down steps how it should be done.
1. wind solenoid form coil on a ferrite toroid CW and add parallel capacitor to form a tank circuit. Now you got ferrite and air cored solenoid. Find resonance point and check how much power it can block if possible.
2. wind second similar coil but CCW and connect it with first coil, add series capacitor. Put these on PVC tube so they can be moved easily. Check that resonance can still be found. Check the effect of coil position by moving one coil. There is magnetic interaction between coils and position does matter.
3. If steps 1 and 2 worked then wind secondary on top of both primaries, direction does not matter. There will be capacitance between secondary and two primaries so check that resonance is still there or if it moved. Best option is to use second tube which can be moved on top of primaries and wind secondary coil on that.
4. If steps 1-3 were ok now you can take all the reactive power you got in the primary tank circuit. Power circulating there is a function of voltage and frequency. If there is a resonant rise occurring in the tank then very little current is needed to drive it.
No diodes and no spark gaps are needed, but sinewave input is a must. High voltage is not required for prototype testing. Ferrite is not needed if you can use signal generator and MHz frequencies, air core will be fine. But here I think Q factor of the coils will play important role. I have experience from nanoperm ferrites only.
Can anyone join in and contribute by doing some testing ? Perhaps get some scope shots so we all could learn something ?
It seems your circuit isn't the Smith/Kapanadze secret, as they are supposed to have small power in and big power out, but you are reporting big power in and small power out, which is what any inefficient circuit or inefficient transformer will do. ;) You can get some different effects by connecting capacitors and inductors in various configurations, but unless you are putting small power in and getting bigger power out, you are not doing anything like Smith/Kapanadze. :D
My point is that it has part of the effect but something is still missing. Toroid is closed looped core and that is why the tank circuit is leaking. When using tube then those two primary coils would not affect each other via core, only magnetically. Then there would be hot tank circuit (CW) which has reactive power and cold series resonance circuit (CCW) which has close to zero current flowing as the tank circuit blocks current flow. As secondary is over both primaries there will be two back EMFs that cancel out. Hence resonance is not destroyed and there would be resonant rise occurring in the tank. If this would happen in the tank then only little power would be needed to maintain resonance. So it would work like Don Smith says.
Or is this too simple to understand ?
Quote from: Jack Noskills on February 06, 2013, 03:06:22 AM
So it would work like Don Smith says.
I have watched many of the Don Smith videos and read through his PDF file, and I don't recall him
saying anything like that. I only ever recall Don talking about pulling extra energy in from surrounding electrons
or something along those lines. Don also mentioned that he discovered how to tap the energy of permanent magnets,
but he was pretty tight lipped about that. Anyway, if you are not getting more power out than you are putting in, it is
not anything like Smith's or Kapanadze's generators. What you have is an inefficient transformer. :) Smith and Kapanadze
were claiming big over unity results. First you need to get more power out than being put in. Only then you can say you
have something that is anything like Smith or Kapanadze.
Or is this too simple to understand? ;D
I was not able to make strong enough block using tubes so I changed back to toroid shape.
I was also unable to make strong enough tank using capacitors on toroidal core so I decided to try using coils only. I made two identical toroids, first one is parallel caduceous and second one is series caduceous. Idea is that parallel caduceous passes current without slowing it down and series caduceous blocks it, I am not using capacitors. I got good enough blocking between 3 kHz and 6 kHz. If frequency was higher then tank begun to leak. I used 0.7 mm diameter wire, 0.31 diameter was not good as it started to leak at even at 3 kHz. Secondary coil is the wrapped over both toroids so back-EMF gets into both caduceous coils at the same time.
I got OU now but not too much. I got 12 volt 5 watt halogen on the stepup primary side, output of the audio amp is maybe 5 volts. I get maybe 35 watts of light at the output while the halogen is dimm, my watt meter shows 22 watts. No idea what is the power going through halogen. Next I removed the caduceous trafo and used only stepup trafo for comparison. I tried to use same amount of light at the output and result was that halogen was now much brighter and watt meter showed 39 watts.
Output now affects input which should not be. This is due to unequal coils so that back-EMFs that get induced were not exact opposite, but it is good enough to see some nice results. I should have used capacitors but don't have suitable valued caps so I decided to try a prototype and it was successfull showing a proof of concept that worked.
It is now clear how this should be done, the picture I made on the first post shows scematic but there must be separate cores for the primaries and then secondary that combines them. Coils must be identical and caps should be used. Toroids have poles, I think they should be placed so that there is NS - SN combination.
This will work using tubes too, but I did not have proper gear to make it happen.
If you look at Don Smith's schematics then you will notice that this setup is exactly as Don draw it: two coils center tapped, one has parallel capacitor and the other one has series cap. Except it was reversed in his pictures, output section is infact the input. He put his design out in the open, to crack it you must first understand what is going on and what you are trying to achieve. If you blindly copy you will never get it to work.
If you can take a look, try to accomplish step one: make a parallel tank ciruit that is strong enough to block current flow on the level you can push it. You can use high voltage, but this does not need high voltage to work. You can use ferrite or air core. If you can make this, then you will get OU by adding the second part. Is this just low power or high power I cannot say. I think it is worth a try to check this out to completion, can I get some help here ?
Something to think about here. You may have trouble getting magnetic force/wattage into your air core transformer, or any transformer, using the Caduceus coil primary circuit. Of course, you're trying to use it to prevent backward translation of load, but it is preventing you from putting power INTO the transformer because of the mutually canceling inductance of the two primary coils. BUT, What if the energy was ALREADY in the transformer, say, by use of a traditional input circuit, transistorised or spark-gap discharge, doesn't matter, but the Caduceus coil instead to be used only on the output or secondary circuit, where the connected load will not be able to backward translate into the transformer, because the Caduceus coil will prevent the backward translation??? The only catch is that you must connect the output Caduceus coil in such a way as to allow electricity to flow out, which is what the Caduceus coil normally prevents. The wiring is simple to do. Two output coils on different positions on a toroid, wound opposite, connected together in the middle, and the opposite outside ends connected together with each other also. There will be no flow of current out of either coil, the currents will cancel, but the two connection points will provide AC out ACROSS them. Then, backward translation is canceled anywhere else in the toroid OTHER than immediatly under the two output coils. Just don't put the Primary on the same point on the toroid, or maybe it doesn't even matter. This is what Ed Leedskalnin showed. ;o)
-Saintsnick
Looking at the series of videos put out by Rick Friedrich
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vnxdc1EGFY&t=9843s
am I somewhere in the ball park with my deduction below?
There is really no secret. What Don Smith is using is just resonance and not even resonance in all cases. People get stuck in the math formulas and start babling, that "voltage is not power. Power is voltage times amperage". They forget that amperage only appears when you start wasting charge somewhere. You radiate energy into space with a stove or use some other form of transformation. So amps is actually something we might not want in our system at all. Gerard Morin seems to be able to speed up his motor with just voltage and amps stay low. Probs just copper losses.
Voltage is pressure and first we want to get a lot of pressure, so later on we can use some and some we can even waste in a spark gap or similar. Nature has provided us with plenty of ways to get voltage: Resonance, flyback transformers, Marx generators, charge pumps, Tesla coils. So we can almost say that voltage we can get to any pressure without using much input. Once again you get "priests" attacking you saying that "this and that is only voltage and that is not power. That is only 'static' charge and it has no power. There is only One God called Under Unity so go pay your electric bill". Let me tell you a secret. Charge equals charge equals charge. If you get that charge into a capacitor you got power. Does not matter if it came from Lord Kelvin's water drop static generator or from a comb.
So why high voltage? I think the reason is that if you primary has 1V and you get it into resonance with the secondary you get 20V. That is not much to bounce from. If you put 9000V into the primary and get 200kV out of the secondary you got something to work with and something to even waste. High frequency gets you out of the wires into the surface of the cables and losses are smaller. Also I think higher frequency is more power, because it is more movement (you can quote your favourite UU bible here telling me how wrong I am...)
In resonance there is no resistance between L1 and L2. You can use loosely coupled L3 to pick up energy.
Ok so now we got "pressure". Let's say we got 200kV at the end of the L2 at 31500Hz. We measure L3 so that we get 8000V out to a cap of 0.005uF . Capacitors have very little to do with amps. You only need a bit of current to fight the internal resistance of the cap, but the thing works just with farads and voltage. Charge is Q = C*V and amps is Q/s. So we are putting a charge of 8000V * 0.005*10^-6 = 0.04C of charge into that cap 31500 times per second. Now if we were feeding the cap with 60Hz and at the end of the line we got an inverter feeding a device at 60Hz, 230V we could power a device that takes 40mA. We are how ever filling a large capacitor bank 31500 times per second with 0.04C of charge. Charge is charge is charge, so usable charge is 31500 * 0.04C = 1260C in one second. Divide that by 60 and you should be able to feed a device that draws 21A at 60Hz. No losses yet in these calculations, so 21A is not going to be the real value. Maybe not even 10A out, but enough for 2-4A, 230V at 60Hz? That is enough to self loop and run a graphics card to mine Ethereum. For free.
So there is nothing magical here. Build up voltage and store it into a cap bank as charge. Voltage is arbitrary to manufacture. Voltage is potential, pressure, strength of the field. Amps are the charge that is lost. The difficult part is the tuning, storing HV and getting everything to usable level at the end including frequency. So maybe a (resonant) transformer after the cap that L3 is feeding? Primary shunted with a spark gap to get a pulse going and secondary drops the voltage to 14V? Then full bridge rectifier to get it to 12V DC -> inverter -> 230AC at 60Hz
So what Kapanadze is trying to hide with all the boxes and shit is a tesla coil with L1, L2 and then L3 on the other end of L2. L1 and L2 are in resonance. L2 is looped to itself and grounded. Slayer exciter could take care of that. L3 feeds a cap bank. Rest is transformation to usable range.
People get hung up on amps and they can say like "tesla coil is only voltage. There is little amps there". This only means the L2 has only copper losses so it is efficient. Get that voltage into a cap and you got charge. Charge is what matters. If the internal resistance of the cap is something foul then you got no charge. You need to impedance match that shit.
People get hung on the notion that they do not understand where the extra energy is coming from? Well energy Conservation Law tells us, that you cannot destroy or create energy. That means all the energy was there since the start. You just trick Nature by connecting 2 potentials and the energy rushes in when Nature is going to equalize that "error". Like there is zero energy in a 12V car battery, but make a path between the 2 terminals and you got lightning coming out. You are not asking how your car starts in the morning are you? The energy is not in the battery. It would melt.
now if someone wants to comment I would like to hear actual criticism based on facts and not something like this:
"I have a PhD and I have been working for an energy company for 50 years. This is a picture of a wall where all my certificates are. You cannot get more energy out, because Jesus and the Second Law of Thermo..." Well just prove to me that voltage does not equal charge in a capacitor? Minus some amps that go into copper and other internal losses. In an ideal cap it is just farads and volts that define charge. Amperage is then that charge pulled out in one second. So voltage+capacitance is what you have and amps is what you waste.
The only problem is the transformation. How do you get 200kV at 2.4MHz into a cap bank or translated in some other way to 12V DC? Voltage is difficult because of capacitor limits and frequency is nasty because of transformer hysteresis and eddy currents. Just give me a couple of methods and I will leave you all alone.
Well ok I have a Tesla coil with a single transistor driving it as a blocking oscillator if I hook a scope up although it's a Tesla coil it is wave form is just a sine wave ok I can add another coil and collect the magnetic flux into another coil but where is the free energy from the resonance.
The other thing Don L Smith makes a point about is the dual output Neon driver being a over unity in it self and it's frequency is 35.1 if you get a calculator and try and divide it by 8 or 9 witch one leaves no remainder ? I wonder why he chose that device ?
The other thing is as resonance is obtained our current drain goes up too.
There is something missing and I didn't see it in your write up and that is the dipole is constantly being destroyed, as the brighter the LED goes the more current is drawn.
AG
Quote from: AlienGrey on June 27, 2018, 06:53:16 AM
Well ok I have a Tesla coil with a single transistor driving it as a blocking oscillator if I hook a scope up although it's a Tesla coil it is wave form is just a sine wave ok I can add another coil and collect the magnetic flux into another coil but where is the free energy from the resonance.
At the end of the secondary. You put it into a cap and it is changed into charge. Amps is charge over time. If you got a cap with 5M Ohm internal resistance, you might not very much charge, because once again you transformed that energy into amps/waste
Quote
The other thing Don L Smith makes a point about is the dual output Neon driver being a over unity in it self and it's frequency is 35.1 if you get a calculator and try and divide it by 8 or 9 witch one leaves no remainder ? I wonder why he chose that device ?
I think Don means that you get 9000V with a device that only takes milliamps, he thinks you get 9000V worth of charge 35000 times per second or the device is labeled as 35-70W device even if you get the charge 35000 times per second. He chose the device because it provides HV cheaply
The main point is that you need to look at charge. Charge you get with voltage. Amps come into play when you start wasting the charge
What people need is a new way of looking at this. The reason OU is hiding is that people are using formulas and ideas provided by the energy companies in the form of books and theories. Everything is setup so that it is impossible to get more out than goes in. You get started with a dipole that you keep destroying (we might not get out of that easily...), then you are told to get rid of resonance, make transformers with input&output in linear position in the center pole, permanent magnets do not do anything, use low frequency because otherwise God will punish you and what ever else there might be. It is like they make you play black jack and only the dealer has picture cards and aces...
Energy is there. Even physicists agree that it is everywhere. Even in the vacuum of space. They need it to be there, or their model of the universe breaks down. Dark Energy is the new name. Used to be called Ether, but all the cool kids don't use that anymore.
Nice thing about it is that you don't need to figure out how to get it. You just create a system that is not balanced. Nature will bring that energy there to equalize the situation. Just put your tongue in the bottom of a 9V battery. Is there energy there? Now join the terminals with your tongue. Did some energy appear? Still got your tongue together?
Short recipe to OU is:
1. What is charge? How do I get charge?
2. Store the charge
3. Use the charge
You can do this efficiently or badly and in that case you don't get much out and not even close to unity. You have to be efficient in all of those 3 stages.
How are you actually getting your charge?
it's a 9kv device but he uses a device like a variac to feed the 120volt input feed and attenuate that voltage
feed down in order to lower the neon PSU output down to 3kv and it's at 35100hz or 35.10khz
pulsed !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmVe92YauZA
regards AG
Quote from: AlienGrey on June 27, 2018, 10:58:22 AM
How are you actually getting your charge?
it's a 9kv device but he uses a device like a variac to transform it down to 3kv and it's at 35100hz or 35.10khz
pulsed !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmVe92YauZA
regards AG
Hi ppl,
AG Not necessarily. A charge on a capacitor with high voltage can be converted back into current without necessarily using a variac or a magnetic process .
In this video i made some years ago , i try show how to transform a high voltage in the order of 10KV with a low current, in lower voltage but with current through a nonmagnetic process. We could say that two terminal of spark gap could be considered a plates of a capacitor and the air the insulator , so in this way we have a electrostatic event because a capacitor store charges. This charges Vs time = current .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf64CP-8rvk&t=74s
regards
Nelson Rocha
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on June 27, 2018, 01:56:28 PM
Hi ppl,
AG Not necessarily. A charge on a capacitor with high voltage can be converted back into current without necessarily using a variac or a magnetic process .
In this video i made some years ago , i try show how to transform a high voltage in the order of 10KV with a low current, in lower voltage but with current through a nonmagnetic process. We could say that two terminal of spark gap could be considered a plates of a capacitor and the air the insulator , so in this way we have a electrostatic event because a capacitor store charges. This charges Vs time = current .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf64CP-8rvk&t=74s
regards
Nelson Rocha
An interesting way of bringing the high voltage back down to a usable level, I sort of reminds me of a crude PW switch mode switch mode ramping up a cap and then discharging it through the load in slow motion, did you ever manage to stablise the device in order to make the idea more usable ?
PS I was in fact referring to the 120 volt feed into the neon power supply as only 3kv is required not 9kv I should have explained my self a little better sorry, but your comment was interesting.
cheers AG
This patent may be of interest:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US1702771
Greetings OU dot com Distinguished Members,
Sorry for disturbing.
IMo, one of the secret is also in this "Displacement Current".
This current (electrons?) that, maths helping, kinda path through the dielectric ???
Come on.
------------------------------------------
Please#1, see the Tesla's Hairpin Circuit.
That, BTW, is not "renowned" as 'OU'
-------------------------------------------
Please#2, just alo consult this short vid:
"Extract Don Smith 2006 Tesla Tech short v"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5O_l_59Aws
According to the (late) Don Smith, the "current" does not come from the "source" (battery or grid)
but from the "environment". So it is free. IZIT not?
A (not so good) heat pump can show a COP > 3. Where does the energy come from?
But, from the "environment". No?
I must say that what I am stating is not intended to contradict any previous assertion.
Puisse le bonsoir vous seoir,
Jean
Quote from: NerzhDishual on June 29, 2018, 07:18:00 PM
Greetings OU dot com Distinguished Members,
Sorry for disturbing.
IMo, one of the secret is also in this "Displacement Current".
This current (electrons?) that, maths helping, kinda path through the dielectric ???
Come on.
------------------------------------------
Please#1, see the Tesla's Hairpin Circuit.
That, BTW, is not "renowned" as 'OU'
-------------------------------------------
Please#2, just alo consult this short vid:
"Extract Don Smith 2006 Tesla Tech short v"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5O_l_59Aws
According to the (late) Don Smith, the "current" does not come from the "source" (battery or grid)
but from the "environment". So it is free. IZIT not?
A (not so good) heat pump can show a COP > 3. Where does the energy come from?
But, from the "environment". No?
I must say that what I am stating is not intended to contradict any previous assertion.
Jean
Bonjour, mon ami
Puisse le bonsoir vous seoir, ainsi
Re Don L Smith, where does the energy come from, It comes from the ambient a change there of by disturbing the surrounding
charge IE the Tesla coil in a special way, in our case and it's attraction of the surrounding area.
Regards
AG
Anyone able to get the "Tesla Magazine" that Don Smith is talking right here? 5 page article laser printed?
https://youtu.be/Cr07kI7HhzU?t=2472
Energy is everywhere. That is why you don't need to think where it is coming from. Nature will deal with that.
What Don is showing is that you disturb that ambient so that electrons that normally are neutral (non-reactive in a local space) are exited to a higher energy level and then you provide a non-resistive path to ground. This is what the Tesla secondary is for. Self loop L2 with a spark gap to ground. L1 and L2 are in resonance and you pickup from L3 through diodes to a cap bank.
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on June 27, 2018, 01:56:28 PM
Hi ppl,
AG Not necessarily. A charge on a capacitor with high voltage can be converted back into current without necessarily using a variac or a magnetic process .
In this video i made some years ago , i try show how to transform a high voltage in the order of 10KV with a low current, in lower voltage but with current through a nonmagnetic process. We could say that two terminal of spark gap could be considered a plates of a capacitor and the air the insulator , so in this way we have a electrostatic event because a capacitor store charges. This charges Vs time = current .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf64CP-8rvk&t=74s
regards
Nelson Rocha
Any chance you might want to post a schematic or explain the process? I thought you kinda have to put the HV into a cap bank and then pulse a transformer to get it to lower voltage? how can I get my 8000V fully charged cap to a manageable level (12V super caps?) or even straight to 230V AC?
So my idea here is that I can fill up a cap bank with a 35100Hz PSU putting out 9000V at 30mA. Current is irrelevant, if it is enough to charge the caps that have some internal resistance.
(so charging something that takes 105A/s to charge is not going to work https://youtu.be/xpy9CmAWrGo?t=90)
So my load is 0,26A at 230V 60Hz light bulb. My logic tells me that I need to match the amount of charge I am putting into the caps with my fast PSU to the pull that my load needs. So small buckets of charge 35100 times per second need to match the bigger pull of the load, but it only pulls 60 timer per second.
So how much load you can have depends on the charging of your cap bank. You could maybe put a voltage meter on the cap bank and if the voltage starts to droop while loaded that means the amount of out going charge is bigger than what you are putting in.
Sure there has to be some losses and components in between the cap bank and the load. We need to get down to 230V from 9000V and then get the freq right if we don't decide to go with a rectifier to 12V DC
Quote from: Belfior on June 27, 2018, 05:18:42 AM
Looking at the series of videos put out by Rick Frie......................
..............
So what Kapanadze is trying to hide with all the boxes and shit is a tesla coil with L1, L2 and then L3 on the other end of L2. L1 and L2 are in resonance. L2 is looped to itself and grounded. Slayer exciter could take care of that. L3 feeds a cap bank. Rest is transformation to usable range.
......................
The only problem is the transformation. How do you get 200kV at 2.4MHz into a cap bank or translated in some other way to 12V DC? Voltage is difficult because of capacitor limits and frequency is nasty because of transformer hysteresis and eddy currents. Just give me a couple of methods and I will leave you all alone.
You knows what you mean please make a Circuitdrawing.
Jo
Quote from: Jo-EL on July 03, 2018, 07:50:22 PM
You knows what you mean please make a Circuitdrawing.
Jo
I looked at this one and thought I need a drink too ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Do you mean this ? page try p82 http://free-energy-info.com/Smith.pdf
AG
A capacitor is not a magnetic device. You only need voltage to charge it and some amps to take care of the internal resistance.
Then you use the charge in the caps by what ever means to power a load. Like if you got 9000V in the cap bank you pulse it through a spark gap to a trafo and get it down to 230V. Or if the freq is off then down to 12V and DC with a FWBR.
Why do you need a schematic for this?
Quote from: Belfior on July 05, 2018, 10:22:18 AM
A capacitor is not a magnetic device. You only need voltage to charge it and some amps to take care of the internal resistance.
Then you use the charge in the caps by what ever means to power a load. Like if you got 9000V in the cap bank you pulse it through a spark gap to a trafo and get it down to 230V. Or if the freq is off then down to 12V and DC with a FWBR.
Why do you need a schematic for this?
is it a secret ? if a cap is charging it's got inductance by nature of it's construction and also resistance so it creates a magnetic field as pulse as it charges!
it seems to be an open secret and the only way to hide it. Voltage we can create and voltage is what the cap takes in, but then it can output charge which is amperage when it is spent over time.
Resistance is always a problem and other ways we lose charge like a spark gap. We need to work around these problems.
Impedance disappears with reactance if the pickup coil and the cap are in resonance. You could also AV plug into the cap so the cap only sees DC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI5XWz8aZvo
If all that fails then we move on. How about using the L2's lower end to a cap leg and high end to another caps leg? Then you got the coil's potential stored in a cap with potential difference between them
I think the whole point of all these kachers and grenade coils is to fool people to think it is something mystical. Energy stored in a cap is (CV^2)/2. Farads and volts. No current there in the equation.
Quote from: Belfior on July 06, 2018, 04:36:50 AM
it seems to be an open secret and the only way to hide it. Voltage we can create and voltage is what the cap takes in, but then it can output charge which is amperage when it is spent over time.
Resistance is always a problem and other ways we lose charge like a spark gap. We need to work around these problems.
Impedance disappears with reactance if the pickup coil and the cap are in resonance. You could also AV plug into the cap so the cap only sees DC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI5XWz8aZvo
If all that fails then we move on. How about using the L2's lower end to a cap leg and high end to another caps leg? Then you got the coil's potential stored in a cap with potential difference between them
I think the whole point of all these kachers and grenade coils is to fool people to think it is something mystical. Energy stored in a cap is (CV^2)/2. Farads and volts. No current there in the equation.
Belfior,
I like your approach...real eye opener... very usefull comment.
In fact two caps..each side of the grenade... sounds good.
Greetings
I do not claim that I am right. I am just saying that we need new ways of looking into this stuff. You are not going to find anything useful by reading something published by jpmorgans and what ever to energy industry is lobbying. They pay for books and education, but they control what is taught in the schools.
Darsonval had a transformer that produced low volts and more amperage. The guy was hard to find, because he has been almost wiped from history. Attaching a pic of his coil system.
Interestingly Darsonval also used caps there.
There is like 20 lines on the guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-Ars%C3%A8ne_d%27Arsonval
So one approach would be to create high potential difference with HV that will excite electrons not already in the circuit. The stuff that scientists say is there. The ambient energy. Then provide easy access to a pool of electrons like the ground. Put the load in between or store the energy in caps.
I feel that the answer is something simple. Something overlooked. We are just being misguided by people that try to pull us towards theory and complex devices
I am trying to modify this charge pump http://tinyurl.com/yc2pyl5h so that the mosfet is replaced by a transistor in reverse avalance mode. I am hoping to replace my SG in that setup with just a transistor as a switch. Got some transistor that will reverse avalance with a 9V battery.
Then I can control the voltage on the cap with a spark gap like the one in that darsonval trafo picture. 1cm gap I get 1000V and so on. The charging cap and the spark gap will be my oscillator & HV source. Hopefully all this with a 9V battery and transistor
Freq can be controlled by the circuitry on the reverse ava switch and spark gap.
Not even sure if it will work, but just an idea I had to get a controllable simple HV source. I know I could use flybacks and what not, but this is my idea :)
Belfor
if your interested I have a 555 circuit that works and generates a narrow pulse For 'TEST and EXPERIMENTS' you can play about with
Its easy to build your self on some bread board or vero if your clever and test it as you go, but it's at your own
risk and expense . I take no responsibility for errors or your errors or what you connect it into or any electronics
you might damage with the narrow pulse generated it's entirely at your risk!!
https://youtu.be/qdJ1V_yDv-c (https://youtu.be/qdJ1V_yDv-c)
Wesley
Quote from: stivep on July 08, 2018, 01:40:28 PM
https://youtu.be/qdJ1V_yDv-c (https://youtu.be/qdJ1V_yDv-c)
Wesley
Yes. Answered in the other thread.
Quote from: Belfior on July 05, 2018, 10:22:18 AM
A capacitor is not a magnetic device. You only need voltage to charge it and some amps to take care of the internal resistance.
Hi Belfior. To say that "You only need voltage to charge it and some amps to take care of the internal resistance."
is not correct. It takes a current (a flow of charge) to charge a capacitor. A voltage (potential difference) is applied
across a capacitor's plates, and this causes a current to flow (a flow of charges) from one capacitor plate to the other.
When a DC voltage is applied, the charging current falls off following an exponential curve. This applied voltage
and subsequent charging current represents an expenditure of power. Real power is consumed when charging a capacitor.
It does not 'magically' charge up in a closed loop circuit. Unless your circuit setup can somehow pull in energy
from elsewhere (the environment, the vacuum) you will always have less power out than in.
Some simple bench tests will quickly prove this.
Salve OU dot com fellows,
IMO#1, Belflior is a creative experimenter and a worth-to-be-read poster.
Few others members seem, IMO#2, less creative but more sermonizers.
Anyway :
What about charging a (few uf range indeed), capacitor with an Avramenko plug, a short
kinda "antenna" near a Slayer Exciter ? See attached picture.
I have tested this contraption. It works.
Absolutely no OU claimed here.
Just, perhaps, a sort of proof of (some) concept and any food for thought ?
If electrons were needed to charge this capacitor, where do they come from?
Are they traveling through the air?
Avec mes salutations les plus distinguées,
Jean
NerzhDishual
If you have it working then please test various obstacles between the Slayer exciter and the Av plug section. Then for the last part test some metal plate and metal sheet grounded and tell us the effect.
Quote from: NerzhDishual on July 13, 2018, 06:59:49 PM
Salve OU dot com fellows,
IMO#1, Belflior is a creative experimenter and a worth-to-be-read poster.
Few others members seem, IMO#2, less creative but more sermonizers.
Thank you for your kind words. I can't see any reason there can't be OU or like I see it "creating movement in the ambient energy and harvesting it". We just need to take a fresh look at this stuff and not just repeat stuff that was already said 100 years ago and was wrong even then. I feel some people are just like priests and just bable the old ceremony. There reason OU is hiding is because we are asking the wrong questions. People try to guide is into wrong directions and if you keep building&using your circuits like they teach you in school you can never find it. That is why the school is there.
There is no current in the equation for charge in a capacitor. This tells me that it is a function of capacitance and voltage. If it takes some amps then it is for internal resistances.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atlnVNy0IDE
the text at the end of the video indicates, that there is no raise in current when the cap charges. So input to the system is not tied to the output/load
Quote from: Belfior on July 19, 2018, 03:27:09 PM
Thank you for your kind words. I can't see any reason there can't be OU or like I see it "creating movement in the ambient energy and harvesting it". We just need to take a fresh look at this stuff and not just repeat stuff that was already said 100 years ago and was wrong even then. I feel some people are just like priests and just bable the old ceremony. There reason OU is hiding is because we are asking the wrong questions. People try to guide is into wrong directions and if you keep building&using your circuits like they teach you in school you can never find it. That is why the school is there.
There is no current in the equation for charge in a capacitor. This tells me that it is a function of capacitance and voltage. If it takes some amps then it is for internal resistances.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atlnVNy0IDE
the text at the end of the video indicates, that there is no raise in current when the cap charges. So input to the system is not tied to the output/load
If the current is constant as in a TV display picture then the slope would be linear.
The Tesla coil: the bigger the diameter the more current