I continue with more content:

Certainly the conversion of frequency into energy is something that comes not from speaking or writing but from practice, all free energy machines revolve around the same principle, especially pulse motors, which in method 2 can be seen better, but before that you have to know where to start, the practice without knowing what you are doing is act without thinking and many times you end up confused, if you start well, first analyzing a consistent theory we already know in practice where to go.
Precisely, the revolutionary Max Planck equation

E = h * f

It came from the results of the black body analysis, it was so revolutionary that even Planck was afraid to expose it as a discovery, that fear of ridicule among orthodox scientists, but, clearly says that energy is only frequency, that equation is more revolutionary than Einstein's (E = m * c ^ 2) because it was not new that matter stored a lot of energy but rather the magnitude of said energy and that both things were the same, but this Planck equation tells us that there is much more energy to take out in less volume. But in orthodox science it has always been taught that this formula is applicable in the world of the quantum, little things are not seen and that in our macroscopic world it does not rule, are not electrons quantums?
The law of conservation of energy thanks to this equation is transformed into the law of conservation of frequency and such extra energy comes from time itself by decelerating the wave that can be either electromagnetic or mechanical, and time is an energetic manifestation from the ether.

Method 1 is a general principle, that of drawing energy from the frequency by lowering it, not the suggested circuit, which can have many better variants or a completely different circuit that does the same.
In the voltage doubler, a high impedance capacitor is needed in order to extract the minimum energy from the source, that is, low current, or else, as the capacitor is charged in parallel to the alternating source and then discharged in series, use parallel resonance in the load, so the current drawn from the source with the desired impedance of the capacitor would be little or nothing, there are many variants.

I don't want to go to method 2 before someone achieves something with method 1.

Warm greetings

Piplin Hi there Your Plank thievery does feel to have a connection with many of the circuit ideas presented on some of the threads 
presented here, lets take your capacitor charging in parallel and dumping in series. If one was to adopt that idea into practice
wouldn't one need to charge at one frequency and dump at another as the charge would be split in two as your cutting charge
in two there for your gaining nothing just stretching it, your idea WOULD NEED A PRACTICAL VISUAL EXAMPLE.
I am interested in your hypothesis but have you a practical example ?

Regards AG

PS Have a look at Ron Coles bipolar switch circuit
https://www.google.com/search?q=john%20badini%20battery%20charging%20circuit&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CQp0sVunurYKYa85PvaFE0mD&client=firefox-b-d&hl=en-US&sa=X&ved=0CBsQuIIBahcKEwiogcX5xYnvAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBw&biw=1380&bih=639#imgrc=qJnlZkJ-P_cxdM&imgdii=Tu0zupMpqyFEXM

Now I will post some ideas and developments that some people made, based on what was exposed by that user:

One said:

There are many types of h-bridge, and it is used mostly to control the rotation in DC motors, and I also realized that the scheme you proposed at the beginning of this topic is precisely an h-bridge, only with mosfet and controlled by the CD4017, so taking advantage of components that I already have, and some other that I have to get and with the help of Proteus (electronic simulator), I have done this:

https://postimg.cc/23BVL7yF

Perhaps the scheme is a bit confusing, but basically it is the proposed scheme transformed to bipolar transistors and following the previous basic scheme of the h-bridge.

The power supply is an AC source that gives me a sine wave of 20 v amplitude at a frequency of 50 Hz, and the measurements in voltage and frequency of the source and between points A and B, are the following:

https://postimg.cc/rDyVj1VH

As seen in the simulation measurements, between A and B the voltage almost doubles and the frequency (rectangular digital displays) drops by half, in principle it would be what it has to be.
The oscilloscope graph is weird, but I think I have the explanation:

https://postimg.cc/xNSYzHpt

As you can see, it does not correspond to the signal posted by the OP, but I think the problem is in the same simulator, it always takes the same ground, so the signals at point A (blue) and at point B (red ) are positive, because both are actually positive with respect to the sine generator ground.

Be that as it may, I will try to put together this scheme, this time with real components, if someone sees something wrong, that escapes me, or has any suggestion to make it work better, I would greatly appreciate the information.

The issue of the grounds is not very clear to me, I am not able to separate them in Proteus, I have added a lamp between points A and B to be able to get the current graph, because I am not able to get the voltage graph. And it looks like this:

https://postimg.cc/dDKLdTyb

https://postimg.cc/QVkVqxgH

As can be seen in the graph (the measurement is made at the point where the blue arrow marked Q1 (C) is), the current signal is sinusoidal (more or less) so putting together all the data, that is, the RMS voltage measurement, halving frequency and current graph, I think it will work.

Kind regards to all.

Quote from: AlienGrey on February 27, 2021, 02:10:05 AM
Piplin Hi there Your Plank thievery does feel to have a connection with many of the circuit ideas presented on some of the threads 
presented here, lets take your capacitor charging in parallel and dumping in series. If one was to adopt that idea into practice
wouldn't one need to charge at one frequency and dump at another as the charge would be split in two as your cutting charge
in two there for your gaining nothing just stretching it, your idea WOULD NEED A PRACTICAL VISUAL EXAMPLE.
I am interested in your hypothesis but have you a practical example ?

Regards AG

PS Have a look at Ron Coles bipolar switch circuit
https://www.google.com/search?q=john%20badini%20battery%20charging%20circuit&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CQp0sVunurYKYa85PvaFE0mD&client=firefox-b-d&hl=en-US&sa=X&ved=0CBsQuIIBahcKEwiogcX5xYnvAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBw&biw=1380&bih=639#imgrc=qJnlZkJ-P_cxdM&imgdii=Tu0zupMpqyFEXM

Hello AlienGrey.

I do not know if you have read the first post, but the idea is not mine, in fact I am not an expert on these issues, far from it. I just limit myself to capturing what I think may be interesting in this active forum of free energy researchers.

I am simply translating and synthesizing the most relevant of what was written on this matter.

The idea is that those of you who have extensive knowledge of electronics and physics say if it is viable or not.

Cheers

At normal operation every stage should divide the current along with the frequency. Voltage is easy to manipulate. But the voltage doubler is designed to sacrifice current to double the voltage.

Lets forget about the equation at a moment and think of a simple example..
A non electrical example of what the basic idea is:

Lets say you can hit a nail to the wood with the hammer with constant rate of hits and power.
(ignore gravity down forces - horizontal hammer movement)

1) We hit the first nail. for 10 seconds.
The frequency is 2 hits per second.
Each hit force equal lets say 4 newton.
So the total force spend for 10 seconds equals 80 newtons.

2) Now lets try another nail. We divide the frequency to 1 hit per second and double the
force to 8 newton and keep it for 10 seconds as well.
The total force spend again equals 80 newton.

At both examples the nail at the end has accepted the same amount of energy. It is a closed system.

This equation can be "somehow" valid if at least photons really exist. Do they? I am not convinced yet!