Kapanadze, Stepanov, Barbosa-Leal and the Secret of Free Energy

[leo48]

 
Better control the connection of the bridge rectifier so you risk making a short circuit ...

leo48

[kpannic]

A small mistake: the bridge rectifier is mounted incorrectly.

[Zeitmaschine]

Short circuits are nice ...

kpannic, if the input on the left would be high voltage, the 100Hz output would also be high voltage. But I can't see transformer, diode bridge and wiring suitable for high voltage on Kapanadze's workbench. On the other hand, if high voltage would mean no more than 1000 volts, then it could be.

sm0ky2, looking at the Barbosa-Leal patent and at the actual Barbosa-Leal setup, they are contradictory. This has nothing to do with how many different versions of patents Tesla has published. The Barbosa-Leal patent says, the closed loop is anode positive, whereas the setup looks like the closed loop is cathode negative (ground).


GOLDEN RATIO

Let's say (in the absence of a better theory), there is an alternating electric field (ionization) generated by high voltage (at 2f) and an alternating magnetic field generated by an iron core via a primary coil (at 1f). Located within those two fields there is a closed loop of copper wire or a copper pipe, about 2 to 4 turns, creating a short circuit and this loop is connected to ground at some point. The electric field attracts electrons from ground, hence, there is now a surplus of electrons in that loop. Then the magnetic field takes over and pushes those surplus of electrons all around through the loop (generating thereby a strong magnetic field in the iron core), so the electrons are forced to make a full cycle in order to go back to the ground (actually not the very same electrons); they can't go back the same way they came from when attracted. What could that imply?

Could that imply, that it does matter at which point precisely in that closed loop the ground is connected and the field generating high voltage is located? Are those parts somehow asymmetrically arranged? This is just a preliminary guesswork of mine. The one drawing by Guntis shows something like the Kodak Flasher (see above), that's evident. But I always wondered what that cryptic other drawing Golden_Ratio.jpg could mean ... perhaps nothing.

At least, having to cope with a max. of 4 turns for the energy generating coil, it should make things much more easy to handle; should be far easier than working with tables full of high-end electronics. If we, for now, go for thermal energy only, then there is even no need for an electric energy output coil. Just the initial magnetic field generating primary coil, the grounded looped cathode coil and an anode connected to high voltage.

Regarding the placement of conductors: Is there another device utilizing a correctly placed closed looped conductor? Yes, it is the Shaded Pole Induction Motor. The rotor turns, because the closed looped coils - the shaded poles - are located on precise points on the iron core. So, as we can see, the correct placement of conductors does indeed matter sometimes.

Therefore, this all could boil down to the generation of some kind of rotating field by combining an electric field and a magnetic field in a specific way. We remember, Stepanov discovered this effect by means of a three-phase transformer. There are a lot of possibilities to connect three transformers together (the wrong way).


RESISTANCE AND ENERGY

If we push against something (a car, e.g.) that offers mechanical resistance, then we can transfer energy to that object. If we push against something that does not offer mechanical resistance (thin air, e.g.) then we cannot transfer energy to that object (a small amount at best in that case).

As we know, an open secondary coil of a transformer does not generate a magnetic field, nor does it generate any heat. Astonishingly, in that case the electrons encounter no resistance when moving through the wire while generating alternating voltage. But if we close that secondary coil - shorted directly or via a load - then the electrons, now moving in a closed loop, start to generate a magnetic field (causing the primary coil to draw a higher current) as well as heat in the wire.

Quote: »You got it right!! The pipe is the resistance to the circuit!!«

Electrical resistance exists only in a closed circuit. Without resistance there is no heat and no magnetic field. Electrons do need resistance in order to generate energy. In case of the captor device that would mean, the generated power stands in direct correlation to the resistance of the closed loop. The heavier the resistive loop, the more electrons moving, the more energy it generates.

Err ... if a free energy device can generate heat directly, then there should be no need to generate electricity first in order to power an electric heater with that electricity; like seen in a Kapanadze demonstration.

[kpannic]

Short circuits are nice ...

kpannic, if the input on the left would be high voltage, the 100Hz output would also be high voltage. But I can't see transformer, diode bridge and wiring suitable for high voltage on Kapanadze's workbench. On the other hand, if high voltage would mean no more than 1000 volts, then it could be.

no, but if you look closely at the video2004, a thin white wire (from 220v) leads into the metal box to hide its destination, then it comes (i see) out 7 wire (4 wires for resistors, 2 wire for capacitor and I see only one black to the bridge rectifier).
Probably in that metal box there is a 220v -> 2000v transformer. Nothing is excluded.
Anyway those resistors are too small for 25A and the capacitor it's max 10-20uF 450v.
The bridge rectifier is for high amperage, but it can be seen sticking a thin black max 2Amps.
Let's not forget that in 2004 is the first device, made from materials found in "garage".

"Zeitmaschine:
............ try to put your mind back to those years; no semiconductors, no RadioShack - nothing, just wires and transformers......

I will try to get out of 220v 50Hz -> 2000v 100Hz under 30watt with that circuit.

Keep you up to date.
P.S. sorry for my bad english...google it's my friend 

[sm0ky2]

@Zelt,


The point I was trying to make, is that patents don't always resemble the actual device
in every manner.


If we have a portion of one circuit and a portion of another circuit
Coupled as an L-C inductive coupling,
It doesn't matter which side is which.
I mean, it may to the individual circuit,
But for the coupling, it would function either way.
This type of reversibility can sometimes apply to other forms of circuits.


FFT theory states that any circuit can be reduced to an equivalent circuit.
Patents actually cause this to take place.
Is circuit may be protected or unknown to the competitor
So a different, equivalent circuit, must be derived.


Also, circuits are often made more complex than necessary or extra simplified
in a patent application.


If the differences between the patent, and a particular device are giving you trouble
The course of action would be to examine what is taking place by this change
And to identify any other parts of the circuits that are also different.
It may point you to the answer you are looking for.