ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

[tim energy]

hi ... i'm new here. After red and read much post here, i must conclude i need at least 0ne year to solve Tito design ... and Tito massages ALL seem true ... i don't know why

not sure where i start first to open my inside the box brain

[forest]

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tbfrenrg.htm

[tim energy]

Don't kill the dipole  ...  hoooow ? 

quote : ( from Lamare)
>>> extract EM energy from the vacuum. All you wish. Anywhere in the universe. For free. Just pay a little bit once, to make a little dipole, and that silly thing is like a great oil well you just successfully drilled that has turned into a mighty gusher of oil without you having to pump it. The dipole just sits there and does its thing, and it pours energy out forever, for free, as long as that dipole continues to exist


@ all
how we can convert electrostatic field into VOLTS time AMPERE a.k.a useful electricity ??
any reference guys??

Claus Turtur quote :
     If electrostatic fields propagate with the speed of light, they transport energy, because they have a certain energy density. It should be possible to trace this transport of energy if is really existing. That this is really the case can be seen even with a simple example regarding a point charge, as will be done on the following pages. When we trace this energy, we come to situation, which looks paradox at the very first glance, but the paradox can be dissolved, introducing a circulation of energy. This is also demonstrated on the following pages.

    The first aspect of the mentioned paradox regards the emission of energy at all. If a point charge (for instance an elementary charge) exists since a given moment in time, it emits electric field and field's energy from the time of its birth without any alteration of its mass. The volume of the space filled with this field increases permanently during time and with it the total energy of the field. But from where does this "new energy" originate? For the charged particle does not alter its mass (and thus its energy), the "new energy" can not originate from the particle itself. This means: The charged particle has to be permanently supplied with energy from somewhere. The situation is also possible for particles, which are in contact with nothing else but only with the vacuum. The consequence is obvious: The particle can be supplied with energy only from the vacuum. This sounds paradox, so it can be regarded as the first aspect of the mentioned paradox. But it is logically consequent, and so we will have to solve it later.

LETS PONDER AGAIN ... only for me !!!

[Bob Smith]

Don't kill the dipole  ...  hoooow ? 

quote : ( from Lamare)
>>> extract EM energy from the vacuum. All you wish. Anywhere in the universe. For free. Just pay a little bit once, to make a little dipole, and that silly thing is like a great oil well you just successfully drilled that has turned into a mighty gusher of oil without you having to pump it. The dipole just sits there and does its thing, and it pours energy out forever, for free, as long as that dipole continues to exist 
LETS PONDER AGAIN ... only for me !!!

Tim,
Nice quote from Lamare. I think it speaks to the possibilities of an open system. Open system is what I mean by "don't kill the dipole." This is something Tito has been saying all along. There has to be a continuous entry point for energy to come into the system from outside. In this sense, we're not talking about closed system overunity. The setup allows for continuous or ongoing influx of energy from outside - the aether, the electrostatic environment, the dirac sea, sea of energy in which we float (Moray) etc.  Tesla's Radiant Energy Receiver patent is the simplest, most basic example I know.

Now, the energy in the system has to be pulsed and unidirectional.
Certain coil configurations will provide current multiplication.
Certain coil configs will provide voltage amplification.
Certain coil configs will function as a secondary which does not affect the primary's resonating action.

Think about feedback;
Think about balance between coils. 
Wire, caps and diodes are your chief components.

Bob

[Magluvin]

before i leave this forum i will leave one of my best project. try to solve it. 


and here it is:
                           Lets say we have one 12v battery then connect two bridge rectifier in parallel and try to connect them in series to
form 24v and charge the battery itself  but?  .......................................

Well, possibly we just start here. 

What seems to be missing.............. is where the charge is put before it is sent back.   If it is caps, then it would be best to use the igniter type of transfer to avoid 50% loss to, and from the cap(s).  So, we charge 2 caps using 2 independent inductor circuits. Then discharge the caps in series with inductor and diode? 

Circuit sim code below shows the circuit im thinking about.  Lower switch on left sends power from source to each cap via inductor and diode, which should be an efficient transfer of power. Then release that switch. Then the switch at the far right operates 2 other switches to feed the 2 caps in series back to the battery.  The circuit sim stops with errors due to diodes and coils having 1 leg opened at times with charges on them.  Ill look into how to reconfigure to make things stable.  These are not normal every day circuits, as it is put together.

Downloading a screenshot prog to make pics of the circuits.  But if you have sim, here is the code to see the circuit.   

Now, say if we have more caps charged this way and discharged in series. It may be better due to more push back to the source. It should also be better at emptying the series caps so the get a good charge from the source.  If the source is say 20v, and each cap gets say 35v, that would only be if the caps were at 0v to start. If they have say 5v after the dump back to the source, the input wont see an empty cap and wont chrage it all the way to 35v the next time. Because the empty cap is the driver of current flow to get the inductors spinning. If it already is charged some, then less inductor spin(flywheel effect)



Plus more caps in series, more voltage to overcome rectifier drop losses. Those losses become less significant.

Dont know if this is what tito is talking about for sure.

$ 1 5.0E-6 10.20027730826997 50 5.0 43
v 352 464 352 208 0 0 40.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
r 352 464 448 464 0 1.0
c 800 208 800 304 0 1.0E-5 9.999995144772864E-4
c 800 368 800 464 0 1.0E-5 0.0010000000000022103
s 352 208 448 208 0 1 true
l 800 208 720 208 0 1.0 9.999819475400038E-14
l 800 368 720 368 0 1.0 -9.999819475345689E-14
d 800 464 720 464 1 0.805904783
d 800 304 720 304 1 0.805904783
w 448 464 624 464 0
w 624 464 720 464 0
w 624 464 624 304 0
w 624 304 720 304 0
w 448 208 720 208 0
w 448 208 448 368 0
w 448 368 720 368 0
w 800 208 800 144 0
w 352 208 352 144 0
159 448 144 352 144 0 20.0 1.0E10
159 800 368 800 304 0 20.0 1.0E10
w 400 128 400 96 0
w 400 96 880 96 0
w 880 96 880 336 0
w 880 336 816 336 0
s 880 336 960 336 0 1 true
R 960 336 1024 336 0 0 40.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
d 592 144 448 144 1 0.805904783
l 800 144 592 144 0 1.0 -2.2302038617668007E-21
o 2 64 0 291 0.009765625 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 3 64 0 291 0.009765625 9.765625E-5 1 -1



Mags