Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[Zeitmaschine]

There are many other alternative explanations other than them.

Namely?

The alternative explanation must contain coils, capacitors and transistors/thyristors, because this is what can be seen in all these setups (more or less hidden).

Illustrations below, simple in theory: At zero crossing of the pendulum (sine wave) the frequency of the circuit is doubled (mass moves inwards, capacitors in series), at the extreme positions of the pendulum (sine wave) the frequency of the circuit is restored to normal (mass moves outwards, capacitors in parallel). The switching of the capacitors can be done almost at no cost for free, contrary to the movement of the masses against the centrifugal force of the pendulum. In theory (and de facto) the magnetic field in the coil is generated by two capacitors connected in parallel (high capacity, low frequency), whereas the counter current of the coil generates an electric field in two capacitors connected in series (low capacity, high frequency). Nevertheless the capacity of the capacitors in terms of energy storage stays the same (e.g. 2µF/10V versus 0.5µF/20V, each stores 100µ Joules).

Does this frequency commuting of the (electric) pendulum generate additional (free) energy? No idea yet, but according to the equations in the previously mentioned parametric resonance patent RU-2386207 it should. The main issue here is the time factor. The magnetic field in the coil is build up slowly by the voltage of the parallel connected capacitors, the electric field in the serial connected capacitors is build up quickly by the counter current of the coil. Lower frequency means lower impedance (apparent resistance) and lower resistance means higher current. So the energy transfer from C to L runs with higher current at lower voltage, whereas the the energy transfer from L to C runs with lower current at higher voltage.

This consideration leaves us with two possibilities: Either the excitation effect (accumulating of energy in an oscillating device) due to parametric resonance occurs not only in a mechanical pendulum but in an electric LC circuit as well -or- the physics of a mechanical pendulum cannot be applied to an electric circuit. If the first case is true I don't know where this additional electric energy is coming from, but it has to come from somewhere, that's for sure.

But the main problem here still is how to synchronize (keep in resonance) the switches (three for C switching or two for L switching) with the natural resonance frequency of the circuit. And maybe that's the deeper meaning of Kapanadze's »keep resonance« statement. Also Stepanov talks about a transformer in state of resonance and also Marks talks about a 6000Hz oscillation in his TPU. So I have a hard time to imagine that this all has nothing to do with parametric resonance.

BTW, also of some interest in this context: Thyristor Theory and Design Considerations

And now compare my illustration »Parametric L Resonance« with the diagram on page 23 of SCR Power Theory Training Manual and then compare the two pairs of SCR's with the two transistors on TK's heat sinks and then envision that these parts could be easily triacs in TO-66 packages (which equals four SCR's) and then replace the fuse in the diagram by a capacitor (like that one on TK's workbench next to the tapped transformer) and then envision someone making a mistake while connecting the tap on a transformer so instead of correcting the power factor the whole thing starts to resonate. Seems we are close but still can't reach the final goal.

If someone could follow my trains of thought so far please tell me (it's time to get this thing up and running).

[mrstanlez]

I agree that all these devices include oscillator (some are synchronized with HV transformer), amplifier, advanced tesla coil, toroid(for more amperage if the core is pre-saturated), help-transformer for self-loop, and capacitors (for transforming one kind of energy into others).

My simple idea is on my diagram here (plus excel sheet resonance calculations):

[verpies]

Namely?
The alternative explanation must contain coils, capacitors and transistors/thyristors, because this is what can be seen in all these setups (more or less hidden).

For example Beta Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation would have those features.

The switching of the capacitors can be done almost at no cost for free,

In absence of resistance, such capacitor switching creates large voltage discontinuities resulting in the emission of EM radiation (a loss).

Lower frequency means lower impedance (apparent resistance) and lower resistance means higher current.

In general this statement is not correct when the inductance is not defined or not constant.

So the energy transfer from C to L runs with higher current at lower voltage, whereas the the energy transfer from L to C runs with lower current at higher voltage.

Yes, but the integral of their products stays the same.

This consideration leaves us with two possibilities: Either the excitation effect (accumulating of energy in an oscillating device) due to parametric resonance occurs not only in a mechanical pendulum but in an electric LC circuit as well -or- the physics of a mechanical pendulum cannot be applied to an electric circuit.

The waveforms of the ideal rotary-oscillation pendulum are exactly the same as in a LC circuit.
The same is not true about the physical pendulum where a point mass is suspended from an ideal pivot in a gravitational field, because the full solution of angle vs. time in such pendulum is not sinusoidal - it involves elliptic sine (especially for large angles). See here.

If the first case is true I don't know where this additional electric energy is coming from

Neither do I.

But the main problem here still is how to synchronize (keep in resonance) the switches (three for C switching or two for L switching) with the natural resonance frequency of the circuit.

That's just basic electronics and LCR transient analysis. No mystery here. A peak-detector and a PLL will suffice for this purpose.
It might appear difficult to those who have never held a soldering iron or cannot bias a transistor and have no idea how an integrator or comparator or op-amp works.

[Zeitmaschine]

For example Beta Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation would have those features.

And this gives free energy but parametric resonance does not?

In absence of resistance, such capacitor switching creates large voltage discontinuities resulting in the emission of EM radiation (a loss).

And what happens in presence of resistance?

In general this statement is not correct when the inductance is not defined or not constant.

But what if the inductance is defined and constant?

Yes, but the integral of their products stays the same.

Is this just theory or proven in practice?

The waveforms of the ideal rotary-oscillation pendulum are exactly the same as in a LC circuit.
The same is not true about the physical pendulum where a point mass is suspended from an ideal pivot in a gravitational field, because the full solution of angle vs. time in such pendulum is not sinusoidal - it involves elliptic sine (especially for large angles). See here.

But parametric excitation works with both kinds of pendulums, so this slight difference does not really matter.

Neither do I.

Hence some experiments are badly needed.

That's just basic electronics and LCR transient analysis. No mystery here. A peak-detector and a PLL will suffice for this purpose.
It might appear difficult to those who have never held a soldering iron or cannot bias a transistor and have no idea how an integrator or comparator or op-amp works.

And that means Kapanadze did it this way (with his sledgehammer)?

[verpies]

And this gives free energy but parametric resonance does not?

In theory the magnitude of the beta decay cannot be easily changed, but there are few examples when it happens in practice.
In theory changing the capacitance or inductance does not result in gain of energy (only change of voltage and current).
So both of these methods do not give free energy according to current theory.
Experimentally, the achievement of OU by parametric resonance is less probable than by the BASER.

And what happens in presence of resistance?

The resistance dissipates energy as heat.

But what if the inductance is defined and constant?

Then impedance is proportional to the frequency.

Is this just theory or proven in practice?

Both, but the experimental evidence that I have seen was not rigorous enough to convince me either way.

But parametric excitation works with both kinds of pendulums, so this slight difference does not really matter.

Yes, the difference between the two types of pendulums is small for small angles, but for the sake of comparison to the LC circuits it is better to compare them to rotary pendulums.  It's just cleaner this way.

If you want to discuss the relationship between the mechanical pendulum and the LC circuit please think which magnitudes are equivalent in both systems. Let me get you started: mass in the pendullum is equivalent to inductance in LC circuit... please find equivalents for voltage, tension, capacitance, current.
Energy is the same variable in both systems, so there is no need to find the equivalence of energy for pendulum vs. LC circuit.

Hence some experiments are badly needed.

The is a body of evidence on the parametric LC circuits already. Any new experiment would require the simultaneous measurement of voltage and current in them by an good oscilloscope and switching capacitors/inductors by MOSFETs (because they are the fastest transistors and have much lower on-resistance than thyristors and others). 

There is also another way to alter the capacitance and inductance besides switching fixed value elements - namely the insertion and removal of a ferromagnetic core in inductors or dielectric core in capacitors and changing plates' spacing or size. See DNMEC.

Not many people on this forum are capable of making such measurements as evidenced by the notorious nonsensical multiplication of average volts and amps to calculate average power.

And that means Kapanadze did it this way (with his sledgehammer)?

I am not sure Kapanadze has accomplished anything special because those 3 points have not been resolved.