Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[verpies]

Video to be seen here:  http://youtu.be/Hvn_WpjiLNQ

The input power measurement of this device is still only a rough estimate. If the current and voltage you measured are 630mA_rms and 24.56V_rms and the voltmeters are not lying to you at that frequency,  then the input power is indeed no more than 15.5W_avg.
Most likely it is less than 15W, because the current and voltage do not appear to be in phase.

This accuracy might be good enough for some, but I will press on for more in order to set an example for future devices and measurements.

Indeed, the scope appears 'dumb" because it multiples the graphical vertical position (vertical offsets) instead of the DC offsets (if any) of the measured signals. 
This pathological behavior of the scope can be seen at 4m32sec of the video where you "move the red probe downwards" (current trace) and the yellow trace (voltage trace) downwards too. 
Notice that the green trace also moves down when you lower the vertical position (vertical offset) of the current or voltage. 

This movement of the green trace should not be happening because the input signals are not changing  (neither the DC offset nor the amplitude of the current or voltage waveform is changed by these adjustments).
Thus it is evident that your scope is multiplying the graphical positions of your traces, not the real input signals. 
This is exactly what I have suspected in the quote below:

Maybe you scope is a little dumb and multiplies the vertical offsets of Ch1 and Ch2.
I write "dumb" because the vertical offset on the scope's screen is not the same as DC offset of the signal.
The former is a graphical property of the scope's trace display and the latter is the property of the measured signal.

We do not want to multiply the artificial graphical vertical offsets on the scope's display but we do want to multiply the real DC offsets of the signals (if any exist).

This is a big problem because we do not know where is the zero on the Y-axis for the current and voltage when the scope does the multiplication. 
If I were you I already would be writing to the scope's manufacturer for a new firmware that would multiply the real input signals and not the traces on the screen.  While at at, I would ask for separate graphical positioning and scaling of the resulting green MATH trace.

But for now, could you make this simple experiment with your scope and the 2 batteries connected separately to the 2 channels:

Code Select Expand

  Ch1             Ch2             Ch1*Ch2
----------------------------------------------
+12VDC      +12VDC       +144
+12VDC       -12VDC        -144
-12VDC       +12VDC        -144
-12VDC       -12VDC        +144


...and determine where is the zero on the Y-axis when the graphical multiplication is done.

If you make this little effort the power measurements will become more meaningful for all of us, including yourself.

[semenihin-77]

СемениÑ...ин! 200000Ñ€. -- 6 322,60 $

посÑ,авь цену по божесÑ,венней
продайÑ,е людям за 1Ñ,.Ñ€.

ЭÑ,о аукцион , цена с 1 Ñ,.Ñ€. и начинаеÑ,ся 

[jbignes5]

The input power measurement of this device is still only a rough estimate. If the current and voltage you measured are 630mA_rms and 24.56V_rms and the voltmeters are not lying to you at that frequency,  then the input power is indeed no more than 15.5W_avg.
Most likely it is less than 15W, because the current and voltage do not appear to be in phase.

This accuracy might be good enough for some, but I will press on for more in order to set an example for future devices and measurements.

Indeed, the scope appears 'dumb" because it multiples the graphical vertical position (vertical offsets) instead of the DC offsets (if any) of the measured signals. 
This pathological behavior of the scope can be seen at 4m32sec of the video where you "move the red probe downwards" (current trace) and the yellow trace (voltage trace) downwards too. 
Notice that the green trace also moves down when you lower the vertical position (vertical offset) of the current or voltage. 

This movement of the green trace should not be happening because the input signals are not changing  (neither the DC offset nor the amplitude of the current or voltage waveform is changed by these adjustments).
Thus it is evident that your scope is multiplying the graphical positions of your traces, not the real input signals. 
This is exactly what I have suspected in the quote below:

This is a big problem because we do not know where is the zero on the Y-axis for the current and voltage when the scope does the multiplication. 
If I were you I already would be writing to the scope's manufacturer for a new firmware that would multiply the real input signals and not the traces on the screen.  While at at, I would ask for separate graphical positioning and scaling of the resulting green MATH trace.

But for now, could you make this simple experiment with your scope and the 2 batteries connected separately to the 2 channels:

Code Select Expand

  Ch1             Ch2             Ch1*Ch2
----------------------------------------------
+12VDC      +12VDC       +144
+12VDC       -12VDC        -144
-12VDC       +12VDC        -144
-12VDC       -12VDC        +144


...and determine where is the zero on the Y-axis when the graphical multiplication is done.

If you make this little effort the power measurements will become more meaningful for all of us, including yourself.

Making measurements in these fields is pointless unless you use RF shielding. Static RF shielding. The current doesn't like to stay even with dielectrics. It is loosely bound in there and takes very little to coax out of the plastic around it. But we should be able to test static shielding. Try Aluminum foil at first. After all it is most active in this field. Thats what the exciters do. They excite aluminum in a voltage only way. Maybe we can use this to our advantage. Everything we do should have static shielding at this point. It would negate near 100% of leakage and increase efficiency by huge amounts. Do not attach the static shielding in any way to the real ground or anything. We want the same effect as in the static experiments we see with charging surfaces and that is to only excite the surface to reflect an image of the energy that is present. This will only work up to the mass of the device and the matter's ability to hold together. Go beyond that tolerance and it will melt like a fuse. Pop and it's over. But we need to pay attention to sizes of wires and induction rules. Geometry being something high on the list as well.

Hey has anyone tried putting a magnet on the ferrite rod yet?

[verpies]

Making measurements in these fields is pointless unless you use RF shielding.

The oscilloscope leads are coaxially shielded.
There is not much RF radiation at the input to this device.  However there is strong RF radiation at its output.
Input and output waveforms should not be confused.

The HV output of this device presents danger to the test equipment. 
Its power output should be measured with a simple wattmeter, such as this one:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/kapagen/kapagen33pio.htm

[jbignes5]

The oscilloscope leads are coaxially shielded.
There is not much RF radiation at the input to this device.  However there is strong RF radiation at its output.
Input and output waveforms should not be confused.

The HV output of this device presents danger to the test equipment. 
It power should be measured with a simple wattmeter, such as this one:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/kapagen/kapagen33pio.htm

Umm shielded with the ground, which they are using.. STATIC shielding is the only way to keep this stuff out. Not grounded shielding. This is the problem I am thinking. This is messing up the ground signal and screwing with the meters and scopes. By putting an additional shielding around the devices we will be able to shield that field partly from the measuring devices and get a truer picture.