Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[Zeitmaschine]

My »little« difficulty in comprehension is this: The capacitors C1/C2 and the coil T2 shape a LC circuit. This LC circuit oscillates at a certain resonance frequency. The transistor VT1 also oscillates at a certain frequency specified by C3 and T1. But both frequencies are not in sync with each other. Therefore what should be the frequency of T1 compared to T2? Higher or lower? Would it not be better to synchronize the gates of the thyristors with the frequency of T2 so T1 can be omitted anyway?

The next question is this: Is it really necessary to toggle C1 and C2 so that at a given point in time only one capacitor is connected, or would it not be sufficient to connect and disconnect one of the capacitors and leave the other connected permanently?

Anyway the basic idea here seems to be to kick a resonating LC circuit out of equilibrium so it has no other choice but to collect additional energy from the space-time continuum (aether).

But seems that's all higher math and physics I'm not familiar with so best thing to do is to keep trying ...

[Groundloop]

My »little« difficulty in comprehension is this: The capacitors C1/C2 and the coil T2 shape a LC circuit. This LC circuit oscillates at a certain resonance frequency. The transistor VT1 also oscillates at a certain frequency specified by C3 and T1. But both frequencies are not in sync with each other. Therefore what should be the frequency of T1 compared to T2? Higher or lower? Would it not be better to synchronize the gates of the thyristors with the frequency of T2 so T1 can be omitted anyway?

The next question is this: Is it really necessary to toggle C1 and C2 so that at a given point in time only one capacitor is connected, or would it not be sufficient to connect and disconnect one of the capacitors and leave the other connected permanently?

Anyway the basic idea here seems to be to kick a resonating LC circuit out of equilibrium so it has no other choice but to collect additional energy from the space-time continuum (aether).

But seems that's all higher math and physics I'm not familiar with so best thing to do is to keep trying ...

Zeitmaschine,

I think the transistor symbol is wrong. For this circuit to work a PNP transistor must be used
since the emitter is going to the plus rail and the collector (through the coil) is going to ground.

Does anybody know the T1 and T2 transformer data? I think the T1/3 coil must be a little larger
than the T1/4 coil so that the VS2 is on before the VS1 switches off the VS2 again. Same goes
for T1/5 and T1/6 coil. That way you can "set" the triggering time of the VSn by the coil size of
the T1 transformer.

GL.

[dllabarre]

Yes, a battery at "G1" .... and it's either connected as a direct short across the battery.... or it's not connected to the circuit shown but to something else that got cropped away. I refer to the point indicated by the arrow.

These diagrams that use a straight crossover with no dot to indicate "no connection" and a heavy dot to indicate "connection" have always bugged me. It is so easy to make a mistake at every stage: wiring, transcribing, interpreting, etc. It is much much better to use the "jumper" symbol or a clear gap where wires cross but do not connect, along with a heavy dot where they do connect. For example, what exactly is meant by the arrowed point below? If it's connected the battery is simply shorted. If it's not connected then there is an implied "something missing" somewhere.

Does not appear to be a short across battery.
From Patent:

[elementSix]

Maybe it looks like this..

[wattsup]

@all

Sorry for interjecting again on this thread. @stefan has put most all the TK threads into a new section and he put me down as moderator, but I never asked him to do that. I have now asked @stefan to remove me as moderator as I do not think this new TK section needs a moderator. But should any @member feel they would be a good moderator, you can always PM @stefan.

I had originally asked him to start a new section under a new title "Understanding Over-Unity" to which I would like to be the moderator. So there was a misunderstanding and hopefully it will be corrected shortly.

All the best in 2013.

wattsup