Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[verpies]

Two magnetic fields in two coils are generated by two charged capacitors simultaneously. As long as there are no changes made in the circuits then each magnetic field of the coils will create a back voltage (Back EMF) and will recharge its own capacitor in an oscillation (with slight losses). That would be the behavior of an ordinary LC circuit. So far, so good.

Yes.  Also, it should be mentioned, that after the voltage zero crossing, the capacitor will be recharged to an opposite voltage (-100%) at the next current zero-crossing.

But as soon as the voltage of the capacitors is zero (zero crossing) the coils are disconnected from these capacitors and connected in series to a single capacitor of the same capacity as one of the initial two capacitors.

That would be difficult to engineer, because any disconnection and reconnection of the coils in different configuration means interruption of the current flowing in the coils.  The coils will fight this interruption by creating such high emf across the break that the current is maintained.  A lot of energy will be dissipated in the resistance of the break very quickly.  This will persist until all of the energy stored in the coil is exhausted. 
However, in theory it is possible to quickly switch the coils to a series connection without incurring losses.

Since the energy (Joules) stored in a capacitor is a linear function of the capacity but a square function of the voltage, half the capacity but double the voltage means twice the stored energy (as shown by means of the Capacitor Charge Calculator).

True.

Hence the series back voltage (Back EMF) of the coils should have enough power to charge this single capacitor to the combined voltage (with slight losses) previously received from two capacitors each of the same capacity.

The combined inductance of the two series coils (L₂) is twice the inductance of a single coil (L₁) in other words L₂=2*L₁.  The current (I) flowing through the coils does not change after connecting them in series . (if it did - we'd have a huge problem).
The energy stored in the two series-connected coils (W₂) is also twice the energy stored in a single coil (W₁) because the energy stored in an inductor is a linear function of its inductance but a square function of the current.  The relevant equations are:  W₁= ½L₁I² ,  W₂= L₁I² , W₂=2*W₁
When you go through the instantaneous differential equations, that energy stored in the two series-connected coils recharges the capacitor to -141.4% of the original voltage, not to -200% of the original voltage

The conceptual error here is in the phrase "combined voltage".  The combination is not a sum. 
This can be understood by considering that emf is proportional to current change rate (dI/dt) and two series-connected coils collectively possess twice the inductance (L₂=2*L₁). Inductance resists the change in current, thus the current in those series-connected coils changes slower than in the single coil (because L₂ > L₁), even if the capacitor is the same (has the same capacitance).
Slower rate of change of current means smaller emf - that's why the emfs do not add up

Of course capacitors are non linear (voltage/energy). So this does not contradict anything regarding my calculations.

Yes. Also, inductors are nonlinear (current/energy).  These nonlinear relationships with stored energy, do not contradict your calculations.
Unfortunately, the addition of series-connected inductances and emfs, does

[Zeitmaschine]

The energy stored in the two series-connected coils (W2) is also twice the energy stored in a single coil (W1) because the energy stored in an inductor is a linear function of its inductance but a square function of the current.

Nice. Then all the energy is stored in the coils. That's better than nothing so far.

Inductance resists the change in current, thus the current in those series-connected coils changes slower than in the single coil (because L2 > L1), even if the capacitor is the same (has the same capacitance).

This sounds quite not complicated enough. Therefore I'm daring to ask what could happen (in terms of differential equations) if both coils would share the same core? What could happen if the coils are bifilar wound? What could happen if the core goes into saturation? What could happen if these are air coils without a ferromagnetic core?

But anyway I would not rely too much on differential equations because something must be wrong with these equations, otherwise there would be neither the presentation of the Kapanadze device nor of the Stepanov transformer nor of the Steven Marks TPU (not mentioned the story of Tesla's electric car).

So we should keep looking for the one differential equation that is wrong or missing.

Any hints are welcome.

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

No unusual behavior of my Joule Thief circuits so far to report, except there was no smoke cloud yet while experimenting (that's indeed very unusual).

But found something interesting about electric parametric resonance in German: Physik des Schaukelns und parametrische Verstärkung

Essentially it says the capacitance should be lowered (go to higher frequency) when the voltage reaches its peak, not raised (to lower frequency). I always thought it is the other way round. Very odd.

And something even more interesting about capacitors, hence a short lesson in physics:

A capacitor consists of a set of two parallel plates of area A separated by a distance d. This capacitor is connected to a battery and charged until its plates carry charges +Q and -Q. The battery is then disconnected. If the separation between the plates is doubled,

(a) the energy stored in the capacitor is halved.

(b) the energy stored in the capacitor is quadrupled.

(c) the energy stored in the capacitor is reduced by a factor of 4.

(d) the energy stored in the capacitor is kept constant.

(e) the energy stored in the capacitor is doubled.

The correct answer is (e). Look it up.

Now the one million dollar question: What would happen if there were a way to double the separation between the plates of a charged capacitor without the need of any energy input?

Ideas are welcome ...

Already done with the Chris Carson Rotary Electrostatic Capacitor.
According to Eric Dollard this machine synthetise energy.
The basic setup is two butterfly capacitor mounted on a shaft 180° out of phase (when one is high the other is low and vice versa).


In your example above you need energy input to overcome electrostatic force when you separate plate, so you have a direct mechanical energy to electric energy converter.
But with the butterfly capacitor the mechanical energy is nullified since they are out of phase BUT the electrical energy is not null due to the displacement current between the two capacitor.


The thread about this machine is here, it's another version of parametric variation...
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/1631-peter-whatever-happened-eric-p-dollard.html#post73799
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5811-parametric-excitation.html#post97489
If you are so really interested in Parametrics you should read those topic and Eric Dollard work, it's like a Bible, it worth the time.


Secondo, putting cap in serie/parallel won't change the energy stored, why ?
Because when you put in serie the voltage is going up but the entire combined capacity are divided or rather you add the inverse.


1uF+1uF at 10 volts in parallel = 2uF at 10volts = 100 uJ
(1/1uF) + (1/1uF) = (1/2uF) or simply 0.5uF at 20 volts (10 +10) in series = 100uJ


SRM.

[zcsaba77]

"1uF+1uF at 10 volts in parallel = 2uF at 10volts = 100 uJ
(1/1uF) + (1/1uF) = (1/2uF) or simply 0.5uF at 20 volts (10 +10) in series = 100uJ"

Question. Why falling charge to half if capacitors connected to series?

[Grumage]

Thomas Henry Moray was probably the first documented free energy device maker.

It was stated by his own hand that in 1912 he had built a little device that could drive a 1/2 candle power arc lamp. My open question and one I have been pondering upon for many a year now? What was available to him to achieve this?

No cat's whisker, some very early Valves (Tubes). But with just an Aeriel and an Earth he achieved what we a trying to do now!! And without all the sophisticated bit's and bob's that we have at our disposal.

I feel that He would have had a good knowledge of what Nicola Tesla was up to, so does the answer lie in Bifilar pancake coils and caps??

I am hoping that this little question may spark an Idea.