Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[Khwartz]

I know I should respect another viewpoint, but it is very hard for me when I see the underlying conceptual error in plain sight.  It is like seeing some child struggle with that 9-dot puzzle that needs to be connected with 4 lines and seeing the error he makes over and over, knowing that he will never solve that puzzle that way.  It would be very hard to be respectful towards such error and treat it as "another point of view".  My dilemma is similar.

I do understand you despite I could feel exactly the same about you! ...

Well deserved.  I apologize if I offended you with the phrase "infantile paradigm". Perhaps I should have used the words like: simplistic, routine, common, fashionable, trendy, ubiquitous, etc...  I meant no malice - it's just that I had this discussion so many times that I am getting exasperated with repetition.  You're just an unlucky guy that came as last to that discussion...

If you say so

Please distinguish a discussion about a different point of view from a discussion about a conceptual error that is well known to one party. 

I do understand what you mean; except that from my point of view I make no conceptual error and you rather do.

I've been there, done that 23 years ago when I was that proverbial pup trying to solve that 9-dot puzzle.
I don't see them as particles nor waves and I don't see them as traveling through space nor Aether but I understand how they can appear to do so.

OK, so how do you see that please?

There is no answer to this, because in this question you falsely assume waves.

Falsely for your concern, as I understant now, ... but not for mine.

There are no such changes in space as you are asking for.

Prove it! Or demonstrate it, please; if you can!!

This question indicates to me, that you did not take my comment to heart and you are still stuck in that bleeping 3D/1D paradigm (s³/t¹).
Space as you know it is just an emergent 3D geometric reference system created by motion of gravitating observers through projective geometry. 
As a reference system space cannot be curved or distorted or have waves in it.  Yes, Einstein would turn in his grave if he could read that...

We do not need Einstein's complications of screwing the space, fields theories can do much simpler for the same results.

Do you really want to discuss such stuff on OU forum?
Most people here will not understand it anyway and soon start objecting to too much abstraction and too little engineering....and they probably would be correct.

Well, if made on a specific thread, who cares?! If at least 2 people are interested and could one or a other day someone else be interested. "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter", is that a name you would approuve or have you a better name, dear Verpies

[a.king21]

in this video Newman explain how  create the accelerated electrons.after which they interact with the air's ions and... at min 48:26
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMYo1QlvK5g

I just spoke with Joseph Newman on the phone. He told me that he had looped the machine and it was now a perpetual motion machine.


My concern was the cost of production per kwh. He was very evasive.
I pointed out to him that solar panels were an alternative.
I asked him what was the cost of manufacturing a 10 kw unit. ie  a Newman machine which could produce 10 kw.
He had no answer and basically cut me off, very rudely.
Not a gentleman at all.
I wouldn't give him a penny.
However his technology works.  We need to find a way to reduce the miles of copper wire his device uses.

[Khwartz]

This is about converting an electric field (the field of the Earth) into a potential difference so this difference can be used to generate an electric current. The problem here is to construct an energy sink to create an ongoing motion in an otherwise static electric field. Could be the same concept will work with the Earth's magnetic (and gravitational) field if done the right way. Hence no energy amplification but rather an energy tapping.

Hi Zeitmaschine!

Thanks for your answer.

I understood it was about Earth but I was extrapolating to a possible charges amplyfier using ordinary electrical materials at a little scale.

Cheers.

[Сергей В.]

Keith Привет 

Given idea was fisrt time published in New Energy  newsletter, in June 1994, page 9 by Фролов Александр Владимирович aka alexfrolov.
Start experiment with Edward Leedskalnin perpetual motion holder. Watch Kevion video and if you need contact him on whyme2b@gmail.com.

Very similar effect you will find in Зацаринин С.Б. experiment.
Зацаринин Сергей Борисович email:
stimel@mail.ru

Also in Steven Sullivan patent US2003/0025416 A1 and US patent US 6362718.

In Canada Thane Heins and his bi-toroid transformer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVYiT4zK9Kc


The UDT by Paul Raymond Jensen

I have built a transformer which supplies more power to its load than is drawn from its primary source. I named this device The Unidirectional Transformer (UDT), because the magnetic reaction of the load current does not affect the magnetic action of the primary circuit. The UDT is composed of a parallel LC resonant primary, a split secondary, a gapped magnetic core, and a "feedback winding." Virtually the only input power needed is that used to magnetize the core. The magnetic core I used came from a small 60 Hz commercial power transformer made of interleaved silicon steel E and I laminations. I took the core apart, separated the Es and the Is, and made one stacked E core and one stacked I core from the laminations. Then I filed down the center leg of the E core about 15 mils (0.381 mm ~ 0.4 mm) to gap the combined E-I transformer core. The resulting m of the core at 60 Hz was about 100. The primary winding is wound on the center leg of the core. The two secondary windings are wound on the two outer legs of the core and are series connected. Both secondary windings have the same number of turns. The "feedback winding" is wound over the primary on the center leg and is connected in series with the secondary. The free-energy action of the UDT follows directly from the laws of magnetic circuits. Consider what happens when an AC sine voltage is applied to the UDT primary. A magnetizing current flows, which can become rather high because of the low u (permeability) of the core. Fortunately, gapping the core results in a fairly constant u (permeability) through the entire AC cycle, up to a peak H of about 720 A-T/M. This results in a constant primary inductance, which permits parallel LC resonation. Resonating the primary reduces the magnetizing power to that necessary to match I2* R losses in the primary and the hysteresis losses in the core. Magnetizing the core results in an AC sine voltage being induced across the secondary. The magnetic coupling between the primary and the secondary is very high, but the core area within each secondary winding is only one-half that of the primary. This means that the volts/turn of the secondary will be only one-half that of the primary. For the secondary voltage to equal the primary voltage, the secondary must have two times the number of turns in the primary. The primary also induces a voltage across the feedback coil, but the purpose and characteristics of the feedback coil will be explained later. When a current is drawn from the output, the two secondary windings each generate a magnetomotive force (MMF) directed against the MMF of the primary. The MMF of each secondary winding "sees" a series-parallel magnetic circuit through the transformer core. One magnetic circuit, "seen" by each secondary winding, is through the center leg of the core. The other magnetic circuit "seen" by each secondary winding is through the two outer legs of the core. The resulting magnetic flux generated by the MMFs of the two secondary windings is dependent upon the reluctances of each of the magnetic circuits. Because the center leg is gapped, it has a higher reluctance than do the outer legs. This means that less magnetic flux from the secondary will pass through the center leg than will pass through the outer legs. In my transformer, the reluctances of the magnetic circuits through the center leg were three times higher than the reluctances of the magnetic circuits through both outer legs. This was difficult to achieve and required hours of filing, polishing and fitting of the E and I cores. The alternative was to increase the gap, which was not acceptable in my particular design because I was driving the transformer at 60 Hz and could not afford any additional loss of m in the core. Since the reluctances of the "center leg circuits" were three times higher than the reluctances of the "outer leg circuits," one-quarter of the secondary flux passed through the center leg, while three-quarters of the secondary flux passed through both outer legs. The magnetic flux from the two secondary windings cancels in the "outer leg circuits," leaving only one-quarter of the total flux generated by the output current to react back upon the primary. This resulted in a current gain in the secondary, relative to the primary. Lenz's law was bypassed, and free-energy resulted. An alternate explanation for the current gain in the UDT is to consider each secondary winding as acting as the primary winding for the other secondary winding when an output current is drawn because the two secondary windings generate geometrically opposing fields. Now consider the "feedback winding." It is connected in series with the secondary and is wound over the primary winding on the center leg of the core. When the core is magnetized, an induced voltage will appear across the feedback winding which will subtract from the voltage across the secondary. The purpose of the feedback winding is to cancel the remaining secondary flux passing through the center leg of the core. It effectively isolates the currents in the primary and the secondary at the cost of a reduced output voltage. The feedback winding generates a magnetic flux equal and opposite to the residual magnetic flux from the secondary when an output current is drawn. Given the above example, where three-quarters of the secondary flux self-cancels in the "outer leg circuits," the feedback coil will only have to oppose one-quarter of the total secondary flux. Since the feedback winding has two times the core area of the secondary windings and carries the full output current, it need have only one-quarter the number of turns of each secondary winding. However, this will reduce the output voltage by 25 percent. Therefore, to achieve the originally desired output voltage, the total number of secondary turns must be increased by the factor 4/3; the feedback coil must then have one-quarter of the number of turns of each secondary winding in this new secondary circuit. Given the condition in which the feedback coil perfectly cancels all the residual secondary flux through the center leg of the core, the power drawn from the output will be nearly independent of the primary input power. The primary input will be the magnetizing power and nothing more. The output power will have a negligible phase angle (due to the leakage inductance) if the m of the core (as seen by the primary) is at least 100. In practice, it is best if the feedback winding is short a turn or two, thereby preventing series inductance in the output at the cost of a small increase in the primary input power. A parallel resonant primary circuit allows for great input power reduction while ensuring voltage stability and linear operation under varying output loads. The UDT can be used without a resonant primary circuit for the amplification of any time-varying signal. The main flaws of the UDT are the (normally) low primary m and the very long secondary wire required to ensure isolation of the input from the output. A single or double stack of E-I laminations seems to provide the optimum core geometry, all factors considered. At high frequencies it becomes practical to use ferrite cores with "center leg circuit" reluctances less than their "outer leg circuit" reluctances because the volts/turn of each winding can be made very high. Conventional transformer design techniques should be used once the basic UDT topology has been determined. I have invented and developed the UDT on my own, without benefit of any knowledge of other free-energy devices, if they exist, which utilize the basic principles of UDT operation. Please feel free to use this information as you desire. However, I hope that no one will attempt to patent and control this type of transformer. The time on Planet Earth is 1 minutes before midnight; there is no time left to waste. Free-energy technology is not meant to be controlled by vain and greedy parasites who wish to use a gift from Mother Nature to exploit their fellow man. Free-energy technology represents a evolutional transition up of the human race. Free-energy is not meant to be owned, period!

UDT EQUATIONS
Number of Turns = N

a = V(output)/V(primary)

V(Primary)/N(Primary) =
V(feedback)/N(feedback) = V(secondary)/N(secondary)/2

N(feedback) = [N(secondary)/2] [(R of outer circuit)/(R of outer circuit)+(R of center circuit)]
a[N(Primary)] = [N(secondary)/2)-N(feedback)]

R = Reluctance = Y/mA
R = l/uA

where

    l - is the length of the circuit in metres
    uo - is the permeability of vacuum, equal to 4 \pi \times 10^{-7} henry per metre
    ur - is the relative magnetic permeability of the material (dimensionless)
    u - is the permeability of the material (u = uo \ur )
    A - is the cross-sectional area of the circuit in square metres

In Russian Корнилов Г.М. have made same priciple Magnetic motor 5kW output power. Info is in pdf.  Working with his team on 100kW Magnetic motor.


ps: For all of these successful replications the principle is only one.


Удачи !!
Сергей В.

[verpies]

I do understand what you mean; except that from my point of view I make no conceptual error and you rather do.

So let's define these conceptual errors so we have something concrete to discuss:

I claim that space (and time) of our daily lives are just geometric reference systems and their only properties are magnitude and direction. 

You on the other hand, seem to claim (and correct me if I'm wrong) that space is a 3D container that envelops us all and is endowed with myriad of properties, such as permittivity and permeability and is filled with something called Aether that acts as a fluid or gas and has the following properties (list them) needed to support propagation of light between atoms as waves.  You do not address the properties of time at all, other than its one-dimensional nature. 
Most likely you think that time represents one dimension of some 4D continuum, while space represents three dimensions of the same continuum.

I realize that I'm putting a lot of words in your proverbial mouth but this is to provoke you to revise the paragraph above according to your framework of understanding the physical universe.

Prove it! Or demonstrate it, please; if you can!!
OK, so how do you see that please?

Much groundwork would need to be covered first.
Read this with a rigorous understanding and follow the links in it (even if it takes you a week), but remember that this is not my framework. 
While I agree with most of Mathis' conclusions, my framework is much more fundamental because it addresses the composition of charge, photons as well as the nature of space and time (Mathis' framework does not).

I'm starting with somebody's else's framework because you have mentioned Dirac's concepts and they need to be addressed first (Mathis addresses legacy concepts much better than I) before we jump into the more fundamental framework of mine. 
As a teaser of what's coming when we get to it - I will ask you a simple question:
What is "motion" and what are the units of it?

P.S.
Let's create another thread for such discussions before we upset people here with this off-topic stuff.