Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[Zeitmaschine]

You missed again the closing quote tag.

Yes, I'm saying that the Tesla coil with a third coil is not a self running device.

Neither is Kapanadze's green box. It needs an external feedback loop.

The first thing to come is the surplus energy, then we can try making it a self-runner.

But thinking twice: Maybe Kapanadze's green box actually is a self-runner, but he damped the internal feedback on purpose, so he could fiddle about a bit with the external loop during demonstration to make it look more interesting in front of the camera.

I'm saying this, because the strange thing is that self-running Kapanadze devices (started with a 9V battery) are always looking simpler than the Kapanadze devices which need an external feedback loop through an inverter and a transformer.

could be two diodes

If we connect two diodes back-to-back, what do we have? A non-linear resistor?

[NickZ]

  I don't know what you mean by an external feed-back loop,  as there is no internal feed back loop. The device's output goes through a step down transformer, of some sort, and is then feed back to the input side with the correct voltage and current for the driver circuit to operate from.  At least on all the Ruslan/Akula devices, that were shown. How Kapanadze does it is not too clear to me. As it's why I can't even try to replicate any of the Kapanadze devices. Maybe someone else knows or has studied it more than I have.  As I focus on the Ruslan devices which there are schematics, videos, and some instructions to.  Unlike Kapanadze, who doesn't spill the beans.

[batfish]

Zeitmaschine has suggested that we should look for a minimal configuration. He has highlighted the frequency doubling effect of a full-wave rectifier, and he (I think) and others have mentioned parametric oscillators (like the Botafumeiro) which are pumped at twice their resonant frequency and in which under certain conditions "the system enters parametric resonance and the amplitude begins to grow exponentially, even in the absence of a driving force".

Botafumeiro: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4AkVj-qnJxNtKuz3rkq16A
Parametric oscillator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_oscillator

So here is one minimal version. A resonant parametric oscillator is given an initial push by the starter (a 9v battery?). The activity in this oscillator is transformed into usable AC output and delivered to a load in some way that has minimal effect on the oscillator. Part of the output is rectified and delivered as frequency doubled feedback to a module that pumps the parametric oscillator.

The question is, can the combination of a parametric oscillator and some kind of output transformer deliver enough output to do useful work and at the same time sufficiently powerful feedback to keep itself going?

There seem to be two ways of varying the parameters of an LC system - by varying the capacitance and by varying the inductance. On the face of it the techniques used in magnetic amplifiers to vary inductance look more promising. As for a Lenz-free output transformer ...

Batfish

[Hoppy]

The question is, can the combination of a parametric oscillator and some kind of output transformer deliver enough output to do useful work and at the same time sufficiently powerful feedback to keep itself going?

Batfish

Good question. I think it most unlikely.

[wattsup]

@stivep

I read that last pdf on electric potential. Here are the first two paragraphs and comments.

Para 1 - Start
We have seen that the difference in electric potential between two arbitrary points in space is a function of the electric field which permeates space, but is independent of the test charge used to measure this difference. Let us investigate the relationship between electric potential and the electric field.
Para 1 - End

How did they see the difference in electric potential between two arbitrary point in space? How did the field permeate the space? How is it then independent of the test charge. How did they produce the test charge?
If the answer is "they used some type of conductive metal in an energized coiling or pointal discharge and the same conductive metals in some type of sensors, then you have to throw all this into the garbage because the whole basis from the start is faulty. This is why we have been hypnotized. You read the first paragraph and you automatically think all this is normal. There is nothing normal in this save the fact that such paragraphs are the stable chronic mind wasting talk we have grown up with since our birth.

Para 2 - Start
"Consider a charge q which is slowly moved an infinitesimal distance $dx$ along the $x$-axis. Suppose that the difference in electric potential between the final and initial positions of the charge is $dV$. By definition, the change $dP$ in the charge's electric potential energy is given by...."
Para 2 - End

Right away we are asked to "consider" a charge Q. WTF is that? Is it a lonely charge that was left to fend for itself in this vast and inhospitable universe? What if from the beginning, what we don't know is that there is no such a thing as a charge Q. The is no charge. The only reason we invent such ideas is because we need to explain the same damn thing that has been haunting man since it first discovered the lodestone and that is action at a distance.

Then we have as per your diagram showing the "field" around the wire, or it could be a coil or a magnet.

So in nature, show me something that is willing to waste so much energy sending a field in every possible space in every possible direction around an object. Why would nature want to do that? How can nature do that and expect to survive? Why should nature need to do that when in nature we already know that all the effects of nature are always at their minimal force required to obtain a result. Nature does not waste or create excess or do things it is not required to do.

So in the field business, we need to understand two things.

A) Either all copper atoms in our coils and sensors are totally stupid objects that require the coaxing or some form of orientation by outside fields because the atoms are too stupid to notice them on their own. So without a field, an energized coil is like a rock, totally impossible to influence other atoms around it because the field is the one doing all the work. This is our life right now. Very tiring indeed because the field just robbed everyone of our precision of effect. The field will do it. Don't worry man, just pass the field and the wire will produce electrons, charge q, or whatever you want to call it.

or,

B) The atoms in our copper wires are in fact very smart and very able critters that respond to the presence of the central point of an energized coil or magnet. The atoms was designed by nature to incorporate a central nucleus that can respond on its own to any strong energized or magnetized presence. Not the field but the object itself. So the copper atoms in our sensors do not need fields. They respond to outer forces like a dog responds when it see a squirrel, it just goes haywire. No fields required.

It's like you have your head, and inside your head you have eyes, and inside your eyes you have specialized atoms that have a great affinity for light sources. The sucker is told the light has to travel to your eye for your eye to catch it and form an image. The thinker will say wait a minute. If my eyes already have the specialist atoms, then why do you need to send the light anywhere. Why not just leave the brightness where it is since I can see it from here very well. Why bring the light to my eye? No reason man. So man creates the light/time illusion so it falls into its overall illusion of action at a distance.

So you can have two choices.

1) The object sends out a field in every direction hoping that there will be some type of sensor out there able to be influenced by the field then produce a glitch on your scope to show, OK' I got it. So if you have 1000 sensors. Each sensor would require to feel that same field presence in order to react in its censorial manner to acknowledge the action is being accomplished at a distance.

2) The object produces an internal energized state (what I call Condensed Gravity) where its atoms are agitated and therefore our sensors do not need any field because they can simply sense this agitation on their own. So your 1000 sensors do not need any field because each one already has the ability to resolve any new energized states in their vicinity. And as for energized states, the vicinity can be right beside it or across the country, in the universal sense, those two distances are peanuts compared to the vastness of space and these atoms have had good practice for ions to perfect their responses. We just do not realize how they tick and tock.

So now you have two options, keep feeding the illusion of the field and by consequence its only ever discussed muscleman "the electron", or let the power be in the objects themselves in their real atomic nature and discover how atoms are precise, pointal, reactive, without any field or electron required.

I have taken the second path now. All our effects can be explained with this second path in concrete cause and effects for action at a distance. The readings on your scope, the brightness of your bulbs, and into every other possible action of nature.

As a small example; The X-ray source stops being a ray pusher and becomes an inwards gravity source. The rays do not pass through your body to hit the plate to show your skeleton. The X-ray source creates an inward action where the plates simply responds from where it is but decreases where your skeleton is masking the inward effect. We have been working backwards since over 100 years now and that's why our toys only waste energy because our present construct only enable us to see energy in this illusory manner so that we cannot manipulate our toys with any better precision then passing a field. What do all the energy production methods do ultimately is "pass a field". That's where we are stuck and that's why we do not have OU today.

So in your experiments, there are two options of viewpoint.

1) The present one is that your target is expelling some type of rays outside the object itself and your sensors are being hit by these and producing your nice little dots on the screen.

or

2) The sensors in your instrument have copper or other conductive atoms that are simply able to respond to the objects internal energy fluctuations without requiring anything to be ejected from the object into the sensors. This is where science has gone so far astray that it is practically impossible to push it back into the right direction of perspective because it is stuck in several feet of brain fat. Fat that has been layered and layered over the years to become so mind numbing that anyone reading the first two paragraphs shown above will not think for a second that such talk is nonsense, on the contrary it has become part of our daily acceptances.

How does a shark sense blood from miles away? Must be the blood shooting out an immense field to yell out "I'm here, I'm here, keep your eyes on me". Or could it possibly be that the shark has sensors with atoms that have a great affinity for detecting blood without any field required. Which one would nature choose? The one that needs to expend copious amounts of energy to announce it presence into every possible direction around it for miles away, or the one that just needs that atoms to be smart and fend for themselves like everything else in nature.

So I understand that for the most part OUers right now have to fight every day to try and see something past the common modes and because of our constructs, our blind acceptance of the conservation of energy has been shoved down our throats day after day after day until our minds have become nothing more then foie gras.

I guess I am saying all this because I know your position towards overunity and this TK thread is a good example to show. If the TK devices are real, then you will never be able to describe its function using standard terms and precepts of action/reaction. Nothing in the present construct accommodates such events. Our system is based on loss. But when we start discovering that our atoms are the ones doing all the work and not these fictitious fields and electrons, our designs will change, our wire will change, or pointal intent for action at a distance will change, we will master the atoms inborn abilities, like a dog loves playing with a ball, his head will follow your hands every movement reacting and ready to dart after the ball once it is thrown, our atoms want to play the same way but all they get is general field massage. This is the way I see our effects today. This is a new way. This is really the only new way I have had to develop myself because it was not in any books. This is my opening in the box that shows a whole new world of effects based on the actors and not any specially prepared script. This is the way to Overunity.

wattsup

PS:

1) Examples of field problem. Try to find a University that will be willing to do the following experiment #1.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3209.msg53505#msg53505

2) I have stated a while back that when Tesla invented the AC motor, this should have rendered the "electron flow" model of electricity obsolete since you cannot have an alternating current where a neutral wire is also grounded as in our present electric grid system. You cannot have alternating current to "flow" in such conditions. So far no one has seen fit to debate this issue. Funny how our standard models prefers to keep quiet when subjects get to precise. But I have 100s more of these.