PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-28, 00:30:19
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23
Author Topic: Kapanadze replication  (Read 69860 times)

Newbie
*

Posts: 27
Let's have a look at I found.    http://www.rexresearch.com/marks/marks.htm
This might be explaining Kapanadze' device ?

Yes, very interesting and relevant indeed, although I will say it may be my bias speaking. Ultimately, there is no NEW source of energy but only a different way to transfer it. In Tariels devices, like others, how does he know what the output is? Does he keep adding load until the units burns out? I don't think so. In these devices the max current is always circulating in a loop and you feed back to the source the electrons to put in. IMHO. So in other words the generator always produces MAX output with or without a load connected. That is the fundamental difference between a standard generator and these generators.

Let me know more of your thoughts on the subject but check out this post from the Indonesia Free Energy Forum.

https://freeenergyindonesia.proboards.com/post/823/thread

Quote
Brown discusses the conversion of energy of radioactive decay products, principally alpha emissions, to electrical energy by amplifying electrical oscillations in a high-Q L-C circuit irradiated by radioactive materials. "During the absorption process, each alpha particle will collide with one or more atoms in the conductor knocking electrons from their orbits and imparting some kinetic energy to the electrons in the conductor thereby increasing its conductivity.

-JA
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Jose Antonio
Quote
Yes, very interesting and relevant indeed, although I will say it may be my bias speaking. Ultimately, there is no NEW source of energy but only a different way to transfer it.

It's debatable and the concept of "new" is relative, new to whom?.

Quote
In Tariels devices, like others, how does he know what the output is? Does he keep adding load until the units burns out? I don't think so.

I found the output is determined more so by the conductor size relating to the load current demand and how fast said heat due to conduction losses can be dissipated. For example, suppose we could double the energy (COP 2) in each cycle but were always limited by the load max voltage. Now we must increase the current to increase the energy and current generates heat.

For example, why do you think the AISEG used a hollow core?. They could use a solid core but the high frequency would generate heat from eddy currents. Said heat trapped in the core surrounded by layers of copper windings with no where for the heat to go = meltdown. So we are forced to find a balance between power density and the means to dissipate any losses which generates heat.

In effect the "output" is no longer limited by the input because were COP>1. The max output is limited by the max load voltage and the ability to dissipate any heat generated due to resistance ie heat generated in the system.

Quote
In these devices the max current is always circulating in a loop and you feed back to the source the electrons to put in. IMHO. So in other words the generator always produces MAX output with or without a load connected. That is the fundamental difference between a standard generator and these generators.

Not at all and the output is a function of the input like any other system. Think of it this way, suppose we had a system which doubles the energy (COP 2) with each cycle. More cycles equals more energy so we could vary the cycle rate to vary the output. It only appears as max output with or without a load because the output does not reflect back to or effect the input so much. The reason this is true is because the output does not oppose the input ie. Lenz Law. So we input 1 and we get 2 out and as we reduce the input energy as voltage or current or the cycle rate the output is also reduced.

AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 81
For example, suppose we could double the energy (COP 2) in each cycle

It’s good to make assumptions based on real facts.
But where are they?

In reality, such a “device” that recursively increases its energy is the multiplication of neutrons in a nuclear reactor or during a nuclear explosion. Chain reaction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction

There are also non-nuclear, chemical analogues of chain reactions. But all this consumes fuel or energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_reaction

In reality, if you can create a device that doubles its energy with each cycle, it will be an explosion. The device will not be able to operate stably, it will melt, burn, evaporate - the only question is how long it will be able to multiply energy before its destruction.
need to forget about power (Watt) and think only about energy (Joule).
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 271
A super-regenerative receiver adds energy each cycle using positive feedback, and is 'quenched' at some point later in order to prevent runaway (presumably).

https://i.ibb.co/P6ZDnzd/art285m.jpg
Kapanadze replication
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
The reason this is true is because the output does not oppose (my italics) the input ie. Lenz Law.
Quote
Lenz's law states that the direction of the electric current induced in a conductor by a changing magnetic field is such that the magnetic field created by the induced current opposes changes in the initial magnetic field.
Perhaps you could explain the discrepancy in your statement.

Smudge
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 275
A super-regenerative receiver adds energy each cycle using positive feedback, and is 'quenched' at some point later in order to prevent runaway (presumably).

https://i.ibb.co/P6ZDnzd/art285m.jpg
Kapanadze replication

If only someone could make a super-regenerative detector receiver... :)
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 81
A super-regenerative receiver adds energy each cycle using positive feedback, and is 'quenched' at some point later in order to prevent runaway (presumably).

https://i.ibb.co/P6ZDnzd/art285m.jpg
Kapanadze replication


A super-regenerative receiver adds energy from a battery or other power sources, that contains a limited amount of energy.

the same:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO_cYhV6eIM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0lhGOxDpx0
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Sergh
Quote
In reality, if you can create a device that doubles its energy with each cycle, it will be an explosion. The device will not be able to operate stably, it will melt, burn, evaporate - the only question is how long it will be able to multiply energy before its destruction.
need to forget about power (Watt) and think only about energy (Joule).

Not at all and if we only input one unit of energy and it doubles the max output is two units of energy.

However if we could loop all the output back to the input of a COP>1 device then the circuit components could fail just like any other overloaded circuit. This is why it's important to use circuit overload protection when experimenting. For voltage control I like to use a voltage divider and opto-coupler on the output limiting the DC input voltage. For current control I like to use an opto-isolated hall effect current sensor on the output to modulate the duty cycle of the input. It's always best to isolate the circuit controls to prevent HV creep/ground loops.

So there is no need to be so dramatic and nothing is going to melt down or explode if you understand basic electronics.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 10
A super-regenerative receiver adds energy from a battery or other power sources, that contains a limited amount of energy.

I dont think so. I think one possibility could be the feedback from output.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2982


Buy me a beer
Sergh
Not at all and if we only input one unit of energy and it doubles the max output is two units of energy.

However if we could loop all the output back to the input of a COP>1 device then the circuit components could fail just like any other overloaded circuit. This is why it's important to use circuit overload protection when experimenting. For voltage control I like to use a voltage divider and opto-coupler on the output limiting the DC input voltage. For current control I like to use an opto-isolated hall effect current sensor on the output to modulate the duty cycle of the input. It's always best to isolate the circuit controls to prevent HV creep/ground loops.

So there is no need to be so dramatic and nothing is going to melt down or explode if you understand basic electronics.

AC

This is from my thread, but C2 can be any large AC capacitor placed in the right place ;)

C2 is like a bucket with a hole in the bottom, place it in the sea on the edge of the beach so as when the wave comes in the bucket fills through the hole, when the wave goes out the water in the bucket slowly drains out through the same hole, but never all.

Regards

Mike


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Smudge
Quote
The reason this is true is because the output does not oppose (my italics) the input ie. Lenz Law.

Lenz's law states that the direction of the electric current induced in a conductor by a changing magnetic field is such that the magnetic field created by the induced current opposes changes in the initial magnetic field.

Perhaps you could explain the discrepancy in your statement.

Of course, using deductive reasoning we can make certain assumptions. If Lenz Law states the output always opposes the input but in one instance does not then Lenz Law doesn't apply. The trick is to understand how science works ie. what is actually claimed and what is often assumed or inferred.

"Lenz's law states that the direction of the electric current induced in a conductor by a changing magnetic field is such that the magnetic field created by the induced current opposes changes in the initial magnetic field". This is the claim, no more no less and we should not apply the rule where it doesn't apply.

For example, in the down wind faster than the wind fiasco 99% of people came to the wrong conclusion. Why the wrong conclusion?, because they never really understood the nature of the problem to begin with. They pretended to understand and jumped to false conclusions which didn't apply. The mistake was assuming the DWFTTW cart was a drag based device when it wasn't. As well we should note that due to a lack of understanding everyone jumped to another false conclusion supposing this device must violate the COE which is absurd.

So my statement is factually true. I gave the standard definition of Lenz Law then claimed Lenz Law cannot apply to a given FE device. In the same way I could explain how a drag based device works downwind then claim the DWFTTW cart cannot be a drag based device which is also true. I think the real question on your mind is, if not Lenz Law then what?. In the same way everyone asked if not a drag based device downwind then what?. The "what" part is always something very few considered and the thing everyone is looking for.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Newbie
*

Posts: 27

Not at all and the output is a function of the input like any other system. Think of it this way, suppose we had a system which doubles the energy (COP 2) with each cycle. More cycles equals more energy so we could vary the cycle rate to vary the output. It only appears as max output with or without a load because the output does not reflect back to or effect the input so much. The reason this is true is because the output does not oppose the input ie. Lenz Law. So we input 1 and we get 2 out and as we reduce the input energy as voltage or current or the cycle rate the output is also reduced.

AC

I respectfully disagree with you. You are tailoring your argument around a hypothetical, designed to satisfy the premise of your argument. This is referred to as hypothetical syllogisms. On the contrary, my argument was based on the exact words written by the inventers of these devices, people who actually have a device and the ability to test their hypothesis in a real world environment. Not looking to be a pain or rude, you are certainly a bright individual based on the subject matter of many of your posts. Best of luck.

-JA


On another point. spent hours researching last night and have a HOT lead on Barbosa. A patten that is so new the ink isn't even dried on it (came out last week of June 2024). I haven't gone through all 51 pages yet as I am developing the english translation. However, this looks to be the most ever information with pictures of a working prototype and data to support claims. I almost want to believe he's comfortable the he owns the invention (technology) and is ready to share. I already have a B&L thread on another forum and will post it there. It will pop up on OUcafe.net 
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 81
Sergh
Not at all and if we only input one unit of energy and it doubles the max output is two units of energy.

However if we could loop all the output back to the input of a COP>1 device then the circuit components could fail just like any other overloaded circuit. This is why it's important to use circuit overload protection when experimenting. For voltage control I like to use a voltage divider and opto-coupler on the output limiting the DC input voltage. For current control I like to use an opto-isolated hall effect current sensor on the output to modulate the duty cycle of the input. It's always best to isolate the circuit controls to prevent HV creep/ground loops.

So there is no need to be so dramatic and nothing is going to melt down or explode if you understand basic electronics.

AC

You did not understand. The message was not about how to protect electronic components.

The message was about what a hypothetical overunity would look like in a LC oscillator if it were possible.

In general, newbies come and start shouting 1000 times that everything is very simple, we connect a coil, a spark gap and a capacitor and free energy flows from such a simple circuit.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 159
I respectfully disagree with you. You are tailoring your argument around a hypothetical, designed to satisfy the premise of your argument. This is referred to as hypothetical syllogisms. On the contrary, my argument was based on the exact words written by the inventers of these devices, people who actually have a device and the ability to test their hypothesis in a real world environment. Not looking to be a pain or rude, you are certainly a bright individual based on the subject matter of many of your posts. Best of luck.

-JA


On another point. spent hours researching last night and have a HOT lead on Barbosa. A patten that is so new the ink isn't even dried on it (came out last week of June 2024). I haven't gone through all 51 pages yet as I am developing the english translation. However, this looks to be the most ever information with pictures of a working prototype and data to support claims. I almost want to believe he's comfortable the he owns the invention (technology) and is ready to share. I already have a B&L thread on another forum and will post it there. It will pop up on OUcafe.net


https://patents.google.com/patent/BR102021019838A2
Patent name: RESONATOR COMPENSATOR SYSTEMS FOR ELECTRIC CHARGES AND METHOD OF USE OF BOTH

Where do you see FE here?
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Jose Antonio
Quote
I respectfully disagree with you. You are tailoring your argument around a hypothetical, designed to satisfy the premise of your argument. This is referred to as hypothetical syllogisms. On the contrary, my argument was based on the exact words written by the inventers of these devices, people who actually have a device and the ability to test their hypothesis in a real world environment. Not looking to be a pain or rude, you are certainly a bright individual based on the subject matter of many of your posts. Best of luck.

Your assumption "I tailored my argument around a hypothetical" is in itself a hypothetical isn't it?. 

I have also researched FE inventors, spoken with many FE inventors claiming to have working devices and tested working FE devices first hand on my bench. At no point did I observe anything resembling a runaway condition so long as basic electronic safe guards were in place.

Here is some insight into how the process works which is also based on what most credible FE inventors have claimed. I like Clemente Figuera's description in plain words. He describes how the output is "independent" of the input but proportional to it. Think about that, we can input 1 unit of energy and get 2 out because the output is independent from the input. However the output is proportional to the input so if we reduce the input to 0.5 we can expect an output of around 1. The output can be double the input but as the input is reduced so is the output. I observed this first hand in my own testing of these devices.

In fact, I observed the same phenomena when I tested a working FE device first hand. Yes the output was greater than the input but as the input was reduced so was the output. Keep in mind I am not a newbie but an Engineer with decades of experience. I will not test anything unless I know it is safe like any other professional. It's only the cowboys screwing around with things they don't understand who run into trouble.

Since this thread is about Kapanadze we could use his work as an example. He didn't start with solid state devices, like almost every other FE inventor he started with rotating PM generators. In my opinion they looked like a variation of the Adams motor generator. So initially Kapanadze used a small motor to spin a PM rotor past some generator coils and the coils powered a load plus the motor driving the rotor, ergo a typical motor-generator setup.

Then like almost every other FE inventors in history it probably occurred to him that if the output is truly independent of the input then a moving PM is a mute point. If a moving magnetic field can produce a gain then the next logical step would be to determine if a changing magnetic field ie. solenoid coil/transformer could produce a similar effect. In fact it worked and it does not matter if the magnetic field is moving through a space or expanding/contracting within said space. As Micheal Faraday claimed with respect to induction, it does not matter how the magnetic field changes only that it does. On the subject of Faraday, did you know he was really interested in the Sanskrit Texts and antigravity like Nikola Tesla?. I read most of Faraday's archived papers and he was an exceptional person. Of course I have never met or heard of anyone actually bothering to read the majority of his work and I think you would be surprised who he actually was and what he accomplished.

Here's a clue about these FE inventors which many people miss...
-Nikola Tesla- electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, inventor
-Dr. T.H.Moray- PhD in Electrical Engineering, inventor
-Clemente Figuera- Engineer, university professor, inventor

So when we start looking at the short list of the tens of thousands of FE inventors which can be found here, http://www.rexresearch.com/invnindx.htm, we find these people were not newbies, amateurs or crackpots. Most had decades of experience, impeccable credentials and were the best and brightest.

AC
« Last Edit: 2024-07-13, 16:27:58 by Allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 81
Allcanadian:

Quote
Think about that, we can input 1 unit of energy and get 2 out because the output is independent from the input. However the output is proportional to the input so if we reduce the input to 0.5 we can expect an output of around 1. The output can be double the input but as the input is reduced so is the output. I observed this first hand in my own testing of these devices.

experimenters determine the presence of OU using this method:
- they connect the output of the device to the input and observe, in the process of adjusting the parameters of the device, when the consumption becomes minimal or even negative.
   Determining the presence of OU only using voltmeters, ammeters or oscilloscopes can lead to erroneous results due to the imperfections of even the most expensive measuring instruments.

Quote
So initially Kapanadze used a small motor to spin a PM rotor past some generator coils and the coils powered a load plus the motor driving the rotor, ergo a typical motor-generator setup.

This does not correspond to the context of the design of other generators, including cars on water and Kapanadze’s hydraulic devices, with gas cylinders and pressure gauges.

Quote
On the subject of Faraday, did you know he was really interested in the Sanskrit Texts and antigravity like Nikola Tesla?

Please provide a link to Nikola Tesla's official document, where he literally mentions a specific design for an antigravity device.


Regarding magnetic wheels as perpetual motion machines, my opinion is skeptical. Like this YouTuber:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dywk3u2ncHk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMZy6Oc91Fs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brJRnz0gAFo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogSO7SMggAk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RHKpZUqlu0
etc..

My opinion:
Magnetic motors do not work as perpetuum mobile or work as ordinary motor due to the demagnetization energy of the magnets.
They do not last long and cannot create significant power on the shaft.
« Last Edit: 2024-07-15, 09:30:48 by sergh »
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 159
I see it's upside down
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 81
I see it's upside down

This is the normal position if you want to transfer liquefied gas from a cylinder as a liquid.

https://youtu.be/BstbH5S78Cs?t=59
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 159
This is the normal position if you want to transfer liquefied gas from a cylinder as a liquid.

https://youtu.be/BstbH5S78Cs?t=59

This gas has many uses. Can be used for:
-heating,
-as fuel for engines,
-for air conditioning.

What does Kapanadze use it for?
Isobutane has less energy than gasoline and is more expensive.

gasoline = 33MJ
isobutane = 25MJ

The way the bottle is placed indicates that it is not a gas, but a liquid.
If it were gas and an engine, its combustion produces a very similar amount of energy.
If this gas is real in the device, it rather concerns combustion as in the engine, but why is it supplied as a liquid? Does it matter?
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 271
Maybe it's related to the Joule Thomson effect that Carl von Linde exploited?

Joule and Thomson had noticed that as a gas expands, it gets colder. The cooling effect is relative to the degree of compression prior to expansion, and pre-cooling the air exponentially increases the cooling effect of the Joule-Thomson effect. Von Linde built the effect into a virtuous circle, by reducing the pressure of compressed cold air in a counter-current heat exchange. A quantity of compressed air, pre-cooled to -30ºC, would enter the heat exchanger where the pressure was released and the gas expanded. Now the Joule-Thomson effect would reduce the temperature of the gas even more. Since this happened in the heat exchanger, with the incoming compressed air flowing through the neighbouring pipe, this would cool the next batch of air even further than the previous one. The cooling effect increases and with every air intake the air gets colder, until, at around -190ºC it turns liquid.

Could Von Linde's method of using already cooled air from the output to cool the air being input have given Kapanadze the idea of using some of the electrical output to feed back to the input, aka positive feedback?
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 159
Maybe it's related to the Joule Thomson effect that Carl von Linde exploited?

Joule and Thomson had noticed that as a gas expands, it gets colder. The cooling effect is relative to the degree of compression prior to expansion, and pre-cooling the air exponentially increases the cooling effect of the Joule-Thomson effect. Von Linde built the effect into a virtuous circle, by reducing the pressure of compressed cold air in a counter-current heat exchange. A quantity of compressed air, pre-cooled to -30ºC, would enter the heat exchanger where the pressure was released and the gas expanded. Now the Joule-Thomson effect would reduce the temperature of the gas even more. Since this happened in the heat exchanger, with the incoming compressed air flowing through the neighbouring pipe, this would cool the next batch of air even further than the previous one. The cooling effect increases and with every air intake the air gets colder, until, at around -190ºC it turns liquid.

Could Von Linde's method of using already cooled air from the output to cool the air being input have given Kapanadze the idea of using some of the electrical output to feed back to the input, aka positive feedback?


I think so, but it uses gas, not electricity. As an understanding of the process, the Linde is a good explanation just like a regular heat pump. Unfortunately, no one has yet made an analogy that works with electricity. LENZ has electricity, which cannot be said about LINDE.
Would cooling the coil to minus temperatures result in an increase in free oscillations? or maybe a superconductor is used and the gas simply cools it?
We go further and further and there is no end.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 271

I think so, but it uses gas, not electricity. As an understanding of the process, the Linde is a good explanation just like a regular heat pump. Unfortunately, no one has yet made an analogy that works with electricity. LENZ has electricity, which cannot be said about LINDE.
Would cooling the coil to minus temperatures result in an increase in free oscillations? or maybe a superconductor is used and the gas simply cools it?
We go further and further and there is no end.

The point I was making is that the electrical analogy of the Linde system would be positive feedback. It's possible that Kapanadze was experimenting with the Linde system as shown in the photo, and this then gave him the idea for an electrical equivalent.
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 81
Maybe I'm wrong, but based on other information I have an assumption that the helium in the cylinder is in a gaseous state.
https://nofchem.en.made-in-china.com/product/yNXxzinPHqWQ/China-Party-Celebration-Balloon-Helium-Gas-in-22-4L-Helium-Gas-Tank.html
 Look towards industrially produced high power Stirling engines. They are filled with helium.
But why a Stirling engine is needed if there is no fuel is unclear.

If this option is wrong, then the second option is likely:
microdieseling. Adding bubbles from a gas-air mixture to engine oil. After this, compression is carried out to high pressure, followed by combustion of the bubbles and expansion of the oil in the cylinder. But this is also not free energy, since gas is used as fuel.

The third option: the need for some kind of inert carrier gas, a transport gas, which would blow out the hydrogen formed in small quantities in the catalyst.

I had such a need for transport gas, since hydrogen did not want to leave the catalyst even at very low pressure. If you use ordinary air, then at high temperatures or in electric discharge chamber it will oxidize hydrogen with the oxygen from the air.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 159
The color of the cylinder is important for a specific gas.
Tesla showed a patent with blowing, but from what I remember it is a kind of interruption of the spark.
 I did this once and it works very well. Blowing on a spark gap works the same as inserting a capacitor and coil!
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 81
By itself, blowing into a spark gap does not promise any increase in energy. LC-resonance also does not promise any increase in energy.
Wave resonance has also not provided anyone with anything extra.
Why would Kapanadze do this?


R600a Isobutane

Blow flammable hydrocarbon gas as this indicated on the tank, into spark gap ? The spark gap will become covered with black carbon soot and a breakdown and short circuit will occur. Typically another, inert gases are used in industrial  spark gap.

I heard somewhere that such tanks for air conditioner gases can be used as refillable ones. Look at the tanks for refilling balloons with helium, they sometimes look similar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqrXc6yT2TI
   
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-28, 00:30:19