fake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0LdGSO50l0

The Atmospheric energy collection patent

Is no one interested in the Atmospheric energy collection patent posted ? Because if not I'll keep my work to myself, I don't think it belongs in this thread and
I'm not making a thread to be the only one posting in it. Either way suit's me fine, with no thread my work is less because I don't need to post.
And the source of energy is identified so .......... According to most it cannot be OU and so should not warrant a thread anyway.

Cheers

Dear Farmhand, here is Elena from the Testatika yahoo group.
Yes, I would be one of those people very interested in discussing such things.
Just, I fear this is not the proper thread for that - even if I realized that the idea is emerging
here that the Kapanadze device could actually harvest air electricity. I follow this thread very
seldom though. I have to admit, I am not sure that Kapanadze device is not a hoax, but this
is just my opinion and I could be wrong. While I think we have too many arguments and
proofs that the Testatika is real, and explicit declarations and proofs that it actually harvests
air electricity. You simply can't imagine how many patents we discussed and analized there,
about devices to collect air electricity ! My invitation to join the Testatika group applies,
I'm one of the admins there, and you will find motivated people to discuss such topics
contstructively. Or if you prefer, you could think to insert this discussion here on Overunity:
http://www.overunity.com/2223/source-of-energy-testatika/msg354978/#new
it's an old opened thread and I know at least one people partecipating there who is also
active on the yahoo group. I personally don't feel to fork this thread further, even because
I notice it has become a mess of thousands and more messages, different views and theories...
see you what you prefer.
/&

Just had another look at your refurbished schematic, there is an error I'm afraid. Look closely at the positioning of VS1 and VS2 you have blocked  the negative return for the initial charging of C1 Via S3. See attached.

In theory. But as soon as VS1 is in conductive state C1 should be charged nevertheless via VS1. Question is, what makes more sense - if this construction makes sense at all.

Dear Farmhand, here is Elena from the Testatika yahoo group.

Yes, very nice idea, mixing the Kapanadze device a little bit with the Testatika. The outcome should be delicious.

To determine which parts of the device are really important:
The main conversion must take place in these 2 mystic cylinders. If you look on the left can you see some copper through the grid, so there could be a huge transformer coil. But if you look on the right cylinder you don't see a coil, but somehow dark hexagon like openings under the grid. The question is what happens really in them?

Is it a sheer coincidence that these two mystic cylinders reminding me on a Faraday cage like the tin can of the Kapanadze device? If not then using a Faraday cage is the way to go, because Kapanadze's main conversion indeed takes place in the tin can.

And that the machines didn't work anymore inside a faraday-cage is IMHO an additional point against the theory of the radioactive power source.

You don't say! Because the machines (Testatika and Kapanadze) are using a Faraday cage in order to work and if the machines are completely shielded by an overall Faraday cage then they do not work anymore except there would be an antenna like in case of the Tesla car or the power cables in case of Kapanadze blue coil setup.

* the machine did output more power during a thunderstorm

Kapanadze was concerned about a thunderstorm (bad weather). Just another coincidence?

BTW: Isn't Testatika the short form for Tesla Static (Electricity)?

Thanks for the reply Hel, I want to setup a simple experiment ( not so simple really) as a kind of proof of concept
I'm always interested to share with people of like thinking and genuine motives. I like to study patents even
though I don't always understand them fully. Thanks for the reply and support. I'll be in touch.
I've been thinking on this for a few days now and I think I've visualized how it could work but I want to
have some indication result to verify that things will happen the way I think, even though the principal, or part of it
is already proven I think. To use an analogy the passive effect to the enhanced effect might look like the difference between
a tall ship in favorable winds with all sails down as compared to a tall ship in favorable winds under full sail and trimmed to
make best use of said winds. Even with the sails down a ship will be affected slightly by the winds, although just putting up the sails
won't always make best use of them. As with yacht racing two different crews with the same equipment can have very different results
even though they are fully aware of the forces involved. If there is a sound principal there are known forces to work with.

I'll post any initial results or comments on the other thread here for now.

Best regards.

Good, then I will stay tuned there again.
However, I think spending here and once some general words with this respect won't harm or annoy
anybody - I hope After all, my thoughts could be of some interest to those people here who
issued the theory of Kapanadze device harvesting air ions.
Atmospheric electricity, as we know, is comprensive of at least four, partially independent aspects.
1) The earth-ionosphere capacitor, with air being the dielectric, with ionosphere having a positive
     charge w.r.t ground, which is averagely negative. We can't perhaps establish the ABSOLUTE
     potential of them (I mean: which one actually lacks or have excess electrons) - we can just
     measure an electric field perpendicular to the ground pointing downwards - but we can't perhaps
     tell whether the ionosphere is positive (lacking electrons) and the earth negative (with excess
     electrons), or rather the earth is itself neutral, or rather the earth has excess electrons and
     ionosphere is neutral. We just know that a difference of potential actually exists, which is about
     100V/m - we at the end don't know if the planet earth including its atmosphere is globally neutral
     or not.
2) The electric activity of thunderstorms is another, independent aspect, where charged thunderclouds
     come into play, and scientists still don't fully agree on the exact mechanism for charge separation
     (well, recently it comes out that condensation of water vapor is the most probable candidate)
3) The free excess air ions, which are usually positive, but can be negative also depending on weather
     conditions (mostly winds and thunderstorms activity)
4) Those averagely balanced ions everywhere present, caused by thermal agitation of air molecules,
     and also partly by ionizing radiations from sun, space or natural radioactivity.

Now you see, that before speaking and reasoning of harvesting "atmospheric electricity" one should
first focus on one of the aspects above.
Excluding #2 (because dangerous, destructive and expecially not a constant event)...
#1 is perhaps the oldest and yet most intriguing way. We live between two charged capacitor plates
(I realize such a topic has already discussed here recently). Air is the enemy here, since under normal
condition is a good dielectric. Can just we use the potential ? Plain science tells no-no, and I still tend
to believe it. You can't extract any work from a static field (which is the range of action of a static force)
without destroying or depleting the field itself. We must find a trick to remotely discharge this
capacitor. How ? It's a matter all to debate.
#3 harvesting (sorting, channeling, call it as you prefer) these thermal ions is pretty finding a suitable
Maxwell Demon to work against 2nd TDL - this law is not a dogma and I still wait to find a key for
violating it. Maybe using magnetic fields, or pulsating electric fields - another large area of debate.
#4 these excess free ions are perhaps too sparse to be easily channeled into any substantial and useful
current.

Back to #1, I always suspected that giving a prime, a HV bias to a collector aerial can actually act as
priming a "syphon", to start a flow of positive charges from atmosphere down to ground (read: of
electrons flowing up to the aerial and up again into air as negative ions). And the Russian patent
posted here would suggest a similar method (even if implemented perhaps in a way more complex
than necessary). Mr. Guillot also patented a device which, even if quite puzzling and more intricated,
seems to suggest a similar method.
In general I suspect that even just a negative VanDeGraaf machine (pumping electrons from ground
to the dome) could show some little gain if designed properly, but a gain so little that nobody ever
noticed (such gains should appear in VOLTAGE, because including the atmosphere into our circuit
is pretty like having a battery connected in series). But in a wider sense, similar effects could even
show up with Tesla coils or Avramenko plugs (thus with AC), if we accept that we are working with an
open system with atmospheric air in the circuit, which is full of free ions.
All the above put down very quickly, of course...

Yes it's very interesting and considering some of these devices may be related is even more curious.
I did manage to find this page during safety research http://www.alp-plp.co.jp/eng/techical_tmechanism.html which explains some
of the dangers of lightning rods ect. and which also points to ways of harnessing energy.

I'm thinking in the patent shown earlier in the thread the Tesla coil with the diode at the output to negatively charge the spike ring
that the coil will make the ground more positive at the same time it makes the ring negative which would retard the effect I think.
Theorizing with charges can be confusing. A tesla coil with a DC capacitive input reversed to normal might be beneficial as well
because the power stroke or initial impulse would be negative on the secondary top and the positive rebound would the one we don't utilize
the reactive component of the positive rebound i think would try to return charge the supply. It might be more efficient or effective that way.
I don't think AC excitation of the Tesla coil would be advantageous. A Van De Graff machine should also work to apply a DC bias, but maybe
not as efficiently as a Tesla coil could. Not sure. The rectified output of a Tesla coil would also have a pulsating effect on the ring to some degree.

Cheers


 

Farmhand

Thanks for the link
Then it may be in the majority of devices incorporated this principle

A very interesting video on the new principle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vRWcwb5Yfc&feature=player_embedded