Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum  (Read 642420 times)

Offline stivep

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
Re: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum
« Reply #3705 on: April 16, 2022, 04:09:13 AM »
please start reading from part number one
https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg565761/#msg565761



Analysis PART 3
logical conclusions from listed patents of Inventor
: Robert Ray Holcomb

___________________________________________
High efficiency AC DC electric motor, electric power generating system with variable speed, variable power, geometric isolation and high efficiency conducting elementsPatent number:  10008916
 Type: Grant   Filed: May 21, 2013   Date of Patent: June 26, 2018   Assignee: Redemptive Technologies Ltd   Inventor: Robert Ray Holcomb
was the base for any further activity.
I suggest to start analyzing this patent first.

_______________________________________________________________
  Compact high-efficiency, low-reverse torque electric power generator driven by a high efficiency electric drive motor    Patent number: 11196331
 Type: Grant   Filed: December 21, 2017   Date of Patent: December 7, 2021   Inventor: Robert Ray Holcomb

this patent says that some sort of generator is driven by some sort of electric motor.
___________________________________________________________________
conclusion:
inventor was trying different approaches.
one of them was:
  TURBOFAN JET ENGINE, POWERED BY AN ELECTRIC MOTOR WITH POWER FROM A HIGH EFFICIENCY ELECTRIC GENERATOR    Publication number: 20200052570
but all of them or most of them are in or about rotary motion, however extraordinary claims shown on his video channels shows only Stater without the rotor and that is enough to do the trick,
I want to be very much condensed in my comment just did not make it boring.
For your own analysis of inventor patents and applications please go to
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/robert-ray-holcomb
Patents by Inventor Robert Ray Holcomb
Wesley

Offline kolbacict

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 841
Re: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum
« Reply #3706 on: April 16, 2022, 07:10:06 AM »
the differance between the potential of the nutral and earth  ?
Exactly. Only no disconnection from the power grid. All with the usual standard connection.
You know that there is always a difference in a somewhat volt . Power grids is not ideal.
If you're lucky,you can make a hundred  watts from there . :)

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5031
Re: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum
« Reply #3707 on: April 16, 2022, 07:37:37 AM »
Wesley,hello
All is in deutsch : Mat(h)ematik = Theorie + Praxis
https://www.google.com/search?q=set+theory&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m
     set theory and set praxis
     base :  set ,in deutsch : great written Set
Speak & Spell (Depeche Mode 1rd LP theme)
Set theorist pioneers :  Cantor and Dedekind
and ,as philological Mentor ,from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels [ M.E.-WIS(SENSCHAFTEN )] :
https://www.google.com/search?q=Hegel&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-m&q=Hegel+set+theory+&oq=Hegel+set+theory+&aqs=heirloom-srp..0l1
https://www.google.com/search?q=set+theory&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m
     Set,deutsch,spoken like : 
https://i.insider.com/62257335dcce010019a6fe07?width=1000&format=jpeg&auto=webp
Weltrevolution
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jsCR05oKROA
Lenin and Messias,You know !?
From Al-pha to= mega O ( das A und O des Lebens) or A bis SET~ Z
Happy Eastern (pasqua) wishing
OCWL
« Last Edit: April 16, 2022, 12:48:27 PM by stivep »

Offline stivep

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
Re: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum
« Reply #3708 on: April 16, 2022, 04:12:45 PM »
please start reading from part number one
https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg565761/#msg565761



Analysis PART 4
logical conclusions from listed patents of Inventor section number two: Robert Ray Holcomb

I'm working on it

Offline lukaszkwiatkowskii

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum
« Reply #3709 on: April 17, 2022, 05:24:15 PM »
To jest patent prostszy konstrukcyjnie w stosunku do innych jego konstrukcji.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050087989A1

Offline stivep

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
Re: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum
« Reply #3710 on: April 17, 2022, 08:30:00 PM »
To jest patent prostszy konstrukcyjnie w stosunku do innych jego konstrukcji.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050087989A1
Application US10/694,326
events   
2003-10-27Application filed by Robert Holcomb
2003-10-27 Priority to US10/694,3262005-02-22 Assigned to HOLCOMB HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC
2005-04-28Publication of US20050087989A12005-09-12 Assigned to HOLCOMB HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC
2008-03-21Assigned to DEMETER SYSTEMS, LLC
Status Abandoned



The more I dig into this inventor activity the more I have problems with his publications and its value.One of the links although inactive shows  possible connection with a "fear" of Panama papers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers

We have a medical doctor, with
plenty of money,
no known to me scientific recognition or manifested support other than from another out of field medical doctor.
some unrelated to energy patents .
One related patent
High efficiency AC DC electric motor, electric power generating system with variable speed, variable power, geometric isolation and high efficiency conducting elements  Patent number: 10008916


One related patent
Compact high-efficiency, low-reverse torque electric power generator driven by a high efficiency electric drive motor   Patent number: 11196331
And the rest of his other publications are just the applications.

Wesley

Offline lukaszkwiatkowskii

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum
« Reply #3711 on: April 18, 2022, 07:35:51 AM »
A nie uważasz że to może być kogoś innego myśl techniczna a on to opatentował aby wyciągnąć kaskę, mało to profesorków na uczelniach tak robi, przyssą się niczym pijawki do studenta z pomysłami, niby mu pomagają, a tak na prawdę pomagają tylko sobie aby zdobyć sławę i kaskę z grantów, tu może być podobnie, a poza tym większość jego patentów jest oparta o "selsyno-generator synchroniczny" na niskich częstotliwościach, a tu nagle wyskakuje z aplikacją na 14MHz gdzie pierwotnego patentu nie mogę znaleźć, no hipotetyczne zjawisko tzw. wzmocnienia też jest inne.

Offline kolbacict

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 841
Re: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum
« Reply #3712 on: May 04, 2022, 05:39:56 PM »
How can I find this Anzor?
I hope he is alive and well.
https://patentdb.ru/author/1090142

Offline stivep

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
Re: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum
« Reply #3713 on: June 06, 2022, 08:49:00 PM »
I trust you are doing well and enjoying your microscopes.
not that well but well enough.
some small things. One of them uses Ln2
for that there is a Ln2 farm   and inconvenience of Dewar  (  A cryogenic storage dewar )

 
In your Kapanadze forum there used to be a section explaining the magnetic device
a man made that uses a frame for inducing magnetic flux circuit from two permanent magnets and modulating giant magnetostrictive medium as to field switch between magnets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNxob3yY4LE
Ted Annis


I'm mentioning The  mechanical device of
Aldo Costa
https://www.wired.com/2004/12/reinventing-the-wheel/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsBplmMDcRQ
as an example of failure  of concept.
Perpetual motion  doesn't exist and it consumes all energy in the system plus losses.
The failure  is in application.

Which one, you think had the most potential for being reliable and producing substantive power?
FE concept is about the a  way to gain and don't pay for the benefit coming from that gain.
So let's list few of them:
1. theft -   cons: lead's to  punishment.
2. slavery -   cons: no longer applicable in modern world
3. patriotism -  cons: benefits ruling elite convincing nation members, to work/act based on promise 
    a declaration or assurance that one will do something or that a particular thing will happen.
    direct contradiction to  basic mammal behavior  by implementing  sub elements such as: heroism, dedication and so on.

4.  religion based structure - cons: based  on fear of punishment  if you disobey  advertised by clergy rules.
     no  firm  promise,
declaration or assurance of particular gain  or any gain.
    Advertised "energy"  is said  to control you now and forever but you can't control, it check, measure it while you voluntarily providing your support.
    But if you  were a jungle man and never introduced to  that particular rules, / requirements than you are lucky to never be punished.


5. Energy that doesn't have to be paid for.
a: direct : e.g wind, flow, sun, pressure,  can be used constantly.
     e.g  gravitation, magnetic field, lightning  are specific to an application     

b. energy transfer is the only promising process allowing us to get Energy for free.
     e.g Girl  in your car benefits from free ride, free driver, free  maintenance,  and you happy to pay for everything.
           When she becomes your wife than American law makes you to pay for everything or else.

c.  in our FE devices we are using small amount of energy to  couple to  energy source that doesn't have to be paid for.
     E.g:  we consume energy to open  valve on the  water pipe connected to the river and nature pays for that water flow .

 Project convincing me is energy from Schumann waveguide as I did it, have check it, and it turns out to  provide
 repeatable  results.
 The  repeatable  results is a must for any patent to become a product.
Wesley

Offline AlienGrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3596
Re: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum
« Reply #3714 on: June 06, 2022, 09:10:09 PM »
Or perhaps it's more a case of the exploit of energy in metalic wast like aluminium and or brass
both TK device and SM used them both all you aparantly have to do is break it down with magnetic impulses.

Re http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbkvXoDfk7g.

Sil

Offline d3x0r

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum
« Reply #3715 on: June 07, 2022, 01:21:25 AM »
re wesley's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNxob3yY4LE 
the simplified version is nothing like the original.  The proposed magnet has a much greater mass (and more flux), with the rings folded over each other you don't have a path of flux through the rings, just around the rings, and most of it leaks immediately in the area of the block magnet.  The magnets he used were really rather small, and really comes down to having a balance of flux, not more is better.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsBplmMDcRQ (overbalanced ferris wheel).  This works, any time, night, day, still wind or gusty wind (there's not really any aerodynamic character to it).  Others other than the inventor and his camera have stood next to it, and seen it work.


If I can 'troll' a little bit for more awareness... I started https://overunity.com/19139/local-hidden-variables-for-the-win-not-101st-bad-idea/msg567777   to discuss the math.

Yes, I know classical mechanics/physics and forces.  That's all you can learn out there... and I did learn it, I'm aware of all of it; and yes, I can do math.

Yes, I realize what I'm proposing seems ludicrous in light of what I know.

There's actually a long back story, and I didn't just hit my head in the bath and come to a realization, I instead took a very long path from something entirely related to where I ended up.   So let me just share some of the highlights.  I may say a lot of things you disagree with from the classical approaches to things, a lot of this is Independent research and DEVELOPMENT (there are at least interactive results, even if they are virtual); please at least let me get to the end for the thing you will disagree with, and grant me that I've taken everything leading up to that as 'given' and if I haven't said it or shown it in this, I have reasons that these things are fundamental.)

I started with spin vectors - 3D representations for spin; which are more commonly treated as axis*angle with a unit vector axis scaled by an angle.  The math generally normalizes the 3D vector before using it, so keeping it as 4 components makes sense for efficiency, but they're still really just 3 numbers.  (none of this spin axis is technically needed for where I end up, and don't make me defend this)  I found them actually very elegant to use (although I am a software developer, so when I 'use' things a lot of complex calculation can end up going into it, and I certainly wouldn't want to generally deal with a lot of rotational math with 3D vectors on paper.)

So I made a bunch of demos and entertaining things with rotation vectors, even replaced Quaternions with rotation vectors in a version of cannon-es ( https://d3x0r.github.io/cannon.js/ ).  Some of the operations ended up simplifying out especially where integrate() was called to apply a partial rotation.  And basically all was well, and of course the math works :)

I started digging into spin mechanics described by QM  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZSC7wgBq3RSLKoJDfGL0Rg/videos  NoahExplainsPhysics was the source that really made it click - especially Quantum Spin (3) - The Bloch Sphere and  Quantum Spin (2) - Pauli Matrices.  So I reverse applied what QM says should be for some spin axis (mind you QM does NOT have a spin axis.  Mostly because it's just not available in the math; they converted all the angles to sin(angle),cos(angle) for each of the angles (convert polar to complex basically), and then multiply the 6 values in various combinations, so whatever the angle was, is lost to the wind).

Noone was impressed with my graph that resulted with *shrug* me either.  But this at least let me consider what QM thinks of the world.  I did a lot more digging and learning about the QM approach to things, and came across this CHSH game described here https://qubit.guide/9.3-chsh-inequality.html or more technically here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality , and realized 'heck if there is a so-called hidden variable, it would be spin axis.'  So I made some comparitive simulations behaving according to those rules, as spin axis would apply to, and got this game https://d3x0r.github.io/STFRPhysics/math/CHSH_Game.html .  The samples and counts, and all information used is shown, and if I sum the results the way prescribed by the inequality, then indeed, my simulation = 2.0.   But there's more than one way to measure, and you can weigh the results instead (I'm getting a little ahead of myself).     

I saw in the data, that 50% that QM predicts at 60 degrees, the samples are say 120 same and 60 different.   So, what I have is the samples, and I have the degrees of the QM test device, and I know what the values should be, so I can compare the samples a different way and use basically   `1 -  (same-different)/different`  (or over same, which ever is bigger), which then makes my measure of samples relate to QM; however not exactly.

What QM predicts is based on a harmonic oscillator, and is `cos(angle of devices)` or the dot product of the alignment vectors of the devices.  So, here's my problem, I find the math is '1-(same-different)/same' and physics says it should be cos().  And yes, I get it, I'm not 'right'.  But AM I?

I continued with a few more simulations, 1) independent correlations, 2) 2 polarizer stack, 3) 3 polarizer stack, and my results of the simulations are all within range of QM's prediction (by like 3%, very close).  It's got to be, what, in how I compare the samples to get the final ratio?  What other information do I have other than (A)Samples that were the same and (B) samples that were different?  really nothing.

QM Experiments done in real life have technical difficulties; electrons are hard to get to go in a specific direction (Stern Gerlach Tests), Polarizers aren't perfect and are only 92-97% transmissive, and  the photo multiplier used to detect individual photons will just fire randomly from random high energy particles from space.   (Perfect light is never perfect, and perfect dark is never perfectly dark), so now, all the results of the experiment have at least 4% error in them (or are they actually very close, and my 3% difference between my math and the math predicted by QM is part of that?  It is, generally the direction that the experiment is off is towards my graph.  (I will assert 'MY' for now, because at this point in the history, I don't know of anyone else who didn't have a homework assignment to complete, that could take the time to push this idea to its limits; but it broadens).

So great, I decide to abandon fitting my results with QM predictions, and instead I have a simulation and the predicted value of that simulation that overlap 100% and then I have QM's prediction which off.   

So, I talked with a few people, got some information, got some challenge to defend why there was a '2' in my math and various other aspects.  This led me to come up with different models to show the same math.   I could build the same QM thought experiment of hidden variables, but really the particles going through have no knowledge or information.   (It's long to explain in detail, so just the gist) you have red and blue boxes; these catch marbles, when a marble entered a red box it will leave any other red box, similarly with blue.  (depending on the experiment)  If a ball enters a red box from a red box, it's dumped to the right, otherwise it goes left, if a ball enters a blue box from any color box, it's dumped to the left.  (blue is the half of the polarizer the blocks transmission).  If I have on of each pair red-red, blue-blue, red-blue and blue-red, what ends up on the right vs left is 1:2.  If you measure these samples with A+B=1, then the transmission is 33%.   If you weigh the marbles (A+B=2c), a balance beam scale will be at 1/2 of 90 degrees or 50%.   So it comes down to a difference between weight and measure.

So then it comes down to 'what is the angle of a beam-balance for a ratio of objects?'.  It's a constant based purely on the ratio of objects (other than a bias towards zero for the weight of the scale itself  which comes in like (A-B+scale)/((A or B)+scale)).  So this multi-part function, that's got to be an annoyance right? *shrug* if(A) A else B; happens all the time in programming, but again, I understand on paper that's no so pleasant.

But how can I prove this?  Well, I suppose, if I have a balance beam and put 4 objects on one side and 5 on the other, and compare 1-cos(pi/2 * 1/5) with (5-4)/5, it's like a 250% difference where the cos() term from classical mechanics says '3.5 degrees' and my ratio says '10 degrees'.  So all I need is a good, nearly massless (relative to the objects compared) scale, and measure?   Well, it's 10 degrees, and classical mechanics says 'well it's a complex problem of changing masses, and just doing the integral for all angles, and matching that curve against A and B ratios in a sort in inverse relationship isn't sufficient.  There's a correction term especially blamed on the scale itself... but then I have to ask, if I have this simple ratio that tells me exactly what the tilt is, without any corrections, and it's simple, without any calculus?  Im still wrong.  Gotit.

I'll just touch one some details of the derivatives... 1-cos(theta) at theta=0 has a slope of sin(theta) and at 0, the slope is 0.  1-(x/(pi-x)) (scaled to match cos inputs) has a slope of 2 at 0; which since I was already thinking about it made sense... if I have a scale with N and N things, and I move one from one to the other, the difference in the ratio goes up by 2.   This approach also extends to the limits though... and N and 1  (where everything is on side and just one on the other)   then (N-1)/N has a slope of 1/2... and I can take a piece of graph paper and draw what happens at the edge of infinity, because N can be arbitrarily large, and I can still what happens at infinity-1.

I get it... a balance beam based on stone age tech is a terribly hard thing to conceive.  And yet, without calculus, without a limit approaching 0, without cos, sin, etc, I can exactly predict the angle of the beam. 

So ya, it's not that the ratio is right, it's still wrong, and I'm just doing classical mechanics wrong; let me refer you to other physical evidence (see ferris wheel second link).

Offline stivep

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
Re: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum
« Reply #3716 on: June 07, 2022, 04:25:53 PM »
 I'm busy now handling to many things at once.
..give me some time to respond.
Wesley

Offline stivep

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
Re: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum
« Reply #3717 on: June 09, 2022, 03:23:36 PM »
  Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?  « Reply #6 on: Today at 03:26:14 AM
 I did respond . Look at the link  attached.

You made few comments in different topics.
I admit that  this response  of mine is  made without reading your comment from above ( as I'm preoccupied  with other tasks)
I do apologize  for it
Wesley

Offline stivep

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
Re: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum
« Reply #3718 on: June 16, 2022, 11:10:18 PM »
The Schumann waveguide concept... I am // a bit concerned about lightening.
With your waveguide coupling experiments, have you had any issues with lightening or emp events?
I assume that you were talking about was lightning.
And you were also talking about EMP.
________________________________________
as far as lightning- it is just an element in energy extraction from Schumann waveguide.
This requires little explanation:Technology of Dr. James Corum is about sending energy from point A to point B using earth/air interface.
So does Tesla coil with  properly adjusted height of top capacitor,  till it tunes into complex Brewster angle.

Note:
Complex Brewster angle.- is not just a Brewster angle alone - it is complex phenomena based on Brewster angle.
resulting electromagnetic energy from Tesla tower to tilt towards the earth/air interface where this wave is trapped
without reflection and refraction .
Although that interface is two-dimensional  for our eyes, it acts as a waveguide for electromagnetic wave.
Inverse square law doesn't apply to waveguides, nor to it's special form the interface.


Electromagnetic wave at any frequency theoretically will always fall into the interface under special condition:
the Complex Brewster Angle.
Forming conditions suitable for complex Brewster angle is however little different for low and high very high frequencies
We are operating at very low frequencies known as VLF.
it is much easier to work with them.
Then that wave has different names and we can name it surface plasmon polariton,
but that still will be the same Zenneck wave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIIABIU3tRw&t=372s
________________________________________

method of extracting energy from Schumann Waveguide is exactly the same as sending energy from point A to point B
the only difference is that we don't have a transmitter that is transmitting energy.
We only have receiver.
The receiver is exactly the same as the one used by Dr. James Corum,
and this is exactly the same Tesla tower.
The only difference is progress of operation. Means number winds of the Tesla coil and the elevation of top capacitor.
for lighting we have certain probability that the electromagnetic wave 
by lightning hits the interface and the Complex Brewster Angle.
We have 1.4 billion flashes per year.
most of them deposits its energy into the earth
Earth is one of components of the earth/air interface.
It is not important where on the earth  the lightning hits.

-one lightning creates avalanche of lightning around the globe.But all of those lightnings hits the interface.
Inverse square law doesn't apply to waveguides  and frequencies are extremely low.
Humanity didn't know it because it's a dynamic structure and to know that this energy is there you need the receiver.
The bird sitting on the high-voltage line doesn't know that it may become a receiver if it spreads the legs far enough.
Before  Marconi people didn't know that they can receive electromagnetic energy .
Wesley
« Last Edit: June 17, 2022, 03:43:32 AM by stivep »

Offline stivep

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
Re: Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum
« Reply #3719 on: June 16, 2022, 11:22:44 PM »
The Schumann waveguide//experiments, have you had any issues with  emp ?
I assume you are talking about EMP.
Wesley
yes
the answer yes.
it was not an  issues it was an application.
If you look at it Dr. (James Corum structure) we see points A and B.In the James Corum application
– A is our TX
– B is our RX
both of them are identical.
But this identity is seen not by the RX physical look but  by the RX matching electrical property of TX.
So for easiness we are scanning with portable TX some structure!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)
until we see that this structure is matching a condition for becoming RX.
Then we doing some additional tuning.
and now you're ready - we are sending EMP
______________________________________________
the structure doesn't have to be a tower, or building, it can be
for example big heavy vehicle on tracks or some sort of vehicle (if we have tires than tires separates the two plates of capacitor)
the top plate ( vehicle body) and the ground. :) However than you need more juice from TX   
or group of vehicles on tracks  but unfortunately at its present form during the process of "chewing" <it> cannot move
yes it can be a plant, storage, Arsenal, armory, storing "metal cylinders or cylindrical objects "  ,of some sort.
some specialized electronic igniters are tragically sensitive to EMP.
but it is not EMP that caught my attention rather that it is high-voltage at RX.

think of it as a coil that has inductive reactance but is ended with top plate that is on the top that is capacitively interacting
with respect to the - ground constituting second plate, in this dynamic system (and as I said RX TX is a dynamic pair) the true nature of C
can be seen in Smith chart.



Technology cannot be patented by anyone including Russian-Rashists because information about it is already published by me
and is in public domain in many forms.
I was even thinking ----
-to visit  Ukraine and talk to the government officials about.
What does it take a few days to make it?
Wesley
« Last Edit: June 17, 2022, 04:01:01 AM by stivep »