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

Custom Search

### Author Topic: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze  (Read 15099883 times)

#### Zeitmaschine

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1267
##### Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16260 on: March 02, 2013, 12:35:00 AM »
Some component values would be a great help though.
C1 should be three times the value (capacitance) of C2. No other values are given.

I don't want to talk about aether, it's useless talk... things are much more simpler, much more...
Then perhaps we should simply talk about gravity and the gravitational field.

Here comes the talk (in shape of advanced physics):

There is a wheel that stands perpendicular to the ground and can rotate freely. There are two weights attached to the rim of the wheel in opposition to each other. This wheel rotates with such a speed that the centrifugal force acting upon the weights is equal to the gravitational force acting upon them. So what happens?

A weight passing the bottom has twice its normal weight, a weight passing the top has no weight at all (like in a roller coaster ride) - gravitation plus centrifugal force at the bottom versus gravitation minus centrifugal force at the top. Hence from the viewpoint of the weights the rotation of the wheel »shakes« the gravitational field. Interestingly »Tariel said that the resonance between two transformers ›shakes‹ the aether«. There is no imbalance of the wheel as a whole so not much force is needed in order to keep it in rotation. It should make no difference whether the wheel rotates in vertical or in horizontal position with respect to the input power needed. But as soon as the wheel is in vertical position then during each rotation (the base frequency) two times (the parametric pump frequency) the conditions of the weights are changed, so there occurs a difference between these weights. Interestingly the TK patent states »there occurs a difference between the bobbins«.

Now the considerations:

a) The alignment of the wheel should not matter (vertical or horizontal) with respect to the input power needed to let the wheel rotate with a certain speed. The input power needed should always be equal to the dissipation caused by the friction of the pivot and the surrounding air.

b) However when the wheel rotates in vertical position then the weight which passes the 12 o'clock position is weightless, the weight passing the 6 o'clock position has its weight doubled, both weights are equal passing the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions. That means in vertical position there is a strain on the structure of the wheel changing constantly its direction during each rotation in respect of the wheel. If the wheel would be made of soft material then one could see the deformation caused by that strain. This is like the Moon orbiting the Earth causing high and low tide. If a force constantly changes its direction then this force can be used to do work (like in a tidal power plant), contrary to a static gravitational field.

Question: Where is this strain (deformation) causing force coming from when the input power that drives the wheel obviously stays always the same independent of the alignment of the wheel in relation to the gravitational field? Is it coming from the gravitational field itself? Or does the input power NOT stay the same?

So maybe with this contemplations (and a little bit of luck) we can combine Kapanadze with Bessler and solve both riddles in one go ... ... and also freeing our minds from limiting patterns.

#### sparks

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2528
##### Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16261 on: March 02, 2013, 09:03:32 AM »
When an electron avalanche occurs in a piece of copper wire it is called a kick.  The resultant current gain does not follow the usual IsquaredR drop.  The velocity of the individual electrons  (aka amperage) is gained due to the imposition of an electric field on ionizable electrons.  The orbital momentum of the electrons is converted into vectored momentum.  Electrons passing by point A per second is known as amperage.  Copper with a large amount of "free electrons" is not the best material to ionize. The pre-ionized electrons jumping from neucleus to neucleus dissipates any gains from orbital to vectored conversion.  A good conductor at say 600volts is only a good conductor of a domino effect. The energy of the electrons leaving the end of a wire is way less than the energy of the electrons accelerated at the scource entering the wire.  There is no electron velocity gain from conversion of bound electrons to accelerated vectored electrons due to the electron cloud shielding effect of the bound electrons closer to the neucleus.  An analogy is the asteroid belt.  Fire a meteor into this random grouping of rocks and the original energy invested will amount to alot of rocks flying in multiple directions.  Invest the same amount of energy firing a rock at say the moon.  The moon increases in mass/velocity enough to escape Earth's gravitational field.  Now it goes rougue and smashes into the asteroid belt.  Way more collisions along a predictable path.  Way more asteroids arriving at increased velocities at the target for the same amount of energy invested.

#### verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3480
##### Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16262 on: March 02, 2013, 11:04:03 AM »
When an electron avalanche occurs in a piece of copper wire it is called a kick.  The resultant current gain does not follow the usual IsquaredR drop.
How do you propose to engineer such an avalanche or a "kick" ?

The resultant current gain does not follow the usual IsquaredR drop.
I2R is not a measure of current or "current gain".  I2R has dimensions of power.  Thus this statement is erroneous.
Did you mean "power drop" ?  If "yes" then this is an unusual phrase.... so maybe you meant the usual "power loss"?

The velocity of the individual electrons  (aka amperage) is gained due to the imposition of an electric field on ionizable electrons.
Electrons passing by point A per second is known as amperage.
Amperage is synonymous with electric current.
The velocity of electrons is not electric current - current is the amount of electric charge (e.g. carried by electrons) moving per time.
Your second statement contradicts the first (confusing amount with velocity).

Also, what are "ionizable electrons" ?  This  phrase means "electrons that can be ionized".  Do you imply the existence of non-ionized electrons too, such as uncharged electrons or do you mean ionizable atoms/molecules ?

Invest the same amount of energy firing a rock at say the moon. The moon increases in mass/velocity enough to escape Earth's gravitational field.
A small rock will not accomplish that.  To change moon's orbit without destroying it, the impinging object would have to have a mass comparable to the moon's.

I will stop at his point, albeit not because I have exhausted the conceptual inconsistencies.
I would enjoy discussing the difference between motions of slow conduction electrons in solid matter vs. fast electrons, once the above points are cleared up.  Rest assured, there are huge differences between their interactions with solid matter.

#### Hoppy

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4324
##### Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16263 on: March 02, 2013, 12:08:28 PM »

So maybe with this contemplations (and a little bit of luck) we can combine Kapanadze with Bessler and solve both riddles in one go ... ... and also freeing our minds from limiting patterns.

Have we established yet which elements of Kapanadze we can combine with Bessler?

#### Zeitmaschine

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1267
##### Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16264 on: March 02, 2013, 01:06:00 PM »
Have we established yet which elements of Kapanadze we can combine with Bessler?
It is the cycle of the sine wave. Left is Bessler approach, right is Kapanadze approach. Kapanadze got something for nothing, Bessler got something for nothing. We don't understand Kapanadze's electric principle, we don't understand Bessler's mechanic principle. Science does not know what aether is, science does not know what gravity is. So this fits all together nice and smoothly.

Two times »don't know« maybe equalizes to one time »we know«.

#### Hoppy

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4324
##### Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16265 on: March 02, 2013, 01:18:21 PM »
It is the cycle of the sine wave. Left is Bessler approach, right is Kapanadze approach. Kapanadze got something for nothing, Bessler got something for nothing. We don't understand Kapanadze's electric principle, we don't understand Bessler's mechanic principle. Science does not know what aether is, science does not know what gravity is. So this fits all together nice and smoothly.

Two times »don't know« maybe equalizes to one time »we know«.

Interesting logic! To be more accurate about the situation, I would amend your statement to say that: "Kapanadze and Bessler might have got something for nothing".

#### tika

• Newbie
• Posts: 37
##### Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16266 on: March 02, 2013, 02:20:30 PM »
It is unfortunate that we are still looking to catch the root cause of the energy gain effect.  Everyone (including me) has his/her interpretation of the phenomenon.  We just know that it is hiding in plain sight.

My understanding on this is that Telsa has patented it, and started building it.  The patent's title itself is very revealing, as Tesla named his invention "Magnifying Transmitter". And that is because he could measure more power at the receiver than what was put in the transmitter.

It seems that Kapanadze's devices (there seems to be more coil configurations than one can count) bring in external energy by creating a sharp and brutal asymmetry in the circuit by way of a high voltage spark, into a caduceus or counter-rotating coils.

That is the easy way to create strong scalar waves.  An other known way is by creating standing waves patterns in perfectly tuned LC circuits, which is what Donald King is doing in his circuits.

Yet, I see little talk about scalar waves all of the forums...  That is unfortunate.  I understand there is no real mathematical representation for them, as they do not fit in Maxwell's equations, which only describe fields that are perpendicular to the propagation vector.

There is a lot of scalar waves experiments described on the Internet, so I will suggest Google for documentation.  Naudin in particular has some nice experiments that are very interesting.  Compare the generating coil configurations to the Lithuanian team's coil.  It is very interesting, isn't it?

I also recommend Konstantin Meyl's website, http://www.meyl.eu/.  The 'Documents' section is quite interesting.   What is more interesting is that he claims 500 to 1000% energetic efficiency using scalar wave transmission at low voltage.

m:o)

#### verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3480
##### Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16267 on: March 02, 2013, 02:58:15 PM »
The patent's title itself is very revealing, as Tesla named his invention "Magnifying Transmitter". And that is because he could measure more power at the receiver than what was put in the transmitter.
Are you sure it was power, not voltage ?  Were any rigorous measurements made of it?

#### tika

• Newbie
• Posts: 37
##### Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16268 on: March 02, 2013, 03:10:55 PM »
Tesla was interested in power transmission, not voltage.  And that is what his patent is about.

m:o)

#### sparks

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2528
##### Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16269 on: March 02, 2013, 08:06:54 PM »
How do you propose to engineer such an avalanche or a "kick" ?
I2R is not a measure of current or "current gain".  I2R has dimensions of power.  Thus this statement is erroneous.
Did you mean "power drop" ?  If "yes" then this is an unusual phrase.... so maybe you meant the usual "power loss"?
Amperage is synonymous with electric current.
The velocity of electrons is not electric current - current is the amount of electric charge (e.g. carried by electrons) moving per time.
Your second statement contradicts the first (confusing amount with velocity).

Also, what are "ionizable electrons" ?  This  phrase means "electrons that can be ionized".  Do you imply the existence of non-ionized electrons too, such as uncharged electrons or do you mean ionizable atoms/molecules ?
A small rock will not accomplish that.  To change moon's orbit without destroying it, the impinging object would have to have a mass comparable to the moon's.

I will stop at his point, albeit not because I have exhausted the conceptual inconsistencies.
I would enjoy discussing the difference between motions of slow conduction electrons in solid matter vs. fast electrons, once the above points are cleared up.  Rest assured, there are huge differences between their interactions with solid matter.

I always felt that amperage is the amount of electrons moving by a point per second.   So a fast electron has the potential to move by the point say a thousand times in a second while a slow electron could only move by the point 1 time in a second.  Perhaps you know the term we use for electron velocity?  This would of course necessitate a thousand slow moving electrons to deliver the power of just one fast moving electron.  With an increase in electrons needed to deliver the same amount of power is an increase in the probablity of randomized electron acceleration not resulting in the desired electron delivery at the target.  The prime #elements are good conductors because electron pairing is in competition with the neucleus proton attraction.  This leaves a large amount of electrons in transition from atom to atom or as some have described as an electron cloud.  Accelerated electrons from the scource collide with the free electrons which transfer it's inertia through the cloud to the end of the conductor.
A bound electron on the other hand has to have a large amount of orbital momentum to resist the proton coulumb force.  It is these bound electrons that are a scource of inertia to be converted into energy not the electrons in the cloud.  Electrons would cease to exist without this orbital momentum.  Would not the moon have merged with the Earth eons ago if not for it's orbital momentum?  Electrons in orbitals are moving at velocities of up to 1/6 the speed of light.  Electrons powered by a 120 volt differential are moving at millimeters per second.   By my reasoning each electron going from a bound state to a free state could result in lots and lots of millimeter per second electron movement with minimal energy expenditure to create the force needed to disrupt the e field between the proton and bound electron.

#### jbignes5

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1281
##### Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16270 on: March 03, 2013, 12:37:13 AM »

I always felt that amperage is the amount of electrons moving by a point per second.   So a fast electron has the potential to move by the point say a thousand times in a second while a slow electron could only move by the point 1 time in a second.  Perhaps you know the term we use for electron velocity?  This would of course necessitate a thousand slow moving electrons to deliver the power of just one fast moving electron.  With an increase in electrons needed to deliver the same amount of power is an increase in the probablity of randomized electron acceleration not resulting in the desired electron delivery at the target.  The prime #elements are good conductors because electron pairing is in competition with the neucleus proton attraction.  This leaves a large amount of electrons in transition from atom to atom or as some have described as an electron cloud.  Accelerated electrons from the scource collide with the free electrons which transfer it's inertia through the cloud to the end of the conductor.
A bound electron on the other hand has to have a large amount of orbital momentum to resist the proton coulumb force.  It is these bound electrons that are a scource of inertia to be converted into energy not the electrons in the cloud.  Electrons would cease to exist without this orbital momentum.  Would not the moon have merged with the Earth eons ago if not for it's orbital momentum?  Electrons in orbitals are moving at velocities of up to 1/6 the speed of light.  Electrons powered by a 120 volt differential are moving at millimeters per second.   By my reasoning each electron going from a bound state to a free state could result in lots and lots of millimeter per second electron movement with minimal energy expenditure to create the force needed to disrupt the e field between the proton and bound electron.

Replace all terms of electrons with charges and you will understand it better.

lets also put that in no way can an electron be bound. That is one fact that the current establishment concedes. If it could be bound then it would be easily examined. Hence the reason they have never seen the electron to this day. It is simply not there.

There is only charge and potential. You need one to have the other and in order to get one to form you need the other.  Potential is the actuator of any current. If you don't have the potential there is nothing to create the movement of charges we call current.

In all of Tesla's experience one thing can be learned is that he finally made the connection to the underwater tank generator. One can create great movements of charges towards the potential. This is called corona discharge. He must have figured it out finally after his Wardenclyffe tower experiments and put together all of his learning from earlier tests with this new vision in mind. Tesla said he had a new theory of gravity and why it was what it was.

#### verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3480
##### Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16271 on: March 03, 2013, 01:39:48 AM »
Perhaps you know the term we use for electron velocity?
Fermi Velocity - see here.

Electrons are common charge carriers, but not the only ones.
Uncharged electrons in solid matter are also postulated by novel theories, but conventional physics denies their existence. Uncharged electrons outside of matter are denied by both. In other words, they must acquire charge to be capable of motion in vacuum (space).

It is important to remember that charge alone does not constitute energy anymore than a water in a bottle does by itself. However water under pressure - does constitute energy (just like charge under voltage: ½QV).

Electrons have 3 properties: mass, charge and spin.  The first two properties can be used to store/transport energy.
Slow electrons store most of their energy as charge separations/displacements and fast electrons store most of their energy as kinetic energy of their mass.  That kinetic energy can kill living cells, and is used in focused cancer treatments.

Fast electrons interact with solid matter more weakly than slow electrons. In other words, atoms "prefer to grab" slower electrons, making the fast one more penetrative.
The range of very fast electrons (~0.7c) in solid matter, such as the ones ejected from atomic nuclei, is around millimeters.
Positrons have a slightly longer range in the same magnetic field.

#### verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3480
##### Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16272 on: March 03, 2013, 04:31:44 PM »
More info about the distances that electrons and positrons travel in matter is here.

#### sparks

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2528
##### Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16273 on: March 03, 2013, 06:01:52 PM »
It is well understood that an electron rattling around in a copper lattice can under the influence of an electric field rattle more in one direction than another.  This would leave one to the conclusion that electric currents are electrons moving more in one direction than another.  The scource of energy appears to be the kinetic energy of the rattling electrons.  Even at zero kelvin the electrons still move at the same velocity as they were at room temperature.  If this is the case an electrical current is a series of energy conversions from rattling electrons to flowing electrons along the length of the conductor in response to the imposed electric field.  Electrons amassed at one end of a conductor increases the negative charge density of that space.  The field effects associated with an increase in charge denstiy spreads out in all directions and a portion of it aligns with the load conductor.  The electrons drift away from this space more than they drift towards it.  In all cases the energy is supplied by the electron rattling and the force comes from propogation of the electric field.

#### verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3480
##### Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16274 on: March 03, 2013, 07:28:58 PM »
Electrons amassed at one end of a conductor increases the negative charge density of that space.  The field effects associated with an increase in charge density spreads out in all directions
There is just one tiny weeny problem here:  We all know that negative charges repel, so why don't they all repel out from each other and eventually accumulate only at the boundaries of the conductor ?

The answer to this question is the cause of many alternative unconventional conduction theories out there.  Those theories postulate that the electrons inside conductors are uncharged but can acquire charges at their boundaries due to high voltages or temperatures or light irradiation.
Charged electrons are responsible for the, so called, static-electricity which indeed manifests charge accumulation at conductor boundaries and travels through vacuum.  Uncharged electrons cannot cross vacuum and are confined to matter.
This is the key difference between current conduction-electricity and static-electricity.