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

Custom Search

Author Topic: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze  (Read 16408065 times)

captainkt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16845 on: April 11, 2013, 01:43:13 PM »
@jbignes5, I agree 100% with you.
Regards
Keith

NoBull

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16846 on: April 11, 2013, 03:47:58 PM »
I have never talked about beta decay because there is no such thing. There is no electrons just the electric potential of the atom itself. Wow you guys really don't get that do you? This is an electric field excitation of matter.
Those are just unsubstantiated words. It seems that you are ignoring experimental evidence to suit your preconceptions.
Beta particle tracks can be seen in the Cloud Chamber.  A "field" does not leave tracks behind. 
Here are videos of experimental proofs of beta decay: video1video2video3video4.

Also, you can educate yourself about the deflection of beta particles by a magnetic field in this video and this video

There is no electrons just the electric potential of the atom itself. Wow you guys really don't get that do you? This is an electric field excitation of matter.
Again, you are ignoring experimental evidence to suit your preconceptions again.
Electron beams can exist in vacuum in absence of matter.  Electrons are invisible until they hit matter. 
For example see the Cathode Rays and the CRT for proof.  Here is the relevant video.

Instead they make names up and make believe electrons to explain it differently then what is explained so very easily by the electric field.
You are wrong again.
An electric field is incapable of casting a sharp shadow like the one in the Crookes Tube.  Electric field is diffuse (see the inverse square relationship between charges and distance, e.g. Coulomb's Law).
However a beam of particles can cast a sharp shadow. Here is the relevant video.

Also, without a beam of electrons the electron microscope could not function and produce sharp images at those magnifications.

The commonalities are the exact process I have been talking about all the while. The only differences is the new names beta and electron... Total BS..
If the electron exists then show us all this marvelous particle.
Very well.
Extremely short attosecond laser pulses can illuminate electrons in motion and they have been photographed.  Here is the relevant video and relevant paper.

Also, the behavior of electron beams in a CRT or Crookes Tube is exactly the same as the electrons emitted from beta decay.
For example, in the following videos you can see the same bending of electron trajectories by electric and magnetic fields. 
See electron beams and thieir deflection in magnetic field in video1 and video2 and video3 and video4

Ask stivep what my real responses were all the time. He knows.. Obviosly you don't with such a low post count... Go back and look and stop trying to lay some BS...
That looks like a personal attack.  Are you running out evidence to support your beliefs?


@ALL
I am new here and I don't know this guy, so I've got some questions.
Q1 - Is it Jbignes5's habit to resort to personal attacks when he runs out of arguments ?
Q2 - Does Jbignes5 do any experiments to confirm his beliefs ?
Q3 - Does Jbignes5 consider experimental evidence of others scientists besides Tesla and Tesla followers ?

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16847 on: April 11, 2013, 04:01:57 PM »
NoBull


You live up to your name sake!
Welcome to the forum,


As you say only experiments can lead the way down this path ,not conjecture.


thx
Chet




Vortex1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16848 on: April 11, 2013, 05:00:53 PM »
I suggested the possible use of belts hidden in the overly large and modified pillow block bases in this thread, post #27, and supplied a crude drawing of how this might be done.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1528.25

stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3567
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16849 on: April 11, 2013, 05:26:56 PM »

to


 NoBull

there is another dimension of understanding physics.
The  big bang theory has been changed over the  years.
Quantum theory put in questions.
Maxwellian science not answering   to new approach
Einstein  for  his maximum speed - in denial and so on.
Perception  uses operators of known factors to create  even more new one.


Jules Verne  has been in field of total science fiction in his time
I have 5 hours video to translate of Russian thinker and matematican  name him scientist as this apply NOT only to PHDs
You would be surprised how different are ways of understanding matter.


Electron as descriptor of phenomena is alive only for reason of comfort.
How is in pure undeniable reality depends of VIEWER only or say ability and tools viewer is equipped with by nature as well.
Dog can not see colors
But say we have our imaginary  dog  that  has perception at human level
You asking him (it) a question what is color?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
would be that compatible to ask human what really is magnetism what makes it?
How it works?
What makes presence  of magnetic field as constant in  magnet? and if  decay in years than why? What is losing?
Does magnetic field lines are matter or pure energy?

Quote
matter and energy are actually different forms of the same thing. E=mc2
is it?
How many forms of energy  do we have? Do they interact  with themselves?

What really is a pure energy- it does have no mass ( photon) So what really is pure energy?
Is magnetic flux of magnet different energy if any?
Why this energy is not consumable?

How come  there is no interaction with  steady magnetic field creating   alteration of magnet field?
Why magnet is always body by itself holding its independence  and manifesting  independence?
Say  why magnet always "say"

F..k you ain't No Bugs on Me  I'm independent do not look at me just accept me as you   have no choice.



or  why  electron  is in motion  all the time what? perpetum mobile ?
Why atom energy supporting movement of electron is never consumed?
Well some   of scientists found COMFORTABLE EXPLANATION
Space  occupied by atom is a vacuum
- no friction  no loses than body put in motion stays in motion
who put it in motion?  GOD?

- how do I know that?
I got it from school
And GOD in my brain is  born out of  religion classes.



Be my guest.
even if you answer all  of the questions at one single point of it  you will find yourself "stuck in the toilet" and thinking of non traditional temporary way to take your butt out.
That is exactly when  new ways of understanding are being born
You look at your butt and all you see( that you did not see before) that all " scientific human waste"
You say no problem I can clean it up.

YES.............
that clean up was made  many times using traditional physics
with only one exception - from that point in time there was  new different modified physics.
The traditional physicists  are always afraid of accepting new  ways of  clean up.
Some of them use  toilet paper   and some possible their own finger.

There are some scientists in university ,who say "I put my scientific butt under  water" every time after - but only in privacy of my  home.
But than in "public scientific  toilette" they are ashamed  of doing so because others are looking at him  like
to an idiot. Not accepting that this is new way of keeping "real scientific  hygiene."
in the effect they get eventually "scientific Hemorrhoids"

Quote
Than I talk to few at symposium and they say  Wesley  You want me to lose my  job? Please Wesley understand" Public Scientific Toilette" is not prepared to wash my butt in it publicly  Someone will say that I contaminate a" sink "
THEY  ARE NOT READY,
the infrastructure is not ready ,
the privacy is not there,
The  toilette system is not ready,
The human reaction is not ready,


 and most of them  is afraid of  being to radical.
They are being paid by government money so   is me and others in private school are  even more dependent.
 I'm not going to show my butt in  public  "science toilette" but I  can show my face with the smile on it,  and shut my mouth till  I see
someone doing so.

GOT IT?



Wesley
« Last Edit: April 11, 2013, 07:45:09 PM by stivep »

forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16850 on: April 11, 2013, 05:43:55 PM »
Electrons exist as particles in vacuum, while everywhere else they are waves, more or less. They are also small gyroscopic whirls being magnetic dipoles also. That way you can connect all theories together...

jbignes5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16851 on: April 11, 2013, 06:19:03 PM »
Those are just unsubstantiated words. It seems that you are ignoring experimental evidence to suit your preconceptions.
Beta particle tracks can be seen in the Cloud Chamber.  A "field" does not leave tracks behind. 
Here are videos of experimental proofs of beta decay: video1video2video3video4.

Also, you can educate yourself about the deflection of beta particles by a magnetic field in this video and this video
Again, you are ignoring experimental evidence to suit your preconceptions again.
Electron beams can exist in vacuum in absence of matter.  Electrons are invisible until they hit matter. 
For example see the Cathode Rays and the CRT for proof.  Here is the relevant video.
You are wrong again.
An electric field is incapable of casting a sharp shadow like the one in the Crookes Tube.  Electric field is diffuse (see the inverse square relationship between charges and distance, e.g. Coulomb's Law).
However a beam of particles can cast a sharp shadow. Here is the relevant video.

Also, without a beam of electrons the electron microscope could not function and produce sharp images at those magnifications.
Very well.
Extremely short attosecond laser pulses can illuminate electrons in motion and they have been photographed.  Here is the relevant video and relevant paper.

Also, the behavior of electron beams in a CRT or Crookes Tube is exactly the same as the electrons emitted from beta decay.
For example, in the following videos you can see the same bending of electron trajectories by electric and magnetic fields. 
See electron beams and thieir deflection in magnetic field in video1 and video2 and video3 and video4
That looks like a personal attack.  Are you running out evidence to support your beliefs?


@ALL
I am new here and I don't know this guy, so I've got some questions.
Q1 - Is it Jbignes5's habit to resort to personal attacks when he runs out of arguments ?
Q2 - Does Jbignes5 do any experiments to confirm his beliefs ?
Q3 - Does Jbignes5 consider experimental evidence of others scientists besides Tesla and Tesla followers ?


 It is you who is ignoring experimental evidence. The doer was Tesla, the experimenter was Tesla in this area.


 The electric field is actually lines, a field of lines, hence why it is called longitudinal.


I don't need to educate myself about anything beta related. Why because there is absolutely no proof the particles exist other then a misunderstanding of the electric field. I am not choosing to believe in fairy tales. That's what you offer. We can not see anything but an effect and then you base your new name for something that has been there the whole time. The electric field.


 The electric field is not diffuse it is a bunch of lines that radiate out of bodies like the atom or our planet. When these lines are intensified it is the exact same thing we see in the corona discharge.


 What ever supposed proof you may provide does not show the electron it only shows the cloud, period. This cloud is absolutely not evidence that electrons exist. Refer to the Ionosphere and you will see the evidence of what that shell is.


 The crooks tube shows how these lines can have detail. They go in straight paths and the evidence is shown in the crooks tube. They are lines that excite matter.


 I know all about tubes and TV tubes. They are not based in reality on electrons but minute lines that excite the phosphor and yes these lines can be controlled by intensifying coils. The magnetic field is actually a byproduct and is very wasteful. This is why most yokes are made out of a magnetic material to keep the waste to a minimum.


 Q1 Answer: I am not attacking you personally or otherwise. I was responding to your comment of my expressed theories and proofs. Instead of reading my earlier posts way back you take a very small sample of my investigations and base all my work on that small sample. You, in ignorance of my earlier work chose to make a statement that what was expressed by others as being new or discovered by others is misleading and down right ignorant of what I have really brought to this table.


 Q2 Answer: I have and will do experiments to prove my hypothesis of these replications of Tesla's experiments. I have probably done more the you if you have even done anything in this field. You seem to like to say things and elude that I have done nothing with little proof to the contrary.


Q3 Answer: Yes I do accept others experiments but there is nothing to the contrary that TK or Tesla has done experimentally. Again I will refer you to the video where TK says these are Tesla's methods that he is replicating. I will always go to the source instead of listening to conjecture from unrelated experiments. How many times do we have to go over these facts. TK said these are methods used and experimented with by TESLA. I would rather listen to TK from whence he got this information and not someone else who says to the contrary. TK's own words are enough for me to believe where he got the information.


 Cling to your antiquated theories that have never been proven other then by the math that supports it. All of the evidence is pretty much made up. Even the word electron is made up, there is zero evidence it actually exists.


 Why does this feel like this is yet another Verpies account?


 So did you go back and look at my examples of the methods I posted way back.


 In fact Itsu did an experiment because he had the Kacher coil already to go, where he excites a capacitor into charging by a wire wrapped around the capacitor. This was my idea and it did work. The problem is resonance was not used. A pretty random excitation field was used and hence a low output. I thought that if the excitation was in resonance with the capacitors matter of the plates it would have worked a lot better in the output. But as usual Itsu got distracted from the premise and went another direction.


 In fact I am starting experiments very soon that utilize the excitation field to create an oscillatory effect in a coil through the field effect. This is static induction that is responsible. It should create a sloshing back and forth of the charges bound in the matter of the coil to create an AC response for output.


 I have another experiment that I will be doing with the bifilar pancake coil in stacks that will suck up the voltage of the field into the increased capacitance of the bifilar coil and this should increase the magnetic channeling or response to this voltage injection. There is a great many experiments showing how inductive response to a normal flat coil gives an increase to the power output. JLN has started this in experiments that are going really well. The output seems to be magnified.


 If anyone is interested, our views are changing about matter and the Universe. The electric theory is advancing and the magnetic theory is getting pushed to the wayside. The electric theory has more weight to it then the magnetic theory. This is because the electric theory explains matter and the Universe in a much easier way. Matter is not based off of magnetics or heavy currents. It is based off of potentials and voltage. Both of which operate without any power. Matter has potential because it displaces the medium in which it floats. After all matter is not even solid. There is zero conduction between atoms except for the electric field and this field is responsible for all currents. When it moves it creates flows and hence creates magnetic fields.


 If one denies the electric field you are denying everything. The medium is responsible for this electric field. It is voltage responsive and hence creates the play field for the magnetic field and all effects after the voltage field is established. When it was established is the question. I am leaning towards the creation of our space. As matter formed it bound charges inside of it. This bound charges are actually compressed medium or compressed lines of electric force. The matter is statically attracted to these compressed lines. I once proposed that the matter is just flakes that lay around the charges. The charges are always moving like a ball of worms and this moves the matter flakes to cause a pulsing flow or resonant frequency to that pulsing flow. So the charges circulate and become dynamic. This means you can inject more charge into the matter which puffs it up and after a certain amount of additional charge is added it phase changes into a free flowing or liquid state. Adding more charges will bring it to it's next state after this of gaseous phase. Remember that the electric field is all around the atom with it's general base being the bound charge inside.


 Lets look at what happens when you take charges away from matter. Water for instance. The basic makeup of water in it's liquid state is heavy charge based. This is why it flows and what happens when you take away the charges (heat)? It freezes. It changes state and what is left is little structures that is highly geometrical. The electric field in water is highly organized into a very network like structure. And as the charges get sucked out of the water the water turns into it's natural form that form around these network lines. Water shows us this form by the very geometrical structure that is left. In fact most matter that changes state from liquid to solid show this network in clear detail. Most metals are now thought of as crystalline and the best example of this is acid etched copper after it is solidified.
 
Example shown below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cu-Scheibe.JPG

 Lets try aluminum next:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aluminium_bar_surface_etched.jpg

 You can see the actual real electric network in the lines of this solidified aluminum. It is very clear that aluminum is actually a better conductor of the electric field. The lines in this actually never deviate much beyond 90 degrees of the closest connector. A beautiful example of the electric field in action.

Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4135
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16852 on: April 11, 2013, 06:34:02 PM »

 It is you who is ignoring experimental evidence. The doer was Tesla, the experimenter was Tesla in this area.


 The electric field is actually lines, a field of lines, hence why it is called longitudinal.


I don't need to educate myself about anything beta related. Why because there is absolutely no proof the particles exist other then a misunderstanding of the electric field. I am not choosing to believe in fairy tales. That's what you offer. We can not see anything but an effect and then you base your new name for something that has been there the whole time. The electric field.


 The electric field is not diffuse it is a bunch of lines that radiate out of bodies like the atom or our planet. When these lines are intensified it is the exact same thing we see in the corona discharge.


 What ever supposed proof you may provide does not show the electron it only shows the cloud, period. This cloud is absolutely not evidence that electrons exist. Refer to the Ionosphere and you will see the evidence of what that shell is.


 The crooks tube shows how these lines can have detail. They go in straight paths and the evidence is shown in the crooks tube. They are lines that excite matter.


 I know all about tubes and TV tubes. They are not based in reality on electrons but minute lines that excite the phosphor and yes these lines can be controlled by intensifying coils. The magnetic field is actually a byproduct and is very wasteful. This is why most yokes are made out of a magnetic material to keep the waste to a minimum.


 Q1 Answer: I am not attacking you personally or otherwise. I was responding to your comment of my expressed theories and proofs. Instead of reading my earlier posts way back you take a very small sample of my investigations and base all my work on that small sample. You, in ignorance of my earlier work chose to make a statement that what was expressed by others as being new or discovered by others is misleading and down right ignorant of what I have really brought to this table.


 Q2 Answer: I have and will do experiments to prove my hypothesis of these replications of Tesla's experiments. I have probably done more the you if you have even done anything in this field. You seem to like to say things and elude that I have done nothing with little proof to the contrary.


Q3 Answer: Yes I do accept others experiments but there is nothing to the contrary that TK or Tesla has done experimentally. Again I will refer you to the video where TK says these are Tesla's methods that he is replicating. I will always go to the source instead of listening to conjecture from unrelated experiments. How many times do we have to go over these facts. TK said these are methods used and experimented with by TESLA. I would rather listen to TK from whence he got this information and not someone else who says to the contrary. TK's own words are enough for me to believe where he got the information.


 Cling to your antiquated theories that have never been proven other then by the math that supports it. All of the evidence is pretty much made up. Even the word electron is made up, there is zero evidence it actually exists.


 Why does this feel like this is yet another Verpies account?


 So did you go back and look at my examples of the methods I posted way back.


 In fact Itsu did an experiment because he had the Kacher coil already to go, where he excites a capacitor into charging by a wire wrapped around the capacitor. This was my idea and it did work. The problem is resonance was not used. A pretty random excitation field was used and hence a low output. I thought that if the excitation was in resonance with the capacitors matter of the plates it would have worked a lot better in the output. But as usual Itsu got distracted from the premise and went another direction.


 In fact I am starting experiments very soon that utilize the excitation field to create an oscillatory effect in a coil through the field effect. This is static induction that is responsible. It should create a sloshing back and forth of the charges bound in the matter of the coil to create an AC response for output.


 I have another experiment that I will be doing with the bifilar pancake coil in stacks that will suck up the voltage of the field into the increased capacitance of the bifilar coil and this should increase the magnetic channeling or response to this voltage injection. There is a great many experiments showing how inductive response to a normal flat coil gives an increase to the power output. JLN has started this in experiments that are going really well. The output seems to be magnified.


 If anyone is interested, our views are changing about matter and the Universe. The electric theory is advancing and the magnetic theory is getting pushed to the wayside. The electric theory has more weight to it then the magnetic theory. This is because the electric theory explains matter and the Universe in a much easier way. Matter is not based off of magnetics or heavy currents. It is based off of potentials and voltage. Both of which operate without any power. Matter has potential because it displaces the medium in which it floats. After all matter is not even solid. There is zero conduction between atoms except for the electric field and this field is responsible for all currents. When it moves it creates flows and hence creates magnetic fields.


 If one denies the electric field you are denying everything. The medium is responsible for this electric field. It is voltage responsive and hence creates the play field for the magnetic field and all effects after the voltage field is established. When it was established is the question. I am leaning towards the creation of our space. As matter formed it bound charges inside of it. This bound charges are actually compressed medium or compressed lines of electric force. The matter is statically attracted to these compressed lines. I once proposed that the matter is just flakes that lay around the charges. The charges are always moving like a ball of worms and this moves the matter flakes to cause a pulsing flow or resonant frequency to that pulsing flow. So the charges circulate and become dynamic. This means you can inject more charge into the matter which puffs it up and after a certain amount of additional charge is added it phase changes into a free flowing or liquid state. Adding more charges will bring it to it's next state after this of gaseous phase. Remember that the electric field is all around the atom with it's general base being the bound charge inside.


 Lets look at what happens when you take charges away from matter. Water for instance. The basic makeup of water in it's liquid state is heavy charge based. This is why it flows and what happens when you take away the charges (heat)? It freezes. It changes state and what is left is little structures that is highly geometrical. The electric field in water is highly organized into a very network like structure. And as the charges get sucked out of the water the water turns into it's natural form that form around these network lines. Water shows us this form by the very geometrical structure that is left. In fact most matter that changes state from liquid to solid show this network in clear detail. Most metals are now thought of as crystalline and the best example of this is acid etched copper after it is solidified.
 Example shown below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cu-Scheibe.JPG

Can we expect some even more lengthy posts when you do start experimenting  ::)

jbignes5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16853 on: April 11, 2013, 06:44:51 PM »
 What is the matter with me being very very clear about this process. Do we want to learn where we went wrong or not?


 I guess reading isn't most people's forte or otherwise misunderstandings would not happen. This is what I think is another of our (free energy researchers) problems. Reading helps us to understand these processes and hence why most just don't get it.


 I happen to like reading and is the main reason I have learned so much of this field.

 Why did you feel the need to repost my post?

 Oh wait Verpies has me on his ad reject list so you reposted it for him to see?? I knew you and him were buddies.

 If you must know I am not going to be posting my experiments in this thread. I will be requesting my own moderated thread and I will be posting there about TESLA experiments and TK replications of those experiments. I think most here are tired of all the BS being thrown around and I for one need a concentrated thread based on the topic. I don't need guys like Verpies and his many alts or his buddies spreading the religious like theories of Einstein and the likes! Don't get me wrong I am very open to other ideas but I will not be treated like some treat me and others who have real experiments to do and ideas to share.

Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4135
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16854 on: April 11, 2013, 07:06:53 PM »
What is the matter with me being very very clear about this process. Do we want to learn where we went wrong or not?


 I guess reading isn't most people's forte or otherwise misunderstandings would not happen. This is what I think is another of our (free energy researchers) problems. Reading helps us to understand these processes and hence why most just don't get it.


 I happen to like reading and is the main reason I have learned so much of this field.

 Why did you feel the need to repost my post?

 Oh wait Verpies has me on his ad reject list so you reposted it for him to see?? I knew you and him were buddies.

You reject main stream physics and then expect everyone to accept you as the word of truth. If you want to earn some respect from others, then start experimenting yourself to test your own theories and most importantly stop repeatedly telling us that we are all looking at things incorrectly! You have already overstated your theories and made your point!!

NoBull

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16855 on: April 11, 2013, 08:26:00 PM »
There is another dimension of understanding physics.
I know that, but this 'dimension" does not lie in ignoring experimental evidence like Jbignes5 when it does not come from Nicola Tesla.  Also, an understanding cannot be achieved without rigorous thinking.

I can think on my own but I will not ignore the evidence in front of my eyes, such as the tracks in those Cloud Chambers or that Geiger Counter reacting differently to different poles of a nearby static permanent magnet. 
Did you watch all the videos that I quoted in my previous message?


Post Script:
Please do not assume that I am closed-minded just because I quoted some well known experiments.  Do you think, that there is something wrong with quoting experiments to prove a point ?
I don't believe in Big Bang, Black Holes, nor in many of the conclusions of Quantum Physics, nor in Einstein's General Relativity, not even in some conclusions of Newton, because I found conceptual errors in them.
But I am not about to reject the good conclusion of mainstream physics just because it is mainstream.  For example I do think that Special Relativity is correct (as far as Lorentz transformations go), Eric Dollard's counterspace is real , quantum Photoelectric Effect is real, free charged electrons in vacuum are real, beta particles in vacuum and matter are real.  I even think that the artificial inducement of nuclear decay is real because of experiments just like yours, despite that mainstream physics does not acknowledge such possibility.  Hell, I even think that ordinary electric current is not caused by movement of charged electrons through metal lattice (I think that inside matter electrons are uncharged - a very unorthodox view).

stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3567
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16856 on: April 11, 2013, 08:43:27 PM »
I know that, but this 'dimension" does not lie in ignoring experimental evidence like Jbignes5 when it does not come from Nicola Tesla.  Also, an understanding cannot be achieved without rigorous thinking.

I can think on my own but I will not ignore the evidence in front of my eyes, such as the tracks in those Cloud Chambers or that Geiger Counter reacting differently to different poles of a nearby static permanent magnet. 
Did you watch all the videos that I quoted in my previous message?


Post Script:
Please do not assume that I am closed-minded just because I quoted some well known experiments.  Do you think, that there is something wrong with quoting experiments to prove a point ?
I don't believe in Big Bang, Black Holes, nor in many of the conclusions of Quantum Physics, nor in Einstein's General Relativity, not even in some conclusions of Newton, because I found conceptual errors in them.
But I am not about to reject the good conclusion of mainstream physics just because it is mainstream.  For example I do think that Special Relativity is correct (as far as Lorentz transformations go), Eric Dollard's counterspace is real , quantum Photoelectric Effect is real, free charged electrons in vacuum are real, beta particles in vacuum and matter are real.  I even think that the artificial inducement of nuclear decay is real because of experiments just like yours, despite that mainstream physics does not acknowledge such possibility.  Hell, I even think that ordinary electric current is not caused by movement of charged electrons through metal lattice (I think that inside matter electrons are uncharged - a very unorthodox view).









Wow..................................... :)


I got your point
you got my attention


Wesley








ps:jbignes5
I see thinker and I do not deny his direction
I see radicalism
Time will show that is my  final comment.

NoBull

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16857 on: April 11, 2013, 10:58:58 PM »
It is you who is ignoring experimental evidence. The doer was Tesla, the experimenter was Tesla in this area.
No, I showed you several experimental proofs of free electrons and even a photo of one.  You have not showed me any experimental proof up to this point.

The electric field is actually lines, a field of lines, hence why it is called longitudinal.
The word "longitudinal" applies to waves. Precisely to the direction of their oscillation in respect to the direction of their travel.
So first decide what those lines are before you write things like that.  Are these lines some sort of waves waves (in what) or imaginary lines or real mechanistic lines?
If they are real lines then can they be cut, joined knotted, broken by stretching, compressed, what is their thickness, is their thickness constant (if not why not), what's their mass, tensile strength, do they terminate in vacuum or only on charges, are they indestructible, why do two lines repel, can they be waved like a string, do they exist along their entire length in the same instant like a string, can they be looped or singled out and trapped like electrons in a Penning trap?
If you can't show me a photo of those lines, at least describe what are the properties of those lines and cite experimental evidence that defines those properties - just like I did for you with the electrons.
In mainstream physics a field is just a volume of space where something experiences gradient of forces.  What is your definition of field?  Please don't reply "a field of lines" because that's tautology.

I don't need to educate myself about anything beta related. Why because there is absolutely no proof the particles exist other then a misunderstanding of the electric field. I am not choosing to believe in fairy tales. That's what you offer. We can not see anything but an effect
I offered you the videos of Cloud Chamber tracks radiating out from the pellet of radioactive material, not fairy tales. These tracks were stronger closer to the pellet.
That effect is is easily explainable by particle behavior, but not by string or line behavior.  How do you explain the thickness of those track with your lines?  Why do these track curve in the presence of a magnet?

and then you base your new name for something that has been there the whole time. The electric field.
The electric field is not diffuse it is a bunch of lines that radiate out of bodies like the atom or our planet. When these lines are intensified it is the exact same thing we see in the corona discharge.
It is diffuse because the electric force decreases with the reciprocal of the distance squared.  Do you deny that too?
Are only atoms at the ends of those lines?
Corona discharge is just an effect on matter. It doesn't show itself in vacuum or empty aether. (BTW: just because I mention aether does not mean that I believe in it)

What ever supposed proof you may provide does not show the electron it only shows the cloud, period. This cloud is absolutely not evidence that electrons exist.
So what causes those tracks in those Cloud Chambers, huh?  Don't waste my time replying "ions" because it is easy to show that whatever leaves those tracks has much less mass than a single proton.

The crooks tube shows how these lines can have detail. They go in straight paths and the evidence is shown in the crooks tube. They are lines that excite matter.
OK, your lines hypothesis can explain the shadow in a short Crookes tube, but they cannot explain why this shadow disappears with the finite propagation speed after the path between the electron gun and the screen is interrupted in long Crookes tubes near the electron gun.
Just like the Cloud Chamber, the long Crookes tube illustrates non-zero propagation delay from the electron gun to the screen, also know as "Time of Flight".  How can your string or line between the electron gun and the screen have a "Time of Flight", huh?
The same argument applies to CRTs.

I am not attacking you personally or otherwise. I was responding to your comment of my expressed theories and proofs. Instead of reading my earlier posts way back you take a very small sample of my investigations and base all my work on that small sample. You, in ignorance of my earlier work chose to make a statement that what was expressed by others as being new or discovered by others is misleading and down right ignorant of what I have really brought to this table.
You are attacking me personal because you made a personal remark about my seniority and experience.  I searched all of your posts for keywords indicating experiments or understanding with the inducement of beta decay by RF or NMR and I found none.  You cannot make assumptions about my knowledge and then call me on it.

Q2 Answer: I have and will do experiments to prove my hypothesis of these replications of Tesla's experiments. I have probably done more the you if you have even done anything in this field. You seem to like to say things and elude that I have done nothing with little proof to the contrary.
I'll let others judge that because they know you longer than I.

Q3 Answer: Yes I do accept others experiments but there is nothing to the contrary that TK or Tesla has done experimentally.
Ditto.

Cling to your antiquated theories that have never been proven other then by the math that supports it.
What I cited was experimental evidence - not theories.
Anyway if your main source is Tesla then your experimental evidence is much more antiquated than mine.

All of the evidence is pretty much made up.
Are you accusing the authors of these videos of fraud?
Fortunately others have replicated these experiments including myself, i.e. I made a LN cooled CC when I was a teenager.
If you believe those videos were faked then perhaps somebody can show you these experiments in reality at a University or High School.

Even the word electron is made up, there is zero evidence it actually exists.
I showed you Cloud Chamber tracks, deflection and many other videos.  Time of flight measurements are also an existing evidence.
It is not that the evidence does not exist but your unwillingness to see it.

Why does this feel like this is yet another Verpies account?
Did he have the audacity to disagree with you, too ?

So did you go back and look at my examples of the methods I posted way back.
I did. Mist of it was not rigorously argumented not it was diagrammed.  I could not follow it because you sentences were missing basic noun and verbal clauses.
I did a keyword search on your claim that you were the first one to suggest extracting nuclear energy and found it false.  On that basis I wrote my first reply to you.

In fact Itsu did an experiment because he had the Kacher coil already to go, where he excites a capacitor into charging by a wire wrapped around the capacitor. This was my idea and it did work.
I looked up Itsu's Capcoil experiment and he is using an Avramenko circuit with two diodes across the capacitor that are rectifying the near field RF created by the Kacher switching circuit and a coiled antenna around the capacitor.  Such RF rectification is nothing unusual. In fact it is done in many radio receivers. It is just an illustration of a near field antenna theory and radio detection by a diode.


Matter is not based off of magnetics or heavy currents. It is based off of potentials and voltage. Both of which operate without any power. Matter has potential because it displaces the medium in which it floats. After all matter is not even solid. There is zero conduction between atoms except for the electric field and this field is responsible for all currents. When it moves it creates flows and hence creates magnetic fields.
What's your experimental confirmation for that?

If one denies the electric field you are denying everything.
It would be very hard to deny a field of electric forces as long as Styrofoam, combs and cat's fur exist.
But is this field merely a concept or a piece of space with something something physical in it?

The medium is responsible for this electric field.
What medium? Do you mean the 19th century Aether ?
If "yes" - What are the properties of this medium and experimental evidence for its existence and measurement of its properties?
Why don't the planets slow down when they go through this medium?

It is voltage responsive and hence creates the play field for the magnetic field and all effects after the voltage field is established.
What is a "play field" ?  How does "the medium" respond to voltage?  Does it shrink, expand? How can this response be measured?

This bound charges are actually compressed medium or compressed lines of electric force.
Easy to write, but what compresses those "lines"? What keeps them compressed?  Are these "lines" compressed in space? Are the looped?
This appears to be very non-mechanistic and abstract.  I know dozens of theories like that.  Some of them quite good.

The matter is statically attracted to these compressed lines.
How?  ...with harpoons?

I once proposed that the matter is just flakes that lay around the charges.
Lay on what?

The charges are always moving like a ball of worms
What causes this movement? What causes the changes in the direction of this movement?
Can you sensibly explain any of this behavior?

...and this moves the matter flakes to cause a pulsing flow or resonant frequency to that pulsing flow.
Flow of what?  How do the charges move the "matter flakes"?  By collisions, harpoons or sth else?

So the charges circulate and become dynamic.
Circulate around what center?
Weren't they dynamic already when they were moving like worms?  Moving worms are not static.

This means you can inject more charge into the matter which puffs it up
But weren't those charges ("compressed electric lines") circulating outside of "matter flakes" ?
What makes those charges sometimes circulate and sometimes be injected into the "matter flakes" ?

and after a certain amount of additional charge is added it phase changes into a free flowing or liquid state.
So what was keeping the matter non-liquid before the charges were injected into matter?

Adding more charges will bring it to it's next state after this of gaseous phase. Remember that the electric field is all around the atom with it's general base being the bound charge inside.
Lets look at what happens when you take charges away from matter. Water for instance. The basic makeup of water in it's liquid state is heavy charge based. This is why it flows and what happens when you take away the charges (heat)? It freezes.
Do you mean electrolysis of water (by delivery of electric current) which breaks it down into its components - hydrogen and oxygen which are gaseous substances ?
Electrolysis of water does not cause the water to freeze.
Are charge and heat the same to you?

It changes state and what is left is little structures that is highly geometrical. The electric field in water is highly organized into a very network like structure. And as the charges get sucked out of the water the water turns into it's natural form that form around these network lines. Water shows us this form by the very geometrical structure that is left. In fact most matter that changes state from liquid to solid show this network in clear detail. Most metals are now thought of as crystalline and the best example of this is acid etched copper after it is solidified.
The atoms in solids are highly organized. They form crystalline structures.
This is true for water, copper, iron, aluminum.
Also, it is old news and is not any proof that mysterious electric lines exist and electrons don't.
 
You can see the actual real electric network in the lines of this solidified aluminum.   It is very clear that aluminum is actually a better conductor of the electric field. The lines in this actually never deviate much beyond 90 degrees of the closest connector. A beautiful example of the electric field in action.
That's just an atomic crystalline structure.  Electric lines of force don't even cross (re. 90. deg relationship).
And aluminum is a worse conductor of electric current than copper.

How does all of this help us extract energy from matter ?

verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16858 on: April 11, 2013, 11:30:45 PM »
@NoBull

You're correct ( even on your unorthodox stuff ;) ) but IMO I'd be better off just to ignore this guy. 
Discussion with him is pointless, he is incapable of rigorous thinking and trying to making him see reason only jams up this thread and prevents other users from experimenting and posting about useful engineering details (Watts, shapes, materials, Hz, phases, Henrys, Farads, Ohms, windings, B, Volts, Amps, etc...)
Re.Q1: Yes, Q2,Q3: I have not seen any evidence of that.

verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #16859 on: April 11, 2013, 11:58:59 PM »
I suggested the possible use of belts hidden in the overly large and modified pillow block bases
Indeed you were the first