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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84140
  • *Latest: Yashima

  • *Total Posts: 896155
  • *Total Topics: 15779
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 13

Author Topic: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze  (Read 13501749 times)

Offline Zeitmaschine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1267
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22380 on: March 06, 2016, 01:00:37 PM »
Maybe it's time to become smart too. 8)

All magic happens between coils. Practically this could mean either between coils wound on separated magnetic cores or between coils wound on the same magnetic core.

How many transformers do you see under Stepanov's cardboard box in the background? One transformer or two transformers?

If you see nothing, then you have to train your unassisted eye to see the image in 3D. The image then becomes »transparent« with some depth effect; and an in-depth analysis is surely that what's needed here.

Anyone yet asked the 13-year-old kid what he thinks about that device? :)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2790
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22381 on: March 13, 2016, 10:11:10 PM »



This mostly theoretical discussion I post here  as it might help to understand  general phenomena present in OU .
Theory is just someone explanation and another someone acceptation - that is all.
If some of that explanations  uphold the criticism.
Then that  is more likely to be  something that is given to our children as leading idea of what is going on.
The problem is that time passes on  and some of the known explanations are outdated or revoked.


It is strange that all of this rumor started from  very much innocent discussion with Arunas T-1000 http://overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/msg477150/#msg477150


I have got under the critics and scrutiny of the gentleman who is worth my attention and I express full respect to him despite his  opposing and rebelling approach to the discussion.
I assume he got really upset  with me so let's see....


That is in turn gentleman to gentleman man talk!!
Till one of them start to lose   Continence     (forbearance, tolerance,)
sitting on his horse  and roll onto his belly, get out of the way, preferably out of the stall.




====================================================================================================================
So I'm being accused of:
innocuous shit without directly answering.

====================================================================================================================
Let's call the Gentleman that is expressing himself with the name :Meta
And this is what he wants from me to answer:


Quote
Meta :Have you ever studied (E.T. Whittaker, "On an expression of the electromagnetic field due to electrons by means of two scalar potential functions,"  Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. , Series 2, Vol. 1,1904, p. 367-372.




By E. T. Whittaker. [Received 11 November, 1903, -- Read 12th November, 1903]
 
Quote
Object of Paper The object of the present paper is to show that when any number of electrons are moving in any manner, the functions which define the resulting electrodynamics field, namely, the three components of dielectric displacement in the aether and the three components of the magnetic force at every point of the field, can be expressed in terms of the derivates of two scalar potential functions.
He expressed his concern over:

concern  over “ fundamental equations of electrodynamics may be written in Lorentz’s form “
Than he made conclusion from that concern
e.g:
:
Quote
It might be asked whether vectors f and g exist which satisfy the above vector equations and which are perfectly symmetrical-- the answer to this is in the negative;

lets first start from “word” Aether-displacement
quote:
Quote
Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by particles of matter. Particles of matter exist in and displace the aether. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves thorugh and displaces the aether.
http://www.overunity.com/13594/aether-displacement/25/wap2/


Science offers now instead of  “word”- Aether  the  “word” - space and time displacement in quantum mechanics. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0706/0706.0190.pdf
Interesting here is that at the time of  T. Whittaker. : the quantum mechanics field was only introduced. "Everyone" was in deep shit of classical mechanics than.


 Physics if there is the problem says:
It works like this :
that part  must be explained by quantum mechanics . it is just more....... fitting. or only way it fits. So forget about classical mechanics that does not apply. 

 
Status of physics January 1900:


In January 1900 the atomic hypothesis was widely but not universally accepted.
Atoms were considered point particles, and it wasn't clear how atoms of different elements differed.
The electron had just been discovered (1897) and it wasn't clear where (or even whether) electrons were located within atoms.
One important outstanding problem concerned the colors emitted by atoms in a discharge tube (familiar today as the light from a fluorescent tube or from a neon sign).
No one could understand why different gas atoms glowed in different colors.
Another outstanding problem concerned the amount of heat required to change the temperature of a diatomic gas such as oxygen: the measured amounts were well below the value predicted by theory.
Because quantum mechanics is important when applied to atomic phenomena, you might guess that investigations into questions like these would give rise to the discovery of quantum mechanics.
Instead it came from a study of heat radiation.
http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/StrangeQM/history.html


from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._T._Whittaker
Quote
Whittaker's pair of papers in 1903 and 1904 indicated that any potential can be analysed by a Fourier-like series of waves, such as a planet's gravitational field point-charge. The superpositions of inward and outward wave pairs produce the "static" fields (or scalar potential).
These were harmonically-related.
]By this conception, the structure of electric potential is created from two opposite, though balanced, parts. Whittaker suggested that gravity possessed a wavelike "undulatory" character.
I have no problem with this paper.
In the paper clearly  is stated  in words:
“suggestion “ “generalization” “deduction “

NO STATEMENTS  derived from generalization in conclusive  new approach to be written as model.
It was his proposition.
Physics is based on models. Models are just comfortable form of explanation - from lack of better
 explanation  into theperceptual reality reality of that given time .
There is no model here that was created and survived based on this paper to the present time.
Some of his predictions suggestions uphold (e.g. traversal nature of the gravitational wave)
Is he a father  of it  … let it be who cares.
By forming his papers this way he avoided  direct confrontation, leaving room  to eventual correction and additions,.
And the best of all, he avoided  denial.
But what is the point?
Most of his continence and contents of this paper is not critical to the modern science.
Novelty created milestone ...so what?
This paper  only matters when it contradict. Taking your rebellious nature into account,  does not make  this paper a tool to kill  a fly .
Is that clear now?

My questions to you Mr Meta:
-What is that you tried to point  by mentioning that scientific paper?
-Is there anything that your interpretation find to be for use  of OU community?
Interesting is that ancient theories are being taken into  account as tool to fight new form  of continuation of the same idea.
Some of it might be right approach as it in turn gets us to more  study.
Will that take us somewhere?
-definitely yes.
It Takes us to the future of humanity it always does.( self destruction or self  profitability )




========================================================================================================
2.Meta:
 
Quote
Have you ever seen the mathematics of Jerry Iluiano and the integration of atomic constants with ancient numbers and Giza Pyramid numbers?




I did not but I look at it just because you suggested me to.
1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Spark
Man you want to talk  about religion  go to  church and talk.
There are plenty of listeners out there Prist most likely is going to oppose for you to make some buck on it.

This frickin numbers have been found to be  USED for different groups of charlatans and/or manipulators for their frickin personal agenda.
I give you example of frickin mathematics of frickin application  of Dr Leahy http://dgleahy.com/p18.html
I have nothing against  any religion just do not drag me there .


2.http://www.goldennumber.net/phi-pi-great-pyramid-egypt/


3.http://homepage.ntlworld.com/barron.burrow/download6.htm
this last one is interesting :
Quote
[quote
  But to return to Iuliano, after learning of the unique number 82944 on Leahy’s website in 1999, he was led -- due to certain regularities he had noticed in his researches on Fermat's last theorem -- to make a number of important discoveries with respect to this number, including two formulae for the inverse square root of the fine structure constant (i.e. the amplitude of an electron to absorb or emit a photon). And in due course, he further communicated to Professor Leahy “...additional relations he [had] discovered to exist between 82944 [(122) x 2)2] and the remaining three of the fundamental physical forces -- respectively, the strong, weak, and gravitational forces; so that the four forces are now able to be seen to be functions of 82944”.
it leads me to
 http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec12.html
 Who cares who was  the first or first found analogy?
The last link is leading  explanation.




Quote
As if this was not enough, not only does Iuliano’s work prove that 82944 is the common coefficient of the fundamental force constants,
 but additional extraordinary research by him went on to show that this number relates directly to a linking of three basic archetypal forms,
namely, world religions, megalithic earth structures, and, of course, physics (although,
I repeat, his core discoveries originally concerned the modular forms relating to the solution nodes of Fermat's Last Theorem).
http://dgleahy.com/p22.html
As far as God Particle right below you see what science says of it:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text
Quote
Physics underwent one revolution after another. Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) beg at the general theory of relativity
(1915), and suddenly even such reliable concepts as absolute space and absolute time had been discarded in favor of a mind-boggling space-time fabric in which two events can never be said to be simultaneous.
Matter bends space; space directs how matter moves. Light is both a particle and a wave.
Energy and mass are inter- changeable.
Reality is probabilistic and nondeterministic: Einstein didn’t believe that God plays dice with the universe, but that became the scientific orthodoxy.
By the early 1930s Ernest Lawrence had invented the first circular particle accelerator, or “cyclotron.” It fit in his hand.
http://www.livescience.com/47737-stephen-hawking-higgs-boson-universe-doomsday.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Particle:_If_the_Universe_Is_the_Answer,_What_Is_the_Question%3F
http://www.greatdreams.com/gem1.htm

Quote
Finding such mysteries throughout the The Code/Gematria system leads one to suspect that it is not just an arbitrary system, but rather that it was fashioned by a very high intelligence in the far distant past. 


So what Mr Meta?
What that has to do with OU community?
Do not  give me the story.  Please give me application of controversy in our field,or please  tell me what is that you pointing at .
Dr Roy my friend  was  expressing himself  and he has  the rights to his opinion.
I said nothing about pyramids.
You just  not reading properly  as I suggested you to do.
This is America not frickin Russia.( murder of Boris Nemtsov) We have rights to express our thoughts in civilized way..

==================================================================================================================


Meta :
Quote
Have you ever studied the finding of Petrie, pertaining the measurements of the Giza Pyramid?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flinders_Petrie
http://petriecat.museums.ucl.ac.uk/
Very interesting
What it have to do with OU: please point it out?
=============================================================================================
Meta:
Quote
Have you ever studied the world grid aligning the ancient mounds and sacred structures and locations on earth, with the location of the stars, the work of Bruce Cathie and Michael Morton?



http://www.greatdreams.com/gem12.htm I went  there already look up of the text.
What it have to do with OU: please point it out?
===============================================================================================




Meta:
Quote
If you have no answer or you again, divert your answer to making me read innocuous shit without you directly answering, then I suggest you bone up on your conclusions about the pyramid, and the knowledge that's in it because I'm well versed in that ancient science.
that have not been my conclusions but Dr  Roy conclusions. It is hard to believe that you  can not read English being  British.
Do it again, link is at the very  top of ,my article. 
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Have BALLS MAN show up here and  talk like man.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What it have to do with OU: please point it out?
================================================================================================================

Meta:
Quote
If you cannot understand what Bearden is talking about then I know you are far off the mark and I'm wasting my knowledge on you which is evidence by one look at your circuits. You would do well to listen more.
http://cheniere.org/sales/buy-starwarsnow.htm
interesting if you want to pay for it.
It is only money that makes an individual to sale himself to.
http://www.cheniere.org/
DONATE is the first word in Tom's  Bearden world.


/////////////////D O N A T E////////
                  /////////////////D O N A T E////////
                             /////////////////D O N A T E////////
Did you ever see me asking for any money?
Did you ever see me having  commercial on my  you tube?

And frickin Tom Bearden  former high rank  military  who has his lifestyle given for good is frickin asking for money?.............
Fu.k him.

I can work without his glimpse at knowledge not the bit less successful.
This is my attitude.




And this is my friend  in science Dr. Roy opinion:

Time is not equivalent to energy, in any way.

The RATE of anything is, by definition related to time.
Time is related to the RATE of any value – if you determine the rate of creating unsuccessful theories, is 'time' the same thing as 'theories'?
The Watt is a unit for the RATE of energy - in joules per second.
The rate of energy times time gives you the total energy, but this is due to the use of energy rate, rather some intrinsic aspect of time.

1 Joule/foot = 3.28 Newtons. The Newton is the energy transferred on applying a force of one pound-force (lbf) through a displacement of one foot.
 Does that mean that length alone is a form of energy also? Obviously, it is not.

Time is an intrinsic aspect of space-time. It is NOT a constant/absolute quantity, but a relative value subject to its warping. Time and space are relative, energy is not.

Mass-Energy equivalence is just that – the equivalence of mass and energy, not time.
Energy can be used to displace a mass through a given distance over a given time, but this does not imply a Time-Energy equivalence just as it does not imply a Distance-Energy equivalence.

The fact that “energy cannot exist without time” does not prove its equivalence.
Energy cannot exist without space too – so how much energy is found in an inch?
About the same as a millennia – nothing!
As an aside, E=mC^2 is the mass-energy equivalence for a mass AT REST.
A mass in relative motion is described with an additional Lorentz Transform factor that Glen has misinterpreted, in the past, as a demonstration of the dubious idea that different units of energy are not directly convertible (of course, they are).

Thomas E. Bearden is a charlatan:

“Some time in or before 2001, Bearden began to identify himself as "Tom Bearden, Ph.D.", and claims to have written a Ph.D. thesis,
he has never made this thesis public or provided affiliation or details.
The Skeptical Inquirer, among others, revealed that Bearden obtained his Ph.D. for "life experience and for life accomplishment" from Trinity College and University,
which the magazine describes as "a British institution with no building, campus, faculty, or president, and run from a post office box in Sioux Falls, South Dakota".
This institution is not accredited by any recognized accreditation association and is generally regarded as a diploma mill.
It has since changed its name to Bronte International University and its exact location is uncertain.”

You can call him “Doctor” just as legitimately as you can call him by the pseudo-honorific “Exalted Master of All of Space-Time”.
They are empty meaningless self-appointed titles. Please, don’t call this charlatan with delusions of grandeur ‘Doctor’. It cheapens the title.

“Bearden founded and directed the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS) to further propagate his theories.
 This group has published papers in established physics journals and in books published by leading publishing houses, but one analysis lamented these publications because the texts were "full of misconceptions and misunderstandings concerning the theory of the electromagnetic field" and also states that ‘existence of non-transverse waves in vacuum does not imply that electromagnetism is not a U (1) gauge theory.’“

“Bearden supports his various claims with a wide range of crank theories, including the proposal that all electrical devices, from batteries to electromechanical generators, in reality operate on vacuum energy. These theories offer no concrete testable predictions, none have been published in independent, peer-reviewed physics literature, and Bearden himself has little formal training in physics.”

He is not a credentialed ‘Renegade’, a man of science – he is a fraud, and a fake with a self-proclaimed set of credentials.
 All of the guys that you cited were seconds away from an insane asylum.
 They were not ‘visionaries’ they were self deluded fools.


Mr. Bearden's theories are “a tale told by an idiot – full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

Eugene Mallove had legitimate academic diplomas, but none of them were in the field that he promoted. He had a BS and a MS degree in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering and a ScD. in Environmental Health Sciences! None of these apply to theoretical Physics, nor Chemistry, and the scientific method is not based upon a passionate belief in an unproven set of theories, but the dispassionate unbiased, un-opinionated pursuit of experimental findings. Mallove was not a scientist as much as he was a Priest at the altar of “Alternative Energies”. He did not teach any science subject at MIT, but “Science Journalism” there (his biases being what they were, I doubt he was that good at teaching a subject that he failed to practice himself).

“Correlation is not causation” – just because a Cold Fusion promoter was killed by senseless violence, does not prove that the two were in any way related.

There are two varieties of these ‘Renegades’ – most are charlatans with delusions of grandeur and paranoia, a few are aging, long retired academics, with little remaining, but the unquenchable thirst for professional honors, long after their analytical thought processes have deserted them.
They are to be pitied, not humored.

Unfortunately, in the realm of theoretical Physics, the breakthroughs are made by young men, not retired fellows ruminating over obtuse post retirement pet theories that often have little in common with their previous useful work.


And this is America where you have respect to the person for his involvement in your perceptual reality of your discoveries , despite the fact that he is opposing to it.
For me it is good that you opposing me Mr. Meta . I would not have incentive to learn more in that particular direction. So  I express my respect to you as well.

========================================================================================================
Meta:
Quote
If you do not acknowledge me giving you information or criticizing the info I give with so flippant an attitude as you have shown, you may very well be intellectually dishonest that I don't want to give you anything, for I know something is very wrong with your approach and you may be using all that I present but only secretly, seeing you are so chummy with well funded clandestine organizations under nondisclosure, and I have no need of that either.
Either way, you need further education about harmonics, world grids, mayan bi symmetry, tzolkine,
I ching, esoterics, scalar, tesla howitzers, unified field, longitudinal energy, radiant energy or overunity, no matter how much equipment you have nor how many people you seminar with.

I do not really know what should I  answer to this.
I by myself.
I'm not interested with Free Energy.
I'm interested deeply with mechanism that is behind devices of Free Energy.


Overunity (OU) does not exist. However term is no longer used as OU but as OU  describing energy transfer that  to the naked eye looks like OU.
In reality   it is unknown to that  very eye, at that very moment what this energy  come from.
I Wesley use  "OU" word to describe in general form of expression subjects related to that Eye  effect of energy consumption  manifestation when there  is no battery not power supply  connected to the device.


Free Energy exists. It is energy that is free of tax. such as  solar energy, water flow energy and so on.
Device of Tariel Kapanadze was legitimate and works  to the naked eye without battery or any other  source of energy .
In reality   laws of thermodynamics specify  very much that even that device must work of the energy that is consuming.
So for me it is important to find what this energy comes from .
Lithuania Experiment with Arunas is  legitimate event.
However mechanism of energy extraction  is  based on different phenomena that Tariel Kapanadze  device.
Will that assumption change?
Possibly  yes.
We have changed our models so many times and world  goes on.
================================================================================================================
Meta:
Quote
Tell me this. What is the actual shape of the 4 sided Cheops Pyramid at Giza?
   
https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=27990.0
 if you want to be happy  I give you this:
http://www.goldennumber.net/phi-pi-great-pyramid-egypt/
==================================================================================================================

Meta:
Quote
Tell me this. Why is the sides of the Cheops Pyramid at Giza at 51 degrees, 51 minutes and 14.3 seconds?

response:
Quote
Capstone Theories
The capstone is thought to have been intact about 100 B.C. since no mention of its absence was recorded by the historian Diodorus Siculus.
The capstone of the pyramid is thought to have always been absent.
The capstone is thought to have been an exact replica of the large pyramid on a scale of 1 to sqrt(Pi)/100.
The ratio of any corresponding pyramid dimension over the capstone dimension, when multiplied by the square root of Piequals 100.
The estimated height of the capstone is about 103.03+ pyramid inches and about 6-1/2 cubits on a side.
http://www.crystalinks.com/gpstats.html
again what that has to do with OU?
================================================================================================================
Quote
Meta: Why can the distance from earth to sun be calculated or the diameter of the earth be calculated from the mathematics of the Cheops Pyramid?
If you want to know number of conclusion than read this: https://grahamhancock.com/schmitze1/
===================================================================================================================
Quote
Meta: Or do you know how many areas on the earths surface act just like the Devils Triangle off of Florida's coast and why there is a specific number of these areas?



have no idea, and have no idea why.
I'm not the smartest person in the earth
I play with physics for life.


Wesley
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 03:29:48 AM by stivep »

Offline AlienGrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3499
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22382 on: March 14, 2016, 02:19:03 PM »
Maybe it's time to become smart too. 8)

All magic happens between coils. Practically this could mean either between coils wound on separated magnetic cores or between coils wound on the same magnetic core.

How many transformers do you see under Stepanov's cardboard box in the background? One transformer or two transformers?

If you see nothing, then you have to train your unassisted eye to see the image in 3D. The image then becomes »transparent« with some depth effect; and an in-depth analysis is surely that what's needed here.

Anyone yet asked the 13-year-old kid what he thinks about that device? :)

Time machine  the pic you show is not in focus or blurred can you please explain what you showing with some pointers please so we can all share what you have found.

regards  AG

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22382 on: March 14, 2016, 02:19:03 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Zeitmaschine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1267
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22383 on: March 14, 2016, 03:30:27 PM »
Time machine  the pic you show is not in focus or blurred can you please explain what you showing with some pointers please so we can all share what you have found.

Yep! Pics of such devices are always blurred. >:(

What I have found has been quickly buried on page 790 of the Dally thread. For good reason?

The frequency doubler circuit is for sure Kapanadze's »simple method to keep resonance between two coils«. I think that's an important finding. Now we have to find these two coils. Since I can see only one transformer behind the big diode bridge, I would suggest that both coils are wound on the same core.

Of course, my assumption is that Kapanadze and Stepanov devices are actually based on the same basic principle.

1 Joule/foot = 3.28 Newtons. The Newton is the energy transferred on applying a force of one pound-force (lbf) through a displacement of one foot.
Does that mean that length alone is a form of energy also? Obviously, it is not.

Could space be negative energy? We need positive energy if we want to change something. Changing something means always to relocate it in space, hence space could be the (negative) opponent to (positive) energy. But I don't know if this idea helps in any way.


Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2608
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22384 on: March 15, 2016, 03:22:09 PM »
@all

OK you guys. Let me just put in an new angle.

If I talk about potential ways to make a device work towards OU, I am not saying at the same time that I believe TK is legitimate. I will never say anything good about anyone flaunting an OU device or a supposed OU device in our faces and in the worlds face while the world is in such dire straights. So whatever I say here from now on is to advance OU, and not the likes of TK or any other Show-and-don't -teller.

So let me open up an idea THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO THE 2004 TK device. But first you need some background.

As far as all my bench works go with both DC and AC pulsing, the main object of all these techniques is to create a strong polarity change in one coil medium that can impart those changes to a second coil medium with or without a core. As far as what I see on the bench and what is taught in our schools about AC, I know now that we are totally off the mark. AC cannot be a true alternating current if it is to also follow the "electron flow" model of electricity. You cannot have both because of one dead give-away. The AC neutral is always grounded hence it can NEVER be hot. The hot side is HOT, OK, but the neutral is exactly that NEUTRAL. There is never any hot signal leaving from the neutral side to enter the coil(s). Anyone can try and dispute this but if you are honest in your unbiased observations, you will also see this to be true.

DC and AC are really not the same thing at all. AC is not a dual DC even if it is full bridge rectified, just try both methods and try to produce the same sinewaves and you will see there is no way possible (except at high frequencies).

Let's take DC first. I need someone to prove to me that a car battery is 12 volts in that the negative terminal is at zero volts and the positive terminal is at 12 volts as we see today the car battery voltage. So prove to me that the battery is truly 0 and 12 volts and not -6 to +6 volts that would both show a 12 volt potential difference. Prove to me with your volt meter or your scope. If using the scope set it to both DC then AC coupling and convince me which is the valid scope waveform. Why is the DC reading supposed to be considered the valid method?

DC pulse is a simple peak, peak, peak where when the pulse is off, there is nothing to hold it from oscillating. This is useful in some ways but counter productive in other ways because the copper atoms are left to themselves to realign before the next pulse. Nothing can rebias the copper wire before the next pulse.

Now let's look a AC. Explain to me how AC can alternate while there is a ground wire on the neutral side. In the common AC discussion the hot AC signal alternates from the HOT side to the Neutral side and back and forth. So tell me how a hot wire can exist on the same line that is grounded. In general experienced EEers will not even want to take on such a discussion because if their brains are screwed on the same way as anyone else, they will quickly realize this to be the case.

AC pulse is however a very strong gradual rise or better worded "controlled rise" and "controlled fall" where the copper atoms are always under a rise or fall stress leaving no moment for the copper atoms to rebias by any other means. AC is a perpetual controlled peak and rebias but there is never any "electron flow" hence there is not any need for electrons since their reason for existing is to "flow" in a wire. If you remove their reason for existing in this effect, you just killed the electron flow model in one swoop which should have been evident to everyone with a brain way back when Tesla first invented AC. Please try to counter this statement as I would be very curious to know. hahaha

OK, AC then is what? If electrons do not flow, what the hell is going on in our wires? Well to answer this question you have to look at the evidence in front of us. We know the copper wire is made up of copper (and other noble metals) ions or atoms. We are told that all atoms have "electrons spinning" around a center nucleus but we also know that the science behind explaining where these mysterious electrons get their energy to spin around a nucleus is not explained to any fluent degree. Also, those same electrons, since they are on the outer shell of the nucleus, are the only thing humans have every touched so when you grab any object, you are grabbing a bunch of electrons with "floating" nuclei in them. Then you have to explain how all these atoms that are compressed together to form objects have their electrons all spinning around with orbitals touching other orbitals and we never see objects just fall apart because of electrons crashing into each other. How can  billions and zillions and quintillions of electrons spin around without ramming into each other? So you see the electron flow model is just chock full of holes and areas of reflection that really ask that we all look the other way with regard to these questions. "That's the way it is" is a major basis for understanding electricity in our present days.

The worst part of all this is that under this new Spin Conveyance model I will be publishing soon, all of these effects can be PERFECTLY explained while preserving the same method we use today to measure our devices. Only the construct will change. But in a nutshell, if AC is not "electron flow", because all the evidence proves the contrary, then what is it. What's left if the outer atoms shell is to be considered nothing more then a wide variety of bonding mediums, the only thing that's left is the nucleus itself. This is where we have been robbed of the intellectual ability to consider the nucleus as the main causal medium of electric signal throughput. So the answer from there is so simple. All the nuclei have to do is respond directly to outer stimuli or direct applied stimuli. If the nucleus was able to perform what I call the 6S's as being Stay, Show, Sway, Swing, Spin and Shoot and by doing so it can convey these same "physical nucleic motions" to their neighboring atoms, then we have the perfect platform to explain all our effects on our benches which I call Spin Conveyance.

Stay - Leave a coil alone and the nuclei will simply Stay or hold their Latent position. Some will turn and point down to the center of the Earth at their latent position.

Show - Bring a strong magnet and hold it in one place near the coil and the nuclei will show one quick waveform blip then fall to zero hence the blip is the nuclei turning from the latent position to now Show position that points to the magnet source.

Sway - When a magnet wheel passes by a coil, the nuclei will leave the latent position to point to the oncoming magnet, follow it passing in front of it and point to it leaving the coil so its a motion of left/right left/right. This shows movement from the latent position, going left, passing through the latent position again, then going right. So Sway occurs when the nuclei goes from any two left/right positions by passing though the latent position. THIS IS ALSO AC as a GRADUAL back and forth Swaying of the nuclei. 

Swing - From the latent position the nuclei goes either left or right then comes back to the latent position. This is DC and the waveform of DC pulses we see shows exactly that. Quick rise then a tapering off and even a negative rebound.

Spin - When you can Swing an atoms nuclei fast enough for it to pass the peak top point and continue in the same direction with perfectly timed pulses, you reach nucleic Spin. Since not all atoms have the physically ideal inter atomic placement inside the copper wire matrix, not all copper atoms can spin. hence those that do are few and we see this with good voltage but crappy amperage.

Shoot - Hit the two terminals of a car battery together and what happens. Sparks start to fly out of the wires. That's Shoot which is not something we run after every day.

When I say Spin, it can also be any of the six above attributes.

The 6S's do more then what is described in this simplified rendition but it is enough to get the idea that if our atomic nuclei was considered to be smarter then we think them to be today, then we just found all the reasons for all our effects, including action at a distance where the nuclei have the ability to sense energy sources from a distance hence not requiring any magical fields to impart their fingers on a wire to "do something magical" to make electron flow in a conductor.

We can then understand that voltage is a function of the degree of spin from the latent position and amperage is simply the number of copper atoms involved in the wire that are spinning. So for the first time ever, you have real physical reasons for our volts/amps effects. You no longer need to believe in these magical electrons and fields. Field collapse at pulse off becomes coil rebias when under DC. AC does not produce the field collapse while running because all it rises and falls are controlled.

AC Hot then becomes nucleic Sway where there is no need to have any electron flow since all that is happening in the wire is the nuclei themselves are Swaying to the applied AC hot. This explains perfectly how AC works in our wires and also explains that only one hot wire is all you really need to do this while the neutral wire is there as an anchoring post. Again very simplified for this post.

So DC is quick rise in the same way and this is why DC is additive. Try and put two AC lines together that are out of phase as all you get is a major havoc since the nuclei are turning left when another is turning right and this creates a major collision inside the wires.

But AC is so great because it controls all the angular movements of the nuclei while DC just spits up and then releases as an uncontrolled rise and rebias making it hard to concentrate a targeted effect.

Of course again the above is a simplified rendition just to give you guys some background to what's coming next.

Sooooooooooooooooooooooo. Is it possible to marry the best attributes of both AC and DC into one method? DC would provide a constant "additive" upswing while AC would provide the controlled rise to keep all of the copper atoms in action. DC is a hit once a hope method while AC is a totally controlled method. But AC can only be applied to a single coil on a transformer where the coil undergoes a controlled rise and fall hence there is no room to play around like with DC. But in both cases, one cannot produce anything analog to the rotation of a magnetic rotor inside of a stator. This we have been  unable to produce since a rotor is a real physical movement that is making the nuclei of each copper atom to physically sway, while AC in a primary has no movement and the sway is always applied at the same vectorals hence the copper atoms cannot follow a physical movement. Same problem applies to DC pulsing as well. In all primary to core to secondary relations, everything has to be accomplished while all are stationary, and this is costing us dearly in our output performance.
 
So here is the question. hahahaha Always a question hey.

Is it possible to take one AC line and pass it through a type of full bridge rectifier where you can then output TWO DISTINCT outputs that are 180 degrees out of phase? If this is possible, then you can make transformers with two primaries, one left primary, center secondary, one right primary where each primary now gets its own AC peak pulsed that is 180 degrees out of phase and the secondary will now have the impulses coming from two changing vectors. If this can work and increase the intensity of the Sway of copper nuclei, we just made a new toy for working towards OU devices.

Do I need to expand further. Guys in the know will read between the lines.  hehehe

wattsup


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22384 on: March 15, 2016, 03:22:09 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline T-1000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22385 on: March 15, 2016, 04:24:06 PM »
Sooooooooooooooooooooooo. Is it possible to marry the best attributes of both AC and DC into one method?

Without making another wall of text just put DC + wire + bulb as simple circuit then apply AC over capacitor connected to one of DC terminals connected to the bulb and the end of same wire going to the bulb. Then see what will happen.
Then later exchange that piece of wire with a coil.
And no theory can exactly will tell how both currents will be going over same wire... ;)

Cheers!

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2790
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22386 on: March 16, 2016, 03:33:25 AM »
@all

 new angle.
I am not saying at the same time that I believe TK is legitimate.
THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO THE 2004 TK device. wattsup



Quote
with both DC and AC pulsing,
object : create a strong polarity change in one coil medium that can impart those changes to a second coil medium with or without a core.
The bench:  AC cannot be a true alternating current if it is to also follow the "electron flow" model
You cannot have both  The AC neutral is always grounded hence it can NEVER be hot.
The hot side is HOT, OK, but the neutral is exactly that NEUTRAL.
There is never any hot signal leaving from the neutral side to enter the coil(s).
-The neutral is just the "wire"(side) connected to the ground by utility company.
- hot is floating off (the grid)
-AC is  alternating current
Electron flow is our model ( it is not important  if this is the true it just allows  us to build another models on the top  of it.
you might see it as , say: shaking  action of electron  that makes other electrons to shake
whatever makes you happy.
https://www.quora.com/If-alternating-current-electrons-go-back-and-forth-in-a-circuit-why-do-I-need-to-put-more-electricity-in-the-circuit
===============================================================
Notice not related:
This notice is here just  for fun  of what you can do with electron.
-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374029/
-http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/bathing-atoms-in-light-to-make-them-cool-off/




===============================================================================================================

Quote
DC and AC are really not the same thing at all.
-Not the same


Quote
AC is not a dual DC even if it is full bridge rectified,
- It is not
DC is "direct" flow with vector set in one direction.




Quote
just try both methods and try to produce the same sinewaves and you will see there is no way possible (except at high frequencies).
not you will not.
You lost me here:
DC is  steady  level of  potential ( amplitude)
AC is shape varying in time
==================================================================================================================

Quote
prove to me that a car battery is 12 volts in that the negative terminal is at zero volts and the positive terminal is at 12 volts
self explanatory use DMM.
If you need different polarization ( in the same  terminals) take different  point of  reference or manually  write word  "OPPOSITE" on it, if that makes you  happy.

Quote


So prove to me that the battery is truly
a: 0 and 12 volts
b: and not -6 to +6 volts

ad a:
that depends from point of reference . If your point of reference is Ionosphere than your  plus of your battery is 300 000V -12V= 300 988 V and it will show minus
If you have more minus.... than minus or more plus.... than you have " plus"........  than always the smaller number will be  minus(-)
However even if you connect plus of your battery to the ground and measure ionosphere  potential from minus of the battery, than that would make approximately 300012V 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_electricity
the problem here is electrostatic charge properties that does not  add up to  battery charge ( but  what the heck)
ad b:
The  -6 to +6 will show 12V  however if you take different point of reference you might see from 0 to +12  or any  other result depends from  correlation of that point to the battery
Point in the  air might give you 0V and 0V  in both terminals.


Quote
Prove to me with your volt meter or your scope. If using the scope set it to both DC then AC coupling and convince me which is the valid scope waveform. Why is the DC reading supposed to be considered the valid method?
there is no valid method it  is your method that is  accepted or denied by others.
If majority  accept it  that this becomes a standard.

Quote
DC pulse is a simple peak, peak,  where when the pulse is off, there is nothing to hold it from oscillating.
This is useful in some ways but counterproductive
in other ways because the copper atoms are left to themselves to realign before the next pulse.
Nothing can rebias the copper wire before the next pulse.
you lost me here.
DC is not peak it is a pulse. Pulse has  rising edge and falling edge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_edge
Peak is related usually to AC. http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/peak-pk
Atoms have nothing to do with  AC or DC


"All matter is made of atoms, and all atoms have electrons."
when you deal with batteries you deals with ions
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/light-acdc/




Quote
Explain to me how AC can alternate while there is a ground wire on the neutral side.
http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/38666/difference-between-line-and-neutral-in-ac


Quote
In the common AC discussion the hot AC signal alternates from the HOT side to the Neutral side and back and forth. So tell me how a hot wire can exist on the same line that is grounded.
Our model of AC sinusoidal shape of AC signal at 50Hz(60Hz) has horizontal line known as  zero potential.
that what is below the line is minus.
the rest you will find in the same article.

http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/38666/difference-between-line-and-neutral-in-ac







Quote
AC pulse is however a very strong gradual rise or better worded "controlled rise" and "controlled fall"
there is no rise and no fall it is graduated alternating  change  in  sinusoidal  fashion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current
period as property of AC is one full change   starting from  zero 0 to maximum of positive amplitude of potential  than to zero and maximum of negative amplitude of potential  and then  back to zero 0
However  because  the ZERO horizontal  line is the line of TIME!!! the negative halve of  period is taking place in the time frame  fallowing the time frame of positive half.
that  indicates  waveform moving forward( current flow)
Remember that is only model!!! we use.




Quote


Quote:where the copper atoms are always under a rise or fall stress leaving no moment for the copper atoms to rebias by any other means.
atoms have nothing to do with current flow in  conductor unless in special conditions of that flow.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/light-acdc/
atoms have (usually) no stress (NONE ZERO ZIPO)
look free free electrons
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html
or for
 unpaired electrons
Question 11 
http://www.ualr.edu/rebelford/chem1402/q1402/X3/c8/8-1/8-1.htm


Quote
AC is a perpetual controlled peak and rebias but there is never any "electron flow" hence there is not any need for electrons since their reason for existing is to "flow" in a wire.
-not true.
http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/power/2-whats-electron-flow.html


Quote
If you remove their reason for existing in this effect, you just killed the electron flow mode
you will only kill  the  reason to flow. not the model of the flow.



Quote
OK, AC then is what? If electrons do not flow, what the hell is going on in our wires?
look up at the all answers above.
Quote
We know the copper wire is made up of copper (and other noble metals) ions or atoms.
copper is not made from ions
a. atomic structure and electrical conduction http://mste.illinois.edu/users/Murphy/HoleFlow/Structure.php
b. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper

Quote
We are told that all atoms have "electrons spinning" around a center nucleus
but we also know that the science behind explaining where these mysterious electrons get their energy to spin around a nucleus is not explained to any fluent degree.
a. http://www.livescience.com/32427-where-do-electrons-get-energy-to-spin-around-an-atoms-nucleus.html
this article explains why electron does not fall into a nucleus.


b.http://education.jlab.org/qa/atomicstructure_08.html
this article gives you easy answer of electron  ejection and General Uncertainty Principle


c. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18473/where-do-electrons-get-their-ever-lasting-circulating-energy
this one is very good but still misses  answering the question what  that electron spinning energy originated from at the first place...
like God.. ..the first push to move...


d.https://www.quora.com/Why-do-the-electrons-revolve-around-the-nucleus
Well this guy wanted to void difficult question of electrons orbiting nucleus and I disagree with him.
he postulated that electrons just exist.
It is for me - a person  who is  sitting in nuclear physics unaceptable, as if I accept it, than I should change my understanding to e.g.Electron–positron annihilation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation .If  electrons  have been just sitting  there than not moving  than collision would never happened
( "in the million years")
but this is just my personal discomfort making me to  reject  this guy  statement. ( so is all science too)


e.https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1195
this one explains why the atom is of certain size. origination of  the first  ever force of electron is missing.
quote:
If they are only given some energy, but not enough to knock them loose, they will move from one orbital to another (say from the S-orbital to the P-orbital). But if there is no other electron in the lower-energy orbital, they will fall back down again. When they do, they release energy in the form of a photon (light). This is part of the concept that lasers are based on.End of Quote
Well not the answer to the question but around the question........!!!!


f.
Quote:
BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS, WHY DOES THE ELECTRON START MOVEMENT AT ALL? WHERE FROM DOES IT GET THE ENERGY?
- RAGINI (age 15)
MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA    End of Quote:

A:- is the guy who responded to this question and he said:
Quote:"That would be a big problem if somehow there was a way for the electrons to start with zero energy. If an electron is floating around on its own, its kinetic energy can be very low. However, there is then a lot of electrostatic energy associated with its electric fields.That can be lowered by bringing it closer to a positive charge, like a proton.  That can form a simple hydrogen atom. The electron will now have more kinetic energy, but less potential energy.  The extra energy will radiate away as an electromagnetic field."
Mike W. End of Quote

Wesley:guys I GIVE UP!!!!!!
 he gives no frinkin answer. He is for the all length of this article trying to  frickin  kick on the side so hi still looks like "smart guy" "the professor"conclusion: he gives  NO ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
=================================================================================================================





however I got something interesting:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-an-electron-move-around-the-nucleus


Quote:Why does an electron move around the nucleus?
How Does centripetal is balanced by electrostatic force? Is it centripetal or centrifugal?end of quote

Although I completely disagree with that answer of that guy .
I found  convenient part of it that supports 
-Tariel Kapanadze
-Lituania Experiment
- Ruslan
- Akula
-Tiger
 the common part is High Voltage and electrostatic potential.

down of the article there is  statement:


Quote: As stated that the rotating particle, here the electron, "ll need a centripetal force to move in a circle around the nucleus. This necessary Centripetal Force is provided by the electrostatic force between the electron and the nucleus.
Note that : Centripetal Force is not a fundamental force of the universe, so it will always be produced due the four fundamental force(s).
now lets cut this bullshit  to very note end of Quote.
 
we are interested only with that part:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Force is provided by the electrostatic force between the electron and the nucleus.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fine.

I love it :
So  now  we on purpose  do not go to the deep shit of what causes that electrostatic force
or what is the mechanism originating that force
Let's say we have that force.
And the things go on and on......................
electron has a motion  and everybody is happy.................


Now start to think of it as  if it is real.( just for the moment)
If there is never ending force that makes electron to  cruise around the nucleus without frickin energy losses for ever..........
that on the big scale..........
Big electrostatic source can  do the same?
I know that it sounds insane.
but if the frickin Science have so much problem with one fundamental question of young 15 years old boy from Mumbai  https://www.google.com/search?q=Mumbai&oq=Mumbai&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8


WHY DOES THE ELECTRON START MOVEMENT AT ALL? WHERE FROM DOES IT GET THE ENERGY?- RAGINI (age 15)MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA
and they seem to never give the answer
Than my answer to  ever working TK device  is on the same level of  perceptual   insanity or perceptual geniosity .
do you agree with me?


So at least one thing we need to look close to is presence of Electrostatic  Field of Potentials.


Thank you wattsup for stimulating my brain


Wesley
« Last Edit: March 16, 2016, 01:34:33 PM by stivep »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22386 on: March 16, 2016, 03:33:25 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Meta

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
For eyes that see........
« Reply #22387 on: March 16, 2016, 04:42:31 AM »
Note this quote....14.4 and 28.8 are fractal harmonics of the ancient gnosis numbers 144 (light) and 288 (double light) which are intimately related with Leahy's number 82944.

"The resonance remains same at 14.4khz but i am doing 28.8khz"
 which then needs 35watt from a 12volt battery 

 Re: Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY

Page 847 Overunity Forum

 « Reply #12703 on: March 13, 2016, 05:53:22 PM »

Offline Meta

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22388 on: March 16, 2016, 05:16:45 AM »
I once saw a electron microscope micrograph of a matrix of atoms. There were no cloud of electrons around a core of protons and neutrons. As I said, all things are nothing more than spinning space called Anu or the basic unit of creation, the torus. In an atom we just have clusters of toroidal spheres.

In the micrograph, each fuzzy, constantly moving sphere in the fixed matrix had a light hole in what I assumed was one pole of the fuzzy sphere. Knowing that all things take the shape of a two hole torus, I assumed the other side also had a light hole. If it did, then we have an explanation of what a atom does, as follows......

In physics it is said that for an electron to be detected it must spin two times to be detected again....this is called spin 1/2.

Here is what I think the energy of a toroidal electron and toroidal atom, does.

The energy spins or spirals around the outside of the torus then it goes into the light hole and is rotated 180 degrees (90 degrees is 180 in reality) and this spin flips the energy and turns it to light which then spins on the inside of the torus and comes back out the black hole to spin on the outside again, thus two times around for the light to be dected again. Reality is two sided, one side we see (This Side)  the other we cant see (Other Side, virtual). We want the virtual electron potential of Bearden.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22388 on: March 16, 2016, 05:16:45 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Meta

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22389 on: March 16, 2016, 05:43:01 AM »
Westley asks,

Why does the electron start moving at all?

Think of ALL so called particles inclusing the atoms and electrons, as tori and clusters of tori.
ALL these act exactly like a gyroscope. Joeseph Newman and his Eergy Machine.
If you apply a force to the spinning processional axis of any gyroscope, it will immediately rotate 90 degrees to that force and start to precess or spiral around the wire from where it was dislodged and will travel (spiral) along the wire. If you dislodge an electron, you get moving electrons or electricity.

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2790
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22390 on: March 16, 2016, 06:54:06 AM »
Dear Meta toroid as model of atom is for me new.
I have seen video that was proposing  such model.
The problem is that this model is not universally accepted nor recognized.


We do not even know if our universal models are correct.
But we build all science based  on those models.


So for me trying to fallow that new approach  is like trying to find exit from the  jungle.
That model only proposes answer to some basic questions and the rest of the answer must be derived  from that model .
Mr Bearden never did so nor is willing to do so
e.g.
 PET is used in  medicine and is based on positron and orbital electron collision.
in the  well respected science it is no problem for me to build  the device the software and see 180 degrees of photon radiation in opposite vectors.
that in turn gives me picture of the specimen body or brain  of the patient in PET tomography or any  other radioactive sample topography.


Once I 'm looking for FE. I do not want to waste my time to derive all of  missing blocks of logics based on new and proposed model.
I decided to make  assumption that electrostatic difference of potential is common to  Tariel Kapanadze and all other  people mentioned in my previous article.
So if that is given than  that must remain for the rest of conclusions.(tests, experiments)
The possibly  invalid analogy to perpetual motion of an electron that never stop moving does not matter,
however it is something that does go on and on and on.
If then on the big scale Electrostatic Field at High Voltage  is mimicking  perpetual motion of that  electron.
By simple observation we could say that we  have now several people  who stated that they  have build the device FE. and all of them   uses HV.


 If you want to help me Mr. Meta as  much more involved in new model please point to me another "constant" phenomena that you have seen in all "working"FE
apart from  HV electrostatic potential.?
If you just point at other historical facts  I would be left in the middle of the  ocean  with one piece of wood supporting me from falling down to the depth of all of that shit around that does not care about future of humanity at all.
Talk to me  like to the child.
If your unknown to me models brings you something    constructive I'm ready to see it.
But I'm unable to swim  in your waters.


Wesley

 






Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22390 on: March 16, 2016, 06:54:06 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Meta

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22391 on: March 16, 2016, 09:40:03 AM »
Westley,

Very well if you  want to keep thinking as you did, enjoy failing again.

However if you remember what  Gerard Morin said you may exit your problem that some of you have, with AC current....someone asked about its validity....Gerard said "Its not AC current that drives the motors, its actually HF (high frequency)". And with HF he uses HV (high voltage). The higher the voltage the better.

Also remember, as a model, I recommend again, Gerard Morin and his generator/load set up. He includes 2 transformers (pole line transformer cans). You can include your own step up and step down transformers and it must be 2 of them.

Remember what he did.....he stepped up low voltage to high voltage out thru the horn, in 1 transformer then ran the high voltage wire to the high voltage horn on the number 2 transformer, so moving out of This Side (3D) to the Other Side (4D) where all the HF and HV are, then he steps that down to low voltage in the number 2 transformer thus he amplifies, not multiplies his potential.

In your circuits you are still in 3D dealing with current and what is falsly called AC...make another step down circuit that is a 2D rotation of the 1 circuit you have.

2D rotation explained:

Take the letter L rotate it upside down....this is 1 D roation.
Now take the upside down L and flip it left to right....this is a 2D rotation so the L is now upside down and backward.....this is the function of the transformer 2 or circuit 2. Now you will have a 2 sided, step up/step down circuit or machine which accesses the 4th dimension where the HF and HV are. The invisible, virtual 4th dimension is upside down and backward to the visible 3D. Now you can deal with HF, HV and no more AC or current.

Offline Meta

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22392 on: March 16, 2016, 10:03:57 AM »
This may help to know....

Space is the "perfect" non-medium.

In the Jan 2002 issue of Scientific American, pg 21 it says,

"It is as if empty space behaves like a vast piece
of superconducting metal".

Offline Meta

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #22393 on: March 16, 2016, 02:37:26 PM »
Correction:

Error: Gerard said "Its not AC current that drives the motors, its actually HF (high frequency)".

Correction: Gerard said "Its not AC current that drives the motors, its actually RF (radio frequency)".

Offline Meta

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218

 

OneLink