Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY

[Hoppy]

   Yes, but each device is showing a different way of doing so.
Which way may work best for me?

Find out by trying different ways. Success will be obvious. 

[AlienGrey]

Thanks for the New Video Wesley, Wesley's clip from Andrian, shows what looks like to me like an inner coil former possibly a trigger coil, have any of our eastern European friends got any more information on this section please ?
Or is it the 5 cc + 5c winding and a shadow due to crap film ?

Regards AG


Also an interesting film   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecni9SjkWoM

[verpies]

Well Verpies, I can see that we will not agree on this subject, so I'll leave it to you to give credence to NMR, as a source of energy for self running devices. 

...and I'll leave it to you to give credence to your theory of "energy from the ambient".
That we do not agree on the MO of these devices was obvious years ago.

As my goals are not dealing with energy from matter, at all. Nor does that even interest me, 

Not even when it is free, just because it does not agree with your theory of "energy from the ambient" ?
Note, that in my previous post I had refuted the rest of your objections regarding the pollution and unshieldability of fast electrons.

I only look for some similarities which may be present. Or some unexplored possibilities, such as "Earth's Magnetic Resonance" (EFNMR), as the true cause of this unconventional energy.

So Earth Field Nuclear Magnetic resonance is good and interests you and Nuclear magnetic resonance in an artificial magnetic field is bad and does not interest you?  Why?
.

I do hold Tk, Ruslan, Akula and others like them very much accountable for their ideas, and explanations of their working principals, and working self running devices. At least they have what it takes to show something, and not just opinions base on unproven theories.

TK, Ruslan, Akula theories are Modus Operandi are unproven, too, and these people don't even agree between each other why these devices work!!!  ... other than profusely quoting Tesla's name. 

Most importantly their theories are worthless because they do not lead to successful builds of working devices by any other constructors than themselves.  If they made sense then they would lead to concrete rules, relations and pointers for successful replications by constructors with good building skills, e.g. Itsu and Hoppy

The advantage of McFreey's  MO over Tk, Ruslan, Akula's is that the former is based on proven phenomena such as:
1) spin axis polarization by magnetic field,
2) directional polarization of beta decay products emission,
3) induction,
4) and Lorentz confinement of charges particles.

The only component of his theory that is not proven is the stimulated emission of fast electrons (a cascade event).

Contrastingly, Tk, Ruslan, Akula's MO - ion capture from the environment makes no sense if you know anything about ions and the energy needed to produce them.

McFreey's MO leads to concrete relationship between materials, dimensions, magnetic flux density and frequency.
Tk, Ruslan, Akula's MOs do not offer such pointers.

All I've ever read in their explanation is how to make a standing wave or LC resonance which has a very high yawn factor.
Their explanation why standing waves or LC resonance would make free energy is nonexistent or makes no sense.

They offer working examples as their empirical proof. Too many to ignore, at least for me to ignore.
Although some would disagree as to their devices being any type of proof, that is not my concern.

Even if you accept their videos as proof of FE it is not the same as accepting their MO.
For all I saw, these guys just bulldoze through circuits and get lucky sometimes.
I think, that it is possible to build these devices without really knowing what makes them work.

It is wrong to assume, (as you like to point out),  that any one of the above mentioned team, or persons, are unknowingly working on NMR based devices. 

It is equally wrong to assume that they know the origin of the FE just because they succeeded in building a device.
In fact the sheer lack of good building pointers and replications suggest that they do not know.

Without any further proof or testing of such conditions, and only wishful thinking provided as any kind of proof.

I agree with that, but in order to do this one must experiment on a working device.  Do you see anyone doing this?
NMR can be proven/disproven by bringing a strong nonconductive permanent magnet to the device on a plastic stick (not a hand, because it is conductive).  The conditions for NMR are usually very narrow, so external magnetic flux will disturb them and the device will stop working. Nanopulse and FM techniques widen these conditions.
You don't see them doing such experiments because they are not capable of true scientific rigor to determine what makes these devices work...only that they work somehow.

In any case if you have any ideas or suggestions as to how to test for the source of this type of unconventional and illusive energy from these types of devices, I'm all ears.

Nonconductive magnet on a long stick, stabilizing and immunizing electronic circuits from inadvertent electric and magnetic interference.

[verpies]

By induction into the inductor winding which forms part of the yoke 3-turn series tuned circuit.

Does that make quantitative sense with 3 turns ?

[Hoppy]

Does that make quantitative sense with 3 turns ?

The inductor (wound over the grenade windings) is multi-turn.