TK device, TPU.. Only enter if you seek truth. Cause here it is...

[verpies]

I can go on and on but it's not worthy wasting time on it, really.

Please do.
It is not a waste of your time to pick holes in somebody's theory. It is peer review.

You are sharing your knowledge with less educated users of this forum, protecting them from going down the wrong path, possibly saving a lot of money on somebody's futile replication attempt.

The author of this theory might also benefit from your criticism and if he is scientifically honest he might withdraw or correct or refine his concepts.

[verpies]

"The NMR stimulation of the brass disc generates enough fast-moving radioactive particles, as described below (Beta-NMR), and this starts an avalanche of particle multiplication provided that the cyclotron condition is also fulfilled."

– Now things are indeed getting into avalanche into his mind; note that beta-NMR is something else and it is never "described bellow" as promised.

Could you share your understanding of Beta-NMR ?
How is it different from what McFreey is proposing?

[elementSix]

I agree with Verpies..  That is very interesting.  Cause there are many different NMR fascicles..  I won't begrudge smart talk anywhere..

[tinu]

 
@verpies,

Beta NMR starts from bombarding the target with a flux/beam of polarized beta radioactive emitters, which in itself is quite a challenge. We are talking about not many top-notch research facilities able to do it. If you're interested please check http://cds.cern.ch/record/1232580/files/INTC-I-088.pdf
In TK's device there is no way a beam generator of beta-radioactive nuclei be incorporated (not even a "simple" generator, let alone a collimated, intense and polarized one needed for beta-NMR!) and thus everything around it is way off-topic.
I suppose some readers could have made the error of thinking to Beta NMR as a form of bombarding the target with beta-radiation (electrons) but it is not the case. The probe is explored by directing nuclei (not electrons) to it. Beta radioactive nuclei are used because when naturally decaying they release energy and consequently the experimental data/results can be recorded easier. I felt it was important to clear this issue about nuclei not electrons. Anyway, I'm not expert in NMR (only I had it studied years ago) and clearly I'm far from the position of writing about beta-NMR.
Bottom line is beta-MNR is out of question because of the incompatibility of device presented in the movies and so is the cyclotron-related supposition.
A beta source is theoretically feasible as an explanation for TK's device although a 2-3kW beta thermo-electric-generator is usually a bit larger (physically speaking). But I've studied cases when such beta-radioactive TEGs were left abandoned in the former USSR and they were found by regular citizens who had suffered horrifying illness and dead after opening them. I really hope TK is not messing with beta sources (which would render useless for OU case because of regulatory laws prohibiting them all over the world).



@ yfree,

I'm sorry but it's nothing personal.
As for my explanation, I wait to see TK/SM/others running his/their house(s) on it before anything else.
To me the "inner alert" always beeps when seeing such movies (no matter how 'impressive') instead of seeing (or simply hearing of, for that matter) a million liters of water already pumped high hill and another million being pumped as we debate.
Also, as there are so many knowledgeable members in Tesla's experiments, I wonder how can they be so sure TK's device is nothing more than a pure Tesla resonant energy receiver getting its power from the associated transmitter that is plugged into the wall/power-grid?!!
I think my above concerns, although unpopular and probably hated by many, needs to be made vanishing before discussing another possible explanation.

Best regards,
Tinu

[yfree]

...
I'm sorry but it's nothing personal.
...

Of course, it's nothing personal.

It's for the sake of truth.

When somebody comes and calls other people's work "crap", uses expressions like
"Now things are indeed getting into avalanche into his mind" or
" It seems to me Mr. McFreey is not clear on such elementary issue" or
" It is obviously he departed completely from physics and science and he does not even understand the huge errors he makes..."
and poses as an expert on things that he has no clue about, has to be exposed as an imposter.

You admit yourself that you are not an expert:
" I'm not expert in NMR (only I had it studied years ago) and clearly I'm far from the position of writing about beta-NMR.".
So, do not pretend to be one.

I am a physicist and I do these things everyday, this includes beta-NMR.  I do not base my expertise on a single paper.
I know that the samples to be used for beta-NMR have to be prepared by irradiation only to get a certain desired sensitivity. To get beta-NMR signal, this is not necessary. In this case it is enough to rely on natural isotope composition of elements. But you, of course, are not aware of such details.

McFreey is not writing about conduction electrons at all and, unlike you,  he knows that the nucleus is capable of emitting electrons.

Be aware that there are other experts on this forum. I will make sure that your "expertise" will not be taken for granted and will expose any ignorant claims.