Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[Hoppy]

It is the cycle of the sine wave. Left is Bessler approach, right is Kapanadze approach. Kapanadze got something for nothing, Bessler got something for nothing. We don't understand Kapanadze's electric principle, we don't understand Bessler's mechanic principle. Science does not know what aether is, science does not know what gravity is. So this fits all together nice and smoothly.

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

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

[tika]

It is unfortunate that we are still looking to catch the root cause of the energy gain effect.  Everyone (including me) has his/her interpretation of the phenomenon.  We just know that it is hiding in plain sight. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

m:o)

[verpies]

The patent's title itself is very revealing, as Tesla named his invention "Magnifying Transmitter". And that is because he could measure more power at the receiver than what was put in the transmitter.

Are you sure it was power, not voltage ?  Were any rigorous measurements made of it?

[tika]

Tesla was interested in power transmission, not voltage.  And that is what his patent is about.

m:o)

[sparks]

How do you propose to engineer such an avalanche or a "kick" ?
I²R is not a measure of current or "current gain".  I²R has dimensions of power.  Thus this statement is erroneous.
Did you mean "power drop" ?  If "yes" then this is an unusual phrase.... so maybe you meant the usual "power loss"?
Amperage is synonymous with electric current.
The velocity of electrons is not electric current - current is the amount of electric charge (e.g. carried by electrons) moving per time.
Your second statement contradicts the first (confusing amount with velocity).

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

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

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