Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[NoBull]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

I suggested the possible use of belts hidden in the overly large and modified pillow block bases

Indeed you were the first