Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[magpwr]

Dear URFA.

Well done!! You appear to have a self runner. Please provide a description and schematic of your device.

Cheers Grum.

Hi Grumage,

I'm sorry to say that device based on video released couple of hours ago seems to be fake.
My version of justification to everyone -At around 1:50min onwards upon flipping over the circuit board i noticed the 14 or 16 pin I/C socket is empty.Maybe that was suppose to be the driver circuit.
The same led light effect can be achieved with battery connected to ultra cap for just few seconds as well.I know this since i also create unique joule thief circuit youtube user "sanjev21".

[IvanB]

Kapanadze did not explain to anybody her secret

Leo48

Kapanadze and can not reveal his secret, but says that all this is simple. But there are others-whether people who get a working device?

I believe that there is no point in hiding the implementation of the people, perhaps hiding for their own safety from fuel corporations). If the installation is not in one person, and at 100, for example, that the threat is less and it will be more conducive to the development of these technologies for the benefit of mankind.
Well, if Kapanadze and in truth has created and patented a working copy of it, and we do not twitch, hiding their devices with the intent to capitalize on it by selling the technology.

[Grumage]

Hi Grumage,

I'm sorry to say that device based on video released couple of hours ago seems to be fake.
My version of justification to everyone -At around 1:50min onwards upon flipping over the circuit board i noticed the 14 or 16 pin I/C socket is empty.Maybe that was suppose to be the driver circuit.
The same led light effect can be achieved with battery connected to ultra cap for just few seconds as well.I know this since i also create unique joule thief circuit youtube user "sanjev21".

Dear magpwr.

The video was so poor I am giving him the benefit of doubt!! Time will tell!!??

That was an interesting schematic you posted earlier...... Could the Caduceus style primary coil have a role to play?

I ask because of this video presented  by T-1000 and freinds................................. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvb6owE05TM

Cheers Grum.

[Zeitmaschine]

However, those intercepted electrons constitute negative charge which is continually attracted to the cathode via the electric field. Taking this intercepted charge away from the cathode requires work (as much work as was gained), thus no free lunch here.

Then we should find the error(s) in our reasoning, because there are clearly free lunch devices around. Hence the question: Why should we take this intercepted charge away from the cathode? Since more electrons flowing in a circuit means a higher current in that circuit then what happens if we simply keep all the attracted electrons and let them circulate?

For my deeper understanding of electricity: There are two wires, same diameter, one carries 1A the other carries 10A. What's the difference between these two wires? Wikipedia says: »In practical terms, the ampere is a measure of the amount of electric charge passing a point in an electric circuit per unit time with 6.241 × 1018 electrons, or one coulomb per second constituting one ampere.«

So if a given electric power source moves electrons through a wire what could be the difference doing this with a wire that contains fewer electrons (anode) versus a wire that contains a lot more of electrons (cathode)? Could it be that there occurs a difference regarding the electrical resistivity in dependence of the amount of electrons present in a conductor? What is the difference between non-conductive rubber which has no free electrons to form an electric current and conductive copper but this copper has also no free electrons because all its (free) electrons are sucked away by high voltage?

Any further (scientific) thoughts on this?

[sparks]

Actually, all experiments that measure the increase of mass, make these measurements indirectly by observing acceleration (a) and drawing conclusions from it according to Newton's 2nd Law:  a = F / m.

So when an experiment detects an acceleration that diminishes with speed, there are two logical explanations for it:
1) The mass (m) increases with speed.
2) The accelerating force (F) decreases with speed.

Einstein arbitrarily chose the first explanation, completely ignoring the possibility that the electric force might diminish at high speeds approaching c.

Let's make an analogy to a bucket of water that is spun along its major vertical axis with a constant angular speed. 
The angular speed of the bucket symbolizes charge*, and the friction between the walls of the bucket and water symbolizes the electric force.

The water tries to spin with the bucket and accelerates rotationally. At the beginning the acceleration is high, but as the water speeds up the acceleration diminishes.  Einstein meanders near the bucket, looks down and says "Yup, the water appears to gain mass as it speeds up". 
Maybe later a sparky head comes around, looks down and says: "Yup, the force between the bucket and water appears to diminish as the water speeds up". 
Who's more correct?

* In reality it is the speed of light (c).

It appears that the "planetary" model of the atom was abandoned because some folks tell us that an orbiting electron would have to continually be radiating photons because it is in a constant state of acceleration.   Really?  This is where it all went wrong IMHO.  The Earth moves at a constant velocity in an orbital configuration about the Sun.  Are we to believe that the Earth is in a constant state of acceleration.   A virtual observer viewing the orbit along a tangent would observe the illusion that the Earth was in a constant state of velocity changes.   A virtual observer at the poles of the Sun would observe the Earth moving at a constant velocity.  The gravity of the Sun is attracting the mass of the Earth while the Earth has retained enough momentum to move at constant velocity to defy the gravitational force.   Einstein had to go to the extent to appease these fools to profess that massive things distort space/time to get rid of the tangential observations.   The electron in this case is allowed to move at constant velocity in an angular orbit because the tangential observer no longer sees the electron changing velocity he sees a constant velocity through curved space.  The very thought that nature would divest itself of all the infinite examples of gravity versus momentum simply because things are getting smaller and faster is preposterous. 
   I also find the invitro transformation of a neutron into a proton fascinating.  I also find the fusion of two protons within the core of the sun highly unlikely.  What some people are calling fusion may be the invitro transformation of a neutron into a proton.  I find this highly more likely then viewing the Sun as some type of furnace able to accelerate protons to the point that they change their displacement of space.  There is absolutely no reason why a neutron assigned different spins can not occupy the same space as a proton.  The neutron itself distributes a weak magnetic moment.  This would lead to the logical conclusion that an electron inside the proton is still moving creating a current and therefore a magnetic field distortion.  This is why nmr devices need to use such strong magnets.  They get the neutron magnetic moments to respond to the imposed external field.  When an electromagnetic wave is encountered the neutron gets bumped and begins to precess.