Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[jbignes5]

Ok here is one of the biggest Tesla coils ever. This is very huge on the order of 70-90 feet 1 turn. The fence around the coils. I would say they are wire but Tesla was known to use plasma tubes as well. He even shows this... When we look at the system from another angle you can see all of the parts of the oscillator in the second picture. The wire looks to be twisted from this angle.

[yfree]

Do you think the posters on this forum are in a deadlock?  What is the advantage of the physics based approach over what we have now?

Why do you agree with William J. McFreey that cyclotron orbit established via Lorentz deflection can be maintained in a solid object? 
Is it possible for fast moving charged particles to exist in solid objects, in which the space between densly packed nuclei (see Bremsstrahlung loss) is filled with dense electron clouds (see Møller scattering)?
Can the multiplication of fast moving charged particles occur in a solid object?
Do you think that Beta decay really can be stimulated in a solid object by NMR?

I think you answered the first question multiple times on this forum, yourself.
Without proper measurement of  Pout/Pin or self powering, the "overunity" claims are not justified.
Being a physicist myself, physics based approach has this uncanny appeal that I cannot resist. I like to know how things work, rather than guess from a fuzzy video where the wires are connected.
My answer to your other questions is yes. Things may not be exactly as most people would think, though. For instance, McFreey is using a term "cyclotron-like" and not just cyclotron.
I understand, McFreey's writings are still being updated, I noticed at least two of them, recently.

[jbignes5]

I think you answered the first question multiple times on this forum, yourself.
Without proper measurement of  Pout/Pin or self powering, the "overunity" claims are not justified.
Being a physicist myself, physics based approach has this uncanny appeal that I cannot resist. I like to know how things work, rather than guess from a fuzzy video where the wires are connected.
My answer to your other questions is yes. Things may not be exactly as most people would think, though. For instance, McFreey is using a term "cyclotron-like" and not just cyclotron.
I understand, McFreey's writings are still being updated, I noticed at least two of them, recently.

A measurement of Pout vs Pin has nothing to do with the true values. The only thing that matters now most is doing it with highest efficiency. Being able to transmit near 100% of power to the load,directly into the load is the major problem. It would appear there is a huge gain but actually is just the stream we create. Anything sucked along in the process is over unity then.


Physics is a funny thing. It's all observations and then descriptions or the prevailing theories of the process. When they look into another scale things seem to fall apart theory wise. This is because they are not facts but theory. Even my theory is not fact.. Well yet... Thats what observation and experimentation is for. But our physics are by no means fact.. If it was then it would be a law and none would be so bold to declare their theory law without proper verification. Well Newton tried. Just because you can predict something over and over does not mean you know the actual mechanism that runs it all especially when it is invisible to our eyes.


A guess is all that we have available and that means theories. The best theory is one that includes every form of transfer in the known universe. Across distances so great it boggles the mind. These are subtle forces with great inertia because it is over a vast distance. But we do have clues and most point to lines of force or potential. These lines are the strongest form of anything in this Universe. It connects us through vast networks of energy flows.


I just happen to get a physics book from my local university. I will reprint the relevant section here but I have to locate the pictures it uses in the book.

[jbignes5]

 A sense of scale: Significant Figures, Scientific Notation, and Units


Physics attempts to explain the natural world, from the very small to the exceedingly large. And in order to understand our world, we need to be able to measure quantities both minuscule and enormous. A properly reported measurement has 3 elements. First, we can measure our quantity with only certain precision. To make this precision clear, we need to make sure that wee report our measurement with the correct number of significant figures.
Secondly, writing down the really big and small numbers that often come up in physucs can be awkward. To ovoid writing all those zeros, scientists use scientific notation to express numbers both big and small.
Finally, we need to choose an agreed-upon set of units for the quantity. For speed, common units include meters per second and miles per hour. For mass, the kilogram is the most common used unit. Every physical quantity that we can measure has an associated set of units.


On the right of that setup of text are two pictures. The first is the universe that has been simulated as of late.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74IsySs3RGU


This would be comparable above.


The next pixture is quite telling of the fractal nature of things. This picture is of the Cortical nerve cells. And this is the kicker they are exactly the same in the pattern of growth. The only difference is the scale of which we are viewing them.

[verpies]

A measurement of Pout vs Pin has nothing to do with the true values.

Do you mean the true value of P_OUT and P_IN or the true value of some other quantity ?
If it is the former then do you believe that it is impossible to measure P_IN and P_OUT ?

The only thing that matters now most is doing it with highest efficiency.

And how do you express "efficiency" if not by P_OUT / P_IN ?