Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[verpies]

You cannot fool people with heat. Heat is where real power measurement is.

Yes, heat is a pretty good indicator, especially if you take two identical resistive heaters, in the same ambient environment, and supply one with a known DC power and the other with an unknown AC power.
Next, you can compare the heat dissipated by the unknown AC power to the heat dissipated by the known DC power -  most likely by purposely adjusting the DC power until a thermistor indicates that the heat dissipated by it is the same as the heat dissipated by the unknown AC power.
I think HP made a precision wattmeter operating on this principle.

Too bad you had only one heater and relied on your skin to judge the heat instead of a simple thermistor or thermocouple.  The 2kW claim for 4.5h would have been much more credible then.

[yfree]

...
The (phony?) TK coil consists of: One orange cable (to lamps) going in and out, one white cable (bifilar?) connected to ground going in and out, surrounded by a helical coil in series with a spark gap. Maybe there is ferrite or metal of some sort hidden in the core or even not. The point is, this coil is basically a very simple construction. Why then was nobody able to replicate it successfully in years? Because this coil has actually nothing to do with the creation of energy?

Everyone looking at the TK setup thinks the prominent eye-catching coil creates the energy by some (unknown) Tesla (spark) effect and the 50Hz transformer in the background is only there to provide a few volts for the spark generator. In actual fact the 50Hz transformer is responsible for the production of the free energy whereas the whole purpose of the big coil and the spark is to cover up the plain truth.
...

This is the right direction. Stating that the visible coil is not a part of energy generation,  is definitely closer to what McFreey is concluding. To get even closer, you have to still “cross the bridge” and conclude that the transformer in the 2004 video cannot be the part where the energy is generated. For over 100 years, this type of a transformer has never produced any extra energy. Why should it produce energy this time?
The energy is “produced” in the tin box, in the spool-like device, as described by McFreey (see below).  Full details can be found here.
I am wondering, why McFreey's analysis is rejected, without any rationale given, while the proven wrong approaches are perpetuated.  Any thoughts?

[verpies]

I am wondering, why McFreey's analysis is rejected, without any rationale given, while the proven wrong approaches are perpetuated.  Any thoughts?

I think it is rejected because people consider NMR to be something very exotic and difficult to achieve but Kapanadze told them it is very simple and they believe him that it is so.
Also I think people are afraid of the "N" word !

I've got a question to anyone who understands magnetic circuits.
Why do the horizontal arrows get longer further away from the shaft C in this cross-sectional diagram?
...after all the reluctance is greater further away from the shaft.  The increased circumference (and areas) further away from the shaft should serve only to distribute the magnetic flux from the magnet over a wider area leading to smaller flux density (B).

[verpies]

This is the right direction. Stating that the visible coil is not a part of energy generation,

But it might be a part of voltage conversion. See Boost/Buck Converter.

[verpies]

For over 100 years, this type of a transformer has never produced any extra energy

Maybe it did, but it destroyed itself in the process.
Wouldn't it be something if the destructive Ferroresonance had its origin in NMR all along?