Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[Zeitmaschine]

Some component values would be a great help though.

C1 should be three times the value (capacitance) of C2. No other values are given.

I don't want to talk about aether, it's useless talk... things are much more simpler, much more...

Then perhaps we should simply talk about gravity and the gravitational field.

Here comes the talk (in shape of advanced physics):

There is a wheel that stands perpendicular to the ground and can rotate freely. There are two weights attached to the rim of the wheel in opposition to each other. This wheel rotates with such a speed that the centrifugal force acting upon the weights is equal to the gravitational force acting upon them. So what happens?

A weight passing the bottom has twice its normal weight, a weight passing the top has no weight at all (like in a roller coaster ride) - gravitation plus centrifugal force at the bottom versus gravitation minus centrifugal force at the top. Hence from the viewpoint of the weights the rotation of the wheel »shakes« the gravitational field. Interestingly »Tariel said that the resonance between two transformers ›shakes‹ the aether«. There is no imbalance of the wheel as a whole so not much force is needed in order to keep it in rotation. It should make no difference whether the wheel rotates in vertical or in horizontal position with respect to the input power needed. But as soon as the wheel is in vertical position then during each rotation (the base frequency) two times (the parametric pump frequency) the conditions of the weights are changed, so there occurs a difference between these weights. Interestingly the TK patent states »there occurs a difference between the bobbins«.

Now the considerations:

a) The alignment of the wheel should not matter (vertical or horizontal) with respect to the input power needed to let the wheel rotate with a certain speed. The input power needed should always be equal to the dissipation caused by the friction of the pivot and the surrounding air.

b) However when the wheel rotates in vertical position then the weight which passes the 12 o'clock position is weightless, the weight passing the 6 o'clock position has its weight doubled, both weights are equal passing the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions. That means in vertical position there is a strain on the structure of the wheel changing constantly its direction during each rotation in respect of the wheel. If the wheel would be made of soft material then one could see the deformation caused by that strain. This is like the Moon orbiting the Earth causing high and low tide. If a force constantly changes its direction then this force can be used to do work (like in a tidal power plant), contrary to a static gravitational field.

Question: Where is this strain (deformation) causing force coming from when the input power that drives the wheel obviously stays always the same independent of the alignment of the wheel in relation to the gravitational field? Is it coming from the gravitational field itself? Or does the input power NOT stay the same?

So maybe with this contemplations (and a little bit of luck) we can combine Kapanadze with Bessler and solve both riddles in one go ... ... and also freeing our minds from limiting patterns.

[sparks]

  When an electron avalanche occurs in a piece of copper wire it is called a kick.  The resultant current gain does not follow the usual IsquaredR drop.  The velocity of the individual electrons  (aka amperage) is gained due to the imposition of an electric field on ionizable electrons.  The orbital momentum of the electrons is converted into vectored momentum.  Electrons passing by point A per second is known as amperage.  Copper with a large amount of "free electrons" is not the best material to ionize. The pre-ionized electrons jumping from neucleus to neucleus dissipates any gains from orbital to vectored conversion.  A good conductor at say 600volts is only a good conductor of a domino effect. The energy of the electrons leaving the end of a wire is way less than the energy of the electrons accelerated at the scource entering the wire.  There is no electron velocity gain from conversion of bound electrons to accelerated vectored electrons due to the electron cloud shielding effect of the bound electrons closer to the neucleus.  An analogy is the asteroid belt.  Fire a meteor into this random grouping of rocks and the original energy invested will amount to alot of rocks flying in multiple directions.  Invest the same amount of energy firing a rock at say the moon.  The moon increases in mass/velocity enough to escape Earth's gravitational field.  Now it goes rougue and smashes into the asteroid belt.  Way more collisions along a predictable path.  Way more asteroids arriving at increased velocities at the target for the same amount of energy invested.

[verpies]

When an electron avalanche occurs in a piece of copper wire it is called a kick.  The resultant current gain does not follow the usual IsquaredR drop.

How do you propose to engineer such an avalanche or a "kick" ?

The resultant current gain does not follow the usual IsquaredR drop.

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"?

The velocity of the individual electrons  (aka amperage) is gained due to the imposition of an electric field on ionizable electrons. 
Electrons passing by point A per second is known as amperage.

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 ?

Invest the same amount of energy firing a rock at say the moon. The moon increases in mass/velocity enough to escape Earth's gravitational field.

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.

[Hoppy]

So maybe with this contemplations (and a little bit of luck) we can combine Kapanadze with Bessler and solve both riddles in one go ... ... and also freeing our minds from limiting patterns.

Have we established yet which elements of Kapanadze we can combine with Bessler?

[Zeitmaschine]

Have we established yet which elements of Kapanadze we can combine with Bessler?

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«.