Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[forest]

Electrons exist as particles in vacuum, while everywhere else they are waves, more or less. They are also small gyroscopic whirls being magnetic dipoles also. That way you can connect all theories together...

[jbignes5]

Those are just unsubstantiated words. It seems that you are ignoring experimental evidence to suit your preconceptions.
Beta particle tracks can be seen in the Cloud Chamber.  A "field" does not leave tracks behind. 
Here are videos of experimental proofs of beta decay: video1,  video2,  video3,  video4.

Also, you can educate yourself about the deflection of beta particles by a magnetic field in this video and this video
Again, you are ignoring experimental evidence to suit your preconceptions again.
Electron beams can exist in vacuum in absence of matter.  Electrons are invisible until they hit matter. 
For example see the Cathode Rays and the CRT for proof.  Here is the relevant video.
You are wrong again.
An electric field is incapable of casting a sharp shadow like the one in the Crookes Tube.  Electric field is diffuse (see the inverse square relationship between charges and distance, e.g. Coulomb's Law).
However a beam of particles can cast a sharp shadow. Here is the relevant video.

Also, without a beam of electrons the electron microscope could not function and produce sharp images at those magnifications.
Very well.
Extremely short attosecond laser pulses can illuminate electrons in motion and they have been photographed.  Here is the relevant video and relevant paper.

Also, the behavior of electron beams in a CRT or Crookes Tube is exactly the same as the electrons emitted from beta decay.
For example, in the following videos you can see the same bending of electron trajectories by electric and magnetic fields. 
See electron beams and thieir deflection in magnetic field in video1 and video2 and video3 and video4
That looks like a personal attack.  Are you running out evidence to support your beliefs?


@ALL
I am new here and I don't know this guy, so I've got some questions.
Q1 - Is it Jbignes5's habit to resort to personal attacks when he runs out of arguments ?
Q2 - Does Jbignes5 do any experiments to confirm his beliefs ?
Q3 - Does Jbignes5 consider experimental evidence of others scientists besides Tesla and Tesla followers ?

It is you who is ignoring experimental evidence. The doer was Tesla, the experimenter was Tesla in this area.


The electric field is actually lines, a field of lines, hence why it is called longitudinal.


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 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.


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. Refer to the Ionosphere and you will see the evidence of what that shell is.


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.


I know all about tubes and TV tubes. They are not based in reality on electrons but minute lines that excite the phosphor and yes these lines can be controlled by intensifying coils. The magnetic field is actually a byproduct and is very wasteful. This is why most yokes are made out of a magnetic material to keep the waste to a minimum.


Q1 Answer: 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.


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.


Q3 Answer: Yes I do accept others experiments but there is nothing to the contrary that TK or Tesla has done experimentally. Again I will refer you to the video where TK says these are Tesla's methods that he is replicating. I will always go to the source instead of listening to conjecture from unrelated experiments. How many times do we have to go over these facts. TK said these are methods used and experimented with by TESLA. I would rather listen to TK from whence he got this information and not someone else who says to the contrary. TK's own words are enough for me to believe where he got the information.


Cling to your antiquated theories that have never been proven other then by the math that supports it. All of the evidence is pretty much made up. Even the word electron is made up, there is zero evidence it actually exists.


Why does this feel like this is yet another Verpies account?


So did you go back and look at my examples of the methods I posted way back.


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. The problem is resonance was not used. A pretty random excitation field was used and hence a low output. I thought that if the excitation was in resonance with the capacitors matter of the plates it would have worked a lot better in the output. But as usual Itsu got distracted from the premise and went another direction.


In fact I am starting experiments very soon that utilize the excitation field to create an oscillatory effect in a coil through the field effect. This is static induction that is responsible. It should create a sloshing back and forth of the charges bound in the matter of the coil to create an AC response for output.


I have another experiment that I will be doing with the bifilar pancake coil in stacks that will suck up the voltage of the field into the increased capacitance of the bifilar coil and this should increase the magnetic channeling or response to this voltage injection. There is a great many experiments showing how inductive response to a normal flat coil gives an increase to the power output. JLN has started this in experiments that are going really well. The output seems to be magnified.


If anyone is interested, our views are changing about matter and the Universe. The electric theory is advancing and the magnetic theory is getting pushed to the wayside. The electric theory has more weight to it then the magnetic theory. This is because the electric theory explains matter and the Universe in a much easier way. 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.


If one denies the electric field you are denying everything. The medium is responsible for this electric field. It is voltage responsive and hence creates the play field for the magnetic field and all effects after the voltage field is established. When it was established is the question. I am leaning towards the creation of our space. As matter formed it bound charges inside of it. This bound charges are actually compressed medium or compressed lines of electric force. The matter is statically attracted to these compressed lines. I once proposed that the matter is just flakes that lay around the charges. The charges are always moving like a ball of worms and this moves the matter flakes to cause a pulsing flow or resonant frequency to that pulsing flow. So the charges circulate and become dynamic. This means you can inject more charge into the matter which puffs it up and after a certain amount of additional charge is added it phase changes into a free flowing or liquid state. 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. 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.

Example shown below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cu-Scheibe.JPG

Lets try aluminum next:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aluminium_bar_surface_etched.jpg

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.

[Hoppy]

It is you who is ignoring experimental evidence. The doer was Tesla, the experimenter was Tesla in this area.


The electric field is actually lines, a field of lines, hence why it is called longitudinal.


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 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.


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. Refer to the Ionosphere and you will see the evidence of what that shell is.


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.


I know all about tubes and TV tubes. They are not based in reality on electrons but minute lines that excite the phosphor and yes these lines can be controlled by intensifying coils. The magnetic field is actually a byproduct and is very wasteful. This is why most yokes are made out of a magnetic material to keep the waste to a minimum.


Q1 Answer: 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.


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.


Q3 Answer: Yes I do accept others experiments but there is nothing to the contrary that TK or Tesla has done experimentally. Again I will refer you to the video where TK says these are Tesla's methods that he is replicating. I will always go to the source instead of listening to conjecture from unrelated experiments. How many times do we have to go over these facts. TK said these are methods used and experimented with by TESLA. I would rather listen to TK from whence he got this information and not someone else who says to the contrary. TK's own words are enough for me to believe where he got the information.


Cling to your antiquated theories that have never been proven other then by the math that supports it. All of the evidence is pretty much made up. Even the word electron is made up, there is zero evidence it actually exists.


Why does this feel like this is yet another Verpies account?


So did you go back and look at my examples of the methods I posted way back.


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. The problem is resonance was not used. A pretty random excitation field was used and hence a low output. I thought that if the excitation was in resonance with the capacitors matter of the plates it would have worked a lot better in the output. But as usual Itsu got distracted from the premise and went another direction.


In fact I am starting experiments very soon that utilize the excitation field to create an oscillatory effect in a coil through the field effect. This is static induction that is responsible. It should create a sloshing back and forth of the charges bound in the matter of the coil to create an AC response for output.


I have another experiment that I will be doing with the bifilar pancake coil in stacks that will suck up the voltage of the field into the increased capacitance of the bifilar coil and this should increase the magnetic channeling or response to this voltage injection. There is a great many experiments showing how inductive response to a normal flat coil gives an increase to the power output. JLN has started this in experiments that are going really well. The output seems to be magnified.


If anyone is interested, our views are changing about matter and the Universe. The electric theory is advancing and the magnetic theory is getting pushed to the wayside. The electric theory has more weight to it then the magnetic theory. This is because the electric theory explains matter and the Universe in a much easier way. 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.


If one denies the electric field you are denying everything. The medium is responsible for this electric field. It is voltage responsive and hence creates the play field for the magnetic field and all effects after the voltage field is established. When it was established is the question. I am leaning towards the creation of our space. As matter formed it bound charges inside of it. This bound charges are actually compressed medium or compressed lines of electric force. The matter is statically attracted to these compressed lines. I once proposed that the matter is just flakes that lay around the charges. The charges are always moving like a ball of worms and this moves the matter flakes to cause a pulsing flow or resonant frequency to that pulsing flow. So the charges circulate and become dynamic. This means you can inject more charge into the matter which puffs it up and after a certain amount of additional charge is added it phase changes into a free flowing or liquid state. 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. 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.
Example shown below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cu-Scheibe.JPG

Can we expect some even more lengthy posts when you do start experimenting 

[jbignes5]

 What is the matter with me being very very clear about this process. Do we want to learn where we went wrong or not?


I guess reading isn't most people's forte or otherwise misunderstandings would not happen. This is what I think is another of our (free energy researchers) problems. Reading helps us to understand these processes and hence why most just don't get it.


I happen to like reading and is the main reason I have learned so much of this field.

Why did you feel the need to repost my post?

Oh wait Verpies has me on his ad reject list so you reposted it for him to see?? I knew you and him were buddies.

If you must know I am not going to be posting my experiments in this thread. I will be requesting my own moderated thread and I will be posting there about TESLA experiments and TK replications of those experiments. I think most here are tired of all the BS being thrown around and I for one need a concentrated thread based on the topic. I don't need guys like Verpies and his many alts or his buddies spreading the religious like theories of Einstein and the likes! Don't get me wrong I am very open to other ideas but I will not be treated like some treat me and others who have real experiments to do and ideas to share.

[Hoppy]

What is the matter with me being very very clear about this process. Do we want to learn where we went wrong or not?


I guess reading isn't most people's forte or otherwise misunderstandings would not happen. This is what I think is another of our (free energy researchers) problems. Reading helps us to understand these processes and hence why most just don't get it.


I happen to like reading and is the main reason I have learned so much of this field.

Why did you feel the need to repost my post?

Oh wait Verpies has me on his ad reject list so you reposted it for him to see?? I knew you and him were buddies.

You reject main stream physics and then expect everyone to accept you as the word of truth. If you want to earn some respect from others, then start experimenting yourself to test your own theories and most importantly stop repeatedly telling us that we are all looking at things incorrectly! You have already overstated your theories and made your point!!