Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[Khwartz]

But here we go again: Are there any takers that are willing to define Aether and its properties to me without falling in conflict with empirical observations?

See Dirac plenum theory and others I will try to find back, but for me, still EM waves without any substract (what ever we call it: "ZEP", eather, "plenum", etc.), makes much more sense than "waves of nothing" ("vacuum").

[verpies]

Not sure dear Verpies that the Aether concept has failed,

IMO the old Aether concept as a fluid that fills space has failed.

there are coherent complete theories in physics equivalent to the old Aether concept, and as I have already noticed,

Yes, there are but they are not equivalent to 19th century Aether concept.
We need to be careful with the word "Aether" because there is not a universally agreed-on set of Aether's properties.
It's much better to explicitly define its properties and verify them with the empirical reality, rather than argue about the word itself.

Dirac himself, when speaking of his plenum were speaking a full energy "vaccum" but where the different energies (instabilities of potential differences) are all balanced, so why we call it ZERO Point Energy.

Dirac is a famous guy but he does not have the respect of my mind.  As a counterpoise I will quote Mathis:

A vacuum is supposed to have no parameters and no qualities, by definition. If we are going to give the vacuum qualities, we might as well flip our terminology and start calling the vacuum matter and matter the vacuum. Matter is supposed to be something and the vacuum is supposed to be nothing. But it is now the fashion for both the Standard Model and new theories to assign characteristics to the vacuum instead of to matter. This is nothing short of perverse.
...
Free space is free space. It is space, and it is free. It it were permeable or permittive, it would be neither. Only when you refuse to assign parameters to other factors does free space begin to take on characteristics. Only when you refuse to make sense about matter, does your space also refuse to make sense.

And personally, to conceive waves in an supposed "nothing support" is just a big nonsense, but it is just an opinion

That's sound thinking, but you are tacitly assuming that waves in vacuum/space or Aether are needed to explain light, photons, or RF EM.

You appear to be still stuck in the infantile paradigm that we are like fish stuck in a 3D aquarium (space) and clocked by an ever advancing 1D river of time. 
If I thought that, light propagating through an empty space (nothingness) would also be a preposterous idea to me.

[a.king21]

Thanks for these data! So, how can we get "negative resistance", if not indeed an active dipole? :/

I someone knows how Don Could do that?

Radiant energy produces negative resistance, under certain conditions.


This info from Verpies actually has helped me a lot.
Nice one Verpies.


You can find out about negative resistance here:
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/electromagnetic.pdf

[Zeitmaschine]

I agree with Mathis about a lot of stuff, including much of his mainstream science bashing, but not with everything.
Free Energy is not his focus but an in-depth understanding of the "wheelwork of the universe'.

Incidentally there are concepts "between the lines' of his many articles that can help our cause, but you will have to find them yourself

The most interesting part comes at 37:10. A charge placed within a Faraday cage charges the inside surface with the opposite sign to the outside surface. Thus shouldn't there be an electric current flowing if a wire connects the inside with the outside? And what if the charge inside the cage is the Earth's electric field previously caught in that cage?

This concept could be either right or wrong, there is not much between ...

[Khwartz]

IMO the old Aether concept as a fluid that fills space has failed.

I came to the SAME conclusion too! Nevertheless...

Yes, there are but they are not equivalent to 19th century Aether concept.

Indeed! BUT they keep the idea that EM waves could be propagations of changes of energetical potential with specific caracteristics which make RF or light and so on.

We need to be careful with the word "Aether" because there is not a universally agreed-on set of Aether's properties.

Very agree with you!

It's much better to explicitly define its properties and verify them with the empirical reality, rather than argue about the word itself.

That what Maurice Allais have done by checking the Miller's experiment and the checking of the Lorentz's symetry: all what said "Einstein's theories" explain looks been explained with the concept of a substrat of infinitesimal step to step changes of energetic potentials. In this page you will find (but you probably know ) a extention of the Standard Model doing so, explaining indirectly the Allais's anomalus gravitational effect when eclips occur that contradict Lorentz symetry and so Einstein's vacuum emptyness theory.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard-Model_Extension

But of course, the point of view I defend is in an opposition with near only corpuscular point of view for the light. If light is seen as a pack of waves ("waves" => parterns of changes in the susbrat), it makes more sens having of course this substrat. If only corpuscular, so we reasonning with particles through an empty space, that I well understand. But about me, I just bent on the pure waves of changes of potentials (exitations) in a substract. Then, PARTICLES are CONCENTRATED REPETITIVE CLOSED PARTERNS OF CHANGES IN A LOCAL AERA AROUND AN AVERAGE POINT, THE CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THE SAID PARTICULE. Then MATTER is only an CONCATENATION OF PARTICLES WHERE FLOWS OF "ENERGY" (UNCLOSED PARTERNS OF CHANGES GOING TO A POINT OF THE SUBSTRAT TO AN OTHER) GLUE THE WHOLE THING.

Dirac is a famous guy but he does not have the respect of my mind.

May I know why?

As a counterpoise I will quote Mathis:That's sound thinking, but you are assuming that waves in vacuum/space or Aether are needed to explain light, photons, or RF EM.

No! I know other models can and are used with much effectiveness! But it doesn't mean that we can not do better with the "substantial" viewpoint I have chosen to follow.

You appear to be still stuck in the infantile paradigm that we are like fish stuck in a 3D aquarium (space) and clocked by an ever advancing 1D river of time. 

The ONLY infantile is The One who treat others of infantile and can not accept others to have others point of view! I am very sad to see you could have gone so low!

If I thought that, light propagating through an empty space (nothingness) would also be a preposterous idea to me.

I can understand and accept this idea, especially if you see photons as pure particles, but interferometers show since long they are not pure solid particuless but have waves aspects in their inner structure; so the question is: "Waves of what?", "Changes of what?" in the space if the space has nothing inside?