Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[Grumage]

Strange sort of free energy 

Morning Hoppy and all.

Hasn't he heard of an extesion lead? 

Cheers Grum.

[Hoppy]

Morning Hoppy and all.

Hasn't he heard of an extesion lead? 

Cheers Grum.

Morning Grum,

Yep, would be a lot easier 

[shiba]

@sparks
It's important to distinguish a bound state from a scattering state. The bound states are  normalizable states in Hilbert space.
The energy spectrum of such state is discrete. Probability of finding a quantum system in a bound state outside a sphere of given radius converges to 0 for sufficiently large radius of the sphere.
Scattering states subspace is orthogonal to the subspace of bound states. Energy spectrum of them is continuous. Scattering states are not normalizable. Probability of finding a quantum system in a scattering state inside a sphere of given radius converges to 0 for large times. Scattering states are asymptotically equal to a free particle states.
For the hydrogen atom you are talking about, first ionization energy, from the ground state to continuum is equal to the 13.6eV
(IE=hcR, where IE - ionization energy, h - Planck constant, c - speed of light).
In an external electric field one has to take into account the Stark effect.

[captainkt]

Hi,could someone please translate a few parts of tungus diagram. looks interesting, after all it is so simple you will laugh . Looks as if only small load from house transformer.

[NoBull]

The bound states are  normalizable states in Hilbert space.

Too many big words for us simple people here.  Nobody will understand you! 
It is more important to be clear than to spew out establishment formalisms without common sense. 
Do you want to be understood or do you want to smart off?  What's more important to you?

The legacy science that you have studied has gone astray and abandoned mechanistic explanations, whatsoever.  That's abhorrent to any engineer.   No wonder you are still looking for the non-existent Higgs boson and using chemical rockets and are surprised that there are ice-caps on Mercury.

What normalizable states?  Normalization is about proportions as far as I know.  What are the quantities participating in those proportions?

Most importantly: How does all of that prove that there is no net energy in an electron cascade inside a spark?

Explain that in mechanistic terms please, involving forces on charges, potentials, momenta, speeds, mass & inertia, euclidean geometry, etc... - not some abstract quantum states, Hilbert spaces and subspaces.

The energy spectrum of such state is discrete.

Energy is the work needed to change sth, e.g. distance, speed, frequency, etc..
What energy are you writing about?

Probability of finding a quantum system in a bound state outside a sphere of given radius converges to 0 for sufficiently large radius of the sphere.

Nobody is interested in finding an abstract quantum system here. People jest want to know if electron's orbital velocity can be converted to electric current.

Scattering states subspace is orthogonal to the subspace of bound states.

What scattering states are you talking about.? You did not even define scattering of what (e.g. Compton, Elastic/Inelastic, Brillouin, Mott, Neutron ,
Raman, Rayleigh, Rutherford, Small-angle, Thomson scattering) and in what situations does that scattering occurs and why should we care about it. Why are you ignoring one type of scattering on not the others?

Energy spectrum of them is continuous.

What are you writing about?  Work that something (what?) can perform on something else (what?) or work that that needs to be done to achieve some change. If it's the latter - what change?

Scattering states are not normalizable.

What of it?  Why do we have to normalize anything to convert electron's orbital motion to electric current?

Probability of finding a quantum system in a scattering state inside a sphere of given radius converges to 0 for large times. Scattering states are asymptotically equal to a free particle states.

Examples, please.  You are not in a place where people speak your jargon.
We want mechanistic explanations - not quantum magic and Ad Hoc assumptions.

In an external electric field one has to take into account the Stark effect.

Why is that relevant?