Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[Pirate88179]

Griz, you have to de-bunk some things in order to proceed.

One wire electricity... what about that? You think it has anything special (in the free energy context of course) than ordinary except the fact that propages single wire?
Its vast potential is that it can trasmit power via the ground (as the ground is a conductor) that Tesla has been striving to do without the need of any infrastructure or return wire.

..
I am to contemplate thoughts on previous Xeno sayings. Too many people here that are years in this field of research say again and again parrot-like the same concepts even though they have been extensively tested in myriad setups and found underunity at all times. (example Bedini's SSG one of the widest replicated contraptions)

Lets talk about Tesla's LC electrical resonant setups. There is not a formal claim of this great Inventor that succeeded to make any surpluss watt (even tried to do so admittedly).
Resonance has been utilized more than our toilets! No OU ever reported or observed in that (and confirmed in replication).

And so many others...

Perhaps we should focus on things that have some potential rather than re-circulating old theories and concepts.

Underunity at all times?  I have never heard of anyone showing my, or anyone's EER set-up to be underunity...ever.  Input=0.  Output=1.9 vdc @19mA's.  Interestingly enough, this is all from ground, both the plus and minus parts of the circuit are grounded with electrodes in the ground at specific alignments.

And, speaking of Bedini, I have run a Bedini motor from it as well.

Anyway, just thought I would pass this along.

Bill

[forest]

This is very much incorrect.

This is not a small divergence by any means. At 1 radius from the source, the gain is square of the input.

You can gain cube of the input and so on, though builds become very very tedious in paying attention to detail. For example, say you have 256 units from source, move away 2 radius, and the pick up feels 16 units, which according to lenz law must return the 16 units, a distance of 2 radii, which means you must cut by a factor of four twice (inverse squared law) leaving the source diminished by 1 unit. You have now created 16 units, for the price of 1.

Don Smith alluded to these concepts, but fleshed NOTHING out, I have spoken to Dr Lindemann in person on this topic, and can assure you, you don't need to go looking to obscure references, go with the math, go with the equations that are tried and true, and see how our tools are correct, but our theories are not.

imagine that : your circuit and Lenz law. there is source but then Lenz law return and there is no source 
hello!!! source !! where are you ? 
distance ?  hello !! what distance ? ask yourself why is distance so important in your implementation ? what distance do ?

[armagdn03]

I understand you,it's really simple and math prove that but you are still operating with VAR .
However "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

Perhaps you missunderstand the process. The transmitter is operating with VAR, any loading on it constitutes REAL power, not VAR. A drop in real power will show up as a decrease in Q, and also show up as a decrease in Peak to Peak voltage. This is directly subtracted from the source. For example, if you only had the transmitter and noticed that it took 10ma at 12 volts at resonance, then you placed your hand near the coil, acting as a load, you would notice the energy drop in the P to P voltage, and you would notice the input power requirements go up, perhaps to 20 or 30ma at 12volts.

Therefore we are using (for illustration only) 10ma, at 12 volts, which is the REAL power taken to run the transmitter, if we load it with a pick up coil, it will increase, but as the math and practice shows, not proportionally.

Also note, the pick up coil / globe, etc... will output real power, not VAR. you have real power in, and real power out, in a 1:4 ratio at 1 radius.  The VAR is inbetween, and necessary, but is not what we are concerned with when doing power calculations

I have never seen anybody else succeede at this, because ALL attemtps I have seen have been built incorrectly, even my demo is not what it should be due to interwinding capacitance and use of electric instead of magnetic fields

[armagdn03]

imagine that : your circuit and Lenz law. there is source but then Lenz law return and there is no source 
hello!!! source !! where are you ? 
distance ?  hello !! what distance ? ask yourself why is distance so important in your implementation ? what distance do ?

First of all, I have not substituted math for reality, I have worked to have one validate the other, and have shown both theory, math AND practice

The test results empirically validate the theory. If you have questions or something valuable to add, please do so, this is detraction through vague statements with no explanation, this is not wanted or necessary. I have no idea what you mean by no source, and I have asked myself why distance is so important (inverse squared law), this has been explained thoroughly if you take the time to read through the threads posted.

[allcanadian]

@Forest

I understand you,it's really simple and math prove that but you are still operating with VAR .
However "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

Do you think that Tesla did not utilize mathematics and equations? In fact he performed all these calculations in his mind and applied them to the devices he also perfected in his mind as he has categorically stated on many occasions. Now ask yourself how you can hope to understand what Tesla was speaking of when you cannot or will not even perform the simple and necessary calculations on paper?. As well, you have taken Tesla's words completely out of context, he was referring to Einsteins General Relativity in the statement you quoted.
Now tell me what are VAR's?, I know this word seems to roll off the tongue of many a common electrician as if they would know what it is but what is it really? I would really like to here your explanation of VAR's as it relates to what Armagdn03 is referring to.
Regards
AC