Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[wattsup]

I said this a few times but will say it again,. The OU is happening inside the green box. TK already said it flat out. The TK coil was used to condition the output for the bulbs. The only conditioning possible for those gauged wires, with those amount of turns, with all that wire insulation in between those wires is simply a single coil. The top layer had fewer winds because he wound that top layer complete to start with then removed one wind at a time while the device was working in order to tune the coil to the best available output for the bulbs.

When the guy measured output, there was always a load on the device, being the bulbs.

Remember the SM devices where the engineer report said unloaded the device put out x volts and under load the device read y volts, y being always lower. This may be the same thing for TKs device. It could have been outputting 2000 vpp but once the load was applied, that drops to an rms value around 300 volts. THE BULBS DON'T REALLY GIVE A HOOT, as long as the RMS value is high enough when the load is applied.

wattsup

[dllabarre]

I said this a few times but will say it again,. The OU is happening inside the green box. TK already said it flat out. The TK coil was used to condition the output for the bulbs. The only conditioning possible for those gauged wires, with those amount of turns, with all that wire insulation in between those wires is simply a single coil.

wattsup

So you are stating with certainty that the coil we see is not a Tesla three coil Magnifier (primary coil, secondary coil and "extra" 3rd coil)?

Then we are still stuck on the question of the year or decade: "What's in the green box?"

DonL

[forest]

I said this a few times but will say it again,. The OU is happening inside the green box. TK already said it flat out. The TK coil was used to condition the output for the bulbs. The only conditioning possible for those gauged wires, with those amount of turns, with all that wire insulation in between those wires is simply a single coil. The top layer had fewer winds because he wound that top layer complete to start with then removed one wind at a time while the device was working in order to tune the coil to the best available output for the bulbs.

When the guy measured output, there was always a load on the device, being the bulbs.

Remember the SM devices where the engineer report said unloaded the device put out x volts and under load the device read y volts, y being always lower. This may be the same thing for TKs device. It could have been outputting 2000 vpp but once the load was applied, that drops to an rms value around 300 volts. THE BULBS DON'T REALLY GIVE A HOOT, as long as the RMS value is high enough when the load is applied.

wattsup

Agreed. But the possible close replication from user SR193 indicate another possibilities to vibrate such coil.
At the end I think that the most basic phenomena is simply "keep the resonance" in unconnected, not-influenced by Lenz law RLC circuit, no matter how it is "vibrated" : electrically, magnetically or by radiation. Exactly what Tariel stated : he found a way to automatically adjust resonance between primary and secondary when secondary is acting independently from primary while primary is cumulating energy in secondary without Lenz law (and with probably exponential feedback)

[WilbyInebriated]

It is not what I said. Yes he is incorrect but there are other ways than a "direct measurement" to prove that Einstein is right with E=MC².

yes, that is what you said. i can quote you and rub your face in it if you would like. regarding your "other ways"... such evidences are not proof. learn what a proof is. 

Your pseudo-argument denies the fact that math is just common sense coming from logic and put in its ultimate form. You forget that Maxwell discovered the EM waves before Hertz showed them experimentally. You ignore what is knowledge.

your red herring response ignores the fact that we are not discussing electromagnetic waves, we are discussing the mass of magnetic fields... i don't "forget" nor "ignore", i simply find it distasteful when you assume, deduct and calculate, and then attempt to convince me that such is proof. it is not.

For example, the light from stars is deviated by the sun when the rays are passing near its gravity field. This can be observed during solar eclipses.
Light is just a propagating EM field. If electric and magnetic fields are deviated, it is due to their energy acting as a mass "falling" in the sun gravity field. So we can deduce that the energy of a magnetic or electric field has a mass equivalent to E/C². And from the energy density of an electric field (E²*ε0/2) or magnetic field (B²/(2*µ0)), you can calculate the deviation of light from stars by the sun and verify it is according to the observations. This has been done.

and as you said, such things are calculations and deductions... none of which constitute a direct measurement. furthermore, relativity still has outstanding refutations that have never been reconciled. see c.l. poor. 

If you don't accept proofs coming from observations through logic and reasoning, with math formalization to avoid fuzzy layman terms, you can no more speak about electron (does your voltmeter measure the voltage of an electron?), you can't speak about atoms (did you weight one?), about "field" (did you see it?) and so on. You can no more do science, but only invoke the forces of Nature as did it prehistoric men.

as i said before, you don't really get what a proof is... show me something other than assumptions, deductions and calculations.

[Omnibus]

Calculations, theory, hypotheses, conjectures and so forth are OK. These are all parts of the scientific method.

The travesty of science called Einstein's "theory" of relativity has absolutely nothing to do with these or any other elements, methods, approaches etc. let alone logic connected with science. It is absolutely not true and is an outright lie that the nonsense called Einstein's "theory" of relativity has had or can ever have any experimental confirmation whatsoever. That nasty lie (the lie that the said "theory" has been experimentally confirmed) has been repeated for over a century in the same manner Goebels was instilling his "truths" during the Nazi times of Germany -- repeat a lie a 100 times and it becomes a truth. Any person in his right mind should confront such approach to truth vehemently and should do anything possible to fight it.

In particular, again, it is absolutely not true that Einstein has anything to do with E = mc^2 or that his "theory" can derive that relationship. It can't and this fact should become widely known if we are to preserve the integrity of our society.