Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

[verpies]

Have you built a hairpin before? Obviously not.

You answer your own questions.

You are correct - I have not built a hairpin since I always kept my hair short and I never needed it.
I have never built the circuit depicted here either, but I pulsed a shorted coaxial cable (a transmission line) and observed standing waves in it.

You are the one left with conjecture. Knowledge is experience.

I am somewhat dim because my parents fed me this fluoridated water in childhood.  Nonetheless I still managed to learn how to read and write and I 'd like to capitalize on this achievement by asking the heavens (in writing):
What is unconventional about the circuit depicted here  and what conclusions can be drawn from observing its behavior ?

[Zeitmaschine]

Would you want someone completely devoid of logic and integrity to have the power of the universe in their hands?

Not me. My attitude is if you are not smart enough to figure it out, you are not smart enough to play with it.

So, and what makes you think that someone »completely devoid of logic and integrity« is not smart enough to figure out how to get the power of the universe in his hands?

How long should this shit ... er ... game of secrecy continue?

Will tell you: At the utmost till I have figured it out. Then the game is over.

As stated before - You need to pull a void in the universe (arc) so it will slap back together with the same vacuum energy of gravity. THEN you create a usable amount of displacement current with will bounce the ball down the field (wire) without all that nasty friction of constant contact with the surface of the wire/field.

Any idea how many voids I have pulled in the universe (by means of a spark gap) in the last few months? To no avail. Maybe I'm in a wrong universe.

And maybe TK is in a wrong universe too, because at 20:20 of Kapanadze 28th April 2004 full version free energy device the spark gap fails but nevertheless the lamps are lit. Strange universe, isn't it?

[wattsup]

@TheBuzz

Your little drawing means nothing to me because you take all those instances as fact without proof. And then you want to feed it to us as fact. More then fact. An absolute certitude. A Godly revelation. I don't care how you dress it up. If the load is not is series then it is ultimately to produce a coupling and if you don't know what that is, then to bad.

So let's humor you a little about your drawing.

1) Where it says Voltage Vacuum. How did you prove that there is a voltage vacuum?
2) Where you say Ground Current. How did you prove there is a ground current?
3) Where you show the two way arrows pointing to each other. How did you prove they are in two directions?
4) Where you show the + and -, so how is this applicable to TK AC driven load?
5) Where you show two way arrows on the top and bottom. How did you prove this is in two directions?

Seems to me the vacuum you talk about would pull from the wire so you are actually looking at it in reverse when you say "vacuum". You can only have a vacuum when there is nothing entering, otherwise it is simple throughput not vacuum. So the + cannot be a vacuum. If it was vacuum and it was pulling the -, then how does the + enter as well in the other direction? So maybe there is a vacuum on the negative side as well to make your story complete. It does not make sense and you have no proof.

The only thing that is right about that drawing is the Wattups pointing to the thumbs down side. Thanks for that.

There is one thing to respectfully provide a theory, since you have no proof. There is another thing to state your cold hard facts while yelping about like a cheap shoot'in chicken.

Yes I am stupid all right. So stupid that I don't buy your lingo rattling. So you can now admit this is a THEORY and then we can all sit down and discuss it like adults normally do and not like we are your damn punchbags. Then you can point to the device and show where this fits "exactly" and with what components that can physically fit inside a tin can. That's why we are here  - specifics. The time for theories without specifics is over.

We have not come all this way to be screwed up each time we start moving in a good direction on the builds, asking the right questions to be only diverted again by your miraculous and sudden entrance. So if you say this applies to all devices, then why are you concentrating on this thread? Hmmmmmm. Why not open your own thread? Why not discuss this about another device?. WHY THIS THREAD?? Of all the places in the universe, why this thread? Why not apply to MIT? I am sure they would be glad to open up a Pissing in Heaven Department. These are the questions to ask???

Your attitude to others is your own decline and probably has been long engrained so I guess nothing will change that. But I will not sit around and be screwed over by a big mouth. NOT ANYMORE. About your persona of TheBuzz pissing in heaven............. Simply sick and very revealing. You can't be yourself so you invent this grand illusion. I would equate it to The Buzzard of Oz. And we all know who stood behind that curtain.

wattsup

PS: Now where the hell were we before all this crap started blowing us to hell. Oh yeh, we were discussing about the TKc topology logic and the limited alternatives it displays. Funny once I mentioned using the two transistors to pulse the TKc from both ends, all hell broke loose. Dammit.

[a.king21]

wattsup:   So radiant energy is difficult to contain.
So you need to insulate with:
epoxy resin,
polythene,
plexi glass,
polystyrene,
etc.
Oh and you also need a great earth, the wetter the better.

[verpies]

1) Where it says Voltage Vacuum. How did you prove that there is a voltage vacuum?

What is a "Voltage Vacuum" in the first place?
Maybe this means an absence of voltage.

Then we need to consider what is "voltage" and how it's measured.

As far as I know "voltage" is always measured between two points in space.
Wise books state that "voltage" is a difference between two electric potentials occurring at two different points.

If that definition of "voltage" is correct then it is impossible to measure voltage at only one point in space.
In that context, an absence of voltage or "voltage vacuum" would mean a uniform electric field (without any gradients).

P.S.
Presto! This way this thread is deftly derailed from the engineering details of the Kapanadze devices into abstract theoretical divagations.