No, the slingshot gravity assist manouver around a planet does not work if the planet is not moving.  If it is moving, then the linear momentum gained by the spaceship is equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet. 
Just like bouncing a ball off of a moving train.

  The spacecraft upon approaching the planet in question goes into an orbital manuever where it spirals closer and closer to the surface of the planet.  It increases it's angular momentum and fires a propellant to leave the planet in question tangentially with increased velocity than when it started the orbital manuever.  This tangential exit from the orbit occurs when the tangent is aligned with the next space dimple the spacecraft uses to move along inside the Solarsphere.  The voyager spacecraft is having all sorts of problems in the heliopause as it is losing momentum for some purported unknown reason.  They know exactly why it is slowing down.  Interstellar space is full of plasma and these guys at Nasa know it but continue to play the fools.   I also suggest that space is teeming with lifeforms.  Some of them intelligent and some of them as dumb as a 2 by 4.  You got these lifeforms showing up all the time especially near lightning storms where by god a whole shitload of edible plasma becomes available to these critters.  You have them floating around in the plasmasphere and these unidentified lifeforms don't have to come from lightyears away goldilocks solar systems.  They are the watchers who have watched us carbon critters kill each other off for eons.  They study us because most lifeforms value life unlike the physcopaths we find amongst our lifeforms.

@Neo-X

you not alone, keep trying just like anybody else..

I'll take it was exactly how it was designed to be using those types of diodes. Metal it is assumed.

So maybe metal gives Free Energy but bakelite does not.

Anyway the easiest (but not necessarily the truest) match for the TK diodes would be a KD203A.

Hence according to the symbol printed on the diode there is a mistake in my latest (previous) drawing. Plus and minus should be reversed. (Otherwise it will produce negative Free Energy at best )

To get even closer, you have to still “cross the bridge” and conclude that the transformer in the 2004 video cannot be the part where the energy is generated.

Even if the transformer is not the part where the energy is generated, then nevertheless it can be still an essential part that is needed to generate the energy somewhere else. TK talks about »keeping resonance between coils«, now if we can rule out the big coil for that (it is most likely a distraction) then the only remaining part with coils that could keep resonance is this transformer, because there is no room in the tin can for a transformer (or coils) even more heavier (with thicker wire) than this transformer. In addition Kapanadze uses a bank of capacitors. A capacitor is the counterpart of a coil. A transformer comprises such coils.

See diagram below......

I would draw the heat sinks with three wires (does not matter if these parts are useless anyway). If the third wire is black then it would simply not be visible in the poor video. Why should TK use transistors as diodes with two connections only, when he has obviously real 10A diodes at hand?

And then, the B side of the transformer is not one coil but two. This could be essential. Maybe both coils are in use, but each in a different way.

Wikipedia says unlimited energy is easy, all what is needed is an »ideal current source«:

»The internal resistance of an ideal current source is infinite. An independent current source with zero current is identical to an ideal open circuit. The voltage across an ideal current source is completely determined by the circuit it is connected to. When connected to a short circuit, there is zero voltage and thus zero power delivered. When connected to a load resistance, the voltage across the source approaches infinity as the load resistance approaches infinity (an open circuit). Thus, an ideal current source, if such a thing existed in reality, could supply unlimited power and so would represent an unlimited source of energy.«

One more question: Why does a transformer consume less amps (according to MOT experiment on YouTube) if there is a capacitor (or a bank of capacitors) connected in series with the load?

Correct me if I'm wrong: When the primary coil of a transformer is connected to AC voltage then there is a current going through this coil. This current creates a magnetic flux in the core of the transformer. This magnetic flux creates voltage (not current) in the secondary coil. Therefore there is only a low current going through the primary coil. As soon as a load is connected to the secondary coil a current starts flowing through this secondary coil. At the same time a high current starts flowing through the primary coil as well. Why?

Because the current in the secondary coil creates a magnetic flux in the core like the current in the primary coil. But the voltage (and so the current) created in the primary coil by the secondary coil is opposite (or at least out of phase) compared to the initial supply voltage. This is because the magnetic flux created by the secondary coil is created by a current which is created by the magnetic flux that is created by the primary coil, therefore the flux is opposite. If the current in the secondary coil is not created by a load but instead by a second supply voltage (in phase with the first) then there is no opposite magnetic flux and hence there is no high current in neither of the both coils.

Another explanation would go like this: Instead of having an fixed iron core in a transformer with a magnetic flux the transformer has a bar magnet going through both coils. When a current is flowing through the primary coil it pushes the magnet towards the secondary coil. This movement creates a current (if load is connected) in the secondary coil. This current counteracts the movement of the magnet, so the primary coil has to push with more force, hence it draws more amps form the power supply. If the secondary coil is not connected to a load but to an additional power supply in phase with the primary power supply then both coils would move the magnet in the same direction, hence the current in both coils would stay low.

Now what if there were a possibility to change the current in the secondary coil (created by the load) in such a way that for the transformer it looks like as if the current in the secondary coil is not created by the magnetic flux in the core but from a second supply voltage?

A MOT has only one secondary coil. But what when a transformer has two secondary coils? Would it be possible that one coil cancels out the magnetic flux created by the other coil but at the same time providing current nevertheless? Maybe by means of a combination of diodes an capacitors?

The idea: If the secondary coil is a bifilar one then a current going through this coil would conveniently not create any magnetic field, so there would be also no counter flux towards the primary coil. Of course the primary coil would not have created a current/voltage in this bifilar coil in the first place. But what would happen if the secondary bifilar coil were switchable somehow or other? Maybe depending on a shift of the phase of the current going through it?

And BTW, is there now a (self-made) additional coil below the bumpy insulation of the transformer or is it not? Could this coil perhaps be used to counteract the magnetic flux of the secondary coils?

Happy brainstorming ...

PS, almost forgot: Physics 12 June 1 U9L3,5 Lenz's Law, Transformers

@Frederic2k1

I dont the get the point why the government keep using oil if they can use free energy as a source of money? For example they build a free energy machine then connect it to the transmition line to power the residential home and charge them?  They can also charge electric car user by establishing a battery charging stations. Government earn money from us and we can have a very cheap electric bill.

@all

About the 2004 device, seems to me that since those diodes are screw and nut types they may be available in two directions depending on which one you need on the chassis. I have diodes that go one way and others that go the other way. Here is one type I have on hand plus one I found quickly by google imaging "stud diode".

Can the transformer itself be considered a capacitor as if it is used like a catapult or a photon gun.

Look at the wires how thin they are going from the tin can to the diodes. So why then do they use such big diodes? Is it the need to rectify something heavy coming in or is it the need to keep what's going on in the transformer from going backwards and frying what's in the tin can?

Now if the diodes worked the other way as we would all obviously consider at first glance, again what's the point of having such thin wires. In this direction it makes no sense since those wires will not transport any major juice. But they are big enough to pulse backwards through the diode pack against the AC secondary with a DC of the same frequency or other harmonic. Don't know. 

The transformer was making a real big noise but it was drawing only 6 amps 12 vdc from the battery. That battery is a 80 or 100 amp battery and only 6 amps was drawn from it by that rather big inverter. This means the inverter was also being used as an energy delimiter, keeping the havoc inside the transformer A B fields and being shot at higher voltage towards the Tin Can on the AC5 line and back towards the inverter itself thus making battery draw so low. If the TKc and the spark winds up being a crock, then the OU has to be in that first transformer and TK had a secret there that he is showing in the 2004. After that, times up and everything is all boxed up except the TK coil. Hun. hehehe There is a transformer like the 2004 one in the Aq2v.

AC cannot fall on itself, but if it passes from AC to DC and back into the AC, then it can create some havoc. And that would pass the simpleton criteria.

All these possibilities are tantalizing but I consider it out of the box enough to warrant some quick trials.

But consider it again, under the diagram I posted, technically if the AC is fed to the secondary A, then the primary B is what if it is connected to the DC side of the bridge. Is it considered a short? Should not. So the inverter is cycling into the secondary but the primary is not connected so it sees nothing but the two other wires AC5 that head into the Tin Can. Now when the primary pulses back a DC in the core, what does the secondary coil see? Does it see a short now? Hmmmm. Can anyone do a sim on that? Is this simable? lol

wattsup

This man claims he managed to replicate Kapanadze

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNyqMIe997s&feature=em-uploademail-new

I dont know french language .. PLEASE translate this whole video to english, very important !!!!!!!!!

 
I gave you the link on september , 11
 
 

kapanadze has been replicated ?
 
look at this :
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNveUeEuV2o&feature=player_embedded
 
I know this man ... and for me it is a scam ...
but who knows ?

   I do not think he is the real inventor ... and no proof of OU !!

Ok lets figure this out from a simplistic point of view.


 If coil A is the primary the coil A has a magnetic field right? And that field gets sucked into the core. How does the magnetic field cut the wires of coil B?

 The easiest answer is to say there is something else involved in the process of this setup. We know there are two fields at play here. Not one but two. Since the magnetic field is contained in the core the electric field is the only field to play in this example. This electric field is the one responsible for induction and not the magnetic like is wrongly taught.

 Now just how does that electric field work is the question.

refer to picture 2

 Now if we understand that there is a twist to the fields that travel down the wire we can conclude that the electric field lines revolve around the wire and this is what cuts the wires on the opposite side of the core.

 We have been lied to and when simple logic is used we find the truth.

 Now if we apply static laws to the electric lines of the conductor That must mean that the conductor have opposite polarities on opposite sides of this mass (conductor) With one line being imaginary (-). The +'s being real. In the conductor that charges group to the positive lines and the negative opposite spaces are chargeless or (-).

 I'm thinking the positive lines are real charges from the mass of the conductor and if we enhance the conductor with high voltages it pulls more out of the mass of copper into the extended electric line.

 As to the number of lines in a single layer I have no clue. In the second picture I believe there is way to many lines. It was merely drawn for example. If we look at it from the point of view of the world model there should be only two lines of potential. One chargeless(-) an one charge full (+). The negative line is much the same as the Iron to magnetic fields. It sucks up charges from whatever it touches and the positive lines give charges. One is an in and the other is an out. One could take the second picture as looking down the length of the conductor showing the progression of the line pairs along the conductor. So the second picture is viewing 4 pairs of lines.

and @frantz:
You might be interested in this document: http://usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/InducedElectricField.pdf
With the risk of having misunderstood what you are trying to say with :

This electric field is the one responsible for induction and not the magnetic
like is wrongly taught.

Then according to this statement, the core would be obsolete for a transformer and could as well be omitted if it is only the electric field
that matters? Maybe you are referring to an unusual "induction" (if you could even call it like that) like what happens in Kapanadze`s device,
but "ordinary" induction is very much dependent on the core as we all know and i don't see where things are wrongly taught about that.


 

and @frantz:
You might be interested in this document: http://usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/InducedElectricField.pdf
With the risk of having misunderstood what you are trying to say with :Then according to this statement, the core would be obsolete for a transformer and could as well be omitted if it is only the electric field
that matters? Maybe you are referring to an unusual "induction" (if you could even call it like that) like what happens in Kapanadze`s device,
but "ordinary" induction is very much dependent on the core as we all know and i don't see where things are wrongly taught about that.

 Well if you remember this one simple observation. You cant have one field without the other being present. This is a phenomena of duality. there will always be both types of fields present except for the extremes Like very High voltage or very high current. But those will need to involve a transformer of some kind or a Tesla solenoid coil.


 Ok the core is very very important. It is what sucks away the magnetic and lets the electric field become prominent. I didn't say that it wasn't needed. In fact the Tesla method or revolving magnetic field now makes more sense. I think the magnetic field is still tied to the electric field because the magnetic field is in loops around the wire still. Part of the magnetic field is pulled into the iron but not all of it when wire is wound around the core. This has to do something that can and will effect the electric fields direction and speed(slows).


 The second picture I drew has a missing directional arrows. Those arrows should be either a left or right direction when looking down the conductor in the middle. This might be because the magnetic loops join and spiral up or down the conductor, forming a longer loop on the fly. This is where I think looking at DNA will help us. The spiral of DNA should give us the biggest clue because the matter of DNA is reactant to the electric portion of the two fields. With the magnetic being the core line of the two halves of DNA. But I havent worked that part fully out yet or this whole way of looking at the fields and how they interact.


 I don't know it all and what I have put together is very little of the process at best. It could be that the two different lines have different weights, meaning that one is heavier or longer then the other. Or as Tesla figured out one predominates over the other and this is what gives a charge a specific value. Think of it like this, ---------*+++++++++++++++++++ = Positive line pair,   ---------------------------------*+++++++----- =negative line pair. The * is either a conductor or charge.


 This isn't the first time I have suggested this process. And I'm still on the fence if this is the true method of this process. This goes way back to my older theories about this stuff but it does make more sense when we apply static rules to the matter of the conductor. There is plenty of real evidence out there that supports this hypothesis. Most of which is of the magnetic field.

 I am also thinking that the electric field in order of it's appearance when a conductor gets energized is the first to form then establishes connections which pull charges into the inner field of the electric lines and forms the magnetic loops. the heavy magnetic lines are the concentration of charges around the conductors with the electric lines being the in and out of these charges. The electric field is therefore the highway of the input to magnetic lines and it's strength. It allows free charges to become the magnetic field by guiding the charges back to the conductors for which the electric field comes out of. In this sense the electric field is a highway for charges and there is a constant movement of charges  in and out as the charges fly twords the conductor then touches imparts it's charge then becomes neutral or balanced charges then flies away. Let me show you a video of static charging something and how it moves back a forth ferrying charges back and forth.

 I'll add it in an edit...

 *Edit*

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT4UVsfZkwg

 This is another classic example but using metals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLSYPRYQ0nU&feature=related

 We must also understand that all metals have a crystalline base. When a charge slams into the metal it creates voltage as well. Tesla even knew this as reported by him.

 Picture included: