Poynt99,
I fail to see why your comments do not apply to what I said. I believe you asked about my kits.
I have made all appropriate measurements for the Resonance Induction Coupler Kit. The problem with your insistence upon examining this kit is that I am not going to make my book available to this forum. That will not be consistent with what Brad told me is required on this forum. I am not going to make the book open. It is copyright and I do not give permission. I am not about to mention each point in the book so as to contradict that. I did not come here to promote the kit or recommend it for analysis. Someone else did and I told them not to do that. I am simply responding to questions.
I did not make the kit for people to prove OU even though it teaches on the themes or principles of free energy. I realized after many years in the free energy world that most people had no clear experience with resonance. The kit has been a real revelation to people along those lines. The first purpose of the kit was to provide the very tool that Don Smith directed people to start with, and which he first learned from at his very beginning in this research as a high school science teacher demonstrating that kit. About two years ago we ordered the kit for $280 and found only 7 pages of instructions and a few parts. This was merely to learn the ideas of wirelessly power, resonance, and crystal radio. It went over some of Faraday's principles. This was far too costly for people to learn these basics with, so we decided to do an entirely different thing. We decided to set the maximum cost at $100 and had much more to the basic idea. We did not include any of the information from that kit, and improve upon the coils and parts, and add more parts. I decided to write a fair size book of 89 pages on letter size. The book is made up of two sections. The first is for beginners and the second is merely advanced information extensive endnotes making up about 3/4 of the book. We wanted to make the book easy enough for some of my 11 year old relatives, while also giving people opportunity expand their research if they wanted to at a later date. There is a good bit of basic information in the various chapters as well as many experiments. So this is where the complexity of answering your question comes in. The book contains a lot of fundamental information about OU or free energy which the student can begin to explore with the kit. But the kit was not some kind of 1, 2, 3 step by step process to prove OU. It was rather a step by step process to understand Resonance and learn the several associated concepts, like impulse, and impedance. It is more introducing the ideas of OU AFTER these themes are learned. Initially I didn't want to address OU at all as I was just going to focus on resonance as mentioned. But half way through it I realized that I couldn't avoid the subject. Since the purpose was not to prove OU but to understand resonance, impulse, one wire transfer, and wireless in the Teslian context (as opposed to the linear and non-linear resistive mainstream context), the goal was to give tools to be able to make slight movements, and frequency, capacitive, inductive adjustments to observe subtle changes. When F6 and Brad chastised Aking for Bruno's video about my kit they failed to understand any of these things and the video they were watching. They just assumed the kit and video had to be about proving OU, when Bruno was actually just trying to consider the effects of grounding upon the circuits. This kind of hyper and immature reactions make this forum a complete failure for anyone to come here and hope to progress. You just get insulted and shot down by people just given free license to make assumptions. Grounding is also an important part of the kit in the context of Tesla's one wire systems. That is a fundamental part of Tesla's systems which most people skip when they jump from studying his AC to wireless. So I shared a lot of information about that. The kit parts have tools to learn these things, and the more parts you add to it the more outputs you can have. In most cases that will mean the input does not increase while outputs can be added. This is actually part of the mystery point to ponder while going through. I want the student to think of all the possibilities so that they may discover things than none of us have yet. Since the Maxwell equations were stripped (by H and L) of the goods that we are focused on in this and other kits, there has been very little consideration of the Teslian processes that were removed from consideration. So that was my goal as well. One obvious mystery point is that you begin to see with at least having three coils (the kit only comes with 2 but most people order a third) that you could keep adding coils without changing the input draw under some circumstances. The cover of the book, with many coils connected and wireless and grounded gives various hints and suggestions to try and learn from. The goal also of the book is to get the students to try and think for themselves. I really didn't want to be told these things before so that they could come to these conclusions on their own. Now there are several specific things that can result in observing OU with the kit. But the idea is to let the student learn how to figure that out and come to their own conclusions. I do not force those kinds of things. This is why people like it so much. They are free to explore and learn some of the most important electrical processes from a historical and wider perspective than they would get in college. The book is far from perfect and could use corrections here and there, but engineers are very satisfied with it.
Now eventually I decided to progress things more and more with my presentations, particularly at my meetings, since I had given a lot of advanced information in the book about having endless outputs or phase conjugate mirror processes, or sympathetic resonance. The object was not to make those an exercise but begin to consider the ideas. So I decided to demonstrate some of that at my meetings and talk a little about such in the videos, especially in relation to Don Smith systems. This is kind of expected of me. So last year in Lodi California I demonstrated a multiplication of the energy with many coils. I then was about to demonstrate something else, but I managed to arrange my coils just right so that I had almost perfect phasing between the transmitter and surrounding coils with the result that the input energy was almost zero ma and no matter how many ferrite rods wrapped with wire and loaded we added (all that we had there) the phase locking effect was so strong that it didn't detune as it normally would without that strong lock-in (a subject I teach on and show videos about). I didn't intend to show this, but it happened. In another different demonstration at the Midwest Expo this year in Shipshewana Indian I demonstrated the same sort of thing while all the attendees packed around our tables. I never even had time to completely set up but did at least get it down to 4ma 4V input under the same circumstances where I could keep adding ferrite coil with loads to the transmitter while it was in lock-in with other coils that were loaded as well. With both of these demonstrations I also showed meters and oscilloscopes for people to examine all the relationships. We also had other meters for frequency, EF, EMF, RF related studies. I only mention these because they were public events. I don't mention what I have done because that really doesn't matter and much of it is proprietary. I only get into the basics of this technology with the public for various reasons.
During the last meeting, since I had not realized how many coils I had in inventory, I decided to show something new as my attendees were returning again and again for more. I always show new things, and can do as many as 100 demonstrations over 22 hours in two full days. So I brought about 100 coils, and we made 10 larger coils. We only got around 75 smaller coils with capacitors and LEDs on them, but we filled up the table, as can be seen in the picture. The objective there was not to prove OU either. Most or all of the attendees already have long proven OU on their own and most of them had this kit already. But obviously no one had that many coils. My point was to show the relationships mentioned in the book. But this was the least important thing to the whole meeting and I put off it till the end because there was more important things to focus on. So we did only a few of the things. But I wanted to show how many coils could be affected on just one level. That no matter how many I added around it the input would only go down. Now in a few arrangement it would draw more input like Itsu mostly experienced. So we just moved the coils so that they would only bring the input down. We had the larger 6" coils around the center very large transmitter. Then I showed with several small and big coils that no matter where I placed them in the area around the transmitter (if you had made a globe starting from the edge of the coils) they would be powered and not affect the other coils loads or the transmitter. Ferrites with coils and loads were also added to the transmitter but I did not have time to position the coils in a more ideal way as I had previously demonstrated. But everyone was satisfied with the demonstration as they divided the input up by all the outputs and realized that the larger bulbs would not have been lit more than a flicker if this had been merely a division of the input energy. It wasn't my goal to prove that as I really didn't have time to set that up because of other more important setups that had to get done. So while this was impressive, what is more important was learning the special relationships as mentioned. This I presented on OU the other night when I extensively quoted from T. W. Barrett on the subject as a leading electrodynamicist and expert on Tesla Shuttle Circuits (see 1991 and 2008). These relationships pertain to that which was removed from original Maxwell as he points out. Many people on these forums are just limited to the truncated equations and only look for related processes. They are not willing to consider anything else.
Anyway, the first group I had that week never got to see that running as it wasn't set up enough, so I decided to do a video with a similar setup and also title it You cannot prove OU over the Internet in view of what was happing on the OU group where they were under that delusion. It was a test of sorts to watch people believe it proved OU who wanted to believe that, and for those who wished to disbelieve it they naturally did that. My point was to say that you can never prove OU through a video not matter how good you show things. But you also cannot disprove OU with a video for the same reasons. But I made it so that the many bigger LEDs were clearly shown to be bright enough that it wouldn't be possible under the 3/4W input if it was divided so. I deliberated did not meter the wattage of the bulbs or use my light meter to drive these points how and expose the fallacies and mistaken notions. I have carefully tracked all the reactions and fallacies and tricks people have been doing to attack these ideas. This is a very hostile environment, but also very unreasonable. Both those for and against these ideas engage in fallacies, and I don't side with either but address them the same way.
So that is the context of this setup. It is not suitable for purposes of this forum because of the copyright of the book, the progressive nature of the kit, and the fact that the kit is more about the book than about the parts. That is the OU and beyond is what the book is more about, while the kit parts is a small part of the book and is for learning the subtle relationships. See you guys are seeking to find some group of parts to demonstrate OU. Your pdf shows this mistake. This is why you fail to succeed here. You need to instead learn the principles of free energy so that you can make many parts do what you want/need. That way you are not dependent upon one exact setup that you may easily lose or untune and not be able to get back. How many stories have we heard about that? If true, it was because they didn't know what they were doing but just stumbled upon something. Well that doesn't help everyone in this forum or the world to make a shrine out of one setup and merely copy that one. I have been at this full time for years now and I know what works. I know all the psychological hinderances against success. One is to insist that a certain arbitrary amount of output is necessary when it isn't. Another is to depend too heavily upon metering and/or make it seem impossible to ever prove. This seems to be the case in this forum when it has existed for years with not one success story. That is the impression that rests upon all the members here. My approach has been to use the technology at whatever level people want to. Not make the proof as important as people do on these lists. That is, maybe some people may not properly understand oscilloscopes and some meters but they can rotate batteries around for years and know they have OU. Others may run a fan along with other loads. Others may drive bikes now two or more times the distance. Or cars, even if they don't always rotate. There are many other types of loads such as heaters, refrigeration, Stan M fuel cell, acoustic, etc. where people have had OU but not needed to even understand the technical aspects of metering that is demanded in these big forums by people who have never understood experientially OU or free energy. They end up committing the prestige jargon fallacy while they belittle the common person for not playing their power games. So I have deliberately focused on making these things work in the real world, trying to get people to practically use the technology, more than to try and prove something to some academic who will never believe it anyway. People need to have hope that they can do something relatively easy, and these forums destroy that hope. And it appears to be purposefully from my perspective. I mean either this is true or it is not. If it is true then why make it out so difficult? I think it also relates to the fallacy that people put an arbitrary level of output on what is acceptable rather than just try and get people to experience at least the bare minimum. How many research groups have contacted me over the years, who have amazing technology (like these guys the other month with their nanotech), but are waiting forever for the big deal to come a long. And they never get it because they never just went out there and started doing something with it (as I convinced them to do). Do something rather than nothing. Show some progress or destroy all hope and just move on. That is the story of thousands of people who cycle through the free energy camp BY DESIGN. I'm just a backyard philosopher mechanic who has had access to many great engineers at the highest level of industry. Hopefully I have somewhat reversed that negative trend.
Your last question is somewhat addressed in the long-winded statements above. But specifically there is ambiguity in what you are saying as well as in the pdf and statements of others along these lines. I still don't have clarity from you guys as I don't think you are clear to yourself about this. It appears that you are under the mistake of what they are at OU (even as most people are on both forums) in that what is the nature of proof. I come to this with a lot of experience in philosophy and evidence and the history of science so I notice the mistakes along these lines and at least ambiguity. I see many that are merely technicians not have the ability to reason soundly and their views on evidence and proof are fundamentally mistaken. On OU it is in the extreme where it was assumed that some OU could be somehow proven and especially disproven over video, pictures, and words through the internet. Here it seems that you are looking for some third party to verify something and from that point I am not sure what you would do with that. Maybe you don't know because it never has happened yet. But consider what I have shared above about the nature of the one Resonance kit and look at your question. It really is not applicable in that case as I am not giving some 3 step assembly process to prove OU with. I'm showing the principles of OU so that you can run with it. But the kit is to learn the subtle relationships AT A SAFE LOW POWER LEVEL. We are generally working with 1/4W input.
Anyway, in relation to what I said above about proof, I look at people as sovereign entities that need to prove things to themselves. I don't judge people for the conclusions they honestly make or mistake. No man should expect what is proven to them to mean that others should believe the same based merely on them saying so. The mistake of your question is in removing the real world testing from the statement. I don't accept any testing as proven unless I can be there and understand the entire context/environment. No one should, and in my shoes no one would. I have done troubleshooting customer services for years now with basic hobbyists to top engineers all around the world. I know what I speak about in this respect that people are fallible and make all sorts of mistakes. I know I do all the time. So negative testimony is very limited. Your question is too universal as well, it depends on the specifics. If I ran my boat for three years with no external input and just rotated batteries around, and someone attempted to do the same and then put meters on it and shared that they don't conclude OU I would probably say that is to be expected (because of how they used their meters, and/or where). But I'm still driving while their meter is showing something they don't understand. So scientific legalism, or dependence upon power meters, which only measures closed loop dissipative energy, is not suited for open processes. They can still be used on many load loops as I have mentioned in previous postings. But in the center of the process they will be useless, or at least only confirm what I have always been saying. Engineers don't want to bother with free energy nonsense so they will display their arrogant pride and quickly use a meter to dismiss anything like this as fast as they can. I have seen this more times than probably anyone else. But I'm still driving all the while.
The issues in this case and for this entire forum are:
1. How to prove any testing has actually been done. If you are not there then this is impossible.
2. How to prove that exact replication has been done. People are easily mistaken.
3. How to prove what the exact environment was. This is important as an experiment can be deliberately sabotaged by purposefully modified environments.
4. How to prove that meters were properly calibrated, applied and interpreted. Again you have to be there and use equipment you know.
5. How to prove parts were not damaged. How many transistors and fets were partially damaged by experimenters who misjudged their results over the years? I deal with that all the time. So experiments can look bad and this is hidden.
6. How can any of this be conveyed to a person who wasn't able to demonstrate all of this to themselves?
Evidence is not proof. Only that degree of evidence is proof that warrants or fulfills the conditions of rational conviction. It is irrational to conclude on a truth of demonstration without having it fully demonstrated. And If I have already used something for years then tell me why I should disbelieve my own repeated experience/demonstration over someone else I have no ability to know what they have done? Such expectations have been the ruin of science. This is not mean it is unverifiable, it just means we can only prove things to ourselves. Thus the whole purpose of this forum and most forums is mistaken. Not totally mistaken, as you still can promote information sharing. But you just can't transfer proof to anyone but yourself. Each person will have to prove things to themselves. It will not matter if strangers tell other strangers that it does or doesn't work. Because testimony is a dime a dozen and no one has integrity and common sense or is logical in our day. A claim is made. Some party says it does this or that. So what? How many research labs lie for the money? We all know that. How can we tell they did it right or are merely mythbusters? Who is the judge for another person when we all can only be our own judge in matters of truths of demonstration. These are fundamental misunderstandings of the nature and conditions of physical sciences. It is a product of living in an online and TV/movie reality. It is science fiction. So on the flip side, this mistake only creates doubt about it being possible, because authoritarianism is setup as someone is the judge of what is truth and the rest are just slaves of this master. Some people here have already displayed their arrogance in this respect. They are the Lord over others. "They are the men and wisdom will die with them." Also, certain meters and certain testing become idols or gatekeepers to prevent people from using technology. You are only as good as what you put into something. What you put into a tool/meter is what you get out of it. If you are looking for Kirchhoff then use a power meter only. If you are beyond primary school you sit under Faraday who didn't have such meters. "As is your method so will be your outcome." A death circle or a closed loop? A selfish circuit or a loving giving path? I was once under this spell that was purposely set up to confuse us all. It took years to get to this place and realize the great hoax here. Again, I am not speaking merely theoretically here as someone familiar with the laws of evidence and the scientific method. But I am speaking from observation of people, their failures, more importantly their assumptions, and also positively how they have very easily used this technology when properly instructed or encouraged. (And as a sided note. much of this technology or processes have been used in every day products over the last 100 years but people don't realize it.) So I am looking at this from all asides, especially from history.
Which sounds unreasonable to you guys but that is why I say you can only prove truths of demonstration to yourself. No one can transfer their demonstration to you. It is not intuition or self-evident in nature (as you may want it to be).
Hi Rick.
Apologies for not being specific, nor up to speed on all your kits, but I guess I was referring to what I gather is your latest kit (a few folks here have been talking about it recently, and at OU.com)?
Based on your response I will assume that you have built this kit and that you have measured OU from the device. Incidentally, is this latest kit purely solid state, or is there some wheel, motor or generator involved?
In regards to what OU is, I'm not sure who here is confused about it, but I think I have a clear understanding of what it is. And you are correct, self-looping is not the only proof of OU; proper and accurate measurements will provide the answer as well.
At OUR, most of us here are hopeful that one day someone will discover and/or reveal a device and method for producing OU, it is just that we haven't yet seen such a device come into fruition.
A question; it is my understanding (and please correct me if my information is erroneous) that if someone has acquired and tested your kit, and concluded from their measurements the device is not producing energy at OU, that you will not accept their measurements as accurate or correct.
Is this true?
Author
Topic: Ricks best video's (Read 58670 times)
