OverUnity Research

.

Quite interesting.  It is nice to know "the rest of the story."

Who could ever imagine such behind the scenes drama?

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.25, 11:56:09
Im not one of Ricks fans,but i just love his latest video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiK0IktPWe4


Brad

Yes, we can love it, Brad, but finally what do we see?
A guy who criticizes a charlatan to eliminate one of his competitors!  ;D

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.26, 07:48:08
.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.26, 08:12:43
...
But if i had to choose,i would side with Rick.
...

I think you're right, but it's not far from a choice, as we say in my country, between plague and cholera.
Fortunately, the choice is not limited to these two! We have many other people who are much more honest and competent but less attractive because they do not tell us fanciful science stories.

Brad,
I thank you for the apology which means a lot to me under all the circumstances. People can watch the video if they are willing to torture themselves to go through all the details of the long drama. This video is in the context of the several other long videos on the subject from over 2 years ago on Bedini. I trust that the subject is now finally settled that the entire Bedini camp is promoting the Bedini legend lie and associated scams. I see some of you are still assuming that I must have necessarily participated in such disinformation and scamming, and/or that I still am doing that. There is nothing that I can do to remove that prejudice if that is what you desire to believe. But I have done a great deal to disprove that slander and my work over the years has demonstrated the opposite. I have explained my historical development in these videos and in emails over the years for those wishing to hear all sides. But I cannot force anyone to spend the time to go through all of that. But people with common enemies can find themselves open to that consideration as we see here. Again, it is easy to lump people together as the same and fail to notice maybe something happened differently.

In brief, I was mistaken about who Bedini was. And I really didn't have hardly any interaction with Aarron. I did not take him seriously, and obviously I regret ever allowing him to be involved with me. Most people see Aaron as he is today with all of his control, but I only see him as a kid that I remember from the first days 15 years ago. He did in fact jump on all my work and has attempted to replace and remove me from that as the video shows very clearly. I should have realized that could have happened, but I was too busy to bother. As for Bedini, he did act very different with me for several years. I was very enthusiastic and assumed the best. I believe this was a psyops program now and can see how it played out. I was used as a tool as part of the ongoing plan since 1984 to give out free energy information in a controlled way so that people would never succeed because of subtle diversions. I created many groups that got many people excited about learning this technology, but really this was all promoting the foundation of the Bedini Legend hoax and associated agendas to control the opposition just as we find in the greater conspiracy camps with cointelpro. At times I wondered about that but was caught up in all the activity. I just assumed wrongly. I just assumed that things were not that sophisticated just lie so many other conspiracy theories fall into the trap that is given them to fall into. You see the obvious conspiracies and settle with them as was intended for you so that you can be controlled and diverted from the deeper agendas. Any student of history can recognize this sort of tactic.

In the end we look at people's fruit. We see that Bedini did not actually invent at least many of the things he claimed to have invented, including the SSG circuit, the monopole mechanical oscillator, etc. He even changed his history and published the lie right on the front cover his book in order to try and erase the credit he formerly gave to Newman for the window motor, and all this was part of his attempt to extend the Bedini legend hoax which was for the purpose of keeping people generally in story-telling mode where they continually look to an illegitimate fake messiah figure that keeps them coming back for more of the same information that doesn't help the little old lady down the street be free from having to pay her electric bills. When we look at the actual facts of history we see the lies. No one point some of these major lies out but me. Why is that? What does that mean. Bedini has been the biggest influence in free energy circles since 1984 so you cannot disregard this point I am making no matter how much you dislike him. We have to come to grips with what this all means beyond our personal grievances with him. Most of us believe there is active suppression of this research, so this should be considered beyond mere personality problems and individual greedy exploits.

I did get many things moving as no one else was willing to work. I created the kits, the chargers, the conventions, and specific forums about these things. This was a big thing impacting over 100,000 people around the world. But when it reached that level, and when I demonstrated various larger systems, I had contradicted the control agenda and was eliminated from all of these outlets. I realize that Bedini was always telling me not to do anything more than talk. Not to do the kits, and especially not to demonstrate what I did at the conventions. I thought he was joking or saying just don't work so hard or something to that effect. I just didn't get it because, like everyone, you just assumed he wanted people to have free energy. But he did not use the technology himself, as I have all along. Not in his home or shop. As this was dawning on me progressively I also observed in various ways that he really was ignorant of many things I had assumed he was understanding of. After some time I realized that he really didn't understand proper battery charging. And the reason I didn't catch all these things was because the man never did any work. He spent his days talking or following the groups online or consumed with the latest retirement agenda like making bread or rc cars, etc., while the rest of us actually worked. So when he made the first solar chargers and sent them off to my customers without me knowing or seeing them, and they all failed, I realized that he didn't even understand basic thermal management. That was the first significant revelation for me that something didn't make sense. Later when I assembled the big ferris wheel and drove it with 1W showing an impressive and simple display that would have been very beneficial for people to see, he said we can't show that and spent the next several weeks trying to actually invent something that would impress people. He used $2000 of my wire to make these big coils with very high resistance and I'm wondering what is he planning to do with this? "Well he is going to have to use high voltage." Naturally he couldn't make it do anything no matter what he did. This was rather embarrassing to watch, and I also felt uncomfortable considering that it was my wire. So then he went on to make a big motor on the hub. Taking guys away from me and my practical demonstrations (so that most were never finished on time). Then I had to resupport this frame to hold up this lopsided weight on one end. And this essentially did nothing better than what my simple coils and circuits could have done if I had spent a few minutes mounting them. But instead, he lied to everyone saying that there was something special beyond what I had been showing for years in the kits. People were spellbound with the size of it but then he merged that awe with his mystifying of his additions which he hid the circuit in boxes. While it was still doing something significant, the lie was that he was claiming it was more than the same. And I was too busy doing all these other things to fully process these things at the time. But I did process the fact that he really didn't know what he was doing, not only with the battery charging but also with the free energy side of things. He revealed that he had no personal ability to invent such things or properly evaluate them in any way. So the idea grew on me that he was merely a copy cat and/or had other people do things for him. Which in a way is fine so long as you don't claim to be a legend or inventor. We all learn from others but if we claim we invented everything from sliced bread onward, as he did, then we are really the biggest liar. This ignorance of loading and lack of experience in actual testing also revealed itself to me when I realized that in the early EFTV video that he used the battery capacity analyzer meter on the 2000 AH batteries. This was the meter that Brett and I used in the shops daily. But it was only rated for 100AH and that was so obvious to us that we would never have used it on bigger batteries. But there he was doing that in the video.

So these things were realized over time progressively and were kept from me in various ways. John drove away engineers and kept ignorant people around him so that they would not discover his ignorance and agenda. Not that John didn't know many ways to create free energy, that he learned from others, it was just that he learned everything from others and was not good at testing things because he never spent more than 5 minutes doing that (exaggeration but you get my point). But the same sort of things happened in relation to seeing his shady dealings with others. Even Brett who worked for him warned me after he worked for him for some years that I would eventually see Bedini attack me as he was attacking Brett. And that did happen. It is like talking to someone coming out of a cult while you are ensnared in it. Time reveals such things eventually. And I have shared many things in the videos along these lines. So eventually I realized that all this was not good. All of my staff realized this as well and we very carefully tried to move away. We were men of peace and just tried to quietly and politely move away and move on. We could not take it and didn't want anything to do with it. This was especially after the last big meeting in July 2011 when the entire Bedini camp turned on me literally over night. I really didn't get what was happening to me and this was both the high point in my work but the worst time in my life. I was under major psychological attack. These guys then took everything out from me and deleted my groups and erased me as best they can. They destroyed my name, took my money and ruined my life, which as a result I didn't help the matter.

This is a small overview of the complications of what happened. I found myself in the middle of a mess which I was trying to fix and help so many friends that were on the wrong end of things. Eventually the realization settled that something more was going on that meets the eye and Bedini was not who he claimed he was, and these associated people were really bad. Some were just pons that worshiped him and sold their soul in that idolatry to get a share of the fame. But I was appalled and repealed all this. Naturally I paid the price. I also always was opensource and they did not like this. When it crossed their lines then I had to be stopped. And all those revelations had to be erased. They deleted all the thousands of emails and erased me from all my work. So this video about Aaron, and the first part shown still on his page, shows you exactly what I am talking about here. This goes deeper than Aaron merely wanting to profit from my work. You don't lie in such an obvious way like that unless you are trying to do something bigger here. There is no need to make his claims against me in order for him to make the money he does or make himself famous as he is. I never wronged him either so there is no personal reason for such attacks. It is because there is a deeper agenda of free energy suppression going on here that springs from Bedini. Whatever it takes to erase or destroy such and influence. Ignoring it is not enough, you have to make people think things are exactly the opposite. And this results in doing the very things that you accuse others of. So it worked so long as I just left it alone. But after thousands of people have been burned by these people I felt I had to address it. So now they are exposed in overextended themselves in their lies. If they had been more subtle about all this then it would have worked. But in doing this it forced me to get down deep into it and resulted in showing these things that everyone missed.

Having said all this, I am not prejudice against anyone good or bad. I still can notice any truths liars have shared. This is important because all lies are made up of much truth to sugar coat them. Bedini's first lie is that he takes truths and claims they came from him. His second lie is to never use that technology personally and promote it as something people should use. His third lie is to mix lies with the true processes, or overwhelm people with excessive incomplete information or drama while sharing it. Hiding truth in plain sight also. So there are many truthful things that drew me and everyone into his circle. But in the end the vast body of people are no better off than when they started this research. This reality extends beyond Bedini's influence and you all have to ask yourself why this is the case in the larger community. Anyway, I still point out the truthful things Bedini said even while exposing him as a liar. This is important to do or they succeed in their mission to divert us from those truths. The truths were shared. I never minded the drama and confirmed and developed those truths. But most others were lost in all the noise and wandered around with all the story-telling, drama and misinformation.

So it is important to close this chapter and over turn the results of this war with everyone. The war was lost for many years. But now it at least has been exposed. It remains for us to get beyond the emotional hatred for such liars and be mature enough to still accept the truths that liars are associated with. Can we do that? Or will we still be victims and over-react against pons that are used to divert us from the truth and from succeeding? That remains to be seen. I can't fault any of you for not wanting to consider anything from someone formerly associated with Bedini as he has truly shown his real bad fruit. And I don't have any interest in trying to convince any people on this forum of anything. I really don't have time for forums anyway, and my fulltime work in free energy research is over and coming to an end. There is nothing more for me to figure out that I need to attend to myself. But I hope to continue what has been done over the years and encourage this work to continue in a better way. All that is left that I can see is finalizing the Free Energy Cheat Sheet in a proper way for everyone's advantage. This will be a major transition from people seeking to make parts do something magical to learning what is essential to make free energy so that you can be the MacGyver and make any limited parts do the appropriate processes under your circumstances. I've been teaching along these lines the last 5 years with great success. See an example I just posted here:

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535776/#msg535776

There is not much more to say or do than this. I will do a video on this if I get the chance. This takes all the diversions out of all of the forums and gives everyone the bare bones that will enable them to succeed. This unlocks all the mystery and games that have been played. No more need to fixate on some particular system but rather to fixate on the essential foundations/processes. After talking to someone for 5 minutes I can tell if anyone has any real experience with free energy or whether they are just talking keywords like Aaron. You cannot hide whether you have experienced these things or not. You either get it or you don't because it is not about a bunch of parts as everyone talks like. It is something a whole lot more simplistic and yet comprehensive. There is no way to patent the essential ideas, or hide them in a device.

So I leave you all with this link and wish you all the best as you develop countless ways of multiplying and loading reactive (open) loops. Never mind the drama and convoluted distractions. Just start from a real foundation, and continue the same to whatever level you need to.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.26, 08:12:43
Or maybe just trying to clear his name after the rath of said  charlatan?.

I dont know,im not a fan of either.
But if i had to choose,i would side with Rick.

Brad

And from my YouTube Comments you wrote:
Your right Rick. I made judgement based on your association with Bedini and Aaron. Yes,we are after the same thing,that is for sure. Please accept my apologies. Chet will be in touch with you soon,there is just a few things to sort on the forum first,but that will not take long.I hope in light of recent event's,you will join us there.

I can verify that at least some of what you have said is definitely true.  Do you know where the SSG circuit came from?  I accidentally discovered this just a couple of years ago.  It is the exact same circuit that Bulova developed in the 1960's I believe it was when they invented the Bulova Accutron watch.  Here is a link to that information:  http://members.iinet.net.au/~fotoplot/acctech.htm

So the SSG circuit was around long before 1984.

Take care,
Carroll

Hi Rick,
I just want to say we are not all against you, mainly some not so well mannered newbies who think they know everything and have no problem telling you so because the rest of us are a bunch of idiots.  This site was built on outcasts from other sites, originally I think we were all outcasts, so you are in good company here if you decide to stay.

Regards
Room3327

Carrol,
Interesting to find you over here as well. I think this thread is about my video on Aaron. I guess this question does pertain to that subject when I think of it. The question is rather important and I still am not certain the very beginning. There is a lot I could share that I don't have time to. I have done a lot of studying of many patents over the years but I haven't done as much in the journals so I can't be sure of the actual development of this circuit from the beginning. But I have studied it from a patent point of view and had the top patent lawyer firm in the country research this out. It is too much to share here. But one patent from 1974 I show and demonstrate at all my meetings as sort of a mocking of the Bedini Legend claim. So I have often run the top spinner while I have talked. This is calculated as it is the same circuit essentially as 10 year old Shawne Bowman was given by Bedini in 2000 that resulted in her winning the science fair that year in CDA Idaho. The teachers were amazed but just ignorant of patent history. The idea goes back to the 1930s in prior part US patent history. All you have to do is look through patent history and categories and you can see how much John was lying about such things.
To be clear however, the trigger coil is not an essential part of the circuit although it has specific benefits that only I have shown over the years. I showed that we could actually get the same outputs we get on the battery output side on the trigger side. I have demonstrated exact mirrored outputs at one of my meetings in Goshen Indiana 3 years back. I even powered a AC hot plate along with several hundred watts of very hot and blinding 100W LEDs (3 of them). So it is important but not essential to do the negative energy output. It is just one self-triggering methods. The idea of the gains from the bifilar coil comes from Tesla and many others before John copied it and made it his own. The monopole part also is not his invention. I though it was Adams but some inventor contacted me and showed me he had first shown it back in the 1950's. But it can also be found with Tesla and others before him. The idea of claiming BEMF also was not first claimed by John as even the prior art shows in his actual patents. You can see these ideas were floating around for years. It appears that John got this idea from Ed Gray's influence sometime during or after 1984. Probably 1985 the earliest. You can see the first use of the circuit around late 80s, and which is shown in the disputed faked date circuit on Aaron's slander page against me. You can see a trigger coil and charging battery there. The unchanged lab notes show this to be late 80s and John never believed in free energy before 84 as he said emphatically before changing that story on the 2011 cover (bad year for John).
The circuit is not exactly the same but it is close enough. It shows that the SSG circuit was not something brand new. It was the story of a girl amazing her teachers that was new. It was the specific focus on negative energy engineering that was new. John did promote and make relatively unknown things popular. That is not to be faulted. But making himself to be a legend, lying about many things like inventing things he didn't was the big lie.

Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.06.27, 17:18:01
I can verify that at least some of what you have said is definitely true.  Do you know where the SSG circuit came from?  I accidentally discovered this just a couple of years ago.  It is the exact same circuit that Bulova developed in the 1960's I believe it was when they invented the Bulova Accutron watch.  Here is a link to that information:  http://members.iinet.net.au/~fotoplot/acctech.htm

So the SSG circuit was around long before 1984.

Take care,
Carroll

Well thank you. How very spacious of you room https://www.overunityresearch.com/Smileys/Alive/wink.gif

Well I have been the biggest outcast because I was hated by people for being involved with JB and then I was hated for exposing him. First impressions will never go away for most people so I do not expect anything like Brad did. That meant a lot to me. Well we are all a bunch of idiots really, if we honestly look at what we have done in our lives. Any time we have just acted like sheep in a herd we have been idiots.
I'm not sure what time I'll have to get on another group. I have very pressing things to do and no free time for the next 10 years.

Quote from: Room3327 on 2019.06.27, 17:47:57
Hi Rick,
I just want to say we are not all against you, mainly some not so well mannered newbies who think they know everything and have no problem telling you so because the rest of us are a bunch of idiots.  This site was built on outcasts from other sites, originally I think we were all outcasts, so you are in good company here if you decide to stay.

Regards
Room3327

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.06.28, 17:27:58
Well we are all a bunch of idiots really, if we honestly look at what we have done in our lives. Any time we have just acted like sheep in a herd we have been idiots.

Well were not your average run of the mill Idiots around here were bigger and better ones because, as someone here will tell you, were chasing perpetual motion. So it's a good crowd to be in, sorry you are so busy and for 10 years :( Best of luck to you! O0

Regards
Room

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.26, 07:48:08
Yes, we can love it, Brad, but finally what do we see?
A guy who criticizes a charlatan to eliminate one of his competitors!  ;D

There is no competition. The Houdini camp under Aaron do not sell anything apart from information, which is incomplete and sometimes just wrong.

Anti gravity, Bearden, Sweet,  Free energy - it's all in here. Even a circuit diagram.  The motor I assume can be replaced with a solid state negative energy hv pulser. It is an expansion on Tesla's hairpin circuit and requires a disruptive discharge - (not pulsed dc or pulsed ac) ie a spike. Because Kirchhoff's laws ignore the turning on and off of a circuit (the spike) - Kirchhoff's laws do not apply.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3JyRMdJhzg&feature=youtu.be

Here's the circuit:- and it is OU so let the controversy begin.......

...

Quote from: partzman on 2019.06.30, 21:08:40
Aking,

In all my years as a self taught engineer designing various and sundry circuits plus all the past years I have spent in FE research, I find that Kirchoff's laws most certainly do apply in the spikes involved during the turn on and turn off of circuits.  So I'm curious as to what you are referring to here?  Do you have an example that I could run some bench tests on?

Also regarding the schematic you show, is there a working model that you are aware of that would include measurements or a self-running capability to support the OU claim?  I mean, this is what we are all about in that having such a proof of concept device would allow us to become independent from the powers that wish to control us.  I personally am willing to spend time and money on such a device but I need a little more information before committing to the project.

Regards,
Pm

Well lets not get into a Kirchhoff controversy here, but here is a still from a video that is thought provoking at the very least. Now this is worth a bench test!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpoOWs8SfVo

On a serious note there is also a lot of info on the other OU forum now and there have been witnesses who have come forward to say they have replicated some stuff.  Well worth a read to get up to speed.  So I'll repost one of my posts from OU here  Think about it very seriously....  Even though I am jocular in the post. lol



Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #804 on: June 28, 2019, 09:19:21 PM »


INTRODUCING THE MORON LEVEL OF COMPREHENSION..                                taken from the yahoo group


https://energyevo.com/2015/01/18/updated-compilation-of-important-info-don-smith-shared-to-nuenergy-yahoo-group/


However I will argue that Don Smith did not  invent the effect.   It was invented by Carlos Benitez. Benitez stated that when pulsing one plate of a capacitor, the other plate automatically charges up from the ground.( Benitez then switches the ground on and off mechanically creating an energy pump.
To the EE's present who have not been taught correctly  -  it is called "Electrostatic induction"  -  Look it up.
It is usually glossed over as  unimportant.  Nothing to see here -  move on (lol).

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.06.30, 23:08:02
...Benitez stated that when pulsing one plate of a capacitor, the other plate automatically charges up from the ground.
...

It is commonplace to observe that a capacitor charges with a signal of a non-zero average value.
What kind of pulse? AC pulse or DC pulse? Voltage in relation to the ground? Current in which circuit?...

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.07.01, 17:29:30
It is commonplace to observe that a capacitor charges with a signal of a non-zero average value.
What kind of pulse? AC pulse or DC pulse? Voltage in relation to the ground? Current in which circuit?...

Do me a favour and get educated on Benitez.  It is there for everyone to read.  It is a free energy patent(s) and it(they) was(were) granted.
The circuit diagram(s) is(are) there for you to look at as are the claims.  Better still do the experiments as I have done nearly 10 years ago.
There are 4 patents from 1914 to 1918 in England.
Rick Friedrich has done a video on this stuff also.  That's how I knew he was genuine, because he did the same experiments as me.
So Don Smith modernized it all as did Ed Gray prior to him as did Houdini( in a poor way ).
It is a single wire  disruptive discharge at high frequency on one plate of a capacitor. No circuit, no loop, no Kirchhoff's loop law.
Obviously you need photo flash or other caps capable of handling the potential rate of change at high frequency and optionally high voltage..
You dip the spoon in the river and you get little. Dip it in at high frequency and you get bucket loads.

Moron level of comprehension lesson 2 (ha ha  I am being funny)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkAMNFKjds4&feature=youtu.be

Minute 7

So Rick finally got me to kick myself when he told me about Don's coil capacitor.
So lets see if anyone is interested.  Which is Don's coil capacitor out of all his well known pics?

Aking.21

QuoteMoron level of comprehension lesson 2 (ha ha  I am being funny)

It is strange that we were all morons at some point then we had to learn how to walk and talk and we went to school and we learned new things. It would seem to me the problems start when we stop learning. To consider the fact everyone, I mean everyone, used to soil there underpants and revel in this fact then scream at the top of their lungs when we didn't get our way seems a little disturbing but there we were and our parents still love us despite the facts, lol.

Minute 8:15 is also interesting, here we have two massive bodies one charged through a distance by induction(cloud inducing ground). However the space surrounding and external to each body not shown is also charged by induction in an opposite sense... so what happens when the two bodies discharge?. The surrounding space must also discharge with respect to the body in question. So when lightning strikes and discharges the cloud and ground the space external to the cloud and ground must discharge as well. Which may explain the phenomena known as sprites above and ground currents below.

The thing to remember, in my opinion, is that the overly simplistic lumped sum model is fine for calculation however it has no place in nature. Nature works by inducing opposites through gradients and then the opposites can induce opposites external to themselves. Then when the whole thing discharges the whole system is forced to collapse in on itself which forces it's induced opposites to collapse out from itself. We know the rule, equal yet opposite however what is opposite and external to the induced opposite... an opposite opposite?.

Regards
AC

I am re posting something Rick mentioned on OU.com on the confirmation of OU devices and claims because I think it is the most significant comment on Don Smith ever made.

As for Don's 1996 video you are talking about, that is not true. And the guy measuring that said so. It really wasn't a demonstration of OU because you didn't see how it worked. Now we know what he did, and a friend of mine was there and saw inside. Don later revealed that and most people still have not realized what he did because you assume without looking at the details... Anyway, proving OU at the time would have to allow people to see everything, and he didn't. All you could conclude from that was that it probably was OU. You could really only go by his word. Don knew what he was talking about and never showed me any signs of deceit. But then again, I have verified many of this systems and claims and teaching. Anyone who is familiar with OU systems knows that he was the most significant influence in all this research. There are thousands of Don Smith systems all around the world. I know this and that is my claim. I don't expect you to believe it.

Now Don did give one significant OU demonstration that people just didn't realize. And I show this all the time. He was showing the Don Smith Effect where the capacitor duplicates the energy. He had an 8000V probe that give an inch long arc to one side of a plate. This is a real load and can be used for many applications. Other loads could be in series with that as well. It takes x amount of energy to produce that load, just like it takes x amount of power to run a motor (and I double that output by also charging a battery). In the same way as doubling the energy in the motors, he then adds a ground terminal an inch away from the other side of the plate. This is unidirectional impulsing so it is not AC. It is not supposed to go through a thick capacitor. But yet another identical arc is on the other side from the plate to the terminal. So now we have doubling of power. Two inches of arcing. People watched those videos for years and never realized what that meant.  ::)  I give several demonstrations of this sort of thing at my meetings. So there you go people. Many of you have seen the video. I even did it in a video a few years back. You can do it yourself. They even made sure that the primary side was not grounded at all and was powered from a battery so that there was no ground looping.

So people, that is how simple these things are. You are looking for some convoluted system because you have been brainwashed into the mainstream convoluted systems and believed their propaganda that this is all so hard. You are overthinking it. Now you just have to know basic things to add the appropriate loads besides arcing. And guess what? There is more. We can use more processes and collect more energy at the same time. So does the "power" meter determine what we can do? Not at all. It is just the wasted energy in the closed loop.

As for Don's case, several of them did see inside and saw the small battery. But that again is a matter of testimony. The whole video is just a video and you can't really trust any video. It seems likely that it was not fake. I have some friends who were there so it is different for me than for you. But I can do that so I don't need to that to be proven anymore. But if you watched the video you would see that a 7AH battery cannot power 1000W for even 0.01 of a second. Most people, including all those at that meeting who said something, revealed that they had no experience with batteries under load. This is what I deal with all day long. I will give you the perfect example of what I come across. So we have a UPS and alarm system charger that allows you to keep your batteries for good and not have to replace them. So when we tested the UPS systems. UPS means uninterrupted power supplies, and are used for electronics that you don't want to be turned off when the power can go out. What we found was that their ratings were flat out lies. Even new 7AH batteries cannot power the UPS at all at the ratings/claims they make on the specifications. You cannot have a 7AH battery power a 1000W load at all. The instantaneous voltage drop on the battery would bring it way down past 10.5V so that the inverter would never even run. So as soon as the power would go out on a 1000W load it would be entirely useless. Same at 500W. Realistically you can run a 100W for a bit on a 7AH battery. Maybe just enough to press save on your computer before it dives before 10.5V.

So the guys didn't even know what they were talking about. The voltage drop on a 7AH battery would have brought it way done for starters. And it would have discharged the battery very fast and ruin it in a hurry. Believe, this is what we have done for 15 years here. You can try it yourself. So the guys didn't realize that and tried to make some calculations being ignorant of voltage drops and C rates of discharge. As the C rate is lowered the losses increase as well. So the greater the load the less efficiency you have. When I do my basic inverter demonstrations at my meetings I teach on these things because most people have no idea of the basics. So I have to start from the very beginning. So even with 220AH golf cart batteries at 12V I can hardly sustain a 3000W load of incandescent bulbs with a kwa home meter for more than a few minutes before the voltage drops lower than that allowed by the inverter. So 7AH doesn't give you enough to do anything and the UPS are a big lie. I'm not sure why people are not really upset about this. It's crazy.

Anyway, if you grant that it was a 7AH battery as people saw inside, or as Don said. Obviously the case was not heavy so there was no way a bunch of heavy batteries were in there. But if you were to hook it up to a 1000W load it would just never even come on. And it wouldn't even be able to do 100W load that long. Don brought that because people rather see a demonstration with a plug, etc. than learn how to make it.  :-\

Apparently he did run it for a long time after the video ended somewhere else. But then again, that is the testimony. But your comments are not true. He did leave it long enough. Go to Batteries plus and get a brand new 7AH battery with that month's date stamp and see for yourself. Try a UPS and you will see this. Then come back here and tells you how you were wrong in this. Maybe we will hear from you again Mr. Void. Maybe not

Quote from: AllCanadian
It would seem to me the problems start when we stop learning.

Spot on!  For some it is a choice made in order to do things "their
way."  As in The Rebel Without a Cause.

I dont want to nitpock as some of his stuff is inspiring...but "you would see that a 7AH battery cannot power 1000W for even 0.01 of a second" is just plain wrong .

Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2019.07.03, 23:43:35
I dont want to nitpock as some of his stuff is inspiring...but "you would see that a 7AH battery cannot power 1000W for even 0.01 of a second" is just plain wrong .

I think he means that the battery voltage would drop to below inverter activation level at 10.5 volts. I have seen this happen to me lots of times during Benitez experiments. When the battery voltage dropped to about 10.5 volts the  inverter cuts out.
Anyway, constructive comments are welcome. At least we have a working hypothesis of how to extract energy through electrostatic induction.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.03, 23:57:47
.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.04, 02:03:24
I would agree with this.
There is no way you could draw 84+ amps from a 7 amp hour AGM battery without serious voltage drop.
,and then one cooked battery to follow.


Brad

he stated 10 milliseconds . he did not have to state that yet chose to .but perhaps he mis wrote ?
perhaps we mis read ?.
Any body can misplace a decimal pont ....but even 100 miliseconds is easily doable .
I know! it was a 1.2 volt battery !
its all wasted power anyway ,so irrelevant , as is my question of false fact .

his many students will explain .

A new outlook in tuning is a good thing though.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.02, 00:04:42
Moron level of comprehension lesson 2 (ha ha  I am being funny)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkAMNFKjds4&feature=youtu.be

Minute 7

So Rick finally got me to kick myself when he told me about Don's coil capacitor.
So lets see if anyone is interested.  Which is Don's coil capacitor out of all his well known pics?

Here it is: And it's huge.....

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.03, 19:06:52


..............As for Don's case, several of them did see inside and saw the small battery. But that again is a matter of testimony. The whole video is just a video and you can't really trust any video. It seems likely that it was not fake. I have some friends who were there so it is different for me than for you. But I can do that so I don't need to that to be proven anymore. But if you watched the video you would see that a 7AH battery cannot power 1000W for even 0.01 of a second. Most people, including all those at that meeting who said something, revealed that they had no experience with batteries under load. This is what I deal with all day long. I will give you the perfect example of what I come across. So we have a UPS and alarm system charger that allows you to keep your batteries for good and not have to replace them. So when we tested the UPS systems. UPS means uninterrupted power supplies, and are used for electronics that you don't want to be turned off when the power can go out. What we found was that their ratings were flat out lies. Even new 7AH batteries cannot power the UPS at all at the ratings/claims they make on the specifications. You cannot have a 7AH battery power a 1000W load at all. The instantaneous voltage drop on the battery would bring it way down past 10.5V so that the inverter would never even run. So as soon as the power would go out on a 1000W load it would be entirely useless. Same at 500W. Realistically you can run a 100W for a bit on a 7AH battery. Maybe just enough to press save on your computer before it dives before 10.5V. ...........................................

Good day All:

Here is a video of a 4 amp/hr battery running over a thousand watts of incandescent lamps.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cni08WjLTcc
This is the Salty Citrus Chinese replication of D.S. table top device.
At the time I was in personal contact with Salty Citrus thru the Sea of Energy F.E. forum in China.
Some where I have posted here on OUR forum some of the information relating to his replication.
He told me that this was not the first attempt at replicating the D.S. device, his group had spent about 5 years to get the device to this point.
It is NOT self-powering as it has the 12v-4amp/hr battery in circuit.  I do agree with A.king and his 7AH battery comment, as a 4 amp/hr. battery will have a difficult time at best starting up a 1000 watt load, let alone running it for 5 or 10 minutes.
1000watt / 12V = 83.3333 amperes;
4 amp/hr. battery == 4 amperes for one hour or 83.3333 amperes for 2.88 minutes in theory.
Of course with a 83.333 ampere draw, the battery will have considerably less than 12 volts across the terminals, so the inverter will do a L.V.D. ( low voltage disconnect).
At the very least, this replication seems to point to a very efficient dc-ac inverter topology.

take care, peace
lost_bro

Quote from: lost_bro on 2019.07.06, 03:08:17
Good day All:

Here is a video of a 4 amp/hr battery running over a thousand watts of incandescent lamps.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cni08WjLTcc
This is the Salty Citrus Chinese replication of D.S. table top device.
At the time I was in personal contact with Salty Citrus thru the Sea of Energy F.E. forum in China.
Some where I have posted here on OUR forum some of the information relating to his replication.
He told me that this was not the first attempt at replicating the D.S. device, his group had spent about 5 years to get the device to this point.
It is NOT self-powering as it has the 12v-4amp/hr battery in circuit.  I do agree with A.king and his 7AH battery comment, as a 4 amp/hr. battery will have a difficult time at best starting up a 1000 watt load, let alone running it for 5 or 10 minutes.
1000watt / 12V = 83.3333 amperes;
4 amp/hr. battery == 4 amperes for one hour or 83.3333 amperes for 2.88 minutes in theory.
Of course with a 83.333 ampere draw, the battery will have considerably less than 12 volts across the terminals, so the inverter will do a L.V.D. ( low voltage disconnect).
At the very least, this replication seems to point to a very efficient dc-ac inverter topology.

take care, peace
lost_bro

Good video to learn from.

1 The battery wires are certainly not 1/4 wavelength
2 The location of the battery wires are a mess causing disturbance in the magnetic field
3  No disruptive discharge - they could at least have used a lightning arrestor.
4  No earth ground that I could see.  - so where are the electrons coming from?
5 You would find great difficulty fitting those components into Don's briefcase.

It is what we have all been doing.  Not listening to Don Smith and thinking that the circuit diagram is all there is and ignoring vital sections.  That is why I have learnt a lot from Rick's kit.  Tuning is everything in a Don Smith system.
Don also states to make the 1/4 ratio wires slightly longer so you can tune them easier.
But an interesting video showing what not to do.

Try and see for yourself and then tell us why you were mistaken. Remember the context of what I wrote: The voltage drop on an inverter will instantaneously drop below 10.5V so the inverter will never be able to run. Depending on the condition of the battery, but even a new battery will drop problem to 1V or lower. And as I wrote, even a 500W load will drop it below 10.5V just as fast. So explain to us why you think otherwise.

Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2019.07.03, 23:43:35
I dont want to nitpock as some of his stuff is inspiring...but "you would see that a 7AH battery cannot power 1000W for even 0.01 of a second" is just plain wrong .

10 ms was just a random number less than a second. I really wouldn't want to try that anymore as it would just be a foolish waste of a battery. Of course I have done that sort of thing by accident and caused a DC fire when I joined a string of golf cart batteries with an Anderson connector. You can't put out that fire and it melted a steel tool box down real fast. It ruined those batteries and drained them down very fast.
As I wrote, you can try for yourself and report back your findings. My context was using a UPS system where they lie to you on the back ratings. I deal with this stuff all day long. I knew what to expect, and like I wrote, you really can only use the UPS with a 7AH battery for 100W for a very short time. So it is fairly useless unless you have at least a 12AH battery or bigger. You probably want to do a 35 to 100AH battery for those 500-1000AH systems.
Not sure what 1.2V battery you are talking about. You must be confusing my comments with someone else's.

Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2019.07.04, 23:29:51
he stated 10 milliseconds . he did not have to state that yet chose to .but perhaps he mis wrote ?
perhaps we mis read ?.
Any body can misplace a decimal pont ....but even 100 miliseconds is easily doable .
I know! it was a 1.2 volt battery !
its all wasted power anyway ,so irrelevant , as is my question of false fact .

his many students will explain .

A new outlook in tuning is a good thing though.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.01, 17:59:49
Do me a favour and get educated on Benitez.  It is there for everyone to read.  It is a free energy patent(s) and it(they) was(were) granted.
The circuit diagram(s) is(are) there for you to look at as are the claims.
...

I read Benitez patent a few years ago and didn't find any evidence of what is claimed.

Did you build his device? Does it work and is this the reason you promote it?
If you don't answer my previous questions, is it because you haven't read the patent or because you haven't understood it?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.07.08, 15:29:16
I read Benitez patent a few years ago and didn't find any evidence of what is claimed.

Did you build his device? Does it work and is this the reason you promote it?
If you don't answer my previous questions, is it because you haven't read the patent or because you haven't understood it?

I built 2 of the devices and they both worked to a fashion.  However I was looking for 2 plus kilowatts minimum so gave it up.
It is only recently that I have understood the principle of operation so maybe it can be scaled up another way.
The problem was always the damned mechanical interrupters which always broke down on me.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.07.08, 15:29:16
I read Benitez patent a few years ago and didn't find any evidence of what is claimed.

Did you build his device? Does it work and is this the reason you promote it?
If you don't answer my previous questions, is it because you haven't read the patent or because you haven't understood it?

Here is  a pic of one of them - so you tell me which patent it's from........  If you don't build it you'll NEVER find any evidence.
So I've shown you my evidence - show me yours......

...

...

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.08, 19:01:30
Here is  a pic of one of them - so you tell me which patent it's from........  If you don't build it you'll NEVER find any evidence.
So I've shown you my evidence - show me yours......

A pic is only proof of an attempt, not proof of success. So you built it and you see overunity?
Why are you here still searching?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.07.09, 20:46:11
A pic is only proof of an attempt, not proof of success. So you built it and you see overunity?
Why are you here still searching?

Answer the question.

partzman

QuoteI determined later that nearly 13kw had to be produced for a short period through the earth ground connection in order to melt the 63/37 solder.  At the time this happened, I quickly disconnected the 9v battery powering the device which stopped the light bifurcation echoes from continuing thus removing any further danger.  I will not post a schematic so please don't ask as this device could be quite harmful.

In my opinion what is even more amazing is that the quite large bead of solder which was supposedly molten did not slump or fall vertically. It may have been anti-gravity effects because I have been soldering for around 40 years and have yet to see molten solder on a vertical surface not slump.

Strange but true...

...

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2019.07.09, 23:45:31
partzman
In my opinion what is even more amazing is that the quite large bead of solder which was supposedly molten did not slump or fall vertically. It may have been anti-gravity effects because I have been soldering for around 40 years and have yet to see molten solder on a vertical surface not slump.

Strange but true...

Maybe with current flowing through the molten solder, it was manipulated via magnetic fields of the setup?

Mags

I have this as an upcoming kit. I just haven't had the time to finish it. I want to make the booklet better and develop the capacitor teaching more as I did with the resonance kit in the book.
Yeah the interrupter setup is not good for more than short runs. We will be doing a mosfet or transistor setup to replace that in the second Benitez kit. The third setup is the last patent and that is the full Don Smith system. But that is not for the general public.
Anyway, guys, I showed what I called Benitez Switch 7 in video some 2 years ago. It is easy to do with a Model T ford induction coil or an old induction coil used for healing. I have about 20 of these from tiny to large museum size. This is easy to see fast results.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.08, 19:01:30
Here is  a pic of one of them - so you tell me which patent it's from........  If you don't build it you'll NEVER find any evidence.
So I've shown you my evidence - show me yours......

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.09, 22:21:09
Answer the question.

It's easy. You didn't get overunity but it's always frustrating to have to work for nothing, so we want to believe at all costs that we were on the right track...
It's called denial.
Benitez's patent does not produce anything new, it was enough to read the patent to understand it.

We don't know if there will be winners, but we can be sure that those who back down because they are trying to move forward by looking behind them, are the losers.
The future is built on the basis of the past and the present, but the solutions are found by looking to the future.
If there had been overunity in the past, we would have it today.

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.10, 01:40:56

Anyway, guys, I showed what I called Benitez Switch 7 in video some 2 years ago. It is easy to do with a Model T ford induction coil or an old induction coil used for healing. I have about 20 of these from tiny to large museum size. This is easy to see fast results.

Hi Rick.

Are you referring to one of these?

Here in the UK they're known as a " Trembler coil " and were fitted to many single cylinder stationary engines. This one of mine still works well.

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.07.10, 08:26:31
It's easy. You didn't get overunity but it's always frustrating to have to work for nothing, so we want to believe at all costs that we were on the right track...
It's called denial.
Benitez's patent does not produce anything new, it was enough to read the patent to understand it.

We don't know if there will be winners, but we can be sure that those who back down because they are trying to move forward by looking behind them, are the losers.
The future is built on the basis of the past and the present, but the solutions are found by looking to the future.
If there had been overunity in the past, we would have it today.

Both Grumage and I  discovered the same phenomenon. OU with no input. Don't tell him how Grum, just confirm what I said.......  he's just too annoying.

BTW your trembler is perfect for a Benitez replication - but you need 4 batteries lol

AKing
quote
Don't tell him how Grum
end quote

thats not how we roll here .....I am not certain what you write about ,but that position reflects
poorly here.

Chet K

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.09, 14:39:24
I'd like to share one of my past projects which was quite exciting for a short period of time.  The idea was to drive the trifilar coil with longitudinal RF to excite the negative coupled bucking coils enhanced with P ferrite to produce enough energy to light the LED array.  A ground wire was connected to the shorted brass ring at the solder joint next to the black tape which as one can see is no longer there. 

I determined later that nearly 13kw had to be produced for a short period through the earth ground connection in order to melt the 63/37 solder.  At the time this happened, I quickly disconnected the 9v battery powering the device which stopped the light bifurcation echoes from continuing thus removing any further danger.  I will not post a schematic so please don't ask as this device could be quite harmful.

Regards,
Pm

Yes, I've had similar experience with those "light bifurcation echoes" wreaking havoc on solder joints. I was able to tame them with a locus  potentiometer that adjusts the focus of the bias  field to a safe value.

FWIW

Quote from: ion on 2019.07.10, 14:47:20
Yes, I've had similar experience with those "light bifurcation echoes" wreaking havoc on solder joints. I was able to tame them with a locus  potentiometer that adjusts the focus of the bias  field to a safe value.

FWIW

May I also state that F6FLT is damned insulting in all his posts to me . And that does not sit well either.

From RFQuery

QuoteI have this as an upcoming kit. I just haven't had the time to finish it. I want to make the booklet better and develop the capacitor teaching more as I did with the resonance kit in the book.

I will be coming up with some kits also. I want to sell a few ounces of copper wire wound on a plastic form with some binding posts for $99 or less, so any info on what "Holy Water" I need to sprinkle on them to be able to market them as free energy coils will be appreciated.

Looking forward to your new kit.

Quote from: ion on 2019.07.10, 15:15:37
From RFQuery

I will be coming up with some kits also. I want to sell a few ounces of copper wire wound on a plastic form with some binding posts for $99 or less, so any info on what "Holy Water" I need to sprinkle on them to be able to market them as free energy coils will be appreciated.

Looking forward to your new kit.

Stop being rude if you can. I am getting sick of it.

I have shown Chet the unboxing video of Rick's kit.  Let him comment on what he has seen.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.10, 15:13:29
May I also state that F6FLT is damned insulting in all his posts to me . And that does not sit well either.

Well, yes, you will have that now and then, especially when great claims are made devoid of reasonable proof,  however what is more insulting to the forum is when mere neophytes and sycophants play tag team in an attempt to peddle their half truths to the learned and experienced.

Regards

Quote from: ion on 2019.07.10, 15:22:19
Well, yes, you will have that now and then, especially when great claims are made devoid of reasonable proof,  however what is more insulting to the forum is when mere neophytes and sycophants play tag team in an attempt to peddle their half truths to the learned and experienced.

Regards

Well congratulations on winning the argument.  You win I lose.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.10, 15:32:53
Well congratulations on winning the argument.  You win I lose.

My reply was not  part of an argument, rather it was a general observation coupled with an opinion, not directed at anyone in particular, however if it happened to fit any M.O. being played out on this forum, it is a coincidence. I have written about such things in the past with no particular direct reference to any person or persons, and just as a generalized comment on forum activity.

Regards

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.10, 12:31:35
...OU with no input...

Hilarous.

Quote
BTW your trembler is perfect for a Benitez replication - but you need 4 batteries lol

The replication will surely be successful because it's enough it does not provide OU to be in conformity with the model.
Hats off!
;D

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.10, 15:19:47
I have shown Chet the unboxing video of Rick's kit.

Rick Friedrich's kits are not overunity, but the illusion of a relationship is carefully maintained all around on the forums and youtube.

For those who want buy kits, I advise to choose educational toys for young people, made by professionals. There is no more OU than in the first ones, but for the same price it is much more varied, much more complete and much more useful. The phenomena are explained, not deludedly interpreted by an ignorant pedantic who hopes to sell a science he does not have.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.07.10, 15:50:28
Hilarous.

Well.... This was my experience that Mr King was referring to.

Having watched a HV capacitor string cracking across a 1.5 mm spark gap to an Earth ground for a little over 20 minutes after the supply was removed was far from " Hilarious " I'd suggest unusual at the very least.

I was also able to demonstrate this effect on several occasions to interested third parties.

Could " dielectric absorption " have been the culprit?

...

Quote from: Grumage on 2019.07.10, 16:18:31
Well.... This was my experience that Mr King was referring to.

Having watched a HV capacitor string cracking across a 1.5 mm spark gap to an Earth ground for a little over 20 minutes after the supply was removed was far from " Hilarious " I'd suggest unusual at the very least.

I was also able to demonstrate this effect on several occasions to interested third parties.

Could " dielectric absorption " have been the culprit?

Fun stuff ;D

I have been trying to reconcile the phenomena through Eric Dollard's mechanics of parametric variation.  Permittivity and permeability are in constant flux in an LC arrangement, and multiple harmonics seems to create situations where electrons can be 'pumped' similar to a rankine cycle.  Similar arrangements have been done with accoustics/cymatics to hang and move small particles in mid-air.
https://youtu.be/0K8zs-KSitc


F6: questioning the motives and intent of others can easily lead to others questioning yours.  It's best to keep an open mind in a place like this. :P

Quote from: Grumage on 2019.07.10, 16:18:31
...
Having watched a HV capacitor string cracking across a 1.5 mm spark gap to an Earth ground for a little over 20 minutes after the supply was removed was far from "
...

Possible explanations:
- the air is not stable, humidity, dust, can change the breakdown voltage
- release of mechanical constraints of the capacitor, related to its past or temperature, which causes its plates to move slightly away from each other, and the breakdown voltage is reached
- gradual change of the dielectric molecules under the field, lowering the dielectric constant
- additional static charges from the environment make the difference...

The most common explanations are almost always verified. Without measurements and strict environmental controls, nothing can be inferred.

Not laughing at me now are you?  All you HIGHLY EXPERIENCED Electrical engineers.

Quote from: Grumage on 2019.07.10, 16:18:31
Well.... This was my experience that Mr King was referring to.

Having watched a HV capacitor string cracking across a 1.5 mm spark gap to an Earth ground for a little over 20 minutes after the supply was removed was far from " Hilarious " I'd suggest unusual at the very least.

I was also able to demonstrate this effect on several occasions to interested third parties.

Could " dielectric absorption " have been the culprit?

Bingo! I have seen this effect and traced it to dielectric absorption / electret effect  as the most likely cause among some of the others mentioned by F6.

Exactly what type of capacitors were you using and was there a resistor to limit discharge current?

I have also seen charge buildup on a Tesla Coil former, enough to cause shocks at prescribed intervals, long after power was turned off.

FWIW

Quote from: Grumage on 2019.07.10, 16:18:31
Well.... This was my experience that Mr King was referring to.

Having watched a HV capacitor string cracking across a 1.5 mm spark gap to an Earth ground for a little over 20 minutes after the supply was removed was far from " Hilarious " I'd suggest unusual at the very least.

I was also able to demonstrate this effect on several occasions to interested third parties.

Could " dielectric absorption " have been the culprit?

No.  Here is the answer.
This is EXACTLY what we both experienced completely independently.  (I was also charging 4 car batteries in series.)

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.10, 17:50:20
No.  Here is the answer.
This is EXACTLY what we both experienced completely independently.  (I was also charging 4 car batteries in series.)

/

Do you have a reference / title /author /ISBN for that snippet?

Quote from: ion on 2019.07.10, 17:47:56
Bingo! I have seen this effect and traced it to dielectric absorption as the most likely effect among some of the others mentioned by F6.

Exactly what type of capacitors were you using and was there a resistor to limit discharge current?

I have also seen charge buildup on a Tesla Coil former, enough to cause shocks at prescribed intervals, long after power was turned off.

FWIW

Hi ION.

It was several years ago, the capacitors were of unknown construction having been bought from a local manufacturer. They were rated at around 650 VDC at 1.5 microfarad each, I had 5 or 6 in a series configuration. There was definitely no resistors involved. I was using this to learn about Tesla coils and the spark gap discharge.

I was using a " jacketed " Plasma lamp for my HV generation.

I can't remember now how things were wired but between the negative side ( of the adjustable spark gap ) ( broken sparkplug ) which was also earth grounded to a non utility separate rod I had the string plus an inductor.

Perhaps the attached photo will help a little?

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: ion on 2019.07.10, 17:54:03
/

Do you have a reference / title /author /ISBN for that snippet?

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.10, 16:46:21
AKing,

Referring to your post #32 where you have an attached photo of something that is so blurred that it is impossible to discern what we are looking at, and then you ask F6 to identify which Benitez patent it represents?  Are you really serious?  I'm sorry but that is far from exhibiting any proof of an OU device in my books!

My post #33 was a tongue-in cheek response to your above mentioned post and is completely meaningless.  What else would you really expect at this point in time?

Regards,
Pm

Quote from: Reiyuki on 2019.07.10, 17:19:09
...It's best to keep an open mind in a place like this. :P

You're right, we have to keep an open mind, but not open like a trash bin.  :P

Quote from: Grumage on 2019.07.10, 18:13:20
Hi ION.

It was several years ago, the capacitors were of unknown construction having been bought from a local manufacturer. They were rated at around 650 VDC at 1.5 microfarad each, I had 5 or 6 in a series configuration. There was definitely no resistors involved. I was using this to learn about Tesla coils and the spark gap discharge.

I was using a " jacketed " Plasma lamp for my HV generation.

I can't remember now how things were wired but between the negative side ( of the adjustable spark gap ) ( broken sparkplug ) which was also earth grounded to a non utility separate rod I had the string plus an inductor.

Perhaps the attached photo will help a little?

Cheers Graham.

Graham,


i am sure you are aware that some sparkplug have an internal resistor.
Perhaps that was the case with your broken sparkplug?



http://www.ngkntk.com.br/automotivo/en/suporte-tecnico/diagnostico-de-falhas/

– For resistive type spark plugs check out the value of the internal resistance of the spark plug that can range from 3 to 7.5 kΩ, for some models of spark plug the resistance ranges from 1 to 2 KΩ.
Spark plugs with resistance value outside the specified should be replaced

Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2019.07.10, 18:46:46
Graham,


i am sure you are aware that some sparkplug have an internal resistor.
Perhaps that was the case with your broken sparkplug?



http://www.ngkntk.com.br/automotivo/en/suporte-tecnico/diagnostico-de-falhas/

– For resistive type spark plugs check out the value of the internal resistance of the spark plug that can range from 3 to 7.5 kΩ, for some models of spark plug the resistance ranges from 1 to 2 KΩ.
Spark plugs with resistance value outside the specified should be replaced

Itsu

Hi Itsu.

Indeed yes, most " modern " plugs are resistive but this was one from an earlier age, if you look closely at the photo that's a solid metal rod disappearing into what was left of the ceramic insulation.

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: Grumage on 2019.07.10, 18:13:20
Hi ION.

It was several years ago, the capacitors were of unknown construction having been bought from a local manufacturer. They were rated at around 650 VDC at 1.5 microfarad each, I had 5 or 6 in a series configuration. There was definitely no resistors involved. I was using this to learn about Tesla coils and the spark gap discharge.

I was using a " jacketed " Plasma lamp for my HV generation.

I can't remember now how things were wired but between the negative side ( of the adjustable spark gap ) ( broken sparkplug ) which was also earth grounded to a non utility separate rod I had the string plus an inductor.

Perhaps the attached photo will help a little?

Cheers Graham.

Dear Graham

Thanks for the photo.

The capacitors look like high quality film type polyester.

Large film type capacitors sometimes use a shorting bar in storage to drain off the high voltage which can develop from just sitting around.

Quote"High voltage capacitors should be stored with the terminals shorted, since temporarily discharged
capacitors can develop potentially dangerous voltages when the terminals are left open-circuited

http://www.idc-online.com/technical_references/pdfs/electronic_engineering/Capacitor_Capacitance_Hazards_And_Safety.pdf

Additionally your coil seems to be wound on a pvc former. I've seen these retain quite a bit of charge in the dielectric space. Can you tell a little about the construction of it and do you have a schematic of your setup?

Best Regards

I remember back in the 90's when i did my first overunity experiment with dead sla batteries thanks to John Bedini.

It was an exciting moment watching the batterys rise as the motor ran ,but never saw any real work done with it.

Much more self scrutiny and study revealed that battery sulphation was the effect being manipulated and monetised by some .

As i searched for more info I came across a green pen that made cd's sound better (apparently) and was sold by the very same JB . Im all for different approaches on tuning perhaps I just need a kit and a book ?

It may well be that the pen could be used to coat the coil windings for an even better obsverable effect that could never be proven as that would be an observable effect relating to the negative attitude of the provee, who would have no place asking questions as they would altrady be tainted by the attitude of the personal experience and education self or otherwise of the provee.

Those who have observable experience should not be dismissive of the well educated because after all scrutiny is needed .
The well educated know that they are not across everything so it goes both ways .

Lest we all slip down the slope of self deception with phsychopaths encouraging our journey.

One of the biggest snake oil devices was the CD Clarifier by the same person. It claimed to restore all the missing bits in your audio CD's using magnets and make the sound so much better.

The missing bit syndrome touted to sell these Clarifier devices never addresses the fact that operating systems install CD's and DVD's such as Windows, Mac, and Linux cannot tolerate even one missing bit from the install CD or the install will fail.

I can use the "verify" feature to compare the CD or DVD with the original source material and have rarely if ever gotten an error. Even years later the install media work perfectly, and audio CD's verify perfectly unless they have been badly abused or are ultra low grade media.

The standard Audio Processing Chain for audio CD's has built in auto-interpolation for missing bits, which are rare. This makes listening to  audio CD's that may have missing bits possible without having a large click or pop in the decoded audio.

Anyone who has worked in digital audio processing knows enough to prove the claims are bogus.

This guy has hundreds of expert videos on youtube worth checking out, he is quite skilled.

https://www.youtube.com/user/jlindenas/featured

Read the comments here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ2scoTYmxk

Moderators: if this post  in any way presents a problem, simply delete it.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.10, 15:13:29
May I also state that F6FLT is damned insulting in all his posts to me . And that does not sit well either.

But nothing to support it, no evidence, no quotation!
It is definitely your habit as in overunity: statements without any foundation.

To say that the speeches of a notorious incompetent person you promote are nonsense, is not an insult but the truth. We see that he went to Bediini's school, same breed.There is no "Ricks best video's", they are all worse than each other. This guy can certainly manipulate naive or scientifically uneducated people, and even believe in his own genius when no overuynity has ever come out of his brain. But sorry not to feel concerned, except to expose intellectual crooks.

Quote from: Itsu on 2019.07.11, 20:08:19
Jesus,   A.king21,  how old are you,  my 3 year old granddaughter is also saying such things, but stamps her feet
at the same time,  are you doing that also?

Itsu

I was joking, but have removed the post if you think it is offensive.

Grum:  I talked for hours with Dave Lawton as you know and as you also know Dave Lawton was a protege of Harold Aspden. Anyway he told me that when he first tried to reproduce Staley Meyer's water cell, nothing happened. Then after many hours the cell suddenly produced masses of HHO. He analysed the process and called it conditioning.  When I discussed my experience with the caps at length he concluded that the conditioning process was similar in both systems. ( ie my system and his system). Of course I did not know you had reproduced the same effect at the time or I woud have kept you in the loop.

Anyhow, the conclusion that Dave reached was that the conditioning process produces a nano coating on the surface of the plates and that causes the OU effect.  I have no reason to doubt his conclusions as he worked at the Rutherford lab for many years and had access to the UK's best analytical equipment.

Here is a link about the Stanley Meyer replication, but it is incomplete  by the author although the general theme of conditioning is there.  I know for instance that Dave Lawton used a phase locked loop to keep his water capacitor in resonance.  The article seems old so some of the links may not work. but it gives you an overview.  The author certainly mentions the conditioning process.
http://www.waterpoweredcar.com/MeyerRep.pdf

Quote from: Grumage on 2019.07.10, 10:01:58
Hi Rick.

Are you referring to one of these?

Here in the UK they're known as a " Trembler coil " and were fitted to many single cylinder stationary engines. This one of mine still works well.

Cheers Graham.

Here is Eric Dollard making a free energy device using a "trembler"

https://the-eye.eu/public/concen.org/Eric%20P%20Dollard%20-%20Tesla%20Longitudinal%20Wave%20Energy%20research%20pack/ebooks%201/Eric%20Dollard%20Posts%20on%20Energetic%20Forum.pdf


"I have a device, built for the Army Air Corps during World War 2, A/N number PP-18/AR
Power Converter, which self-sustains the electrical system in my car. It uses the same
theory of operation as Chris's device but involves a different mechanical implementation
utilizing a vibrator, several capacitors and 12V and 24V batteries that are connected in
parallel through the device, rendering them as one. "

This is essentially a Benitez system, but it requires a trembler as does the McFarland Cook system. That device you have is a gem!!!

Yeah.

Quote from: Grumage on 2019.07.10, 10:01:58
Hi Rick.

Are you referring to one of these?

Here in the UK they're known as a " Trembler coil " and were fitted to many single cylinder stationary engines. This one of mine still works well.

Cheers Graham.

Just be aware that in that Benitez patent image there is an interrupter (make and break), as stated in the patent, at point 51, so that that is not a transformer.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.10, 18:31:04

I would be interested to know more specifically about your experience. You say 90s, do you not mean after 2000? Which energizer were you working with? And what exactly did you experience with sulphation? John Bedini was a liar in many things but the energizers never create sulphation in the batteries. All forms of pulsing prevent that from taking place. You are confusing the negative charging process and conditioning with sulphastion. I have been at this for 15 years full time and have thousands of chargers and energizers around the world with batteries still at 100% or higher capacity using this technology. Maybe you got some DC motor from John as he was promoting in his last years. IDK. But it was not anything that I ever promoted. And last I checked this thread is about "Ricks best videos". But please tells us exactly your experience.

Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2019.07.11, 01:59:01
I remember back in the 90's when i did my first overunity experiment with dead sla batteries thanks to John Bedini.

It was an exciting moment watching the batterys rise as the motor ran ,but never saw any real work done with it.

Much more self scrutiny and study revealed that battery sulphation was the effect being manipulated and monetised by some .

As i searched for more info I came across a green pen that made cd's sound better (apparently) and was sold by the very same JB . Im all for different approaches on tuning perhaps I just need a kit and a book ?

It may well be that the pen could be used to coat the coil windings for an even better obsverable effect that could never be proven as that would be an observable effect relating to the negative attitude of the provee, who would have no place asking questions as they would altrady be tainted by the attitude of the personal experience and education self or otherwise of the provee.

Those who have observable experience should not be dismissive of the well educated because after all scrutiny is needed .
The well educated know that they are not across everything so it goes both ways .

Lest we all slip down the slope of self deception with phsychopaths encouraging our journey.

I think it is appropriate to bring up. As I have shown John to be a liar in many of his claims, and as he has been the biggest name in OU over the last 20 years then this is important to consider.

But this point has nothing to do with my videos, or my best videos (unless one of my best videos was exposing John's lies).

Quote from: ion on 2019.07.11, 16:36:09
One of the biggest snake oil devices was the CD Clarifier by the same person. It claimed to restore all the missing bits in your audio CD's using magnets and make the sound so much better.

The missing bit syndrome touted to sell these Clarifier devices never addresses the fact that operating systems install CD's and DVD's such as Windows, Mac, and Linux cannot tolerate even one missing bit from the install CD or the install will fail.

I can use the "verify" feature to compare the CD or DVD with the original source material and have rarely if ever gotten an error. Even years later the install media work perfectly, and audio CD's verify perfectly unless they have been badly abused or are ultra low grade media.

The standard Audio Processing Chain for audio CD's has built in auto-interpolation for missing bits, which are rare. This makes listening to  audio CD's that may have missing bits possible without having a large click or pop in the decoded audio.

Anyone who has worked in digital audio processing knows enough to prove the claims are bogus.

This guy has hundreds of expert videos on youtube worth checking out, he is quite skilled.

https://www.youtube.com/user/jlindenas/featured

Read the comments here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ2scoTYmxk

Moderators: if this post  in any way presents a problem, simply delete it.

Well you are a joke. Obviously you don't know anything about me or my videos. You just fill up such forums with useless words of bitter attack. That is easy to do by a nameless person behind a computer screen. Why don't you start your own thread and show something productive? I have been at this 15 years full time and have thousands of products all over the world that have restored hundreds of thousands of batteries. My customers are repeat customers for the charges and kits. People come back to my meetings many times and use this technology in the real world. I am only doing what people have asked for. I am nothing like John and when I realized who he was and what he was doing I got away from him, and paid a big price for doing that. I have exposed him and have helped thousands of people recover from his deceptions. Does that mean everything he said was a lie? No. Obviously there was much truth. A mature person can admit that, but a childish person like you just over-reacts and responds with such hatred.
I didn't go to Bedini's school at all. You can see in the 8 hour long videos of us in the shop who was asking who the questions. I posted these two years ago. He worked for me, not me for him. I learned on my own.
I don't expect you to believe anything I say, but your opinions are worthless and you have no credibility. Try and do something productive with your life.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.07.11, 18:52:04
But nothing to support it, no evidence, no quotation!
It is definitely your habit as in overunity: statements without any foundation.

To say that the speeches of a notorious incompetent person you promote are nonsense, is not an insult but the truth. We see that he went to Bediini's school, same breed.There is no "Ricks best video's", they are all worse than each other. This guy can certainly manipulate naive or scientifically uneducated people, and even believe in his own genius when no overuynity has ever come out of his brain. But sorry not to feel concerned, except to expose intellectual crooks.

Sulphation was already present in the sla batteries which is why his diatribe included using old flat batteries ...it worked but not in the context which it was represented.

If course he knew what was going on as would anybody with half a brain. It took me just a few months (alone)to be certain that the sweet spot of battery efficiency was the culprit there.

It still fools people today thats why Use of supercaps or other mediums is the first requiremant.
othewise  bullshit meter hits the stops.

The pen was the best confirmation of his ethics ,having said that there are many entities using bait and switch to fill their empty pockets ,some call it capitolisim. I call it theft.

Treating a bunch of single coils as a group entity still inspires the creative spirit from my little corner.
inferring I need to buy something does not as most here try to convey their work as best they can to others for scrutiny and sharing .

There have even been cautious claims made here only to be self proven to be wrong and addmissions and thanks made .

The rosmary ansile saga was one of the best examples and we all raize a glass to Poynt ( founding member here)from time to time .

L/C and copper wire etc are reproducable by most any one here and most can read a meter.

If what is produced does not show on a meter then perhaps a different meter?




There in lies the problem with claims and expectations . Hopes and dreams vs cold fact .

sorry to break the flow of the thread however Rick I was there at that ferris wheel shambles . I was miss directed and I didn't like it! Although you have gone into the the Aaron ,Bedini,Bearden farce in depth the connection needs to be made to the petro dollar from there to the whole forum and its people and then to other forums . It seems to be done pretty well here -
http://whale.to/b/subversion_of_alternitive_energy.html (http://whale.to/b/subversion_of_alternitive_energy.html)
There is indeed imho good reason for vetting members on this forum and someone knows the member really is a real person. I for one am happy it is so.
so if big oils bank rolling proceedings on the major 'alternative energy ' forums do you really think the ambition is create a free energy device ? of course not - silly Billy - its to convince you alternative energy is ficticious , they do a pretty good job.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.11, 22:59:23
Here is Eric Dollard making a free energy device using a "trembler"

https://the-eye.eu/public/concen.org/Eric%20P%20Dollard%20-%20Tesla%20Longitudinal%20Wave%20Energy%20research%20pack/ebooks%201/Eric%20Dollard%20Posts%20on%20Energetic%20Forum.pdf


"I have a device, built for the Army Air Corps during World War 2, A/N number PP-18/AR
Power Converter, which self-sustains the electrical system in my car. It uses the same
theory of operation as Chris's device but involves a different mechanical implementation
utilizing a vibrator, several capacitors and 12V and 24V batteries that are connected in
parallel through the device, rendering them as one. "

This is essentially a Benitez system, but it requires a trembler as does the McFarland Cook system. That device you have is a gem!!!

Dear Mr King.

I'm pretty sure the device you're referring to is a " Vibrator " these will be well known to some of the older generation " Radio " guys.

They were made to rapidly pulse the 12 volt supply available from a car battery into a transformer to step up the voltage needed by the old valve/tube radios of the time.

In my days at the HV test lab they were used to drive the portable HV test rod " proving " units. These were essential in making sure that the test rod was working prior to " poking " it at an HV overhead line.

I may have one or two somewhere in the back of my workshop.

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: Grumage on 2019.07.12, 10:31:15
.

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.12, 04:22:03
Well you are a joke. Obviously you don't know anything about me or my videos. You just fill up such forums with useless words of bitter attack. That is easy to do by a nameless person behind a computer screen. Why don't you start your own thread and show something productive? I have been at this 15 years full time and have thousands of products all over the world that have restored hundreds of thousands of batteries. My customers are repeat customers for the charges and kits. People come back to my meetings many times and use this technology in the real world. I am only doing what people have asked for. I am nothing like John and when I realized who he was and what he was doing I got away from him, and paid a big price for doing that. I have exposed him and have helped thousands of people recover from his deceptions. Does that mean everything he said was a lie? No. Obviously there was much truth. A mature person can admit that, but a childish person like you just over-reacts and responds with such hatred.
I didn't go to Bedini's school at all. You can see in the 8 hour long videos of us in the shop who was asking who the questions. I posted these two years ago. He worked for me, not me for him. I learned on my own.
I don't expect you to believe anything I say, but your opinions are worthless and you have no credibility. Try and do something productive with your life.

RFQUERY blames me for exactly what he is doing: "bitter attack by a nameless person" (should I have guessed that he is Rick Friedrich? I didn't know that).
Unlike RFQUERY, I'm not anonymous, my callsign F6FLT is given, so my name is given, and I'm known for various "productive" works, especially software, which had some success among radio amateurs in the early 2000s, which earned me articles in specialized magazines around the world, even 10 pages in Japan (http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Radio/Mus%C3%A9e/MesArticles/RadioRaft/Fran%C3%A7ois%20Guillet%20-%20Radioraft%203.0%20-%20Ham%20Mobile%20(Japon)%20-%20May%201999%20-%202.pdf). I hate to talk about irrelevant things here, but there are always people stupid enough to despise you if, unlike them, you don't show up and make a buzz for yourself.
I have a long experience in electronics, especially in the field of radio, in addition to university theoretical foundations. What Rick Friedrich tells us about electromagnetism generally makes no sense, and is perfectly in line with the Bediini, Aaron, Bearden, Wesley and other windbags who talk about overunity as if they knew what they have never managed to produce, and see anomalies in relation to the laws of physics in the slightest perfectly explained banal phenomenon.

Their astonishing density of absurdities in every sentence is misinformation that penalizes the knowledge of those who believe them, eventually impoverishes them by offering them books or paid conferences, and wastes the time of those for whom their obscurantism must be fought. These people call themselves productive, but that's not true. They have no achievements to their credit for anything new but they position themselves as experts. It's not productive. It's not even useless. It is counterproductive.
If someone wants to sell his kits with conventional operation, why does he discourse unnecessarily about phenomena that, he claims, would not be? All means are good to be known, and the way Rick Friedrich reproaches me for my so-called anonymity and my non-credibility shows the importance he attaches to standing out from the crowd. Pathetic.

Quote from: ion on 2019.07.10, 15:22:19
.

The problem with professional skeptics is that they never discover anything. C.C

.

Quote from: Grumage on 2019.07.12, 10:31:15
Dear Mr King.

I'm pretty sure the device you're referring to is a " Vibrator " these will be well known to some of the older generation " Radio " guys.

They were made to rapidly pulse the 12 volt supply available from a car battery into a transformer to step up the voltage needed by the old valve/tube radios of the time.

In my days at the HV test lab they were used to drive the portable HV test rod " proving " units. These were essential in making sure that the test rod was working prior to " poking " it at an HV overhead line.

I may have one or two somewhere in the back of my workshop.

Cheers Graham.

Hi Graham
I have a box of about 30  those vibrators of all types. As a kid servicing car radios back in the 50's, sometimes they needed a whack to free up the contacts that got stuck (mildly welded).

They are actually finely tuned devices made to buzz and switch at a certain frequency which switched the primary of a transformer to provide the B+ of 350 volts or more for the tubes in the radio. Usually a gas rectifier such as type OZ4 was used to rectify the switched AC to DC. These devices will be very rare, hold on to them if you can as they are very useful devices.

Regards

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.12, 13:33:44
I must say,the B*d*n* name is getting through quite a bit now,have thing's changed?,in that we are not suppose to print his full name here on this forum?
snip

Brad

QuotePeterae [29|Jun 10:01 PM]:   The word bedini is no longer banned ;)

Ron

Hey Brad.

Peter announced that the word Bedini was no longer banned here via the shout box a few days ago.

Mine's always open on the iPad, just waiting for that " very special " announcement!   ;)

LOL.... Ron beat me to it!

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.12, 13:33:44
...
And for those that are complaining about F6FLT's comment's,well it seems that !some! of you need some straight talk. I think mostly those claiming OU are the one's in the firing line here,and rightfully so.
...
Whether you like it or not,people like F6FLT are a necessity to forums like this,and if you stop making such outlandish claim's,then you will have no problems.

Brad

Thanks Brad.

Note that the "third party" could be done by some of us, but we still need to be presented with what has already been done with the measurement protocol and data showing the overunity to be verified, and the diagram to follow to do the same.

Similarly, if it is a theoretical hypothesis, it must be presented only as a hypothesis, and with arguments as strong as those provided by classical theories to affirm the conservation of the energy in a closed system. If these arguments are drawn from these theories to fight these theories, one can be sure that there is an error somewhere, and it is almost always due either to oversimplification or to ignorance of these theories and the use of arguments related to their popularization and not to their real formalism.
The less we know about conventional theories, the less we understand their validity, the more we imagine extravagance that would contradict them, and the less we understand that what we are saying makes no sense.

I have personally experienced it by confronting aces in physics. I understood my mistakes and since then I've been much more careful. This does not mean that on a certain subject, an IQ of 120 or 130 cannot beat an IQ of 140 or 150 (those who wrote physics), but it must be recognized that in science, the latter are much more often right than the former, which encourages modesty and verification of what is being said. In addition, large IQs are not the least curious, and I can say that some can review dozens of odd thought experiments and reject the bad tracks before others have sketched the first one. So when I see some telling us that they discovered the Holy Grail in childish ideas that are obviously false for physics enthusiasts, I tell myself that they do not have a sense of ridicule.

Quote from: Grumage on 2019.07.12, 15:20:15
...
Peter announced that the word Bedini was no longer banned here via the shout box a few days ago.
...

Out of curiosity, why had this name been banned (and not the others, like Bearden)?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.07.12, 15:55:27
Out of curiosity, why had this name been banned (and not the others, like Bearden)?

Before my invitation to join OUR.

I'm sure Peter will explain later.

Quote from: Duncan on 2019.07.12, 07:52:25
sorry to break the flow of the thread however Rick I was there at that ferris wheel shambles . I was miss directed and I didn't like it! Although you have gone into the the Aaron ,Bedini,Bearden farce in depth the connection needs to be made to the petro dollar from there to the whole forum and its people and then to other forums . It seems to be done pretty well here -
http://whale.to/b/subversion_of_alternitive_energy.html (http://whale.to/b/subversion_of_alternitive_energy.html)
There is indeed imho good reason for vetting members on this forum and someone knows the member really is a real person. I for one am happy it is so.
so if big oils bank rolling proceedings on the major 'alternative energy ' forums do you really think the ambition is create a free energy device ? of course not - silly Billy - its to convince you alternative energy is ficticious , they do a pretty good job.

Nice to hear from you again.  BTW those Russian "spark gaps" you sent me work no better than neon bulbs in that they dampen the disruptive discharge.They are nicely made though. So I've got a bunch of lightning arrestors instead.  If you pm me your email I'll show you some interesting stuff.

The very important point ts that a self tunner is the best start for any of us and if this has been achieved then sharing it here with no conditions would b the best place to do it .

There are many conditions where a self runner would seem to be so and the brains trust here will help , in many ways .

But for now please take your devices away from any local em fields .

Edit ...
googling the claimants name with " success"  and then "scam"  gee its a sad story of egos, bordering on mental illness.
With some religion references,   many cans and many worms !

Duncan,
Did you see my 8 hour videos on me building the ferris wheel and how I actually ran it with 1W and one small coil? Yes I came to see who these guys were. Your link doesn't really show any of the bad stuff that could be mentioned. The conspiracy theory camp was created and didn't create itself. I eventually realized that the free energy community was just one part of that. What people in these camps/groups don't realize is that the war is a lot more sophisticated than they realize. People fall for the bait of truth and partial truths and think they are pretty smart over the general population, but they fall into deeper traps they never dreamed of. You really can't trust anyone anymore. I have seen this up close.

Quote from: Duncan on 2019.07.12, 07:52:25
sorry to break the flow of the thread however Rick I was there at that ferris wheel shambles . I was miss directed and I didn't like it! Although you have gone into the the Aaron ,Bedini,Bearden farce in depth the connection needs to be made to the petro dollar from there to the whole forum and its people and then to other forums . It seems to be done pretty well here -
http://whale.to/b/subversion_of_alternitive_energy.html (http://whale.to/b/subversion_of_alternitive_energy.html)
There is indeed imho good reason for vetting members on this forum and someone knows the member really is a real person. I for one am happy it is so.
so if big oils bank rolling proceedings on the major 'alternative energy ' forums do you really think the ambition is create a free energy device ? of course not - silly Billy - its to convince you alternative energy is ficticious , they do a pretty good job.

Well Brad, I was invited to this forum two times now. I wasn't told these rules. The first time I get on this forum I find just baseless insults against me from you and others. I saw this forum as no different than Aaron's or OU and all the others. Bitter prejudiced people with lots of baggage. So I had no interest. Then I do my video against Aaron and you like it and even apologize to me and then invite me back to this forum. So I see this thread has my name on it and I see a mixture of good and bad here. I respond to this guy who I do not know and who treats me with great disrespect. Then I learn these rules. Anyway, if you guys wish to spend your time throwing insults like this and have no interest in science then good luck. It is no wonder that you guys are still searching and never finding. There is no difference here than the other trolled groups.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.12, 13:33:44
I must say,the B*d*n* name is getting through quite a bit now,have thing's changed?,in that we are not suppose to print his full name here on this forum?

I also see many claims of OU here now,have things changed there as well?

Are we heading down the OU.com and EF rout ?-->i hope not.

And for those that are complaining about F6FLT's comment's,well it seems that !some! of you need some straight talk. I think mostly those claiming OU are the one's in the firing line here,and rightfully so.
You just do not make those claims here without the proof to back it up,and hearsay is not any proof at all.

Present your device and data,along with your 3rd party validation,and then provide the schematic so as it can be replicated here,and confirmed. After all that,then you may have a right to make such a claim.
But until such time,expect those that see through the garbage to be stern with you and your claims.

Whether you like it or not,people like F6FLT are a necessity to forums like this,and if you stop making such outlandish claim's,then you will have no problems.



Brad

.

Well pardon me Mr. Expert Popularity. Thank you for greeting me with such warm welcomes while making such a buzz for yourself.

I don't claim to have decided on my wording of all these things or that I am some expert. I am merely a servant to help others. I have used the technology I have promoted for many years now. You want my references? I have thousands of customers all around the world who have restored hundreds of thousands of batteries. This was the first thing that needed solving in alternative energy systems. Now you can keep your batteries. The second thing was to create better solutions than solar or wind. While I live in Michigan, and the coast has a lot of wind, there was no sun or wind over here so I began looking into other options. Yes I had humble beginnings, but I was able to find what I was looking for within 6 months at this research. I demonstrated the basic brushless fan system that charges a battery or powers other loads to professors and students at many of the US colleges 14 years ago for a year. Others copied that and thousands of fans have been sold by others to people who now can use their fans with the same input and CFMs while providing other loads or by rotating batteries. Over the years I have given many demonstrations of motor systems for vehicles and other purposes. You can mock me all you want and spit at me but I am not worried about people who are filled with such prejudice. You are over-aggressive so it seems there is more going on in your case. I'm not sure what you are doing here or even what this forum is all about. But you guys need to figure out what you are about as there doesn't seem to be any benefit in this forum than any other. I do like the idea of limiting claims as was mentioned. The only problem is that you guys don't limit the counter claims just the same. So you don't get it yet as I have pointed out on OU.com While no one should believe an OU claim given over the internet (yes I did say that) in the same way no one should believe a counter-claim either for the same reason, when it is given over the internet. And I wonder how you guys are going to actually validate a claim or disproof claim? Third party? How can yet another claimant here or third party present proof so that any of you should believe or disbelieve a claim when all that is still over the internet? Anyone can pay someone to say whatever they want these days. You guys are not skeptical enough. While I make claims, as we all do, about everything, I don't expect people to believe them, even as I titled one of my last videos. What I do is share how to do things to my customers as they have asked me. They appreciate my work, and that is between me and them. You don't understand my works or videos or actions because they are not for you. You assume many things and are really blind in that. But I say to you that you have no way to prove or disprove anything about OU or people through this or any forum or through the internet. At least I meet and converse with thousands of people around the world and not through this faceless medium where people bicker and insult each other. I say to you that you can only prove something like this personally. All other claims are deception. You are only creating some vote or popular opinion. It just wastes time and goes nowhere. I mean, where are you people? Do you have anything yet? You see there are tens of thousands of people no longer participating on these useless forums because they already have what they need or they converse privately. So these forums are just for people searching or trolls trying to get people to work for them for free as we see over on OU.com Well I hope you guys eventually find something you can build and justify all the time you spend here. I'll check back in 10 years and see if the domain name is available..

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.07.12, 12:18:15
RFQUERY blames me for exactly what he is doing: "bitter attack by a nameless person" (should I have guessed that he is Rick Friedrich? I didn't know that).
Unlike RFQUERY, I'm not anonymous, my callsign F6FLT is given, so my name is given, and I'm known for various "productive" works, especially software, which had some success among radio amateurs in the early 2000s, which earned me articles in specialized magazines around the world, even 10 pages in Japan (http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Radio/Mus%C3%A9e/MesArticles/RadioRaft/Fran%C3%A7ois%20Guillet%20-%20Radioraft%203.0%20-%20Ham%20Mobile%20(Japon)%20-%20May%201999%20-%202.pdf). I hate to talk about irrelevant things here, but there are always people stupid enough to despise you if, unlike them, you don't show up and make a buzz for yourself.
I have a long experience in electronics, especially in the field of radio, in addition to university theoretical foundations. What Rick Friedrich tells us about electromagnetism generally makes no sense, and is perfectly in line with the Bediini, Aaron, Bearden, Wesley and other windbags who talk about overunity as if they knew what they have never managed to produce, and see anomalies in relation to the laws of physics in the slightest perfectly explained banal phenomenon.

Their astonishing density of absurdities in every sentence is misinformation that penalizes the knowledge of those who believe them, eventually impoverishes them by offering them books or paid conferences, and wastes the time of those for whom their obscurantism must be fought. These people call themselves productive, but that's not true. They have no achievements to their credit for anything new but they position themselves as experts. It's not productive. It's not even useless. It is counterproductive.
If someone wants to sell his kits with conventional operation, why does he discourse unnecessarily about phenomena that, he claims, would not be? All means are good to be known, and the way Rick Friedrich reproaches me for my so-called anonymity and my non-credibility shows the importance he attaches to standing out from the crowd. Pathetic.

Brad,
I didn't ignore anything. That was a private thread and I didn't know you were applying that across the whole forum. While it is definitely a step in the right direction it needs to apply to ALL CLAIMS. Positive and negative. See my last post. There is no reason to single out "extraordinary" over any claims. The point is anyone can make a claim and there is nothing wrong with claims. The thing to do is instruct people to be rational and not believe any claim. You all make many claims that conflict with each other, so this is just selective. Who defines what is extraordinary? Is anything not mainstream extraordinary? I'm not sure if this is some basic idea you guys have or if you have more detail about this. Sounds like some unspoken rules going on here. But you have to apply the same rule for counter claims. And any claim then. You have to be consistent right? I mean isn't the law of conservation a fairly extra ordinary claim? Who can prove that? And what about the claims against people's characters? Those are extraordinary are they not? Why is there no moderation there? People should be polite at all times. There is no hope if you guys continue this practice. You are just going to create a closed camp that goes nowhere unless you fix these matters. I really don't have time for this drama. You guys need to figure out how to do science here and not play highshool forum games with people. I know you can do real science as I have seen some of your works. But such forums are very limited and you just can't confuse the real world science with this chit chat online. Idk, maybe some of you work together in the real world. That is what is needed here. But don't think you can prove or disprove anything through a forum. Making a claim is not the problem, but believing that a claim can be proven or disproven over the forum is not science and it is something else.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.13, 03:07:36
The difference here Rick is we do not claim to have an OU device without providing proof of having such.
I did state this in my first post in the thread we opened for you.
But it seems that was simply ignored.

So when making extraordinary claims without proof,you can expect a few stern words from the few here well versed in EE.


Brad

Grumage:  I've just come across this video and must be suffering from amnesia. It's yours from 5 years ago. Time flies.  Any conclusion?  ie how much power input?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNBuUvHDe1kn

.

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.13, 03:13:42
Well pardon me Mr. Expert Popularity. Thank you for greeting me with such warm welcomes while making such a buzz for yourself.

I don't claim to have decided on my wording of all these things or that I am some expert. I am merely a servant to help others.
...

blah blah blah

Hell is paved with good intentions, and others much less good. I am not here to listen to the psychological digressions of people who feel so uncomfortable that they have to make their apology, having a high opinion of themselves although they do not produce anything useful.

The only thing I'm saying is that Rick Friedrich regularly tells us nonsense and that he can't prove what he's saying. This is what makes him stand out from the anonymity and we understand why he wants all claims to be accepted, whether or not their justifications are provided, and those who criticize them to be censored.

His demand that it be up to us to provide proof that what he says is false ("But you have to apply the same rule for counter claims) is found in all sectarian gurus and charlatans who try to manipulate their audience: it is to reverse the burden of proof while their non-sense are not falsifiable in Popper's sense, so their demand is a logical impossibility.
Should we justify that the Pink Unicorn doesn't exist, if he ever claimed otherwise?! Of course not. What is claimed without proof can be denied without proof.  We can therefore deny what he is telling us as long as he is unable to formulate things that make sense and are verifiable. We save time that we can devote to the search for overunity, it is always better to rely on ourselves than on self-proclaimed prophets.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.13, 05:06:05
It's called capacitive coupling,and the two plates of the capacitor are the two wires running through the mains lead along side each other..


Brad

By amnesia I meant I didn't remember ever seeing the video although a dim memory is coming back. I wondered if there were any conclusions. After all I am mentioned in the vid.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.07.13, 08:39:10
blah blah blah

Hell is paved with good intentions, and others much less good. I am not here to listen to the psychological digressions of people who feel so uncomfortable that they have to make their apology, having a high opinion of themselves although they do not produce anything useful.

The only thing I'm saying is that Rick Friedrich regularly tells us nonsense and that he can't prove what he's saying. This is what makes him stand out from the anonymity and we understand why he wants all claims to be accepted, whether or not their justifications are provided, and those who criticize them to be censored.

His demand that it be up to us to provide proof that what he says is false ("But you have to apply the same rule for counter claims) is found in all sectarian gurus and charlatans who try to manipulate their audience: it is to reverse the burden of proof while their non-sense are not falsifiable in Popper's sense, so their demand is a logical impossibility.
Should we justify that the Pink Unicorn doesn't exist, if he ever claimed otherwise?! Of course not. What is claimed without proof can be denied without proof.  We can therefore deny what he is telling us as long as he is unable to formulate things that make sense and are verifiable. We save time that we can devote to the search for overunity, it is always better to rely on ourselves than on self-proclaimed prophets.

King Shit of Turd Island has spoken!

Welcome to the list Rick, good to see you posting here. My only complaint is the length of your videos... they exceed my attention span... but then that is a common failing with several others who regularly put up long YouTube vids.

Ron

This is the email I got this morning about this F6FLT person:
"Sorry about F6FLT.
The forum was really much happier before this toxic personality started strutting around and marking his territory.
If you scroll back in time you'll find things were much more sane and productive beforehand."

I guess that's what others have also observed about you. It is you who has a high opinion of yourself. And did you produce anything useful? As I said, there are thousands of chargers that have been useful enough to restore hundreds of thousands of batteries all around the world. I think that says a lot. And there are thousands of others that would say the opposite of what you say. But for some reason you have an axe to grind. Why don't you tell me how useful you are here on this forum? With all your toxic strutting what have you to show anyone? Mere criticisms of others? And why resort to ad hominem fallacies rather than decent dialogue with someone you have never met before? Are you that afraid of me that you have rail on me to try and scare people away? Are you that immature that you have to resort to such insults rather than with science. If you have the corner on truth, then by all means shows us the way. Or is this other member right that you are just a "toxic personality strutting around and marking your territory"?
You have made the claim that I "do not produce anything useful." I doubt that you even know what I have produced. But that is a claim that needs proof. It is a slander. Who made you the judge? Are you the gatekeeper here?
No I don't claim to prove what I am saying to people over the internet. Some people here are my customers and have the proof for themselves. If that wasn't the case I wouldn't have been invited Mr. Toxic. Did I say I want "all claims to be accepted"? No. On the contrary. No one should accept any claims from anyone. It appears that you guys were trying to move in the right direction but you really didn't think this whole thing through properly. You only took the idea to a certain level. It is not the making of a claim that is wrong, but it is the believing of claims that is the mistake. You all are making claims that you do this or that or that such and such is true or false. This is exactly what you are doing about me here. You say I "do not produce anything useful." Yet I produce battery chargers that at the very least charge up batteries. That is useful so your claim is manifestly false. But you don't see the OUR police silencing you on that slander claim. Claims here are mere opinions and people should not be so uptight about what people say. It's fine to encourage people to share their claims as mere hypothesis or suggestions, but you really need to be consistent with such things across the board. Mr. Toxic wants to be exempt from this. He expects to be believed in his claims without reason. He then claims that I expect to be believed when I don't ever say that. He expects me to prove things that are impossible to prove over the internet. That's really twisting things up. I never wrote that people need to prove that claims are false through a forum. More twisting. I wrote that positive and negative claims are actually the same. Just as you can't prove an OU claim over the internet, even with third party claims over the internet (I don't know if you guys do anything more here in the real world or if this is just over the internet), in the same way you can't disprove an OU claim over the internet. That is the big fallacy of all these forums. So this is the big fallacy people have been fooled by these forums for years. So much time wasted in thinking that things are proven and disproven when it is not rational to make such conclusion without real-world testing by yourself. No one should be your judge and master. I would expect these things to make sense to at least some of you people. I mean, aren't you people made up of your dissatisfaction about other forums that play such games? Well here is a toxic personality who is playing the same games here. Coming on strong as if some kind of authority, trying to intimidate me right off the bat so that his game will not be exposed here. Just look at the seething rage coming off of his keyboard. He is desperate and has to resort to fallacy and twisting of words. He makes me say just the opposite because he is in such a rush to crush me at all costs. Well it just proves my point. You see I can prove such things because you all personally can see these words if you bother to read them honestly.
I really don't understand how I have regularly told you guys anything. I have only posted a few times here. So what is that about? It is ironic that Mr. Toxic claims the opposite of what I said while doing the very thing he accuses me of. He actually wants all claims accepted, when I don't, and also provided no justification for that claim while attacking me for his claim that I was providing no justification for something I didn't claim. Wow! Talk about a confused guy. So quick to accuse that he has to do the very thing he is accusing me of, which is the very thing I am denying. All right, now that we have that cleared up can we be friends ;)

Anyway, the idea of counter-claims needing justification is self-evident. What makes positive claims so different than negative ones? Who decides the context here? Is mainstream theory just accepted by everyone here to be gospel truth? Is the arrogance of the history of science, which is one long chain of assuming everything is known that can be known, the standard of truth? Is there nothing yet to be discovered? Can anyone prove the conservation of energy law to be universal? Now I didn't say counter-claims needed to be proven over the forum, as neither positive or counter-claims can be so proven. But I did say they are the same thing. Every truth of demonstration needs to be properly demonstrated. And a video cannot do that. Nor can testimonies, however many, over the internet. Is that so hard to understand?

A disproof claim is no different than a positive claim. Both can only be sufficient when the fulfill the conditions of rational conviction, something Mr. Toxic has no interest in learning about. Apparently, according to members here he is more interested in "strutting around and marking his territory." There can be no rational conviction about any truths of demonstration over the internet. They have to be experienced in the real world where people can really monitor all the environmental conditions and verify every part and relationship. But why would this only apply to positive claims? The disproof claim is no different. And it is actually much harder to do because you actually have to know exactly what the positive claim is and ensure that you have replicated it exactly. It is very easy to mischaracterize someone else as we see Mr. Toxic do even with my words. Or are you guys promoting a double standard here?

Again, I am not saying claims should be believed, or that people should even bother with all the many claims that are made. I am not demanding that claims be disproved at all. Only that the burden of proof is on the claim whether it be positive or negative. And there is no proof through the internet in matters that need demonstration.

Anyway, anything less than this is folly and this is an example of a toxic personality "who try to manipulate their audience" into just believing their slander claims without "justification."

So how is it that you bring up what is falsifiable? Can you falsify anything like this over the internet? You have a double standard here because you haven't even thought this through and do not understand basic logic or the nature of proof. What you are demonstrating is like someone thinking that reality TV is the real world when it is only seen through a screen. How can you falsify a counter-claim that is not observable in the real world and only through the internet and/or with more testimonies given over the internet. The claim is unfalsifiable. You have really put your foot in your big mouth my toxic friend.

"Should we justify" new forms of energy harvesting "doesn't exist"? You are just using diverting fallacies and they are only exposing your ignorance Mr. Know-it-all-double-standard. You beg the question. And I have to ask, what is the purpose of such a forum if it is so presumptuous as to ridicule people claiming to develop new forms of energy harvesting? Mr. Toxic is just here to brand whatever he doesn't believe as a pink unicorn. He has actually made the claim that needs proving as he so expects from me. He is expecting others to believe his claims without justification. He uses fallacies of authoritarianism as if he is some authority that just should be believed in his claims. He uses ad baculum fallacies, and threatens you with verbal abuse if you disbelieve or challenge his claims. Almost every fallacy in the book in just a few posts. It was so bad I got this email today apologizing for the rest of you people here.

Again, he doesn't understand basic logic and has not looked in the mirror to realize that he is doing the very thing he is wrongly accusing me of. It's really sad people do this.

"What is claimed without proof can be denied without proof." The denial is a claim in itself. This is not accurate. What is claimed without proof may be disregarded without proof. We do not have the ability to know that something is not true just because it is presented without proof. Think about that for a minute. What makes anyone certain that a claim is false just because it is not proven? All you would have to do is state a claim and people could be justified in claiming it was not true merely because they didn't properly prove it. And this happens all the time and the truth is maligned by those who misrepresent it. Kind of like what Mr. Toxic is doing here when you tries to sound like he knows something about logic or proof or even science. It's really sad.

The truth is that anything claimed is merely a hypothesis verbalized. We usually need some justification for considering it. There are some inconsistent rules here on this forum that try to address that. Very good. So we can ignore any claim that doesn't warrant investigation or our attention. But that is not the same thing as having a license to claim that it is therefore false. This is what Mr. Toxic thinks he has the liberty to do. He is thus encouraging both credulity and incredulity at the same time. He has watered a circle around this forum as his territory to enforce his prejudice upon all of you. And this is the very reason why this forum will go nowhere as you participate in this double standard illogical hypocrisy. So in his own words: "We can therefore deny what he is telling us as long as he is unable to formulate things that make sense and are verifiable." Was anything he said verifiable? Did it even make sense? No. No. But can we really deny what someone says even if it is not verified or seems to make sense to us? Sounds more like saying if we don't understand what people are saying then we just can't affirm it. But to deny something is to make a claim about it. He just doesn't get how he overreaches in his argumentation. He is so aggressive that he has to try and prove more than he can or ought to in an argument. He is attacking at any cost by any means to the point that he does the very things he accuses me of, and that illogically.

There is no mention of even what "things" don't "make sense" so therefore, by his own standard, there is no "justification" for such claims. This is just one big ad hominem fallacy.

"We save time that we can devote to the search for overunity, it is always better to rely on ourselves than on self-proclaimed prophets."
"We save time that we can devote to the search for" things considered impossible and are claimed by people as real, "it is always better to rely on ourselves than on self-proclaimed" authoritarians that exemplify a double standard. What justification do you even have for searching for OU when most of the world argues exactly like you do and dismisses it as believing in "pink unicorns"? You mock people in the same way. Can you even tell us one reason why you are justified in this pursuit? That would be the first place to start. Here we have the expert recommending you all to search for OU. Will you insist that he justify that? He is recommending the belief in something the world thinks is crazy nonsense (all the language he uses against me here). If he has a reason I think you would all be benefitted by this. Usually such loudmouths, as we see on OU.com right now, are unwilling to tell us the basis for belief in OU pursuits. And hiding this from others is not helpful. If they have any rational reason then it would be very useful for people to consider such things and build upon it. But instead they usually sit back in an authority chair and poke at others and waiting for someone to do the real work for them. Hopefully that is not the case here. Well anyway, we can see who the "self-proclaimed prophet" is here.

Claims in matters of demonstration are not bad things to be afraid of.
Positive claims are really the same as negative claims.
This forum and the whole internet cannot prove or disprove a claim that is a matter of demonstration.
Deal with that politely and rationally!

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.07.13, 08:39:10
blah blah blah
Hell is paved with good intentions, and others much less good. I am not here to listen to the psychological digressions of people who feel so uncomfortable that they have to make their apology, having a high opinion of themselves although they do not produce anything useful.
The only thing I'm saying is that Rick Friedrich regularly tells us nonsense and that he can't prove what he's saying. This is what makes him stand out from the anonymity and we understand why he wants all claims to be accepted, whether or not their justifications are provided, and those who criticize them to be censored.
His demand that it be up to us to provide proof that what he says is false ("But you have to apply the same rule for counter claims) is found in all sectarian gurus and charlatans who try to manipulate their audience: it is to reverse the burden of proof while their non-sense are not falsifiable in Popper's sense, so their demand is a logical impossibility.
Should we justify that the Pink Unicorn doesn't exist, if he ever claimed otherwise?! Of course not. What is claimed without proof can be denied without proof.  We can therefore deny what he is telling us as long as he is unable to formulate things that make sense and are verifiable. We save time that we can devote to the search for overunity, it is always better to rely on ourselves than on self-proclaimed prophets.

...

Ron,
So I guess the claim I got in email about Mr. Toxic has been "confirmed" and "proven true" by you. That is fairly extreme. Must be worse than even I experienced so far. Well I don't think he'll want to show his face around here after making a fool of himself as I showed. Yes it was long, but I am thorough. If people want to play games then I'll call their bluff and turn self-defeating statements upon themselves. How can you recover from that. Hopefully a sorry will appear one day.

The long videos are not a failure. They are not for the general public but for my customers who request them to be the length they are because I am addressing questions they have and sharing things they can try. They are not attempts to prove OU as I even titled one of the last videos. The videos are poor quality because I really don't have the time to put into youtube what is necessary to try and impress the average person that only wants a flashy 5 minute video. If I did short videos then I would have thousands of videos and people would just get lost in them. I'll be organizing them this weekend for the new website.

Quote from: ronee on 2019.07.13, 15:05:25
King S... of Turd Island has spoken!
Welcome to the list Rick, good to see you posting here. My only complaint is the length of your videos... they exceed my attention span... but then that is a common failing with several others who regularly put up long YouTube vids.
Ron

Here we try to respect these rules when it comes to claims.
Administrators Peterae and Poynt's guidelines for claims at this open source venue .

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=8.0

To be used more as guidelines ,but the theme reads through strongly  .

Chet K

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.13, 16:24:18
RFQ,

Although I have disagreed with F6FLT in certain areas and discussions on this forum, I totally agree with his assessment of your OU claims.  I have no problem with you reaching out to others through your videos and seminars with your OU beliefs and claims, but in this forum, you will be challenged.  Why?  Simply because we are not that gullible!

I personally am tired of all this nonsense!

Regards,
Pm

Partzman,

well spoken, i could not agree more,  short and clear.

F6FLT is surely an asset here or anywhere else, so if you can't stand the heat, go out of the kitchen.



all,

I see a wedge being driven between members of this forum, so be aware of this practice.

 
Itsu

PM,
Good to see you here too. So is everyone on both the forums?
You have no problem with all the contradictory statements he just gave as I just explained? Maybe you can explain all how all of his twisted logic is true.
I don't have any problems with people not believing anything I claim. People ask questions and I am free to respond right? And do you have a double standard here? Will the attempted disproves also be challenged in the same way, or do they get a free pass to be free to conclude on with confirmation bias as F6FLT did? Are you saying with him that anything you deem a "pink unicorn", which would be any OU claim to most people, gives you free license to just disregard as unverifiable and unjustifiable? And is your methodology subject to investigation and needing to be consistent or is this just another place to try and disprove OU and attack people's names? I think it is on the contrary, people are sick of all the nonsense chatter based upon this double standard authoritarian popularity contests where people deceive themselves into thinking they can prove or disprove anything over the internet. Now that is gullible. Just because everyone on a forum is gullible, doesn't mean they will know it. They will even think they are not gullible when they readily believe negative claims without sufficient reason as an example of confirmation bias. What you say here seems to suggest all of this. Is this what you mean or do you want to correct your words here?
There is nothing to challenge me on because I am not pushing any claim. It's like me saying I'm Canadian. That is a claim. I may make that kind of claim not because I am expecting you to believe it or am pushing it on someone, but because it is just part of the conversation. You don't have to be so hostile. Some of you guys are really on edge. Obviously have serious baggage. All of these forums are no more than a sharing of ideas. They are not places where you can prove anything. So don't be so uptight about all this. Do what you want with the information people share, but don't assume it is true or false without fulfilling the conditions of rational conviction. We just can't do science here people. We can only share ideas and help each other with more content. There is no way to verify the real world through the internet. So there is no reason to get so upset about claims and counterclaims. Maybe for you OU is the same as pink unicorns. Or maybe some specific claims are that way to you, as I just gave an example of with Gerard M. But F6FLT categorically claimed that everything I do is useless. You don't think that is even a little overreaching?

Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what the proper language is here. I can see that certain words will not even be allowed, while rudeness and foul language is. Are all claims of demonstration forbidden, or just positive OU claims? Obviously slander claims are allowed. Obviously disproof claims are allowed without any shred of evidence. So is this the double standard you guys adhere to here? Is there even a rule book? Who is the king who made the rule or rules? You can see how bewildered I am coming here. It's almost like a little cult that allows for attacking everyone else but doesn't apply the same standard for the attacking itself. In cults they control the information and use the same contradictory lack of logic and reasoning that F6FLT used. Maybe some intervention is needed here. Maybe people need to learn a thing or two about confirmation bias, logic, and manners. I'm just saying...

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.13, 16:24:18
RFQ,
Although I have disagreed with F6FLT in certain areas and discussions on this forum, I totally agree with his assessment of your OU claims.  I have no problem with you reaching out to others through your videos and seminars with your OU beliefs and claims, but in this forum, you will be challenged.  Why?  Simply because we are not that gullible!
I personally am tired of all this nonsense!
Regards,
Pm

Itsu,
I don't care about any heat, it doesn't bother me. Actually the heat just proves the points as you can now see. But you have said you never read anything I write anyway, so you wouldn't even know.
You guys don't get it. I am always interested in criticisms. I am not expecting anyone to believe a claim, especially Itsu's claims when they are over videos and pictures and not in the real world where we can actually see everything and do real science. You are still making your own positive claims Itsu, in every video even with every thing you say and do. These are claims just as much as another other videos for or against OU. So I guess I would have to figure out what constitutes "extraordinary" in your videos. Are there any extraordinary claims in your videos or on this forum? I can see a few threads where someone must have made such a claim somewhere.
Exactly how was F6FLT's posts to me an asset when he completely contradicted himself in every sentence? Of course you will not even read this post and will just believe what he wrote without bothering to consider his contradictions. So now we have merely a popularity clique going on here. All these added posts with no useful content in it. For it to be useful you would have had to give some reason why F6FLT was an asset when so far he has shown himself to be completely contradictory and counterproductive to scientific research. At least Brad gave some reason for his claim about him.

Itsu, a wedge already exists between members. You have issues with A.King. These other guys with F6FLT, and this has nothing to do with me. I just was invited to this mess you guys created. You don't have the right structure here people. You need a little tweaking to make this work properly so that you can avoid this tension.

What are you afraid of Itsu? What practice are you afraid of here? Someone who will challenge you to justify YOUR CLAIMS? Someone who is looking for people to be accountable?  "all, I see a wedge being driven between members of this forum", who are engaging in confirmation bias, and every fallacy in the book, and those who are sick of that and exposing that, "so be aware of this" rational truthful "practice" that threatens our fantasy world existence. I think rather the kitchen is too hot for you guys that desperately want to preserve the double standards while priding yourselves as being superior and doing something useful. But there comes a time when you just have to get on with life if you can't ever find OU.

Quote from: Itsu on 2019.07.13, 17:23:44
Partzman,
well spoken, i could not agree more,  short and clear. F6FLT is surely an asset here or anywhere else, so if you can't stand the heat, go out of the kitchen. all, I see a wedge being driven between members of this forum, so be aware of this practice.
Itsu

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.13, 17:56:12

......................Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what the proper language is here. I can see that certain words will not even be allowed, while rudeness and foul language is. Are all claims of demonstration forbidden, or just positive OU claims? Obviously slander claims are allowed. Obviously disproof claims are allowed without any shred of evidence. So is this the double standard you guys adhere to here? Is there even a rule book? Who is the king who made the rule or rules? You can see how bewildered I am coming here. It's almost like a little cult that allows for attacking everyone else but doesn't apply the same standard for the attacking itself. In cults they control the information and use the same contradictory lack of logic and reasoning that F6FLT used. Maybe some intervention is needed here. Maybe people need to learn a thing or two about confirmation bias, logic, and manners. I'm just saying...

Good day All:

I seem to remember from my undergrad days at the university that Replication is the backbone of the Scientific Method. 
Replication of an experiment is not a "double-standard", it is the de facto Standard of the Scientific Method.

"Replication
If an experiment cannot be repeated to produce the same results, this implies that the original results might have been in error. As a result, it is common for a single experiment to be performed multiple times, especially when there are uncontrolled variables or other indications of experimental error. For significant or surprising results, other scientists may also attempt to replicate the results for themselves, especially if those results would be important to their own work.[50]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

This forum has always operated under this premise, as this is NOT something new (as of this thread) imposed to discriminate nor intimidate, especially on a personal level.

If information cannot or will not be share such as to facilitate proper scientific methodology (ie; replication of said experiment), then it becomes impossible to validate the experiment and advance the claim.

Extraordinary claims demand Extraordinary proofs.

take care, peace
lost_bro

Quote from: lost_bro on 2019.07.13, 19:11:27
Good day All:.....................................


Extraordinary claims demand Extraordinary proofs.

take care, peace
lost_bro

This is one of the saddest quotes you can ever read.
Why?

Because it is relative.

I have seen cold electricity.   have held cold electricity in my hands at  HV.  So when Rick states that in a particular circuit there is cold electricity - my ears prick up. I am looking to see if there is something else for me to learn.  So it is not an extraordinary claim to me.

When Rich states that a circuit can charge 2 batteries from one input I feel bored. Been there  done that. So I look on to see if he does it a different way to me and if there is anything else I can pick up on.
So when Rick says he has replicated Don Smith -  now that is interesting. That is a new field to me. (ie the FULL replication not the part replication.)

So here's some proof of what I mean.  The enclosed photograph is of me holding a live spark plug with HV with my bare fingers. It had been on for several weeks.  I was testing the longevity of the spark gap viz a viz cold electricity. And yes they do corrode after 3 to 4 months of continuous use.
And yes you can punch a hole through paper with cold electricity.  For your info it was powered by a 5 volt plasma ball with a crown and resonant capacitor through an Avramenko plug.  So only one connection was made to the plasma ball "COIL crown" (As Don Smith suggests). ie an open loop.  The input power was 1.2 watts.The photo is almost TEN YEARS OLD people.

Chet,
Thank you for inviting me to this forum and for showing this link. I have read it and appreciate the intention.

Power is not the same thing as energy. The document makes them equal to each other. This will definitely cause confusion and is one of the surest ways to disprove OU. Many people understand power measurements to be the rate that the source charge is dissipating while work can be done, or loads driven without draining the source charge at the same rate or at all. Energy is too broad a word to equate with power. Power measurements are limited in OU systems. Placing power meters in certain places will show no reading and thus give false negatives. This has lead many an engineer to ignore real loads running when little or now power measurements are taken before such loads. What it actually shows is that power measurements are merely the measurement of positive current and the rate of dissipating a particular source charge in a closed loop.

What is a the difference between an open and closed system? While it is useful to contrast these, the reality is that there is no truly closed system. The researcher should be awakened to the fact that they are in a sort of organic environment at all times in everything they do. When you begin to work with OU systems and even conventional technology, you have to be aware of this because you have to protect your parts. And this relates to the fundamental question of where the energy ultimately comes from. There is an over simplistic view of electrical processes which ends up preventing people from discovering the things we wish to exploit in this research. For example, people assume that the Kirchhoff loop rule holds true with a DC input. Measurements are made and the same old conclusions are made. But the fact is the DC measurements and total readings are only made after it is turned on and before it is turned off. If the entire time of switch on and off were included then it would be at least be slightly different. We just choose to ignore the switching. It is a pest to be suppressed and disregarded. My point is that even in such a closed loop circuit we have additional environmental effects coming into play and resulting that are not part of the regularly accepted environmental effects of heat produced. The loop is never completely in a closed environment. The closed loop is not really about closed and open environment but about discharging the source charge.

As for the guidelines I see that some people do not follow them. And the major problem with the part about OU claims is that it would have to equally apply to OU disproof claims. Failure to do that automatically creates a hostile environment against OU BECAUSE it allows everyone and anyone to have a double standard and claim a disproof of something without the same standard of proving that in the same way. But I am not sure any claim has been allowed here yet.??

Have you ever had an OU claim be concluded as proven here? Would people be expected to believe that as proven?

Quote from: Chet K on 2019.07.13, 17:22:13
Here we try to respect these rules when it comes to claims.
Administrators Peterae and Poynt's guidelines for claims at this open source venue .
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=8.0
To be used more as guidelines ,but the theme reads through strongly  .
Chet K

Dear Rick and Aking,

  I'm not sure if you know, but F6 is new here too just like you two, only been here a couple months and all of us here are getting to know him.  Just as we are getting to know you, time will tell if any of you will be around for any length of time. Right now I can say I personally am very displeased with F6's behavior in the last couple months.  Normally this site for years has run very smoothly for the most part, we have a few confrontations now and then, usually nothing major. F6, since he's been here, has made everything confrontational, it's his MO, he's torn apart other sites he's been at as well, please don't join him and help him do that to this site too, I understand the man brings out the confrontational feelings in most of us, but probably the best thing you can do is ignore him as much as possible and hope he moves on to destroy some other unwary site.  I hope I don't end up feeling the same way about you two in a couple of months,  I think what we all want here is to be and look professional and competent at what we are doing so lets all strive to make that happen and everbody will be happy except perhaps F6.

Regards
Room

L,
Well that is exactly what I am saying, so thank you for sharing that. All but the last line that contradicted that btw.
I didn't say replication is a double standard, but that it is a double standard to make a replication, additional claim, and not have the same requirements. I'm not sure how you could read the opposite from me unless you are just glossing over what I wrote.
Anyway, that should be added to the pdf file for this forum. Any replication claim needs to meet the same requirements.
But no, this forum has people that are free to make dismissive claims against other claims without such requirements and without even mentioning why. That is a double standard. You are not allowed to make an OU claim but you are allowed to slander people and make sweeping disproving claims against people and their OU research. Obviously such statements were written against the rules and to boost ego. They were said to intimidate and insult. There was nothing professional or even logical about what F wrote in that respect.
The second last point is also important. It shows you have to have the right information in order to replicate. But here we have seen that someone has rejected a claim before it was even presented by making sweeping claims.

Quote from: lost_bro on 2019.07.13, 19:11:27
Good day All:
I seem to remember from my undergrad days at the university that Replication is the backbone of the Scientific Method. 
Replication of an experiment is not a "double-standard", it is the de facto Standard of the Scientific Method.
"Replication
If an experiment cannot be repeated to produce the same results, this implies that the original results might have been in error. As a result, it is common for a single experiment to be performed multiple times, especially when there are uncontrolled variables or other indications of experimental error. For significant or surprising results, other scientists may also attempt to replicate the results for themselves, especially if those results would be important to their own work.[50]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
This forum has always operated under this premise, as this is NOT something new (as of this thread) imposed to discriminate nor intimidate, especially on a personal level.
If information cannot or will not be share such as to facilitate proper scientific methodology (ie; replication of said experiment), then it becomes impossible to validate the experiment and advance the claim.
Extraordinary claims demand Extraordinary proofs.
take care, peace
lost_bro

R,
Well that is good to hear from you even if it is bad news. I didn't realize that, and but I got the same kind of private statement from others.

As for me, I came here I peace and two times now got really attacked right away. I am a thorough person and I respond to people as you can see. I am not confrontational, and am calling for honesty, peace, logic and science. I don't have time for the drama but I decided to address all the questions on these two forums so that my students can learn what games are being played on the forums and how to deal with such people. Now I hold nothing against people but their own words. If they want to be civil I will meet them there immediately. Otherwise I will just jest with them and show them their folly as with F6. I don't think he can recover from that. I haven't seen it that bad even with the characters on OU.com But there you can see that if these guys who insult me behave I will still work with them politely.

Anyway, I'll be interested to learn more about you less hostile people here. I'm not sure if you have the right system here for success, but I'll consider it. I'm not looking for validation however. I don't need that as I am too busy with people wanting more and actually developing real products. These forums are generally old news with regards to trying to prove OU. I have come a long way in all this as one who has owned many forums over the years. I realized that it is more important to teach all the principles of free energy than anything else. So that is what I'm working on. Not sure if it will work with what you people are doing here or not. But that goal is not to learn how to do one extra ordinary circuit but rather how to make most OU systems with whatever parts you have available. This is a completely different level and has not been done before. You guys have the first point implied in your pdf already so that is good. I'm not sure it is fully appreciated.

Once I am done with the new website I can consider doing here or on OU.com the simplest system. I have already done that in video, but since it is old news no one wants to address it.

Thank you,
Rick

Quote from: Room3327 on 2019.07.13, 22:08:17
Dear Rick and Aking,

  I'm not sure if you know, but F6 is new here too just like you two, only been here a couple months and all of us here are getting to know him.  Just as we are getting to know you, time will tell if any of you will be around for any length of time. Right now I can say I personally am very displeased with F6's behavior in the last couple months.  Normally this site for years has run very smoothly for the most part, we have a few confrontations now and then, usually nothing major. F6, since he's been here, has made everything confrontational, it's his MO, he's torn apart other sites he's been at as well, please don't join him and help him do that to this site too, I understand the man brings out the confrontational feelings in most of us, but probably the best thing you can do is ignore him as much as possible and hope he moves on to destroy some other unwary site.  I hope I don't end up feeling the same way about you two in a couple of months,  I think what we all want here is to be and look professional and competent at what we are doing so lets all strive to make that happen and everbody will be happy except perhaps F6.

Regards
Room

No, it is simply because proof is not any different from one thing to another so long as it is in the same category. There are different kinds of truths like truths of reason, and truths of demonstration. That is the only kind of distinction between proofs. But proofs for truths of demonstration are the same. Proof is not more or less than evidence amounting to rational conviction. Evidence is not proof. Only that degree which warrants rational conviction. It is at that point where the onus changes from the claimant to the denier. Using the word extraordinary is just a trick to make a special pleading fallacy. It becomes an excuse to disbelieve something we don't want to believe because we are in a state of confirmation bias and/or cognitive dissonance.

A claim is a claim. Whether it is popular or hard for us to accept. It is either verifiable and sufficiently demonstrated or elucidated to the level of warranting rational conviction, or it is not. There is nothing extraordinary about such process or conviction.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.13, 20:36:49
"Extraordinary claims demand Extraordinary proofs. take care, peace lost_bro"

This is one of the saddest quotes you can ever read.
Why?
Because it is relative.

...

.

.

.

Quote from: Room3327 on 2019.07.13, 22:08:17
Dear Rick and Aking,

  I'm not sure if you know, but F6 is new here too just like you two, only been here a couple months and all of us here are getting to know him.  Just as we are getting to know you, time will tell if any of you will be around for any length of time. Right now I can say I personally am very displeased with F6's behavior in the last couple months.  Normally this site for years has run very smoothly for the most part, we have a few confrontations now and then, usually nothing major. F6, since he's been here, has made everything confrontational, it's his MO, he's torn apart other sites he's been at as well, please don't join him and help him do that to this site too, I understand the man brings out the confrontational feelings in most of us, but probably the best thing you can do is ignore him as much as possible and hope he moves on to destroy some other unwary site.  I hope I don't end up feeling the same way about you two in a couple of months,  I think what we all want here is to be and look professional and competent at what we are doing so lets all strive to make that happen and everybody will be happy except perhaps F6.

Regards
Room

I second that, well spoken.

Ron

.

O0

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.14, 00:52:42
That is why it pays to read the forum guidelines first  O0,as that rule dose apply across the whole forum.
To make a claim of having any OU device,you must provide all the required proof to back up your claim.

BTW,i watched your last video,and love that large energizer  O0
And yes,that Moron know's very little in the way of electronics and power measurements--but he's good for a laugh  ;D


Brad

I did a video on this the other week that I am still editing. I quote another physics teaching, so I'll go over that when I finish processing that point in the video. My point is really and extension of Lewin on the subject, but mainly about the fact that DC is never just DC the whole time, because you have to turn it on and off which causes other changes that are not usually considered unless you are dealing with switch burn out/contacts. My point is about not overlooking the details the whole process and all the environmental influences resulting. I don't play word games here so I want to communicate ideas so that we are on the same page. My example in the video will be that the measured loop will not equal the total work done even though it will equal the rate of the power dissipation from the source. Does that make sense?

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.13, 23:32:03
RFQ,
There is much in this post I could address but I choose to focus on only one point that is highlighted above.  Aking made this same statement regarding KVL violation during turn-on and turn-off periods, and when I asked for an example, he offered nothing.
So, here you state the same thing and I will now ask you for just one example of any violation of KVL, KCL, or KPL in the turn-on or turn-off of a circuit that I can test on the bench to confirm your statement.
Regards,
Pm

Im seeing lots of overunity here, where the poster places the output that is huge and unusualy well written, well before the input which tries to ask a small but simple question.


OUTPUT  500 words
INPUT 20 or so .... and not worth measurung from the perspective of the output stage.

there is energy there however wasted.

Brad,
Can you be a little more specific? F6 really put his foot in his mouth as I showed and you agree with Itsu and therefore F6. But in this post we have the same sort of statement against F6. So what is incorrect specifically?
I ask this because others are emailing me saying the same thing.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.14, 00:47:58
Incorrect.

Brad,
But under the circumstances blasting someone as soon as they come here like he did is certainly a bad thing. You make it out like some evil thing to make a claim. So I can understand wanting to uphold the standard, but the same document said to do things that he didn't do. Slandering people with no supporting evidence is not justifiable under any circumstances. I don't even know who this guy is. Why would I bother to try and help him discover OU if he is just going to trash talk me?
Why would it be extraordinary for someone to have many OU devices when the pdf on this list admits to OU and open loop systems. The implied statements in that document suggest to me that the person who wrote that had at least a basic understanding of OU systems, and even from that information it is not hard to make several systems. Maybe I'm reading into that more. But my question is how many OU systems have been admitted as real claims here? If there are many then why would that be extraordinary? And I'm assuming that we are not talking about conventional free energy systems here. There was no addressing that.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.14, 01:06:48
Really?
Quote: I think what we all want here is to be and look professional and competent
To look professional and competent,you do not make extraordinary claims(such as i have many OU devices) without providing the required proof needed to back up those claims. This is why the forum guidelines state this,and that is how the forum remains !professional!.
The only time F6 seems to look bad to some of you,is when he reject's such wild claims without the required proof to back them up. Seems to me that some of you don't like being asked to back up your claim's--sounds a bit EF and Aaron to me  C.C . And what some of you do not see,is the work F6 is doing in the background,which far exceed's most of that in the open area of the forum.
Now,if you want to shut F6 up,all you have to do is provide the required proof(as stated in the forum guidelines) to back up your claim's  O0 --it's that easy.
Brad

I guess if OUTPUT is truth that helps some people then that is energy well used as it can then be multiplied more than 25 times ;)

Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2019.07.14, 02:16:29
Im seeing lots of overunity here, where the poster places the output that is huge and unusualy well written, well before the input which tries to ask a small but simple question.


OUTPUT  500 words
INPUT 20 or so .... and not worth measurung from the perspective of the output stage.

there is energy there however wasted.

.

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.13, 23:10:32
No, it is simply because proof is not any different from one thing to another so long as it is in the same category. There are different kinds of truths like truths of reason, and truths of demonstration. That is the only kind of distinction between proofs. But proofs for truths of demonstration are the same. Proof is not more or less than evidence amounting to rational conviction. Evidence is not proof. Only that degree which warrants rational conviction. It is at that point where the onus changes from the claimant to the denier. Using the word extraordinary is just a trick to make a special pleading fallacy. It becomes an excuse to disbelieve something we don't want to believe because we are in a state of confirmation bias and/or cognitive dissonance.

A claim is a claim. Whether it is popular or hard for us to accept. It is either verifiable and sufficiently demonstrated or elucidated to the level of warranting rational conviction, or it is not. There is nothing extraordinary about such process or conviction.

Good day RFQUERY

Yes,  'Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof' was a non sequitur on my part being that I bastardized the 'Sagan Standard' - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"  (ECREE).

Here is the actual definition of extraordinary used in context, it is neither 'trick' nor 'excuse to disbelieve' but merely an adjective used to detail the state of the claim and the supporting evidence.

"An extraordinary claim is one which is not supported by the available, or ordinary evidence. Support for such a claim must therefore come from newly observed evidence, or a new recognition of existing evidence, which is extraordinary."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

Certainly any claim of O.U. will 'fit' the above definition of 'extraordinary' as it is NOT currently supported by "available, or ordinary evidence" as known by the laws of physics today.

take care, peace
lost_bro

.

Hey L,
That is not true. That just makes a circle argument to make it impossible to prove it. There is no new kinds of evidence needed to observe phenomena. You have a second output when normally there was one. Why make this more complicated than that? Maybe because the confusion is in trying to understand HOW that could be, which is an entirely different question. The experience may be extraordinary for people to observe but what reason is there to suppose there would be some extraordinary evidence needed? If a power meter is showing the same power as the input, but then at another part of the system another power meter is showing another load. That is just the same kind of evidence don't ya think? I mean we are not talking about creating new lifeforms or something. I think the definition is just silly bloating of words. You just observe more load being done however you measure it or observe it. No special eyes to see that. Nothing new.

Another consideration for people to consider here is OU in different forms of energy other than electric. I'm not sure if that is even part of the interest here. But there are other claims of OU that are more palatable for people than electrical, which has the highest opposition. What if there is existing technology that is being used that is OU but in non-electrical form? That also would not be extraordinary, if you just observed more of something than normal. Again, extraordinary in experience but not in observing.

What say ye?
Rick

Quote from: lost_bro on 2019.07.14, 03:19:58
Good day RFQUERY
Yes,  'Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof' was a non sequitur on my part being that I bastardized the 'Sagan Standard' - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"  (ECREE).
Here is the actual definition of extraordinary used in context, it is neither 'trick' nor 'excuse to disbelieve' but merely an adjective used to detail the state of the claim and the supporting evidence.
"An extraordinary claim is one which is not supported by the available, or ordinary evidence. Support for such a claim must therefore come from newly observed evidence, or a new recognition of existing evidence, which is extraordinary."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard
Certainly any claim of O.U. will 'fit' the above definition of 'extraordinary' as it is NOT currently supported by "available, or ordinary evidence" as known by the laws of physics today.
take care, peace
lost_bro

Brad,
I have only been in this to help others. The first three years I just volunteered. Eventually people demanded parts. So I had 10 rotors machined, and with the money I got a free rotor out of it. People wanted coils so I wound hundreds of coils for people so that they could test out things. Same thing happened with the battery chargers. People asked for them. Many people demanded and insulted me for not giving them something. One thing lead to another and here I am. I expect we all do something for a living. Does a doctor work for free? Does a retailer give out free product? What I can't understand is why the so-called experts are not selling real products. Now those are just the online people. The real people who know this stuff are actually selling things privately. But you don't want me to say that as it would be the same sort of claim. My point is that if you don't sell something for people then they fault you, but when you do they do as well. If no one wanted this stuff I would not do this. I really haven't been able to keep up with it and have turned down much sales. But people want more and they are happy.

Anyway, can you answer a few questions so I can determine if it is worth the time to do this?
1. What claims have there been on this forum?
2. And/or what claims are being made now?
3. What would be the purpose of making a claim here? I'm not looking for recognition.
4. Is anyone here using OU systems already?

Rick

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.14, 03:09:43
Ok,so as this forum dose not end up like the Energetic forum or OU.com,the guidelines of this forum are there are to be no claims of OU devices made until such times as those claims have been verified.

Now,as far as i read,you and a couple of others have made claims of having many OU devices.
As of yet,we have not seen or verified these claim's,which must come before the claim is made--that is how this forum work's.

So,you will get guy's like F6 take a strong stance against such unverified claim's.
I once made the mistake of putting the word OU in one of my thread title's,and Poynt and Peter changed my thread title,due to it looking like an unverified claim of an OU device.
So if us long term members are to be policed like this,then it must be understandable that there will be those that object to others making such claims without providing any evidence to back up there claims.

This forum is simply not like the Energetic forum,where you can claim OU without any shred of evidence needed to back up your claim,as this is how Aaron,Bedini,and others make there money--by selling video's and book's on OU devices that never are OU.

Contrary to others beliefs here,F6 is a very switched on man,and like some of us here,he dose not like claims being made of OU without any sort of data,evidence,or third party validation to back up those claims. He is just very blunt,where some of us may be a little more subtel.

There is also the fact that you sell kit's,based around your claims of OU,and this dose not sit well with some,and so they will let you know it.

Many of us here(like yourself) have been duped by the likes of Bedini and Aaron,and so those some will take a strong stance against those they see doing the same thing.

But in saying all that,if you have what you believe to be an OU system,please share it here with us,so as we can replicate and validate your claims  O0


Brad.

Quote from Eric Dollard,

At the time, the Bolinas RCA-Marconi Station, through corporate encouragement by RCA
and Bell Telephone, gave me free run of that site to set up one of my laboratories. My plan
was to produce a system utilizing no rotating machinery but only static devices, such as
coils and condensers in an Alexanderson configuration to possibly power the town of Bolinas
and at least provide PG & E with all of their reactive power needs. The network experiments
would consume no energy to operate and therefore cost nothing. The plan was to use the
electrical substation on-site to connect to PG & E's grid, giving power to them for free, in
exchange for being able to use the 12kv power line for my experiments.

https://the-eye.eu/public/concen.org/Eric%20P%20Dollard%20-%20Tesla%20Longitudinal%20Wave%20Energy%20research%20pack/ebooks%201/Eric%20Dollard%20Posts%20on%20Energetic%20Forum.pdf

Quote from: ronee on 2019.07.13, 15:05:25
King Shit of Turd Island has spoken!

I am always very impressed by the power of the morons' argumentation.
;D

.

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.14, 04:34:26
...There is no new kinds of evidence needed to observe phenomena. You have a second output when normally there was one...

Evidence that "normally there was one" must be provided. Learn the scientific method. If you applied it, you would no longer have any fables to tell us, and this would hinder your business. The anomalies you see everywhere are the only product of your ignorance.

don't worry about it Rick - been battered about a bit myself
Just an introduction to my own thinking (so they can laugh at me too ) . It is I'm sure the extraordinary that really interests and excites us all and not the mundane .
I do try not use the heretic term 'over unity' despite it being key to the name of our forum (and what its all about) OVER UNITY research after all!
I don't deep inside myself believe there is or can be such a thing . However what there very easily can be is one or many energy sources we -(conventional science)- have chosen  not to be identified or used (unless there's absolutly no alternative)
To play the devils advocate let me press a few more buttons , We all use electricity which has no weight  smell or mass the calculations and science is based by-enlarge on the Lorentz /Einstein Force law which in turn relates to the atom and electron relationship and of course the speed of light .
There never has been and as far as I know still isn't a unified field theory so whatever you might have to say about the laws and rules , electrical power equations and all the other jargon bandied about by the so called 'knowledgeable'  - They are certainly WRONG or at the very best like the curates egg 'only good in parts'. Paul Dirac made this very revolutionary connection many years ago at the atomic level .


https://youtu.be/KFS4oiVDeBI (https://youtu.be/KFS4oiVDeBI)

to expand on this whatever your dogma there is (and must be) an alternative

re-visiting the Lorentz force law shows that the electrostatic force vector is simply - omitted
at a grass roots level where we engineers use ohms law , Kirchhoff's and innumerable other laws written by many genius minds through electrical history
I notice particularly here on forum there is an intolerance to the certainty that there must always be an alternative.
To access the mathematics and science of this 'other dimension' is another matter altogether.
Perhaps an experiment carried out by Prof P Pappas  where the Lorentz force law was replaced by the lesser known Ampere's force law as shown in this pdf (this is a CRT b.t.w anyone remember them?)

http://dnp.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/b/b4/Pap2.pdf (http://dnp.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/b/b4/Pap2.pdf)

rather like a space shuttle sling shot around a planet to gain energy don't you think ? . Anyway back to the subject in hand . The what shall we say ? conservatives ? here on our forum have learnt (or rather been taught) the undoubted collective genius of these Wheatstone's,ohm's,Kirchhoff's and many others until they believe that knowledge is theirs and that it should be used to reference any novel development.
That knowledge is not theirs . Like most of us they are mere Parrots blinded to another dimension intensionally.
The schooling itself is very tightly controlled as is demonstrated in this award winning video on the machinations of 'big oil' and 1% of the world population. (If your in a rush pick this up at 45 mins) however I recommend you watch the whole

https://youtu.be/ySnk-f2ThpE

Do folks like A king , myself  and many others stumble on  these things ? yes is the answer ,can we then  repeat them ? now and again is the answer (in my case)
The theory of the atom is progressing rapidly and is 'parrot taught' very differently now relative to my own parrot schooling - electrical teaching and theory however hasn't moved one iota in 150 years
A King ? I suspect this man knows ohms law and can drive his meters. I suspect he's aware of the difference between power and energy, a good laugh ? no, he might be right or wrong , If he's wrong then lets be at the nub of that.
If he's right - Amen, progress it!
'A good laugh' not so, someone is studying spending and experimenting from their own purse .
like all of us he may be right or wrong whichever it may be its not a laughing matter . like room I dont like the confrontation aspect as we contemplate together what has been impressed on us all as 'impossible'
kind regards Duncan 

Rick
This forum is filled with volunteers ,persons who toil daily on their dime and their time towards
this cause ...some for decades...
We have centuries of combined life experience and hands on work ,in all fields ,education and skill levels,
Going back to the time before the last reboot of whatever was new under the FE sun in the last century !

I feel its that FE wisdom which guides us here ...as well as the ability to do proper measurements
[usually with interaction from members with the skill set.

Rick
Quote
As for the guidelines I see that some people do not follow them. And the major problem with the part about OU claims is that it would have to equally apply to OU disproof claims. Failure to do that automatically creates a hostile environment against OU BECAUSE it allows everyone and anyone to have a double standard and claim a disproof of something without the same standard of proving that in the same way. But I am not sure any claim has been allowed here yet.??
end quote

While most OU claims don't get past the realization or awareness of the error ...
it is true that persons who Dismiss a claim or even a patent as erroneous ..
should take the "minute" and highlight the error or their perception of the error.
very recently F6FLT did dismiss the Benitez Patent here based on a "read thru"
but no hint to the error for the readers here ?

this is especially important in light of your present discussion ,and I  agree
with your above quote , one sided dismissal or failing to explain a position...

is unacceptable ....generic taunts or insults to the claimant don't do anybody any good.

Rick
Quote

Have you ever had an OU claim be concluded as proven here? Would people be expected to believe that as proven?
end quote

There has never been a case of any claim here or anywhere else surviving the process .
There have been plenty of "still open" undetermined claims which have been hindered
by the inability to loop and selfrun.
typically very low power experiments.

many have fallen to environmental [man made] or electric grid being the source of the energy.

and a few hearsay claims seemed to have potential from gains outside of normal understanding
but were not sustainable.
and then there are all the other ongoing experiments which are works in progress.

So Rick
if you did share a true gain mechanism or anomaly here for others to replicate.
and it survived the measurement protocols ,which ruled out "the mains grid" or all other errors.
[we have found tonnes of "other errors],

it would be the first.

I must add ...Duncans Sonic Boiler thingy ...I really feel there is something very special
about water and electricity [experimenting there]

There were times we played with this but the gains were very low and ruling out Chemical
or other unknown causes for the excess heat was not really doable with the limited resources.

IMO
this group of fellows couldn't be discouraged from this hunt [and others at other forums]
we've been thru plenty and it seems we just get past every bump ...
and for the most part we really like each other .
plus its the best possible cause !

one more comment about F6FLT
he is a builder who hunts the same elusive prey.

it completely separates him from another mentioned here ,persons who naysay regardless
their actual skill sets ...based on a firm belief system which does not allow room for
anything outside their own comfort zone.

IMO such persons can be a different kind of fraud ..

sincerely
Chet K

Wow, more useless words form you. Did you not learn the last time not to put your foot in your big mouth? Why don't you go back and read what I wrote you and how you completely contradicted yourself. I'm not sure how you can even appear back on here after how silly you showed yourself to be. If you can't even understand basic reasoning so as to not realize you are doing the very things that you are condemning others for then how can you even know how to comply with the scientific method?
The point I made about evidence stands, there is no extraordinary evidence needed even if the experience is extraordinary.
Obviously evidences "must be provided" that's what I said. You have a motor, for example, that has a rating and which takes a certain amount of energy to run. There is an efficiency horsepower rating. Nevertheless you do the test to see for yourself. This is the "one" that is provided and expected by everyone. It is normal, not extraordinary. It takes the same amount of energy to run anywhere in the world. Billions of these motors are made. Industry counts on those motors and depends on the numbers as accurate. Not in question. Evidence has amounted to proof. But now you add one more load to it and observe in the same way that the input is still the same. The output of the motor is still the same. But you observe the other load in addition to the normal. There is no extraordinary observation there. It may be a second motor running, or resistive load, or a capacitor charging, or a battery. These are not extraordinary things to observe. There is no extraordinary meters or tools needed to observe such a thing. You can see it in all the same conditions while the motor runs the same as before. The same scientific method that that was used to conclude that this was a very efficient motor and takes x amount of power to run, is used to determine the same thing about the additional load, which may even be a second motor just like the first. People don't need to play word games and say there is an extraordinary kind of evidence needed when the same evidence for observing the motor is given for the second load. It is really that simple. It may be that people don't expect that to happen so it is an extraordinary experience. So there is no extraordinary evidence needed (whatever that would mean anyway).

As for you F, instead of admitting my point here you just ramble off more attack. I suggest you take care of your own self-contradictions before you try and point the figure at others. We'll all wait to read your response my pointing out your many contradictions. You have ignored that "evidence" amounting to demonstration. This I demonstrated and repeated like the scientific method. That does require one to be logical and not self-contradicting. You demonstrated the very things you were accusing me of. So you created a strawman fable that actually applied to you while you were writing, in the very words you were writing! How silly was that. How embarrassing. And then to show you face here again, and make more of the same accusations is just pathetic.
I don't do fables, never cared for fiction or even science fiction. Maybe that's your thing as you are so consumed with pointing the finger at others that you don't even realize that you are actually living in a fiction by committing the very fallacies you accuse others of. That is your fable. And you still live in that delusion so long as you let it stand and don't come clean. Come on man, just admit that you blew it. You overreached and made a fool of yourself. Now you have the nerve to come back for more! You wave your contradictory hypocritical finger in my face about evidence, the scientific method and telling fables when that is exactly what you demonstrated the other day. You need to get it together man. You are a mess. Whatever good Brad says you are doing behind the scenes I can't imagine from what I see here. Why not demonstrate your value here and show us how to exemplify the scientific method approach? Instead you just make baseless accusations while your house is obviously not in order.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.07.14, 07:54:10
Evidence that "normally there was one" must be provided. Learn the scientific method. If you applied it, you would no longer have any fables to tell us, and this would hinder your business. The anomalies you see everywhere are the only product of your ignorance.

...

.

...

Quote from: Duncan on 2019.07.14, 08:06:07
...electrical teaching and theory however hasn't moved one iota in 150 years
...

I'm not surprised. The laws of physics have not changed in 150 years either. The question is neither to repeat the courses we have been taught nor to systematically repeat that they are false and that it is for this reason that we would not have overunity and that whoever ignores them would have a superiority.
These two positions are stupid but the first one is still less than the other, because repeating the courses is perhaps saying something incomplete, but not false, technology proves to us that the knowledge that allows it and from which the courses are derived, is real.

I do not criticize those who temporarily make a mistake in their research or who look beyond what is known and think that current theories have limits. They are right, I'm among them. It is obvious, we already know a certain number of their limits. Unlike the most conspicuous activists of overunity, scientists are aware of the limits of their science and are the first to want to go beyond them. The competition is fierce, and while scientists regularly produce knowledge (just the TMR sensors I mentioned in the other thread are proof of this), others argue endlessly and pretentiously about reinventing the wheel.

There is only one science because the laws of physics are independent of people, unlike beliefs and religions, so no alternative science.
It is not forbidden to express this science in different ways, provided that the language used to express it has as little ambiguity as mathematical language and especially that what it models and predicts is verified by facts. For the time being, the facts only fit conventional theories. Those who think otherwise should at least present the technology that their alternative science or alternative understanding they claim allows, at least a proof of concept. But we're still waiting for it. When I was talking of "windbags" about Bearden, Wesley, Bedini, RF and so on, that's really what they produce: wind, an inconsistent breeze that makes a lot of noise among the pseudo-science enthusiasts but has never make turn any windmill.

Thank you Chet, this gives me much more detail than what Brad shared.
I would be interested in how many people are here. It looks like at least 10. Is there more?
It would be good to know just what all the previous claims were. I may be able to help with seeing those through to completion. I know F6 will just mock me no matter what I say but I have 4 or 5 requirements for pursuing research of OU systems. While I fail to insist upon a self-looping requirement (as I will explain below) as being one, I select from the main possibilities:
1. Is the system safe? Something that is harmful, like nuclear is to be avoided. That is not practical.
2. Is it easy to make and affordable? Is it better than solar? Because if it is so expensive then what is the point?
3. Are the parts too exotic/costly/rare? Will the parts become obsolete?  Not interested.
4. Is it stable or do you have to always fiddle with it. Like the Benitez system with basic interrupter, or the SSG with trigger coil where it requires attention. This sort of thing can be overcome with additional feedback looping, but some systems are just too unstable to bother with.
So when I said that there are about 100 different kinds of systems I know, most fail to pass this test. That doesn't mean they should be ignored, or not considered here, but I bring this up because maybe some of the claims focused on here had these problems. I deal with the real world and am not so much into the theoretical (which is what all these forums tend to stay at--as evidenced with your statement about F6 merely dismissing Benitez by just reading his patent). So this is why I ask these questions because it is one thing to merely try and prove OU and another to want to practically use it. When I started out in this I found many more people merely wanting to just prove OU existed, maybe just to know that what they were taught was not true. But now I find people just want to use the tech, and that is one reason they don't bother with these old forums that are still trying to see if it exists. As it sounds like you guys are, so these people are not interested in the useless and endless debates. They just want something practical. They asked for certain things and I provided them with what I could. My reasoning was "do something rather than nothing". I have found many a company spend years and a lot of money working towards the big deal, only to never get that. Instead I encourage such people to do something small. Start small and just do something rather than nothing. It may not be that impressive but at least it is something. Something you can build upon.

So maybe that can help here. Maybe some of the systems were too complicated. And you have to decide if it is actually practical. Now we all agree that we can get useful energy from the sun with solar panels. How practical is that? Not worth it in most of the US over grid power. If you have to replace your batteries every so many years you will never be better than the grid and it is not worth your time and hassle. Prices have come down, and we now have battery charging tech that allows you to keep your batteries. That was my first objective to solve the alternative energy main problem. Solves the cost problem and environmental problem (well not the pollution caused by making solar panels). So that is the context from which we are going to compare any other free energy system with. If we can't do better than that then there is really no point in investing time into any potential OU system. However, here in Michigan solar is not a solution at all. I did a test this last winter. I used 1600W of solar panels (that still give that with good sun) to see just what could be powered over the winter. For 5 months I could barely power a new refrigerator. And for 5 days that was not enough. There is no sun here at all, so solar is not a solution here as it can be elsewhere.

I bring this up because in the same way we can get energy from the sun, we can also get higher frequency energy from the galaxy. And there are transducers in development that are doing that. That is very promising, but unless the cost is reasonable then what is the point? So I say that out of around 100 different kinds of systems, most of them are not practical. I don't care if people are offended by me saying that, as I am not pushing a claim her as much as making a point that my goal in all this is not to merely prove OU exists but rather to solve the problems and provide reasonable solutions. And I have clearly done a similar thing by having many batteries being rejuvenated and preserved (which improves solar and wind systems).

I don't really care to try and prove something out here. I don't need recognition. But I obviously and willing to help people learn about these things as I can. The hostile environment just makes for a waste of my time. And that is no doubt because such people do not want you people to succeed. Yes some people can be hostile because they are sick of false claims. But we can see easy enough, as I believe you allude to here, who is really trying to prevent others from succeeding. I don't assume such people actually believe what they come across as saying. Many times such people are merely the competition that tries to gather information, get you to work for them for free, while they attack you to not only draw out more information from your reactions but to try and discredit you so that they have a bigger market. The market could be for selling OU systems (as I know several people who do exactly that) or for the conventional energy.

As for some systems that are easy enough to do you could try:
1. The Benitez Switch 7 idea. That is relatively easy to do. I have already done a motor kit version of that. I am debating about doing actual system. The interrupter is problematic, but if you are just looking for a proof of concept it really isn't that hard to do. Again, the issue is stability of the interrupter. There are solutions for that. But if you have some minor tweeking and can run it for several weeks, would that not fulfill your requirements? I don't know exactly what level of expectation you have along those lines. Again, we use Arduino control with mosfet switching to replace the interrupter. And as we always joke around saying, if you are going to pulse an inductor, you may as well push a magnet for free. So adding motor power is just another useful output. So that system would be my stage two process of the Selfish Circuit Loving Paths idea. The 4 or how many more of the same batteries just rotate around periodically. We even have a latching contactor that is switched by the Arduino programing that runs the motor. Now a key thing to consider is the longevity of the batteries. Not all pulsing is good, and many pulsing systems ruin batteries. So again, are you using the right pulsing that will not ruin the batteries in short order, and if you can get it so that the batteries do not wear out that is even better. So far we have seen useless batteries not only be reclaimed years ago, but continue to stay that way and/or improve more over time. But if you do something like the Tesla Switch then it will ruin your batteries very fast. So what is the point if the batteries become consumables?
Now Benitez make one of the most remarkable claims in patent history. It is easy enough to replicate, so I encourage you to do that. There are three basic systems. The first is with capacitors, and I'm developing that right now. The second is with two sets of batteries which is easiest. The last is the same as the Don Smith type of system which requires experience with resonance engineering.

2. A simple test to do is my old brushless fan idea. I have videos on that showing all the details. Not the best quality or presentation but good enough. One guy in the EU makes his living off if selling that to give you an idea about how many people have these working. The idea in this case is not to make a self-looped system which is NOT required by your pdf statement. So I fail to see why you bring that up as something necessary. That is practical but it is different than OU. You have what I just wrote about in the last post. A fan used normally and the CFMs and input entered in. Now you merely change the flyback diode to have a series load with it and you instantly have more output. With replacing of the transistors with fets and a fast gate driver you can have better electrical output and improved efficiency. Many people reject this idea because the more basic setups may not be enough to sustain rotation. So they automatically dismiss such models as pointless. But that is not the way your pdf states it. OU is not self-sustaining self-looping. If a motor is running at the same rpm and producing the same CFMs as it was before the additional electrical load then you have OU even without self-looping. But I can see that many people on these forums don't care about OU or extra energy. They just insist it has to be a certain amount. That is fine, but thousands of people actually do use these fans and appreciate the extra energy nevertheless. And billions of these fans are in the world today, in every desktop and laptops. So this is simple to show yourself. I don't really care about this forum trying to come to some consensus. What is important is that people prove things to themselves. A company putting a stamp on it doesn't mean you have it running for you in your home. Again, this is something rather than nothing approach here. But I can just feel the temperature rise with some people here. Anyway, it is as simple as that if you are willing to not insist upon a self-looping type of system.

3. There are resonant systems with basic tank circuits and coils that could be done.

4. Stan M fuel cell is relatively simple to do once you understand 1. the cell conditioning, 2. the phase lock looping. It may be somewhat involved to make a one off, but the testing is not difficult.

5. And another relatively simple kind of system is the Heaviside flow collection systems using high frequency dioples. These allow you to collect extra energy while still using the dipole as normal without hindering it. Anything collected is free energy.  It is analogous to solar panels.

These are some suggestions. Obviously some people are going to get very upset for me mentioning these things. Some will welcome the suggestions. Others will be upset because they don't think there is anything in any of these and will say that I am just making more claims. And others will no doubt be upset because they don't want you guys to do such things for reasons mentioned. I don't care, do what you want.

But I am rather amazed that you guys have had this forum all these years and never proved anything out yet. I can't imagine spending all this time and never getting anywhere. No one has proved it out and no one using it? Well A.King has claimed some level of satisfaction that I know of. I guess I could not understand people spending so much time and never getting anywhere. You have to ask yourself why is it not working out and why am I not moving on with other things in life.

As for F6, while I can't speak for what he believes or disbelieves about OU, his slander is a fraud of sorts. He has now been shown to be completely self-contradictory. He has zero credibility. His rage against me is so irrational and dogmatic that it suggests something else is at work. When you guys tolerate that self-contradictory display, and the game he has played, then you ruin everything this forum stands for. And I realize what Brad says about F6 not tolerating people making claims here. That is another matter. Everything else he wrote was pathetic. How can either of you have any respect for such a person? He doesn't have a sound mind and is manifestly prejudiced. At the very least he is needlessly hostile. But that is not at all what my point is. He blistered off railing accusations that he was doing himself. He doesn't even realize how illogical he is. How can he even understand science or the scientific method if he can't understand the law of non-contradiction? Obviously he is just going to destroy any good work you do here. How could you trust him with anything?

Well I leave you with this. Do what you want. I really don't care if people are offended with claims when everyone makes claims that need the same level of proof. That is a double standard not just with counter claims, but with being allowed to go on spewing out such hatred. If you can't moderate people to be at least polite then this whole forum is useless. Any forum that doesn't have that basic standard is a waste of time.

Thanks for your efforts,
Rick

Quote from: Chet K on 2019.07.14, 12:32:45
Rick
This forum is filled with volunteers ,persons who toil daily on their dime and their time towards
this cause ...some for decades...
We have centuries of combined life experience and hands on work ,in all fields ,education and skill levels,
Going back to the time before the last reboot of whatever was new under the FE sun in the last century !

I feel its that FE wisdom which guides us here ...as well as the ability to do proper measurements
[usually with interaction from members with the skill set.

Rick
Quote
As for the guidelines I see that some people do not follow them. And the major problem with the part about OU claims is that it would have to equally apply to OU disproof claims. Failure to do that automatically creates a hostile environment against OU BECAUSE it allows everyone and anyone to have a double standard and claim a disproof of something without the same standard of proving that in the same way. But I am not sure any claim has been allowed here yet.??
end quote

While most OU claims don't get past the realization or awareness of the error ...
it is true that persons who Dismiss a claim or even a patent as erroneous ..
should take the "minute" and highlight the error or their perception of the error.
very recently F6FLT did dismiss the Benitez Patent here based on a "read thru"
but no hint to the error for the readers here ?

this is especially important in light of your present discussion ,and I  agree
with your above quote , one sided dismissal or failing to explain a position...

is unacceptable ....generic taunts or insults to the claimant don't do anybody any good.

Rick
Quote

Have you ever had an OU claim be concluded as proven here? Would people be expected to believe that as proven?
end quote

There has never been a case of any claim here or anywhere else surviving the process .
There have been plenty of "still open" undetermined claims which have been hindered
by the inability to loop and selfrun.
typically very low power experiments.

many have fallen to environmental [man made] or electric grid being the source of the energy.

and a few hearsay claims seemed to have potential from gains outside of normal understanding
but were not sustainable.
and then there are all the other ongoing experiments which are works in progress.

So Rick
if you did share a true gain mechanism or anomaly here for others to replicate.
and it survived the measurement protocols ,which ruled out "the mains grid" or all other errors.
[we have found tonnes of "other errors],

it would be the first.

I must add ...Duncans Sonic Boiler thingy ...I really feel there is something very special
about water and electricity [experimenting there]

There were times we played with this but the gains were very low and ruling out Chemical
or other unknown causes for the excess heat was not really doable with the limited resources.

IMO
this group of fellows couldn't be discouraged from this hunt [and others at other forums]
we've been thru plenty and it seems we just get past every bump ...
and for the most part we really like each other .

one more comment about F6FLT
he is a builder who hunts the same elusive prey.

it completely separates him from another mentioned here ,persons who naysay regardless
their actual skill sets ...based on a firm belief system which does not allow room for
anything outside their own comfort zone.

IMO such persons can be a different kind of fraud ..

sincerely
Chet K

When I mention Lewin, it is not as an authority but merely to give a similar context. I assumed you were aware of what I was referring to. I did a video on that a while back. Lewin never showed a load being powered so there are real limitations in his presentation. But it was just enough to make a point and not cross a line for him. Can you imagine an MIT physics prof not only teaching on nonconservation but demonstrating, and further demonstrating OU with a real additional load? The volt meters were all he was prepared to show.

You can measure and analyze the phenomena all you want, but IF it is a converging energy process rather than a diverging or dissipating process then the measurements will only be showing the meter's loops and will not indicate what the full potential is. I mean, if you want to look at the phenomena you have to look at it's effects upon the negative resistor loads themselves rather than hooking up power meters enroute to them. Although it is very informative to measure what is happening before the negative resistor and then measure the load itself. When the two do not match up then what does that tell you about power measurements?

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.14, 12:41:14
RFQ,
I'm not sure what you mean by a "measured loop" so I'll wait and see what you present.  I assumed from your statement that we would thoroughly analyze the transient phenomena at turn-on or turn-off of any circuit you choose for any violation of KVL.
It will be interesting to see which Lewin video you use for support.
Regards,
Pm

...

...

Brad,
Thank you for taking the time and allowing for some give and take here. I'm trying to be mindful of these things without violating the rules with claims.
You are factually not correct here on a least one thing. But I'll get to that.
You say there are no known devices which... Are you claiming to be able to know all devices world wide. While I know many systems I could never say I know all of them. So you are making an impossible absolute here. Therefore it is just false to say that. You can only say that so far as I know...
Your absolute claim will just prevent you from considering anything like that. This is why I asked these questions. You effectively will prevent anyone from demonstrating something to you because you will assume something false about it. Like the sulphation claim, which is bogus. I'll come back to that.
While there are certainly setups where additional loads reflect on the input, but there are others that do not. It is like the difference with what Itsu is doing and what I do with the resonance kit.
If that was so then I would not have been able to run my boat for three years by merely swapping batteries around. Now that was done deliberately without any advanced processes for the sole purpose to demonstrate to everyone that you could do such things. If you were around back then you could have looked at that. And that is very easy to show. Hundreds of people were there and every one of them had the opportunity to examine everything and go for a ride as well. Same with the lawnmower and other setups. So maybe you are referring to what you have examined here, but certainly not for the rest of the world. And yes, I have many mistakes in people's systems that you and F6 are irritated by. It is frustrating all the ignorance and lies perpetuated. That is why I say 90-95% of the problem is psychological. Over and under believing. People want to believe they have OU and others want to disbelieve. Both are a problem for everyone.
Can you give me a positive example of where Bedini used a sulfated battery in this way? I wouldn't be surprised if you had a real example. But I did not ever do experiments with sulfated batteries on those systems, and always insisted upon people starting with new batteries. So what you say is completely false. If Bedini did a false presentation that doesn't mean those motors are as you claim. Yes I have more against Bedini than all of you put together, literally. I have exposed his ignorance, mistakes, and lies. But his lies were more along the lines of claiming to be an inventor when he actually copied from other people. Liars do not lie about everything. But I don't blame you for not trusting anything he said or demonstrated. Because I have made that argument myself. The other day AG pointed out a video from one of my students showing a 2015 or 2016 clip of Bedini claiming that the spike on the energizers was determined by the altitude (not even the height above ground, and not with any ground wire going to ground either), and according to the basic math he gave there, that would mean he would have had to have 100kv spikes in Hayden Idaho, which he didn't. So if your example is one of those then I don't blame you. But I don't play those games. I often expose that very thing, which is the same as doing voltage drop loads before you start a video. I know all these games these people play. But I actually had Bedini's batteries in my shop next door for three years. So I know the condition of batteries used.
Brad, I don't need more recognition as the private sector has been more than ample. I am just here to help people learn. I have the same concerns you address and do address them. But I have found a better way. Everyone has been going about this wrong, including this forum. You are all looking for the mysterious circuit while not understanding the principles of free energy. So parts are looked to, and special connections, as the magical system. But I found that it is far more successful to teach on the principles or themes of free energy and then people can make the parts conform to those principles. One such principle is knowing how mainstream theory works and being able to contrast that with what we are doing. That means mainstream is largely linear processes, but it is also nonlinear as well. But the nonlinear is resistive rather than reactive. So you have to be able to contrast these first two with the third. Without doing that engineers will just always assume nonlinear resistive in all there estimations. The cannot understand Tesla for that reason. Many will just not go there. It is out of their box. So unless that contrast is made, if you give people a circuit, they will just do the wrong thing with it. So I have been teaching along those lines of the themes and principles of free energy. I'll be doing a cheat sheet on that.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.14, 13:29:38
And there in lies the problem,highlighted in red.
There are no known devices which can do as you say,nor has there ever been any proven to work that way.
Any additional load placed on a system will either reflect on the input,or reduce heat loss,which is an energy conversion process in the device itself. No !free OU! energy has ever been had from any system to date.
On all occasions it comes down to measurement error,or unseen energy already within the system--much like Bedini's trick of using sulfated batteries to show his OU effect's,when in actual fact,the extra energy seen was already within the battery,and just hidden underneath the sulfate layers.
This is why i asked if you could provide us with just 1 of your 15 OU device's,so as we can see the effect you are seeing,and find out where it is coming from. This would only be good for you Rick,as the more people that validate your claim's,the more you stand to gain-->it would be a win win situation for all.


Brad

PM,
I'll look at when I can get to it. Can you tell me a little more about what you personally concluded about the COPs and why it never got accepted? Was it because it wasn't self-looped? Why was it dropped?

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.14, 14:19:56
RFQ,

You had questioned if there were any OU devices found on this forum and in my search of my personal "failures", I found a thread of my research into "Transmission Line Induction" that does have apparent OU.  The COPs are 1.82 and 2.07 respectively.  I had actually forgotten about this effort!

This thread can be found <a href="https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3739.0">here</a>.

Although this is a simple device in it's documentation and test, it gives an example of what is typically expected on this forum when one makes any type of OU claim.  Notice the dialog in the thread.

Regards,
Pm

Well, the fans are running all around the world while they are charging batteries and running other loads. You are too prejudiced to look at that and just produce sulfur gas from your mouth. It's funny because I always do a demonstration of powering a windmill in my meetings. Oh, but that is in the real world, not in F6 fantasy cyberland. It is easy to call names bud, but what have you done to produce OU? Sounds like you are one that just works against it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Have you proven this claim of your? No, but you gas out all this windbag verbiage yourself. Repeating such things helps no one. It proves nothing. Why not do something positive. The other lines were better.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.07.14, 14:21:48
When I was talking of "windbags" about Bearden, Wesley, Bedini, RF and so on, that's really what they produce: wind, an inconsistent breeze that makes a lot of noise among the pseudo-science enthusiasts but has never make turn any windmill.

...

PM,
If we learn anything from the Lewin debate, we need to do it in a way that everyone is satisfied. Well that is not actually possible as we can see in that debate. But at least cover all the ground that you can. I'll return to that demo at a later date as there are more pressing matters. It is just I am giving as analogy.

The next comment suggests to me that you are still mocking me or trying to give a false impression of me. You have read me say many times where I DO ADVOCATE METERS AND OTHER MEASURING DEVICES. I have very expensive meters for all these things. I only show the cheaper ones I videos and usually at meetings because I generally want to not overwhelm people and make them think that you have to spend a lot of money. As I have repeatedly said, I use meters all the time. But when I have things self-running I don't need to constantly measure things. Some systems are automatically monitored, so that means metered.

I need to mention here that I am only going over the basic level of this technology. I will not get into the advanced stuff or certain kinds of metering. They are not necessary for why you guys are after. So yes, I use appropriate scopes an all the meters that people mention. It doesn't matter what people call the converging phenomena so long as that is happening. And no, I actually use all types of batteries. NiMH is great. Lithium is also low ESR so they work great. LABs are slower but have other advantages of having greater surface area to be affected and also we take advantage of charging continuing after the input has long been turned off. This is were we see another kind of gain in resting. Few people have the patience to do proper controlled experiments to benefit from that.

As for the last statement, that was long shown by many people on the monopole groups. You had what was supposedly going into the charging battery and what you could pull out of the battery over time. The point is not to insist on putting a meter there before the battery, but rather to meter what you can get out of the battery over time. The OU is considering all the outputs with all the input.

Proof can only be experienced in the real world. There is no way for proof to be given to a forum. That is the great deception all these forums are under. I can only prove what is in the real world with real people. But I don't just show meters when something is on the bench, more importantly I show it while I'm driving down the road or riding the waves. Bench tests are limited. You want to see these in the real world applications. I did two different live boat demonstrations at my public meetings. The first one was in 2011 as mentioned with the 26' cabin cruiser boat. The second one was with a smaller boat in Hollywood Florida in 2015 with lightning flashes all around. But I had run the motor on a stand in the meting first so people could see closely. So I already have provided the proof that is possible under the circumstances. More importantly I have shown everyone how to do it themselves. I don't have the burden of proof because I don't need to prove anything to anyone. If you want to prove it to yourselves you can. I have been helpful with that. But I don't play this game of trying to prove something over the internet with videos, pictures or words. How could you confirm that you fully understood the environment? I gave that video of many coils as a test that proved my point. Those that wanted to disbelieve stated that they assumed there was wires under the table. So what would it matter what I showed? But I showed the bulbs bright enough that you could not account for their brightness when you divide up the input. I did that purposely so that it was just enough to be obvious. I show videos of the boat running, lawnmower, black box, all with witnesses at my meetings. Many of them professional engineers. We have NASA scientists, Westinghouse, and many other engineers at these meetings which can bee seen in the pictures. I even had a meeting with a lieutenant colonel of special projects dealing with these sorts of things that are classified. But I refuse to work with anything that has to so with war. I have third party verification of my technology. This is not a problem. But what is a problem is believing something that someone else says, no matter who they are. You can only believe such things for yourself. In the end if a company says they did this and that and confirmed this is OU, what would you do with that anyway? You would see if they did it right yourself. You are telling me that you have OU but for some reason you can't get through this verification process. Why? Sounds like there is a fundamental problem with the process here. Or it is because people are getting in the way. I see many threads where you all should have figured this out. Like Stan M for example. So whatever is going on here it is not working. And in the end the effect of this forum is to create the impression that it is almost or virtually impossible to prove or use OU systems. That gives me a red flag that then this is no different than Energenic or OU.

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.14, 15:48:30
Originally I was looking for confirmation of KVL violation in turn-on and turn-off periods as you claimed however, I would be happy to analyze any circuit operation you provide for such violation.

Hmmm, I'm curious to know you are determining if any effects exist in these negative load resistors and what their magnitudes are since you don't advocate the use of meters or other measuring devices?  This converging energy you refer to I would assume is the Heaviside component according to Bearden, correct?  I also assume these negative load resistor are LABs you are charging from other LABs, yes?

"Although it is very informative to measure what is happening before the negative resistor and then measure the load itself. When the two do not match up then what does that tell you about power measurements?"

This statement is rather ambiguous because no comparison is given.  If the output is greater than the input then there is apparent OU.  If you have experienced this effect, then provide proof of measurement as most here have asked for many times and remove all the doubts and questions.

Regards,
Pm

...

PM, Please don't go ;)
You have to understand that KVL is not a violation so much as a special case. It is not wrong but only descriptive of a certain thing. What is wrong is what people assume about it. It is like a child growing up in an all white culture and then assuming all people on earth are white. People are used to the death loop and they don't think about many bodies rather than single body circuits. They do not consider all the additional outputs beyond what Kirchhoff only addresses. The whole body is not merely one part of the body. That is what people are doing wrong with Kirchhoff. Kirchhoff is not for the birds, but making K universal is. Ignoring all the environment is wrong. Special pleading with math and measurements that is isolated from other branches. Everything I do is an example of that. Many circuits are an example.
Personally I don't care if you believe and I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am here to share with those who are open. But you go on the attack and insult. You really mean to tell me that your line about me never using meters, etc., was not deliberate. If it wasn't it would be worded differently. That goes against so much of what I have shared. Even the starting picture of given to OU.com last month had the power supply A and V for that reason. That's at least the input for you. I left the remainder for you to ponder and try yourself. The bulbs gave you indication enough. But of course I use meters. I just don't misinterpret them.

There is nothing I could do to undermined the work done here. As far as you guys say, you have never had one OU claim be accepted. What is there to undermine then? There is not one success. You claim to have three but you and others are not so interested to push it forward. I don't get that. If you have three different things that you have presented but that is not good enough then what does that really mean? I mean how hard is it to just show everyone your pictures, videos and words and get them to replicate it? Then get some third party to sign off on it. I mean we are talking about years here. It just doesn't make any sense. Am I not allowed to wonder about such things? I have been at this for 15 years full time and talk to people doing free energy research every day. I have a good idea of what people have and haven't done and why the succeed and fail.
You have not been polite to me all the time. And the meter sentence was not a good thing. You are frustrated with yourself and what you assume and what you expect. This is not a friendly exchange. It is antagonistic. Not as bad as some other clowns, but clearly not friendly. It is give me give me give me. You ought to do this and that, etc.

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.14, 18:39:19
Please, simply give any example you have experienced of KVL violation as you previously stated.
You accuse me of mocking you?  If you are such an advocate of measurements, then show us!  I personally don't care about your claims of self running this and that.  Take any one of those devices, take measurements, and shows us your OU.  If you are unwilling to do so, you can be as verbose as you wish but I'm not convinced.
What I read into your comments highlighted above is that your aim could possibly be to undermine any and all work done here in the past to the present.  What is not working here is YOU.  I have been up front with you and as polite as I could be under the circumstances, but I can see that attempting to carry on any more dialog with you will only result in additional frustration.
I'm out of here!
Regards,
Pm

I think everyone has to calm down.  Just because Hartman says someone has replicated Rick's claim does not prove anything.  All it says is "hold on guys there may be more evidence coming."  Simple as that.

Grum:  I have replicated your video where you lit an incandescent bulb with a spark gap. I lit a microwave oven bulb  to about the same level.  I did some other tests and found that
1 A lightning arrestor does not work - only a spark gap.
2 I used a spark plug  which has that annoying resistor in it and it still worked
3 the spark plug is cold electricity but the bulb gets slightly warm.
4 Adding an earth ground in the right place increases the light output. Putting it in the wrong place (e the negative terminal of one of the batteries )completely kills the effect and everything goes off.

I was running the circuit from a 2 watt input powering one of those cheap 3 volt  hv modules from China charging 7  car batteries in series and powering 5 gutted cfls and an mr16 whist doing all the other stuff.  I am not claiming ou just giving some experimental ideas. It's on 24/7 and is lighting up my lab all night lol.

The effect of grounding on the RICK by one of his students.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAxB-Dtl1U

.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.15, 04:22:17
12 volts @ 220mA to drive 4 small LEDs  :o
Wow,he's killing it now . C.C

This is a joke-right ???


Brad

:)
They promote a banal system without any idea of the underlying theoretical principles of mutual inductance or of capacitive coupling or even of practical orders of magnitude.
"students"  C.C. RF's greasy henchmen are hilarious. A great demonstration! From windbags, we can't expect anything else than non sense, banality presented as extraordinary, pretentious misinformation and vacuity.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.15, 04:22:17
12 volts @ 220mA to drive 4 small LEDs  :o
Wow,he's killing it now . C.C

This is a joke-right ???


Brad

Just some facts so we can all judge on any gain (if any) from grounding.

.

.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.15, 11:07:17
This is how it is done.
If you discover a circuit that shows some anomaly,you get some one else to replicate it,and then figure out what is going on.

So,lets see you get your LEDs this bright with !no! input-apparently  C.C

This is how easily you can show an !apparent! OU event,and the thing with this circuit is we both got the very same results. Of course,both of us know what is going on,but you would be surprised as to how many people couldnt work it out-->can you?.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvf9Uo7UVx0&list=FLsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w&index=3&t=0s

Oh,and watch till the end-->1.1MHz  ;D


Brad

Meter error at those frequencies.  I don't see ou at all. Now if you were powering the frequency generator from batteries and looping back Benitez style then that would be worth investigating further if your batteries stayed the same or were charging  Then you would have to rule out  house mains bleed and battery measurement error.  I know this stuff Brad.

Brad BTW seeing as you are on good terms with TK,  why don't you ask him why he hasn't published ie a video) the Ukrainian governments agricultural college replication of stage 1 and 2 of the Don Smith system.    It took me a whole week to translate the thing. Anyhow you can tell him I didn't understand it then but since talking to Rick for over 50 hours or so I understand it now. I am toying with the idea of publishing it.  You can tell TK that I used a Slayer and looped back blowing 4 transistors before I figured it out.  I told Rick about it yesterday after he asked me to ring him.  So go easy on Rick.  He knows stuff.  I am not claiming ou.

Brad,
I get it that this forum is supposed to be for OU claims and that video was not that. But you act like A.king intended that or that the video did. Bruno's point was just showing some grounding observations. He has a few friends that share ideas through videos. I mentioned another video to Aking and he decided to mention this one. I wrote him that it was a bad idea to send that video.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.15, 10:52:16
What fact's ?
I do not see any fact's being presented about grounding adding energy to any system.
The ground lead is nothing more than connecting the ground plane--1 plate of the capacitor to complete the capacitive coupled part of the circuit.

And do any of you OU claimants even take notice of just how much power is being delivered to said circuit in order to light 4 small LEDs ?-->2.64 watts in that video alone  C.C

See my pic below of a full roll of LEDs lit up brightly--> 1.22 watts,and that's an off the shelf item.
$12.00AU,and there all yours  O0 + postage.
I'll even write a book about how they work,and how to tune them correctly,and send it along with the LEDs  ;D
Now,if you want it to be a totally free energy device,i will include a 40 watt solar panel,regulator,and a 12 amp hour deep cycle battery for an extra $100.00 plus postage  O0
Now that's a bargain for a true free energy device   ^-^


Brad

.

Brad,
Honestly, I didn't look at the whole video very carefully. While Bruno is well meaning I have tried to help him at times with videos like this. I said he should not post videos that he is unsure about as it will just add to the mass of videos that people end up trying to replicate which leads to doubt. I understand your and F6's frustration. I am more concerned about this sort of thing than both of you put together. But I don't bark at such people. He has done better. He has a few good points he has discovered on some videos. When it was said he was my student, it was only that he was trying things with my kit and that I helped him correct his mistakes at times. Just like you point out, but not so harsh. He has some private videos you can't see that are showing very interesting things. But he wants to improve upon them once he is finished learning the point.

As for me, as I wrote on the private thread here, I really don't have time to try and present something here when I have been rather busy over at OU. I'm making a new website that is a new unique idea that comprehensively goes over free energy. I'll see how it turns out before I mention it. There is a lot to add to it and it will be a work in progress. I'm sure you will all have a go at it, and that will be fine with me. I'll need the feedback. After that I'll see about considering what you guys are after here. There appears to be something fundamentally wrong here if you have not been able to get something to first base. So at it is it sounds like this is just wasting everyone's time and just making everyone more skeptics. Idk because I just got on here and am learning. I'm talking to one of the moderators or owners or whathaveyou. and that is going well. So who knows. If I think that this can really help you guys then I'll try and figure out exactly what you want. But I think the website will be much more useful to everyone than some mere third party claim that they can't  prove anyway. I have many third party verifications but I fail to see how that helps anyone through a forum. I am more interested in showing people how free energy works so that they can do it, not merely believe it is possible.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.16, 04:58:40
Odd how both meters were reading the same error,and the meters value change while the frequency remaind the same--dont you think ?.

You know this stuff ?
Perhaps have a closer look at the circuit,and try again.


Brad

.

I decided the best way is to make a new website that will have everything in one place. It will take years to finalize but there will be a lot of information uploaded in the next week. This will be showing my work over the years in history, videos, documents, related patents, schematics, diagrams, forum blogs, books, products, etc. I will have a beginning basics section and also an advanced section where I will only share a few things. The central idea will be around a cheat sheet idea where the principles of free energy will be listed on two sides of a letter size paper. Then each point will be enlarged upon. There is nothing like this that I know of. It is what I have been moving towards over the years. I have found that giving people parts and instructions is problematic. They need a context. The principles show you what you need to know, what to do, and what not to do. It gives the reader the ability to no only build one setup but all the different kinds of systems. I find that my students then realize how many other systems work that they didn't understand before. This is a work in progress and can never be expected to be done or perfect. But it is a good idea that should have been done long ago. I'm not the best person to do this, but since no one else is 'I'd rather do something than nothing.' So once this is up and running to some extent, which provides a significant context, then I can share specific recommendations. This is a free information sharing project and not an attempt to prove anything. It will reveal real historical events where people witnessed demonstrations, real patents published, real products sold over the last 100+ years that are related, etc. But it will be up to people to verify any of this information for themselves. I can't really prove third party verification over the internet, even with pictures or internet. But I can list Journals published over the years.

I don't care about internet forum tribunals that arbitrarily judge whether something works or not. I deal with real people in the real world. I'm a problem solver and have always provided services people have asked for, and when they ask for seconds and thirds then I know they are satisfied. But I can't solve people's need for proving something when they need to prove it to themselves. It has never been my goal to prove something which would mean I'm pushing something on someone. I have always just offered what people have asked for (which doesn't mean I can provide the impossible, like proof over the internet). So I don't know what that means for this forum. Maybe all this will be helpful, or maybe this is not what you expect. I can only do what I am doing and am too busy trying to keep up to try and convince other people of the basics of OU. I propose that these two forums OUR and OU are creating the impression that OU is much harder than it is. I can see people have the wrong impression that it so hard to experience because people have generally been so abrasive about the discussions. After years of this it is time to reset and start from the ground up. Figure out why this has entirely failed to produce anything useful and figure out how to make it work.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.16, 09:43:03
This is good,and that is all we are asking for.
So when will you be showing us how it is done--how to get OU,and the circuit used to accomplish this ?.
Brad

Hi Rick.

Have you built your kit, or a reasonable facsimile of your kit and produced/measured OU with it?

If the answer is yes, could you briefly describe the kit setup and the measurement setup?

If the answer is no, may I ask; why are you selling the kits?

Poynt99

QuoteHave you built your kit, or a reasonable facsimile of your kit and produced/measured OU with it?
If the answer is yes, could you briefly describe the kit setup and the measurement setup?
If the answer is no, may I ask; why are you selling the kits?

A similar question may be why a majority of corporations and almost every politician are peddling unrealistic expectations for profit verging on complete bs?. So I take it your wondering why a person would want to sell a kit probably based on years of work to generate profit?... most likely so people can learn from the experience and to move forward.

In a world of Instagram and Youtube hero's who make millions and contribute nothing quite honestly I find this refreshing. Not to mention all the tech startup's with pie in the sky unicorns which most likely will never see the light of day not unlike bitcoin pulling in billions and your worried about Rick's kit... really?.

I was thinking about building a "kit" as well. A strange little device which coordinates the dielectric and magnetic fields in such a way that it produces a motional electric field around a circular set of coils. It is strange because the external field wipes out all electronics with a HV induced field within a few meters and penetrates a Faraday cage as if it were not even present. So in your estimation what would a kit like this be worth?.

Regards
AC

Hi Poynt99,
I have had many kits over the years. There are several of them mentioned here. Let me make a few clarifying comments:

1. All of my kits have been asked for by customers, usually for several years before I get around to doing one. So I have not ever set out to make a product that has not been begged for. I sell what people ask for. I never make some product and then ask for people to buy it. I provide a service. I'm not a salesman, I don't do marketing. This responds to your last question.

2. Yes I have built my kits. For some years they were sent as a kit to assemble but now half the people want them assembled, so we assemble them. I have personally assembled over a thousand motor energizers that I measure to be OU.

3. One kit would be a brushless fan motor. We can measure the input and CFMs of the fan. Then we can replace the diode, or entire circuit, and run the fan with the same CFMs and input, but with additional outputs. Outputs beyond the normal motor action and it's losses are additional body loops that you guys are all perfectly well aware of. Depending on what kind of load we want to run there, as every kind of load can be, we will have very few parts to make that happen.

4. Testing is done as would be expected with appropriate meters over time. Some tests were done over years. I do not publish tests so I doubt that you will be interested therefore. Testing is done in the real world and not over the internet or video. Therefore people prove to themselves in person what can be done. I have personal friends that are engineers at the top levels of industry that have used this technology. Any companies that I work with keep their testing internal and private. I do not seek validation by third parties, as I don't need it.

5. On this forum there is conflicting information about what OU is. The pdf does not say anything about self-looping, but someone else said that was a requirement for some reason. While that can be done OU does not depend upon self-looping or even electrical output.

6. There are basic levels of this technology, which is for the general public, and there are advanced levels that have very high outputs and are not for the general public. The basic levels range from anything that is above unity to self-running and several times the input.

7. I am not donating my kits to any forums, nor am I placing my instruction documents online. While I have made a lot of information available over the years, and made hundreds of free videos, I am now making a website that will put all the opensource material on free energy in one place. What I am willing to share will be there.

If you are interested in learning how to experience OU then I hope my work can help you out. I don't really know exactly what you guys are doing here but I am puzzled as to why after all this time you have nothing yet. Maybe you can explain that to me as I believe you are the person who is the big name here???

Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.07.16, 17:49:40
Hi Rick.
Have you built your kit, or a reasonable facsimile of your kit and produced/measured OU with it?
If the answer is yes, could you briefly describe the kit setup and the measurement setup?
If the answer is no, may I ask; why are you selling the kits?

AC,
Such a kit would be problematic to sell. You open yourself up to trouble. You would have research into what it would take to have the proper legal disclaimers and avoid liability problems. The idea overlaps weapons systems and EMP technology so it is risky to get into. You have to consider what kind of effects will result from selling something like that. What is it you are trying to teach people?

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2019.07.16, 23:27:21
Poynt99
A similar question may be why a majority of corporations and almost every politician are peddling unrealistic expectations for profit verging on complete bs?. So I take it your wondering why a person would want to sell a kit probably based on years of work to generate profit?... most likely so people can learn from the experience and to move forward.

In a world of Instagram and Youtube hero's who make millions and contribute nothing quite honestly I find this refreshing. Not to mention all the tech startup's with pie in the sky unicorns which most likely will never see the light of day not unlike bitcoin pulling in billions and your worried about Rick's kit... really?.

I was thinking about building a "kit" as well. A strange little device which coordinates the dielectric and magnetic fields in such a way that it produces a motional electric field around a circular set of coils. It is strange because the external field wipes out all electronics with a HV induced field within a few meters and penetrates a Faraday cage as if it were not even present. So in your estimation what would a kit like this be worth?.

Regards
AC

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?

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).

Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.07.17, 02:08:56
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?

OK Rick, I hear where you are coming from.

One thing I hope you can keep in mind, is that many folks like myself are heavily inclined to logical thought, and have difficulty understanding why something can't be "broken down" to its constituent parts. And in this case it applies to metrics and measurable results.

I'm not 100% certain, but one thing it appears you are saying is that it is not possible to achieve instantaneous measurements that exhibit OU operation, and that long-term results are the best, and perhaps only way to see OU with your kits/methods. That is difficult for me to understand.

For myself (and I think many folks in general), I would not be able to draw any conclusions from an experiment that might be showing one transmitter coil surrounded by 100 receiver coils, all connected to brightly-lit LED loads. The only thing this tells me as an observer is that there is enough power being supplied, and sufficient enough coupling to drive all the LEDs. Without determining how much power is being supplied by the supply, and how much power each LED is consuming, I would not be willing to go out on a limb and state that this is an OU operating condition. This type of scenario is simply too ambiguous to draw a conclusion that OU is being observed.

Even if the mA on the source is being monitored, and doesn't appear to change or decrease as loads are added, one can not simply assume this is an indication of OU. We have seen this type of operation many times (remember "crankypants" as a good example), and none produced anything truly workable in terms of driving a load with power from "nowhere".

If however one had a power supply that was a 200mA/9V wall-wort adapter, and it was connected to a device that clearly had no batteries in it, and the device was driving a bank of ten 100W incandescent light bulbs to full illumination, obviously it would be relatively easy without any measurements to draw the conclusion that OU operation is being observed. But many claims are made with devices producing power in the ranges of background, ambient noise (i.e. LED power ranges), and these are difficult at best to accurately measure, even with modern oscilloscopes. So I always advise folks to be cautious with their conclusions when working with such low power levels. These problems are exasperated by the use of relatively high frequencies, such as what I suspect your coils are using.

At any rate, it sounds like someone here at OUR may be acquiring one of your kits, and if so, we will do our best to examine its performance and post the results. Without some kind of test plan, guide, or regimen provided by the kit developer, the best one can do is apply objective, scientific methods, and that is what we shall do.

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.17, 05:54:22
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).

blah blah blah.

"Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease."
We can see that this is not the case.

So many empty words and unfounded sentences, I'm very impressed by this obfuscation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxT2EuQG5rU

This is some of the more advanced methods which Rick covers in the book.  Maybe this is the video Rick was referring to?
There is a warning that it becomes more dangerous to work with.
(BTW I have already lost one gate driver - silly me)

Poynt99,
I didn't say that. In fact I do just that in my teaching. And that is exactly my point. You need to look at the principle approach which in fact are specific processes to consider in a given context. That will be the point of the cheat sheet which is an developing idea. Again, we are not talking about magical parts, or that parts are negative resistor parts, but that parts are used in a specific way. I'm searching right now for the best/shortest way to categorize this as a principle or theme. We have to move away from expecting the goods from mere parts, to using a part in a given context. That is the point I am making, where I think the groups have been generally wrong. Moving away from the personalities and parts classification to the actual processes.

Well instantaneous observation is rather premature. For example, the phony charge has been created that batteries have been consumed by some of these processes, when in fact we have seen them only increase their capacity over the years. So in battery systems that would definitely be necessary to look at all the factors. So anything that could be a consumable situation would have to be considered. That is just one thing that instantly comes to mind. Obviously repeating the same experiment in all locations and altitudes would also be a consideration. When dealing with RF systems especially you would want to see it out in the middle of nowhere and also in the city or around other radiation.
But no, I am not saying there isn't instantaneous observations.

If you didn't gather from my statement, which was based upon seeing the picture and watching the one video, I did say that the power input was constantly shown with the power supply showing exact volts and Amperes. That would be silly to suggest something unusual was happening. This would be like Gerard Morin's first video showing a motor driving another motor without showing the amperage draw from the two batteries. I did actually show what it takes, and that he didn't have any gain at all in that demonstration. What I did however, in my recent video was show the power input but I deliberated didn't do any power measurements because I was attempting to prove several other things that I rightly predicted would happen on the OU forum. I titled the video that you cannot prove OU over the Internet for one. But I also provided just enough load so that it was fairly obvious that more output was produced than you could from that input. It was never intended to be a proof, but based upon the assumptions of most people--that you supposedly can prove something from a video--I gave them what they wanted but deliberately without the meters so that it would force my point home. They are only satisfied with meter readings and not other types of energy outputs that are obvious. Again, I was not trying to prove OU myself, but merely on their level of assumptions and expectations (that is the way the judge disproof claims that they readily accept). So this is the context of how this all developed.

It is not ambiguous at all and would only be if you were trying to evaluate anything from a video only. Again, this was not proposed by me as some ideal way to prove OU. But it is very easy to do nevertheless. Ideally I would just show zero input in the real world, or negative. Of course that is self-running as everyone wants to demand these days. But that would be your instantaneous demonstration.

Yes there are different kinds of loads that are more or less appropriate. Any of the bigger LED bulbs have capacitors that can be measured and easily calculated. So once a proper filter like that really smooths out the output to a constant current condition, that is the only place where you can properly measure power. Because power meters will never accurately measure or predict the energy of an impulse because impulse is entirely different than constant current and is nonconservative and results in gains when there is a suitable collector/load. So this is why metering is conditional as to where you place the meter. If your load is directly impulsed then the meter reading will not match the total work being done. That is an interesting observation which we have shown countless engineers with their very meters--the best meters in the world. So scientists would rather measure a constant current loop, and that is what I have been saying. You can monitor the input power, and any and all final loops with loads when they are constant current. But to measure elsewhere in addition will only show that power meter measurements do not reveal actual energy flows and that they can't predict the amount of work that can be done. This is absolutely critical to understand and that is so many have failed in this research. They just assume that the power measurements are always indicative of output possibilities. But power measurements are only good for a closed loop to indicate how fast you are killing the associated source charge. And yet a power meter can measure some power on a completely open system that does not discharge the source charge, so that is another thing to deal with. The point is that you just need to properly evaluate what actual work is being done in the real world without depending exclusively on power meters. It is just one circular argument because it needs to be proved that such meters are absolutely authoritative in that way. If they are so assumed, as so many do, then naturally this whole forum is a waste of time. So the first principles of free energy research are the associated ideas that distinguish constant current, closed looped, linear and nonlinear resistive processes from impulse or resonance open nonlinear reactive systems. These are fundamentally different even though we do what Kron's lifelong search resulted in, that the two are done together. The environmental inputs are not measurable as they are directly from the aether. As such they will never be acceptable even if you have later outputs after such processes that are measurable gains. I hope you understand this. I have never advocated a no meter testing, but metering has to be more carefully understood in this context. We can always run loads directly and consider the work done. In that case the load itself is a negative resistor where the energy converges into the load. Or we can take that load and loop it with a resistive load in a constant current loop to satisfy the need for metering. Without making that distinction then you fail to understand OU claims and systems. So even if metering shows no or little reading to a negative resistor, it can be helpful to show everyone that it is a limited tool that can only be used under a special case condition (even if that is what people are only used to).

Well there are at least several people here at OUR that have the kit. But I do not give permission to disclose the copyright information from the book. So it is not an example to be used here. I'm not saying that people can't do some things with the coils and evaluate such. But as I mentioned previously that there is a lot more to the kit than the electric parts. The book expands upon the basic experiments to reveal several OU processes. The purpose of the kit is not for group development but for personal exploration. That is why I didn't want it on the forums as it then kills the beneficial learning/discovery process that is important for students to experience. Do you understand that? Again, you can study the tank circuit and figure out different ways to show gain from such. That is another specific point. That is easy to do. But the kit is not some oversimplistic matter for the purpose of having a few parts put together to prove OU for some forum.

When I get the website more populated with important  content then I will mention it and people can see all this better. I'll develop some of the things mentioned here.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.07.17, 13:34:11
OK Rick, I hear where you are coming from.
One thing I hope you can keep in mind, is that many folks like myself are heavily inclined to logical thought, and have difficulty understanding why something can't be "broken down" to its constituent parts. And in this case it applies to metrics and measurable results.
I'm not 100% certain, but one thing it appears you are saying is that it is not possible to achieve instantaneous measurements that exhibit OU operation, and that long-term results are the best, and perhaps only way to see OU with your kits/methods. That is difficult for me to understand.
For myself (and I think many folks in general), I would not be able to draw any conclusions from an experiment that might be showing one transmitter coil surrounded by 100 receiver coils, all connected to brightly-lit LED loads. The only thing this tells me as an observer is that there is enough power being supplied, and sufficient enough coupling to drive all the LEDs. Without determining how much power is being supplied by the supply, and how much power each LED is consuming, I would not be willing to go out on a limb and state that this is an OU operating condition. This type of scenario is simply too ambiguous to draw a conclusion that OU is being observed.
Even if the mA on the source is being monitored, and doesn't appear to change or decrease as loads are added, one can not simply assume this is an indication of OU. We have seen this type of operation many times (remember "crankypants" as a good example), and none produced anything truly workable in terms of driving a load with power from "nowhere".
If however one had a power supply that was a 200mA/9V wall-wort adapter, and it was connected to a device that clearly had no batteries in it, and the device was driving a bank of ten 100W incandescent light bulbs to full illumination, obviously it would be relatively easy without any measurements to draw the conclusion that OU operation is being observed. But many claims are made with devices producing power in the ranges of background, ambient noise (i.e. LED power ranges), and these are difficult at best to accurately measure, even with modern oscilloscopes. So I always advise folks to be cautious with their conclusions when working with such low power levels. These problems are exasperated by the use of relatively high frequencies, such as what I suspect your coils are using.
At any rate, it sounds like someone here at OUR may be acquiring one of your kits, and if so, we will do our best to examine its performance and post the results. Without some kind of test plan, guide, or regimen provided by the kit developer, the best one can do is apply objective, scientific methods, and that is what we shall do.

Once again F6, you show up here with nothing valuable but to totally dismiss something without reason. Merely because you can't bother to read something. There is a difference between being thorough or detailed and obfuscation (they are actually opposites). That is actually what you do when you made a fool of yourself and repeated contradictor yourself (you illustrated your point in your very reasoning).
These are not matters that can be addressed in one sentence. What you actually are doing is arguing as a simpleton who either doesn't have the ability to consider involved matters and/or rejects considering such while attacking others for exposing their ignorance or inability. Your words are but games, and you demonstrate your own folly the more you attack.
I have explained the context of this which obviously takes some development. And part of that context is distinguishing mainstream processes and measurements and expectations with free energy type research processes. That is impossible to say in once sentence. Anyway, I expect this from you because you just recklessly attack without even realizing what you are saying. Shows some serious personal problems. A dangerous person indeed. 

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.07.17, 17:30:00
blah blah blah.

"Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease."
We can see that this is not the case.

So many empty words and unfounded sentences, I'm very impressed by this obfuscation.

RFQUERY

QuoteSuch a kit would be problematic to sell. You open yourself up to trouble. You would have research into what it would take to have the proper legal disclaimers and avoid liability problems. The idea overlaps weapons systems and EMP technology so it is risky to get into. You have to consider what kind of effects will result from selling something like that. What is it you are trying to teach people?

I was only joking and I would never sell the technology as a kit or otherwise for the reasons you have pointed out.

I have read many of your posts and watched many of your video's and think your moving in a sensible direction. This isn't my first rodeo and I have had many interactions with a broad range of different people over the years. For me it feels like a whirlpool with people pulling in every direction trying to serve their interests always wanting more and more but unable to rationally justify why. In the end my path was similar to yours I suppose and I had to make it clear I am in control and I will determine what I will or will not do. First there was peer pressure then "just sign your name here" then threats and intimidation and talk of lawyers and it always seems to turn into a dog and pony show led by the terminally misguided.

I also like how you write lengthy well thought out responses describing in detail what your thinking is relative to your actions. I have found that people willing to spend the time and expend the effort to make there thoughts known are more sincere in general.

I hope you can stick around for a while and perhaps we could debate more of these concepts in detail. I know your on the right track because I have been down this path your on before. We see these patents you have detailed and they make no sense because it's always just coils of wire and circuit interrupters or switches. There is quite literally nothing there for the layman but everything is in fact present and accounted for to those skilled in the art. What is always missing is the cause not shown which is the fields present, how they interact, there geometry and there timing function. Strange as it may seem the very thing which makes these extraordinary devices work is the one thing most people have chosen to completely ignore.

I like to think of it this way... this is not new technology it is very old technology built upon an entirely different premise than what we would consider normal to us in this day and age. It does not rely solely on "conduction currents" but in fact avoids them, it does not utilize transformer action like we do and it inherently limits the dissipation of energy within the system. I think Viktor Schauberger nailed the concept... do the opposite of what we do today and you will be well on your way.

The reasoning is sound in my opinion, the reason so few people can understand how this technology works is because they cannot imagine a way of doing things other than the way they have come to know. It is habitual... like a drug addict not being able to imagine what it was like not being high all the time so many years ago. Like the terminally insane being insane for no other reason than they have no comprehension of what our normal is because to them their insanity is normal and it is we who are insane. Our history is littered with proof that we have been terminally misguided in the past however the line of past/future resides with us in us and we determine how our timeline plays out.

On a note of interest, after watching your video's and reading your literature I should mention I'm an Atheist, lol. However one cannot, in my opinion, embrace the works of some of the greatest scientific minds in our history and not be a spiritual person. It goes towards the notion of how we frame our perception of things knowing there are things out there beyond our imagination.

In any case, nice to have you here.

This is encouraging, and not only because you are a fellow Canadian. Like I said I'm working on a website to make these things possible. It will promote the idea of forum discussion on each free energy principle. So we will see how this will develop.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2019.07.18, 04:03:01
RFQUERY
I was only joking and I would never sell the technology as a kit or otherwise for the reasons you have pointed out.

I have read many of your posts and watched many of your video's and think your moving in a sensible direction. This isn't my first rodeo and I have had many interactions with a broad range of different people over the years. For me it feels like a whirlpool with people pulling in every direction trying to serve their interests always wanting more and more but unable to rationally justify why. In the end my path was similar to yours I suppose and I had to make it clear I am in control and I will determine what I will or will not do. First there was peer pressure then "just sign your name here" then threats and intimidation and talk of lawyers and it always seems to turn into a dog and pony show led by the terminally misguided.

I also like how you write lengthy well thought out responses describing in detail what your thinking is relative to your actions. I have found that people willing to spend the time and expend the effort to make there thoughts known are more sincere in general.

I hope you can stick around for a while and perhaps we could debate more of these concepts in detail. I know your on the right track because I have been down this path your on before. We see these patents you have detailed and they make no sense because it's always just coils of wire and circuit interrupters or switches. There is quite literally nothing there for the layman but everything is in fact present and accounted for to those skilled in the art. What is always missing is the cause not shown which is the fields present, how they interact, there geometry and there timing function. Strange as it may seem the very thing which makes these extraordinary devices work is the one thing most people have chosen to completely ignore.

I like to think of it this way... this is not new technology it is very old technology built upon an entirely different premise than what we would consider normal to us in this day and age. It does not rely solely on "conduction currents" but in fact avoids them, it does not utilize transformer action like we do and it inherently limits the dissipation of energy within the system. I think Viktor Schauberger nailed the concept... do the opposite of what we do today and you will be well on your way.

The reasoning is sound in my opinion, the reason so few people can understand how this technology works is because they cannot imagine a way of doing things other than the way they have come to know. It is habitual... like a drug addict not being able to imagine what it was like not being high all the time so many years ago. Like the terminally insane being insane for no other reason than they have no comprehension of what our normal is because to them their insanity is normal and it is we who are insane. Our history is littered with proof that we have been terminally misguided in the past however the line of past/future resides with us in us and we determine how our timeline plays out.

On a note of interest, after watching your video's and reading your literature I should mention I'm an Atheist, lol. However one cannot, in my opinion, embrace the works of some of the greatest scientific minds in our history and not be a spiritual person. It goes towards the notion of how we frame our perception of things knowing there are things out there beyond our imagination.

In any case, nice to have you here.

RF,

I'm baaaaack!  After much consideration, I've decided to query (pun intended) you on some items.

In your work, would you say that you are experiencing OU with common components due to outside energy input from the aether, Heaviside component, or whatever term you wish to use?  IOW, this extra energy input would be outside known classical closed loop theory?

How are you coming with my requested KVL violation example?

Regards,
Pm

.

Brad,
I never said that. I was explaining how the Resonance kit got dragged into this forum and that it wasn't the kit you guys assumed. It was much more encompassing than a mere proof of OU idea.
I did mention other systems I have long shown as more suitable. But I said that I will get the website up first to give the full context of such systems, and all/or most free energy systems.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.18, 13:22:06
Cool
As RF dose not wish to present an OU device,and you know where he is coming from,and how he dose it,then perhaps you could present us with an OU device ?.
Brad

It's kind of unstable, deleting your posts and coming back so dramatically.
While classical theory in the sense of mainstream doesn't want to admit these things, in real world technology they still have to deal with this phenomena and the science for it is already being used by everyday people in a purely negative sense to protect the circuitry. So it has become mainstream already and people just don't think about that. Software is used to predict and manage such processes. It is an amazing trick to pull off in convincing people that these things are non-existent even though existing technology is full of it already. And I am not even talking about advanced weapons systems or other non-electrical OU outputs that are readily used.
It is not so black and white as you portray in your question, and which everyone assumes in these debates. I deal with real world technology so I am coming from the tech side and not the theoretical nonexistent side of things. Again, most of my customers are technicians all around the world dealing with these what I am talking about. Some of them are or were at the top of their industry. They know from experience how this oversimplistic stripped down theory does not hold in the real world. Just go back to Stienmetz if you can study him and look at the context of his problems he had to solve in this respect. Are you aware of that? The theory is actually false because it is only partially true. It is true only under a special case context. But that is not the real world. So that is why there are so many filters and safeties to prevent these negative processes from destroying the profit based symmetry death loops.
You can find your examples with Stienmetz if you want. But just look and what Lewin showed. I already responded to you that KVL holds as a special case. So the violation is not a violation of Kirchhoff, but of the false claim that the KVL is universal. I have started editing a video where I show a professor presenting on the subject and then slipping in the truth that it is only for a steady state. So this is already admitted in standard teaching. It does not apply to anything else, or the things that I have been doing, or most circuits that people are using. I'm not sure if you have studied these things or not, but I will get my video finished when I get the time for it. What you can do is take what Lewin demonstrated and replace the reverse voltmeter with a negative resistance loop as I have done with my motors for years, and then you will realize what he is talking about. It doesn't disprove KVL because KVL does not go there or address that loop or change. That is why people keep saying, Oh we can't measure pulsing, it is too hard to determine. Actually it is because they can see that they don't have the equipment to properly consider impulsing (as they notice the faster the meters they have the more the numbers change) and the results do not add up. Also, measuring is it's own loop and not the actual load. It is just an estimate of the load.

So you have KVL under steady state. ALL AGREED! But that doesn't tell us where the energy is coming from or even what it affects in the local environment. Once we depart from that, like when we turn it on to get to a steady state condition and before we turn it off (both of which are moments where you do not have steady state), or where we have an impulse, then KVL is outside of it's specific sphere. Now we have reactive loops that are nonconservative when the right paths/loads are applied. Here is one study: http://vixra.org/pdf/1005.0078v1.pdf

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.18, 13:17:18
RF,
I'm baaaaack!  After much consideration, I've decided to query (pun intended) you on some items.
In your work, would you say that you are experiencing OU with common components due to outside energy input from the aether, Heaviside component, or whatever term you wish to use?  IOW, this extra energy input would be outside known classical closed loop theory?
How are you coming with my requested KVL violation example?
Regards,
Pm

Rick
just so you are aware ,Brad had asked me to send a note to Admin here to invite you to
a discussion [off the front page]
I tried to get you at the time.. [by text or call] about this and what user name to use or if you would even join here?]
at the time this was happening My mom was in the hospital down in NY ]unbeknownst to
me ..the end of her Time here] and I did not really get all this put together properly.
so I just made up a user name [temporary]

you can change that somehow in your profile !

RE Partzman
he is an amazing fellow here who toils untold hours to understand this work.

and has fortunately shared his own queries with this community , I would be remiss if I did not
add... he tries to live by Standards or examples which "your Mentor" taught !

To say this is a struggle in this day and age would be an understatement.
HOWEVER
Here at this forum we have fought way too much about topics unrelated to our theme.
and am NOT going there .


But you must realize that your path seems in conflict to your mentor's teachings [how to live a life]
and I could not imagine a business model which could justify your path?

we are after all talking about life saving ..planet saving technologies here...not cake recipes or better mousetraps ?

I for one could not put my head on the pillow at night without having an immediate path towards
getting this type of claim out to the world [your claim]

and if you are concerned for your safety as a reason to not share something?
leave it here and watch what happens !!

as Jimboot says ...successful replications or word of mouth are the best advertisement
there can be !!

you asked how many members ?

between the few FE OU forums [100-200 K ?

something like this claim would take just "ONE" to change the world !!

and IMO the clock is ticking ..and every second that goes bye ..someone is suffering for the lack of it.

respectfully
Chet K [not an anonymous person behind a handle [your pet peeve here and elsewhere]

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.18, 17:04:54
It's kind of unstable, deleting your posts and coming back so dramatically.

Why thank you Rick!  Hmmm, I see that you are paying considerable attention here which supports my decision to delete my technology on this forum.

Quote
While classical theory in the sense of mainstream doesn't want to admit these things, in real world technology they still have to deal with this phenomena and the science for it is already being used by everyday people in a purely negative sense to protect the circuitry. So it has become mainstream already and people just don't think about that. Software is used to predict and manage such processes. It is an amazing trick to pull off in convincing people that these things are non-existent even though existing technology is full of it already. And I am not even talking about advanced weapons systems or other non-electrical OU outputs that are readily used.
It is not so black and white as you portray in your question, and which everyone assumes in these debates. I deal with real world technology so I am coming from the tech side and not the theoretical nonexistent side of things. Again, most of my customers are technicians all around the world dealing with these what I am talking about. Some of them are or were at the top of their industry. They know from experience how this oversimplistic stripped down theory does not hold in the real world. Just go back to Stienmetz if you can study him and look at the context of his problems he had to solve in this respect. Are you aware of that? The theory is actually false because it is only partially true. It is true only under a special case context. But that is not the real world. So that is why there are so many filters and safeties to prevent these negative processes from destroying the profit based symmetry death loops.

Yada, yada, yada!  You're really good at regurgitating stuff!  The answer to my question is black or white, yes or no.  But answering a simple yes or no is beneath your intelligence quotient as you must maintain the facade of an all knowing one.  So, I have to take your answer as a yes---please correct me if I'm wrong. 

Quote
You can find your examples with Stienmetz if you want. But just look and what Lewin showed. I already responded to you that KVL holds as a special case. So the violation is not a violation of Kirchhoff, but of the false claim that the KVL is universal. I have started editing a video where I show a professor presenting on the subject and then slipping in the truth that it is only for a steady state. So this is already admitted in standard teaching. It does not apply to anything else, or the things that I have been doing, or most circuits that people are using. I'm not sure if you have studied these things or not, but I will get my video finished when I get the time for it. What you can do is take what Lewin demonstrated and replace the reverse voltmeter with a negative resistance loop as I have done with my motors for years, and then you will realize what he is talking about. It doesn't disprove KVL because KVL does not go there or address that loop or change. That is why people keep saying, Oh we can't measure pulsing, it is too hard to determine. Actually it is because they can see that they don't have the equipment to properly consider impulsing (as they notice the faster the meters they have the more the numbers change) and the results do not add up. Also, measuring is it's own loop and not the actual load. It is just an estimate of the load.

Again more yada, yada!  Professor Lewin and his KVL video, he got it wrong dude!  This is easily proven on the bench with standard, oh wait...... I didn't have a/your negative resistance loop!  How much are they?  BTW, I don't have any problems measuring the energy levels of pulses or any complex waveforms.  You keep referencing "meters" all the time regarding measurements.  I hope you have had the privilege of using the latest scopes that are on the market these days.  No problem taking these "difficult" measurements in fact, I bet they would even handle your negative resistance batteries, motors, loops and such.

Quote
So you have KVL under steady state. ALL AGREED! But that doesn't tell us where the energy is coming from or even what it affects in the local environment. Once we depart from that, like when we turn it on to get to a steady state condition and before we turn it off (both of which are moments where you do not have steady state), or where we have an impulse, then KVL is outside of it's specific sphere. Now we have reactive loops that are nonconservative when the right paths/loads are applied. Here is one study: http://vixra.org/pdf/1005.0078v1.pdf

I've had this paper for some time.  Have you actually tried the ENC yourself?

Still waiting for that KVL circuit.

Pm

Rick,

Two short stories involving special inventors in the search for OU who I was privileged to converse and interact with in past years. 

The first was Bill Wampler who has since passed on from what I understand.  I made contact with Bill through relatives which is another story in itself but not important.  What is important however, is that Bill had made millions developing and producing desalination equipment that he sold and installed throughout the world.  With the profits, he put together a team of engineers devoted to researching and creating FE devices.  When I first met him, his company was manufacturing a 10-12kw black box that he gave away to third world countries in regions that otherwise had no source of power.  He had no intent of entering any markets to sell these units and avoided any government intervention like the plague.  This was a true FE device that I sorely wanted to become involved with but that wasn't to be.  In our conversation, I quizzed him regarding the technology which was solid state and only required a starting battery much like an ICE.  Of course he gave me no details but I still remember several statements he made like "the energy is all around us" and "the problem is, you must first learn how to collect it, and then you must learn how to control it".  He had a very serious emphasis on the control factor.

The second is Paul Landers.  Paul had found me on some forum somewhere and commissioned me to design and  build some specialized high speed, high power switching circuits.  These circuits were used to build a solid state version of a mechanical device he and a friend had developed based on Paul's theories.  I was to do this free gratis so to help convince me to get involved, Paul described their work and sent pix of their setup in a running state.  One forum member here has a copy of these pix but basically, the machine was a counter-rotating magnetic field arrangement that while running had turned the framework made of wood and metal to plasma.  That's right, solid objects turned to plasma. 

Now, there was a common denominator to these stories and it is the point of this post.  Both of these parties experienced runaway conditions in their development stages.  Bill stated that their experience scarred the living daylights out of all present and they vacated the facility and hoped for the best.  Paul and his associate experienced the same runaway in his garage lab of which the plasma pix were evidence.  They too vacated the premises while hoping for the best.  In both cases all power had been removed from the devices during their runaway condition and yet they continued to gain in energy until reaching a peak before subsiding.

My point is, both of these entities were extracting energy from the surrounding aether and both experienced runaway conditions.  These are real world stories and true.

Have you ever experienced any such event?

Pm           

Chet,
I'm sorry to hear about what you went through.
As for my user name, I usually have my name. I don't think I have ever had another user name.
I have had some mentors, but I assume you mean The Mentor. OK.
I really don't know how to read your comment about my path being in conflict with my Mentor. Could you tell me what you mean. I really am unsure of what you are saying. What business model? I sell parts and chargers and energizers that people ask me for. I started doing that some 25 years ago with old book classics people wanted republished. That is a ministry I did for years, for no profit. I did the same with this stuff, that is in giving people what they asked for. So what conflict are you talking about?
As for free energy being the savior of the world, that is a big mistake. Tesla made the claim that the machine was the savior and we just had to master it. Electricity may have changed things, but are we any better for it? Yes we could be, but morally speaking people are worse. The world is far more polluted. Better tech, including free energy, does not make people better, it just gives them more opportunity to further their pursuits (good or bad). It has given more tools now to control people in crazy ways. Well there is no point fighting it as it is not going away. So I choose to promote temperance, safety, and clean energy. I have helped thousands of people all around the world with this. I build my customers by taking the time to talk to them for hours about all these and more important subjects. I'm not sure what part of that is in conflict. I also have private dealings that I don't share publicly. I'm setting up a free energy website where I am organizing all the information in one place. So what am I missing?
Yes I have been severely persecuted for doing this work. I am not afraid of anyone. But free energy is not the most important thing in life. For example, I have found that 90-95% of the problem with people not experiencing free energy is psychological/spiritual. Unless we forsake our bias practice, which is drilled into in the schools, then what science can we do? Prejudice is primary sin, they go hand in hand. To assume without sufficient reason is illogically fatal in the matter. That goes for and against a claim. Having said that, it is far more important to help people with that spiritual problem then trying to convince them of something they don't want to believe. Once they fix that primary problem then they are very open to all truth, but not in a gullible way. Both credulous and incredulousness are the same evil. So that is what I will lay my life down for, not for technology.

I suppose you may be referring to the more advanced systems. These will not be allowed for the general public because they are too dangerous and a national security threat to most countries. Whether you and I agree with that or not, that is how such is deemed. You get a small system that can produce a lot of power for free and think about that? Such systems distributed among the general public would not just destroy the entire cartel structure of the modern schools science departments, and it would not just destroy the energy monopolies, but as a result there would be untold chaos resulting of the likes you would never imagine. But apart from that, it would be very dangerous for people. I have spent 15 years doing this and I know how foolish people get in their mad rush for free energy. They almost always put safety aside. But these systems will kill you faster than you realize. Just like I am dead set against the Tesla Motor company and their driverless systems because no death is worth any convenience (you can always have the safeties assist drivers), in the same way, I could never distribute something that most certainly would result in many people killing themselves as a result. And that is just one side of it. There are also a lot of bad people who would do many things with it. And these are legitimate reasons for concern here. There are ways around it and that is what people are doing. But no one is going to sell anything that powerful to the general public. If you want to be a power company then that is one thing.

So I have tried to be mindful of these things, and in fact whenever I have shared some things that I gather have crossed a line, I have seen immediate responses. In 2011 after I showed the big boat, everyone turned on me. The problem with the boat was not the size, but the fact that I showed the very simple circuit could do more than everyone assumed. It still had a battery bank and I assumed was not crossing a line. But after looking back at all what happened in those years, I realize that certain people were actually there to suppress free energy technology by being gatekeepers who controlled by never doing anything but entertaining people with stories, etc. Then when I persisted in making the kits, and didn't realize they were not joking when they told me not to do them, they attacked me after that last big meeting in 2011. I ended up losing almost everything over the next year. That was the cost of making the electric Porsche, lawnmower, boat, and 30 coiler demonstrations. After having all these guys recorded speaking praises of me at the meeting, the very next day my manufacturer, one of them, dropped me. The only reason he gave was because my website was not good enough and that I didn't tip a pizza delivery person when they came 2 hours late a second day in a row. But I'm not getting into the more serious matters.

So my line is that I will share the principles of free energy and will provide the Benitez systems, motor energizer systems, and even the basics of my third stage process that lets you multiply the output many times. But I will just show you the way to do the full black box. I will show you the way to do the Don Smith systems. Even the Stan M systems is relatively easy. I know other people who have them in cars. But that is asking for trouble and theft at least. My goal has been both education and getting something out there. It has made a difference. It has been a rough ride as I have come to learn that most of the big players cannot be trusted...

Quote from: Chet K on 2019.07.18, 17:39:50
he tries to live by Standards or examples which "your Mentor" taught !
To say this is a struggle in this day and age would be an understatement.
HOWEVER
Here at this forum we have fought way too much about topics unrelated to our theme.
and am NOT going there .
But you must realize that your path seems in conflict to your mentor's teachings [how to live a life]
and I could not imagine a business model which could justify your path?
we are after all talking about life saving ..planet saving technologies here...not cake recipes or better mousetraps ?
I for one could not put my head on the pillow at night without having an immediate path towards
getting this type of claim out to the world [your claim]
and if you are concerned for your safety as a reason to not share something?
leave it here and watch what happens !!

PM,
Your next post is worthy of response, but this one serves no benefit.
I find it strange that you have OU technology, 3 examples, and you just forgot about it and went on to something else. Either this group has some serious problems, and you don't have much interest in seeing things through, or something else is happening. Does anyone else understand this point? What was the problem? Why is this so difficult? Is it a meter problem??? Are these unstable?
And why would you delete your posts and take off because of me? I don't represent this forum. I am still learning about it. You should know that. I don't get the all in, all out, then this.
I am not all knowing, as some of you have that claim. I learn from everyone, as we are all students. But I make sure of the things I promote or say. That is legitimate confidence. That may be offensive to you for whatever reason I don't know. If you have OU I don't see what your wrangling with me about. I write a lot to be understood. I avoid ambiguity, as then you just think worse. At this point I can't see the original point or my response so I don't remember the question. Probably a, 'When did you stop beating that person' kind of question. lol Again, I don't get your rejection of my points if you say you have OU. Do you understand how it works? Or do you just have something you can't explain. Sounds like the latter. This is why I am showing the principles of free energy.
That's funny about what you say about the bench. I have been showing on the bench and in real products what he implied for 15 years now. So if that was wrong, then how do you account for free energy gains then? Why is it that I have to be the only one defending OU and the processes on these OU forums? Whenever I ask people the basis for why they believe in OU then I get zero response. Do you not know why or is it just a hope like G had?
How much? Just a little diode PM! A flyback diode with a load in series, is what I said if you cared to read. In Lewin's case he just had the voltmeter loop as he was not willing to go any further. He was just hinting at the obvious implications.

Well then, "you are the man, and wisdom will die with you!" By all means instruct us ignorant folks. Since you have such a distain for my many words, it reveals itself to everyone that you don't bother to read what I actually say. I did say I can meter everything, and that this does in fact translate to software, that does predict this phenomena. And that is the end of the story once you learn that. If the software could not properly predict the effect in parts then they would have a hard time clamping out these pesty gains that destroy semiconductors and pit DC contacts. hmmm maybe you will read next time. lol That's the problem with these forums, they are so impersonal. If we were meeting in the real world then we would all be laughing and having a good time.
Again, I was talking about taking specific power readings and realizing that there is no power at such places.
Nice try!

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.18, 18:52:15
Why thank you Rick!  Hmmm, I see that you are paying considerable attention here which supports my decision to delete my technology on this forum.
Yada, yada, yada!  You're really good at regurgitating stuff!  The answer to my question is black or white, yes or no.  But answering a simple yes or no is beneath your intelligence quotient as you must maintain the facade of an all knowing one.  So, I have to take your answer as a yes---please correct me if I'm wrong. 
Again more yada, yada!  Professor Lewin and his KVL video, he got it wrong dude!  This is easily proven on the bench with standard, oh wait...... I didn't have a/your negative resistance loop!  How much are they?  BTW, I don't have any problems measuring the energy levels of pulses or any complex waveforms.  You keep referencing "meters" all the time regarding measurements.  I hope you have had the privilege of using the latest scopes that are on the market these days.  No problem taking these "difficult" measurements in fact, I bet they would even handle your negative resistance batteries, motors, loops and such.
I've had this paper for some time.  Have you actually tried the ENC yourself?
Still waiting for that KVL circuit.
Pm

Rick
My thoughts on these things don't come to me as quickly [well they come quickly just not
transferable to print.
I will respond in the next few days.

it is a most passionate topic for me too ,and something seems off ?
as here we have not one definite example of reproducible OU that would be considered a true anomaly.
Here we feel if there is a problem looping or scaling to large output , there is something wrong.

respectfully
Chet K 

Now this is a twist I didn't expect. Interesting stories. I trust you aren't pulling a Tinsel on me here in asking.
Yes, I have had many runaways of all different sizes. This is why I have the first rule of the shop as safety first. Even the second rule is just that in a different way.

This is why you have to know what you are doing and take the steps to put proper controls on it. This can happen when you jump too quickly instead of taking small steps. Usually because you are rushed to get something done. But in one case I created a reaction that turned a power supply up from 6V to 22V and my system produced a very unique ball of fire that caused all sorts of problems. This was a small example that I did not expect. I know what you are talking about and that gets into weapons systems so you don't want to go there. I have several criteria for what I'll work with and produce. It can't be unstable like that. I have known many an old researcher who has spent years working on some system but it just doesn't meet the criteria. At some point we need to think a head if the system is going to be practical. I think in many cases, people have stumbled onto something that didn't make sense conventionally. So they run with that, maybe even after they lost it and couldn't repeat it, because they don't have anything else. How many people here have that experience? In fact many of my customers are engineers who have had that very experience in their line of work. So once they retire or get close, they start exploring such things. Whether small or big catastrophic events, that is how most of us got started. The key is learning the science, the principles of free energy, and grow up from all the guessing and rambling on as if it isn't possible, etc.

I hesitate to say, but Judy Wood has detailed this sort of thing (dustification) about 9/11. We all saw, in video mind you, the 700' massive steel frame start to fall over and then just dustify. We didn't expect to see that so we never realized what we saw until we go back and look again to our amazement. This was the biggest demonstration of these processes. 

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.18, 19:37:57
Rick,

Two short stories involving special inventors in the search for OU who I was privileged to converse and interact with in past years. 

The first was Bill Wampler who has since passed on from what I understand.  I made contact with Bill through relatives which is another story in itself but not important.  What is important however, is that Bill had made millions developing and producing desalination equipment that he sold and installed throughout the world.  With the profits, he put together a team of engineers devoted to researching and creating FE devices.  When I first met him, his company was manufacturing a 10-12kw black box that he gave away to third world countries in regions that otherwise had no source of power.  He had no intent of entering any markets to sell these units and avoided any government intervention like the plague.  This was a true FE device that I sorely wanted to become involved with but that wasn't to be.  In our conversation, I quizzed him regarding the technology which was solid state and only required a starting battery much like an ICE.  Of course he gave me no details but I still remember several statements he made like "the energy is all around us" and "the problem is, you must first learn how to collect it, and then you must learn how to control it".  He had a very serious emphasis on the control factor.

The second is Paul Landers.  Paul had found me on some forum somewhere and commissioned me to design and  build some specialized high speed, high power switching circuits.  These circuits were used to build a solid state version of a mechanical device he and a friend had developed based on Paul's theories.  I was to do this free gratis so to help convince me to get involved, Paul described their work and sent pix of their setup in a running state.  One forum member here has a copy of these pix but basically, the machine was a counter-rotating magnetic field arrangement that while running had turned the framework made of wood and metal to plasma.  That's right, solid objects turned to plasma. 

Now, there was a common denominator to these stories and it is the point of this post.  Both of these parties experienced runaway conditions in their development stages.  Bill stated that their experience scarred the living daylights out of all present and they vacated the facility and hoped for the best.  Paul and his associate experienced the same runaway in his garage lab of which the plasma pix were evidence.  They too vacated the premises while hoping for the best.  In both cases all power had been removed from the devices during their runaway condition and yet they continued to gain in energy until reaching a peak before subsiding.

My point is, both of these entities were extracting energy from the surrounding aether and both experienced runaway conditions.  These are real world stories and true.

Have you ever experienced any such event?

Pm         

Partzman.  the action of the Heavyside component is one of the revelations in Rick's videos.  Most people who used the Bedini systems (say the ssg) were only charging one other battery.  However the device is capable of charging several batteries in series and parallel because of the Heavyside component.  This is a phenomenon I noticed probably 7 years ago and did not understand it. (With my own builds - not ssg)
So Rick did me personally a big favour by revealing that secret (amongst many others).

Here is the video which reveals the secrets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-Q77slGAw

Not sure if I showed the plasma tube demo in a video as I do at my meetings. But I do show the plates outputting additional energy without changing the tube, and without affecting each of a multistack arrangement. Just like in batteries. I could make over 60 plates. And there is a secret multiplier beyond that in relation to capacitors that I'll bring out in the next week or so on the new website. The key thing to consider is that the input is not affected by collecting this. The wire or trace in a circuit is like your sail in a poynting horizontal position with the Heaviside wind. Only a little resistance/energy. When the sail is up then it collects. But electrically we don't have resistance affecting the input. So you can add as many sails on the ocean as desired... I did an experiment with my little monopole years ago where I got over 200 times the output from 48V or 2000AH batteries after charging them with my little monopole kit at 2A 12V input. This was the biggest output with the basic SSG circuit and no advanced third stage process. The motor ran the same with a 12V 12AH charging battery before that. The input stays the same regardless of the amount of sales. This is Tesla's one wire system people. There are many many applications. That's why I said, understand the principles of free energy and you can pick your flavor with parts in front of you. I figured this out in the first 6 months of this and ran 10 golf-cart batteries off of small systems. I didn't know it was Heaviside back then (he was a good guy even though he truncated Maxwell). Now I do this with RF without batteries and the sky is not the limit...

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.19, 00:39:38
Partzman.  the action of the Heavyside component is one of the revelations in Rick's videos.  Most people who used the Bedini systems (say the ssg) were only charging one other battery.  However the device is capable of charging several batteries in series and parallel because of the Heavyside component.  This is a phenomenon I noticed probably 7 years ago and did not understand it. (With my own builds - not ssg)
So Rick did me personally a big favour by revealing that secret (amongst many others).

Here is the video which reveals the secrets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-Q77slGAw

.

Brad,
Don't you see that is the plan of a gatekeeper, to turn people off from ideas by turning people off from them. While Bedini did lie and say crazy things, he also copied a lot of people and shared truth here and there. Bearden also copied people. But Barrett is the real expert on these matters. Consider what you think is a distortion, in the following as the Aμ fields:

Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism by TERENCE W. BARRETT (see the book on Amazon) but pdf here:
https://epdf.pub/topological-foundations-of-electromagnetism.html

"Maxwell's equations are foundational to electromagnetic theory. They are the cornerstone of a myriad of technologies and are basic to the understanding of innumerable effects. Yet there are a few effects or phenomena that cannot be explained by the conventional Maxwell theory. This book examines those anomalous effects and shows that they can be interpreted by a Maxwell theory that is subsumed under gauge theory. Moreover, in the case of these few anomalous effects, and when Maxwell's theory finds its place in gauge theory, the conventional Maxwell theory must be extended, or generalized, to a non-Abelian form."

"The tried-and-tested conventional Maxwell theory is of Abelian form. It is correctly and appropriately applied to, and explains, the great majority of cases in electromagnetism. What, then, distinguishes these cases from the aforementioned anomalous phenomena? It is the thesis of this book that it is the topology of the spatio temporal situation that distinguishes the two classes of effects or phenomena, and the topology that is the final arbiter of the correct choice of group algebra — Abelian or non-Abelian — to use in describing an effect."

Electromagnetic Phenomena Not Explained by Maxwell's Equations
"The conventional Maxwell theory is a classical linear theory in which the scalar and vector potentials appear to be arbitrary and defined by boundary conditions and choice of gauge. The conventional wisdom in engineering is that potentials have only mathematical, not physical, significance. However, besides the case of quantum theory, in which it is well known that the potentials are physical constructs, there are a number of physical phenomena —both classical and quantum-mechanical— which indicate that the Aμ fields, μ=0,1,2,3, do possess physical significance as global-to-local operators or gauge fields, in precisely constrained topologies."
"A number of physical effects strongly suggest that the Maxwell field theory of electromagnetism is incomplete (too long to quote here)...."

"Formerly, treatment of the Aμ potentials as anything more than mathematical conveniences was prevented by their obvious lack of gauge invariance. 251,252 However, gauge invariance for the Aμ potentials results from situations in which fields, firstly, have a history of separate spatiotemporal conditioning and, secondly, are mapped in a many-to-one, or global-to-local, fashion (in holonomy). Such conditions are satisfied by Aμ potentials with boundary conditions, i.e. the usual empirically encountered situation. Thus, with the correct geometry and topology (i.e. with stated boundary conditions) the Aμ potentials always have physical meaning. This indicates that Maxwell's theory can be extended by the appropriate use of topological and gauge-symmetrical concepts. The Aμ potentials are local operators mapping global spatio temporal conditions onto the local e.m. fields. The effect of this operation is measurable as a phase change, if there is a second, comparative mapping of differentially conditioned fields in a many-to-one (global-to-local) summation. With coherent fields, the possibility of measurement (detection) after the second mapping is maximized. The conventional Maxwell theory is incomplete due to the neglect of (1) a definition of the Aμ potentials as operators on the local intensity fields dependent on gauge, topology, geometry and global boundary conditions; and of (2) a definition of the constitutive relations between medium-independent fields and the topology of the medium.b Addressing these issues extends the conventional Maxwell theory to cover physical phenomena which cannot be presently explained by that theory."

"the A field was banished from playing the central role in Maxwell's theory and relegated to being a mathematical (but not physical) auxiliary. This banishment took place during the interpretation of Maxwell's theory by the Maxwellians,12i.e. chiefly by Heaviside, Fitzgerald, Lodge and Hertz."

"Both Heaviside and Poynting agreed that the function of a wire is as a sink into which energy passes from the medium (ether) and is convected into heat. For them, wires conduct electricity with the Poynting vector pointing at right angles to the conducting wire (cf. Ref. 19, Sec. 27-5). The modern conventional view on conduction in wires is similar, but modern theory is not straightforward about where this energy goes, yet still retains Poynting's theorem. The energy flows, not through a current-carrying wire itself, but through the medium (ether) around it — or, rather, through whatever energy-storing substance a modern theorist imagines exists in the absence of the ether."

"But all dynamics were banished by Hertz. Hertz banished even the stresses and strains of the medium (ether) and was vigorously opposed in this by the British Maxwellians.12 Hertz even went far beyond his mentor, Helmholtz, in his austere operational formulation. Nonetheless, the Hertz orientation finally prevailed, and the modern "Maxwell theory" is today a system of equations describing electrodynamics which has lost its dynamical basis."

"1.  Introduction
There are a number of reasons for questioning the completeness of the conventionally interpreted Maxwell theory of electromagnetism. It is well known that there is an arbitrariness in the definition of the A vector and scalar potentials, which, nevertheless, have been found very useful when used in calculations with boundary conditions known.253 The reasons for questioning completeness are due to experimental evidence (Sec. 3), theoretical (Sec. 4) and pragmatic (Sec. 5)."
The evidence is too lengthy and technical to quote here...

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.19, 04:31:59
Thats !Heviside! component,and is nothing more than a Bearden distortion of what the Heviside component actually is,which has to do with distortions along transmition lines.
Anyway,i will no longer be visiting this thread.
Way to much talk,way to many claims,and totally void of any evidence what so ever.
These claims are exactly the same as Bedini's garbage.
Brad

I see 2 posibilities

1. Rick has something and is being carefull for his own good reasons which may become clearer as he reveals more .

2. There is severe mental illness as play here .

In light of monetised videos and commercial interest its hard to say, but I have never seen such well written responses by any body and perhaps that is the point.

I have enjoyed your postings Rick, and cudos to you for your writing skill. Im sure you have won many debates .

I look foward to seeing a simple setup from you that is demonstrative and constructive .

 There is something fundamentally wrong [from the spiritual perspective]
yes I can see persons who profess to be atheists taking no issue with this
Customer based model.
or not sharing life saving technology...

At its core this model works on a revenue stream.. those who have computers Internet etc. etc. have access to the product
Those who have no resources at all . or who are the most needy . And here I referred to billions of persons on this planet, persons who drink water that is not even as clean as the water most here flushed down the toilet
Persons who would walk up to the lake that you drove your boat in for years and years and feel like they won the lottery ...DEFINATELY  find _that_ water cleaner than _their_ drinking water..

IMO  You are playing God , based on who is a customer and who is not a customer or who can afford to be a customer.

Well written well polished clean and shiny never wrong .
And all the arrogance spiritual or otherwise that goes along with that.

Where the first need ....._" to the least of these thy brethren"_
_Seems_ to have no venue or place in this business model .
??
Or at the very least have the arrogance to put your head on the pillow at night as persons globally suffer in ways you couldn't possibly imagine .
every second every Moment that passes ...

And tell yourself you're doing a good enough job and forums are a waste of time" You must see to believe"
???
I would not imagine you walking past a burning house with inocents screaming to be saved..
and here since you can't see or hear or are not there in person ??
and to be clear...the above example is a pittance to the scale of suffering such technology
would end.

Yes I am confused and still trying to understand all this ,people tell me I'm gullible ,I expect too much , I'm not realistic....


Here in this place ...on this planet... I place no limits on what is possible or impossible .


I just try to pay attention ...treat others as I would expect to be treated ...and honestly I'm still digesting your posts Rick ...I'm still trying to understand your position
from the spiritual perspective....not the business or "public" side..

after all...the product as advertised would completely change this planet.

I've read all the horror posts about this ..."No No you can't do that ...it'll end the world""

Always from those with a full stomach..and a fridge filled with food ,drinking water so abundant
its flushed down the toilet....[WE REALLY NEED TO FIX _THAT_]
so much food ...obesity is pandemic ...
etc etc etc...





    Perspective !!!
??
respectfully
Chet
and still thinking about how to answer your post.....

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.18, 22:02:43
PM,
Your next post is worthy of response, but this one serves no benefit.

Well, you know what they say, "in the eyes of the beholder".

Quote
I find it strange that you have OU technology, 3 examples, and you just forgot about it and went on to something else.

So say you!  Herein lies the problem as I see it.  If you deem these three techs OU, you really don't know how to determine OU from nada.  Did you really look at the data and carefully analyze it?  I think not!  If you would have, you would have determined that none of these concepts were OU.  Oh, but you took a quick glance, made an assumption, and then proceeded to demean myself and all others on this forum as well...... let's look below to see what you say!

Quote
Either this group has some serious problems, and you don't have much interest in seeing things through, or something else is happening. Does anyone else understand this point? What was the problem? Why is this so difficult? Is it a meter problem??? Are these unstable?

Yep, here we go!  The group has serious problems, no interest or follow thru, or some other bad thing is going on here!  Hey Ricky, there is no point you can make here because your initial premise is incorrect, understand?  Aaah, we idiots here have bad meters and scopes, etc, and don't know how to use them!!!!  Well, we shall see when the guys test your loving path resonant coil kit thingy.  Oh wait, the one you will send isn't meant to be OU except on Tuesdays when you are present. 

Quote
And why would you delete your posts and take off because of me? I don't represent this forum. I am still learning about it. You should know that. I don't get the all in, all out, then this.

Yes, why would I delete my posts???  Oh you get it all right!

Quote
I am not all knowing, as some of you have that claim. I learn from everyone, as we are all students. But I make sure of the things I promote or say. That is legitimate confidence. That may be offensive to you for whatever reason I don't know. If you have OU I don't see what your wrangling with me about. I write a lot to be understood. I avoid ambiguity, as then you just think worse. At this point I can't see the original point or my response so I don't remember the question. Probably a, 'When did you stop beating that person' kind of question. lol Again, I don't get your rejection of my points if you say you have OU. Do you understand how it works? Or do you just have something you can't explain. Sounds like the latter. This is why I am showing the principles of free energy.

I didn't say you were all knowing, I said you think you are all knowing  Big difference.  Besides, I'm entitled to my opinion same as you, correct?

Again, what makes you think I have OU?  Where have I said that?  Listen up- If I had OU I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time with the likes of you on a forum.  I would be teaming up with like minds (like those on this forum) to develop a plan that would take the mature technology and disperse it to the world in such a manner as to defeat our overlords.  This would provide true freedom for the people.  Somehow I don't think you understand or agree with this because of the path you are taking.  I've heard your warnings about this and that and how dangerous it would be if you had the real deal and shared it, etc.  Hah, what a wimpy attitude!

This is where I think you hide behind these excuses because you don't have squat!  If you really do have it, grow a pair and get on with the program!!! 

Quote
That's funny about what you say about the bench. I have been showing on the bench and in real products what he implied for 15 years now. So if that was wrong, then how do you account for free energy gains then? Why is it that I have to be the only one defending OU and the processes on these OU forums? Whenever I ask people the basis for why they believe in OU then I get zero response. Do you not know why or is it just a hope like G had?

What 'who' implied for 15 years?  You?  What gains?  I don't see any evidence of gains.  Oh you mean the table top full of coils with some LEDs glowing and comments telling me what's going on?  Really?

I believe in OU because of my encounter with those of whom you couldn't hold a candle to, not even a little bit!

Quote
How much? Just a little diode PM! A flyback diode with a load in series, is what I said if you cared to read. In Lewin's case he just had the voltmeter loop as he was not willing to go any further. He was just hinting at the obvious implications.

Are you really serious?  This violates KVL?  Give me a break here.  Show me the way oh master, give me a schematic of exactly what you've just stated and I'll prove you wrong! 

Quote
Well then, "you are the man, and wisdom will die with you!" By all means instruct us ignorant folks. Since you have such a distain for my many words, it reveals itself to everyone that you don't bother to read what I actually say. I did say I can meter everything, and that this does in fact translate to software, that does predict this phenomena.

Oh wow, this is getting interesting.  BTW, I read every word of your excruciatingly long posts!  You say you take meter readings that translate to software.  What software might this be?  And predicts what phenomena?

Quote
And that is the end of the story once you learn that. If the software could not properly predict the effect in parts then they would have a hard time clamping out these pesty gains that destroy semiconductors and pit DC contacts. hmmm maybe you will read next time. lol That's the problem with these forums, they are so impersonal. If we were meeting in the real world then we would all be laughing and having a good time.
Again, I was talking about taking specific power readings and realizing that there is no power at such places.
Nice try!

I see,  I haven't the correct software of maybe I have it but just don't know how to use it.  OK, I think I understand now.  This software predicts how to avoid destruction of semis under those pesky gains.  I'm old school because all the years I spent engineering and designing stuff, we used SOA (Safe Operating Area) graphs to avoid damage from those pesky gains and such.

I'll also assume these pesky gains you refer to are the high voltages and currents in High Q resonant circuits.  Yep, I've encountered these many times in the past but never realized they were OU.  How short sighted of me!

Pm

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.18, 22:31:05
Now this is a twist I didn't expect. Interesting stories. I trust you aren't pulling a Tinsel on me here in asking.
Yes, I have had many runaways of all different sizes. This is why I have the first rule of the shop as safety first. Even the second rule is just that in a different way.

A case in point.  Your surprise is due to the fact that you really don't know the people here at this forum.  BTW, Tinsel is not "pulling" anything on you anymore than I am.  My question was sincere to see what you had experienced. 

Quote
This is why you have to know what you are doing and take the steps to put proper controls on it. This can happen when you jump too quickly instead of taking small steps. Usually because you are rushed to get something done. But in one case I created a reaction that turned a power supply up from 6V to 22V and my system produced a very unique ball of fire that caused all sorts of problems. This was a small example that I did not expect. I know what you are talking about and that gets into weapons systems so you don't want to go there. I have several criteria for what I'll work with and produce. It can't be unstable like that. I have known many an old researcher who has spent years working on some system but it just doesn't meet the criteria. At some point we need to think a head if the system is going to be practical. I think in many cases, people have stumbled onto something that didn't make sense conventionally. So they run with that, maybe even after they lost it and couldn't repeat it, because they don't have anything else. How many people here have that experience? In fact many of my customers are engineers who have had that very experience in their line of work. So once they retire or get close, they start exploring such things. Whether small or big catastrophic events, that is how most of us got started. The key is learning the science, the principles of free energy, and grow up from all the guessing and rambling on as if it isn't possible, etc.

Your answer to my question is a little ambiguous to me.  I'm not talking about some resonant circuit that took out lamp loads or destroyed semiconductors, etc, but rather an uncontrolled coherence of the random energy in the aether.  Your ball of fire may qualify but perhaps not.

Again you mention weapons and the relation to particular OU technology and how we can't go there.  Well, that's your opinion and if THEY won't allow us to find our way, then perhaps we should all just lay down and rollover or, we can use our brains to find ways around such restrictions.  Oh and don't kid yourself, there are some great minds on this forum.  In fact I would go so far as to say, once a solution is found, these minds would surpass what you've accomplished over the past 15 years in a heartbeat.

Quote
I hesitate to say, but Judy Wood has detailed this sort of thing (dustification) about 9/11. We all saw, in video mind you, the 700' massive steel frame start to fall over and then just dustify. We didn't expect to see that so we never realized what we saw until we go back and look again to our amazement. This was the biggest demonstration of these processes.

I'm familiar with Dr. Wood's work and it has convinced me that THEY already have saving technology for mankind but choose to use it for destructive purposes.  All the more reason for us to be aggressive, not passive.

Pm

Well I am thinking of turning off monetized feature in that it doesn't give anything at all. It used to at the start. The thing is however, it actually gives youtube money so they end up promoting your video if you have it. So taking it off gives nothing and less promotion. I'll be deleting many old videos soon, so will probably turn it off at the same time.
This has not been a for profit business but more like a service ministry. Just like my book publishing has never been profit based and has always just paid for parts and operations.

I actually worked in mental health as a residential counselor for 3 years helping people that were mentally challenged so I am well aware of what that means.

You will see in a bit what the new website shows. It will be a work in progress but it will tie everything together and you will see why I have said everything.

Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2019.07.19, 08:03:18
I see 2 posibilities

1. Rick has something and is being carefull for his own good reasons which may become clearer as he reveals more .

2. There is severe mental illness as play here .

In light of monetised videos and commercial interest its hard to say, but I have never seen such well written responses by any body and perhaps that is the point.

I have enjoyed your postings Rick, and cudos to you for your writing skill. Im sure you have won many debates .

I look foward to seeing a simple setup from you that is demonstrative and constructive .

Well Chet,
You are more judgmental that F6!
Why do you assume I don't help people in need? What I do online is one thing. You can't assume anything else. Yes clean water is one of the highest priorities. But also free light. My work in free energy is only a small part of what I do. I am working towards a wholisitic solution. I am working with others on earth shelter buildings and associated ancient and modern technology that prevent all the deaths we experience here from hurricanes, tornados, forest fires, home fires, and flooding. So these are but a few things.

Anyway, what a lovely experience people have on this forum. Is this typical?

Quote from: Chet K on 2019.07.19, 12:51:15
There is something fundamentally wrong [from the spiritual perspective]
yes I can see persons who profess to be atheists taking no issue with this
Customer based model.
or not sharing life saving technology...

At its core this model works on a revenue stream.. those who have computers Internet etc. etc. have access to the product
Those who have no resources at all . or who are the most needy . And here I referred to billions of persons on this planet, persons who drink water that is not even as clean as the water most here flushed down the toilet
Persons who would walk up to the lake that you drove your boat in for years and years and feel like they won the lottery ...DEFINATELY  find _that_ water cleaner than _their_ drinking water..

IMO  You are playing God , based on who is a customer and who is not a customer or who can afford to be a customer.

Well written well polished clean and shiny never wrong .
And all the arrogance spiritual or otherwise that goes along with that.

Where the first need ....._" to the least of these thy brethren"_
_Seems_ to have no venue or place in this business model .
??
Or at the very least have the arrogance to put your head on the pillow at night as persons globally suffer in ways you couldn't possibly imagine .
every second every Moment that passes ...

And tell yourself you're doing a good enough job and forums are a waste of time" You must see to believe"
???
I would not imagine you walking past a burning house with inocents screaming to be saved..
and here since you can't see or hear or are not there in person ??
and to be clear...the above example is a pittance to the scale of suffering such technology
would end.

Yes I am confused and still trying to understand all this ,people tell me I'm gullible ,I expect too much , I'm not realistic....


Here in this place ...on this planet... I place no limits on what is possible or impossible .


I just try to pay attention ...treat others as I would expect to be treated ...and honestly I'm still digesting your posts Rick ...I'm still trying to understand your position
from the spiritual perspective....not the business or "public" side..

after all...the product as advertised would completely change this planet.

I've read all the horror posts about this ..."No No you can't do that ...it'll end the world""

Always from those with a full stomach..and a fridge filled with food ,drinking water so abundant
its flushed down the toilet....[WE REALLY NEED TO FIX _THAT_]
so much food ...obesity is pandemic ...
etc etc etc...





    Perspective !!!
??
respectfully
Chet
and still thinking about how to answer your post.....

PM,
I'll start with the shorter post here first.
I have looked over the list of members now and see a bunch of people that I recognize. I don't claim to know anyone else. All I know is what you few say to me here and what the pdf goals/creed says. I also have private emails from some others.

My answer is that I am not going to talk about many things that I do. I have what I will say to the public and what is private, just like what everyone says with family and non-family. Make sense?

Well good luck with the war you wish to get into. Just another reason not to associate with you when you publicly claim here that you want to be aggressive in that context. There are not just two options, passive or aggressive. And I think that is your problem in our dialogue as well. You have know ability to see a third solution. You want to look at others not fitting your mold as the enemy to be aggressive towards. They must be taken out, eliminated from being considered as having any truth. Therefore it is justified to mock and attack them. Everything they say must be wrong all the time. Everyone is either friend or foe, there is no one in between. That is the way it is coming across. On the other hand, I value all truth from those that even hate me. I learn from everyone. I appreciate the good things I find anywhere.

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.19, 14:58:15
A case in point.  Your surprise is due to the fact that you really don't know the people here at this forum.  BTW, Tinsel is not "pulling" anything on you anymore than I am.  My question was sincere to see what you had experienced. 

Your answer to my question is a little ambiguous to me.  I'm not talking about some resonant circuit that took out lamp loads or destroyed semiconductors, etc, but rather an uncontrolled coherence of the random energy in the aether.  Your ball of fire may qualify but perhaps not.

Again you mention weapons and the relation to particular OU technology and how we can't go there.  Well, that's your opinion and if THEY won't allow us to find our way, then perhaps we should all just lay down and rollover or, we can use our brains to find ways around such restrictions.  Oh and don't kid yourself, there are some great minds on this forum.  In fact I would go so far as to say, once a solution is found, these minds would surpass what you've accomplished over the past 15 years in a heartbeat.

I'm familiar with Dr. Wood's work and it has convinced me that THEY already have saving technology for mankind but choose to use it for destructive purposes.  All the more reason for us to be aggressive, not passive.

Pm

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.19, 17:29:41
Well Chet,
You are more judgmental that F6!
Why do you assume I don't help people in need? What I do online is one thing. You can't assume anything else. Yes clean water is one of the highest priorities. But also free light. My work in free energy is only a small part of what I do. I am working towards a wholisitic solution. I am working with others on earth shelter buildings and associated ancient and modern technology that prevent all the deaths we experience here from hurricanes, tornados, forest fires, home fires, and flooding. So these are but a few things.

Anyway, what a lovely experience people have on this forum. Is this typical?

LOL, it seems to be a way of welcoming new members. When i joined and on my first post a member attacked me and claimed I had hi jacked his thread and that I was a disrupt-er and how did i get on here anyway?

I think you have done a remarkable job in keeping your cool and have done great in your explanations.

It will get better, keep up the good work!

Ron

PM,
I didn't get a chance to look at the threads or click your files. So I have no opinion about any of that. I don't remember even the names. You said you forgot about them, so that was enough of a reason for me to not jump on that right away. I have thousands of customers that pass along very important information but I have to decide on what I even look at. There is no time to consider everything. Does that make sense?
My point is you are making more of yourself than is reasonable. Just look at your responses here when I merely didn't have the time to look at them yet. If you had not been so rude to me maybe I would have considered more into looking. I didn't make an assumption. I went with what you said. You claimed OU did you not? You deleted the posts so who knows now. So if you said they were OU and expected a reaction from me, then was that not just the same kind of trap that Tinsel was trying to set for me?
Anyway, this is immature to get so worked up about. I just made a point that if they really were so important than why didn't you or others push them? If you are trying to twist that into something else then it just shows how confused you are. Deleting your posts and then dramatically coming back, and then here assuming things about me in the form of accusing me of assumptions is rather revealing. As you say, you think you need to be aggressive. You have been aggressive towards me from the start. But thankfully not everyone here is that way.

I am not saying people or idiots. I am simply asking why has there been zero success?
As for my kit, you don't understand it at all. Why does everything have to boil down to a proof of OU? I explained the reasons for the kit and how it turned out. But you just ignore all of that. It is a self-discovery kit, not a plug and play product as you suppose.

No, I have everything to learn. At least I can learn from you what not to do ;) I am doing what I am because no one else is. 

Like I said, I am not about to share everything I know with the general public. You and Chet can judge me for what you assume I do in private, but you only show that you are both judgmental and prejudiced. And good luck with that aggressive behavior!

Again, words over the internet mean nothing. Why let words get to you? Who can prove anything over the internet. I deal with people in person. To think a forum can prove anything demonstrable is delusional. Next thing you are going to tell me is you are on the cheap dating sites and actually believe the women profiles are real. It amounts to the same credulity.

You believe in OU because of some people. But you don't know what or why it happened? OK.

Again, you can't prove anything with a schematic or over the internet. Do you understand how to do a properly controlled scientific test?
I never said KVL was wrong, only that people making it a universal under all circumstances is. KVL is for steady state closed loops and is perfectly predictable. End of story. You just are so aggressive that you don't care to listen to details, or you just hope no one pays attention to your misrepresentation of other people. Same with some others on OU forum. Again, everyone else is the enemy that needs this aggressive approach. Take them down at any cost by any means, including deceit.

Reading every word doesn't mean that you process or reflect any of it. Thank you btw, I must have something important about what I am saying here or you wouldn't be doing that.

SOA on datasheets does not cover everything, it is only where you start.

High voltages are no gains in themselves, until you fulfill the conditions of OU. You can have the sun all day long but it will not produce electric until you use a suitable collector.

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.19, 13:54:54
Well, you know what they say, "in the eyes of the beholder".

So say you!  Herein lies the problem as I see it.  If you deem these three techs OU, you really don't know how to determine OU from nada.  Did you really look at the data and carefully analyze it?  I think not!  If you would have, you would have determined that none of these concepts were OU.  Oh, but you took a quick glance, made an assumption, and then proceeded to demean myself and all others on this forum as well...... let's look below to see what you say!

Yep, here we go!  The group has serious problems, no interest or follow thru, or some other bad thing is going on here!  Hey Ricky, there is no point you can make here because your initial premise is incorrect, understand?  Aaah, we idiots here have bad meters and scopes, etc, and don't know how to use them!!!!  Well, we shall see when the guys test your loving path resonant coil kit thingy.  Oh wait, the one you will send isn't meant to be OU except on Tuesdays when you are present. 

Yes, why would I delete my posts???  Oh you get it all right!

I didn't say you were all knowing, I said you think you are all knowing  Big difference.  Besides, I'm entitled to my opinion same as you, correct?

Again, what makes you think I have OU?  Where have I said that?  Listen up- If I had OU I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time with the likes of you on a forum.  I would be teaming up with like minds (like those on this forum) to develop a plan that would take the mature technology and disperse it to the world in such a manner as to defeat our overlords.  This would provide true freedom for the people.  Somehow I don't think you understand or agree with this because of the path you are taking.  I've heard your warnings about this and that and how dangerous it would be if you had the real deal and shared it, etc.  Hah, what a wimpy attitude!

This is where I think you hide behind these excuses because you don't have squat!  If you really do have it, grow a pair and get on with the program!!! 

What 'who' implied for 15 years?  You?  What gains?  I don't see any evidence of gains.  Oh you mean the table top full of coils with some LEDs glowing and comments telling me what's going on?  Really?

I believe in OU because of my encounter with those of whom you couldn't hold a candle to, not even a little bit!


Are you really serious?  This violates KVL?  Give me a break here.  Show me the way oh master, give me a schematic of exactly what you've just stated and I'll prove you wrong! 

Oh wow, this is getting interesting.  BTW, I read every word of your excruciatingly long posts!  You say you take meter readings that translate to software.  What software might this be?  And predicts what phenomena?

I see,  I haven't the correct software of maybe I have it but just don't know how to use it.  OK, I think I understand now.  This software predicts how to avoid destruction of semis under those pesky gains.  I'm old school because all the years I spent engineering and designing stuff, we used SOA (Safe Operating Area) graphs to avoid damage from those pesky gains and such.

I'll also assume these pesky gains you refer to are the high voltages and currents in High Q resonant circuits.  Yep, I've encountered these many times in the past but never realized they were OU.  How short sighted of me!

Pm

Thanks Ron,
I don't worry about all this chit chat. Why get upset about people who just sit behind a screen and live in a fantasy world. Most of it is amusing and if only these emojis would work I would be using them. The only reason I respond to irrational hostile attacks is because I am trying to help other people who are actually open. It just shows everyone the reason not to post anything on all the major forums. The trolls have taken over, really since the beginning. It takes a lot of work to deal with them as they just drown you out with repeating the same old things again and again while creating the impression that you have to defend your claims while they don't.
We'll see what happens next.
Rick

Quote from: ronee on 2019.07.19, 18:45:30
LOL, it seems to be a way of welcoming new members. When i joined and on my first post a member attacked me and claimed I had hi jacked his thread and that I was a disrupt-er and how did i get on here anyway?

I think you have done a remarkable job in keeping your cool and have done great in your explanations.

It will get better, keep up the good work!

Ron

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.19, 00:39:38
Partzman.  the action of the Heavyside component is one of the revelations in Rick's videos.  Most people who used the Bedini systems (say the ssg) were only charging one other battery.  However the device is capable of charging several batteries in series and parallel because of the Heavyside component.  This is a phenomenon I noticed probably 7 years ago and did not understand it. (With my own builds - not ssg)
So Rick did me personally a big favour by revealing that secret (amongst many others).

Here is the video which reveals the secrets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-Q77slGAw

Well, I spent two hours watching this video and here are my comments regarding the content.

First, how can I have any confidence in Rick's teaching when he refers to the Poynting flow S=EXH as E times H? ???  For your info and Rick's, it is E cross H at 90 degrees and S at 90 degrees to E cross H.

In past years I've read ad-nausea Bearden's teachings of the Heaviside component and depletion of the dipole so I actually fell asleep watching the video during that explanation!!!

I did learn Rick's definition of negative resistance however! O0  This is when you charge a 12v battery (the negative resistance battery) from a 24v battery.  Of course this can be done in various series and parallel combinations to suit the amount of OU one wishes to have.  At least I think that's what I understood?

I also was told that we must have open circuits to achieve OU and collect the Heaviside component.  Uuh, there is no such thing as an "open" circuit if it exists in our atmosphere!  Don't believe me, look up the permittivity of air and calculate the capacitance.  It may be small but it is always there!

I need a nap!

Pm   

There is not even any point in wasting energy on you. You don't even realize the basic circuit is at least 12V input and a 12V or higher voltage battery is in series (not parallel) with the input. So it is not the primary charging a secondary. Now if you are talking about the stage two, that is a different setup like Benitez but in that case we still have the third battery bank charging while the first two banks get rotated. It is just your inability to pay attention to details.

So I charge a battery looped across a motor, and which battery is in series with the primary battery. That it charges is not in dispute as I have shown this for years. But most are still saying it is not charging much. Yet I have rotated such batteries around for years while continually running my motor loads. PM just wants to lie and say this input battery is 24V and easily charges up a 12V battery. But it is often the other way around. I am running with 12V and charging up 48V. And the input is all accounted for in running the motor. How does the second battery charge at all. If I have a fan that is taking so much energy to run over time and produces so much CFMs, and now I simply add rectification, as is already there, and a charging battery and get the same CFMs and for the same input. But I have either the battery charging or a bulb running, what do you call that? Positive resistance? No, because energy is going into the battery from the negative pulse (supposedly). The battery even can reduce in actual temperature several degrees below ambient and before it started. As I said, you don't care for details because you and several others on OU are just trolls trying to turn other members off from this. But we can see that they are not convinced of your sophistry. You need to try a little harder. I think your temper is getting the best of you. Your aggression is possessing you. You are trying to take arguments by violence to fact.

You don't understand what is open. You can't just decide what someone else means by that word. Open in what way. Again, you feel justified in creating your own reality.

Now I just watched 2 hours of video from PM and he said he could create his own reality. That essentially is all you can say and do here.

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.19, 21:57:19
Well, I spent two hours watching this video and here are my comments regarding the content.

First, how can I have any confidence in Rick's teaching when he refers to the Poynting flow S=EXH as E times H? ???  For your info and Rick's, it is E cross H at 90 degrees and S at 90 degrees to E cross H.

In past years I've read ad-nausea Bearden's teachings of the Heaviside component and depletion of the dipole so I actually fell asleep watching the video during that explanation!!!

I did learn Rick's definition of negative resistance however! O0  This is when you charge a 12v battery (the negative resistance battery) from a 24v battery.  Of course this can be done in various series and parallel combinations to suit the amount of OU one wishes to have.  At least I think that's what I understood?

I also was told that we must have open circuits to achieve OU and collect the Heaviside component.  Uuh, there is no such thing as an "open" circuit if it exists in our atmosphere!  Don't believe me, look up the permittivity of air and calculate the capacitance.  It may be small but it is always there!

I need a nap!

Pm

I did make a comment here which I removed.
will need a bit more thought on my part ...

respectfully
Chet K

Drat!!  I left the forum here to explore a few other
web pages for just a few minutes and missed your
mysterious posting. :( :o ???

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.19, 22:25:53
There is not even any point in wasting energy on you. You don't even realize the basic circuit is at least 12V input and a 12V or higher voltage battery is in series (not parallel) with the input. So it is not the primary charging a secondary. Now if you are talking about the stage two, that is a different setup like Benitez but in that case we still have the third battery bank charging while the first two banks get rotated. It is just your inability to pay attention to details.

MY, my! We're getting a little testy aren't we?  In your video, you have two batteries in series and one standalone.  I don't really care if you are buck charging or boost charging thru the motor.  My point was, you term the battery or batteries receiving a charge as negative resistors.

Quote
So I charge a battery looped across a motor, and which battery is in series with the primary battery. That it charges is not in dispute as I have shown this for years. But most are still saying it is not charging much. Yet I have rotated such batteries around for years while continually running my motor loads.

How many times do you need to repeat this?  How about some proof of measurement that we can look at?  Hearing about a boat that ran for three years while the batteries didn't discharge just doesn't convince me!

Quote
PM just wants to lie and say this input battery is 24V and easily charges up a 12V battery.

Hold on Rick!  Are you accusing me of lying?  I assumed you were buck charging judging from the tangled mess of clip leads in the video but like I said above, I could care less.  The point is your terminology.

Quote
But it is often the other way around. I am running with 12V and charging up 48V. And the input is all accounted for in running the motor. How does the second battery charge at all. If I have a fan that is taking so much energy to run over time and produces so much CFMs, and now I simply add rectification, as is already there, and a charging battery and get the same CFMs and for the same input. But I have either the battery charging or a bulb running, what do you call that? Positive resistance? No, because energy is going into the battery from the negative pulse (supposedly).

Again, so say you!  What do you think?  Do you assume that I haven't run bench tests in the past using the same basic setup you continually rave on about that is, battery swapping?  What did I find- nada!  My bad I guess! 

Quote
The battery even can reduce in actual temperature several degrees below ambient and before it started.

Another claim that requires substantiation!  Do you really want to make an impression, provide some measurement proof!

Quote
As I said, you don't care for details because you and several others on OU are just trolls trying to turn other members off from this. But we can see that they are not convinced of your sophistry. You need to try a little harder. I think your temper is getting the best of you. Your aggression is possessing you. You are trying to take arguments by violence to fact.

Wow, I must of really hit a sore spot with my last post!  No actually, I'm very detail minded and your insult of calling me a troll doesn't mean diddly to me.  If I am turning other members off, let them speak up here and I will go away ASAP.

I don't care who is convinced of what! What I do care about are your claims of OU with no apparent proof.

Nice try with your psychological prodding but I ain't buying so don't waste your words.

Quote
You don't understand what is open. You can't just decide what someone else means by that word. Open in what way. Again, you feel justified in creating your own reality.

Oh I understand open in the context we are in, do you?

Quote
Now I just watched 2 hours of video from PM and he said he could create his own reality. That essentially is all you can say and do here.

Is this the best insult you can offer?  You want my opinion Rick, well, I'll give it anyway.  Your insecurity in these matters comes to the front when challenged as is evident by some of your comments in responding to my previous post.  I see this as a dead end street and for that reason I will no longer engage with you.

Carry on-

Pm

I spoke to some leading members of this forum as long ago as January I believe.  I asked them to send a representative to one of Rick's meetings. The response was that it was a good idea. If that had been done we would not be having these arguments right now.  May I suggest that this is the only way to resolve these discussions.

Tinman

QuoteThats !Heviside! component,and is nothing more than a Bearden distortion of what the Heviside component actually is,which has to do with distortions along transmition lines.

On a note of interest, most FE inventors who demonstrated working devices to large groups of people in the past stated that they became interested in this technology while researching telegraph/transmission line anomalies. T.H.Moray who developed a 20 KW unit, Nikola Tesla, Daniel McFarland Cook and Lester Hendershot as well as many others made specific references to telegraph line anomalies.

I mean the telegraph line anomalies damn near started a revolution which can be broken down into a few groups.
1)Atmospheric energy relating to electrostatic charging by the wind or thunder storms.
2)Atmospheric energy relating to magnetic charging (lorentz force) due to solar flares.
3)Ground current energy relating to the above and dielectric/triboelectric substrates or "batteries" buried in the ground.

I could say many things and try to point people in the right direction, I could show pictures and links and talk until I was blue in the face however I am not anyone's teacher I am a student. Mind you, a quite old one but a student none the less and nature is my teacher. You may have seen her around... she's more than a few billion years old, dictates every action in the know universe and doesn't really care what we believe about anything. I have a great deal of respect for her more so than most puny mortals who are lucky to live 100 years.

Do you want to learn something new?... look at this. http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14651
These gentlemen have all but proven that the ancient Egyptians were no dummies and they were using technology based on a different premise. First they had a zinc/carbon/citrus juice series battery aka "bagdad battery" or voltaic cell to produce HV DC. Second they used a plasma focus device aka a "Djed" to transform the HV DC into HV unidirectional impulse currents. The plasma focus device replaces a circuit interrupter/switch or coherer which is limited in it's bandwidth and working voltage. Third they used these HV HF currents to render mercury within a glass tube incandescent which is a modified version of something we know quite well... a fluorescent light.

I know it looks different than our circuits but understand this was 3000 years ago... let that sink in... 3000 years ago. Do you think it should look the same?, well no that's absurd and they did the best they could with what they had to work with just as we do. We tend do the best we can with what we have on hand considering the conditions and I am a gerry rigger from way back. Hell if I was doing any more with any less I would be making something out of nothing.

So how in tarnation did they develop this technology?... the same way we did using logic, reason and experiments to learn what works. You see the real problem was never technology it was supposed experts with an over inflated ego thinking the people which came before us were inferior. The Egyptians had unbelievable technology then there civilization collapsed and it was lost. The Romans had advanced technology then they got cocky and complacent and were overrun by barbarian hordes and it was lost. Do you see the trend, the pattern?... a rejection of science and technology, a rejection of logic and reason?.

I would submit this, no person can know everything and to think we know everything is not a sign of wisdom but egotism and delusion because regardless of how highly we think of ourselves there will always be someone in the future who knows more. Evolution demands it, Time demands it and to understand this is to understand our place in the universe.

Regards
AC

Quote from: AllCanadian
So how in tarnation did they develop this technology?

I wonder if they back then received the same sort of "help" we have in
more recent times.  It is claimed, for example, that the Transistor and
Integrated Circuits were back-engineered from specimens provided by
Alien Entities with much greater intelligence than we humans possess.

Things have advanced so rapidly post WW2 that one can only wonder.

LOL

Quote from: ion on 2019.07.20, 02:25:14
The part of the video that was the most enjoyable and has the key information about where Rick is at happens at 1:25:13 to 1:25:35.

The rest is a bunch of fumbling around and nonsense regurgitation of old Bearden stuff lifted from Heaviside.

Dear Rick

I really don't think you have any idea of who you are  dealing with on this forum, their life accomplishment and work expertise or abilities, especially the ability to see through nonsense. You underestimate their abilities and overestimate your own. A big error on your part.

Rick, you look rather clumsy in your videos, lack dynamism and should really give up trying to teaching by video, it does not become you.

How old are you anyway Rick? Give  up teaching because you are failing miserably. A hard pill for you to swallow, but better to learn the truth now or have progressive Dunning-Kruger lead you further into delusional behavior. Since you are a mental health person by day, I'm sure you know the condition.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dunning+kruger+effect&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1


As a self proclaimed teacher, I'm sure you also  have a select cult following that swoon at every word you say, and prop you up on forums, however you can be certain I will never be one, I lack the required low IQ. Your cult may be giving you false confidence,  try to learn from this.

We have seen crumb droppers come and go on this forum, and usually, like you, they just like to talk talk talk and like the spotlight but have nothing real to offer. Thus far, you fit the pattern perfectly.

A word of advice, you may want to further your career in mental health, as you seem to lack mid level or advanced knowledge of the art of electronics or even good engineering skills and most especially, skill in communicating technical information is severely lacking as evidenced on this forum and in your videos.

One skill that you excel in is using about one to ten thousand times more words than is really necessary to communicate an idea or concept, creating such tomes that the reader is forced to the onset of drowsiness.  Maybe your videos could be marketed as an antidote to sleeplessness.


Old Chinese proverb:

"If one would attempt to lead others, they had better be equal to the task, or they only create more confusion and disarray".

Bob Dylan from Positively Fourth Street:

"Do you take me for such a fool to think that I'd make contact
With one that tries to hide what he don't know to begin with".

Over and Out

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.20, 04:49:00
LOL

LOL

Quote from: ion on 2019.07.20, 06:41:29
LOL

;)

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.19, 22:25:53
There is not even any point in wasting energy on you.

Yeah not buying a kit now. Thanks.

Ion

QuoteWe have seen crumb droppers come and go on this forum, and usually, like you, they just like to talk talk talk and like the spotlight but have nothing real to offer. Thus far, you fit the pattern perfectly.

That is a good point and many here including myself have done this in the past. At the end of the day it must be the real deal, we must be able to demonstrate it and explain it. I think most know the drill by now.

QuoteA word of advice, you may want to further your career in mental health, as you seem to lack mid level or advanced knowledge of the art of electronics or even good engineering skills and most especially, skill in communicating technical information is severely lacking as evidenced on this forum and in your videos.

Some could see it as a deficit while others could see it as a benefit. I know many people who can talk the talk and know the math and equations but have never built or improved upon anything. Some great discoveries have come from people who appeared to be the least likely to succeed at anything. The fact is most times we simply do not have all the facts to determine who has something and who does not.

As a healthy criticism I would agree Rick has some work to do on his presentations skills as do I. I started making a video on how a gyroscope system could be modified to produce massless propulsion. It did not work out as planned and I think I looked like an idiot, what a gong show. It is not an easy thing trying to convey a message in a professional and comprehensive way on video by any means.

.

Well said Brad, I was prepared to buy a kit in good faith but I can see now, the claims have too much resistance to evidence.

Brad

Rick does indeed have an OU kit, but the output is measured in $dollars$.

e.g $100 selling price divided by about $1 in cost = COP = at least $99

Rick is careful not to include any claims of OU with the kit, he does this  separately by allusion and inference in the videos and on forums where he and others that he is in bed with promote the kits. In this way he can't be accountable.

If you wonder why Rick can barely hold back the grin in his videos, it is because he has learned from the best of snake oil salesmen that you mentioned, and is grinning all the way to the bank with his "OU" device.

As far as I can tell his papers are just cut and paste of others work with a few of his comments interspersed, but I must admit I was bored after a while and may not have seen them all.

I can find no original seminal papers, patents or applications by RF, if I have missed some, let me know.

So if anyone wants to purchase a couple of $0.50 cent  crystal radio type coils on ornamented wooden bases and think that they will produce OU, be sure to purchase the magic wand sold separately.

So it's Benitez blah blah Tesla blah blah, Don Smith blah blah, Tseung blah blah (have I left out anyone?)

As Yogi Berra said "It's Deja Vu all over again".

Tinman

QuoteIf i buy one of your kit's that you sell under the OU claim,and it dose not deliver as you claim,then you are also liable for a law suit,which would be the selling and distribution of a product under false pretenses-->fraud in other word's.

I always found it strange that everyone seems to be a so called honest and responsible adult but almost no one ever pleads guilty to an offense. Apparently were all innocent and nobody has ever done anything wrong. Or... most adults are not nearly as responsible or honest as they claim which would seem to be the case with respect to the facts. The fact is Humanity is a gong show... always has been.

QuoteSo perhaps it is time for you to come clean in one way or another.
Perhaps deliver to us just 1 of the claimed 15 OU device's,so as we can test and confirm your claim's--if those claims turn out to be true.

Right... I suspect if you, I and everyone else really "came clean" the Earth would burst into flames, spin off it's axis and go hurtling into deep space.

As well so far as the "truth" is concerned we could start with the fact that 80% of the population believes a bearded man in a white dress created the whole universe from absolutely nothing in a matter of days because he loves us. Come clean you say?, delivery to us proof of claims?, confirm our claims?. Let's be honest... few people have any interest in the facts or proving anything. If this were true then I suspect the world would be a very different place because any unproven claim would be immediately rejected. The fact is that most people find the facts uncomfortable and depressing often invoking feelings of fear and guilt.

My theory is simple... let he who is without guilt cast the first stone. Which is priceless isn't it because nobody will be "casting" anything and everyone has there own skeletons in the closet. In my opinion the way forward is to treat others as we would like to be treated and find common ground.

Regards
AC

Ten pages that you started Brad. I didn't start any discussion here, you guys did.
Now you are lying by saying not a hint. I said I only can back up something in the real world. I have done that repeatedly over many years. That is more than a hint, and you know it.

This whole forum has never yet answered my questions as a newcomer. You heap all this abuse upon someone that is still trying to figure out what you even intend here. You have not explained to me how it even works because no one has actually gone through the process yet of presenting a claim and providing confirmation. Maybe because there is no possible way to confirm anything after all. That could be because you never intend for anything to go through. Or actually, it is because it is impossible to prove any OU claim over the Internet. You are all so upset because I have exposed this. Notice the energy you have given. You flip flop back and for Brad. You are an unstable person. First you condemn me without even talking to me. Then you apologize and invite me back here. Then you support F6 in his ludicrous self-contradictions even after I exposed them. Then you dramatically exit this thread. Then you come back all fired up. Why is that? If there was nothing here then you guys would not put so much energy into trying to suppress me with every fallacy in the book. Clearly a coordinated effort across two forums. It has bottomed out to the point of embarrassment. Think about people. All this high emotion about an information exchange. The intensity is very revealing that you know it is true and want to suppress it at all costs. You only prove what you seek to disprove. The only things that can be proven in this respect: That you cannot prove or disprove OU claims over the Internet, and that you are trying to suppress that fact and the information I have shared. This is self-evident from what you have displayed so far.

So explain to me why you think that someone can provide some kind of proof to you along these lines over the Internet. A schematic doesn't prove anything. There is no context in a schematic. A piece of paper shown in a picture or video of some company saying something doesn't prove anything to anyone. How did you ever think that you could transfer the real world to people over the internet, or even to yourself from someone else? Even if you prove something to yourself, what then? Are you the authority that tells everyone to believe it now? Does the forum then have the right to say it has been proven? Is it a certain number of people typing so? How do you know anyone else is real unless you met them? This is all so ridiculous. You guys just assume that pictures and videos and words can actually communicate proof. Then you rail on someone for not doing that, when it is actually impossible. What I have done is shown you that and you hate me for that.

As for 10 pages, well you all engaged in it didn't you. You all asked me questions and I answered them. You all took the opportunity to make your own counter claims that you did not even try and prove. But everything falls upon me for some reason, even as I am still trying to figure out what you all even want and how things work here. You are so upset about your own forum and your own participation. You started this thread Brad. You left and came back. You guys violate the rules in multiple ways, but then want me to conform to something that doesn't even make sense. You have never explained how I can prove something is OU to this forum over the Internet. Nice trick you try and pull. Clever way to suppress free energy technology. Deny the possibility of it. This is either intentional free energy suppress or just a revelation that no one every even thought this whole thing through and you all just jumped into this with the vague notion that you could possibly prove something over the internet. Well this has been a reality check and you don't like that. Suddenly we have to leave the fiction movie world and realize that real life is not that.

Schematics cannot be verified over the Internet. Prove that claim Brad.
Links and third party data over the Internet cannot prove anything. Prove that claim Brad.
You have chosen not to prove either of these Brad.
"In fact,there is not one shred of evidence provided by yourself that in any way verifies your claims of" this Brad.
"The only thing we have had from you" Brad is "nothing" useful, or even helpful in explaining how this forum works.

You are foolish to put your trust in anyone just as you were foolish to believe what you did against me in the first place. You need to deal with your own problems before you continue to attack other people.

There you go making more claims against OU claims without proving that. Who made you the judge? Why is anyone supposed to just take those claims against others as authoritative? Why is your mere verbal disproof claim against someone else supposed to be accepted as proven but positive claims are not? This is foolish. It is just slander without any evidence at all. When I exposed John and Arron I brought you the with physical evidence you can verify to yourself. I showed their own websites, and their own words to back up my specific claims. But you slander what you don't even know, by your own admission. You have lost your credibility Brad. You are unstable as I mentioned. You pride yourself as belonging to a forum that has rules that you don't even abide by and that is not moderated. That allows slander and unjustified claims up and down. Then you want to jump over someone you invite here when they simply answer the questions asked. This is more than delusional and contradictory, it looks like suppression of free energy information. Your anger and response are in proportion to the truths I have shared, especially exposing the fallacy of expecting to prove something like this, or disproving it in the same way, over the Internet. I was just speaking with one of your followers who has carefully watched and preserved all of your videos. I said that I had hopped for better things from you. He was very disappointed in your actions here. So it shows what you are really about. You have no relish for doing real science in the real world, but merely want everyone to exist in the fantasy Internet world.

See how upset you are? You have gone from an information sharing experience, which is all the Internet forums can be, to a threat of filing a lawsuit. I am not soliciting anything here. I'm not looking for verification or any sort. I have been doing opensourcing for 27 years, first with free books I have republished on disks before the internet, and then I have freely put them out. Then I did the same with free energy research.

As for false pretenses, that is what I am wondering about several of you. You want to make everything about me when I am not pushing anything. You are actually the one pushing something. And you may have false pretenses in this matter.

"So perhaps it is time for you to come clean in one way or another."
You see it actually applies to you. Please justify your demands.

"OU device's". I don't think you understand how OU works. It works with your local environment. You can have a solar panel but unless you have the sun in the proper relationship with the panels then you have now OU. With a battery system the batteries are half the system, along with the connections. I have never sold batteries before. That is why the energizers are only OU systems with all the essential parts under the right conditions (like at minus 60C you would have problems with the batteries).

"We can do it under your guidance and instruction--but either way,it is time that you provide the proof required to back up those claims of OU"
Since when can anyone prove OU to another person over the Internet? You have never explained this, nor as this forum even explored that as it seems from what you are saying. It's time for you to prove to us that you are really Brad! You guys avoid answering that question about how you can actually prove something here. You are directly promoting both credulity and incredulity. I prove things in the real world. Even if something is proven, a person still can refuse to believe it. I have never pushed OU on anyone. I freely give information and many have been thankful for that. I probably have over 10,000 detailed thank yous. I don't need a bunch of hypocritical slanderers to say the same. lol You just don't take the time to listen Brad. Because that isn't you.

"--and no,we do not want anymore endless post's or excuses." So answer the question or do what you said you were doing and go elsewhere. So far you have not been very helpful and have not justified all your claims you have made on these 10 pages.

"A simple yes or no will do just fine,so as we all know as to what kind of person we are dealing with here."
This is a Loaded question fallacy. I'll ask you to answer this with a simple answer: Have you stopped being prejudiced? I don't want any explination. Just answer yes or no. "we do not want anymore endless post's or excuses."

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.21, 09:06:37
Well,nearly 10 pages so far,and not a hint of anything to back up the claim of OU--lots of talk though.

So here is how it works here at OUR Rick--and you know this,but have chosen to ignore the guidelines of this forum.
Those guidelines are that no claim of OU is to be made without first having verification of the claim.
This you have not provided.
You could also submit a schematic of 1 of your many claimed OU device's,so as it can be replicated and verified.
This you have chosen not to do either.
You could provide links or data gathered from a third party to help verify your claims of OU
You have also chosen not to do this either.

In fact,there is not one shred of evidence provided by yourself that in any way verifies your claims of OU.
There is also nothing out of the ordinary with any of your devices that we can see that would bring forth the creation of energy.

The only thing we have had from you Rick,is nothing but endless post's--some of which are the longest i have ever seen on this forum.

When i invited(or organised to have you invited)here,it was to give you the chance to show us that you were not like the likes of Bedini,Aaron,Lindermann,and the likes. I gave you my apology because you told me you were not like them,and i put my trust in you that you were speaking the truth.
But as has it,it is very clear that you are exactly the same as the above mentioned,where you promote devices and kits with the claim of OU behind them,and then market those kit's to make an income. This is exactly what the likes of Bedini,Aaron,and lindermann did,and still do. They sell books,video's,and kit's that never deliver the secrets or OU as claimed-->this is exactly what you are doing.

If i buy one of your kit's that you sell under the OU claim,and it dose not deliver as you claim,then you are also liable for a law suit,which would be the selling and distribution of a product under false pretenses-->fraud in other word's.

So perhaps it is time for you to come clean in one way or another.
Perhaps deliver to us just 1 of the claimed 15 OU device's,so as we can test and confirm your claim's--if those claims turn out to be true.

We can do it under your guidance and instruction--but either way,it is time that you provide the proof required to back up those claims of OU--and no,we do not want anymore endless post's or excuses.
A simple yes or no will do just fine,so as we all know as to what kind of person we are dealing with here.


Brad

Scrutinizing science: Peer review

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

Peer review does the same thing for science that the "inspected by #7" sticker does for your t-shirt: provides assurance that someone who knows what they're doing has double-checked it. In science, peer review typically works something like this:

A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication.

The journal's editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the "peers" of peer review).

Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.

The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration.

Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.

These are my points as well. All I have done is freely shared free energy information for 15 years now. I have demonstrated it publicly many times. I have put up videos like the Tinmman has himself. I'm not demanding that Tinmman prove all his claims in his videos. But if I am required to prove something, explain just how I can do that over the Internet? Also, then so are all of you for your claims.
And why does this forum even have any posts on it if there is not one proven claim yet? Why not start the forum AFTER something is proven and then you can have actually practical discussions about it rather than go around in circles for years? The way Brad is arguing would imply that there is no justification for his or anyone's writing anything here. Not only have no claims been proven, but none actually can be proven. This then becomes just a crafty way of ensuring that OU will be discredited.
Never mind the rhetoric all forums can only ever be a place so share information. Each person cannot have anything proven to themselves by another person over the Internet, unless it is a matter of mere words. I have proven several things like that. But truths of demonstration in the physical world have to be really done personally. You can all talk about the best ways of doing that, but Brad is ludicrous in demanding of proof on the Internet itself! And frankly he reminds me of my old mechanic days in the early 90s when I worked on Import cars in a small shop after having worked at Volkswagen. My boss had some very good customers that came there for years because of the quality work he gave them. They typically had Volvos which lasted at least 400,000KM. But the VV customers typically only came in when there was a problem, and were of a different sort let's just say. Some of them would not service their cars as they didn't want to spend any money on them at all. These would be the troublemakers in the end. It was far better not to deal with them, as it would happen from time to time that if something would finally break down on their cars that they would want to blame us for it. He is directly looking for trouble because he is admittedly prejudiced. He has an agenda here, and even his stated agenda he has not proven or explained to make any sense at all. He may have some serious issues because he cannot tell the difference between the internet and the real world. I used to take care of people like that who were on medications to help them with that. Now this is all said in jest, but why is that question never answered here? In the end I am no different than any of you, just sharing information over the Internet. Every point applies to all of us the same. We can't prove OU of the Internet, and if I have to prove something then so do all of you.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2019.07.21, 14:07:18
Tinman
I always found it strange that everyone seems to be a so called honest and responsible adult but almost no one ever pleads guilty to an offense. Apparently were all innocent and nobody has ever done anything wrong. Or... most adults are not nearly as responsible or honest as they claim which would seem to be the case with respect to the facts. The fact is Humanity is a gong show... always has been.

Right... I suspect if you, I and everyone else really "came clean" the Earth would burst into flames, spin off it's axis and go hurtling into deep space.

As well so far as the "truth" is concerned we could start with the fact that 80% of the population believes a bearded man in a white dress created the whole universe from absolutely nothing in a matter of days because he loves us. Come clean you say?, delivery to us proof of claims?, confirm our claims?. Let's be honest... few people have any interest in the facts or proving anything. If this were true then I suspect the world would be a very different place because any unproven claim would be immediately rejected. The fact is that most people find the facts uncomfortable and depressing often invoking feelings of fear and guilt.

My theory is simple... let he who is without guilt cast the first stone. Which is priceless isn't it because nobody will be "casting" anything and everyone has there own skeletons in the closet. In my opinion the way forward is to treat others as we would like to be treated and find common ground.

Regards
AC

The problem with that is this forum is not a physical body. I understand that it is good to move in that direction, but I can't be a way to prove anything. And this is where you have to understand the difference between what is ideal and what is reality. We live in a day where people are not honest. These things would work more or less if they were honest, but how can you prove honesty over the internet of strangers.
The bottom line is you can only prove such things to yourself. And in the end technology is proven when people use it. This is why I focused on getting things out to thousands of people all over the world. Now they are using it. They don't need it proven anymore than they need human flight proven.

The following comes up as the first Google search on the fallacy of Peer Review:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

"Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have."
....
"CONCLUSION
So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."

Quote from: evolvingape on 2019.07.21, 21:18:52
Scrutinizing science: Peer review

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

Peer review does the same thing for science that the "inspected by #7" sticker does for your t-shirt: provides assurance that someone who knows what they're doing has double-checked it. In science, peer review typically works something like this:

A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication.

The journal's editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the "peers" of peer review).

Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.

The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration.

Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.

Mathematics is a pure language and is non curruptible.

The laws of physics apply equally to everyone.

Replication of the claim is the truth of it.

Problem is that not all that is called mathematics is mathematics, as everyone would agree. Not all math translates to the real world.

The so-called "laws of physics" are also relative to different people. These are not self-evident like truths of reason in mathematics. They pertain to matters of demonstration that at most we can say is they appear to be universal. The questions always remain, especially while surveying the history of science, Says who? and how can we prove they are universals? But I think a lot of the controversy is in semantics, and how the law is applied. Like what specifically is an open or closed system.

Replication is the key!

Quote from: evolvingape on 2019.07.21, 22:25:24
Mathematics is a pure language and is non curruptible.

The laws of physics apply equally to everyone.

Replication of the claim is the truth of it.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mathematics+definition&t=brave&ia=definition

mathematics

n.   The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.

n.   The science of quantity; the study of ideal constructions (often applicable to real problems), and the discovery thereby of relations between the parts of these constructions, before unknown.

n.   That science, or class of sciences, which treats of the exact relations existing between quantities or magnitudes, and of the methods by which, in accordance with these relations, quantities sought are deducible from other quantities known or supposed; the science of spatial and quantitative relations.

Mathematics is what we do here at OUR. Those that are not skilled in mathematics present or build a device or idea, and those that are skilled dissect it and present their honest working for the benefit of all.

It's that simple.

RFQUERY

QuoteAnd why does this forum even have any posts on it if there is not one proven claim yet? Why not start the forum AFTER something is proven and then you can have actually practical discussions about it rather than go around in circles for years? The way Brad is arguing would imply that there is no justification for his or anyone's writing anything here. Not only have no claims been proven, but none actually can be proven. This then becomes just a crafty way of ensuring that OU will be discredited. Never mind the rhetoric all forums can only ever be a place so share information. Each person cannot have anything proven to themselves by another person over the Internet, unless it is a matter of mere words. I have proven several things like that. But truths of demonstration in the physical world have to be really done personally. You can all talk about the best ways of doing that, but Brad is ludicrous in demanding of proof on the Internet itself!

Well said and your line of reason seems sound in my opinion. I believe it was T.H.Moray who said... no person can prove anything to anyone who cannot prove the matter for themselves. This is the internet and if anyone thinks anything on it is absolute proof then I submit they do not fully understand the concept of proof. Proof is when we have something right in front of us which we can physically test and anything less is speculation at best. What are people going to say, my proof which is not really proof is better than your proof which is not really proof either...it's absurd.

QuoteIn the end I am no different than any of you, just sharing information over the Internet. Every point applies to all of us the same. We can't prove OU of the Internet, and if I have to prove something then so do all of you.

Well I would disagree and you have made many video's showing that you have actually built something and made an effort to test something so no you are not like many people here who have not. I'm also not sure about this..." if I have to prove something then so do all of you". We which I use liberally are not making claims per se that we have ever built or tested anything or that we even have a clue what were talking about however you seem to be. With this generally comes a fair amount of criticism outside the context of the average post which amounts to... Oh look a squirrel. So in my opinion it should be expected that there will be criticism for no other reason that you have made an effort to do something.

QuoteThe problem with that is this forum is not a physical body. I understand that it is good to move in that direction, but I can't be a way to prove anything. And this is where you have to understand the difference between what is ideal and what is reality. We live in a day where people are not honest. These things would work more or less if they were honest, but how can you prove honesty over the internet of strangers.
The bottom line is you can only prove such things to yourself. And in the end technology is proven when people use it. This is why I focused on getting things out to thousands of people all over the world. Now they are using it. They don't need it proven anymore than they need human flight proven.

Well put and logical... your not an alien are you?. I'm not really used to nor was I prepared for logical here in the forums. However I like the premise... to hell with proof because in this means of communication there is none to be had. Hell I could show you a video of a pig flying around in my back yard as we speak however that does not mean anyone should believe it. The best we can do in my opinion is express our opinion and share information as we see fit and if we want to offer more then it should be understood that there is no free lunch.

For example way back when... myself and a man named Dr.Stiffler developed an electric field switched resonant oscillator around the same time. Later this was popularized and came to be known as a Slayer Exciter. It's just a simple variant of a jewel thief with the gate of a mosfet or base of a darlington pair transistor left open or unconnected. I called it open base or open gate switching and posted about how it works. I discovered it around the same time as Dr.Stiffler just playing around with different circuits. I made a post and showed the circuit and people started playing around and it took off. I understand there were many people making claims and he said she said and I found it first however my thinking was I don't actually care. I put it out there for people to use and they did... mission accomplished.

In my opinion this is how the forums were supposed to work and whether we just give it away or offer it as a kit to help finance our research makes little difference. Do something, get it out there, make a difference and hope something comes of it. It's not rocket science.

THis is bloody La la land. I have been a strong advocate of attacking data and not individuals. When an individual doesn't like having their claims questioned and insults others, it's alarm bells for me and at best, it's simply a waste of all our time.

Total nonsense. If you want to sell kits Rick go and sell them. Good luck and hopefully you won't get sued too much. Stop wasting our time with ridiculous long incoherent posts.

Reproducibility

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

Reproducibility is the closeness of the agreement between the results of measurements of the same measure and carried out with same methodology described in the corresponding scientific evidence (e.g. a publication in a peer-reviewed journal)[citation needed]. Reproducibility can also be applied under changed conditions of measurement for the same measure and - to check that the results are not an artefact of the measurement procedures.[1][2] A related concept is replication, which is the ability to independently achieve non-identical conclusions that are at least similar, when differences in sampling, research procedures and data analysis methods may exist.[3] Reproducibility and replicability together are among the main tools of "the scientific method"[4] — with the concrete expressions of the ideal of such a method varying considerably across research disciplines and fields of study.[citation needed] The study of reproducibility is an important topic in metascience.[5]

I guess so far it hasn't worked out for you.

I understand the statement, but there are a few problems when you oversimplify this as applied to what is actually happening here. Just as I posted about the problems of peer reviews, the same applies here. How do you determine who is skilled? This is not even a physical body of people, it is merely an online forum. If you guys have more going on here then you have shared then that would be great. But so far I get very little detail about your evaluation process. Skilled in mathematics does not automatically translate to being skilled in evaluation. And how does one translate their findings and present that here in a way that amounts to the proof that Brad demands? How can people know there is an honest effort? So far several people who represent this upper class of elites have shown themselves to be completely unable to make logical arguments. Logic is math as well and that makes me concerned especially when such people are not even being corrected. Before I got here there was already an internal credibility problem.

Practically speaking, the forum does not operate according to the guidelines. It is just a place to share information like other forums. The way I have been address (not by you) many times are against the guidelines. There is no moderation and therefore no accountability. So how can anyone have confidence that some people they have never met behind a curtain (screen) are actually skilled, not mistaken, honest, etc.? Or is this just Dorothy dreaming about Oz?

Ideally it would be simple, but that is not actually what is happening here as far as what has been shared here.

Quote from: evolvingape on 2019.07.21, 23:01:39
Mathematics is what we do here at OUR. Those that are not skilled in mathematics present or build a device or idea, and those that are skilled dissect it and present their honest working for the benefit of all.
It's that simple.

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.21, 23:47:06
I guess so far it hasn't worked out for you.

You know very little about me, I suggest you should leave me out of whatever it is you think you are doing here.

This is a message to all here who share in the frustration this thread has brought.

Ignore RF. 

Don't engage him or you will reap the consequences.  As a magician is sleight-of-hand, Rick is sleight-of-word.  You will expose yourself to psychological games, misdirection, insults, and everything except what you expect to receive.  He will never provide proof of measurement so it is futile to ask. 

Rick is not going to divulge anything on this thread other than to direct you to his videos or website in hopes of receiving more orders for his wares.  If you buy into his spiel, then by all means go for it and support him.

I personally will wait patiently for whatever member of this forum has his kit and based on the results of their testing, will go from there.

Regards,
Pm

Thanks for the concern Pm, it demonstrates your connection to everyman. Don't worry about me, if Rick wants to play with me.. we can play.. retirement is boring after all..
8)

This was along the lines of this whole objective of the forum. It hasn't worked out so far. So far there has been not one example. This is not about you personally. So far you have said good things. But so far the forum does not keep to the guidelines as far as I have seen and as far as people members have complained both ways.
I came here because I was invited. This thread is about my videos. People have asked me questions and I have answered them. I am asking questions about how everything works here and not getting clear answers. People have been aggressive immediately. This is a very hostile forum for new people to become a part of as others have shared. So that has not worked very well. The claims I have heard is that people come here because of troubles in other forums. People are supposedly looking for OU here. But so far most are attacking, so it looks like the vocal tide is against researching OU.

Quote from: evolvingape on 2019.07.21, 23:58:41
You know very little about me, I suggest you should leave me out of whatever it is you think you are doing here.

.

Be careful, they are going to call this a Canadian conspiracy.
As for the point you disagree with, the continuing context of all this is disproof OU claims require the same treatment. But any claims need justification. I'm bringing out the fact that it is unreasonable to be so upset with people answering questions about OU experience while they could care less about slander and baseless claims. It appears there is little regard for people making wild claims about anything so long as they don't make positive claims about OU. Like I said, because of this it gives the appearance of people suppressing OU. But I didn't come here out of the blue claiming to have been the second Buzzman on the moon or something. I have offered many opportunities to see demonstrations in person. While in Idaho people would just drop in also. And this whole discussion was because of customers of mine saying they have benefitted from my kits and information. That is the context.

So what are the typical conversations about on this forum if there is not supposed to be any claims about OU? Just talking about other things? College text physics? Closed loops? What conversations are allowed about OU research?

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2019.07.21, 23:04:05
RFQUERY
Well said and your line of reason seems sound in my opinion. I believe it was T.H.Moray who said... no person can prove anything to anyone who cannot prove the matter for themselves. This is the internet and if anyone thinks anything on it is absolute proof then I submit they do not fully understand the concept of proof. Proof is when we have something right in front of us which we can physically test and anything less is speculation at best. What are people going to say, my proof which is not really proof is better than your proof which is not really proof either...it's absurd.

Quote
"In the end I am no different than any of you, just sharing information over the Internet. Every point applies to all of us the same. We can't prove OU of the Internet, and if I have to prove something then so do all of you. "

Well I would disagree and you have made many video's showing that you have actually built something and made an effort to test something so no you are not like many people here who have not. I'm also not sure about this..." if I have to prove something then so do all of you". We which I use liberally are not making claims per se that we have ever built or tested anything or that we even have a clue what were talking about however you seem to be. With this generally comes a fair amount of criticism outside the context of the average post which amounts to... Oh look a squirrel. So in my opinion it should be expected that there will be criticism for no other reason that you have made an effort to do something.

Well put and logical... your not an alien are you?. I'm not really used to nor was I prepared for logical here in the forums. However I like the premise... to hell with proof because in this means of communication there is none to be had. Hell I could show you a video of a pig flying around in my back yard as we speak however that does not mean anyone should believe it. The best we can do in my opinion is express our opinion and share information as we see fit and if we want to offer more then it should be understood that there is no free lunch.

For example way back when... myself and a man named Dr.Stiffler developed an electric field switched resonant oscillator around the same time. Later this was popularized and came to be known as a Slayer Exciter. It's just a simple variant of a jewel thief with the gate of a mosfet or base of a darlington pair transistor left open or unconnected. I called it open base or open gate switching and posted about how it works. I discovered it around the same time as Dr.Stiffler just playing around with different circuits. I made a post and showed the circuit and people started playing around and it took off. I understand there were many people making claims and he said she said and I found it first however my thinking was I don't actually care. I put it out there for people to use and they did... mission accomplished.

In my opinion this is how the forums were supposed to work and whether we just give it away or offer it as a kit to help finance our research makes little difference. Do something, get it out there, make a difference and hope something comes of it. It's not rocket science.

Good.

Quote from: evolvingape on 2019.07.21, 23:29:49
Reproducibility

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

Reproducibility is the closeness of the agreement between the results of measurements of the same measure and carried out with same methodology described in the corresponding scientific evidence (e.g. a publication in a peer-reviewed journal)[citation needed]. Reproducibility can also be applied under changed conditions of measurement for the same measure and - to check that the results are not an artefact of the measurement procedures.[1][2] A related concept is replication, which is the ability to independently achieve non-identical conclusions that are at least similar, when differences in sampling, research procedures and data analysis methods may exist.[3] Reproducibility and replicability together are among the main tools of "the scientific method"[4] — with the concrete expressions of the ideal of such a method varying considerably across research disciplines and fields of study.[citation needed] The study of reproducibility is an important topic in metascience.[5]

Oh wow.. Brad asking for a character reference! I can hardly control my glee!!  ;D

Brad and I are mates in the pursuit of free energy but don't let the 'mates' thing fool ya.. we are both highly critical of the facts.

I myself released 'open sourced' one of my inventions here back in 2013 and Brad has commented on it. The hhop gen 2 was never claimed by me to be 'overunity' in energy output because it isn't, but it is demonstrating a new principle. Brad's criticism was 'what use is it?' as it is only 1% efficient in the demonstration he saw. I imagine three centuries or more ago he would have said the same about the Newcomen engine and then happily hopped up on his horse and gone about his business.. combustion engines are now approaching 66% efficient!

I would like to see you donate a kit to Darren in the interest of the development of mankind, and rest assured should Poynt99 prove 'OU' his conclusions will be vigorously challenged, and if they show underunity what is there to investigate except contestation?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomen_atmospheric_engine

I have the open loop hhop gen 4 schematics and supporting math available in a non public part of OUR which is currently under peer review. I do not ask anything of you on this forum that I am not prepared to undergo myself. That should be a comfort to you in this difficult time.

.

.

Yes, I agree. We have never fallen out over your criticism of my device as I understood them to be valid and the onus was on me to demonstrate its worth. This process is now underway with the hhop gen 3 hybrid currently also under peer review, as you are aware.

The holy grail in the pursuit of 'OU' is to present a device and support it with a working theory and required math. I never sought 'OU' but tried to hook my devices up to the wheelwork of Nature.

Time always tells as to the truth of the matter.

RFQUERY

QuoteAs for the point you disagree with, the continuing context of all this is disproof OU claims require the same treatment. But any claims need justification. I'm bringing out the fact that it is unreasonable to be so upset with people answering questions about OU experience while they could care less about slander and baseless claims.

My supposed disagreement was playful sarcasm and yes most of forums are unreasonable. It is what it is and as hard as people have tried to change them they have remained the same.

QuoteIt appears there is little regard for people making wild claims about anything so long as they don't make positive claims about OU.

I think you nailed it. Positive OU claims are a no no and they will release the hounds if anyone even implies something is OU.

QuoteLike I said, because of this it gives the appearance of people suppressing OU. But I didn't come here out of the blue claiming to have been the second Buzzman on the moon or something. I have offered many opportunities to see demonstrations in person. While in Idaho people would just drop in also. And this whole discussion was because of customers of mine saying they have benefitted from my kits and information. That is the context.

I wouldn't call it suppression more mean spirited, bad-tempered and combative. If you were expecting a lot of back patting, joyous praise and dolphin petting then I believe your in the wrong place. From my observations they are a pretty good group of guys who tend to know what there talking about. As such if every i is not dotted and every t is not crossed you can expect to hear about it. It would be a mistake to think it's personal in my opinion because they treat everyone with contempt... I wouldn't have it any other way.

Regards
AC

Wow Brad, you must have been working on that all day. So much for leaving this thread and for short posts. I'm glad that you did clarify some things here. Why has it taken so long for you guys to answer basic questions as to how things work here. You should take more time to share all these things with newcomers. If this forum had actually done that and not been so hostile so much time wouldn't have been wasted. Granted that you set up a private thread for me to share things. But out here on a main thread you guys just went off as if there were no rules and anything goes.
Well I'll reply in the quotes below within brackets:

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.22, 01:07:26

Quote
All I have done is freely shared free energy information for 15 years now.

Then how about sharing some with us,as this is the very reason you were invited here to !!!OverUnityResearch!!!
[Rick replies: I have already. But just as you members were discussing other side points, so I responded to them. You are just as much to blame for going onto other topics. You are still mistaken about proof over the Internet as can be seen in this long post. So that is essential to get cleared up. Because how can I even know what that even means?]


Quote
I have demonstrated it publicly many times.


Then why is it a major issue to demonstrate it here on !!!OverUnityResearch!!! ?

[Rick replies: Because OUR is not a place you can demonstrate anything. It is not the real world Brad. Are you so lost in cyberland that you don't realize that it is not the real world???]

Quote
I have put up videos like the Tinmman has himself.


Your video's are nothing like mine-->your's are longer than a feature length movie.

[Rick replies: You get the point. Showing stuff.]

Quote
I'm not demanding that Tinmman prove all his claims in his videos.


What claim's ?.
Not one of my video's claime's free energy,unless it is the production of energy at no cost--such as solar.
Now,if i was to claim to have,and claim to be presenting an OU device in my video's,then you can bet your bottom dollar i would be asked by everyone here to back up my claim's.

[Rick replies: You have done some interesting videos. My friend has saved them all and says you have removed some more significant revelations. I haven't watched in a long time, except I wasted my time on one of the latest that said magnet motor but was just some plastic gears.]

Quote
But if I am required to prove something, explain just how I can do that over the Internet? Also, then so are all of you for your claims.

You are the only one here claiming to have an OU device,and not just one,but 15+ different one's.

[Rick replies: I don't think that is correct. And I didn't say 15, I said out of around 100 different kinds of systems, only around 15 are practical to make that I know of. There are more than that.]

Quote
And why does this forum even have any posts on it if there is not one proven claim yet? Why not start the forum AFTER something is proven and then you can have actually practical discussions about it rather than go around in circles for years?

Read the name of the forum-->OverUnityResearch.
The forum is dedicated to researching claimed OU device's,-->not promoting claimed OU devices without the required research to back up said claims.

[Rick replies: OK, so enlarge on what that means. What are the acceptable conversations here? I've just been going back and forth replying to questions asked. Obviously this is still happening. That is my point.]

Quote
The way Brad is arguing would imply that there is no justification for his or anyone's writing anything here. Not only have no claims been proven, but none actually can be proven. This then becomes just a crafty way of ensuring that OU will be discredited.

No,this insures that we do not turn into another energetic forum.
This forum has guidelines for a reason,and that is not to promote snake oil salesman pitches.

[Rick replies: Guidelines that are not followed. So you're saying that it is energetic forum but not allowing anyone to make an OU claim? Because I see the same nasty spirit here as there.]

Quote
Never mind the rhetoric all forums can only ever be a place so share information. Each person cannot have anything proven to themselves by another person over the Internet, unless it is a matter of mere words.

Garbage.
It is this simple--
You provide some one here(like Darren-AKA-Poynt) with the required information to construct one of your OU device's--or donate one of your OU kit's,and he then gets to work on taking and collecting accurate data.
He then delivers his finding here to the forum. This would be in the way of collected data over time,energy consumed by the device over that time,and energy dissipated by the device over that same value of time.
To anyone here,any data provided by Darren would be taken very seriously,and would be known to be extremely accurate. This is how every claimed OU device has been peer reviewed here on this forum,and it has happened on a few occasions now. !But!--this is something that you will avoid at all cost's.

[Rick replies: REALLY? Garbage?? That is ludicrous to disagree with. Wow, so you set up a gatekeeper to do science for everyone else. And then everyone is to believe what the prophet has spoken. Just amazing. And when he tells you it is safe to drink the cool aid do you drink it??? Wow, this is amazing. I'm so glad you finally came out with this. No wonder you didn't want to say this until now. This is a real keeper. This is rather big news in the free energy world. Don't worry folks you can trust Darren to prove things for you as we all grew up with him and know him "to be extremely accurate." But actually, don't worry because no claim will ever get through that wall. Brad, if I was looking for validation, which I have plenty of with thousands of people, I would not seek a stranger. The fact that there are so many people here and not one validation is sounding more and more like the Mythbusters or Amazing Randy. What you don't understand Brad, is that I have shared so many things over the years that people can do for themselves. I don't make the basic setups secret. Nor do I push a claim. I didn't come here doing that at all. I shared things for any of you to benefit from. You have turned this into an aggressive matter of prove or disprove antagonism. If you don't want to consider any of them then that is fine. I am not expecting you to. But for you to think that someone can prove something like this for another person is actually cultic under the circumstances. It is also the perfect way for a gatekeeper to turn people away from real OU technology. Just like that guy did with 4 million views on youtube when he faked the fan kit.]

Quote
I have proven several things like that. But truths of demonstration in the physical world have to be really done personally.

Are you saying that your devices will not deliver OU unless you are present ?

[Rick replies: Wow Brad, really? You have to personally validate things for yourself in the real world.]

Quote
You can all talk about the best ways of doing that, but Brad is ludicrous in demanding of proof on the Internet itself!

So you can make claim to having at least 15 OU device's,but i am ludicrous in asking for proof 
You have things seriously twisted around Rick.

[Rick replies: Well I told you how proof works. No, twisted is expecting someone else over the internet to prove something for them.]

Quote
And frankly he reminds me of my old mechanic days in the early 90s

Oh,so your a mechanic now as well.
Personally i wouldn't know anything about the subject 

[Rick replies: Yes, started full time when I was young.]

Quote
He is directly looking for trouble because he is admittedly prejudiced.

Ah,and there it is-->the very same tactic that John Bedini,Aaron,Linderman,and the like's use.
When one ask's the OU claimant to provide proof of there claim,you then become prejudice or a troll.

[Rick replies: No, I was not talking about OU claims. I have always told people to be skeptical about any such claims. Notice you jump to that and forget the context of what you did. You were prejudiced against me. You said sorry, but then you jump right back into that. Anyone can read how strict I am about people making false judgments for or against claims. Credulity is just as bad as incredulity. Both are just the same and are done at the same time. So once again, you assumed wrong. Proves the point. You are a very irrational man Brad. Very reactionary.]

Quote
He has an agenda here, and even his stated agenda he has not proven or explained to make any sense at all.

I will let others here that know me tell you what my !agenda! here is.

Quote
He may have some serious issues because he cannot tell the difference between the internet and the real world. I used to take care of people like that who were on medications to help them with that.

Oh,so the internet is not real.
Lets take the internet away,and see how many people watch your video's--how many people will buy your charger's--how many forum's you can get on to promote your !!!OU!!! device's.
This go's to show how hypocritical you are. You say that the internet is not the real world,but you use it every day to promote and sell your product's.
I do not think it is me that needs medicating 

[Rick replies: No, living in cyberland is not real Brad. You need some help. You divert from what I said and the whole point. The internet is used to share information so that people can do things in the real world. Videos are not the real world. Pictures are not the real world. Information is shared but not proven over the Internet. That is matters of empirical science like this.]

Quote
In the end I am no different than any of you,

If you think we are the same as you,then you have serious mental problem's.
Go read through all the thread's on this forum,and see how many you find that promote OU devices without any proof such a device exists. Find anyone else on here that is selling !claimed! OU kit's like you are.
!We! are nothing like you-->get that through your head.

[Rick replies: Well I can see some people that agree with the points I have made. So what you are saying is that because I claimed OU before I even knew about this forum, and someone else brought me up here, that you have the right to treat me different and attack me? I'm not equal to you? I'm the enemy? Is that the kind of agenda and research you do?]

Quote
just sharing information over the Internet.

You have shared nothing of substance.

[Rick replies: Prove that claim Brad. Prove it over the internet. Oh, you are exempt from your claims. In the end you are just a gatekeeper seeking to disprove OU. You can prove otherwise Brad. Yeah, I didn't think so. This is what you do. You make accusations without substance. But you have zero credulity because you are purely reactionary and promote unscientific validations.]

Quote
Every point applies to all of us the same.

Yes it dose,and that includes you.
For some reason you think you can make claim's of having OU device's,and are exempt from providing the required proof to back up said claim's,while the rest of us here are required to provide the required proof before we may present or claim any device as being OU.

[Rick replies: I never claimed to be able to prove anything like OU over the internet. Read the title of my recent video will you. I didn't come here trying to prove OU. You keep assuming that. But I always want to help people prove to themselves. You are very confused. You have watched too much Twilight zone shows maybe.]

Quote
We can't prove OU of the Internet,

More garbage.
In fact,proving an OU device has never been easier now we have the internet.
It work's just as i described above-->present your schematic for your device,so as it can be replicated-->or donate one of your kit's to those here that are top EE guy's,so as they can test and confirm your claim's with great accuracy.

[Rick replies: Well prove that to us Brad. Why is that garbage? Those are two different things. An EE can only show himself, and only he will know his motivations. That is not transferable to someone else. You are not claiming divine inspiration are you? Are you really wanting to make a prophet? What is the difference between this and the corrupt institutions today? Set up another hierarchy and dispense with individual proofs? Now that is worse than garbage. And I think this is probably just your overreacting. I doubt that everyone here would agree with you. Well at least two don't.]

Quote
and if I have to prove something then so do all of you.

All of us have not claimed to have an OU device,little lone 15+ of them.

[Rick replies: Well all of you believe in OU devices. Solar, Wind, Hydro, etc. Once solar was not believed either.]

Anyone here that thought they had an OU device presented there device here,so as others could replicate that device,test that device,and discuss there finding's with each other.

[Rick replies: So where did that get them?]

In every case,accurate result's were had from this form of testing,and it has worked 100% of the time so far.

[Rick replies: 100% did not get through. So how could you communicate to me proof that they failed?]

Your device's would be no different. The only difference is that you will not present a device for us to replicate and test. This is because you are afraid that the truth will come out,and sales will drop to almost 0.

[Rick replies: If that was true then people would not want seconds and thirds. I don't advertise, customers do freely. Now you have shown yourself to be completely illogical, reactionary and delusional. Most of you have been hostile from the very beginning, especially you, and desperate to find fault. Therefore most of you on this thread are not showing sincerity about OU research. You are more interested in attacking then OU research. If OU research was so important and you think I had nothing then you would just stay on other threads and not spend so much time attacking. You are afraid. Or you just want to get more OU information.]

So Rick,due to your blatant lie about being different to those like Bedini,Aaron,Linderman,i hear by retract my apology,as you are exactly like them in every way.

[Rick replies: You already retracted yesterday, or earlier than that. See how unstable you are? Back and forth. Just reactionary. Surely other people have told you that about yourself. Your apology was merely based upon me exposing two of your enemies. That is reactionary. That is unsound. But you really don't believe what your saying anyway. This is all just a front. You believed me then and you believe me now. Not in my OU claims necessarily, but about who I am. But you are doing all this for another reason. Could be reactionary.]

I have no room or time in my life for snake oil-scamming salesmen like you.

[Rick replies: Obviously you have made a lot of room here after you said you were leaving a week ago. So that tells everyone you are taking me seriously and tells me you are just another gatekeeper like the other forums. Just another hobbyist personality used to give the impression that there is no OU, nothing that can be experienced by the average joe like yourself.]

You prey on the gullible just like the Bedini camp did/dose.

[Rick replies: Yeah, I provide what people have asked for and then they want more. Did you ever realize that your whole demand for me is actually preying upon people to become credulous (gullible)? You have given the best illustration of being gullible: Trust someone else you don't know and have never met or seen over the internet to prove something to you. What you are actually doing is wanting another Bedini here. A new living legend to trust in everything. I'm glad you said that as it just made that clear to me.]

You make claim's of OU,but you have not once provided any evidence to back up those claim's.

[Rick replies: That is a lie. Evidence is at many meetings. Proof is with the individuals.]

Just like Bedini,Aaron,and Linderman-->you have to buy the book,video,or kit to see the OU.

[Rick replies: Another lie. I have told people for years. Three years I was doing this without selling anything. Then people demanded product.]

You live in the stone age and a world of your own,and show some LED's lit as some form of confirmation of OU.

[Rick replies: How about a 26' boat in the real world?]

I mean,you cant be serious  . There are those here that can light 10 time's more LEDs using a AA battery on a blocking oscillator circuit-->is that OU to you?.

[Rick replies: So you can beat that can you? Power 8W of light for 3/4W input? All on a video that I named you can't prove anything over the Internet. Shows how much you are paying attention. You didn't even listen to a word I said.]

In fact Rick,i am surprised that Peter and Poynt have let you get away with it for this long,as anyone else of us here making the same claims would have been asked to put up or shut up by now-and that would be without the promotion of OU kit's for sale.

[Rick replies: I have had zero problems with Poynt even though you want to make him Bedini all over again. You know, maybe because I am not pushing any OU claims. I never came here doing that, but you are trying to force that. You are against OU claims in some kind of bitterness. Purely reactionary. Maybe you are just reacting against A.King. I told him not to promote my kit on these forums. I came here and answered questions. I shared my story. You just are taking this way too seriously. Overreacting. It's like I said something evil. Like saying MAGA in a DNC forum or Clinton in the other camp. Again, it suggest OU suppression.]

I could just imagine what would happen to me if i claimed to have a self running pulse motor,and then started promoting a kit for sale of said pulse motor without providing any such proof of actually having one-here on this forum.

[Rick replies: By your own views you would be a thief automatically. Anyone selling OU has to be fake snake oil right?]

You are doing exactly that,and correct me if i'm wrong here--
1-you claim to have free energy(OU) device's

[Rick replies: Yes.]

3-you refuse to provide us here on this forum a schematic

[Rick replies: False I have provided many to the public over the years.]

or kit,so as we may verify your claim.

[Rick replies: I am not pushing a claim on you. That is the difference. You just don't get it. I am not here to convince anyone. I just answered questions people asked. You are the hostile one.]

4-you claim the internet is not the real world,but you use said internet to promote and sell your product's to the real world.

[Rick replies: No, online forums on the Internet is not the real world. It is really escapism. You are perfectly exemplifying that delusion. It is like watching science fiction without the science. lol That's a keeper! Sharing information over the internet is not proving anything over the internet that is a matter of physical personal demonstration. Information over the internet is hacked spoofed all the time. People think they are talking to someone else. People are deceived all the time. But you don't think so. Everything is real. People are who they say they are. Honestly, yep. Credulous man.]

5-you claim you are not like Bedini,Aaron,Linderman-etc.

[Rick replies: Not like them.]

6-you state that anyone asking for you to prove your claim of OU is prejudice,a troll,or needs to be on medication.

[Rick replies: Never said that. That was your prejudice again. But I doubt you will apologize for that assumption. I emphatically said not to believe OU over the internet. Again, I specifically made a video with that title and thesis. Can you read Brad? This is a major blunder for you here. This shows you are fundamentally wrong about what you even think I am saying. You are so reactional that you can't even see the most obvious thing. Now to ask me to prove something impossible is ludicrous. I can't prove anything over the Internet. Believe me I would try if I could do that. But it is far more important for me to promote real science and honesty than try and get people to be gullible. I am far more aggressive against false OU claims than you are. I have exposed many people and helped many people who have been wronged. I have helped many people out of cults in the same way.]

7-you state that you are nothing like Bedini,Aaron,Linderman,even though you act in the very same way,and promote product's under the same false pretenses as they did.

[Rick replies: How so? And you are so reactional that you can't tell the difference between what works and what doesn't. You would throw out Tesla because they mentioned him. I've seen your overreactions. You are immature, so I don't consider you a representative of this forum. There are several people here who have been professional. But you are like a 13 year old kid going through puberty.]

Some how--some way Rick,i am going to get one of your kit's,and i am going to deliver my finding's over the !un-real! internet,which would be the forum's and my youtube channel.

[Rick replies: Well then I'll keep these quotes to show everyone your intentions and twisted illogic. Guess what they will think? You are seriously deluded. You can't even realize that the Internet is not a physical place were we are personally dwelling in. Too much virtual reality Brad! You are confusing being on the telliphone with sitting on the couch. The other person is not beside you. You can tell them what you see but you can't prove it to them.]

You have 8,299 subscribers and 1,874,689 views
I have 16,914 subscriber's,and 4,977,900 view's.

[Rick replies: That's fine, I'm not boasting about anything. I am a servant and you care about numbers. You just keep digging deeper and deeper into this don't you?]

This mean's Rick,that my 1 video review of your OU kit will reach more people than all your video's put together have. But no need to worry,as the internet is un-real  ,and so this should have no reflection on you what so ever.

[Rick replies: Now you are just like Aaron here. His lies on the front page actually result in sending good people over to me. I really don't care for the people who want to believe your methodology and delusion. I really can't help anyone who is so lost in virtual reality that they can't tell what is real anymore. You are just another case in point Brad. Your words will be remembered. They are classic. You'll be famous. Just do another fake fan video and get your 4 million views on one page. That's what you want, to be recognized, famous. Right? The guy who suppress free energy by overreacting to Bedini camp.]

TO BE CONTINUED

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.22, 01:07:26
   

CONTINUED FROM LAST POST:

In saying all that Rick,i offer you the chance to do it right,and under your guidance.

[Rick replies: Hahahahahaha! Riiiiiiiiggggghhhhhttttt! Sure. You are really proving that you can be trusted. The guy who wants to be famous by spreading lies. Well that is you know...]

Rather than it be me that put's one of your OU kit's to the test,i would prefer that you donate one of your kit's to Darren(poynt),as he will carry out any test you ask of him with absolute precision--there will be no error if Darren dose the testing,and that you can take to the bank 

[Rick replies: So Darren is to be the next Bedini god? He has so much experience in OU systems that he should be trusted with this? Oh I see, there is no need to prove that he is capable. Just take your word for it. Yeah I see. Wasn't he the guy who said there was WMD in Iraq? Are you old enough to remember that fiasco? Same kind of argument. Just trust the expert. No error. Wow, that is a big claim Brad. Sounds like you don't have any experience with doing R&D testing. Errors happen to everyone. To make such a claim is a sure sign of snake oil to me. Again, your motivations are clear here. And I understand what you are doing with this long post as well. I know what it means.]

He will carry out the test's under your instruction,either as stated in your book that comes with the kit,or via personal communication between the two of you.

[Rick replies: I told you the conditions of proof for anyone.]

If your claim is true,then this can only help you Rick,and the sales of your kit's will skyrocket. If the result's come back to meet your claim,and you do indeed have an OU device,i can guarantee nearly everyone here on this forum alone would purchase one. This kind of confirmation would turn your thousands of dollars into millions of dollars,and that is a fact. You would also receive world recognition for your work,and the betterment of man kind.

But knowing you for who you are,you will have some reason for denying this offer,and i think the bulk of us here know what that reason is.
Brad [/quote]

Wow Brad, you must have been working on that all day. So much for leaving this thread and for short posts. I'm glad that you did clarify some things here. Why has it taken so long for you guys to answer basic questions as to how things work here. You should take more time to share all these things with newcomers. If this forum had actually done that and not been so hostile so much time wouldn't have been wasted. Granted that you set up a private thread for me to share things. But out here on a main thread you guys just went off as if there were no rules and anything goes.
Well I'll reply in the quotes below within brackets:

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.22, 01:07:26
Quote
All I have done is freely shared free energy information for 15 years now.

Then how about sharing some with us,as this is the very reason you were invited here to !!!OverUnityResearch!!!
[Rick replies: I have already. But just as you members were discussing other side points, so I responded to them. You are just as much to blame for going onto other topics. You are still mistaken about proof over the Internet as can be seen in this long post. So that is essential to get cleared up. Because how can I even know what that even means?]


Quote
I have demonstrated it publicly many times.


Then why is it a major issue to demonstrate it here on !!!OverUnityResearch!!! ?

[Rick replies: Because OUR is not a place you can demonstrate anything. It is not the real world Brad. Are you so lost in cyberland that you don't realize that it is not the real world???]

Quote
I have put up videos like the Tinmman has himself.


Your video's are nothing like mine-->your's are longer than a feature length movie.

[Rick replies: You get the point. Showing stuff.]

Quote
I'm not demanding that Tinmman prove all his claims in his videos.


What claim's ?.
Not one of my video's claime's free energy,unless it is the production of energy at no cost--such as solar.
Now,if i was to claim to have,and claim to be presenting an OU device in my video's,then you can bet your bottom dollar i would be asked by everyone here to back up my claim's.

[Rick replies: You have done some interesting videos. My friend has saved them all and says you have removed some more significant revelations. I haven't watched in a long time, except I wasted my time on one of the latest that said magnet motor but was just some plastic gears.]

Quote
But if I am required to prove something, explain just how I can do that over the Internet? Also, then so are all of you for your claims.

You are the only one here claiming to have an OU device,and not just one,but 15+ different one's.

[Rick replies: I don't think that is correct. And I didn't say 15, I said out of around 100 different kinds of systems, only around 15 are practical to make that I know of. There are more than that.]

Quote
And why does this forum even have any posts on it if there is not one proven claim yet? Why not start the forum AFTER something is proven and then you can have actually practical discussions about it rather than go around in circles for years?

Read the name of the forum-->OverUnityResearch.
The forum is dedicated to researching claimed OU device's,-->not promoting claimed OU devices without the required research to back up said claims.

[Rick replies: OK, so enlarge on what that means. What are the acceptable conversations here? I've just been going back and forth replying to questions asked. Obviously this is still happening. That is my point.]

Quote
The way Brad is arguing would imply that there is no justification for his or anyone's writing anything here. Not only have no claims been proven, but none actually can be proven. This then becomes just a crafty way of ensuring that OU will be discredited.

No,this insures that we do not turn into another energetic forum.
This forum has guidelines for a reason,and that is not to promote snake oil salesman pitches.

[Rick replies: Guidelines that are not followed. So you're saying that it is energetic forum but not allowing anyone to make an OU claim? Because I see the same nasty spirit here as there.]

Quote
Never mind the rhetoric all forums can only ever be a place so share information. Each person cannot have anything proven to themselves by another person over the Internet, unless it is a matter of mere words.

Garbage.
It is this simple--
You provide some one here(like Darren-AKA-Poynt) with the required information to construct one of your OU device's--or donate one of your OU kit's,and he then gets to work on taking and collecting accurate data.
He then delivers his finding here to the forum. This would be in the way of collected data over time,energy consumed by the device over that time,and energy dissipated by the device over that same value of time.
To anyone here,any data provided by Darren would be taken very seriously,and would be known to be extremely accurate. This is how every claimed OU device has been peer reviewed here on this forum,and it has happened on a few occasions now. !But!--this is something that you will avoid at all cost's.

[Rick replies: REALLY? Garbage?? That is ludicrous to disagree with. Wow, so you set up a gatekeeper to do science for everyone else. And then everyone is to believe what the prophet has spoken. Just amazing. And when he tells you it is safe to drink the cool aid do you drink it??? Wow, this is amazing. I'm so glad you finally came out with this. No wonder you didn't want to say this until now. This is a real keeper. This is rather big news in the free energy world. Don't worry folks you can trust Darren to prove things for you as we all grew up with him and know him "to be extremely accurate." But actually, don't worry because no claim will ever get through that wall. Brad, if I was looking for validation, which I have plenty of with thousands of people, I would not seek a stranger. The fact that there are so many people here and not one validation is sounding more and more like the Mythbusters or Amazing Randy. What you don't understand Brad, is that I have shared so many things over the years that people can do for themselves. I don't make the basic setups secret. Nor do I push a claim. I didn't come here doing that at all. I shared things for any of you to benefit from. You have turned this into an aggressive matter of prove or disprove antagonism. If you don't want to consider any of them then that is fine. I am not expecting you to. But for you to think that someone can prove something like this for another person is actually cultic under the circumstances. It is also the perfect way for a gatekeeper to turn people away from real OU technology. Just like that guy did with 4 million views on youtube when he faked the fan kit.]

Quote
I have proven several things like that. But truths of demonstration in the physical world have to be really done personally.

Are you saying that your devices will not deliver OU unless you are present ?

[Rick replies: Wow Brad, really? You have to personally validate things for yourself in the real world.]

Quote
You can all talk about the best ways of doing that, but Brad is ludicrous in demanding of proof on the Internet itself!

So you can make claim to having at least 15 OU device's,but i am ludicrous in asking for proof 
You have things seriously twisted around Rick.

[Rick replies: Well I told you how proof works. No, twisted is expecting someone else over the internet to prove something for them.]

Quote
And frankly he reminds me of my old mechanic days in the early 90s

Oh,so your a mechanic now as well.
Personally i wouldn't know anything about the subject 

[Rick replies: Yes, started full time when I was young.]

Quote
He is directly looking for trouble because he is admittedly prejudiced.

Ah,and there it is-->the very same tactic that John Bedini,Aaron,Linderman,and the like's use.
When one ask's the OU claimant to provide proof of there claim,you then become prejudice or a troll.

[Rick replies: No, I was not talking about OU claims. I have always told people to be skeptical about any such claims. Notice you jump to that and forget the context of what you did. You were prejudiced against me. You said sorry, but then you jump right back into that. Anyone can read how strict I am about people making false judgments for or against claims. Credulity is just as bad as incredulity. Both are just the same and are done at the same time. So once again, you assumed wrong. Proves the point. You are a very irrational man Brad. Very reactionary.]

Quote
He has an agenda here, and even his stated agenda he has not proven or explained to make any sense at all.

I will let others here that know me tell you what my !agenda! here is.

Quote
He may have some serious issues because he cannot tell the difference between the internet and the real world. I used to take care of people like that who were on medications to help them with that.

Oh,so the internet is not real.
Lets take the internet away,and see how many people watch your video's--how many people will buy your charger's--how many forum's you can get on to promote your !!!OU!!! device's.
This go's to show how hypocritical you are. You say that the internet is not the real world,but you use it every day to promote and sell your product's.
I do not think it is me that needs medicating 

[Rick replies: No, living in cyberland is not real Brad. You need some help. You divert from what I said and the whole point. The internet is used to share information so that people can do things in the real world. Videos are not the real world. Pictures are not the real world. Information is shared but not proven over the Internet. That is matters of empirical science like this.]

Quote
In the end I am no different than any of you,

If you think we are the same as you,then you have serious mental problem's.
Go read through all the thread's on this forum,and see how many you find that promote OU devices without any proof such a device exists. Find anyone else on here that is selling !claimed! OU kit's like you are.
!We! are nothing like you-->get that through your head.

[Rick replies: Well I can see some people that agree with the points I have made. So what you are saying is that because I claimed OU before I even knew about this forum, and someone else brought me up here, that you have the right to treat me different and attack me? I'm not equal to you? I'm the enemy? Is that the kind of agenda and research you do?]

Quote
just sharing information over the Internet.

You have shared nothing of substance.

[Rick replies: Prove that claim Brad. Prove it over the internet. Oh, you are exempt from your claims. In the end you are just a gatekeeper seeking to disprove OU. You can prove otherwise Brad. Yeah, I didn't think so. This is what you do. You make accusations without substance. But you have zero credulity because you are purely reactionary and promote unscientific validations.]

Quote
Every point applies to all of us the same.

Yes it dose,and that includes you.
For some reason you think you can make claim's of having OU device's,and are exempt from providing the required proof to back up said claim's,while the rest of us here are required to provide the required proof before we may present or claim any device as being OU.

[Rick replies: I never claimed to be able to prove anything like OU over the internet. Read the title of my recent video will you. I didn't come here trying to prove OU. You keep assuming that. But I always want to help people prove to themselves. You are very confused. You have watched too much Twilight zone shows maybe.]

Quote
We can't prove OU of the Internet,

More garbage.
In fact,proving an OU device has never been easier now we have the internet.
It work's just as i described above-->present your schematic for your device,so as it can be replicated-->or donate one of your kit's to those here that are top EE guy's,so as they can test and confirm your claim's with great accuracy.

[Rick replies: Well prove that to us Brad. Why is that garbage? Those are two different things. An EE can only show himself, and only he will know his motivations. That is not transferable to someone else. You are not claiming divine inspiration are you? Are you really wanting to make a prophet? What is the difference between this and the corrupt institutions today? Set up another hierarchy and dispense with individual proofs? Now that is worse than garbage. And I think this is probably just your overreacting. I doubt that everyone here would agree with you. Well at least two don't.]

Quote
and if I have to prove something then so do all of you.

All of us have not claimed to have an OU device,little lone 15+ of them.

[Rick replies: Well all of you believe in OU devices. Solar, Wind, Hydro, etc. Once solar was not believed either.]

Anyone here that thought they had an OU device presented there device here,so as others could replicate that device,test that device,and discuss there finding's with each other.

[Rick replies: So where did that get them?]

In every case,accurate result's were had from this form of testing,and it has worked 100% of the time so far.

[Rick replies: 100% did not get through. So how could you communicate to me proof that they failed?]

Your device's would be no different. The only difference is that you will not present a device for us to replicate and test. This is because you are afraid that the truth will come out,and sales will drop to almost 0.

[Rick replies: If that was true then people would not want seconds and thirds. I don't advertise, customers do freely. Now you have shown yourself to be completely illogical, reactionary and delusional. Most of you have been hostile from the very beginning, especially you, and desperate to find fault. Therefore most of you on this thread are not showing sincerity about OU research. You are more interested in attacking then OU research. If OU research was so important and you think I had nothing then you would just stay on other threads and not spend so much time attacking. You are afraid. Or you just want to get more OU information.]

So Rick,due to your blatant lie about being different to those like Bedini,Aaron,Linderman,i hear by retract my apology,as you are exactly like them in every way.

[Rick replies: You already retracted yesterday, or earlier than that. See how unstable you are? Back and forth. Just reactionary. Surely other people have told you that about yourself. Your apology was merely based upon me exposing two of your enemies. That is reactionary. That is unsound. But you really don't believe what your saying anyway. This is all just a front. You believed me then and you believe me now. Not in my OU claims necessarily, but about who I am. But you are doing all this for another reason. Could be reactionary.]

I have no room or time in my life for snake oil-scamming salesmen like you.

[Rick replies: Obviously you have made a lot of room here after you said you were leaving a week ago. So that tells everyone you are taking me seriously and tells me you are just another gatekeeper like the other forums. Just another hobbyist personality used to give the impression that there is no OU, nothing that can be experienced by the average joe like yourself.]

You prey on the gullible just like the Bedini camp did/dose.

[Rick replies: Yeah, I provide what people have asked for and then they want more. Did you ever realize that your whole demand for me is actually preying upon people to become credulous (gullible)? You have given the best illustration of being gullible: Trust someone else you don't know and have never met or seen over the internet to prove something to you. What you are actually doing is wanting another Bedini here. A new living legend to trust in everything. I'm glad you said that as it just made that clear to me.]

You make claim's of OU,but you have not once provided any evidence to back up those claim's.

[Rick replies: That is a lie. Evidence is at many meetings. Proof is with the individuals.]

Just like Bedini,Aaron,and Linderman-->you have to buy the book,video,or kit to see the OU.

[Rick replies: Another lie. I have told people for years. Three years I was doing this without selling anything. Then people demanded product.]

You live in the stone age and a world of your own,and show some LED's lit as some form of confirmation of OU.

[Rick replies: How about a 26' boat in the real world?]

I mean,you cant be serious  . There are those here that can light 10 time's more LEDs using a AA battery on a blocking oscillator circuit-->is that OU to you?.

[Rick replies: So you can beat that can you? Power 8W of light for 3/4W input? All on a video that I named you can't prove anything over the Internet. Shows how much you are paying attention. You didn't even listen to a word I said.]

In fact Rick,i am surprised that Peter and Poynt have let you get away with it for this long,as anyone else of us here making the same claims would have been asked to put up or shut up by now-and that would be without the promotion of OU kit's for sale.

[Rick replies: I have had zero problems with Poynt even though you want to make him Bedini all over again. You know, maybe because I am not pushing any OU claims. I never came here doing that, but you are trying to force that. You are against OU claims in some kind of bitterness. Purely reactionary. Maybe you are just reacting against A.King. I told him not to promote my kit on these forums. I came here and answered questions. I shared my story. You just are taking this way too seriously. Overreacting. It's like I said something evil. Like saying MAGA in a DNC forum or Clinton in the other camp. Again, it suggest OU suppression.]

I could just imagine what would happen to me if i claimed to have a self running pulse motor,and then started promoting a kit for sale of said pulse motor without providing any such proof of actually having one-here on this forum.

[Rick replies: By your own views you would be a thief automatically. Anyone selling OU has to be fake snake oil right?]

You are doing exactly that,and correct me if i'm wrong here--
1-you claim to have free energy(OU) device's

[Rick replies: Yes.]

3-you refuse to provide us here on this forum a schematic

[Rick replies: False I have provided many to the public over the years.]

or kit,so as we may verify your claim.

[Rick replies: I am not pushing a claim on you. That is the difference. You just don't get it. I am not here to convince anyone. I just answered questions people asked. You are the hostile one.]

4-you claim the internet is not the real world,but you use said internet to promote and sell your product's to the real world.

[Rick replies: No, online forums on the Internet is not the real world. It is really escapism. You are perfectly exemplifying that delusion. It is like watching science fiction without the science. lol That's a keeper! Sharing information over the internet is not proving anything over the internet that is a matter of physical personal demonstration. Information over the internet is hacked spoofed all the time. People think they are talking to someone else. People are deceived all the time. But you don't think so. Everything is real. People are who they say they are. Honestly, yep. Credulous man.]

5-you claim you are not like Bedini,Aaron,Linderman-etc.

[Rick replies: Not like them.]

6-you state that anyone asking for you to prove your claim of OU is prejudice,a troll,or needs to be on medication.

[Rick replies: Never said that. That was your prejudice again. But I doubt you will apologize for that assumption. I emphatically said not to believe OU over the internet. Again, I specifically made a video with that title and thesis. Can you read Brad? This is a major blunder for you here. This shows you are fundamentally wrong about what you even think I am saying. You are so reactional that you can't even see the most obvious thing. Now to ask me to prove something impossible is ludicrous. I can't prove anything over the Internet. Believe me I would try if I could do that. But it is far more important for me to promote real science and honesty than try and get people to be gullible. I am far more aggressive against false OU claims than you are. I have exposed many people and helped many people who have been wronged. I have helped many people out of cults in the same way.]

7-you state that you are nothing like Bedini,Aaron,Linderman,even though you act in the very same way,and promote product's under the same false pretenses as they did.

[Rick replies: How so? And you are so reactional that you can't tell the difference between what works and what doesn't. You would throw out Tesla because they mentioned him. I've seen your overreactions. You are immature, so I don't consider you a representative of this forum. There are several people here who have been professional. But you are like a 13 year old kid going through puberty.]

Some how--some way Rick,i am going to get one of your kit's,and i am going to deliver my finding's over the !un-real! internet,which would be the forum's and my youtube channel.

[Rick replies: Well then I'll keep these quotes to show everyone your intentions and twisted illogic. Guess what they will think? You are seriously deluded. You can't even realize that the Internet is not a physical place were we are personally dwelling in. Too much virtual reality Brad! You are confusing being on the telliphone with sitting on the couch. The other person is not beside you. You can tell them what you see but you can't prove it to them.]

You have 8,299 subscribers and 1,874,689 views
I have 16,914 subscriber's,and 4,977,900 view's.

[Rick replies: That's fine, I'm not boasting about anything. I am a servant and you care about numbers. You just keep digging deeper and deeper into this don't you?]

This mean's Rick,that my 1 video review of your OU kit will reach more people than all your video's put together have. But no need to worry,as the internet is un-real  ,and so this should have no reflection on you what so ever.

[Rick replies: Now you are just like Aaron here. His lies on the front page actually result in sending good people over to me. I really don't care for the people who want to believe your methodology and delusion. I really can't help anyone who is so lost in virtual reality that they can't tell what is real anymore. You are just another case in point Brad. Your words will be remembered. They are classic. You'll be famous. Just do another fake fan video and get your 4 million views on one page. That's what you want, to be recognized, famous. Right? The guy who suppress free energy by overreacting to Bedini camp.]

In saying all that Rick,i offer you the chance to do it right,and under your guidance.

[Rick replies: Hahahahahaha! Riiiiiiiiggggghhhhhttttt! Sure. You are really proving that you can be trusted. The guy who wants to be famous by spreading lies. Well that is you know...]

Rather than it be me that put's one of your OU kit's to the test,i would prefer that you donate one of your kit's to Darren(poynt),as he will carry out any test you ask of him with absolute precision--there will be no error if Darren dose the testing,and that you can take to the bank 

[Rick replies: So Darren is to be the next Bedini god? He has so much experience in OU systems that he should be trusted with this? Oh I see, there is no need to prove that he is capable. Just take your word for it. Yeah I see. Wasn't he the guy who said there was WMD in Iraq? Are you old enough to remember that fiasco? Same kind of argument. Just trust the expert. No error. Wow, that is a big claim Brad. Sounds like you don't have any experience with doing R&D testing. Errors happen to everyone. To make such a claim is a sure sign of snake oil to me. Again, your motivations are clear here. And I understand what you are doing with this long post as well. I know what it means.]

He will carry out the test's under your instruction,either as stated in your book that comes with the kit,or via personal communication between the two of you.

[Rick replies: I told you the conditions of proof for anyone.]

If your claim is true,then this can only help you Rick,and the sales of your kit's will skyrocket. If the result's come back to meet your claim,and you do indeed have an OU device,i can guarantee nearly everyone here on this forum alone would purchase one. This kind of confirmation would turn your thousands of dollars into millions of dollars,and that is a fact. You would also receive world recognition for your work,and the betterment of man kind.

But knowing you for who you are,you will have some reason for denying this offer,and i think the bulk of us here know what that reason is.
Brad

[Rick reply: On the contrary, I am not here to sell kits obviously. I have told you all how to do it yourself. I don't need Internet sales at all as I have commercial sales enough. The kits are only to provide what people have asked for. I don't beg or advertise. The resonance kit doesn't make me any money. I do it to spread the information. It is not worth my time, but it is a ministry. You don't get it. I am more interested in showing all of you how to make many different kinds of OU systems by showing the principles of free energy. That's what you don't get.]

Now you are not even responding the quotes. I guess you are just hoping people will just think you responded.
Well you use reverse psychology yourself. That's the problem Brad.
Well there you go, you can't even follow the second point. Make no assumptions. That's all you do Brad. Oh wait and the third also, you jump to conclusions. Yep. Wow and the fourth as well. It just keeps getting worse for you as we go down the list here. Wow even the next one. Due diligence! You don't even pretend to do that. Scientific manner? Well science is not proving things over the internet, so there is another one. But I'll at least give you the first point, you do give the utmost performance of all the people. Well Void really did a hard fall yesterday on OU. You can't top that one. Now the next one you really fail. Placing integrity before ego. Really failed that one hard when you compared numbers of views. And the last one, well you didn't do your homework. So you completely contradict these guidelines. And that's why I say there are no rules here.

As for me, you have made it clear that I am not a member here. I am just beginning to even understand what is expected here. Obviously your guideline is as enforced and expected as old Southern laws about couples having to have separate beds. You would be the first person to go.

Again, you are hostile and legalistic and hypocritical. You quote these guidelines and contradict them. Then you wish to judge me for them. Not even any grace for a newcomer who is just asking what you expect here. Even other members said this is a hostile place. You don't go after them. No, because you don't care about hostility or your hypocrisy. You just want to enforce one thing on that creed while forsaking the rest. Because that is what you are here for isn't it? To suppress free energy and attack anyone who shows anything important about it. It's obvious. That is why you are spending soo much time Brad. It is your job. But it is not working out so well is it?

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.22, 01:43:31
author=RFQUERY link=topic=3796.msg76552#msg76552 date=1563757045]


The other great thing about this forum Rick,is we do not fall for reverse psychology garbage.

Wrong,there has been many example's.
They were all supplied to this forum for replication and verification--something you refuse to do.

Please read the Power and Creed document of this forum

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=8.0

Quote: I pledge in conducting my FE research:
- To give the utmost of performance;
- To make no assumptions, no matter how "obvious" things may appear to me;
- To never jump to conclusions when apparent anomalies are observed;
- To investigate and strive to eliminate ALL possible sources of error BEFORE
making conclusions about any observed anomalies;
- To exercise due diligence in regards to fully understanding what I am doing,
and how I am doing it;
- To conduct my experiments, tests, and measurements in a scientific manner
and with the correct and most appropriate equipment;
- To strive for and take steps towards making COP measurements that are
flawless and accurate, while understanding and accounting for the
limitations and idiosyncrasies of my test equipment;
- To place integrity before ego;
- To post claims of overunity only when backed up with solid proof and
evidence in the form of fully documented, and accurate measurements and
test setup diagrams;
- To do my best in explaining and illustrating my disclosures, and be wellprepared
to answer any questions on things I may have overlooked;
- To seek advice, guidance, and review from my un-biased peers and those
with more technical know-how BEFORE I post any extraordinary claims of
overunity;
- To do my homework (all of the above).


Yes,as you claimed not to be like Bedini,Aaron,and the likes.

No,this thread is now about verifying your claim's.


Lies.
I myself have told you how things work here,and if you had of taken the time to read the power and creed document,then you would be very clear on how thing's work here.
I have now posted that document above,and what it clearly states. So now you have no excuses,and you have been told.

What you mean by aggressive is those that ask for proof of your claims.

Once again,you seem to think being hostile is asking for proof.
You continue to refuse to follow the power and creed guidline's,which we are bound to follow,and then you wonder why people start getting stirn with you. This is the Bedini,Aaron,Linderman way.

Perhaps you could explain to everyone here as to how we carry out this OU research when the claimant refuses to provide us with any means of validating there OU claim's.
Do you see how stupid you are starting to look ?,and how idiotic your statements are.

And the troubles in other forums start exactly like this,where some one claim's OU,but never delivers any proof to back up such claims. This trouble is normally void from this forum,due to the guidelines set out in the power and creed document--something which you refuse to follow,and the result is what you see in this thread when you think you are exempt from following those guidelines.

So,you see Rick,the problem here is you not following the guideline's,it is not everyone else.
You seem to think you can do as you please,and then wonder why the rest of us(that must and do follow the guidelines) get a little upset. You are not exempt from these guideline's Rick,and you agreed to stick to them when you joined this forum--but i have a feeling that you never even read them upon joining.

But now you have no excuse,as i have posted them right here for you to read.

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.22, 00:05:49
This is a message to all here who share in the frustration this thread has brought.

Ignore RF. 

Don't engage him or you will reap the consequences.  As a magician is sleight-of-hand, Rick is sleight-of-word.  You will expose yourself to psychological games, misdirection, insults, and everything except what you expect to receive.  He will never provide proof of measurement so it is futile to ask. 

Rick is not going to divulge anything on this thread other than to direct you to his videos or website in hopes of receiving more orders for his wares.  If you buy into his spiel, then by all means go for it and support him.

I personally will wait patiently for whatever member of this forum has his kit and based on the results of their testing, will go from there.

Regards,
Pm

Thanks PM

[.

LOL! The bolt collection comment coming from TinMan. That was actually funny.
Now I heard that one before, that you were done. Another flip flop.

Brad, Brad, Brad. You forget that before the private forum I was being attacked before that. My point was not about OU claims being made but about how this all worked. It is rather strange. It took until the last post for you to tell me the details I should have been told. I really didn't know what you expected.
No the private thing was great and all that, it could have worked, but people were here on this thread and it forced me to respond. We all made this thread into 10 pages. We all carried the conversation. One guy is saying stop talking, others keep responding.

I guess you know everything Brad. Well everyone knows now that you don't even know what reality is. Too much time online.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.22, 05:00:28
More lies.
I clearly stated in the privat thread we started for you,in the very first post,that no OU claims were to be made without verification.

You were invited here with the highest privilege,that being having your own private thread,and then you say you were treated badly from the start--garbage.

Poynt is one of the most respected people on this forum,and is more than qualified to test anything you will ever have,and with far greater accuracy than you could ever achieve,but what do you have to say about him-->

So Darren is to be the next Bedini god? He has so much experience in OU systems that he should be trusted with this? Oh I see, there is no need to prove that he is capable. Just take your word for it. Yeah I see. Wasn't he the guy who said there was WMD in Iraq? Are you old enough to remember that fiasco? Same kind of argument. Just trust the expert. No error. Wow, that is a big claim Brad.

Some would say you have a few loose screw's
I say your whole dam nut and bolt collection has come undone.

Like i said,your the very same you were when teamed up with Bedini.
The scamming blood run's deep withing your veins.

Im done with you.

Rick

I have deleted all my comment's. The reason for this is--well for some reason i feel sorry for you,as odd as that may sound. I was looking on the net for further information about you,and came across this video-->

https://vimeo.com/205021580

I know you have claimed that you never signed an NDA with EnergenX,and it would appear that the video show's you did. But regardless of our latest tussle,i would not put it past the Bedini/Aaron camp to forge signatures,or present the last page of some other signed document that had nothing to do with an NDA as some form of proof that you did sign an NDA with EnergenX.

Today i also watched video's of John Bedini giving you full permission to replicate and sell as kit's his 10 coiler.
So this also proves you were truthful in that area as well.

But the thing that hit me was after watching the video above,i had to sit back for a while,and ask myself if i(we here) were not doing the very same thing as the Bedini camp was,in that we are a group of people calling you a fraud,while you stand alone.

Speaking for myself,it would seem that i am no better than the like's of Bedini in this area.
I also feel that !once again!,i need to put thing's right,and apologise.
Of course i do not expect you to accept my apology,and that is understandable--but i give it anyway.

Perhaps you are right--perhaps i no longer have the mind to accept what i cant see,or what i cant achieve.
Perhaps it is time for me to !hang up the boot's! as they say.

Anyway,i am still thankful that you roasted the Bedini camp.


Brad

I would also add that i too sometimes wonder if we just passed on by a true self running device,without giving it a second thought,or being swayed by those well versed in the art of EE to disregard our own thought's.

For an example--
My little window motor i built many years ago.
If you watch the video,and take notice of the value of caps i use,and the amount or air being shifted by that big paddle wheel,i often wonder as to how close this would have been to a self runner in a vacuum box,where the work the rotor was doing was eliminated. This would have resulted in the rotor spinning faster for the same input power,but more power would have been delivered back to the system by the generator coil,and also by the run and trigger coil's,as they to were acting as generator coil's. If i still had that machine today,and now have better equipment for power measurement's,and a better understanding in electronics and power measurement's,i would be building a vacuum chamber right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67R5ksfFF14

And then there are the solid state versions,where i wish i had of spent more time on these experiment's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7MbkgMehNQ

And also TKs replication.
I have stated on a few occasions now that i have had my DMMs read a negative in current value,and poynt has asked me to provide such a situation. While i have not been able to find as to which video's show this,TKs dose in his replication of my circuit. Unfortunately TK never got around to doing the scoposcopy video on this setup--not sure why. And i dropped my bifilar coil,and it broke in 3 pieces,otherwise i would now be doing those very scope tests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvf9Uo7UVx0&list=FLsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w&index=3&t=8s

So perhaps you are right Rick--maybe we have walked right past what we are looking for without giving it a second thought.


Brad

The fact is that no-one has disproved Rick's claims. When someone shows a video with 75 receiver coils looking just like Rick's video and says it's not ou then we have a challenge to his claim and no more.
At the moment the hard facts are that there are NO challenges that are credible to his claim.
  Get over it.
So from a pure science perspective the score is

RICK 1, NAYSAYERS  0

EE theory goes nowhere (so far)  in a claim situation like this. (Unless you embrace Rick's theory)


And in case you missed it -  Rick did not patent his claim.  He gave it to the world for FREE.

All right.
So at this point I'm just going to continue with the new website that will attempt to present the principles of free energy in the context of people proving or disproving such to themselves. The heated exchange on these forums has been useful to bring out the points that need to be focused on. But it does not give the ability to systematically develop and address very much. Principles need to be the focus, not individuals.
I may linger around here to see if you guys progress anywhere in your attempts here, but I think I'll let the new website take it from here.
I appreciate the invitation to come here, and I'll take everything shared into consideration.
I really wish you all the very best.
Rick

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.22, 08:55:01
Rick

I have deleted all my comment's. The reason for this is--well for some reason i feel sorry for you,as odd as that may sound. I was looking on the net for further information about you,and came across this video-->

https://vimeo.com/205021580

I know you have claimed that you never signed an NDA with EnergenX,and it would appear that the video show's you did. But regardless of our latest tussle,i would not put it past the Bedini/Aaron camp to forge signatures,or present the last page of some other signed document that had nothing to do with an NDA as some form of proof that you did sign an NDA with EnergenX.

Today i also watched video's of John Bedini giving you full permission to replicate and sell as kit's his 10 coiler.
So this also proves you were truthful in that area as well.

But the thing that hit me was after watching the video above,i had to sit back for a while,and ask myself if i(we here) were not doing the very same thing as the Bedini camp was,in that we are a group of people calling you a fraud,while you stand alone.

Speaking for myself,it would seem that i am no better than the like's of Bedini in this area.
I also feel that !once again!,i need to put thing's right,and apologise.
Of course i do not expect you to accept my apology,and that is understandable--but i give it anyway.

Perhaps you are right--perhaps i no longer have the mind to accept what i cant see,or what i cant achieve.
Perhaps it is time for me to !hang up the boot's! as they say.

Anyway,i am still thankful that you roasted the Bedini camp.


Brad

Well that was an interesting debate to say the least.

I would point out the obvious... no good ever comes from attacking another person and if were going to debate OU then let's debate it. The only thing that matters in my opinion is what the working concept is and how the working concept is applied. With this most can start to build and experiment and when they share their results we all move forward. Like my quote below... weak minds debate people strong minds debate concepts. So let's debate the concepts.

Regards
AC

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.22, 09:45:07
I would also add that i too sometimes wonder if we just passed on by a true self running device,without giving it a second thought,or being swayed by those well versed in the art of EE to disregard our own thought's.

For an example--
My little window motor i built many years ago.
If you watch the video,and take notice of the value of caps i use,and the amount or air being shifted by that big paddle wheel,i often wonder as to how close this would have been to a self runner in a vacuum box,where the work the rotor was doing was eliminated. This would have resulted in the rotor spinning faster for the same input power,but more power would have been delivered back to the system by the generator coil,and also by the run and trigger coil's,as they to were acting as generator coil's. If i still had that machine today,and now have better equipment for power measurement's,and a better understanding in electronics and power measurement's,i would be building a vacuum chamber right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67R5ksfFF14

And then there are the solid state versions,where i wish i had of spent more time on these experiment's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7MbkgMehNQ

And also TKs replication.
I have stated on a few occasions now that i have had my DMMs read a negative in current value,and poynt has asked me to provide such a situation. While i have not been able to find as to which video's show this,TKs dose in his replication of my circuit. Unfortunately TK never got around to doing the scoposcopy video on this setup--not sure why. And i dropped my bifilar coil,and it broke in 3 pieces,otherwise i would now be doing those very scope tests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvf9Uo7UVx0&list=FLsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w&index=3&t=8s

So perhaps you are right Rick--maybe we have walked right past what we are looking for without giving it a second thought.


Brad

Having a quick look at your circuit as replicated by TK - you appear to have 2 diode plugs in your circuit .EDIT: ie 2 half diode plugs making one complete diode plug
Here are some more details about the diode plug.
https://www.freeenergyplanet.biz/free-energy-devices/info-gcc.html

The window motor may be capable of charging several batteries without diminution because of the Heavyside component phenomena and Tesla's impedance phenomena.

Well, I see I've been moderated on OU for "attacking RF" with no explanation other than non-technical!  No cited posts, nothing!

Chet, you can tell your buddy Stefan what I think he can do with his forum.  >:(

Pm

sigh

well not really about friendship as much as a supposed common goal ...

I need a vacation...

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.22, 19:28:07
Well, I see I've been moderated on OU for "attacking RF" with no explanation other than non-technical!  No cited posts, nothing!

Chet, you can tell your buddy Stefan what I think he can do with his forum.  >:(

Pm

Hi Pm,

I second that. I got the same "honour" from Stefan about the same time as you.  This was my latest post here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537367/#msg537367 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537367/#msg537367)

It seems that discussing technical questions goes together with being put under moderation on that forum.

Gyula

Quote from: gyula on 2019.07.22, 20:06:10
Hi Pm,

I second that. I got the same "honour" from Stefan about the same time as you.  This was my latest post here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537367/#msg537367 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537367/#msg537367)

It seems that discussing technical questions goes together with being put under moderation on that forum.

Gyula

Hi Gyula,

Aaah, really?  Sorry to hear that!  Well that shows me that Stefan is as the saying goes, "in bed with RF", and it's all about the money and readership.  I'm sure he will take me off the forum because I told him I didn't need his BS and I really don't care if I can post there. 

I will commend you on your honest and sincere attempts to technically rebuke RF with your analysis of his tabletop fiasco.  RF wanted no part in listening to you and his responses were a joke.

Regards,
Pm 

QuoteQuote from: hartiberlin on July 22, 2019, 09:02:29 PM

    I have put now a few more members on moderation as they have been attacking Rick.
    This way I can better see, who posts what and if these are slander or defamation postings with notechnical analysis, I will not let it get through and will be deleted...

    Regards, Stefan. ( Admin)

So I just posted this on OU.com:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is a letter of protest, and although one man's opinion, I know that it is shared by many.

Stefan, do you realize what you are doing? You have gagged two of the  very brightest guys you have had on this thread, partzman and gyula. I know these guys are very experienced in electronics, one I know personally and I know his long experience (over 50 years) as well as his exemplary work history and inventions. Apparently you did not take my pm seriously, instead you pander to the likes of RF who actually has provided no technical offering worthy of study, hence the protests by the above mentioned.

I am posting my pm sent to you priorly on 7/19/2019 here in the interest of free speech and so that others can see my opinion on your actions, which you  which you have now, it appears, persisted in.

QuoteDear Stefan

While we appreciate the opportunity to post our creative efforts on OU.com, we can't help but notice that forum management specifically  moderation at the uppermost level has become overly biased and is no longer operating within the rules of  "fair play". This is a disappointment to many of us. We understand the necessity of creating an income driven engine, but when it is done at the expense of quality and fairness, you do your own integrity and the forum in general a disservice.
We hope that you will return to your your original goodwill and sensibility of years ago, lest your forum continue to degrade in both quality content and quality membership.

The smartest people are coming to understand the truth and are jumping ship by no longer posting on OU.com, while searching for other venues with rules that demand proofs when outrageous claims are made. Maybe you have relied on the fact that in the FE game there are always newbies to be had to fill the ranks of the frustrated experienced members that leave, but at the expense of that which only experience can  give.

New FE forums spring up every year, and old poorly run dinosaurs that have not upgraded the quality of their advertising or content must go extinct. People are getting smarter and see through a lot these days.

In the final analysis it is your sandbox and you can run it with whatever quality level or lack thereof as you wish, however this 13 year member must refrain from posting until such times as the ships direction is righted.

Regards and good luck

Now you call anyone who disagrees with what is outrageously being claimed without proof a Naysayer with a capital N

Considering your new version of free speech, I wonder how quickly you will delete this.

Regards

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.22, 18:08:34
Having a quick look at your circuit as replicated by TK - you appear to have 2 diode plugs in your circuit .EDIT: ie 2 half diode plugs making one complete diode plug
Here are some more details about the diode plug.
https://www.freeenergyplanet.biz/free-energy-devices/info-gcc.html

The window motor may be capable of charging several batteries without diminution because of the Heavyside component phenomena and Tesla's impedance phenomena.

Only it's not a diode plug when there is an inductor across said diodes.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.22, 23:20:15
Only it's not a diode plug when there is an inductor across said diodes.

Diode plug, specifically "Avramenko Plug" is a made up buzzword used by "FE enthusiasts" for what is commonly known in the industry as a  voltage doubler circuit.

Same as "Joule Thief" is a common blocking oscillator.

And so on for "Slayer Oscillator" etc. these circuits have been defined more than half a century ago, but you can spot an FE enthusiast by their new jargon. These "new" circuits and "new" definitions are just new labels on old stuff.

Here's JLN hyping the "single wire transmssion" fraud

http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/afep01.htm

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.22, 23:20:15
Only it's not a diode plug when there is an inductor across said diodes.

I am no expert on 3 phase motors, but the diagrams I have seen about the diode plug is across the windings of the motor. I appreciate your inductor is different , but I was looking for  similarities, that's all.  I do not know your claims re your circuit but maybe I should just stop commenting as I was trying to help. Anyway I am going to try a diode plug on some circuits and see what happens.
EDIT:  I have had a further look at your circuit and think that a gate driver without power might further improve your output.

Could someone kindly post a link to Rick's one or two most discussed/controversial videos please?

Preferably something that is said to offer proof of OU?

Thanks.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.23, 01:00:14
I am no expert on 3 phase motors, but the diagrams I have seen about the diode plug is across the windings of the motor. I appreciate your inductor is different , but I was looking for  similarities, that's all.  I do not know your claims re your circuit but maybe I should just stop commenting as I was trying to help. Anyway I am going to try a diode plug on some circuits and see what happens.
EDIT:  I have had a further look at your circuit and think that a gate driver without power might further improve your output.

Hi Aking

No claims are being made until such time as some accurate tests and measurements have been made.

It is likely that nothing out of the ordinary is taking place.


Brad

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.23, 01:00:14
I am no expert on 3 phase motors, but the diagrams I have seen about the diode plug is across the windings of the motor. I appreciate your inductor is different , but I was looking for  similarities, that's all.  I do not know your claims re your circuit but maybe I should just stop commenting as I was trying to help. Anyway I am going to try a diode plug on some circuits and see what happens.
EDIT:  I have had a further look at your circuit and think that a gate driver without power might further improve your output.

Aking

If you want to join the thread i made for this circuit,please do.


Brad

Ion

QuoteDiode plug, specifically "Avramenko Plug" is a made up buzzword used by "FE enthusiasts" for what is commonly known in the industry as a  voltage doubler circuit.

No you are mistaken and the AV plug is not even close to a voltage doubler. The AV plug cannot charge the capacitor higher than the applied voltage where a doubler charges one cap on a half cycle then discharges it in series with the source to effectively double the voltage of another cap on the other half cycle. Look at the circuits...google it.

QuoteSame as "Joule Thief" is a common blocking oscillator. And so on for "Slayer Oscillator" etc. these circuits have been defined more than half a century ago, but you can spot an FE enthusiast by their new jargon. These "new" circuits and "new" definitions are just new labels on old stuff.

As a line of reason which I believe irrefutable is I would submit this...
1)We and our technology have always evolved throughout the history of mankind and there is no proof this will not continue in the future...period.
2)New technology which is born from an idea or concept is discovered by individuals not groups, corporations, governments nor countries. This is true because a new idea is singular or specific to the person that was first to think or conceptualize it. There is no "we" here there is "one" and there is no action without an impetus which causes an action then a reaction.

I like to think of it like this... there are around 7 billion other people out there that don't give a damn who we are or what we think and they are going to do whatever it is they are going to do. As well, our children are going to burn everything we have built to the ground and build something new because they always do. I like to mention this just because it really pisses off the old people who think nothing will ever change... wrong answer. Everything is going to change and there is nothing anyone can do about it which is kind of cool in my opinion.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2019.07.23, 04:08:15
IonNo you are mistaken and the AV plug is not even close to a voltage doubler. The AV plug cannot charge the capacitor higher than the applied voltage where a doubler charges one cap on a half cycle then discharges it in series with the source to effectively double the voltage of another cap on the other half cycle. Look at the circuits...google it.

Thats actually wrong as well.
Two caps are hooked in series
On 1 half cycle 1 cap is charged,and on the other half cycle the other cap is charged to the same voltage.
The two series caps now have double the voltage to that of the supply. One cap dose not discharge into the other.

I would also add that Ion is correct,and the AV plug is a voltage doubler.

Brad

note to Rick ,it seems Very recently you were not aware of the guidelines here .
I see TinMan wrote them out yesterday for clarity.

But they were posted here before

Re: Ricks best video's « Reply #109 on: 2019-07-13, 18:22:13 »

*****

   
Here we try to respect these rules when it comes to claims.
Administrators Peterae and Poynt's guidelines for claims at this open source venue .

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=8.0

To be used more as guidelines ,but the theme reads through strongly  .

Chet K

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear AC

There are a few variations on the full wave voltage doubler circuit that perhaps you are not presently  familiar with.

One variation is what has been newly named the "Avramenko plug", now shortened to "diode plug"

This uses a single main storage capacitor and relies on two air (stray) capacitors   and back to source not actually shown on most implementations. At high frequencies just a few pF in these stray capacitors are enough to allow the charge pump to work.

In the JLN version, C3 is the main storage cap and the additional air stray capacitors are the return path that alternately pump C3.

The "Antenna Free Electrons Collector" is BS FE jargon, the return current is provided by stray capacitance back to the power supply.

There is no free energy in the JLN circuit

Brad and I got it right.

Regards

Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.07.23, 02:08:01
Could someone kindly post a link to Rick's one or two most discussed/controversial videos please?

Preferably something that is said to offer proof of OU?

Thanks.

Here are two video's clearly claiming OU,free energy,and perpetual motion.
I hope you have a lot of time on your hand's Poynt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E372JNUQTPY&t=6948s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik&t=5612s


Brad

OK, thanks Brad.

I did already watch one video, and part of another (both in the 2 hour range as well), but unfortunately neither were your two links.

So I guess if I have the time (I'm doing PCB layout work right now), and/or I need a break, I'll give them a go.

In the mean time, I have a question for Aking:

What, to you, constitutes proof that a device or system is performing at OU?

Aking21 and RF have demonstrated by their uninformed rhetoric that they have not ever actually worked in a modern electronic manufacturing facility as I and others here have. Between partzman and myself, we have probably a combined 100 years experience in such things. I don't know much about Gyula, but would guess from his practical electronics knowledge and communication skills that he has also spent considerable time in the industry.

In the old days before the internet, everything was usually done under one roof., circuit design concept, prototyping, verification, revisions, beta testing, bill of materials and assembly instructions etc.

Now, with the internet, various tasks are farmed out and work files are communicated via the internet between various groups, either in house or across the ocean.

A build document for e.g. a big screen TV can be created and prototyped by engineers at various locations, by passing files over the internet, then the final build information is sent to China or elsewhere and a perfect implementation returns to be again verified and then released for final production.

To make the statement that you cannot prove anything over the internet is complete naivete, and in doing this, they expose not only their lack of experience in how things are done today, but make complete fools out of themselves regarding the idea of "verification via internet"

So  RF where is your build document?, and test and verification procedures for your OU product which is being so earnestly promoted by your friend AKing21? Videos full of blah blah blah are not build, test and verify information.

Vaporware maybe?

As an aside, take a lesson from Brad and Graham on your videos, as Brad and Graham produce short, coherent, to the point, exactly descriptive of what they are doing and what they expect from a device. Partzman and Vasik also do this in their documentation of devices they present.

Hi poynt99,

I was away all morning and just came back and see your request.  Probably Rick's most discussed/controversal videos at overunity.com recently includes this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpoOWs8SfVo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpoOWs8SfVo)    (you may have seen this)

At the 12:36 minute video time he mentioned his claims on output power from the LED bulbs while the input was around 0.75 W DC from the power supply.  I think it is enough to watch the first 20 minutes and then the last 20 minutes or so, in the latter part he shows close ups on the setup and mentions some more details. 
Under the youtube video he included the link to his post at Stefan forum, it was one of his replies in which he clearly wrote :

"So we have at least 8W of measured power with 0.75W or less input." 

This is in the 2nd paragraph, here is his post:

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535303/#msg535303 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535303/#msg535303)

Gyula

Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.07.23, 02:08:01
Could someone kindly post a link to Rick's one or two most discussed/controversial videos please?

Preferably something that is said to offer proof of OU?

Thanks.

Hi gyula,

Yes, that is the one I watched 20 minutes of. Thanks for the advice on watching the last 20 minutes, as it saved me a lot of time.


I would be interested in knowing how Rick came to the conclusion that each of the 15 or so LEDs were eating 1/2W of power each?

In my estimation based on the relative brightness of the LEDs to the background lighting, I'd say all of the LEDs are barely, barely "ON". I think Rick has grossly overestimated his output power by a factor of between 150 and 250 times. That would yield each LED using between 2mW and 5mW roughly (assuming there is no series LED resistor eating some power).

This could all be put to bed in a jiffy if Rick took one of the LEDs and connected it directly to a variable DC power supply (no current limiting resistor) and adjusted the voltage to produce the equivalent apparent light to the ones connected to his coils. Then measure the voltage and current to get the true output power. I think he will be greatly disappointed with the result.

Dear Poynt

Maybe you missed it but Itsu did a replication with several coils and accurately measured the power using resistive loads. No OU as expected. His experiments were expertly done.

Somewhere around here:

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/345/

Multi coil here:

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533991/#msg533991

Maybe itsu or someone can point to the correct starting point for the multiple coils experiments.

This was followed by endless long and tedious writings by RF and Aking and other supportive shills or maybe alternate versions of RF extolling his kits for perhaps 80 or so pages. It is all too exhausting to read or make sense of.

Thanks Ion.

I have not looked at Itsu's work on this; but as you say I'm sure it is solid as always.

I'm just offering a fresh view and recommendation based on my observations of the videos.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.07.23, 18:40:26

....
I would be interested in knowing how Rick came to the conclusion that each of the 15 or so LEDs were eating 1/2W of power each?

....

English is my 2nd language and I mention this because I am unsure (clueless) what turns out for you all from his answer to a similar question he gave to a member at the ou forum recently.

I quote Rick's relevant reply, first paragraph here:
   https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537232/#msg537232 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537232/#msg537232)

There were two different demonstrations. The meeting had 15 3W bulbs with over 70 small coils. There were 10 big coils with bulbs, one ferrite coil with bulb, and 4 smaller coils with big bulbs (one under the table). I showed all of these at 0.75W input. In the video one of them had the wires touching but then I fixed that so it came back on.
The point is about the actual light produced with a light meter and/or what the power measurement on the bulb is. These are things to be done in the real world.
And yet you think you have somehow, from a picture and video, "reliably estimate output power on bulbs".

But there is more to this, Rick wrote:
"Why not focus on when I said I can make this all go negative. Or now you can read what Thaelin wrote about what I showed in Lodi CA last summer. In such cases if the input is zero then COP is infinite whatever load is run. You see that is chapter 3 in my book, which is still on the basic level side of the book (section 1)! If I have 1mw output or 50W output, what does it even matter if I have zero input. If you want to understand that study Barrett as I said. "

This quote is from here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535396/#msg535396 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535396/#msg535396)   

and member Thaelin's post is included here:

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535374/#msg535374 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535374/#msg535374) 

Then member citfta (Carroll) asked Thaelin on the "scope danger": https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535376/#msg535376 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535376/#msg535376)  but Thalin did not give clear answer.

Earlier than this, I asked Rick whether the 18 attendees present were shown any output measurements other than their own naked eye. This was here: 
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535318/#msg535318 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535318/#msg535318) 

Rick "answered" here: https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535356/#msg535356 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535356/#msg535356)

This was the start of his launching psywar against me (and others).   Did he give a straight answer to my question on the measurements in front of the 18 people? 

Gyula

PS sorry for the long post...

Thanks gyula.

I understand Thaelin's response regarding the high voltage feeding the scope. They just didn't want to risk exceeding the scope's input voltage, even with the HV probe (1000x).

Aside from the input power taken from multiplying the DC power supply's meter readings (not good at all for an accurate measurement, especially with these fly power circuits), it appears from what I'm reading that Rick is pulling the 1/2W figure "out of the air" as a best guestimate, and the 3W figure from the rating of the "bulb" itself. Of course this is grossly unscientific and probably wouldn't hold up against your average grade 7 student.

I stand by what I said earlier, that the LED's used in Rick's demos are barely turning ON, and they are most definitely not using 1/2W of power each. In fact, for a single typical LED (btw, has the LED type been disclosed?), it is impossible for them to dissipate 0.5W each. Let's look at a basic calculation that we have all made when choosing a current limiting resistor for our LED:

- Let's use a LED with a Vf of 1.8V
- Let's drive the typical LED to it's full current capability of 20ma.
- The power being dissipated by the LED itself will be 1.8 x 0.020 = 36mW.

So at full blinding power, the typical LED is only dissipating 36mW! So is 0.5W a realistic figure? 500mW would blow these typical LED's.

For what Rick says as 3 W rated LED bulbs (the big ones), their type is MR16, member a.king21 wrote this here

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533892/topicseen/#msg533892 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533892/topicseen/#msg533892)

They are 12 V, made for DC and AC operation, so a diode bridge is very likely included inside.

Thanks gyula.


Hi Rick, still reading here?

There are a gazillion MR16 12V LED bulbs out there, which one are you using?

Also, what type of single LEDs are you using?

All right The New Bedini, you must be kidding asking me such a question when just wrote: "I think Rick has grossly overestimated his output power by a factor of between 150 and 250 times." This shows everyone just how ignorant you are. You have already concluded just as I suspected. You are not even capable of doing science as you are just prejudiced. Just another gatekeeper. Really, if I was off by 150 times then not one of you would be so desperate to so aggressively attack me. You are very worried. You are very concerned. If it is so obvious then just have a good laugh and go back to actually trying to find free energy. No, what happened is I waited for Void to make this mistake first. And he really fell on his face. And now you have just done the same thing. Now the whole forum can see just what kind of person you are, and why they should never trust you to evaluate anything. You decide beforehand what is happening. You again prove that you think you can prove something like this over the internet. But you don't have the facts to be able to determine these things. You make a sweeping statement and then ask me something as if you didn't say that. Again, you have already concluded. If you, the new Bedini god have concluded such, then make your Forum-wide announcement to all your gullible sheeple here, and tell them your expert analysis. Go on. You guys are so worried ever since I Voided Void so bad on the other list, that you are trying to save face. But that just results in making big obvious mistakes. So now you have blown it. You don't understand. I made that video predicting that you guys would do this very thing. Look how desperate you all scrambling around. Mocking me as off by 150 times but acting like this is so important. Then you overstate things in this zeal to suppress. Then people have to ask, why so serious? Why so intense? Why would it matter if it was supposedly so obviously mistaken? So they know that I have struck a very deep nerve. For some of you it is just that you can't figure out some things I have purposely left for you to be puzzled but. But for others, you are gatekeepers here to prevent others from believing in free energy. Time will tell who is who. I have seen all your type for years. Nothing new. Anyway, you would have been better off if you just ignored me. But now you have accomplished the very opposite of what you intended. You have demonstrated the chief thing I have been exposing: prejudice. On top of that you mock me for something you can't even be sure about. You also believe you have proof from a video about something when the title went right against that.
So now I know this forum is completely useless in its primary goal, when you are the top gatekeeper. I'm glad this came out. I really didn't expect it to be this bad. But when someone is put in the place as a god like you are, then I guess it should be expected.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.07.24, 01:42:55
Thanks gyula.


Hi Rick, still reading here?

There are a gazillion MR16 12V LED bulbs out there, which one are you using?

Also, what type of single LEDs are you using?

Hey Rick,

Take a chill pill dude.

The other day you were chastising Brad for being excessively "reactionary", well, get control of yourself man.


All I'm going to say is, you are welcome to prove me wrong. I provided you a credible method to prove if you're close or not with your 0.5W estimate.

I don't really care if you do or don't, but I'll let you disabuse yourself of all the self-flattery; I'm not at all concerned or worried about you, or anything you do.

At OUR we're interested in the scientific method, and getting to the root of the matter. It's apparent you and I don't share that interest.

Good luck with your endeavors, and feel free to ask any time for good technical advice. There are many skilled, knowledgeable, and capable people here that would be more than happy to help.

Regards,
Darren

Guys

A little caution may be needed here.

The MR16 5 watt LED has a FWBR and 2x 100uF caps in it's circuit.
This is so the LED is running on a DC current.

This being the case,would it not need some form of decent input to light ?. Even if it is only half brightness,i would expect at least 1 watt out of the rated 5 watts to have to be delivered to that bulb,as a DC current is being delivered to the LED,not pulses.

Just a thought.

P.S
Just had another look at the circuit.
There is also a gate driver chip,a mosfet,and inductor after the caps.

Brad

Brad,

Build it up and investigate!

Try a variety of LEDs and frequencies (including DC), and see what you come up with.

(can you post the circuit?)

Brad,

Unless I am mistaken, there are also a whole slew of coils on the table that are driving what appears to be a plain old simple discrete LED, and they are barely lit.

Brad,
This is moving in the right direction. I did the bulbs for purpose of bringing out the bias on both sides. For and against OU. Because I am more interested in scientific integrity than even OU. I said in the title you can't prove OU with video. I have said many times that camera lenses change. I did, for the sake of argument, put myself momentarily on G's level of taking video at face value, and said that the brightness of the bulbs does indicate more light produced than would be possible with his underunity beliefs. There is actually several clues for those who have eyes to see, that is if you are taking the video at face value and wish to believe a video over the internet. This is not a game, but I did plan this out to demonstrate the reactions from people.
It all comes down to what I said happened, because you can't prove anything from a video anyway. That is why I said there should be so much heat about this. Darren, your reverse psychology is rather childish in taking my vary words around by saying I'm reacting. Again, your reaction and intensity is very telling.
Now, I did measure the bulbs at 1/2W. I did compare the brightness with the power supply at the voltage and amperage I mentioned on OU when I exposed Void. It was 1/2W. The bulbs were not all exactly the same as expected. I also have a light meter and every other meter for all the kinds of research I do. I said to Void that these bulbs do not even come on until you have 6V. These are 3W bulbs and they can have faint light at 6V. But at the brightness they were it was 1/2 W. Now, since none of you were present, there is nothing we can do about it. Taking pictures or showing video of that would have only made those who want to believe more, and those who don't want to believe would just say you can't believe a video. So instead I wanted to see people's reactions so I let it play out, and see who would read the title. See if anyone noticed certain things that may give indication. Again, I am more interested in people being honest with themselves and overcoming bias. Prejudice is a perversion of science. Haven't we had enough of that on other forums and with the scientific community in general? It is bought and paid for. If we really are going to get free energy into the world then we have to start with the true foundation of honesty. That means not over or underbelieving things.
It comes down to what I have said about what happened, as no one but me can have the full context (and I would have had to make efforts to really understand the full environment to do a properly controlled experiment). Now at my meeting 18 guys, several of them stayed up all night helping me set everything up (they put in all the capacitors and leds, and also placed the coils as well), did see the first demonstration. Several of them have those bulbs so they know the brightness they saw. One of them is an engineer at a particularly important company that is historically important to Tesla, and whose entire research department is engaged. Anyway, G and others were arguing points based upon what I shared. That was the baseline. But then when all was lost, then that was abandoned and it was just affirmed that I didn't actually do any measurements. I did not respond to that question in the way G expected or wanted. I did answer it differently because I was wanting to see the full reaction and all the prejudice come out as it always does. If I had just said, I measured these at 1/2W then what? Everyone would still be kidding themselves that they were honest and not assuming. So the whole dramatic affair just shows how wrong it is to assume you can prove or disprove OU over the internet. Remember, the very first response to my picture posted was that there was wires under the table. And I said that is a good point in that how can you really know one way or another? And how can you really know someone hasn't made a mistake? Or a part was bad? etc.
But yes, you can measure the voltage on the filter caps. And there is definitely enough going on if you consider all the bulbs, arrangements and details to make everyone go ballistic as they are doing. And that is because I did it just far enough to make that happen. Remember, that I also shared, as demonstrated to the guys at the meeting slowly, that as I added more and more coils the power did not show a linear relationship. The bulbs remained the same, and the input even dropped. I could have added about 500 coils all around without increasing the input and the bulbs being essentially equal. I demonstrated that until people were satisfied that that would be the case. This was just to show that Don Smith was right in what he said. That was one of several Don Smith demonstrations. It was the least important one. So I guess Darren chose to say the light was 150 times less than what I said so that if I had 500 bulbs then it still would be less than the input. You will never really know one way or another. Each will believe or disbelieve me for other reasons than the videos. And that is my point. It's 95% psychological on these forums. It's mostly about confirmation bias going in circles. Just never mind chasing after stories from other people.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.24, 04:43:56
Guys

A little caution may be needed here.

The MR16 5 watt LED has a FWBR and 2x 100uF caps in it's circuit.
This is so the LED is running on a DC current.

This being the case,would it not need some form of decent input to light ?. Even if it is only half brightness,i would expect at least 1 watt out of the rated 5 watts to have to be delivered to that bulb,as a DC current is being delivered to the LED,not pulses.

Just a thought.

P.S
Just had another look at the circuit.
There is also a gate driver chip,a mosfet,and inductor after the caps.

Brad

Hi Rick,

I am finding this discussion really stimulating. I applaud your pursuit of the scientific method. I understand in this day and age video can be deceptive and real world tests are the way forward. Could you kindly provide the exact specifications of every component in the system along with an accurate circuit diagram? I would love to see the results from a personal perspective. Cheers mate!

O0

Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.07.24, 04:55:08
Brad,



(can you post the circuit?)

As far as i could find,here is the circuit for the MR16 5 watt LED.

QuoteBuild it up and investigate!

Try a variety of LEDs and frequencies (including DC), and see what you come up with.

Already started printing the coil formers  O0


Brad

Is that circuit diagram accurate Brad?

Can we be extra thorough in the replication and use the exact specifications from Rick's components, preferably from the same batch?

Even better would be the specific components Rick uses, if he has some spare I am willing to pay the P&P costs to get them to you.

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.24, 06:32:56
Brad,
This is moving in the right direction. I did the bulbs for purpose of bringing out the bias on both sides. For and against OU. Because I am more interested in scientific integrity than even OU. I said in the title you can't prove OU with video. I have said many times that camera lenses change. I did, for the sake of argument, put myself momentarily on G's level of taking video at face value, and said that the brightness of the bulbs does indicate more light produced than would be possible with his underunity beliefs. There is actually several clues for those who have eyes to see, that is if you are taking the video at face value and wish to believe a video over the internet. This is not a game, but I did plan this out to demonstrate the reactions from people.
It all comes down to what I said happened, because you can't prove anything from a video anyway. That is why I said there should be so much heat about this. Darren, your reverse psychology is rather childish in taking my vary words around by saying I'm reacting. Again, your reaction and intensity is very telling.
Now, I did measure the bulbs at 1/2W. I did compare the brightness with the power supply at the voltage and amperage I mentioned on OU when I exposed Void. It was 1/2W. The bulbs were not all exactly the same as expected. I also have a light meter and every other meter for all the kinds of research I do. I said to Void that these bulbs do not even come on until you have 6V. These are 3W bulbs and they can have faint light at 6V. But at the brightness they were it was 1/2 W. Now, since none of you were present, there is nothing we can do about it. Taking pictures or showing video of that would have only made those who want to believe more, and those who don't want to believe would just say you can't believe a video. So instead I wanted to see people's reactions so I let it play out, and see who would read the title. See if anyone noticed certain things that may give indication. Again, I am more interested in people being honest with themselves and overcoming bias. Prejudice is a perversion of science. Haven't we had enough of that on other forums and with the scientific community in general? It is bought and paid for. If we really are going to get free energy into the world then we have to start with the true foundation of honesty. That means not over or underbelieving things.
It comes down to what I have said about what happened, as no one but me can have the full context (and I would have had to make efforts to really understand the full environment to do a properly controlled experiment). Now at my meeting 18 guys, several of them stayed up all night helping me set everything up (they put in all the capacitors and leds, and also placed the coils as well), did see the first demonstration. Several of them have those bulbs so they know the brightness they saw. One of them is an engineer at a particularly important company that is historically important to Tesla, and whose entire research department is engaged. Anyway, G and others were arguing points based upon what I shared. That was the baseline. But then when all was lost, then that was abandoned and it was just affirmed that I didn't actually do any measurements. I did not respond to that question in the way G expected or wanted. I did answer it differently because I was wanting to see the full reaction and all the prejudice come out as it always does. If I had just said, I measured these at 1/2W then what? Everyone would still be kidding themselves that they were honest and not assuming. So the whole dramatic affair just shows how wrong it is to assume you can prove or disprove OU over the internet. Remember, the very first response to my picture posted was that there was wires under the table. And I said that is a good point in that how can you really know one way or another? And how can you really know someone hasn't made a mistake? Or a part was bad? etc.
But yes, you can measure the voltage on the filter caps. And there is definitely enough going on if you consider all the bulbs, arrangements and details to make everyone go ballistic as they are doing. And that is because I did it just far enough to make that happen. Remember, that I also shared, as demonstrated to the guys at the meeting slowly, that as I added more and more coils the power did not show a linear relationship. The bulbs remained the same, and the input even dropped. I could have added about 500 coils all around without increasing the input and the bulbs being essentially equal. I demonstrated that until people were satisfied that that would be the case. This was just to show that Don Smith was right in what he said. That was one of several Don Smith demonstrations. It was the least important one. So I guess Darren chose to say the light was 150 times less than what I said so that if I had 500 bulbs then it still would be less than the input. You will never really know one way or another. Each will believe or disbelieve me for other reasons than the videos. And that is my point. It's 95% psychological on these forums. It's mostly about confirmation bias going in circles. Just never mind chasing after stories from other people.

Ok Rick,i would like to spend the time looking further into this.

I have started printing out some coil former's,such as the ones you have on your video's.
I am guessing here ATM,but some form of information would help out a lot.

The coil's look to be about 2 1/2 inches in diameter,but i have no idea as to how many turns each have,or what size wire you are using.

In this video-->
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik&t=6307s
from the 56 minute mark on,you say the input power drop's to 36mA,and the voltage on your power supply is 9v.
So at this point,the 5 watt LED was being driven brightly on 324mW,as well as the other 3 shining ,but not so bright. Not only is this 324mW driving the LEDs in that bulb brightly,but also the rest of the circuit within the bulb,which must also dissipate some of that power being delivered to the LED.

Anyway,i'm kind of going in here blind,so any information would be great Rick.'


Brad

Quote from: evolvingape on 2019.07.24, 07:43:29
Is that circuit diagram accurate Brad?

Can we be extra thorough in the replication and use the exact specifications from Rick's components, preferably from the same batch?

Even better would be the specific components Rick uses, if he has some spare I am willing to pay the P&P costs to get them to you.

As far as i can find,yes,that is the circuit for the MR16 5 watt LED.

But it is hard to know exactly,as information is scarce.

I can get 10 of these LEDs for $35.00,so not a huge cost.

If Ricks power supply is giving correct P/in reading's,and we need only 36mA of current,then there is no need for a power supply,as my FG will deliver nearly 200mA @ 120V P/P with the impedance set to 0.


Brad

Yes i get that, but the idea is to replicate Rick's build in person, in the real world, right in front of you, exactly as he did it, because only then will the results be valid. You can't send me your results via the internet so may I suggest a full written report via airmail. That should settle it!

>:-)

Quote from: evolvingape on 2019.07.24, 09:08:13
Yes i get that, but the idea is to replicate Rick's build in person, in the real world, right in front of you, exactly as he did it, because only then will the results be valid. You can't send me your results via the internet so may I suggest a full written report via airmail. That should settle it!

>:-)

Hard to replicate exactly,when the information about the setup is very limited.

But i see nothing special about Rick's setup,as we have all transmitted and received power like this before in the very same way.

This video includes useful pieces of information on 12 V AC/DC LED bulbs (not specifically on the MR16 type though).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Roc5TLdnw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Roc5TLdnw)

Unfortunately, 12 V LED bulbs like MR16 types or other types for even mains operation are widely copied by unknown manufacturers and one can never know what circuit is used inside, unless the actual bulb is disassembled.  In simple cases a full wave bridge and a puffer cap is all what may be included, with a series, small value current limiting resistor.

Gyula

if we could get one or two Bulbs ?
or the manufacturer and part number ?

The FE metrologist passed this on !

this datasheet offers some  surprises in regard to assumptions
on brightness and power input

EDIT TO ADD A nice Tinsel movie on the topic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChV7n0EY2h0

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.24, 08:17:24
Ok Rick,i would like to spend the time looking further into this.

I have started printing out some coil former's,such as the ones you have on your video's.
I am guessing here ATM,but some form of information would help out a lot.

The coil's look to be about 2 1/2 inches in diameter,but i have no idea as to how many turns each have,or what size wire you are using.

Itsu has all the details:
Here's a pic. of one of the coils

Here is a post on OU.com of user "benfr" (now I wonder who that might be? ;D) promoting Rick's kit again!!!

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537489/#msg537489

Quotehi, well please check my first post on this thread where I am giving specs to start the experimentation of the kit from Rick Friedrich.
Please forget now the ou as you will need first to go through amperage multiplication and/or voltage amplification. If you really want to kick yourself start in, I would recommend to buy the kit (100 usd or so). But a little bit of the information in the kit I have shared in a try to give interest in the kit to grow, that information is in my post (series coils aounrd 157 uH, capacitor of 100 pF, square frequency of 1.25 MHZ - I have wonrgly typed .885 MHZ but the frequency to try is approx 1.25).

Be ready to light leds and bulbs you will not be able to otherwise  ::)

So here are some specs for you Brad, right from the horses mouth

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.24, 12:51:32
Itsu has all the details:
Here's a pic. of one of the coils

C'mon AK, you can do better than that!!   :)

My engineering background needs more than that, coil former O/D, length and number of turns with wire gauge please?

Out of interest is that coil former made from Black PVC by any chance?

Cheers Graham.

Try to duplicate the coils all you like but it will never work without the ornamented and filagreed wooden base right in plane sight, you all have missed it, the secret to free energy.

The intricate carved base creates vacuum energy swirls that amplify the flow of aether through the coils. This is Rick's final final secret of free energy to be released in a new book selling you know where.

Now I've done it, I've given it away. Oh My, is the world ready for this?

Ion

QuoteThere are a few variations on the full wave voltage doubler circuit that perhaps you are not presently  familiar with.
One variation is what has been newly named the "Avramenko plug", now shortened to "diode plug"

The attached picture is the Avramenko's plug circuit and as you can see it is not a voltage doubler. There may be variations of the AV plug using additional components however then it is not an original AV plug circuit. You can't just cherry pick a different circuit and say it's the same thing when it isn't.

Be aware of Benfr his coil data, they are wrong.

I got correct data on the satellite coils from A.king21 and build some here with data:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535546/#msg535546


Itsu

Quote from: Grumage on 2019.07.24, 13:36:23
C'mon AK, you can do better than that!!   :)

My engineering background needs more than that, coil former O/D, length and number of turns with wire gauge please?

Out of interest is that coil former made from Black PVC by any chance?

Cheers Graham.

I was working on it. Give a man a chance.  I was digging stuff up.  Anyway you've all got the specs now. Re former: I asked Rick and he said he didn't know the composition.  He used I assume builders pipe and it is black in colour. He mentioned either drain pipe or water pipe I don't remember which.  The main point is the coil former worked so he uses it.
So I assume black PVC with unknown chemical composition. I have made some coils with white pipe and they seem to work ok - so I don't think the composition is a critical factor.

BIG COIL specs:

2mH 2000000 nH 200Q @ 100Khz 1262 pf 1.36 Rs ohms 1.37 ohms DCR #18 wire on 6+" PVC tube
351pf @ 186kHz = 5000+V 18V 30-260ma power supply for gate driver 5V frequency gen
Rickjust did 180kHz because he could match it with 5nf cap on the little coils. But that wasn't it's optimum frequency (close enough).

EDIT:  The small coils can be fine tuned using a small ferrite core. This will assist in optimizing the RX coils when you start moving coils around.  Also inserting coils into the big coil can reduce the input draw with minimum interference to the output.  Under certain conditions you may experience cold electricity.  To see it you measure the wires for heat loss (not on the load) as the load converts to normal. You see it on the face of the mr 16 also, not the back where the electronics converts  to normal.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2019.07.24, 13:52:49
Ion
The attached picture is the Avramenko's plug circuit and as you can see it is not a voltage doubler. There may be variations of the AV plug using additional components however then it is not an original AV plug circuit. You can't just cherry pick a different circuit and say it's the same thing when it isn't.

Dear ALL Canadian

That is not a complete schematic of an Avramenko plug. Please supply the complete circuit.

I think this is off topic here now that the guys are in full swing on the RF replication.

We can move it elsewhere if you like or just agree to disagree, which is just fine with me.

Regards

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.24, 14:56:21
I was working on it. Give a man a chance.  I was digging stuff up.  Anyway you've all got the specs now. Re former: I asked Rick and he said he didn't know the composition. He used I assume builders pipe and it is black in colour. He mentioned either drain pipe or water pipe I don't remember which.  The main point is the coil former worked so he uses it.
So I assume black PVC with unknown chemical composition. I have made some coils with white pipe and they seem to work ok - so I don't think the composition is a critical factor.

Dear Aking21

For what it's worth, coil former design can have an effect on Q depending on material type and additives, thickness etc..

I'm surprised that the manufacturer of the kits does not remember what he is using. Most manufacturers have an exact BOM so that they can have consistent quality control in their product.

Maybe user "benfr" remembers?'

Regards

Quote from: ion on 2019.07.24, 15:51:44
Dear Aking21

For what it's worth, coil former design can have an effect on Q depending on material type and additives, thickness etc..

I'm surprised that the manufacturer of the kits does not remember what he is using. Most manufacturers have an exact BOM so that they can have consistent quality control in their product.

Maybe user "benfr" remembers?'

Regards

No, sorry if I gave the wrong impression.  It is I who cannot remember what he said.   Rick knows where he gets the former from. In any case Rick quotes the Q in his videos so we can have a direct comparison that way. Q  is measured at 100 khz by the way in Rick's kits.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2019.07.24, 13:52:49
Ion
The attached picture is the Avramenko's plug circuit and as you can see it is not a voltage doubler. There may be variations of the AV plug using additional components however then it is not an original AV plug circuit. You can't just cherry pick a different circuit and say it's the same thing when it isn't.

AC
You are missing the capacitor that is in series with the open leg of the transformer and A in your circuit.
Add that to your circuit (as it should be),and what do you have ?.

Brad

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2019.07.24, 13:52:49
Ion
The attached picture is the Avramenko's plug circuit and as you can see it is not a voltage doubler. There may be variations of the AV plug using additional components however then it is not an original AV plug circuit. You can't just cherry pick a different circuit and say it's the same thing when it isn't.

I believe this is the complete circuit of your AV plug AC.



Brad

Just a question for the EE guy's here.
When we make a tank circuit,such as Rick is doing with all his coil's (TX and RX),do we not loose half the energy charging the cap each half cycle? I mean,if the potential energy =U = qV,and as the charge reaches the capacitor, energy stored become's Uc = (1/ 2) qV,this means that the loss in energy = U - Uc. So 50% of the energy is lost during each half cycle--as heat i would expect.

So,when we inject a pulse of current into a tank circuit,and we see that circuit ring down,is it due to loosing half the energy each half cycle to charge the cap?

It would seem to me that it would be more efficient not to have a cap in series or parallel to the coil,and just pulse the coil by itself at the right frequency. I mean,the coil will already have some self capacitance,so why add more losses by adding an additional capacitor ?.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.25, 09:56:49
I believe this is the complete circuit of your AV plug AC.

I can confirm the circuit will work with or without ground.
(though the resulting signal is stronger when grounded)

You can put an LED or meter on an ungrounded AV plug and it will still receive a clear signal in a resonating circuit.  Makes a great tool for tuning ;D

Quote from: Reiyuki on 2019.07.25, 11:22:49
I can confirm the circuit will work with or without ground.
(though the resulting signal is stronger when grounded)

You can put an LED or meter on an ungrounded AV plug and it will still receive a clear signal in a resonating circuit.  Makes a great tool for tuning ;D

The capacitive coupling to ground is via the air.
It has this capacitive coupling whether you can see it or not.
The higher the frequency and/or voltage,the greater the amount of power will flow through this air capacitor.
The circuit you and AC show dose not exist,and is incomplete.


Brad

IMO that would be capacitive coupling to the transmitting portion of the circuit, not necessarily the ground.
This would be easy to confirm, as the effect would otherwise disappear/diminish when flying in an aircraft or at altitude.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.25, 13:08:25
The capacitive coupling to ground is via the air.
It has this capacitive coupling whether you can see it or not.
The higher the frequency and/or voltage,the greater the amount of power will flow through this air capacitor.
The circuit you and AC show dose not exist,and is incomplete.

Brad

Quote from: Reiyuki on 2019.07.25, 13:54:57
IMO that would be capacitive coupling to the transmitting portion of the circuit, not necessarily the ground.
This would be easy to confirm, as the effect would otherwise disappear/diminish when flying in an aircraft or at altitude.

No,it would be worse,as the whole aircraft now act's as a big ground plate,being aluminum.

Make your circuit,and get the LED to light at the high frequency.
Now wind down the frequency and see what happens.
At high frequencies,a small value of capacitance can deliver a large amount of current,but at lower frequencies,it will deliver only a small amount of current.

Even a reversed biased diode in series with an LED has enough capacitance to light the LED at high frequencies.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.25, 10:39:02
Just a question for the EE guy's here.
When we make a tank circuit,such as Rick is doing with all his coil's (TX and RX),do we not loose half the energy charging the cap each half cycle? I mean,if the potential energy =U = qV,and as the charge reaches the capacitor, energy stored become's Uc = (1/ 2) qV,this means that the loss in energy = U - Uc. So 50% of the energy is lost during each half cycle--as heat i would expect.

So,when we inject a pulse of current into a tank circuit,and we see that circuit ring down,is it due to loosing half the energy each half cycle to charge the cap?

It would seem to me that it would be more efficient not to have a cap in series or parallel to the coil,and just pulse the coil by itself at the right frequency. I mean,the coil will already have some self capacitance,so why add more losses by adding an additional capacitor ?.


Brad

In a tank circuit the inductor is a current source, not a voltage source. As such it charges the capacitor with zero loss and in an ideal simulation it does not ring down but can continue indefinitely. Try a simulation using zero loss inductors and capacitors and you will see.

In the real world the losses are the resistance of the coil, the dissipation factor of the capacitor, (and radiated losses when the tank operates at a frequency where it can efficiently couple to the air), which can be minimal if designed with high quality components such as vacuum capacitors (very low dissipation factor) and the coil will be made with as low a resistance as possible.

You are correct that that some of the losses are from heat as outlined above, but this is because the components are not ideal and have resistance and a dissipation factor.

If you study how high power transmitter tank circuits are constructed, you will understand what must be done to minimize losses. Look in the ARRL handbook for more info on this.

The point is, a well designed tank coil will have a very high Q and the damping ratio will be low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor

https://www.google.com/search?q=damping+ratio+formula&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping_ratio

By the way you posed the question for an EE, well, I'm not a formal college educated (4 years) EE, but in addition to some 3 years technical school, and supplementary courses, I have had around 60 years hands on experience in the real world  designing power equipment, sophisticated analog  and digital circuits and microcomputer controlled process equipment, where I had to teach myself most of this stuff. Most of the equipment I designed is still being sold today 21 years after I retired from that industry, and making millions for my former employer, of which I get 0, I'm just not a good businessman.

I know partzman's resume would be similar, as he also has designed numerous successful electronic devices and also has patents.

I'm just a roll my sleeves up, hit the bench, consult the books when needed, and "git her done" kind of guy.

I think this and other topics should be moved off the Rick video thread, as I'm sure he will be cut and pasting our info into his latest book for profit.

Quote from: Reiyuki on 2019.07.25, 13:54:57
IMO that would be capacitive coupling to the transmitting portion of the circuit, not necessarily the ground.
This would be easy to confirm, as the effect would otherwise disappear/diminish when flying in an aircraft or at altitude.

Methinks someone here should educate themselves on the subject of self capacitance.  It may seem strange to talk about a one-terminal capacitor, but that is exactly what self capacitance is.  And it is via that self capacitance that the aircraft is connected to ground, or more precisely is connected to a zero potential reference.  It is a fact that two isolated spheres separated by any large distance has a mutual capacitance between them that is the series combination of their self capacitances.  That is a form of coupling that goes via that ground or zero potential point.  That mutual capacitance can carry current.  Why do I know this?  I spent a good part of my professional career studying capacitance proximity fuzes for missiles.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.07.25, 16:24:39
Methinks someone here should educate themselves on the subject of self capacitance.  It may seem strange to talk about a one-terminal capacitor, but that is exactly what self capacitance is.  And it is via that self capacitance that the aircraft is connected to ground, or more precisely is connected to a zero potential reference.  It is a fact that two isolated spheres separated by any large distance has a mutual capacitance between them that is the series combination of their self capacitances.  That is a form of coupling that goes via that ground or zero potential point.  That mutual capacitance can carry current.  Why do I know this?  I spent a good part of my professional career studying capacitance proximity fuzes for missiles.

Smudge

Agreed, and all the "one wire transmission of power" enthusiasts seem to neglect this, as well as the "Avramenko" plug jargon that neglects the stray capacitance  that does the charging  of the main capacitor.

Brad,
As I said on the private thread sometime back, I really don't have the time for this right now. I only lingered on for so long on this thread and OU because I had to bring that mess to a completion. I spent way more time on all this than I should have. I don't regret it, but I have too much business to attend to to worry about these little children playing games. It's been really funny at times. But it just goes nowhere. If I come back in another 5 years I'm sure everyone will be exactly in the same places as before. Maybe moved on to another personality. As I said the other day, the only free time I have will be spent on the website as that is far more important than answering people who just ignore my words anyway. I spent last weekend doing that when I could have done much more on the website. I'm sure everyone will continue to have fun attacking me, and looking silly doing that. As long as you are having fun boys!
Rick

Quote from: ion on 2019.07.25, 14:44:18
In a tank circuit the inductor is a current source, not a voltage source.

This part has always bothered me.

In order for there to be a current flow,there has to be a potential difference-a voltage.

It is said that the inductor is a current source,and the capacitor a voltage source,when infact,the charged capacitor can deliver far more current at a lower voltage than an inductor,and a charged inductor can produce a far greater voltage than a charged capacitor.
As both are charged,then they become the source.

So why do they say that the inductor is a current source when a capacitor can deliver more current,and a capacitor is a voltage source when an inductor can produce a higher voltage than a capacitor.

Seems all ass about to me.

Brad

Quote from: Ion
I'm just a roll my sleeves up, hit the bench, consult the
books when needed, and "git her done" kind of guy.

Aye, many of us are cut from that same cloth.

With practice, one can get really good at finding answers
to difficult questions.

Professional highly educated Engineers will gladly admit
that their real education began with their first job.

Learning to think and act independently is a great skill.

Quote from: TinMan
It is said that the inductor is a current source,and the
capacitor a voltage source,when infact,the charged
capacitor can deliver far more current at a lower
voltage than an inductor,and a charged inductor can
produce a far greater voltage than a charged capacitor.
As both are charged,then they become the source.

So why do they say that the inductor is a current source
when a capacitor can deliver more current,and a
capacitor is a voltage source when an inductor can
produce a higher voltage than a capacitor.

Hmmm.  I've never heard it explained quite like that before.

Do they mean that in DC circuitry an Inductor tends to
stabilize current flow and a Capacitor tends to stabilize
Voltage?

In AC circuitry the Inductor tends to limit current flow
and the Capacitor tends to limit voltage excursions?

Agreed that Voltage and Current must co-exist in any
application where work is being done.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.25, 23:21:05
This part has always bothered me.

In order for there to be a current flow,there has to be a potential difference-a voltage.

It is said that the inductor is a current source,and the capacitor a voltage source,when infact,the charged capacitor can deliver far more current at a lower voltage than an inductor,and a charged inductor can produce a far greater voltage than a charged capacitor.
As both are charged,then they become the source.

So why do they say that the inductor is a current source when a capacitor can deliver more current,and a capacitor is a voltage source when an inductor can produce a higher voltage than a capacitor.

Seems all ass about to me.

Brad

Brad:

A "current source" means that the source will deliver the same desired current regardless of load impedance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_source

A  ideal current source is a very high voltage( near infinite) source  with a very large (near infinite) resistor from that high voltage source to the object of interest. It is able to maintain it's preset current level regardless of load resistance or impedance variations, because compared to the impedance of the supply, which is very high, the load impedance is rather low.

Common power supplies do not have near infinite voltage and high value resistors to limit the current and since the headroom on the supply is limited to less than 100 Volts, electronic current limiting is used to simulate the ideal current source, but should the load require higher voltage than is built into the power supply, the current will fall off and not be maintained..

You can test this with your power supply in current limit mode and watch what happens when you exceed the power supply output voltage capability, the current will fall off.

A discharging inductor can dump it's current into nearly any load impedance, it doesn't care. If the impedance of the load is very low or very high, it automatically adjusts it's output to maintain current flow.

An inductor does not care that a capacitor instantaneously represents a low impedance to the inductor, it will output a steady current into that capacitor to charge it, with near zero loss.

I know it's hard to wrap one's head around these concepts and maybe I don't explain it very well or mathematically, but with a few experiments with your existing supply you will get it. When you come to fully grasp the difference, you arrive at a new plateau of being able to understand the nuances of how circuits work.

(there are some degreed EE's that don't fully understand it, but it is really very simple)

Read some of the stuff on this page for a better explanation.

https://www.google.com/search?q=current+source+vs+voltage+source&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

Voltage sources are the opposite of current sources, where the impedance of the load against the voltage setting determines how much current flows out of the supply.

Regards

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.25, 14:07:10
Even a reversed biased diode in series with an LED has enough capacitance to light the LED at high frequencies.


Brad

So what might that tell you about how much "rectifying" is actually taking place in those "active" bulbs?

Happy trails Rick, and good luck with the web site.

We'll all be keeping our eyes peeled for any discovery/demonstration of OU from your camp.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.07.26, 00:55:35
So what might that tell you about how much "rectifying" is actually taking place in those "active" bulbs?

As the diodes in the bulb circuit would not be HF diodes,due to the bulbs normal opperating frequency of 50-60 Hz, there would be next to no rectification taking place across that FWBR at 1-1.2MHz-Ricks opperating frequency.


Brad

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.07.25, 16:24:39
Methinks someone here should educate themselves on the subject of self capacitance.  It may seem strange to talk about a one-terminal capacitor, but that is exactly what self capacitance is.  And it is via that self capacitance that the aircraft is connected to ground, or more precisely is connected to a zero potential reference.  It is a fact that two isolated spheres separated by any large distance has a mutual capacitance between them that is the series combination of their self capacitances.  That is a form of coupling that goes via that ground or zero potential point.  That mutual capacitance can carry current.  Why do I know this?  I spent a good part of my professional career studying capacitance proximity fuzes for missiles.

Smudge

Thx Smudge; I was actually playing with TinMan's discussion on grounded vs ungrounded AV plugs. :P
I think there may be some confusion between earth ground and reference ground ('zero potential point' as you state).  Both may have the same coulomb charge density, but one would have a MUCH higher self-capacity.

In reality, any two bodies with a difference in coulomb charge density would constitute a charged capacitor between them.
Not that this line-of-thought necessarily leads us to any meaningful conclusions, except perhaps using displacement currents to pump free electrons from the earth or something similar.  This would have to be modeled of course.


I'm sure you got all kinds of interesting tips working with such interesting hardware Smudge ;).  I suspect that nearby switching power supplies were a constant source of headaches for you?  C.C

Quote from: ion on 2019.07.26, 00:29:06

......A discharging inductor can dump it's current into nearly any load impedance, it doesn't care. If the impedance of the load is very low or very high, it automatically adjusts it's output to maintain current flow.

An inductor does not care that a capacitor instantaneously represents a low impedance to the inductor, it will output a steady current into that capacitor to charge it, with near zero loss.............

Regards

Good day Ion.

Exactly..... that is why I in my designs I always charge a Capacitor Bank through an Inductor.  That "instantaneous low impedance" of the capacitor bank will look just like a nasty short circuit to the power supply and the series inductor permits a lower di/dt (charge rate).

take care, peace
lost_bro

Another way to look at an L and C is that an inductor will attempt to maintain a constant current irregardless of the voltage across it's terminals and a capacitor will attempt to maintain a constant voltage irregardless of the current drawn from it's terminals.

Grasping these simple concepts can lead to interesting results.  For example, most discrete built constant current sources work with fixed polarities however, an inductor current source can operate bipolar.  Try making a discrete current source flow positive from a negative source to a positive sink.  An inductor can accomplish this easily.

Regards,
Pm 

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.26, 12:18:49
  Try making a discrete current source flow positive from a negative source to a positive sink.  An inductor can accomplish this easily.

Regards,
Pm

Yes,because the inductors voltage invert's once it become the current source,and not the current sink.


Brad

Quote from: RFQUERY on 2019.07.25, 21:15:15
Brad,
As I said on the private thread sometime back, I really don't have the time for this right now. I only lingered on for so long on this thread and OU because I had to bring that mess to a completion. I spent way more time on all this than I should have. I don't regret it, but I have too much business to attend to to worry about these little children playing games. It's been really funny at times. But it just goes nowhere. If I come back in another 5 years I'm sure everyone will be exactly in the same places as before. Maybe moved on to another personality. As I said the other day, the only free time I have will be spent on the website as that is far more important than answering people who just ignore my words anyway. I spent last weekend doing that when I could have done much more on the website. I'm sure everyone will continue to have fun attacking me, and looking silly doing that. As long as you are having fun boys!
Rick

I see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3qCPpubnoE

All,

Want to see some REAL evidence of radiant energy as per Tesla?  Look at this video made by TK back in 2012 where he used a spark gap that was quenched with compressed air-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTaIj5qLoH0

IMO, this is proof beyond a doubt that when a spark in a gap is rapidly quenched, there is excess energy that proceeds on into the load connected to the output.  Call it radiant, coherence of the aether or whatever, this needs to be seriously investigated on this forum!

Really nice work TK! O0  BTW, check out the distances involved from his top loaded Tesla coil to his ground and the wall!

Why haven't we noticed this before?

Regards,
Pm

Hi partzman.

I noticed on several occasions, by accident initially, that if one held an NE2 by one leg and touched a lump of Iron or Copper whist a high voltage spark gap was operating in the vicinity it would flash in unison.

I have recently wondered if we might see this effect by rapidly discharging a low voltage source, like a large capacity 12 volt capacitor?

I've " stowed away " all my test gear, Solar reigns supreme here, so am unable to test this. If we did see the Neon flash I think we should definitely investigate!!

Cheers Graham.

well
I would imagine that much research has been done there [even his mention of the magnetic quench
and his mentioning the smell of burning magnets ?

maybe start a topic at Stefan's ? in a moderated section for builders ?[Tinsel is not a member here at this time]

this will give me an excuse to call Stefan ,I have not bothered ...do to the fact its his forum
and I am not telling him how to run it.

other calls I made were to keep his liability limited or suggestions towards a better venue for experimenters [funding discussions ?

but there are several open source experiments along these lines being pondered [a Wesley thing too]
and Stefan still hosts an open source venue ...

good excuse to call him ...
Sigh
better half just pulled in with a car problem !!
gotta go man the wrenches!!

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.28, 13:23:34
All,

Want to see some REAL evidence of radiant energy as per Tesla?  Look at this video made by TK back in 2012 where he used a spark gap that was quenched with compressed air-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTaIj5qLoH0

IMO, this is proof beyond a doubt that when a spark in a gap is rapidly quenched, there is excess energy that proceeds on into the load connected to the output.  Call it radiant, coherence of the aether or whatever, this needs to be seriously investigated on this forum!

Really nice work TK! O0  BTW, check out the distances involved from his top loaded Tesla coil to his ground and the wall!

Why haven't we noticed this before?

Regards,
Pm

Besides the technical aspects you pointed out, we also get to see some nice shots of Dr. Frankentinsel in his lab, hair standing on end and all.  ;)

But why is this very  fine experimenter not a member of this forum?, I think he was always welcome here and treated fairly and with respect for his work? Why does he like the hell hole so much?

Quote from: Chet K on 2019.07.28, 14:35:53
well
I would imagine that much research has been done there [even his mention of the magnetic quench
and his mentioning the smell of burning magnets ?

maybe start a topic at Stefan's ? in a moderated section for builders ?[Tinsel is not a member here at this time]

this will give me an excuse to call Stefan ,I have not bothered ...do to the fact its his forum
and I am not telling him how to run it.

other calls I made were to keep his liability limited or suggestions towards a better venue for experimenters [funding discussions ?

but there are several open source experiments along these lines being pondered [a Wesley thing too]
and Stefan still hosts an open source venue ...

good excuse to call him ...
Sigh
better half just pulled in with a car problem !!
gotta go man the wrenches!!

Chet,

Some nice thots there but honestly, I personally don't really care to become involved again on Stefan's forum! 

Sorry,
Pm

FWIW,

Attached is a pdf of pix that were given to me by Paul Landers back in 1996 or so that were taken during his research and experimentation with counter-rotating electromagnetic fields.  This device went into runaway with he and his assistant present.  My attempts to contact Paul these past years has been futile and even his website with his theories is no longer to be found.

Pm

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.28, 13:23:34
All,

Want to see some REAL evidence of radiant energy as per Tesla?  Look at this video made by TK back in 2012 where he used a spark gap that was quenched with compressed air-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTaIj5qLoH0

IMO, this is proof beyond a doubt that when a spark in a gap is rapidly quenched, there is excess energy that proceeds on into the load connected to the output.  Call it radiant, coherence of the aether or whatever, this needs to be seriously investigated on this forum!

Really nice work TK! O0  BTW, check out the distances involved from his top loaded Tesla coil to his ground and the wall!

Why haven't we noticed this before?

Regards,
Pm

I would say the compressed air is just reducing the resistance between the spark gap,and allowing more current to flow-nothing more.

Brad

Or, could it be that the compressed air stream is
reducing the Pulse Width of the arc discharges into
the primary coil, thereby increasing the efficiency of
the Tesla Coil?  The spark gap does seem to be
rather short.

Too bad TK didn't scope the Discharge Pulses
to see what difference the compressed air
stream made.

Surely there is a scientific explanation for the
event.

Quote from: muDped on 2019.07.28, 23:08:20
Or, could it be that the compressed air stream is
reducing the Pulse Width of the arc discharges into
the primary coil, thereby increasing the efficiency of
the Tesla Coil?  The spark gap does seem to be
rather short.

Too bad TK didn't scope the Discharge Pulses
to see what difference the compressed air
stream made.

Surely there is a scientific explanation for the
event.

muDped, you are correct.

Assuming a positive pulse, it would seem that the pulse duration should not persist longer than the rising portion of the sine wave of  the resonant frequency of the coil.

Longer than that would be pushing the swing (adding energy of the wrong polarity) while it is trying to return to the start point on the negative slope.

It would seem the air shortens the duration of the pulse (width) to just what is needed to add energy in the proper portion of the cycle and no longer than that.

The Tesla Coil Transformer is such an incredibly fascinating
device.  A comparison of Spark Gap driven Coil and Solid
State driven. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdwcZX07NFk)

A great resource for all Tesla Coilers. (http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/tesla.shtml)

Quote from: partzman on 2019.07.28, 18:03:39
FWIW,

Attached is a pdf of pix that were given to me by Paul Landers back in 1996 or so that were taken during his research and experimentation with counter-rotating electromagnetic fields.  This device went into runaway with he and his assistant present.  My attempts to contact Paul these past years has been futile and even his website with his theories is no longer to be found.

Pm

PM, what was the basic operation of the device?

How were the fields developed and rotated?

Thanks for the pics. (There is much reference to wood swelling etc.. What was the significance of that, do you know?)

Quote from: ion on 2019.07.29, 01:11:53
muDped, you are correct.

Assuming a positive pulse, it would seem that the pulse duration should not persist longer than the rising portion of the sine wave of  the resonant frequency of the coil.

Longer than that would be pushing the swing (adding energy of the wrong polarity) while it is trying to return to the start point on the negative slope.

It would seem the air shortens the duration of the pulse (width) to just what is needed to add energy in the proper portion of the cycle and no longer than that.

Increasing the air density between the plates (spark gap),is the same as increasing the plate surface area of the spark gap.
This reduces the effective resistance between the two plates-spark gap,and also the breakdown voltage.


Brad

Rick made an interesting claim: Resonance is a gain. In a series resonance circuit the input amperage remains the same as the circulating current in  the resonant coil. At the same time the voltage inside the resonant coil goes higher up to 144 times. So a simple V x A = watts indicates OU of course.
So my question to myself was," What experiment can I devise to attempt to prove the claim" ( Notice I am being positive folks).

What experiment can you think of??

Well here it is:

I used the principle of oscillating current  as promulgated by Benitez.

So I attached one leg of the ac side of a bridge rectifier to the high voltage side of RICK's TX  coil and the other leg to earth ground.  Then I attached the positive and negative sides to a 12 volt 7 amp hour battery and it charged very nicely.  I do not have the correct measuring skills to see if there is a gain - but to those interested I enclose a pic and encourage you to do the experiment.
It is 3 am and time for shut eye,  I may develop the measuring skills tomorrow when i have time to think about it.
Oh and I was able to keep the device in resonance as I extracted real power out of it.

Good to see you're making more positive efforts.

- Are you taking off from one of the receiver (RX) coils, or the transmitter (TX) coil?
- What indications are you relying upon to convince you the battery is charging?
- Do you have an understanding about power factor?

Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.07.29, 02:46:03
Good to see you're making more positive efforts.

- Are you taking off from one of the receiver (RX) coils, or the transmitter (TX) coil?
- What indications are you relying upon to convince you the battery is charging?
- Do you have an understanding about power factor?

I read that a FWBR is used.
The AC input to the FWBR is the high side of the TX coil for 1 leg,and earth ground for the other leg.
The rectified output from the FWBR is hooked to the 12 volt battery,and charges nicely.

So,now a DC to DC converter could be hooked to that 12 volt battery,and power the system that is charging it nicely  ;D


Brad

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.29, 02:27:42
Rick made an interesting claim: Resonance is a gain. In a series resonance circuit the input amperage remains the same as the circulating current in  the resonant coil. At the same time the voltage inside the resonant coil goes higher up to 144 times. So a simple V x A = watts indicates OU of course.
So my question to myself was," What experiment can I devise to attempt to prove the claim" ( Notice I am being positive folks).

What experiment can you think of??

Well here it is:

I used the principle of oscillating current  as promulgated by Benitez.

So I attached one leg of the ac side of a bridge rectifier to the high voltage side of RICK's TX  coil and the other leg to earth ground.  Then I attached the positive and negative sides to a 12 volt 7 amp hour battery and it charged very nicely.  I do not have the correct measuring skills to see if there is a gain - but to those interested I enclose a pic and encourage you to do the experiment.
It is 3 am and time for shut eye,  I may develop the measuring skills tomorrow when i have time to think about it.
Oh and I was able to keep the device in resonance as I extracted real power out of it.

What about this experiment:

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536525/#msg536525

QuoteSo about 80 times higher voltage and 2.2 times higer current, but with a phase shift between V and I of almost 89.8°.

Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2019.07.29, 08:29:17

What about this experiment:

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536525/#msg536525


Itsu

Well this is the heart of the Don Smith controversy.  He claims his system is VAR amplification. And he claims it gives huge gains.
I am not surprised by the scope results, because the EE system is calibrated that way.
So it is an interesting "battle".
At least I have made a RICK battery charger, and will do some tests later.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.07.29, 10:29:43
Well this is the heart of the Don Smith controversy.  He claims his system is VAR amplification. And he claims it gives huge gains.
I am not surprised by the scope results, because the EE system is calibrated that way.
So it is an interesting "battle".
At least I have made a RICK battery charger, and will do some tests later.

Well it's self explanatory,is it not?

High voltage-no current=no real power.
High current-no voltage=no real power
High current in phase with high voltage=lot's of real power.

VxI on the output means nothing at all in these types of systems,
This seems to be the thing you and Rick keep missing here.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.29, 12:09:11
Well it's self explanatory,is it not?

High voltage-no current=no real power.
High current-no voltage=no real power
High current in phase with high voltage=lot's of real power.

VxI on the output means nothing at all in these types of systems,
This seems to be the thing you and Rick keep missing here.


Brad

You are absolutely correct Brad.  And here is the formula to correctly calculate the power when the voltage and current are not in phase:

average ac power equation- P= V x I cos(theta)

Theta is the  phase angle between the voltage and current.  My keyboard doesn't have the theta symbol.

Here is a link to an article that explains the use of the formula:

https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-in-ac-circuits.

People like Don Smith that spout out a bunch of good sounding nonsense have really made a mess for anyone wanting to do real research into looking for OU.  And our lazy society has created a culture of people that will accept whatever they are told without doing any real research of their own.  So the myths perpetuate themselves with the masses.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.07.29, 12:49:15

You are absolutely correct Brad.  And here is the formula to correctly calculate the power when the voltage and current are not in phase:

average ac power equation- P= V x I cos(theta)

Theta is the  phase angle between the voltage and current.  My keyboard doesn't have the theta symbol.

Here is a link to an article that explains the use of the formula:

https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-in-ac-circuits.

People like Don Smith that spout out a bunch of good sounding nonsense have really made a mess for anyone wanting to do real research into looking for OU.  And our lazy society has created a culture of people that will accept whatever they are told without doing any real research of their own.  So the myths perpetuate themselves with the masses.

Respectfully,
Carroll

And the part i hate most is they continually use Tesla's name as some sort of !backbone! to there claim's.
What they are actually doing,is contaminating all of Tesla's actual work with there garbage.


Brad

Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.07.29, 02:07:34
PM, what was the basic operation of the device?

How were the fields developed and rotated?

Thanks for the pics. (There is much reference to wood swelling etc.. What was the significance of that, do you know?)

Poynt,

At the time this was done I had a better grasp of what Paul was doing but he did not disclose all the details.  Basically, he was counter-rotating two electromagnetic fields.  Whether the input was AC or DC to the coils I don't know nor do I know what the input energy was or the rotational speeds.  What I do know is that when a certain point was reached, the device would self run without any input power applied.  I was told that during these tests of self running, there came a time when the device continually kept speeding up without power and they considered it to be in a runaway mode.  It scared the living crap out of them and as I recall Paul stated they discontinued tests with the device after that.  Paul then desired to build a solid state equivalent in hopes of maintaining more control over the process.  That's when I got involved in designing and building high power isolated switching circuitry he planned to use with a custom toroid he had made which was ~18"od x 14"id x 6" high.  IIRC, his plan was to wind various numbers of coils on the toroid and attempt to produce the c-r fields.

What the pix show is the otherwise solid oak and pine supports, wiring and atmosphere,  turning to a gaseous plasma state as the device reached it's self operating point.

Paul did have a website at the time that was dedicated to explaining his theory of what he was doing but that is no longer to be found.

Pm

Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.07.29, 02:46:03
Good to see you're making more positive efforts.

- Are you taking off from one of the receiver (RX) coils, or the transmitter (TX) coil?
- What indications are you relying upon to convince you the battery is charging?
- Do you have an understanding about power factor?

Transmitter coil
Checking the battery voltage when the device is off.
Been discussing VAR anomalies with various experts including Grumage for the last 5 years. i.e.  when one of Grumage's associates downed much of North Wales power by engaging the wrong switch.
I also remember Duncan stating that the advent of switched mode power supplies was causing the National Grid a lot of problems.  Var again.


I am hoping one of Rick's students who has the kit replicates the process  It can work at 1.2 mhz as well as 136 hkz which was the frequency in the pic.
The main thing is the ability to tune to resonance by visual means.
I've done this sort of thing before for years just not with the Rick kit.