PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-10-15, 02:21:05
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Author Topic: Ricks best video's  (Read 10953 times)

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
.
« Last Edit: 2019-07-22, 08:37:04 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
O0

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
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
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?

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
   
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Newbie
*

Posts: 46
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.
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
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.

Incorrect.
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
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.

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
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
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 ;)

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.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
.
« Last Edit: 2019-07-22, 08:37:29 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 140
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
« Last Edit: 2019-07-14, 05:06:44 by lost_bro »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
.
« Last Edit: 2019-07-22, 08:37:52 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
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

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
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
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

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.
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
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


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 613
King Shit of Turd Island has spoken!

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


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
.
« Last Edit: 2019-07-22, 08:38:22 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 613
...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.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 415
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


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

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 


---------------------------
How many more to be .threatened, abused murdered, Their research in the hands of evil corporations intent on total control ?
http://dnp.s3.amazonaws.com/b/b9/suppressed.pdf
whilst we know little .. friends remember,
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
D. Erasmus
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3228
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










 


   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
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.

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.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 914
...
« Last Edit: 2019-07-15, 03:30:14 by partzman »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
.
« Last Edit: 2019-07-22, 08:38:50 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 914
...
« Last Edit: 2019-07-15, 03:30:33 by partzman »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 613
...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.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
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

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
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
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?

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
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-10-15, 02:21:05