Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 893839
  • *Total Topics: 15704
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 20
  • *Total: 23

Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims  (Read 281482 times)

Offline itsu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1035 on: July 09, 2019, 10:09:57 AM »

Thanks Guys, for the trusts,  but i find it amazing that anyone would doubt any results a replicator would present.

Of course anyone can make a mistake, but thats where the video's are for so anyone can see what is being done.
If you think something is wrong it can be discussed and corrected.

Anyway i always try to keep my posts short and clear so won't comment on it any further.




A.king21,


i tried the last days all kind of combinations for the 12V led bulb connected to a satellite coil for abnormal
cooling.

Grounded the big coil,  grounded the satellite coil, grounded both, satellite coil inside the big coil, outside,
etc. but the temperature of the bulb stays about 1°C above ambient.

I will continue for some days, while building 2 additional satellite coils.


When i have 10 satellite coils i will put them around the big coil and once again try loopback via the
supercap stack for a final attempt to have it maintain itself.

Itsu

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1035 on: July 09, 2019, 10:09:57 AM »

Offline seaad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1036 on: July 09, 2019, 11:13:04 AM »
Thanks ITSU for your efforts.
 I'm hoping that you will use resistances instead of LED's in this coming test.
If you are using the satellite coils as before in parallel resonance it is obvious that these in the resonance situation are best conformed wih high Ohm resistors or anyhow with other very HIGH Ohmic loads as they go extremely high Ohmic then.
A parallel resonance circuit loaded with LED's will only be "clamped" mismatched and the Q-value totally destroyd.
You can also then skip the FRB's.
[[ Maybe a high Ohmic (load)resistor before two in opposite direction LED's is maybe a choice that also gives a visual option. ]]

Regards Arne

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4068
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1037 on: July 09, 2019, 11:32:03 AM »
Hi overcurrent,

Please understand that the inventors you listed had different devices from the one we are discussing here. 
And most of the members here do not reject overunity this forum is dedicated to, this is why most of them are
here to find such setups.

The closest to this energy transfer by series LC TX circuit magnetically coupled to satellite LC RX setup under
discussion here would be Tesla's magnifying transmitter. You surely know that Tesla wrote about only a few
percent energy transfer loss when using the Earth as the conductor for electric current while he considered the
wireless energy transfer done by broadcast through the air as a very lossy system. And Morgan stopped financing
Tesla the moment he realized he could not put meters at the customer side to milk Tesla's energy transfer system. 

If someone would figure out a device with which he could power his house and this would be revealed to the utility
providers, he would very likely be punished in many countries. But you could easily disguise your setup by building a
wind generator or solar panel array of a certain size, even use a grid tie inverter to feed back energy to the utility mains
and you would keep silence on your real device.  After registering your solar or wind source with a grid tie inverter to
the utility provider, they will not bother about you.   Or you use your device to supply say 2/3 of your monthly energy
consumption and you pay for the rest. All I mean there can be several options.

Gyula


I don't know, it is something I have wondered for a long time. Are they all liars Tesla, Morray, Newman, Meyers, Searl, Wagner, Hans Coeler and the list goes on and some as Searl and Meyers have done jail time but does that mean they were all liars or is there a true conspiracy to keep it all under wraps or is it human greed I don't know for sure yet after 15 years of looking into this stuff. This is part of why I don't even experiment with some things such as energy from the sky or ground because what if you did figure it out and powered your house from the ground do you really think you wouldn't just be thrown in jail for stealing power.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1037 on: July 09, 2019, 11:32:03 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline overcurrent

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1038 on: July 09, 2019, 12:10:57 PM »
Hi gyulasun

Thanks for the reply, it does seem a sad state of affairs if hiding it would be the answer to such a wonderful thing for humanity as Tesla said todays is theirs and the future for which he worked would be his but I don't know if it will be in my lifetime. Anyway I think I am off topic and will say no more on the philosophy and leave the thread to those doing this great work. I tell you I haven't been to this site so much as when this thread started I love it and I do plan to get expirementing on this but I will need to start further back in Rick's teachings to get up to speed.


Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4068
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1039 on: July 09, 2019, 12:24:23 PM »
Hi Arne,

While I fully agree on the use of resistors, notice that they do have self capacitance and inductance which
should already be considered at the 180-200 kHz range when using them as loads. There are special, 
non inductive resistor types for the many kOhm ranges but they cost more money though.

Normal metal film or carbon resistors could be used if one such receiver unit with its kOhm resistor load 
would be measured whether the current through the resistor remains in phase with the voltage across it 
(the latter is the resonant LC voltage itself of course).

It is possible the inherent, even small reactances of metal film or carbon resistors can be embedded in the
LC circuit, so no or negligible phase shift in the current versus the voltage would happen. 
By checking this, reliable power outputs can be had then. 

As is known, maximum power transfer is insured by loading the resonant LC circuit impedance by the same value
load resistance.  This is simple to test: the resonant voltage amplitude across the RX LC tank gets halved when
the load resistance equals the unloaded LC tank impedance.

@overcurrent
Okay and I wish you good luck in experimenting.

 Gyula


Thanks ITSU for your efforts.
 I'm hoping that you will use resistances instead of LED's in this coming test.
If you are using the satellite coils as before in parallel resonance it is obvious that these in the resonance situation are best conformed wih high Ohm resistors or anyhow with other very HIGH Ohmic loads as they go extremely high Ohmic then.
A parallel resonance circuit loaded with LED's will only be "clamped" mismatched and the Q-value totally destroyd.
You can also then skip the FRB's.
[[ Maybe a high Ohmic (load)resistor before two in opposite direction LED's is maybe a choice that also gives a visual option. ]]

Regards Arne

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1039 on: July 09, 2019, 12:24:23 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline itsu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1040 on: July 09, 2019, 12:27:47 PM »
Thanks ITSU for your efforts.
 I'm hoping that you will use resistances instead of LED's in this coming test.
If you are using the satellite coils as before in parallel resonance it is obvious that these in the resonance situation are best conformed wih high Ohm resistors or anyhow with other very HIGH Ohmic loads as they go extremely high Ohmic then.
A parallel resonance circuit loaded with LED's will only be "clamped" mismatched and the Q-value totally destroyd.
You can also then skip the FRB's.
[[ Maybe a high Ohmic (load)resistor before two in opposite direction LED's is maybe a choice that also gives a visual option. ]]

Regards Arne

seaad,

well, for the loopback test i would not need any leds nor resistors, just feed back the DC into the supercap.

A question which is not being answered yet is whether or not the satellite coils need to be in either parallel
or series resonance.

I have hinted a few times that i now use parallel for the satellites (series for the big coil), because of the
better impedance match, but nobody has specifically corrected me that i should use one or the other.

Perhaps A.king21 can shed some light on that.


Thanks,   Itsu.

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4068
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1041 on: July 09, 2019, 12:33:20 PM »
Hi Itsu,
My understanding from Rick's video and posts is that in his RX LC circuits the coil is in parallel with the tuning capacitor.
So they are all parallel resonant LC circuits and directly drive the LED bulbs or individual small LEDs. 

Gyula

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1041 on: July 09, 2019, 12:33:20 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline endlessoceans

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1042 on: July 09, 2019, 12:44:29 PM »
I don't know, it is something I have wondered for a long time. Are they all liars Tesla, Morray, Newman, Meyers, Searl, Wagner, Hans Coeler a......

Just depends what you think they were lying about.  You see.....and listen carefully here.....if you read their patents VERY carefully (and they were very well worded!!) there is NOTHING in them that indicates OU.  NOTHING

But people love to read into things especially when the mind feverishly wishes for a dream.  Tesla talked about millions of horsepower and power generated but after all those years he was still hooked to the grid.  For ALL his experiments he was hooked to mains town supply. 

As far as the other inventors go, many were working with exotic materials such a radium or other isotopes.  Searl is an old buffoon who tried all sorts of magnetic motors and told fanciful stories of his one working motor which lost gravity and shot intp the atmosphere never to be seen again  LOOOOL   ::) ::) ::) ::).   He should go to prison for that nonsense.  Newman still worked with big batteries and took thousand's of dollars in investors money  Also jail worthy.  Moray was a true scientist but also worked with exotic materials and never disclosed the contents of his tube.  Many other inventors are often associated with OU sites but the fact is their patents did not state OU.  People see what they want to see


SOME of those patents had Terms such as "self sustaining" that Rick Friedrich grabs onto...….but that does not mean OU.  Self sustaining …….for how long???  Huh.  A flashlight is self sustaining.  A rechargeable power tool that does not need to be plugged into the wall is self sustaining but for how long?  By the true definition of the term....a vehicle is self sustaining because you can fill the tank and drive 400 mile...…    None of those patents said or even alluded to INFINITE self sustaining.   Yes...energy is never destroyed but it is converted into heat and light and all sort and that conversion costs you something.   


These stories about coils cooling to freezing and cold lightbulbs are nonsense.  Even large halogen loads which you run off a tesla hairpin that you can dunk into water without getting electrocuted are scalding hot on the glass....why?? because there is resistance at the filament in order to generate heat and light.


Tesla was a brilliant man and his patents on one wire transmission were cutting edge.   Rick....

You have pretty big capacity batteries with lEDS that hooked a certain way can run for days.    Your batteries are a still dropping down after all that cycling.  I find it amusing that on one hand you say that NOTHING can be proven on the internet and yet that's the very thing you attempt to do.   BTW saying that nothing can be proven on the internet is rubbish.  You sit there and conduct some very good demonstrations (yes that's a compliment) and draw some accurate conclusions and yet on the other hand when somebody asks you to take all these little black boxes and show 3 batteries being charged for the price of one or a output looped back to the source you come up with the laughable "Im sorry but nothing can be proven on the internet and btw this circuit is not perfectly tuned.   ::) ::) ::) ::).  "back in my last seminar I showed it running perpetually blah blah blah and thousands have OU!!.  You yourself said Bedini was a liar and misled people and yet you are no different. 

You know what...Don Smith said exactly the same thing over and over and yet the few guys that took a measurement to his device always showed it as slowly running down.

You may think I am angry or a paid shill (which is laughable) but I am not the one making massive claims and keeping people on the carrot stick for how many decades now??

Oh and btw....mixing what the Bible says with your kit selling is just plain mentally ill.  Are you trying to run a church or sell a charger?  Jesus himself threw out the money changers from the temple because the things of the flesh have nothing to do with the things of the spirit.  So if you want to start a church then go do that but please read the Bible first before prostituting it.



Offline seaad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1043 on: July 09, 2019, 01:00:40 PM »
Itsu,
I think you comes into a situation where the super caps acts more or less as a shortcut also (extremely low impedance, as LEDs) when loading them.
My advise is to introduce some type of buck- converter in between the secondary coils [the gathered (high) DC voltages] and the  super cap.
These buck- converters can be made to have a very high efficiency ( >95%).
 
Regards Arne

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1043 on: July 09, 2019, 01:00:40 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1044 on: July 09, 2019, 01:06:32 PM »
Void of truth, yeah that is my point. This is 90-95% psychological. People lie to themselves and others on both sides. Some people want to believe they have something when they don't, and other people convince themselves that something can't happen when it can.
I don't expect you to believe anything I say, just like I have no reason to believe anything a nameless person I have never met says. Such comments have no benefit here and are just wasted space. Just more diversion.
The fact is that everyone believes that millions of people have free energy solar and wind and other means. Solar would have been considered impossible over 100 years ago. Same kind of ridicule would have been hurled at people. I said what I said because it is a fact that many people use the technology in various ways. You assume that people would go online and tell everyone what they have, but that is false. In fact a good number of people have shared things online and you guys don't pay attention to that.

So many liars and delusionals in this world. Very sad.

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1045 on: July 09, 2019, 01:51:43 PM »
G,
I have always encouraged and allowed people to bring in any equipment to my meetings. And people have done that all the time. Unfortunately that means that sometimes people damage things.
Why say "Honestly Rick"? Why say that? You assume I wouldn't? Like I said, you have always assumed what you want here G. You have no reason to assume one way over the other. And yet you do.
If people wanted to make loops back to the supply they could do that. That is something we did at the beginning of this. It is very basic level. It is easier to just do sympathetic resonance so that the input draws no power. Why go to all that trouble when you can still power loads with no input?

The people at my meetings have seen many things much more impressive than that sort of thing. You think you know what goes on there, but you don't. All you can do is assume wrong.

Now you try and control people and tell them to demand something. The way I run my meetings is starting off by asking each person to share who they are and what they are looking for so I can shape the meeting in such a way. There is never such a negative attitude as you display here G. People do not demand anything, because they go away with more than what they expected. They don't go away with a useless toy of running a circuit that merely powers itself. We are doing with learning how to multiplying the energy out as much as desired. Sure I go over those toys as curiosities, but that is old news.

You guys can forever keep yourself stunted and acting like things are so hard to even get to the starting level. You can fool many people reading this forum. But the war is mostly over and you have lost.

G, while it may be true that it is difficult to estimate exactly how much it takes to run an LED, nevertheless my point was sufficiently made. Once you do the metered readings with these bulbs you can have a working knowledge of them where you do not have to always measure them at every second as you want to demand. For example, you can get a feel for things by feeling the heat produced by the bigger LED modules with heatsinks after a few seconds. You can do controlled heat measurements as well. Anyway, people have enough of a working knowledge to realize that you can't even power up these LEDs at all if you divide the input energy between them all as I mentioned. And you also forget the fact that they could see, and see for themselves, that adding more and more coils did not raise the input as you assume. I could add as many coils as I had and it only dropped. You deliberately fail to address that. So if Itsu was doing this right (and I haven't watched the latest videos to see) then you would see that he could add more and more coils in the same way. So if he got 1/4 of the input in each coil and then had 5 coils then there you have it.

We see again your absolute trust in someone you have never even met. You are a foolish person G. You show that you trust him 100% right now already to be able to replicate what I am doing when he told us that he never has read what I have even written or shown. So all of you are deliberately trying to make this fail and promoting something other than science here. You show your prejudice. You really think you can know someone to have such foolish trust in someone online. I really doubt that you speak truth here G. I can see through your games here. Itsu is just a tool for you. Why would people put such faith in Itsu if after all these years he has never had any success? I really can't understand why you guys would waste such time chasing after something for so many years that never worked out. At least Mario addressed that point. The time and money spent doing that does not add up. It is irrational to do that when you could just buy some solar panels and be done with it. And that is the real world G. That is what real people do if they can't figure something out. But you guys are either on here for other reasons, which seems obvious with some, or you just love to waste time in idle chat trusting someone who doesn't know what they are doing.

G, you acknowledge nothing. You have ignored my fundamental questions. You refuse to do that. You checked out when I called your bluff. Then you give it some time for people to forget my questions. Again, you have no basis for believing in OU and all that you do is apply arbitrary assumptions to disprove anything that would be favorable to OU. Show us why you think OU is possible. But you won't do that. Therefore what you say here is useless and deceives them. If you admitted the grounds for OU then you would experience it easy enough. Instead you foster the ambiguous chase after the unknown and unprovable chat about a mystery circuit that maybe will do something extra special.

" If Itsu had been to my meetings and then replicated the same, then what would you say to that?"

Honestly Rick, would you let anyone measure anything relevant to your resonant kit setup on such a meeting?  Would you let Itsu attempt looping back the outputs to replace the power supply? It could be done within 1 hour  work by using full wave diode bridges across the LC tanks of the 10 or 11 big receiver units (as per your thoughtful  calculations the many small receiver units would not be needed) and collect the DC outputs in a bigger puffer capacitor. 

This latter then would feed the gate driver IC directly, provided the DC level holds up in the puffer capacitor at least for some seconds (and hopefully for much longer),  that would already indicate the real strength of the received 8W power you claim. This way the participants on that particular meeting, say 8-10 people (or even 18), could see the performance in the real world. 
(The function generator could still be run from its own supply because the input of the gate driver needs only a few mW drive level, negligible to the claimed 8 W output. And a discrete square wave generator can be built for the job.)

I hope those participants you mentioned "as a good number of them reading this thread" have been indeed reading this post too and next time they will 'demand' the loop back attempt...   8)

My kind message for them: Folks, electric power going into LED bulbs cannot be evaluated numerically by the naked eye, LED bulbs are strongly nonlinear devices. Please see this post here and think the spectacular LED brightnesses over:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534508/#msg534508
   
And no offense but I would believe Itsu 100% what he would have experienced if he had been either a witness there, or if after seeing it he would replicate it and show it in his video: I would certainly believe him. Many members (who care to follow his activity) have known him for years here and on other forums.   

And why Itsu would report back a false result after his succesful replication ??  I would trust him 100% and so would several other members here too.  For he would have learned from you a wonderful circuit setup...  and the other participants present in the real world too. 

And I would really be happy that the 8 W (or even only say 4 W) is indeed present at the outputs of the satellite LC circuits while less than 1 W is consumed from the 8 W (or 4 W) output to maintain operation. Rick I would acknowledge I was wrong. 

Gyula

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1045 on: July 09, 2019, 01:51:43 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1046 on: July 09, 2019, 02:06:59 PM »
Nick,
You said anyone can be wrong, but then you say you would trust Itsu 100%. So you deny that he could be wrong. So your long-winded pint here just disproves itself. It is self-contradiction. You merely give lip service to a truth about doing real science and then toss it out the window as soon as you make it, or rather before you make it in this case.
You say, "I would trust itsu's findings, 100%" because I believe he couldn't be wrong. Yet, apart from Itsu, "Anyone can be wrong" because "he tells and shows it how it is."  :o ::) This is laughable. Who are you trying to kid here man? Do you understand what special pleading means? You have just made Itsu infallible.
Why do you assume that you understand all the environment and all the parts he is using when you watch a video?
There is no video proof that is possible. You are encouraging both credulity and incredulity here.
Who makes you the standard of who is to believed and not? How can you say most videos are faked? On what grounds? Have you personally seen any of these in the real world. I have spent 15 years full time in this work, which is not doubted. I have met thousands of people and have a real-world estimation of such things. But you clowns make these sweeping statements as a mere game. You toss around assumptions like they are no big deal. Yeah, you don't want to be accountable for what you believe or disbelieve as if it doesn't matter. You want to justify creating your own illogical and unreal reality. Then you want to mock and condemn me for showing your on self-contradictions. You can't have a double standard Nick. Again, as you said "put up or shut up" Nick. Put up consistency or don't waste space.

    Guys:
   I'll second that... I would also trust itsu's findings, 100%. Regardless of the test results, being good or bad. Anyone can be wrong, but he tells and shows it how it is. Whether it's positive results, or not so positive results.  But, the proof is in the pudding, and lighting just a 10w bulb, as well as a feed back path, would help to turn the tide, for me.
   I would trust what certain people show in their videos. Not all devices are faked, just mostly... and that is why we are all so skeptical about what some people say, and what they show. Any OU type of claims need to be verified, that is what this thread is here for. Rick told me to put up or shut up, when I bring up the subject of proof. I guess he forgot where he's at.
   We are here to learn... All of us. Without long drawn out sermons, telling us how and what to believe. Thanks, but I got that one down, already. Waiting for the real self runner...before diving in, to unknown waters.

Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4324
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1047 on: July 09, 2019, 02:41:58 PM »

G, while it may be true that it is difficult to estimate exactly how much it takes to run an LED, nevertheless my point was sufficiently made.
Not in my opinion Rick. Your battery powering the black box and LED lamps dropped around 1V during the video. I appreciate that you were not trying to convince anyone that they were watching an OU demonstration but what exactly were you trying to point out to your viewers??

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1048 on: July 09, 2019, 02:44:37 PM »
This is an important question. Superficial surveys that look at a few people for a few minutes allow for that to be entertained. If we merely take a mythbuster level of investigation, which is purely for entertainment purposes, we will just engage in confirmation bias. But if you spend 15 years actually reading these people enough to replicate what they have done then you can see the truth. People present these things in a way that is overly simplistic. As if it comes down to all these people being complete liars or completely telling the truth. Even liars have to tell the truth most of the time. Even people mistaken have to be correct in most things they do. Mistakes and lies are not detected because they are always surrounded with a lot of truth.
In regards to these people, they would have to be doing some trick and then live under that falsehood for all those years. But these guys didn't make verification of their claims impossible. Newman's motor is very easy to make. I have demonstrated the window motor for almost 15 years, where the batteries could be rotated around. Newman had some differences, but the idea is easy to work with and verify. It is old news now. His system was not as convenient as he insisted upon miles of wire.
As for Meyers, it is also easy to verify. You can see replications on youtube. It's not for everyone to play with hydrogen, but it is easy to see 3 times the gas production than regular electrolysis and without the mess. Meyers and the lord in the UK paid the price for pushing the tech as others have. Some of these guys had wacky personalities, but then so do many people here on this forum.  :o Tesla was credible but also was really off on things like eugenics. You guys assume that he didn't reveal free energy processes because you have never built his patents. Once you actually do that you will have what you are looking for.
This brings me to the patents, if any of you would spend time in patent research you would get beyond these kinds of questions. You would find many more claims of OU and which are easy to replicate. I took everyone back to Benítez 100 years ago. It is very easy to do what he did in what I call Benitez Switch 7. People never want to talk about that because it is too easy to replicate. So the trolls avoid that claim and verification of it. I have done the same thing with the motors for years.
I notice you didn't mention Bedini, who has been the biggest name in Free Energy research (who shouldn't have been). He has been now proven to be a liar. But that doesn't mean everything he claimed was a lie. Not everything he claimed to be true was a lie. The lies I have discovered were mostly in matters of claiming that he was an inventor. But his lies do give grounds to question everything he did say, and also call into question other similar claims.

Your last point is also very important. There are many systems that are in their very nature, or at a power level, that violate national security interests. So they will be scrubbed from the net as fast as you attempt to type them in. Many systems would compete with weapons systems as well.
Again, if you spend any time with patent history you will find thousands of related patents that cross this line or do not, that use these processes. So it is not a matter of if people are lying or telling the truth, but in simply understanding what these people have said, and noticing the thousands of others that have used each one of these processes over the last 100 years. The OU in such cases is not always for the end of electricity but for other types of outputs. You guys do not show any interest in considering this point. You do not wish to understand the principles of OU but merely want some little circuit that does a trick. Well I already give such little circuits. Anyway, if you take the time to actually read these guys you will be able to break down each system and recognize what is to be done and how it is to be done. Then you can see each process done thousands of times other patents and with existing technology right in your own home.

You see all such questions give the appearance that these claims were so entirely different than processes in our own existing technology. Like I said before, just study classical music instruments and you will see the same processes and gains.

I don't know, it is something I have wondered for a long time. Are they all liars Tesla, Morray, Newman, Meyers, Searl, Wagner, Hans Coeler and the list goes on and some as Searl and Meyers have done jail time but does that mean they were all liars or is there a true conspiracy to keep it all under wraps or is it human greed I don't know for sure yet after 15 years of looking into this stuff. This is part of why I don't even experiment with some things such as energy from the sky or ground because what if you did figure it out and powered your house from the ground do you really think you wouldn't just be thrown in jail for stealing power.

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1049 on: July 09, 2019, 03:01:53 PM »
Itsu,
Short is fine, but is no virtue. You are claiming to be a replicator but you are not replicating anything here. You are doing your own thing. You are not replicating an OU claim because you are not making an OU claim. This was brought up the other day. What is the meaning of your work here? You have said you do not read what I write nor have you attempted to replicate what I have done. You guys pretend to do that but then admit to not doing that. This is all a big game. Now it is fine to experiment and try things out, but that is not the purpose of this thread is it?
You find it amazing that anyone would doubt you. Why? Are you infallible? Can any of us verify in the real world anything that you are doing? Why should we believe anything you do? You are not making an OU claim. You are making many claims, and because they are not OU claims we are supposed to believe them??? Now that is truly amazing. I saw this right from the beginning and that is why I said to A.King that you are wasting your time with Itsu. He has been at this for years and has not got anywhere because he doesn't know what he is doing. This is all but going around and around in circles. Same old assumptions. And now these guys, along with you, have made you the infallible replicator of no one's claims but your own. This is reckless.
But do not misunderstand me. It is perfectly fine to do what you have been doing in trying things out and posting videos. My objection is with your assumptions about what is implied by such videos. You expect others to believe that you know what you are doing and that they can understand your real-world environment. The only value of your input is merely for others to be able to do something to show themselves. You wish to bypass the real world and expect people to conclude prematurely. So this whole thing is a big game.
You say that anyone can make a mistake, but then take that back in saying videos can not allow for mistakes. But how so? I have watched thousands of videos that don't show the real mistakes that the videos don't show. And why would anyone be expected to trust someone in our day?
Yes it is fine to discuss things that appear to be wrong or mistaken. All agreed there. But to assume that a video proves anything is wrong. It can only give ideas to personally try. Why do you all just want to bypass reality?

Are you all so addicted to science fiction movies that you assume what is on the screen is reality????

Thanks Guys, for the trusts,  but i find it amazing that anyone would doubt any results a replicator would present.

Of course anyone can make a mistake, but thats where the video's are for so anyone can see what is being done.
If you think something is wrong it can be discussed and corrected.

Anyway i always try to keep my posts short and clear so won't comment on it any further.
Itsu

 

OneLink