Hi ever one, 

Rick' I don't watch much tv these days as once the adverts come on I like to wind the box on, if i haven't fallen asleep. Do you see my point here ? i'm not insulting you i'm just asking if you could highlight your useful points if it's not too much trouble.

Has any one got or produced a short form interpretation of Rick's useful info on here, i'm sure we would all be interested i know i would be.

kind regards AG

PS about 7 or 8 years back I  made a Newman motor with 2 fan cases and a pile of Neo's it's not all that brilliant but it amuses the cat watching the tape fly round on the brass fly wheel.

AG, I don't have time to get inside of your head when you don't bother to pay attention to what you type. Like "wind the box on"  Maybe you're still sleeping when you type.
I have already given you points such as I gave to G:
1. The gains in resonance tank circuits as specified.
2. The gains in fast rates of change in the context specified. You can also read Tesla on that subject as noted.
I am working on a short document with important points to not be mistaken on in this research. There is nothing like this out there. It will take a few years to perfect but I'll probably have an initial publication soon. The hard part in making things short is that leaves room to more misunderstanding, and I'm not giving you critics anything more to poke at. It is also hard to use words that have different meanings for different people about important ideas.

Hi ever one, 

Rick' I don't watch much tv these days as once the adverts come on I like to wind the box on, if i haven't fallen asleep. Do you see my point here ? i'm not insulting you i'm just asking if you could highlight your useful points if it's not too much trouble.

Has any one got or produced a short form interpretation of Rick's useful info on here, i'm sure we would all be interested i know i would be.

kind regards AG

PS about 7 or 8 years back I  made a Newman motor with 2 fan cases amd a pile of Neo's it's not all that brilliant but it amuses the cat watching the tape fly round on the brass fly wheel.

Believe me, no one finds my videos more irritating than I do (at least most of the time). They are very poor quality because I don't have time to do them. I just throw them up there and hopefully they will serve a purpose. I'm not offended with the criticisms, but I have everyone beat there. I may delete all of them soon when I get more time to properly do them. The idea has been to do something rather than nothing. The content is not bad, just the delivery is not appealing. Not spiced up enough. In truth, it doesn't matter what is true or false anymore, all that matters is how entertaining it is. When I do something to make people laugh I get likes and compliments.

I watched your latest videos as I said I will.
I was interested in negative energy "term" and I watched videos related to it, and some more.
Found interesting aspects, in your explanations.

Your videos are not irritating, just too long as you try to explain everything and sometimes (every time) you lose focus on subject which is ok.
At least once, most of us tried to harvest back emf or use it somehow, but nobody found efficient way to do it.

You are right when you say that important thing is rate of change which produce more spikes. And then repetition, frequency.
With those two perfected it is possible to make only spikes very fast before current starts to flow and harvest only spikes.
That system would spend only little to drive.

But the question is will the spikes provide more power then input. In spikes could be hundreds of wats, but their transient is very short, so at the end, is there more power in spikes only than input?

Or if you feedback it, and use it at same time, it needs to be same or less than input (losses), for efficient system.

Any way I found your videos interesting.

Thanks!

As I understand from Rick's videos and he's talks that rate of change (on/off time) is essence of Bedini.
It is not clear to me how Bedini can do that with PNP and NPN, because, mosfets are speed kings for that.
Even a cheap IRF540 can out speed any NPN for a lot... in a terms of on/off speed, which is must be, for Bedini system?

By the way, nice work AG!

See the problem is always the same, people always assume "more of the same" is the answer. You guys are stuck on assuming under unity is the only reality. At some point you have to ask yourself why bother looking anywhere for extra energy if you assume it will only equal to that anyway. Why do that? Where is the extra energy supposed to come into the system if you assume it can't?
You are assuming that bemf or the negative energy is something like electrons that can be measured. You don't get it. The energy does not travel from somewhere to a distant destination like current flow. You are assuming Kirchhoff's law somehow applies and it all has to equal out and that it is all current. But this energy doesn't flow but rather converges into the paths/loads. This is a true negative resistance process, but you are thinking it as a positive resistance. Therefore you cannot expect a larger load like a battery to receive more power over time than a smaller load. Naturally this doesn't make any sense to you. Because according to Kirchhoff you can't even have any electrical flow backwards anyway. So then how can a 300V battery be charged at all with a 12V input? Yet it can and does.
You guys keep repeating things that are not true at all. So then people who haven't done the testing assume there is some universal failure. But in fact tens of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands how "found efficient way to do it." Who is this "nobody" you refer to? If I have a fan of the billions of brushless fans in existence, like in the back of your computer, and I charge another battery at all, while the fan runs at the same speed and air flow then I have found an more efficient way have I not? This is old news. Where have you been all these years not to see this? I find these "nobody found it" statements to be actually part of psychological war against this research. It creates the idea over and over again that nobody has done anything when many have and it is actually old news...
So then why would I be right in saying rate of change and frequency if "nobody found efficient way to do it"? These are two opposite statements you are making. I don't understand. Notice I say that because then you go back to saying the same thing. But first, we are not talking about merely making motors more efficient. You are on the wrong forum if you are not seeking OU but merely more efficiency. Here we are focused not even on mere negative differential resistance but true negative resistance.
Back to you reverting back to the same current assumptions of out must equal in. If you are talking about current then that would have to be the case. But then why are we even kidding around about OU?
First point to consider, WHICH NO ONE BOTHERS TO PROPERLY EVALUATE. If you had say 100W input to drive a motor. If you get the motor action while you get 10W worth of electrical output would that not be significant. Your comment is supposing it is nothing unless it is above 100W output. But you forget the motor output. Now if you are charging a battery and get 75W worth of charging of a lead acid battery, you would be already needing 100W maybe to charge it that way normally. So if you can rotate around two batteries, while running the motor as intended, then you have more than 2 times the output because it takes more than 100% to charge a battery right? So I see many people as ungrateful for any additional output unless it is more than the input. This is a big mistake if you are using the motor as normal, like in the case of a fan.

Secondly, the spikes are not current so they amount to zero watts. This is a misunderstanding to think that it is again a matter of volts and amps. Again I ask, if it was so then where would extra energy enter in? This is why I asked G if resonance is a gain or not? If not then what are we doing here? If the pulse does not open a door up to the aether so that energy converges in to the negative resistor then who are we kidding people? Just how are you to expect any gain at all?

So what did you find interesting if you just assumed that the spike input would be the same as the spike on the output? How do you expect to find any gain?

At least once, most of us tried to harvest back emf or use it somehow, but nobody found efficient way to do it.
You are right when you say that important thing is rate of change which produce more spikes. And then repetition, frequency.
With those two perfected it is possible to make only spikes very fast before current starts to flow and harvest only spikes.
That system would spend only little to drive.

But the question is will the spikes provide more power then input. In spikes could be hundreds of wats, but their transient is very short, so at the end, is there more power in spikes only than input?

Or if you feedback it, and use it at same time, it needs to be same or less than input (losses), for efficient system.

Any way I found your videos interesting.

Thanks!

I am still curious about your experience with Bedini and others and what you all accomplished over the years. I am still looking for that and did not found one promising too much.
So, it is interesting subject.

Hi WhatIsIt,

I worked on Bedini tech for several years and built several electro-mechanical and fully solid state energisers. It became a cult with much time and money being expended by many in the search for free energy manifested in the battery bank by the actions of the energiser - a definitely not OU device in itself, as pointed out many times by John. So we were all looking for a free energy gain in our LA battery banks after having completed many charge / discharge cycles. Not forgetting the 'mechanical' gain by virtue of the torque available from revolving bike wheel, which John also reminded us many times was free, if of course and only if we built the energiser properly and not just the way that we wanted to build it. In the meantime, John was publishing books with riddles to the building and secrets of the various energisers and more exotic devices like the 'Window Motor'.

Confusion mounted as time went on, as battery load testing appeared to be carried out in different ways, until a load testing guideline was produced by SG forum members. I hit an apparent gain on many occassions, especially during the first few load testing cycles, until I realised why. The 'why' held the secret as to why my batteries appeared to be gaining real capacity. Interestingly, when I reached around the 8th and then subsequent cycles load testing cycles, I noticed a slow reduction in gain in the form of a flatlining data curve. What was causing this I thought to myself. Well, I know that other experimenters know why and I think Rick does but to my knowledge the answer was never openly acknowledged by those leading the cult, as it exposed the myth of free energy from LA batteries.
Towards the end of those cult years, John made an astounding admission, that all our battery 'spiking' with energisers without the use of cap pulsers, was damaging our batteries!!. I'd had enough of it by then and moved into what has become a new cult - Kapanadze free energy devices.

I would be interested to know who you are. In those days people used their names which helped in discussions.

I have to agree about a number of things you bring up here (while I would also like to help with several mistakes). The first thing is that it was true that Bedini created a cult about himself and the idea from Bearden, Peter, and Tony C that he was a living legend. I have now fully exposed that lie. While John had and promoted some truths he did not appear to invent anything himself, nor did he show himself able to proper experiments on so many levels. I made the mistake of assuming he was something that he wasn't and after several years I realized that there was nothing special about him and that really had almost no ability to do good science. He ended up promoting battery killers like his tesla switch and DC chargers and could not even do any proper thermal management with products over 100W. I was especially amazed as I watched him try to figure out how to make the big Ferris wheel that I assembled for my convention do something special. I had shown one coil driving it with 1W, which he didn't want to show, and after 2 or 3 weeks with thousands of dollars of wire wasted in huge coils and magnets, wasting all of our time, he just did more of the same while mystifying everyone that what he had done was somehow special--when my simple coil was exactly the same result. He was a man of hype who relatedly said to me and others in the shop that he learned from the Jews to keep his name being talked about whether good or bad. He was always dangling the carrot in front of everyone and drawing everything out. He said to me not to tell everyone everything so that you could always be above them. Well John was just a copycat and there was nothing special about him or any special abilities. In the end he lied about his history to elevate himself over Newman and delete him. And you have to ask yourself if there was more to this than merely having serious personal problems? You have to judge it by the resulting fruit, as I have done interviewing thousands of people impacted by him. John could have spent a little time to organize teaching that gives people clear direction so that his claim for caring for the little old lady at the end of road that struggles to pay her power bill could have been realized. In the end John left us with nothing but his vain pride and the games he played. He rightly calculated that even if he would give the answers to everyone in plain sight that people would miss it if he really didn't draw attention to it. Thus DVD7 passed unnoticed by everyone. John never demonstrated it so naturally people didn't think by his body language that it was anything important--even while he said you could multiply it out as much as you want. John never used the technology in the shop or his home, and he never made any electric vehicles so he was not a man of experience but rather of hype, storytelling, mysticism and inflated ego. However, this did not mean that everything he said was a lie or useless. He passed on a lot of good information from others even though those close to him could realize the limitations of his understand of such copied information (due to his lack of personal experimentation--he relied on others to prove things out and often resorted to 5 minute tests himself). So because of his lack of personal experience he often gave bad direction and misspoke about many things. This is also how you can account for his many contradictor statements where he manifestly flipflopped within a day. He could never be a real scientist that is ready to learn from failures while trying to maintain a legend status where you are the expert that can never be wrong.

So all that pride and mysticism and hiding things in plain sight was mixed into the many things and directions Bedini was giving about the SSG. I did what I could to demystify it and give some direction. But the helpers mixed in their own errors into advice given to replicators and the result was somewhat chaotic. I did show the proper conclusions people were looking for in actual demonstrated models. But my mistake was not organizing all the correct information in one concise plays. This has be a learning experience for me. In the last few years I have been able to give better direction in these matters.

As for your claim that the energizer is "definitely not an OU device in itself", and that this was affirmed by John himself. The problem with that is that John was a liar and often contradicted himself. He even made sweeping statements like "there is no such things as free energy" all the while publishing books on free energy generation. These are but word games. The word game in this respect is that you have to understand HOW free energy processes work. They are not in some special arrangements of parts as if the parts are a free energy or OU device. I have always said that the batteries are half the system. But even the energizer with the batteries are not going to give you any desired results unless you know what you are doing and don't contradict several important things. And you will do just that if you assume various things that people are inclined to assume. If you don't understand HOW the energy gain practically works then you will usually end up defeating the process. So after all these years I have realized that this is 90% psychological and people's problematic practice of giving themselves over to assumptions at the beginning. And as I have said, if you assume everything is just "MORE OF THE SAME THING" then why do you expect to have any gains? There has to be one or more different things done that are different than the norm. And these I have repeatedly pointed out. These are the key things to be focused on and are key conditions to success. But first you have to be open to realize that first point. This is what G could not do, and what many others are not even willing to consider. So until we are open to the idea that there may be something missing in mainstream science, that it is limited in regards to the real world possibilities then what is the point proceeding merely upon that limited foundation? If it is believed to be absolute then what do you really hope to find here when that foundation can only result in under unity not matter what you examine???

It was true that the negative resistor was the battery itself. It was also the entire path connecting to the battery terminals. The first point people really missed, because they were jumping ahead to wanting to prove their goal out in a short time, was that the battery should not have charged at all. People did not realize that because there were just looking at the circuit and system as a mere amplifier. They were partly justified because of Bedini's lack of clarity in the matter and his insistence that the energizer was not a motor but rather a mechanical oscillator which was not meant to do any mechanical work. So people were merely assuming that it was like an amplifier action where the primary battery was powering the second battery. Naturally they wanted to see the second battery be able to produce more work over time than the first battery took to make the process happen. So misunderstandings multiplied at that level of misunderstanding. First of all it wasn't realized by most people who are not familiar with the inefficiencies in battery charging, that if you consider all the energy it takes to charge a battery and discharge it that you have significant losses. So even if you can rotate batteries around on such a system (as many people have done with these systems over the last 15 years) that you would have had to create more than unity to keep it all going in light of all the inherent losses in charging batteries and switching transistors, etc.

Because Bedini did not promote the motor idea people thought of this as an amplifier and if they used the small batteries they would never see a practical gain. Now he did have the fan set up and that was really the only exception to contradict that major misimpression. Let me explain. I came into this as a backyard mechanic and saw instantly that we could apply this to actual motors rather than just looking at this as a mechanical oscillator. I proved everyone wrong in the assumption that even the SSG could never have any mechanical output. I demonstrated this across the major US campuses for a year. And I have shown how you can take an existing brushless fan and charge a battery up with it while it still runs as normal. People copied that and take credit for it. But I drove this point home first, that the input battery was not at all charging the second battery, but was merely powering the motor. All the losses in the input battery are merely because of the closed loop upon itself at the rate of the motor load. This Kirchhoff will prove out. So now how can the charging battery charge at all? Any charging, if you allow that to be part of your estimation of this circuit, violates Kirchhoff (as Walter Lewin hints at) and gives you a non-conservative gain. Naturally people want to disregard the second battery in such cases. But it is something everyone can see. I have demonstrated this for 15 years now to probably 100,000 people. And I have taught way more people how to experience the same thing with real motors. So the first thing to realize that the battery should not be charging at all from the perspective of mainstream college level physics. Anything useful you get out of it is free energy gains from the norm. It is not some better efficiency as it is a real gain. This is all the basic entry level into this technology. Many people did not get that and so never actually started. I call this stage one in my Selfish Circuits or Loving Paths teaching. I demonstrated many different motors in the real world showing that I could not only power significant loads but continually rotate my batteries for years without having to charge them from anything outside of that stage one system. I deliberately did not use any advanced process in what I call stages 2 or 3. So I made the rider lawnmower be powered off of the SSG circuit and drove it a half mile through a parade in 2007, when the batteries were starting fully discharged. Later I did the window motor on the same lawnmower which 400 people could see me riding around at my Renaissance Convention at the Cour D'alene Resort in 2010. You could see everything was the basic stage one process. Two battery banks rotated around. The next year I added a few more coils to that crude motor and put it into a 26' boat which I gave rides on at the July 2011 convention (which ended up causing everyone to turn against me as I evidently crossed a line in that demonstration). I ran that boat for three years on just rotating the batteries around. I did this to show everyone that the basic circuit could do this. I was expected to do this, and I couldn't resist it either  I showed ceiling fans that I had used for the whole summer with just rotating the batteries back and forth. I showed smaller fans. Generators, and many different things demonstrating the basic circuit was not merely a mechanical oscillator but a real motor. This is old news my friend. I gave everyone enough reasons and demonstration that you could do the same yourself and easily see that you could get two outputs for one input. Power a motor while charging a battery that could more or less be rotated around without doing any significant tuning or special process beyond slapping the parts together. What more could I have done to show the stage 1 basic process is 2 times the energy than input? Since it was rotating (which only requires the added capacitor, SCR and diode) it was the same as self-running. In the first six months of this research (like Feb 2005) I could power all of my energy needs. Now I was broke as a joke and didn't even have money for a $6k inverter even though I rejuvenated and used large banks of discarded batteries. Nevertheless I made free junk do this stuff and had things powered all over my house. Someone donated money to keep me doing this stuff and so I put it all into the lawnmower parts and circuits. Later we formed Renaissance and I've been at it ever since.

The second point to consider is building upon the first point. The first point is that the primary battery is not charging the second battery. They are in series with each other and there can be no current flow from a battery in series with another battery. This is especially understood by everyone when the input battery is 12V and the charging battery is higher like 24, 36, 48, or 300 volts. How can you charge a higher potential battery from another one that is in series? Again, this is not an amplifier circuit. Battery 1 or A is not charging battery 2 or B. The battery is being charged as a negative resistor directly from the environment. The energy converges into it at that point. It is not current flow from the input battery. If that was the case, as people assume, then you would merely be dividing the energy in the coil and the motor would run at half power while the battery only half charged. That is how you would have to apply Kirchhoff to all the branches of circuit loops. But the battery is not in parallel with the primary and is therefore backwards. And if I am running motors for years then obviously this is a mistake. So the first point is clearly established by experience that we are not talking about current charging of the secondary battery and that something else is taking place. This brings us to the second point:

If something else that is not current is charging the battery then maybe the nature of that is much different. Maybe it is rather opposite. Maybe the energy converges in a true negative resistor rather than diverges/scatters out from/across a positive resistor? And maybe one of the remarkable benefits of that is to see how placing a larger surface area results in a greater manifestation of charge over that area under the same conditions/operation of the input and motor. So this is what you can see I did years ago when I did the following experiment. I ran my 3 pole monopole kit with 3 coils having larger wire and running at 2A 12V input from a 12AH battery. I was charging another identical 12V 12AH battery with 1 to 1 input to output approximately. Then I stopped it and removed the charging battery and connected up a slightly bigger battery bank of Bedini's cell phone tower batteries which I had in my shop for 3 years. So now I had not only 48 volts of batteries charging in series connection to my little 12V 12AH battery, but these were 2000AH each. Now the input and rpm remained the same, and over time I ended up being able to get a COP over 200 just by giving more surface area for the negative resistance process to manifest. I also didn't realize that I severely limited the potential by using small wires and clips on those big batteries. Nevertheless I proved to myself and some people that we are not pushing current and this is not a linear thing at all. The batteries are self-charging, and the bigger cup you dip in the ocean the more you will freely get out of it. The Aether is the ocean if we want to admit it. I understood these things early on with my set of 10 golf-cart batteries that I took on the road with me in a big trailer. So my friend I don't think you ever realized how these things work. So many people got lost in Bedini's chaos that I have tried to straighten out all these years.

As for how to properly condition the batteries negatively, I found at the time that people just didn't get it and were really not interested in focusing on doing that to get it right. Relatively few people got that down and actually have continued to do that all these years as they report to me from time to time. So I decided to stop promoting the negative charging as people just didn't want that, and which did not allow for battery rotation. So I showed the SCR pulser and mainly demonstrated that when I showed the rotating setups mentioned. It was a simpleinverted circuit on the negative leg. Just a low ESR high voltage cap being dumped by an SCR triggered by a regular 1N4007 diode. It was switched freely without any power supply or use of some 555 frequency timer as John was showing in his schematics. It was good enough, and gentle enough to not damage the batteries over time (which was something John never cared about).

But because of that major shift decided upon because of the lack of understanding negative energy engineering, the public focus on negative energy engineering in the groups was over. People missed an important thing because all they really wanted was a motor that kept running. So I gave them that. Some years later I returned to this in showing the third stage advanced process. But first you had to understand really what was happening in the first stage. We had only really shown the effects of negative resistance in the batteries. I had explained over and over that if you have larger batteries you would have greater results over using smaller batteries. So what does that imply? It is up to you to figure out by experience. But I also showed inductors and other parts exhibiting this negative resistance in those early years. I also showed how you could do this on the trigger coil side of the circuit and get just as much energy manifestation there as you could mirrored to that on the battery charging side. I got zero response for people on the groups. So I eventually didn't bother to say any more about all that. Anyway, if the energy is converging into the parts that become true negative resistors, then it follows that the larger they are the more they will self-charge. But it also follows that if all this is done in resonance and with proper impedance matching that you can actually add as many of these with their loads as desired. This is because this is not positive current and positive resistances that dissipate the energy. Everything about this is opposite to that and that is why it is called negative. Things get cold rather than hot. Things are charged backwards. Energy converges in at the node rather than diverges out. Several other opposite characteristics you may notice. And this is the background to the DVD7 and Tesla's one wire impulse teaching. But if you didn't dig into these things as some of us did, and really know Tesla's work, then you would just pass over this greatly mistaken and just assuming it is all "MORE OF THE SAME" and current flow, etc. Naturally you fail because of the assumptions. As for how to probably cycle batteries with negative energy I have done several recent videos on that subject I'm not going to add here due to how long this is already...

As for what you say in the last paragraph, I have largely answered that above. But I'll remind everyone what I have recently proven to everyone, that John was a liar and not to be trusted because of that. Yes, as you pointed out, he was playing games with people and really didn't care for the entire community or the individual. And anyone visiting the shop would have heard his brother and CEO of Energenx, Gary say that John's ego was inflated and the whole self-glorification was ridiculous. Which John were you to believe? On Monday or Tuesday? Or I as I have pointed, do you believe John's testimony about his beginnings in his 1984 interview on the Open Mind? And in 2006 in DVD7 where he tells you that 1984 was the beginning of everything in free energy for him. Or do you believe him in 2011 when he changes that story to claim that in 1971 he pre dated Newman and himself and at 22 years of age he actually had the maturely developed window motor published and copyrighted??? This is now the end of the Hoax of the Bedini legend. And this sort of thing reveals something more was going on all these years. Giving out opposite statements like you point out. Why do you take the one statement at face value when it contradicts equally stated statements? And consider, in the end John sold DC chargers!!! He promoted the idea because of his dashboard reading that you want to cook batteries to death with 15.5V! This is what he did with his solar chargers as I came to learn and departed from over. He even used my batteries that were in that rider lawnmower and cooked them to death while making each one of those solar chargers. In the end, when I gathered my things, I found that they were destroyed and had zero water in them. Nice!  So what was his mission? To gather people together and start with many truths and control them by chaos so that they would be always hanging on his every word while never really doing anything practical. They were "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." But I demystified all that chaos and when I contradicted his disinformation agenda and also showed the big demonstrations then I had to be stopped. And I paid the price dearly. John had all my forums deleted and he tried to erase me. I crossed the line without even realizing it at the time. And he shut it all down as he always threatened. Now I can see what was going on with all this disinfo chaos. Mixing truth with contradiction and leaving the gathered people to fail on purpose. He said they were never worthy of it and were all a bunch of …. fools. So this is not about merely the technology and processes and whether OU is possible but about controlling people for profit.

Good luck not going through the same sort of game on any online Forum. I'll talk to you in a few months or years as I have many people and you will say wow, now I see what you were saying back then...

Hi WhatIsIt,
I worked on Bedini tech for several years and built several electro-mechanical and fully solid state energisers. It became a cult with much time and money being expended by many in the search for free energy manifested in the battery bank by the actions of the energiser - a definitely not OU device in itself, as pointed out many times by John. So we were all looking for a free energy gain in our LA battery banks after having completed many charge / discharge cycles. Not forgetting the 'mechanical' gain by virtue of the torque available from revolving bike wheel, which John also reminded us many times was free, if of course and only if we built the energiser properly and not just the way that we wanted to build it. In the meantime, John was publishing books with riddles to the building and secrets of the various energisers and more exotic devices like the 'Window Motor'.

Confusion mounted as time went on, as battery load testing appeared to be carried out in different ways, until a load testing guideline was produced by SG forum members. I hit an apparent gain on many occassions, especially during the first few load testing cycles, until I realised why. The 'why' held the secret as to why my batteries appeared to be gaining real capacity. Interestingly, when I reached around the 8th and then subsequent cycles load testing cycles, I noticed a slow reduction in gain in the form of a flatlining data curve. What was causing this I thought to myself. Well, I know that other experimenters know why and I think Rick does but to my knowledge the answer was never openly acknowledged by those leading the cult, as it exposed the myth of free energy from LA batteries.
Towards the end of those cult years, John made an astounding admission, that all our battery 'spiking' with energisers without the use of cap pulsers, was damaging our batteries!!. I'd had enough of it by then and moved into what has become a new cult - Kapanadze free energy devices.

No, I won't say someone is attacking me by trying to understand what I am saying and even believing that I am contradicting myself. Attacking is when you misjudge people's motives and play games because you have a selfish agenda. I really don't care what people say about me or do to me. I care about many people getting deceived and wasting their time, money, and faith because of disinfo people causing trouble. I'm posting a big video on this later today as you will see.

In the one video I quote Bedini's Free Energy Generation book that says the spike is hundreds of kw peak pulses. That is a matter of interpretation from the probes on an oscope. At least you are paying some attention to this. In that video I was stressing the point that we are potentializing the ions to move in the charge direction for very little trigger energy input. The idea is not claiming that watts over time amount to a total greater output if that is what you are getting at. That is the assumption, the "MORE OF THE SAME" approach to wasting time on OU forums seeking to find OU while assuming it cannot be possible because we are only looking for under unity results by boiling everything down to volts and I over time. Now Tesla talked about abruptly discharging his special capacitors and seeing hundreds of thousands of hp as a result. These were huge gain, and that is not an unrelated subject...

Again, you are just assuming that we have to have volts and amps amounting to a gain in the intermediate process for anything to be significant. But that is just not the case. As I wrote to G, we can measure your watts at the final output from the batteries over time. But since this is a negative resistance process we will not see such there because it is not current flow. See my last long email for the negative energy. That is different than from the discharging of a cap as I just referred to Tesla talking about. The discharging of a cap results in current flow, but the fast rate of that switching also results in additional gains, and is another matter to talk about... Says who that "transient of spikes are too short to be useable" That's not my experience over the last 15 years. I suggest you read Tesla and Stienmitz on the subject to start at the beginning. I'll talk to you in a few months after you do that. Again, you didn't read what I wrote to G about "power". You are assuming that power is everything and without "power" measurements we have nothing. Says who? If that is so then you are completely wasting your time looking for OU here and everywhere. Someone show me how you can have free energy at all if there has to be power measurements adding up at every stage of the system? Even with solar you cannot measure power from the sun can you? Where the gains happen it does not show power. Power can be measured from the cells to the loads but not to the cells. Is there any power in outer space between the sun and the Van Allen belts? Is there any power measurements in your body's electrical system? These are all just mainstream assumptions that don't pertain to free energy research.

Again, all your assumptions are based upon a faulty understanding of power. And rather, you need to get the right spice simulation software that can do the nonlinear reactive calculations and they will indeed show you these things. This is a major point I made the other day. I happen do know many engineers that use such in their day to day work where they are tasked to eliminate the adverse effects of such spikes. But if you don't use the right software then I can understand why you are so mistaken about all of this.

I don't understand your comment about a battery needing 300V spike to charge. That is not correct at all. I can charge a battery with a spike that is less than 1V over the battery. So I don't understand why you say that.
Yes a battery can have gains in manipulating the ions with little input energy. That is another subject.

You are very wrong in saying: "Batteries are not relevant for measuring. You can cheat on them, they are chemically compounds. They will charge without your intervention for a period and then collapse after a while of doing that. One of your cells will fry and then it is over."
On what basis can you make this claim? I have spent 15 years full time in proving just the opposite. The problem is that most people do not understand how involved it is to properly evaluate batteries. You give up trying because you don't understand them and their curves and how to properly charge them. This is my main work and which I talk to people about every day. If I can repeat a process and get continual loads off of a battery then THAT IS THE WAY YOU CAN HAVE A RELAVANT MEASURING. You don't try and measure the battery while it is charging and base things on that. You measure the load after the fact.
The batteries do not collapse after a while. Maybe you are doing something wrong or who knows why you think that. I restore batteries and have thousands of people restoring and keeping their batteries all over the world with my Renaissance battery chargers or the motor systems. They don't fry. On the contrary, the useless batteries come back most of the time and we get to keep them. You just don't know how this works, just as you try and evaluate free energy systems with power measurements. Fundamental misunderstandings. And what you go into with, your method, will be what you get out of it.
What you are trying to say that is we are merely using up a limited chemical process. Nice try chemist. But the fact is our batteries grow with time and enlarge their capacity!!! They improve with time. And that is old news. The statement is just propaganda spread to scar people off. It is true, what you say, with the Bedini Switch, which he called the Tesla Switch, that you will ruin your batteries really fast of you push the plates back and for like he recommended. Thousands of people have been burned by Bedini that way. But that is not what we are doing here.

Again, if you want math you have to use the right math that is in the real world. Talk to me about measuring the actual work done at the end of the process and don't fool around with trying to mess with the process and measure before then. Yes it is interesting to see the complete discrepancy. But how many engineers will not dare look at the end loads because they measured in the middle and made their conclusions?? That is the diversion. But we show you the discrepancy and it proves what we are saying...
Not sure why you bring up the earth.

I'm not sure what video you are talking about with 4A. Again, if the meter said 0ma going to the charging battery over time, and then I ran a load off that battery over time and it gave me some ma reading then what would you say? I refuse to even consider doing that possibly. People don't want to do that because it takes time. Yes I am long done doing that and working with batteries and motors myself as I don't need them. But it is easy to see if you have just a little patience. Again, you will only accept that the battery will be charging at the rate of the amp meter measurement. And you will then say the only gains in the battery are limited chemical consumables. Now that is a powerful argument to deceive many people with. I give it top grades. It is as effective as me pointing out an actually true point of Bedini's Switch killing batteries while very shortly demonstrating gains. Is it worth replacing your batteries every few days? But in your case it is actually false. But because neither your claim or my claim cannot be proven over the internet your skeptical claim is effectively very dissuasive to many readers. It would be a very effective tool to use to turn people off from even trying. But that would only really be successful if that was done at the beginning in 2004 before thousands of others have demonstrated the opposite.

You have to understand, people don't return because they get on with life. They tire of being attacked. I talk to them on the phone or through email or in person. Why would anyone want to do circles with you guys who assume there can not be any free energy on forums about OU? You have a circle you are stuck in. You limit yourself to power measurements I closed loops. What do you really expect? When I press you guys you take off yourselves. Explain to me why you expect to find anything on this forum from anyone when you assume the very things that prevent OU? What are you looking for if you believe it cannot happen? Remember, amps and watts are the rate of wasted energy in a closed loop. You will never find anything different. But if you care to see a system with multiple outputs that can power various loads and put your meters there you will not be able to account for why there is power measurements there but not in the middle.

You say you are curious, that is all it seems to be. You do not believe these things however. So curious to see what I would say only. You'll have to answer these things to go further. I cannot help this confusion you have any further. You are trapped in your own circle loops. The remainder of the words do not matter as they are just words to you. Your power filter only understands these words under college level testing and not real world experience. Without getting past your assumptions mentioned any words go no where. You see everything red with red lenses. I have already answered these questions in resent postings to G and others.

This is not an "interesting" subject as if it is idle chitchat. This whole forum stands and falls on these points. If what you assume is true then Stefan is deceiving thousands of people in having this forum continue when a simple statement that claims all OU is impossible because power in must equal power out, and only measurements at each point in the system prove it. This we can read sure enough on Wikipedia already. So I find you guys, in essence, just repeating that but in a way that almost pretends to still be interested in free energy. But you never justify how that could be possible considering what you say you believe and how you argue against points and claims. So it seems to me that most people doing that are really actually believing OU and just looking for more details from others by presenting themselves as not believing, or they are people just pretending to be open to OU while really just trying to disprove people. Who can really know people's motivations. I guess there are also the rest of the people who are merely confused and used to power measurements and find it hard to break free of that bondage. All I am doing is showing how that if power is really the only indication of anything, then save yourself the time and move on to something else because none of us who are making these OU claims will tell you that you will find power in these gain processes (anymore than in outer space with solar) because we will all say that power is only measuring the rate of wasting the energy in closing the loop upon the source charge. We have to have the reverse of loss, and a real gain right?

Rick,
In your videos you stated "There is thousands of wats in that spikes", I don't wanna bother to watch them again to find in which one.
My post is comment to your statement from your video, and I didn't use word "thousand" like you do, it seems to me, too much overrated, so I used word hundreds.
And my post is answer to your statement. It still is. Transient of spikes are too short to be usable for large amounts of power in your system with input 12V, 4A.

Now, in your post you stated there is no power in spikes. I will not comment that because if you look only voltage with probe and not current you can not claim that. For that claim you have to look voltage and current transient and math will do the rest. I recommend LT Spice so you don't have to bench.
Battery of 300V can be charged that moment when your input is above 300V. Input can be 300,1V and it will charge 300V battery.
Any spike above 300V will start to charge that battery. How efficient, that is...??

Battery will recharge chemically also, so you gain here also.
Replace your batteries with capacitors and you will see how long your system will work. Batteries are not relevant for measuring. You can cheat on them, they are chemically compounds. They will charge without your intervention for a period and then collapse after a while of doing that. One of your cells will fry and then it is over.
With electrical impulses you can stimulate chemical process even more, that is cheating.

What is relevant is in/out transient math.
You can charge the earth, it has more capacity than battery.
You stated "the bigger load will charge more". Earth is bigger load than battery. You can try that, but true measurement with whole earth can not be done.
In your videos you measure input 4A. You never showed how much is going back and charge your battery. I doubt that is 4A. Maybe in mA.

I was wrong about that. Anyone who found efficient system did not return here to tell. So, word "nobody" is wrong.

I was interested in your term "negative energy" because I worked on negative but not energy system so I was curious to hear how much you know about it?
I am also interested in your terms "resonance" and "negative resistance".
From this statement, I can only assume that you have achieved unlimited output. Only you know if this is true.
What is resonance to you? Can you explain?
What is true negative resistance for you? Please explain this also. So, I can compare my findings with somebody who is more experienced like you. And don't talk about Kron, your words only.

Now, you will say this guy attacking me!
I don't. It is not my intention. If I does, this post will look very different than this.

I am still curious about your experience with Bedini and others and what you all accomplished over the years. I am still looking for that and did not found one promising too much.
So, it is interesting subject.