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: 895559
  • *Total Topics: 15753
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 9
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims  (Read 296829 times)

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #675 on: June 23, 2019, 05:13:40 PM »
I actually don't think there was any such statement, and until you produce it I think we can all just disregard your claim as needing some kind of basis for it. Your statement is actually expecting a lot if you think about it. What you are doing is effectively dismissing thousands of statements from John and from thousands of other people during that time, and much more since that time. All with one supposed statement that you claim but have not shown. I think it is probably safe to say that you misunderstood him. You are most likely misunderstanding what was trying to explain about negatively charging the battery and not being able to charge it with positive charging. That takes a little understanding and some people, like yourself, are probably confused. The negative spikes will slowly convert a battery to negative and this has many advantages and a few disadvantages. The advantages are that it can receive a faster charge and can continue on charging for some time after the charging input has stopped. There are other advantages as well, but the disadvantages are that after the charging in the battery has stopped then it will start to discharge much faster than a positively charged battery will. A positively charged battery will hold a charge longer before it self-discharges. The more negatively charged a battery is the longer it will take to receive a positive type of charge. Positive charging is current or DC charging, which is also the cap dump charging. This originally understood when Watson's battery was supposedly stolen from the meeting because it was known that if the battery could not receive a positive charge it would have these characteristics. I don't know if that story about the stolen battery is true (who can say if any story was true from those guys?). But thousands of people have had these experiences over the years. It is easy to see these things and it really is old news. But it is a misunderstanding people have had and I can see where you are probably just mixing up John's words in this matter. If anyone would know what John said along these lines it would have been me. And if a statement was made the way you are thinking then it would have got noticed.

As for me, I would find it very interesting if such a statement was made. But without any reference we'll just have to put this down as a mistake from you. For you have very long videos of John talking about the spiking into the batteries being a good thing. You have numerous emails over the years. What you are claiming would be like John saying after all his appearances and posted pictures of himself, that he actually was a black man. So I'm going to leave this as merely a mistake by you or a deliberate red herring diversion meant to discredit this idea. That has some support considering the games that people play on these forums to try and discredit good ideas.

Anyway, the negative spike charging does not in fact damage the batteries. It is actually ideal for the batteries. It's not for everyone but there are many people all over the world that have very good results from their batteries since those early years. For example, my customer who bought the window motor that went into my Porsche shown also at my 2011 Renaissance convention has negatively charged his batteries with very positive results since then. He just called me a few weeks back and reported that it took several month for him to see the gradual gains and the characteristics I have been talking about. So the batteries get better than they were originally, not damaged. Speaking of my Porsche as displayed at my two big conventions  (2010-2011), I had that for 3 years and my batteries also got better over the years even when I expected the opposite due to discharging them at the C1 rate. After the first year I could even drive 10 miles and the 144V would settle and rest at 152V (which would be considered fully charged with conventional charging). We also get deeper discharge capabilities which results in much more practical advantage for such applications. Normally batteries just drop off after the 10.5V level (on a 12V bank) so that many of my friends in the electric vehicle club I was part of would relate the experience of drive too far out and having to get towed home. But not me. I would see more of a linear drop in voltage and could drive the car down to the lowest voltage my controller would allow for. I would not even "limp" home. So these gains from the negative and Renaissance charging systems allowed for significantly higher starting voltages as well as real capacity at the lower levels (with also completely eliminating the idea of only having a limited number of cycles) that can amount to more almost doubling the actual capacity of batteries. Now we never include any gains below the 10.5V level because AH ratings are based on only above that voltage. But for my customers that have DC loads below that voltage they are very pleased with this fact. Also with the fact that there is no end of life for their batteries. So this claim is merely an attempt to set aside all the testimony of this nature. Again, it is but a slander claim and is not justified.

While on this subject, it is important to make finer points as I do, and as has been requested. One such point is that any pulse produces a negative spike prior to the current flow. So any cap dump is doing that as well. This negative spike as people like to call it is what gives you the advantages. It is not the current that does anything good to a battery. But considering the amount of current from the capacitor, the battery becomes more positively charged than negatively. And the positively charged batteries are needed for the SSG type energizers to create the negative charging effect (unless you do a reverse SSG energizer which we have not shown or explained on the internet). But that is another subject. The point is that there is still some negative charging that precedes the positive in the cap dump. John Bedini was rather loose with his words on purpose and because he was no scientist nor was he someone with any real experience with loading batteries. All his statement were coming from people like me who did the real world testing. And you can even see Bearden admitting that about me. But there were other people who worked for John, like Brett and others before him, that did testing. John had no patience to do real science himself. So there is very little proper description by him of important things. The best we have is DVD7. But even there we can see my points illustrated by him and we can see that his words reveal his lack of experience and lack of precision. This is because he has learned such things from other people and is mostly relaying the work of others. So it is very hard to try and precisely understand Bedini's words when he was so sloppy with them. He was also often misunderstood because he was always in a very specific context that often was not what the questioner was asking. This frustrated many people. John was just going to talk about what he was focused on at the moment. So unless you walked with him in that and allowed him to direct the conversation then you would not get anything. There was very little conversation, he would just talk at you.

So with all these things it is safe to say you misunderstood John. Otherwise you are suggesting that everyone just dismiss what thousands of people have claimed to be a good thing. But this would again be a very persuasive attempt to silence this technology which would be expected on such a forum filled with people attempting to do just that...

Also, I have answered everything that has been asked of me. But it is apparent that people skip over my responses and ask the same questions as if I have not answered them.

Hi Hoppy,
yes sorry, yours wasn't a question. It came from your statement:
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.


Unless I missed it I felt Rick didn't really address this issue, as it's part of the things that need to be clarified, in my opinion.

cheers,
Mario

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #675 on: June 23, 2019, 05:13:40 PM »

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4068
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #676 on: June 23, 2019, 05:34:15 PM »
A.king21,

Thanks for the reply but unfortunately the 9 mA current has not turned out where you measured?   
I can only speculate whether you used the Ampermeter across the diode bridge DC output?  (This is the worst possible current measurement technique among several tinkerers, unfortunately, and I hope you do not do such...)  ::)   

Anyway, I agree with your main point: you have established a new experiment which may lead to a self runner setup, I wish you success on this journey. 

To increase the recharging process for the gate driver battery, more and more satellite coils should be used. 

To approach the near COP=1 situation at least between the summed DC outputs of the satellite coils and the DC input of gate driver IC (voltage and current wise), you would need to achieve a certain loaded DC output from the satellite coils (that you assign for feeding the gate driver) which would amount to the DC power the gate driver takes from its battery. 

To start this, you would need to measure the DC current between say the positive output of the 11V battery and the positive wire which goes to the gate driver as the positive supply. If you have a variable power supply which has current measure feature then you can use it too of course. 

Suppose that you measure for example 120 mA current draw by the gate driver from the 11V battery, this is equivalent to roughly 91 Ohm as a load to the battery (11V/120mA). This would mean that you should first use a 91 or 100 Ohm (not critical), off the shelf, half Watt rated resistor as the load put across the diode bridge outputs of the satellite coils. The latter outputs should all be in parallel, positives to positives and negatives to negatives. 

Then, when you achieve say at least 11-12 VDC measured across the 100 Ohm resistor, you will be very very close to replace the gate drive battery by this DC output (you remove the 100 Ohm load of course when attempting this), this would already be a huge achievement.

I outlined only the process leading possibly this situation, the 100 Ohm might be 91 or 82 Ohm or whatever that corresponds to the load on the battery that feeds the gate driver.  You are surely aware of any addition of resonant satellite coils changes gate driver current draw a little so it is advisable to monitor actual current draw of the driver IC by an Ampermeter.

It is okay you found a small increase in the output power of the satellite coil when attaching an earth ground: this is exactly the same phenomena the builders of a crystal radio receiver also experience as an increase in the audio output. The earth wire insures a better connection to the transmitted energy by increasing the enviromental area of the receiver. Broadcast transmitter antennas are normally grounded too and the radiated energy via the air which is captured by a receiver at a distance can this way receive additional energy from the transmitter antenna via the earth, closing the virtual circuit between the TX antenna as the source and the RX antenna as a consumer. 

Gyula

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #677 on: June 23, 2019, 06:57:25 PM »
Mario,
Yes you are right in your most recent post that I missed this email. Must have posted while I was writing the post after it.
No, you have missed my point entirely. You will have to read True Wireless over again and not just consider his main thesis which you are revering to. You are missing his core teaching on one wire transfer in relation to impulsing, which is my point. I am mainly drawing attention to figure 5 there to show you your options. Figure 12 is also relating to my point.
I see you are making an basic effort into looking at what I am saying, but you are missing the point entirely. If you do not know what Tesla is saying along these lines then you have not read very much from him. You will have to read through the 3 original lectures I mentioned and reread True Wireless.
You say he was not using impulses when he actually said he was. You say "Tesla was using/sending high freq. sinusoidal signals in this case, no short impulses (except for the cap discharge into the primary of his magnifier but only to get more oscillations, not to send impulses), so I don't know why the association of the one method and short impulses, although impulses can of course trigger resonance just as well." You will have to actually read what he said as you are mistaken. "As the periodic impulses pass through the one wire..." This is not periodic oscillations. Oscillations are one thing he used, but impulses are rather different and important. We associate the two together but you have to realize that the impulse is prior to everything you see in the oscillations after (what is shown on the scope is the effect of the impulse, not the impulse itself). I think you just read the thesis and then assumed there was no impulses in the article??? But you have to read Tesla in context and not ignore him when he uses the word impulse. You have ignored that word and claimed this was merely "sinusoidal". That is a fundamental mistake or misquote.

Further, you talk about the wire returning back to the other end of the coil and wish to make a sweeping statement and impression that DVD7 is merely the same sort of thing as using the ground as a return wire. Both are not true and your dismissal of this shows a lack of attention to critical detail. First of all, if you consider actually what Tesla said you will see you have missed numerous statements, but also you have missed many diagrams of circuits with no earth return, but merely an air grounding. Thus you miss the most important teaching of Tesla and you sort of dismiss it all in a few sentences as non-existing. Were you trying to create this impression or have you just not read Tesla? It appears that you didn't even read Tesla's description of figure five as I have partly quoted above. This is why I wonder about you guys and what is going on here.

Secondly, when I pointed to figure 5 repeatedly I was gifting you guys this point in giving you 4 options to do this special process. DID YOU NOT NOTICE THE FIRST EXAMPLE? a (you mention b but why ignore a?). Tesla is talking about one wire here. Yes the context is the earth but it all works primarily with one actual wire. And the larger context is the early lecture in his demonstration of this with stout copper bars where the so-called hairpin circuit was demonstrated and articulated. Anyway, notice this (a) example is not a two wire tap from the one wire bar. So we have two one wire transfers here illustrated if you care to notice. The first is the main buss showing the different ways to tap a one wire transmission line (one that is wirelessly powered at that). The very first example is perpendicularly positioned or as Tesla writes there "in the longitudinal sense", or "at right angles to it." I even made mention of this very point already. So you can also run the DVD7 idea this way, that is power loads off of that tap (node). So you're passing over this as if it wasn't there shows that you are not even looking at the figure or what he says about it, or what I have been pointing out. I can't force you guys to read Tesla, or care about any of this stuff, but is a little frustrating that I have to spell this all out again and again while you guys making these sweeping denials.

Now it is of special note that the intensity of the effect in this process is according to the rate of change in the impulse. So if you try and do this with mere sinusoidal you will get nothing. This is exactly what Tesla taught. It is basic Tesla. So welcome to beginning to learn about Tesla second chapter technology (after AC chapter).
Your dismissal of the charging loop as not a one wire transmission is not true. This is first of all a floating ground which is significant in other respects that it give opportunity to demonstrated what Walter Lewin hinted at and only partly demonstrated in showing Kirchhoff is not universal and this is non-conservative loop with more energy appearing than what is to be expected. But there is more than that very important point (which you guys don't appreciate or calculate). There is also important details about this loop that is completely different than a regular loop. For example, if I make a series of untuned impendences that are no matched impedances, and if I place a small inductor with load across it as the first in the series, the rest of them will be limited by size of that inductor. However, if the first is larger, then the rest will not be limited. This is very important because if we were talking about positive charging then we would have a limited flow to all the impedances no matter if the high resistance/impedance was placed at the beginning or the end of the chain. In this case, as I have frequently demonstrated, you can see that this reveals that the loop is really more of a one wire circuit with the diode being the beginning of it and the other end being the end. Of course, as mentioned, I can tap out of any nodal point as in figure 5 a and even create individual networks off of more single wire nodal points (when in resonance with proper impedance matching). But that is not my point here. I am referring to not being in resonance and not impedance matching. So in a non-ideal example we can see many series impedances along this charging path, which is a negative resistance path. Even so I can multiply the output many times and can see only a slight effect upon each other load as I add more and more. I showed 11 of such at the last meeting. I don't show the ideal setup because I am trying to explain and demonstrate this point first. And this is a quick and easy way to get real gain without any tuning from off the shelf parts.

Hi Rick,


I think I get what Tesla was doing and explaining in the true wireless lecture. His magnifying transmitter (and receiver) is basically the same principle of a. in Fig.5. The earth is the same as the wire and the capacities of sender and receiver are acting like the expanding and contracting bag analogy of Fig.4., but the main transfer goes through the wire, or the earth. So, in a sense his wireless is a one wire system.
His method is superior to the hertzian method because he used a one wire connection (earth) and used resonance for maximising power sent, while the hertzian method only sends waves through the air which decay rapidly after short distance. 
Tesla was using/sending high freq. sinusoidal signals in this case, so no short impulses (except for the cap discharge into the primary of his magnifier but only to get more oscillations, not to send impulses), so I don't know why the association of the one method and short impulses, although impulses can of course trigger resonance just as well.
Tesla's one wire system has no return, The output of the SG in dvd7 are yes impulses but it has a return (to the main SG coil), this is why I see a limit in as how many series coils can be placed in the line, as opposed to an open wire. What John showed with added series coil and FWBR is an analogy to b. in Fig.5. but in John's case the coil is part of the wire to create a node, while the FWBR across it basically represents b. But still, the wire has a return.


Anyway, my goal is to charge as many batteries as possible from as little input as possible, and I wouldn't mind using the one wire technique.


thanks,
Mario

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #677 on: June 23, 2019, 06:57:25 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4324
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #678 on: June 23, 2019, 07:30:10 PM »
Rick,
Thanks for your reply on the spiking damage issue. I may have misunderstood but that was the nature of things back then amongst all the confusion.  :( However. I'm not confused and have not misunderstood how the secondary battery is getting charged by the energiser.

Offline popolibero

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #679 on: June 23, 2019, 09:19:19 PM »
Rick,


thanks for explaining, but don't be so hard on me man! :D  I admit I need to study Tesla more in depth. I know in the "hairpin" circuit he used impulses, but in the True wireless lecture he also wrote oscillations, that's probably why I misunderstood, It certainly isn't my intention to mislead anyone. Ok, I will dive into new experiments with the info you just kindly shared.


thanks,
Mario

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #679 on: June 23, 2019, 09:19:19 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #680 on: June 23, 2019, 09:32:40 PM »
Mario,
This is the second part of my reply here. See my last reply to point 5 that I did miss.
It is true that people from those early days do need clarification. I have done this repeatedly in recent years with the SSG Mysteries revealed or solved video for example. But I have also explained these things during those early years. People tend to gloss over details, and this is somewhat involved to explain. But Bedini also created confusion on the subject at times. See my posting earlier today for details about these processes and Bedini's chaos.
1. You have not proven anything here and you gloss over this as if I have said something wrong. The buck boost circuit only confirms my point. It may not be new to you but you have not appreciated it at all it appears. What's the big deal you say? Well for one, if you make the L1 inductor a motor then you can power a real load in addition to the output load as I have mentioned with the fan kit or any of my motors. This is huge thing because people are not using the full potential of the circuit and all of the calculations you people make about the efficiency of the circuit exclude the full potential starting with this point. So if I run a motor, which I have done thousands of these for 15 years now, with this circuit then all of the energy produced from that motor would have to be considered as part of the Kirchhoff loop around the primary loop of the circuit. The work done in the motor across the inductor and fet will add up to the input energy right? So then the back end load is in addition to that. You see how all this has passed over you and everyone for many years? I don't easily disregard the potentials in circuits. In fact I teach people how to tape various dipoles (as my teacher Don Smith taught me) in their existing appliances without interrupting the normal operation of them. So here is the hypocrisy so to speak: when that circuit is a motor mainstream people will not add the boost part and instead will put a flyback snubber system in place to insure under unity. They will calculate everything so that Kirchhoff is paid royalties in his grave and everything is equal in and out. The L1 motor is the load and everything is fine. But when we do the boost we do not bother do add the motor because that would be two outputs. Anyway, the boost circuits do not disprove anything that I am saying and only support this. However, they are not the same thing exactly as you assume. The same thing applies however, that the rate of change will affect the output as well.
But the first point to admit is that if everyone calculates the maximum efficiency and energy by the combined loops and they make their conclusions, then what happens when we make L1 a motor? The total output doubles now and your calculations are all mistaken. This is exactly the point of my fan kit demonstration. I take a fan the draws so much power to produce so much CFMs. Now I move around two diodes and charge a second battery while the power input and CFMS are the same. Oops! I just proved a non-conservative example. I just doubled the output from the input. Oh boy, billions of fans have been made that way and manufacturers have ignored that (minus the thousands that people have converted over because of me) and have told you the COP of these fans. So you have to begin at this point in the Loving paths first stage process understanding. You guys refuse to admit these long demonstrated facts. It is actually old news on these forums. Some of you from the early days know better and refuse to admit what you know to be true. Again, if the current flow through L1 and the fet back to battery in the motor circuit adds up to unity in a motor circuit, and everyone admits that while using a flyback diode to ignore any potential gains that could be had there, then my point is proven that any additional gains in a buck boost system are above those in the primary loop. Again, people don't do a buck boost motor system as I do because of what it demonstrates. So instead of this disproving what I am saying, you only opened up the door to the fact it could be a gain system if you made L1 a motor coil. And this is exactly the same point I make about the Resonance kit where the L1 in a tank circuit could always be more than just a part of a filter circuit, but could be a transmitter (well is one actually) and part of a motor and more (if you let it be). And the capacitor could be a Stan M fuel cell with electrical output as well. It is just you guys are deliberately not creative here because you do not understand these processes in existing technology. You are reductionistic while oversimplifying things so that everything always supports the idolatrous religion of lower than unity, false conservation claims. Again, add up the current with your power meters and see for yourself. What does it take to power a motor on the primary side of the circuit with or without the boost side? Everyone is satisfied with the measurements without the boost side. Yet, that is given a rating and everything lines up with the dogma religion of mainstream theory. Now open up the boost side and your math is enlarged. Oops, you can't show that motor Rick. It can only be a boost inverter. Here comes the power police to say you are not allowed to do mechanical work as well.

You are going to have to pay attention to what I actually say and not gloss over what I say as you did with Tesla, and make it to be something else. What I am saying is that the negative energy is not a flow of current into the negative resistor (even though current can flow out of that battery after the event). Did you read that? Can you admit that I wrote this again? You may not agree with that or understand it, but that is what I said. The energy converges into the battery not as a result of electron flow from the coil. If that was the case then you would have calculated OU because (if you learned anything from the Walter Lewin demonstration) all the current flow is in the forward direction from the inductor through the fet back to the source battery. And if I am running the fan while charging up a battery at the rate of discharging the primary battery then I would have double the output. So this discharging of the coil is really not part of the current loop in what we are doing. With the boost circuit however, the loop is NOT in a floating ground configuration but back to the same loop and battery negative terminal that is a significant difference and produces a different affect. That is another subject to consider. You have to think in terms of source charges. The battery is the source charge, and when you create a loop it will discharge itself at the rate of the load. The inductor is a load and then becomes a source charge as well under a pulse condition. You pay for the charging of it, and the discharging of it becomes an additional gain if you let it. Your gains will depend on what you do. And there is a significant difference with a buck boost and the motor circuits we do. Of course you have to experience these things to know. However, as mentioned above, no one wants to make the inductor a motor but me, while making a boost system. This is very revealing. Anyway, the inductor is now a source charge and you can make a loop around it in various ways and benefit from that if you want to. But if you limited yourself to merely the electrical side or merely the mechanical side of things then that is your fault. BUT DON"T SAY WE ARE LIMITED TO ONE OR THE OTHER WHEN WE CAN DO BOTH!!

You misrepresent what I said about one battery charging another. You cannot charge a battery in series with another battery from the first battery. The primary battery is not charging the second battery. The inductor is the source charge, not the first battery. You can only charge another battery from a primary battery in parallel. And buck boots do not have the load in series with the primary like we do.
Also, any current measurements on the secondary side (loop) will be OU, but are not current actually. You can deflect a compass in different ways and we can cover that later if we need to. But any power measurements will not add up as to what is measured going into the battery and what is measured coming out of it. At best it shows the meters reveal OU of output. At worst they show you they are useless to use in the middle of the circuit as mentioned yesterday. So I already covered this yesterday. In the end you guys don't want to measure the final output and notice all the work being done, even as no one makes the buck boost a motor at the same time. Use your meter and admit all the work that can be done. So I made a motor drive a 26' boat with a buck books type circuit for three years rotating batteries around. That can't be anything important to you guys. Where were you when I gave the rides? You were stuck on making power measurements going into the batteries. Or spreading tails about that being a chemical consumable process. Well I'm still around and some boats have traveled around the world doing the same thing...
 Anyway, you have to change your theory and use your meters properly. You guys just don't understand what you are doing and keep assuming reductionistically, and reducing things to some aspect or thinking 2D rather than 3D. Live a little and open your mind!

You are making a lot of assumptions with your scope understanding. What is your scope loop anyway? It is it's own loop. It is only an attempt to represent what is happening in the real world. It is only trying to give this indication and showing THE RESULTS of the effects. You see the probes loop responding to the action, but it is not the action itself. These are not the same things. Turning on the switch at the start, or turning on the switch (when you turn off the fet) at the end, both create an action event where something very important happens. You all want to look at the scope to see the results of that action as if the results are everything. But it is the switch itself that is what is important. That is the inpulse, not the resulting oscillations. You think the impulse is merely the tail result, but it is not. This is a category fallacy. And you make it because you are limited in your understanding of things by boiling everything down to power measurements. But if I have not power measurements while I have real loads running, then what? Indeed, we have let people put their meters on demonstrations and have them be amazed. Even one German guy stormed out of the room in a fit in Hamburg. It cannot be! But it is. Deal with it.

So again, I ask, are you guys here to insist that everything boils down to "power" measurements? None of you wants to admit this. You guys refuse to address this fundamental point I have repeated over and over again. Ignore it in hopes no one notices. You are saying that OU if actually impossible because you insist that meters that show only the rate of wasting the energy can only be used to verify OU. But in that case you can never prove OU. Well, unless you do what you all refuse to do, and that is use the meters at the end loads being driven rather than in the middle. Who made the power meter such an authority?

Your statements about going from 12 to 48V ignore what I said the other day about producing over 200 times the output when I did that while not only going from 12 to 48V, but also from 12AH to 2000AH. So obviously this is NOT a matter of current. Again, I don't do mathematical or meter tricks. I do real loads in the real world, over time, and repeatedly over years. And so do thousands of my customers. If this was just a current transformation as you suggest, then what could I have possibly done to 48V of 2000AH batteries with the tiny 3 pole monopole kit? Why did I get almost 250 times the output or difference over using a 12V 12AH battery? If I limited myself to what you and G say then I would never have even tried that. Why bother, it wouldn't even do anything as the amps would be distributed and scattered. BUT NO!! These batteries are all negative resistors and the energy converges into them rather than dissipates as you assume. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I have been saying, and have no experience in these matters. If you have done experiments then you have blinded yourself from noticing these things. This is not new. I have been saying all this for years and when the skeptics actually did what I said they came back with WOW! you were right. I can't believe it. Some just changed the game and demanded more.

See you use negative in a different way. I'm not even referring to the scope when I talk about negative. It means opposite to positive or current. Not below the line. Sure, when a battery is charging it is a true negative resistor going below the zero to do that. But I am focused on the opposite phenomena rather than what is happening in reference to voltages above or below zero line.

2. No, negative charging does not damage the batteries. See last post for details. The only reason people think that is that they do not understand that once a battery has been negatively charged, depending on how much, it will take as much time to reverse that so that you can positively charge it again. It is fascinating to watch. It just doesn't take a charge and suddenly it does. So you have the battery negatively charging for a month and then you go to charge it with current and it can sit there just as long. And people who didn't bother to listen or just didn't know what they were doing with these things, would think it was damaged.
However, I will add that people damage their batteries in many ways and don't want to admit that. Then they blame some process for their wild treatment. This I see everywhere as almost everyone is sloppy. So you can abuse your batteries while attempting to negatively charge them. You can be very mistaken in that. So I can't help someone if I can't be there to see what they are doing. And believe me, I have visited more than one "professional" "expert" only to find so many things done wrong. The assumption on these forums is that everyone making a claims actually does everything perfectly or actually discloses every detail of what they are doing. I live in the real world and visit such people and find that not to be the case in almost 100% of the time. This is why you can see my focus on overcoming the bias assumptions practice. But this is something you guys keep assuming about any negative claim, that they have done everything they say they have or done it right. But when I come here and say or show something suddenly I'm assumed to be mistaken about something. This is a double standard I have fully exposed now.
As for what you should do, there is no answer to that. It depends on what you want to do. At this point you need to start over because you are fundamentally mistaken about several things. You need to deal with the things above here first or you will just blind yourself in whatever you do. All the different ways you ask about have their place. I do all of them for years now. Read what I wrote yesterday. I went to the cap dump because people really didn't want to do negative energy engineering. They wanted a battery rotator motor. However, you can still do the cap dump with the battery while doing this DVD7 third stage process before the cap dump.
Again, what I recommend is many things. To do the ideal is beyond you guys so I can't get into that while you are locked out of all OU considerations. You are still not at stage one level. This is not an insult but a fact. You are locked into power meter fallacies and reductionistic fallacies. This should be dealt with before you come and write on these forums. Because you don't even believe OU is possible. Why talk about how to charge batteries when you have no foundation for understanding the process? I don't find any of you acknowledging anything I say as you do with everyone else. This seems more than hostile to me, it seems you do not want to admit anything. No one even wants to admit that you can't prove anything over the forum. Why not? How come people?

3. See I can give credit to you guys even when you can't do that to me in anything. So I say, yes, you are moving in the right direction to use a negatively charged battery to be the input with doing something with a capacitor. It is a little more than that and some circuits were posted showing the proper way of doing that. But rotating batteries is so olden days to me that I don't bother with that for years when you can do the third stage process which can allow for the input battery to not discharge. Same with everyone trying to get A to power the gate driver input. That's find, but when you learn the 1/4W relationships you don't need to try and produce current and shuttle around current in the system. So again, there is the basic involved ways of doing things and the ideal ways (which require understanding of how things work, and precise measurements with resonance). Anyway, this point number 3 is about converting the negative to positive. If you play around enough you will figure out your answers. But unless you deal with your foundational problems you will always doubt your results. Start from the beginning and then the rest will flow properly and smoothly. Of course you can do what you want but you can't say you are doing what we are doing.

4. While the scope shows 1V more or less depending on the cap size, etc., you will find if you have a very expensive very high frequency scope and probes that the scope and probe are only giving you an approximation of the real world and are but measuring the assumed results. This is important when dealing with these things in the commercial real world. As you will blow out parts and not realize why. It is because things are not as assumed with impulsing. The spike can be much different and extremely high if you have the most expensive equipment. But if you only use 100mhz equipment then you are what you put into it. This is not a ramble but is significant.
Again, people talk as if there is one setup or one set of values. I shared some details already that you even quoted from. I said you want a low ESR cap with high voltage. The uf or pf depends on what you are wanting to do. This is the problem with the forums as people seek to throw some parts together to hope to produce some results instead of starting with a working system and learning from it. Anyway, I am not faulting you here for asking because that is a good thing. I'm merely saying that the values depend on what you want to do. Too high uf will ruin the batteries over time because it will be like hitting the concrete with a hammer and making hairline cracks in the plates that get bigger over time. Bedini never took any time to do loading himself so he never understood those things. I realized this early on.
So you want a voltage above the spike (yet the spike is much much higher than you think--depending on your scope and probes as mentioned). And the rest of the answer beyond low ESR is depending on the size of your system. You will learn this by experience.
Yes I have built everything people have shown on the forums and more in that regards. Even the neon bulbs have their place in some applications. My problem is that I can make these things do whatever I want so it isn't so much about finding the right parts but using any parts to do whatever I want. There is not one ideal system that needs to be focused on, there are endless ideal models that could be given. I no longer teach like everyone in fixating on one system. I teach in terms of themes so that you can see all of your options and move beyond certain specific parts. The key is quality parts. Then again, I don't want to give the impression that anyone ever has to do the ideal setup either. No one needs the idea as it is way more powerful than anyone needs, it is grid level stuff. Thus my focus is doing something rather than nothing. So the first thing you need to do is the basics. Actually understand stage 1 before trying to deal with the finer points. Obviously you will not listen to that, but I had to warn you anyway.

That should cover everything. As I can see, there is really nothing more to say but repeating myself. So let's see if anyone admits anything at all.

Hi Rick,
I appreciate your long reply to Hoppy, and I appreciate you trying to explain how things really were. But I would appreciate even more if you could be more precise technically, else the confusion will go on forever.
1. I am not writing the following to contradict what you say about negative energy, and I DO understand the negative spikes with a fast change rate and that they are a trigger for converging a different form of energy to batteries, and that lower impedance in both, batteries and output wires help things a lot. BUT, if you keep saying that a) there is no current on the output, and b) that you can't charge a battery that's at a higher voltage than the primary you are not being precise and this keeps confusing people. Any DC-DC converter relies on buck-boost coil collapse (flyback) technology to convert lower to higher or higher to lower voltage, so charging a battery from another battery at any voltage is really not a special feature. Now about the current on the output, if you connect the scope to the switching device you see the typical h wave of an SG or the wave of a solid state oscillator. What we see below the zero line is the coil being powered from the primary battery, immediately followed by the neg. spike we see on the positive side on the scope (because of how we connect the scope) which results from the coil being switched off but not wanting to invert its current flow, immediately followed by the current starting to flow from the resulting collapsing magnetic field of the coil. So, depending on what we connect to the output we will see an according discharge of current also. If we discharge into a 12V battery the current discharge pulse will be almost as wide in time and amplitude (on the scope) as the power pulse, depending on coil resistance, device efficiency, SG or solid state, etc... If we discharge into a 48V battery we will see a much narrower discharge puls after the spike, because the discharging coil automatically adapts to the load voltage and in this case gives higher voltage but less current. This is just to be precise. There definitely is the negative spike which triggers another event we end up finding in the battery, but to say there is NO current and a battery should not charge is not right in my view. The amount of current can vary a lot depending on load voltage, tuning, etc... but there is some.
2. I am not a person of many words, but I like clarity and precision. I couldn't find a straight answer to Hoppy's question whether negative charging damages batteries or not. Would you suggest charging directly or use cap discharge? Also, on the output, would you suggest putting the batteries in series rather than in parallel (even if the impedance would be higher in series)?
3. To rotate negatively charged batteries, why not simply put a big capacitor across the input, since it converts to positive and is what inverters have on the input which we can use?
4. You said you've used SCR cap discharge triggered by a 1n4007 diode, that would dump the cap at 1V above the battery right? What cap size did you use mostly and what aprox. rate? I know it depends on many things. Do you recommend dumping a cap with a neon triggered SCR dump at 90V? I've built probably 40 or 50 variations of circuits from HV small caps to low voltage big caps and everything in between, so I'm kind of curious among all the confusion that's around what you would finally suggest as the best cap dump voltage from your experience.
5. I suppose you missed my post 643?
thanks,
Mario

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #681 on: June 23, 2019, 10:04:59 PM »
So can anyone find this supposed quote from Bedini? Otherwise then let's just say it was a mistake to say so. I mean, the guy spent many years saying just the opposite, so if no quote is produced in a clear context then the idea should not even be considered. In the end it doesn't matter what Bedini said now that it is clear to everyone that he was a liar unto the end.
As for your second point, merely saying you are not mistaken about charging doesn't really help anyone here. Again, what is in someone's head means nothing when the real world disproves it.

Rick,
Thanks for your reply on the spiking damage issue. I may have misunderstood but that was the nature of things back then amongst all the confusion.  :( However. I'm not confused and have not misunderstood how the secondary battery is getting charged by the energiser.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #681 on: June 23, 2019, 10:04:59 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #682 on: June 23, 2019, 10:30:24 PM »
Mario,
You all can see that I treat A the same way as I do you. My response to you is according to your own words and also in the context of everything people like G have posted over the last week or so (and the whole history of this forum to some extent). I deal with thousands of people all over the world, so this isn't about what you wrote and what I replied to. I'm speaking to everyone here as people are reading and will read in the future. When you had pointed out the second (b) image and yet claimed this was not about impulsing, what was I to think. There is a pattern here with several people really pushing for mainstream theory here that makes OU impossible and denies the possibility of gains, and limits everyone to power meters. Also, none of you are willing to admit anything I have said. This is incredible. Out of all the things I have shared you guys find nothing to agree with or appreciate. So this comes across like you guys have an agenda, as clearly many people have on these forums. I am not new to this and have seen this right from the beginning of the internet in the 90s. Regular people don't do those things. They politely converse with give and take exchanges. But here I offer you guys so many points and you all know I have demonstrated many OU systems over the years, so why the silence? I guess this posting from you is the first acknowledgement of any point I have made so far from those of you who give all appearance of not believing OU to be possible, and/or being locked out from it by your assumptions.
Anyway, the relevant point for you to consider while you read Tesla, is as Dollard points out, that there really is 4 different types of energy in our circuit systems that we need to distinguish from each other and not confuse: AC, DC, Oscillatory, and Impulse. AC must be distinguished from Oscillatory energy, and DC is not Impulse as the use of the words "pulsed DC" confuses people. The assumptions are most relevant in relation to OU considerations. Again, DC is fundamentally different than impulse because YOU DON'T CONSIDER THE TURNING ON AND OFF OF DC WHEN YOU MEASURE DC. And Impulse is not what follows from the impulse. Impulse is the moment of the switch and the nature of what happens at the moment. Just like people are not what results from their actions. Again, when you measure DC you never bother to measure the turning on and off of the circuit, and how it effects the whole environment. So even DC is never just DC. There is always an impulse at the beginning and end. It is only those who want to oversimplify things that ignore such details. And that discussion brings everyone back to the true of what Walter Lewin demonstrated and pointed out.
 And while AC and oscillatory energy are also similar they also need to be contrasted in these studies. These four things need to be separated into their own categories when studying Tesla, what I say, and in all OU studies. Glossing them together helps no one.

Rick,
thanks for explaining, but don't be so hard on me man! :D  I admit I need to study Tesla more in depth. I know in the "hairpin" circuit he used impulses, but in the True wireless lecture he also wrote oscillations, that's probably why I misunderstood, It certainly isn't my intention to mislead anyone. Ok, I will dive into new experiments with the info you just kindly shared.
thanks,
Mario

Offline AlienGrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3492
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #683 on: June 24, 2019, 12:07:21 AM »
Mario,
You all can see that I treat A the same way as I do you. My response to you is according to your own words and also in the context of everything people like G have posted over the last week or so (and the whole history of this forum to some extent). I deal with thousands of people all over the world, so this isn't about what you wrote and what I replied to. I'm speaking to everyone here as people are reading and will read in the future. When you had pointed out the second (b) image and yet claimed this was not about impulsing, what was I to think. There is a pattern here with several people really pushing for mainstream theory here that makes OU impossible and denies the possibility of gains, and limits everyone to power meters. Also, none of you are willing to admit anything I have said. This is incredible. Out of all the things I have shared you guys find nothing to agree with or appreciate. So this comes across like you guys have an agenda, as clearly many people have on these forums. I am not new to this and have seen this right from the beginning of the internet in the 90s. Regular people don't do those things. They politely converse with give and take exchanges. But here I offer you guys so many points and you all know I have demonstrated many OU systems over the years, so why the silence? I guess this posting from you is the first acknowledgement of any point I have made so far from those of you who give all appearance of not believing OU to be possible, and/or being locked out from it by your assumptions.
Anyway, the relevant point for you to consider while you read Tesla, is as Dollard points out, that there really is 4 different types of energy in our circuit systems that we need to distinguish from each other and not confuse: AC, DC, Oscillatory, and Impulse. AC must be distinguished from Oscillatory energy, and DC is not Impulse as the use of the words "pulsed DC" confuses people. The assumptions are most relevant in relation to OU considerations. Again, DC is fundamentally different than impulse because YOU DON'T CONSIDER THE TURNING ON AND OFF OF DC WHEN YOU MEASURE DC. And Impulse is not what follows from the impulse. Impulse is the moment of the switch and the nature of what happens at the moment. Just like people are not what results from their actions. Again, when you measure DC you never bother to measure the turning on and off of the circuit, and how it effects the whole environment. So even DC is never just DC. There is always an impulse at the beginning and end. It is only those who want to oversimplify things that ignore such details. And that discussion brings everyone back to the true of what Walter Lewin demonstrated and pointed out.
 And while AC and oscillatory energy are also similar they also need to be contrasted in these studies. These four things need to be separated into their own categories when studying Tesla, what I say, and in all OU studies. Glossing them together helps no one.
Mr Rick Friedrich,can you fill us in on this device please 

re tinman link=topic=12736.msg480799#msg480799 date=1460730080]

http://energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc14/index.html



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #683 on: June 24, 2019, 12:07:21 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline popolibero

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #684 on: June 24, 2019, 12:20:12 AM »
Rick, holy shit slow down! I haven't been posting for a long time on this forum so please don't jump at me like this... Don't know what others here are up to, but you don't need to be on the defensive side and slap back at me as I'm surely not trying to insult you or not admit anything or acknowledge what you say. I accidentally checked the threads here and saw your post about DVD7 which is something that I had spent quite some time on years back because I was very interested in the one wire subject.
I think this time it's you who didn't read everything I wrote because I never said that I believe OU is impossible and that all I see or measure is about current, not at all! I believe in negative energy and that it converges to the loads and is different from our normal current. OK? Clear? I JUST said that after the negative event the coil also discharges some current, ok? That's it. There's no need to shout that I'm not admitting anything and that I may have an agenda... I perfectly know that the primary charges the coil which then becomes the source that charges the secondary, You may think I'm a complete beginner in building these circuits. I'm not, I've built them for the last 10 or more years, my circuits have rise/fall times of about 30 nanoseconds.
After the "big confusion" I quietly kept working on my own (and other projects) to figure things out by actually doing the experiments, but I never really had a chance to compare notes and ask someone with more experience in the SG matter the questions I asked you. Not everyone can invest as much time on this as you do. I'm not here to contradict you, I'm actually all ears, trying to learn more.


Mario










Offline a.king21

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1613
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #685 on: June 24, 2019, 12:36:23 AM »
Rick's latest video: and they're getting longer -


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


And they are free -
I haven't watched it yet.....................................................

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #685 on: June 24, 2019, 12:36:23 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #686 on: June 24, 2019, 02:16:43 AM »
I'm not sure how this forum works in reference to the numbers and letters above the link are. I'm assuming that is some thread on this forum about that subject.
While I was around when that was filmed I choose to not make any statements about these kinds of stories because they are a long the lines of "he said, she said" and where are any replications of this? This ends up being just another story-telling matter. When I had my shop in Hayden Idaho all sorts of characters would show up at any time and so I heard all the stories you can imagine and more. Some stories were real but you could see most of these people (and I'm talking about big names to) were given over to exaggerated stories. I really haven't found anyone in that huge body of people (many of which were old friends of John) that gave me confidence of being very careful to be accurate in their judgments about history. It was like a bunch of old retired people talking about old stories that had been retold (like photocopies) over and over again until they changed into something else. John was the prime example of such storytelling. And along the lines of what I said earlier today I eventually came up with an estimation of John which I think was a fair assessment. I figured about 85% of what John said was not true and was in the way of him just speculating/pontificating/joking (although he wasn't much of a joker). And I think about 15% of the time he was dead on. He had a look in his eye at such times that was clear and I didn't find it to be wrong information. I have studied micro expressions and body language over the years and made these observations. I think everyone in his life would have agreed with this. So there was a lot of filler verbal diarrhea that we all had to hear and which only a few people called him out on. His wife was one of them and as we would go out to eat every Friday as a family special night whenever John would try to pull something over beyond his knowledge she would put him in his place. "Fat Larry" would do this a well when he sometimes came over. Gary would do that daily but in more of a joking sense. Anyway, I can go through all the videos and can generally determine when he was in that truth and accurate mode and when he was just talking like he was with the boys at the bar. And that's what the Conventions became after my final 2011 meeting. Even at that meeting John mystified things, and also at the 2010 meeting about the Ferris wheel. But after that the meetings were at his bar. That's how I last remember him, drinking more and more. The video series was largely of such stories that should not be trusted. Yes because he was a liar as we can see about his claim about the window motor being his invention from 1971. But also about many minor stories. So it is impossible for the public to sort through all of his words and stories to be able to tell what is true from what is his guessing, to what is his exaggeration, to what is flat out lie where he was intending to deceive.

I stopped watching the video series probably around half way. I was there for many of them, and Tony asked for my help with some of the early ones. But I knew that John was just rambling nonsense after a being there for some time. Unfortunately Tony really didn't know John and he also fell for all these stories. Now he is burned for putting the 1971 false lying statement on the front cover of his publication. That's not want he wanted to be known for. John was convincing storyteller. I often went out to dinner with them when Tony came to film. John was talking it up more than ever.

Maybe the worst example of this was ongoing over the years with what Gary would call the "voodoo box" which sat under the bench or on the desk for a good three years. This was supposedly from John Cejka. John Bedini actually did two videos on this I believe. I never watched them because why would I bother to? He actually said that if a picture of someone was placed in the box and he put a spider over the picture then the person would be bitten in a way that the spider would be proportionately the same size to the picture and thus they would be killed. Of course, like the Lockerage device, he never demonstrated anything of all that nonsense he would say in that 85% of the time bar talk ramble. Gary used many colorful words to call him an idiot for spewing such nonsense. So yes, I heard it all from too many people in that camp to mention. Including Tom Bearden to was also given to storytelling. And I called him and his best friend out on doing that. I told them they watched too much star Trak. These guys were all really given over to sci fy and conspiracy theory. It was an indulgence they could not resist. Believe that which you assume to be true, that which sounds like a good story.

The problem is that many of these people were no joke in their accomplishments and many things were real. So it was hard to separate the real from the stories. I got to hear all of it and so have a lot of inside information. But I don't trust any of these people that I can remember. Every one of them with Bedini connections was given over to that or to believing such stories. I had access to a lot of stuff and even helped John copy all of the Cejka files and many other things over the years.

So here you have some good information and the rest a bunch of stories that you could never be able to determine what was real because it was bar talk that was meant to be entertaining. I guess I tolerated it because I was trying to learn anything that may be of value. But eventually when I realized everything I could not stomach that foolishness at all. So that is why I cannot even watch the DVDs. But at least DVD7 was sound and worthy. There are a few others that probably are the same at times in the videos. But I see that one was done on the Tesla Switch as he falsely called it. Obviously he never warned anyone that it kills the batteries (yet I showed from a clip of him at my 2010 Convention admitting the Watson machine killed the batteries because of the same process of switching rapidly back and forth between charge and load).

The video is of that storytelling nature. Maybe no one will ever known how many exaggerations he made in that video. Did he really have the parts. Someone posted a statement that they were merely the parts of a failed attempt. Why would you do a video and not show how to do it? This is prime entertainment for conspiracy theorists. But those of us who hate speculation find no interest. I work with certain things that are practical.

So there were many items laying around for years with stories attached to them. Peter is probably the only one left who would know the significance of them. What you have to go back to is that short clip I recently posted from John in 1984
 https://youtu.be/KJlcQc8CrRY
Listen to every word. Notice how he says at the end of my selected portion that after the 1984 book he then sought to find motors that could do that. So all the claims that he knew these things from his service years contradict that candid admission. The truth was Bearden was someone who had access to all this stuff from his military years. And many of these crossed over into that area. So that is why this is all mixed up as well. You are going have lots of disinformation because of that. Bearden passed a lot of stuff on to John in those early years. John wasn't an inventor of any of it. He just was around a lot of people who really could do amazing things. John helped a few of them but I didn't find him to really have any exceptional skills besides storytelling. Yes he made some nice looking prototypes and fancy classic hotrods from the ground up. But he had help doing those as well.

Anyway, I tried to answer the bigger question that pertains to all of John's storytelling and all those kind of people associated with him from years back. And maybe you can understand why I insist upon purity in this research and don't tolerate assumptions or belief for or against claims without sufficient reason. Such storytelling and rumors and assumptions just waste everyone's time, money and faith. These people use such as a tool to be considered cool, or in the know, or whatever. Someone just said on my youtube video I just posted about Aaron Mirakami's lies in the comments that these guys are enabled by everyone who feeds off of the gossip and bar talk. I see that I contributed to promoting Bedini so that is why I am trying to undo that damage now. But looking back I see that all this was just part of the government's continued agenda to create the conspiracy class of people/movement where the free energy people are just a sub group. Each section/sector has it's people to guide the populace in a given direction. John and others were examples of that as far as their fruit shows. Because in the end, after years of doing this full time, the result is exactly what the establishment would want: the vast majority in chaos unsure of how to be energy independent while feeling good that they were entertained by stories that served no practical purpose. I don't speculate as to what people's specific motives were for pushing that agenda. But it should be obvious by now that there was a clear agenda. Cross that line against such by promoting clarity and showing real progress and you will get the treatment I go or worse.

Mr Rick Friedrich,can you fill us in on this device please 

re tinman link=topic=12736.msg480799#msg480799 date=1460730080]

http://energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc14/index.html

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #687 on: June 24, 2019, 02:23:28 AM »
I think I watched that yesterday  :P It's game over for Aaron finally. He sunk himself. The only way out is to admit that Bedini was a liar as well. Anyway, if you don't care about these people and their disinformation in the free energy community then don't bother with the video.
Rick's latest video: and they're getting longer -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiK0IktPWe4
And they are free -
I haven't watched it yet.....................................................

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #688 on: June 24, 2019, 04:03:28 AM »
Mario, I accept your statements, but I was just responding to your words. Perhaps some people think they believe in OU is possible but my point is that they have put themselves into a belief system that makes it impossible to experience it. If you really believe the things you said then you cannot experience OU. Whether I was talking about you directly or by what your implied or about the others, what is important is that people be clear what they believe about power meters, resonance gains, and related subjects. Because what I see is some people acting like they believe in OU but really they are just trying to disprove it. Or I have found the reverse of that. Many skeptics actually attack believers in the inner hope that they can answer their questions.

Ok, it is important to closely examine what I wrote a few hours ago about the coil and current on the second loop. In people's wild and crazy panic for free energy they run so fast to get it that they don't look at the details or care about anything that isn't a certain amount of energy for their needs. In that craze to disregard the details. So looking at the details of what I shared we have to come to grips with the fact that the math does not add up. In mainstream understanding there is really no room for current to flow in reverse or do be able to do any real work across the charging battery. Therefore all the claims here is that any influence on the battery is merely apparent, or if it charges it charges as a consumable and ruins the battery, etc. Well that is crazy because we can replace the battery with a 100W LED and be blinded by the light. But my point is that we need to start where Walter Lewin former Physics at MIT left off. Yes go to war with that Electroboom fool. Again, the math covers the forward current. So any reverse flow can't be current or else you have a major problem with Kirchhoff and the total I the loop is more than the input current. Now this isn't current but it can cause current. Any recipient along that path can become charged as a negative resistor, but that isn't current charging. But if a battery or capacitor is such, it can output current in it's own loops with loads. So what I am pointing out is that you can measure current in those places with power meters but anything before that is not current. It is not important if some current comes through as much as the mainstream theory has no place for any useful energy to be there at all. The point to be settled upon by everyone before they can go anywhere at all with OU research with circuits is to admit what we see with the fan example. The regular fan circuit loop is a full loop where everything adds up. Now we add ANOTHER body by moving the diode to include the charging battery. This other body is not part of the primary loop but loosely associated with it. They hang out together ya know  8) Yet all the work done to and by the charging battery is now gain that cannot be accounted for by Kirchhoff and mainstream college level physics (apart form Lewin). And if you don't like batteries just put a big 100W LED module there to see for yourself. With a cap as it may blow out. So the fan runs as it did before but with this extra gain. Not more efficient but OU. Add a gate driver to the fets and increase the rate of change as we do in our motors and now you get even more gains in the output with greater efficiency on the primary side. Or again, make the buckboost inductor a motor in the same way. Or the resonance inductor in the tank a transmitter and/or motor and/or make the capacitor into a Stan water cell. Is anyone willing to admit these things? This is the first step people. When we add more (loving paths) loads to the regular circuitry, which is adding more "bodies" to the primary loop, we have more total output, significantly more. So the search on this forum for years has been right in front of you in so many electronics around you. Just think a little. Again, mainstream circuitry always ignores one side of the two. It either ignores the electrical production in the motors or the magnetic in inductors for electrical use.

So what I am saying is the math does not add up when you actually do both kinds of loads at the same time. And this is the basic thing you have to start understanding, stage 1, before you get to the more advanced stuff (which is actually more of the same along with some other things). So why doesn't anyone want to admit these things? No matter what prestige jargon twisted math is used, the bottom line is that if the fan now has a battery charging, or a light powered significantly, then we have real OU and a complete violation conservation showing as Lewin said, that Kirchhoff is only a special case of Faraday.

In your case you just need to get these things clear then. Lean less on your scope to tell you what is going on unless you want to use it for phasing. Remember, power measurement only tells you how fast you are killing the particular source charge in a loop. So what if there is no loop and your meter is showing power? And what if the source is not discharging? Haha then you throw a fit and run out of the room  >:( :'( :o

Once people get the basic Loving Paths idea of expanding the single body (selfish) loop to a many body sympathetic or symbiotic network with floating grounds then they will be ready for OU. But without that the are locked into only losses in the death circle. The idea in DVD7 is just creating additional loving paths along the one wire to the charging batter in the second loop of stage 1. The spiritual analogy works to drive the point home in more ways than one. Each node along that line can create additional loops or single wire outputs as/at nodes. This will automatically create limited gains. I have tons of inductors and transformers, chokes, and etc., at my shop and have put as much as I wanted along that path and there is no end. Without tuning it is not the same of course, but it is still very significant. But many of you will not even be interested in doing that because you have not settled the first point and got out of the matrix bondage of the monolithic closed loop. All your energy needs are found in this paragraph alone. You don't even need to do what Tesla did or what we do with the impedance matching resonance and be able to multiply as many loving paths networks as you desire.

As for any confusion from those earlier days. I have attempted to complete the SSG project. No the Aaron books don't properly address what is needed. The monopole geometry has nothing to do with what you need to understand. The magnets have nothing to do with it either. The exact parts used does not either. The trigger coil is not necessary either (even though it is another loving path loop with it's bifilar gains). What is necessary is to first understand the difference between a single (closed) and many (open) body system. And to use the impulse rather than constant current, sharp rate of change rather than gradual. Appreciate just that for what its worth and then DO MORE OF THE SAME loving paths for more sharing blessings! Never mind any parts until this is settled. Understand how it works and don't just play around hoping to stumble upon something with parts shuffling.

Now that was just with two wire loops. Same is done with one wire and no loop. This is chapter 2 in the book. Then chapter 3 is no wires... Chapter 4 (not of that Resonance book) is doing the same with magnetic loops... Once you see my Free energy Cheat Sheet you will see all the key themes and will be able to understand how all or most free energy systems work and why others don't. The mystery is over people. Then you will see how Patrick Keely changed the words and diagrams of all the systems he shows and will be able to make them work. Or which ones can't work and why.

Rick, ... slow down! I haven't been posting for a long time on this forum so please don't jump at me like this... Don't know what others here are up to, but you don't need to be on the defensive side and slap back at me as I'm surely not trying to insult you or not admit anything or acknowledge what you say. I accidentally checked the threads here and saw your post about DVD7 which is something that I had spent quite some time on years back because I was very interested in the one wire subject.
I think this time it's you who didn't read everything I wrote because I never said that I believe OU is impossible and that all I see or measure is about current, not at all! I believe in negative energy and that it converges to the loads and is different from our normal current. OK? Clear? I JUST said that after the negative event the coil also discharges some current, ok? That's it. There's no need to shout that I'm not admitting anything and that I may have an agenda... I perfectly know that the primary charges the coil which then becomes the source that charges the secondary, You may think I'm a complete beginner in building these circuits. I'm not, I've built them for the last 10 or more years, my circuits have rise/fall times of about 30 nanoseconds.
After the "big confusion" I quietly kept working on my own (and other projects) to figure things out by actually doing the experiments, but I never really had a chance to compare notes and ask someone with more experience in the SG matter the questions I asked you. Not everyone can invest as much time on this as you do. I'm not here to contradict you, I'm actually all ears, trying to learn more.


Mario

Offline a.king21

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1613
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #689 on: June 24, 2019, 05:22:38 AM »
.. Once you see my Free energy Cheat Sheet

Rick... where?

 

OneLink