Stefan,

Please, remove moderations from Gear.
I am trying to convince him to help, and he is half willing to do it.
He has army of people and SF tech behind him.
He was maybe rude at the times but he is great asset.

It is not goal to disprove Rick. Goal is to improve what he does if it is possible.
Your choice!

Thanks!

User Gear only made also rude comments....
As I said, I will moderate all users, who just flame Rick now...
So I can better see, what they have posted and let it through and directly answer their postings or delete then,

if their is no technical data in it and they only flame...

I guess this is the only way to keep this topic going now without too much nonsense claimed over here and flamed...

Hi Stefan. If your friend got the same results as Rick showed, then that is not so good.
Rick did not show anything at all convincing, as has been pointed out already.
Try powering some non-inductive resistors or incandescent bulbs of at least 5 Watts rating,
or better yet self loop it as Rick claimed in one of his videos should work. I would really like to
see an honest attempt by Rick or your friend to self loop the setup. Keep in mind that if I power
12V Lights directly with a 12V battery, that the efficiency is effectively 100%. There is no point to
Rick's circuit if it is not COP > 1.


All the best...

It seems these battery circuits need the batteries ! Maybe the additional extracted energy is generated inside the battery cells...
So closing the loop without the batteries is not possible...
So if you charge up a 12 Volts battery with 80 Wattshours and you will get out of it with Rick circuit   160  Wattshours, what do you call this ??
Some people call it OU , some call it better efficiency out of batteries...lol...

It seems these battery circuits need the batteries ! Maybe the additional extracted energy is generated inside the battery cells...
So closing the loop without the batteries is not possible...
So if you charge up a 12 Volts battery with 80 Wattshours and you will get out of it with Rick circuit   160  Wattshours, what do you call this ??
Some people call it OU , some call it better efficiency out of batteries...lol...

Hi Stefan. Ok on possibly needing a battery in there. I would suggest to try it with 3 Watt
incandescent bulbs instead. If the bulbs are really consuming about 1 Watt or more, then it
should work with 3 Watt incandescent bulbs as well. Would you agree? I posted a web link above for a website
which sells 3 Watt incandescent bulbs, if you can't find them locally.

All the best...

Hi IancaIV. Rick stated in his video that he could take the output from one of the
output coils and use that to power his generator in a self looped mode.
I was merely asking for Rick or someone else to demonstrate this claim made by Rick.
I would suggest using a large filter capacitor instead of battery for the power source so
we don't have to leave the demonstration running for a day or more...

All the best...

If he said this in his video and one coil output is sufficient for the frequency generator he can use as intermittent energy source
https://www.google.com/search?q=ultrabattery&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m
with the advantages from capacitor and battery !
Probably in his " summer new webside release" ! Time will tell !
Output measurement : not in Watt,not in VA( MHz- pulse power), calculating with Joule is the correctest way !
I do not demand anything from him

Thank you thank you thank you!
A great selection and great prices.

Send some to Rick!

Assuming each red led is at 2 volts and 20ma = 40 mw consumption per red led = 0.04 watts.
Therefore 25  red leds = 1 watt consumption. We have over 50 of these so we have to add a further 2 watts output to our calculations in addition to the 1/2 watt lit mr16s. (he he)

You guys are just against OU. As Stefan says, you just flame over and over. People don't do that unless they want to suppress something. You offer nothing useful here. You have not participated in anything but the flaming. That's it. I do not have to do anything. I'm not obligated to any of you. You make your demands and insults, but what do you show? Nothing. No information. Just attacks. I am just freely sharing information. Just what "must" I "start" doing? I can't bring you here to prove something. You attack me about meters. I show meters. You then just say meters are nothing anyway. But I said from the start you can't prove anything with a meter, with or without meters. Anyone confirming a claim for or against OU still doesn't prove anything to anyone else but themselves. You can have 100 people saying they prove or disprove something to themselves. Still means nothing. Get it through your head people, this is just information sharing.
I am giving you general things to consider. I gave you the heart of the matter, the principles of free energy. I answered everyone each question but you don't answer mine. I pointed to Barrett but you just ignore this while calling me ignorant. You guys are the ignorant ones who show nothing either. Just mention some guy who we are supposed to just accept. I give you a real leading authority who listed solid evidence from history and reputable sources. What I am doing is showing you in crude form these things, but also the math as well. It is above every one of you no doubt and that is why you are all silent. I give you a little bit to see what you do with it. You insult and demand more. I watch you all squirm around here. You want more, then answer my questions first. You wanted more, I gave you an exact meter reading. You want meters I gave you one. Not the one you wanted, but I already gave you the ones you want. You don't pay attention to details already give. I gave a very significant scope shot and you all missed it. If you want to replicate what I am showing or doing then don't be like Itsu and just read the first line and assume you know what I am saying. I shared several very significant things. You all ignore most of it. But not the silent watchers who are many now. I showed things. I explained them. I answered all the questions. I won the debates about the primary issues. And I backed up the processes with real math, even from the original Maxwell equations prior to Heaviside, Hertz, Lorenz, and Lorentz, etc. I don't see any of you putting forth such efforts like this. On top of that, I demonstrated these things to over 100,000 different people over the last 15 years! Many of which are top scientists and engineers in leading companies and government. You guys represent relatively basic engineering experience. You speak exactly that way.

I think Stefan has made things clear, just stop flaming. Spend your time sharing OU information, not anti-OU information. This forum is about OU not anti-OU. If you don't have any OU information then go find some. Report back when you have something. But just rambling over and over again about how OU is impossible, either directly or indirectly, is just being a troll. Insisting upon OU being self-running or looped is also a waste of everyone times. Insisting upon certain measurements is also unjustified and a waste of everyone's time. I have many ways to demonstrate OU without meters and with meters. Not one of you is the judge because you claim to never have experienced OU. So you don't even know what you are looking for yet. I told you I have run certain setups for years, but even that didn't matter. I even had meters on it. Yet that didn't matter either. The story keeps changing. The meters had to have exact logging for three years apparently, otherwise it was nothing at all! You guys are absolutely incredulous within your own arbitrary context. You reasoned against me in your assumptions about me, demanding that I do this or that. Assuming that I didn't already do such things and many more that you don't even understand. So when I share that I have you still don't believe anything. But I have said all along that you can't prove anything for someone else over the internet anyway. So all the flaming and trolling was for nothing anyway. All this time spent, and only a few people have posted useful information. I have written a book here of useful information. But no matter what I share you just all attack. If you didn't believe it then why ask the questions? Why not just move on to something positive? Some of you have asked and really applied some things I have shared. But you say that I must participate??? Hmmm, when have you participated? What positive contribution have you given towards OU? And just what am I not participating in? What, trying to prove something over the internet? Telling you what bulbs I use? I use many different bulbs. Again, you guys expect the world from me. You think I owe you something. You disrespect me and ignore all the important things I write. I'm not about to come under your requests. I know how to teach in these matters as I have been doing that for years. I know why you don't believe these things. Although I am not convinced that you disbelieve them at all. So I am stressing the things that you need to see. I am breaking you guys down bit by bit until you see what you need to. Eventually the principles of free energy will be understood, and people will be able to make countless OU machines. You guys are hung up on things that are not the point. The reason is because you are only here to disprove something. You have all shown that you assume I am wrong automatically. Each one of you flamers have demonstrated this many times. Naturally you are just going to argue in a circle. And therefore you have nothing positive to contribute. Others shared my work before I knew of this thread. I shared more. Others are sharing more. What more do you expect? Blood?

So come to grips with this being an information sharing only thread. Do something positive. If you can't do that, then don't waste people's time and fill up this thread with useless words. If you want more from me then answer my questions and acknowledge my answers already given. But each of you ten ore more flamers only revile and can never admit one thing. As I wrote, if that was really true that I was mistaken in everything then you would not spend any time here responding so vigorously. So the truth is that you don't want to admit any truth.

By the way, Jimbob of such and such company with 100,000+ employees laughs at your words along with everyone in the company. How silly to say such things. That is just the fallacy of appealing to authority when the person is no authority at all. No man is a judge over any other man in such matters. When I quote Barrett as a leading authority I don't engage in that fallacy as I appeal to his words, which quote solid evidence. But you guys just mention names with no substance. You therefore imply that truth and prove is to be established by mere appeals to persons and not real world facts. Thus you flamers have consistently promoted unscientific beliefs and practices here, while insulting me for not going along with that. I've just been saying all along: "Says who?" What makes your words so much more important? Who made you guys the lawgiver here? On the contrary each one of you has really embarrassed yourselves in serious self-contradiction.

Stefan,
Rick has to unterstand that nobody is against him.
But he must start to participate.
What you suggest to do next? Continue without measuring?
Just build the thing without knowing what is really happening and how  much we can pull from that system? And if we can pull more than we put in?
Because we can not find common point, can you be the one and make some decisions as neutral person.?
Suggest next steps?
Make some rules?

Good grief.