Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims (Read 542449 times)

Void · « **Reply #1920 on:** August 06, 2019, 04:33:43 PM »

Quote from: tinman on August 06, 2019, 01:41:35 PM

That's actually incorrect Void.
When the source is disconnected from an inductor,and the magnetic field collapses around the inductor,the voltage across the inductor invert's,and is of opposite polarity to that of the source,as the inductor is no longer the sink,it is the source.

When a voltage is dropped across an inductor,current will start to flow,and a magnetic field builds.
When the voltage source is disconnected,the magnetic field now starts to collapse and cut through the windings in the opposite direction. This causes a voltage inversion across the coil,but the current will continue to flow in the same direction through the coil.

Brad

Hi Brad, You need to read more carefully.

I did not state anywhere that the voltage across the coil remains the same polarity.

I stated that the voltage across the coil when the magnetic field collapses is
the same polarity as the original applied voltage Vi, so it acts to try to keep the current flowing in the same direction
in the coil that it was flowing in before Vi was cut off. It is not of a polarity that is in opposition to the original applied voltage Vi,
so it is definitely incorrect to call it 'Back EMF' or 'Counter EMF'. Exactly as I wrote in my previous comment.

lancaIV · « **Reply #1921 on:** August 06, 2019, 09:40:12 PM »

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://fbadhusha.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/9/5/3895546/ele-pulse-power.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiLsv2I_e7jAhVOUcAKHbJ_C2oQFggLMAA&usg=AOvVaw15n2Y3-tIhLqGJNmmXXoLp
only for the given example correct : 15000 VA peak ~ 144 Watt average power
The arithnetical/ technical CO.P. measurement/ calculation question/ problem. !?
Rick Friedrich : no, not Joule/cycle( T.Barrett) , but Joule / signal gives the perfect base for measurements !

lancaIV · « **Reply #1922 on:** August 06, 2019, 09:51:19 PM »

Rick Friederich : not Joule/cycle but Joule/signal(=pulse) I accept as measure method !
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://fbadhusha.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/9/5/3895546/ele-pulse-power.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiLsv2I_e7jAhVOUcAKHbJ_C2oQFggLMAA&usg=AOvVaw15n2Y3-tIhLqGJNmmXXoLp
We can and ( let) do cycles ( signal-/frequency-/time-generator)and signals( dutyfactor) becomes different !
15000 VA pulsativ ~ 144 Watt DC : this means calculative and measureable " pseudo-Overunity-factor 100+" !
There is no magic !

rickfriedrich · « **Reply #1923 on:** August 06, 2019, 10:41:34 PM »

The thing to keep in mind in all these things is the entire global environment. What continually happens in these dialogues is that parts and processes are looked at as if they are in a vacuum and are parts unto themselves. This is why I keep stressing real world conditions and testing.

People who take a symmetrical theory and methodology will always look at parts with a sort of 2 dimensional basic vector analysis perspective and will naturally always assume there can be no gain within that circle reasoning. They can either mistake in only looking at things ideally by just following what the books teach or they can do some basic experiments and assume THAT represents all possible relationships. This is because everything is assumed to be linear and under unity. So this leads people to assume that there would be no real difference between using a flyback diode across the coil as there would be in adding a battery or load in series with it.

Why? Because everyone wants to oversimplify science and assumes the outcome. But the impulsing of a coil and the resulting phenomena manifesting after turn off is not an isolated matter. This is not a static process but is highly dynamic with significant effects upon the area around the wires and all associated parts connected.

People just assume a body is just simply made up of individual parts that have all of their actions in themselves. But it is not that way at all. They change as they become part of the whole. They are affected differently by being combined with different parts under different environments. This is why you have to have a topological approach to electrical engineering. Everything is affected by environmental considerations, obviously thermal being agreed upon by everyone. But if we go back to Faraday we can see him beginning to stress such things which gives hope to over unity results as I mentioned.

Again, people want to assume that the coil will do the same things under different conditions. They assume that whether a part or parts are around or attached to the coil it will make no substantial difference. But this is not the case in chemistry, biology, acoustics, and especially in electrodynamics (unless you have a very limited view of things). The assumption results from the fact that they only think in single body circuit conditions. But once we begin to look at the entire physical impact upon the local environment, and especially when other independent bodies come under that influence, we can see things more realistically like in the biological world where relationships are not static but dynamic. In theology and religion we call this being legalistic to boil a general down to a specific occurrence.

In the case of motors all we normally have is the suppression of the spike or at least using the bemf to determine timing, etc. No one considers the highly dynamic environment, which is highly nonlinear, and seeks to benefit from that with connecting up to that "source" as Brad rightly calls it. Placing parts in suitable relationships with that reaction can result in additional gains if you allow it. The point I showed was such an example. Whether you think it is OU or free energy isn't really the point. The point is that I did something than people are not doing which resulted in an immediate gain. Two different forms of gains. My point was to ask the question, why are people not doing this? Because it leads to the more important point that people are ignoring what is freely given to them already. It is just assumed that if there was a way to do things better and get more gains then everyone would be doing it. Obviously that is not the case, especially when the biggest companies in the world are selling electricity and fuel.

The bigger point than the fact that people are not taking advantage of what they already know and can do is that this then points to the fact that people engage in the is/ought fallacy and assume that there can be nothing more than what they know. With regards to parts they think egocentrically if that makes sense. So how does this translate here? The motor coil is viewed merely as tool to produce mechanical force and it's efficiency is based upon the amount of forward current it takes for that action over time. A single purpose part or element in a monolithic circuit. Efficiency is calculated, losses determined, and that is the extent of it. Hooking up anything to the coil would seem pointless if everything is symmetrical and adds up. But Tesla comes along and adds his many-body reactive elements into that environment and shows us that you can do a lot more than what is assumed by two dimensional people.

If we get some useful energy that we didn't before, it should open us up the possibility that maybe if we enlarge upon that idea we can get more. What if we have a much bigger load than a tiny capacitor? Like a battery? And if a battery charges at all, when that was never expected (because after all, what can a transient impulse do to a battery?), then what if we add a bigger battery bank? No one who limits themselves to linear possibilities will even bother to test that out. And if they do, they will just try to disprove it as we can see the same tendencies here. Because there are trillions of dollars riding on the suppression of nonlinear dynamics.

Bottom line is that the coil is not to be looked at as a part unto itself and that its effects under impulsing will be different according to different populated environments. This is what topology is all about in electrodynamics. Mainstream electrical science is not altogether false. The main problem is with it's limited scope. People can mock the fan conversion point, but it is an effective tool to open up these facts.

Quote from: tinman on August 06, 2019, 01:41:35 PM

That's actually incorrect Void.
When the source is disconnected from an inductor,and the magnetic field collapses around the inductor,the voltage across the inductor invert's,and is of opposite polarity to that of the source,as the inductor is no longer the sink,it is the source.

When a voltage is dropped across an inductor,current will start to flow,and a magnetic field builds.
When the voltage source is disconnected,the magnetic field now starts to collapse and cut through the windings in the opposite direction. This causes a voltage inversion across the coil,but the current will continue to flow in the same direction through the coil.

Brad

rickfriedrich · « **Reply #1924 on:** August 06, 2019, 10:46:53 PM »

Maybe if you took some time to type things out properly people may pay attention more and bother to read what you are trying to say. I'm not interested in trying to get inside of people's heads.

Quote from: lancaIV on August 06, 2019, 09:51:19 PM

Rick Friederich : not Joule/cycle but Joule/signal(=pulse) I accept as measure method !
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://fbadhusha.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/9/5/3895546/ele-pulse-power.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiLsv2I_e7jAhVOUcAKHbJ_C2oQFggLMAA&usg=AOvVaw15n2Y3-tIhLqGJNmmXXoLp
We can and ( let) do cycles ( signal-/frequency-/time-generator)and signals( dutyfactor) becomes different !
15000 VA pulsativ ~ 144 Watt DC : this means calculative and measureable " pseudo-Overunity-factor 100+" !
There is no magic !

rickfriedrich · « **Reply #1925 on:** August 07, 2019, 01:35:30 AM »

While that was A point it was not THE point you were making. I do not tolerate rude or baseless accusatory comments. Your point was to call the video and all my videos fraud. And you assumed the motor was 50% efficient when the company said it is 94%. You are always assuming the worst in a very arrogant way.

No the video doesn't have the input jumping all over the place. Obviously it is an impulse motor however. Ideally a battery is better for this experiment but this was what people wanted. The point was that the comparison/conversion was the same. Also, the point was to show one change with advantageous results. That was done and you just can't accept it. Instead you just can't keep yourself from attacking. But who made you the king? Again, you just keep putting your foot in your mouth.

By the way you come across you would have to already know the answer to your questions. Sounds like you are just repeating what you have heard from other people. But when you do that Brad, you destroy your credibility.

The CFMs reading was just in the same spot to do the comparison to show that it was exactly the same with the two fans. It was not showing all the CFMs because I was only on one area.

I make my own power measurements in many ways. Yes I have all the appropriate power analyzers that I don't show in my videos. It is up to everyone to do that for themselves. What I did show was that I was reducing the input energy and also charging a battery significantly. It was not as much as with my other motors with improved circuitry, but it did show that for the same CFMs it took less input and did some charging. Someone else did this and got the same results.

What I got into the battery over time is relative to the size and condition of the battery as I have always said. See my last post for details about that being nonlinear. But if I get anything, then that is an improvement over nothing. Yes if I can run this off a battery and rotate batteries around then that is amazing. That I have done for 14 years now with such fans with a variety of different circuits. That is old news Brad. As I wrote, thousands of people have used these fans all over the world. One guy makes his entire living selling them (and I don't get anything for showing that).

You don't get it Brad. If the fan was 80% efficient then that is not the point. If you can make it take less energy and also put out more work than that is free work. Yes I know that we want self-runners here and the whole bit. But you won't even appreciate any improvement. You don't know what percentage it is. But you do know that it is more work than normal and that was my point. It also allowed for you and others to mock me for showing a significant gain. That was also my point. Now we can see your attitudes that automatically reject positive demonstrations. You guys demand meters and I showed a meter with a controlled experiment that is easy to do and which someone already did here. So that proves that meter readings mean nothing to you guys. If I pull out my Fluke power analyzers you will just reject anything I show in the same way. All will just be one circle argument that it is impossible to have over unity.

You are wanting too much all at once Brad. You just blindly rush into a China shop like bull and have no regard for details. The object is not to prove anything with a video. It is for others to do such things for themselves. There was nothing hard in that. I said that could be done with all the BLDC fans. What you are looking for is something to disprove. You are not at all interested in learning about OU or expanding your experience. You have figured out everything you expect to learn as your words imply. You have a very over simplistic electrical theory and it is not open to the real world.

If the fan is 94% efficient then reducing that input energy makes it even more efficient. Now the losses are still there. The negative energy does not mean that there is no heat produced as before. So the battery charging is not part of that forward loop calculation. That is the other point you don't get. It wasn't used before. And now it is. But read my last post and realize that there is a vast difference between looping it back with a diode and powering a load. And the size of the load also changes because this is nonlinear. And all these words do not even properly represent how the energy works.

Now I do know what the electrical output is when I know the exact capacity of my batteries and charge them and discharge them over time. Or I can use various capacitor banks also. Or I can use transformers, etc.

You have part numbers as I wrote.
You have efficiency numbers as mentioned. But that is not important.
You have your own output measurements. In your case it is whatever you assume beforehand.
I claim OU in the real world for myself. Such things can only be determined in the real world Brad.
The EE guys are a dime a dozen. I know more EE guys than I can count. Apparently there is a difference with the guys that you know and the EEs I know. I know regular and higher level EEs (some of which are at the very top). There is a big difference. Just as there is with those working with linear processes and those working with nonlinear advanced projects. If you can't understand Barrett's works that I have mentioned then you are not in a place to talk about EEs. I have no problem with what any EE says as I will agree with it. It is not what the common EEs say, but what they are not aware of because of their limited studies and experience. I know very specialized EEs doing very critical work in industry and military that work with this processes. Again, if you are open to learning that then read Barrett on electromagnetism as he is a leading authority at the advanced levels (not college level like most people are limited to).

Yes you live in a syfy world as you keep assuming and expecting a video to prove OU. Too much tv and chat time. You need to get to the bench and spend time with others on the bench. But only after you understand how to evaluate your own methodologies and assumptions. Study the history of electromagnetism for a start. Actually read Faraday and Maxwell and hear them out in their own words. Do the same experiments. Then notice what others took away from what they wrote. Actually read Tesla. You complained that people like me misrepresent him. Well I have read everything he wrote that is in the public domain very carefully. And I have done his related experiments and demonstrated them to others. Again, read Barrett on that. This is already proven out Brad. Yes I am just trying to make it easier because I doubt that most or possibly any of the active members here could fully understand those words or experiments. While I wish someone more capable than I could do this instead, at least I am trying to help here.

No Brad, we all make claims in life, in fact every day. Rarely do others expect you to prove the claims you make. And they would find you very strange if you went around addressing them as you do me when they make claims. "Prove to me Bruce, that it was a white male who spilled coffee on you at lunch."

"Prove to me Rick, over the internet, that you do power measurements while proving OU!" "Prove to me Brad, that you even exist!" You are so incensed that you can't even give up on that delusion. Really, all you want to do is try and disprove OU. That is your mission. For you can easily show these things to yourself. That's all I ever hope to do. I don't need recognition. I really don't care what people claim they prove or disprove over the internet. I'm only interested in the real world. I love to get information over the internet as we all do. But that is something different than proof. The only proof we can have here is what you guys have proven so far with this silliness. You keep demonstrating it over and over. And that's the point I can prove...

Quote from: tinman on August 06, 2019, 02:22:17 PM

And that was my point of my comment on your video Rick.

In your video,your input energy was jumping all over the place,so how did you calculate your input energy?
Second-you do not know how efficient your fan motor is,so once again,how are you making your energy calculations?.How much energy dose it take to move X amount of CFM's of air?,and how much energy was your fan using to achieve this?. Your motor may have been using(i believe in the video,the best i could make out was 24v @ 1.2 amp's) 28.8 watts,but how much energy is required to have an air flow of(i think it was) 1600 CFM at atmospheric pressure.
Third-You had no output measurements at all as far as your inductive kickback output go's,so once again,how are you making your power measurements to claim OU?.

So lets say your fan is 80% efficient(highly unlikely),and your inductive kickback output is 10%. You still have a loss of 10% to heat,and this is a best case scenario. In actuality,your fan would be 50-60% efficient at best,and we(including yourself)have no idea as to what your electrical output was,nor do we have an accurate P/in for your fan either.

So, we have no P/in measurement--
We have no fan efficiency value--
We have no output measurements--
But you claim OU
You also claim the EE guys have no idea what there talking about.
You say we live in a sci-fi make believe world

I think you have it all backward Rick,as it seems that it is you making claims of the (know so far) impossible,and you do this without any data at all to back up your claim's.

No Rick,it is not us living in the land of make believe

Brad

Mannix · « **Reply #1926 on:** August 07, 2019, 02:14:50 AM »

quote from RF
" I'm not interested in trying to get inside of people's heads."

This is harder to believe than the confusion about lead acid batterys sweetspot/temperature variations .

There are many of us ,myself included who have been inspired by initial results of "free energy" using lead acid batterys.

Only to be dissapointed by not being able to get useful work from the system.

That is not to say the battery does not gain voltage because it does . Surface charge is the term used by those who are influenced by this in the "real world".

It still mught be fun for people to buy and experiment with ricks kits ,after all fun and learning is what life is about . Just keep your expectations in check.

Perhaps JB'S spiritual self has infused itself in another who has not so much self awareness.

Dont we all love wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_charge

rickfriedrich · « **Reply #1927 on:** August 07, 2019, 03:47:16 AM »

Got to love the humor

I have worked closely with batteries all my life, and for the last 15 years with battery charging. I think I know a thing or two about surface charge. I probably have at least one conversation every day about related subjects.
You have to understand how to properly determine the actual capacity of a battery. I have 6 industrial chargers that do that with multiple resistive loads and programing. Once you know the battery's actual capacity then you can do full test runs and see this. This is why I can't do YouTube videos of proper tests that take days or weeks. But I have recorded very long videos.
We are not dealing with surface charge. You may be dealing with desulfating processes, or pushing up voltages on batteries that have no real capacity.
We can run different loads as well. But with batteries you need to run over time when you know what you are doing.

Quote from: Mannix on August 07, 2019, 02:14:50 AM

That is not to say the battery does not gain voltage because it does . Surface charge is the term used by those who are influenced by this in the "real world".

poynt99 · « **Reply #1928 on:** August 07, 2019, 04:55:59 AM »

Quote from: rickfriedrich on August 07, 2019, 03:47:16 AM

We can run different loads as well.

Indeed. Where might we see this?

rickfriedrich · « **Reply #1929 on:** August 07, 2019, 05:04:01 AM »

Well somewhere in the real world

Quote from: poynt99 on August 07, 2019, 04:55:59 AM

Indeed. Where might we see this?

tinman · « **Reply #1930 on:** August 07, 2019, 07:09:15 AM »

Quote from: rickfriedrich on August 07, 2019, 01:35:30 AM

While that was A point it was not THE point you were making. I do not tolerate rude or baseless accusatory comments. Your point was to call the video and all my videos fraud. And you assumed the motor was 50% efficient when the company said it is 94%. You are always assuming the worst in a very arrogant way.

No the video doesn't have the input jumping all over the place. Obviously it is an impulse motor however. Ideally a battery is better for this experiment but this was what people wanted. The point was that the comparison/conversion was the same. Also, the point was to show one change with advantageous results. That was done and you just can't accept it. Instead you just can't keep yourself from attacking. But who made you the king? Again, you just keep putting your foot in your mouth.

By the way you come across you would have to already know the answer to your questions. Sounds like you are just repeating what you have heard from other people. But when you do that Brad, you destroy your credibility.

The CFMs reading was just in the same spot to do the comparison to show that it was exactly the same with the two fans. It was not showing all the CFMs because I was only on one area.

I make my own power measurements in many ways. Yes I have all the appropriate power analyzers that I don't show in my videos. It is up to everyone to do that for themselves. What I did show was that I was reducing the input energy and also charging a battery significantly. It was not as much as with my other motors with improved circuitry, but it did show that for the same CFMs it took less input and did some charging. Someone else did this and got the same results.

What I got into the battery over time is relative to the size and condition of the battery as I have always said. See my last post for details about that being nonlinear. But if I get anything, then that is an improvement over nothing. Yes if I can run this off a battery and rotate batteries around then that is amazing. That I have done for 14 years now with such fans with a variety of different circuits. That is old news Brad. As I wrote, thousands of people have used these fans all over the world. One guy makes his entire living selling them (and I don't get anything for showing that).

You don't get it Brad. If the fan was 80% efficient then that is not the point. If you can make it take less energy and also put out more work than that is free work. Yes I know that we want self-runners here and the whole bit. But you won't even appreciate any improvement. You don't know what percentage it is. But you do know that it is more work than normal and that was my point. It also allowed for you and others to mock me for showing a significant gain. That was also my point. Now we can see your attitudes that automatically reject positive demonstrations. You guys demand meters and I showed a meter with a controlled experiment that is easy to do and which someone already did here. So that proves that meter readings mean nothing to you guys. If I pull out my Fluke power analyzers you will just reject anything I show in the same way. All will just be one circle argument that it is impossible to have over unity.

You are wanting too much all at once Brad. You just blindly rush into a China shop like bull and have no regard for details. The object is not to prove anything with a video. It is for others to do such things for themselves. There was nothing hard in that. I said that could be done with all the BLDC fans. What you are looking for is something to disprove. You are not at all interested in learning about OU or expanding your experience. You have figured out everything you expect to learn as your words imply. You have a very over simplistic electrical theory and it is not open to the real world.

If the fan is 94% efficient then reducing that input energy makes it even more efficient. Now the losses are still there. The negative energy does not mean that there is no heat produced as before. So the battery charging is not part of that forward loop calculation. That is the other point you don't get. It wasn't used before. And now it is. But read my last post and realize that there is a vast difference between looping it back with a diode and powering a load. And the size of the load also changes because this is nonlinear. And all these words do not even properly represent how the energy works.

Now I do know what the electrical output is when I know the exact capacity of my batteries and charge them and discharge them over time. Or I can use various capacitor banks also. Or I can use transformers, etc.

You have part numbers as I wrote.
You have efficiency numbers as mentioned. But that is not important.
You have your own output measurements. In your case it is whatever you assume beforehand.
I claim OU in the real world for myself. Such things can only be determined in the real world Brad.
The EE guys are a dime a dozen. I know more EE guys than I can count. Apparently there is a difference with the guys that you know and the EEs I know. I know regular and higher level EEs (some of which are at the very top). There is a big difference. Just as there is with those working with linear processes and those working with nonlinear advanced projects. If you can't understand Barrett's works that I have mentioned then you are not in a place to talk about EEs. I have no problem with what any EE says as I will agree with it. It is not what the common EEs say, but what they are not aware of because of their limited studies and experience. I know very specialized EEs doing very critical work in industry and military that work with this processes. Again, if you are open to learning that then read Barrett on electromagnetism as he is a leading authority at the advanced levels (not college level like most people are limited to).

Yes you live in a syfy world as you keep assuming and expecting a video to prove OU. Too much tv and chat time. You need to get to the bench and spend time with others on the bench. But only after you understand how to evaluate your own methodologies and assumptions. Study the history of electromagnetism for a start. Actually read Faraday and Maxwell and hear them out in their own words. Do the same experiments. Then notice what others took away from what they wrote. Actually read Tesla. You complained that people like me misrepresent him. Well I have read everything he wrote that is in the public domain very carefully. And I have done his related experiments and demonstrated them to others. Again, read Barrett on that. This is already proven out Brad. Yes I am just trying to make it easier because I doubt that most or possibly any of the active members here could fully understand those words or experiments. While I wish someone more capable than I could do this instead, at least I am trying to help here.

No Brad, we all make claims in life, in fact every day. Rarely do others expect you to prove the claims you make. And they would find you very strange if you went around addressing them as you do me when they make claims. "Prove to me Bruce, that it was a white male who spilled coffee on you at lunch." "Prove to me Rick, over the internet, that you do power measurements while proving OU!" "Prove to me Brad, that you even exist!" You are so incensed that you can't even give up on that delusion. Really, all you want to do is try and disprove OU. That is your mission. For you can easily show these things to yourself. That's all I ever hope to do. I don't need recognition. I really don't care what people claim they prove or disprove over the internet. I'm only interested in the real world. I love to get information over the internet as we all do. But that is something different than proof. The only proof we can have here is what you guys have proven so far with this silliness. You keep demonstrating it over and over. And that's the point I can prove...

Are you going to go running off to Stefan and have me moderated as well?,as it seems that all the long term members here who disagree with you keep getting moderated.

In fact,i have never seen so many members moderated here at one time for telling it as it is. Most of those have been doing this sort of stuff for far longer than you Rick,including myself.
So to say that i should try your setups for myself is laughable,as i have been doing this very thing longer than you have.

You have nothing new Rick--even your !loving path! circuit is Bedini's ssg circuit,which was designed by some one else back in the early 70s.

So Rick,you only make your self look stupid when you think that most of us have never experimented with your setup's. And to call people like Poynt liars is a true example of your stupidity.

You might be able to baffle some with your bullshit,but you will never dazzle most with your brilliance.

You continually claim OU and free energy,but you have never shown it. The reason you can't show it,is because you do not have it-and you never have. Nothing you have Rick is OU or free energy.

So i dont know what you got going on with Stefan to have all these long term-well educated members moderated,but i have decided to get to the bottom of it.
In fact,you and your systems are now my top priority,and i will be testing all of your setup's,and disclosing all my findings on the forums and my youtube channel. But mine will also have accurate power measurements and battery analysis with each test-unlike yours. And i will also be discussing things that have been taking place here at OU.com,regarding the moderation of all these long term members. So if you read this Stefan,you might like to give an explanation as to why the top guys on this forum are being moderated for doing nothing more than telling the truth.

So Rick,as i said--it is not us that is living in a fantasy land--it is you.

So Stefan,i now ask that Rick be made to supply OU.com with the relevant data to back up his claims of overunity,and prove that all the members that objected to his claims were justifiably placed on moderation.

Brad

citfta · « **Reply #1931 on:** August 07, 2019, 12:28:39 PM »

I agree with all that Brad has posted. I am sad to say I have lost all respect for Rick. I was really hoping he had something useful to show us. But it appears all he has is the same old snake oil salesman crap. He has posted nothing of any actual substance to back up his claims. He won't even post such simple information as the actual part numbers for the LEDs he is using.

While I am disappointed in Rick I am actually shocked by the actions of the admin of this forum. To put people on moderation because they asked for some technical data to back up the claims is going way over the top. This will be my last post in this thread. I will still make posts in some threads by Floor about magnet interactions. When those threads are finished I will be done with this forum. This forum has degenerated into another Energetic Forum to promote apparently false claims and products.

Carroll

tinman · « **Reply #1932 on:** August 07, 2019, 01:22:34 PM »

Quote from: citfta on August 07, 2019, 12:28:39 PM

I agree with all that Brad has posted. I am sad to say I have lost all respect for Rick. I was really hoping he had something useful to show us. But it appears all he has is the same old snake oil salesman crap. He has posted nothing of any actual substance to back up his claims. He won't even post such simple information as the actual part numbers for the LEDs he is using.

While I am disappointed in Rick I am actually shocked by the actions of the admin of this forum. To put people on moderation because they asked for some technical data to back up the claims is going way over the top. This will be my last post in this thread. I will still make posts in some threads by Floor about magnet interactions. When those threads are finished I will be done with this forum. This forum has degenerated into another Energetic Forum to promote apparently false claims and products.

Carroll

Indeed,as i stated earlier in this thread.

But Rick was here years ago,doing the very same thing--big claim's ,and not one shred of evidence to back up those claim's.

https://overunity.com/15366/new-free-energy-conferences-in-hamburg-and-chicago/

Thanks to another member at OUR for the above thread link.

In that thread,you will hear Rick moaning about all the troll's (trolls are now those that ask for accurate power measurements from claimants of OU devices)in this forum,and how bad this forum is-->and yet,here he is again

Rick's !loving path! circuit is just John Bedini's SSG circuit--nothing more.
But it isn't even JB's circuit,as that very circuit was designed back in the early 70's.
Both are nothing more than an inductor being switched on and off,and the flyback sent to a load.
Neither John or Rick actually know what they are looking at,or how to understand the simplicity of what they are doing. Neither seem to understand that the energy of the flyback came from the source in the first place,but rather call it some bullshit like energy from the vacuum,or negative energy. Yes,this is the extent of there understanding.

It is funny to watch--
JB takes some one else's circuit,and calls it his own,and then Rick takes JB's circuit,and calls it his own

So just remember guy's-->trolls are those that seek truth, ask technical questions,and ask for data that can verifi the claimants claim of having an OU device.
Trolls are also those who replicate said OU device,but where the OU just dose not show up after careful analysis and power measurements-->you are now a troll and a disinformationist.

You have all witnessed in this thread that John Bedini's blood still flows strong through Rick's veins,and the very same tactics are still being used today by Rick as he used when in a business partnership with the Bedini camp-->a tigers stripe's never change.

Brad

ramset · « **Reply #1933 on:** August 07, 2019, 02:41:52 PM »

Well one member asked me to call or talk to Stefan yesterday and I did
And Stefan explained how things were going with his friend Who is doing the Work
“ By the book “
There were a few snafus which were sorted yesterday and hopefully a good video explaining everything should be presented very soon (any moment to few days)

Members must understand regardless of what is written here
From Stefan’s perspective ...there’s a man explaining results of some sort?
we shall see what happens!
it will be discussed here when it does happen and hopefully replicated if there are any members left

I have not really been able to read recent comments here
With my phone
My PC should be sorted in a few days

Chet

Edit for spelling

a.king21 · « **Reply #1934 on:** August 07, 2019, 02:44:56 PM »

I have to interject here: TK was moderated because he called Rick a swear word. Rightly too.
Brad said that one of Rick's devices was 50% efficient. A blatant lie. He is the one pushing false claims against Rick.
If you haters could be a fly on the wall listening to the conversations between Rick and myself you would be ashamed of your selves.
Some guys on another forum even suggest that Rick does not understand VAR.
Jeepers, guys, if you only knew the truth.

The early information is based on 4 granted Benitez patents. For your information - in those days (1914 to 1918) you had to have a working model or the patent would say "no model". Benitez produced 4 different working models. Benitez also had patents granted in other countries.

Here is a guy (Rick) offering free information.

Take it or leave it.
But the hatred and vitriol against this free information speaks volumes.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims (Read 542449 times)

Void

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

lancaIV

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

lancaIV

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

rickfriedrich

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

rickfriedrich

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

rickfriedrich

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

Mannix

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

rickfriedrich

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

poynt99

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

rickfriedrich

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

tinman

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

citfta

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

tinman

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

ramset

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

a.king21

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims