Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => Resonance Circuits and Systems => Topic started by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 11:19:35 AM

Title: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 11:19:35 AM
Id Like to hear some views on this subject. So here is where we can discuss this.

I looked through the topics and dont know where to put it. Im not going to moderate here other than approving appropriate posts. If Stefan would like to make it its own board then thats cool too. I am not requesting to be a moderator if he does. Ill leave that up to him if he makes the changeover.

It would be good if many give their views to come to some sort of consensus on this. I dont have the ability to add a poll here. Ill look and see if I can do it after it is posted.

Mags
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: citfta on November 17, 2017, 12:51:08 PM
I voted yes.  A replication is not a replication if it is not built as closely as possible to the original.  Since NONE of us know everything we might be overlooking the one thing that makes the device work if we build it according to our ideas instead of like the original.  If built according to the original plans and it works like the original claims THEN we can consider ways to make it better.

I see the poll ends on my birthday.

Carroll
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 01:39:54 PM
Hey Carrol

Thanks for posting.

I agree.  ;D

Gota git to work.

I chose 60 days for the poll.  So countdown to your birthday begins today. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: profitis on November 17, 2017, 05:58:02 PM
Replicate and extrapolate ek se
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: antimony on November 17, 2017, 07:36:24 PM
I voted yes, but it could be good to expand on replications after it has been shown to work properly.

It is sometimes hard to follow, as maybe not all components is on hand, but when people do a replication with different components then whats prescribed, it is not a bad thing, in my opinion.

I didnt read the posts before mine, so I may have just written the same thing as everybody else.
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: Magluvin on November 18, 2017, 10:43:46 AM
Replicate and extrapolate ek se

I dont know what that means exactly, but..


Mags
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: Magluvin on November 18, 2017, 10:51:57 AM
I voted yes, but it could be good to expand on replications after it has been shown to work properly.

It is sometimes hard to follow, as maybe not all components is on hand, but when people do a replication with different components then whats prescribed, it is not a bad thing, in my opinion.

I didnt read the posts before mine, so I may have just written the same thing as everybody else.

Yes. But it should be a matter of importance to try and build as close to what is shown as a base line and after all is tried to no avail. If you go too far off course it may not be considered anything that had to do with the original.

In the confirmation of OU thread, it was chosen to test the Bedini V2.  Brad has a pdf on it but it has not been posted yet. So I dont know if all the info is there other than the depictions and pictures of the machine.

Thanks for the poll and explanation for your vote. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: vasik041 on November 18, 2017, 06:54:29 PM
No.
I think that most important (and often forgotten) precondition for successful replication... is that replicator understands how device works . Without understanding even very close copy most probably will not work :)
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: forest on November 18, 2017, 08:11:03 PM
vasik041


100% agree. You are on the good path.
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: profitis on November 18, 2017, 09:34:26 PM
" Without
understanding even very close copy most probably
will not work'

Without knowledge in that field yes however if the guy has a precise manual for building from scratch then it shouldn't be hard,especially for simple devices
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: Magluvin on November 19, 2017, 06:11:52 AM
No.
I think that most important (and often forgotten) precondition for successful replication... is that replicator understands how device works . Without understanding even very close copy most probably will not work :)

Thanks for the opinion.

If it is an OU claim, and your replication is not as close as possible, and then you do not get OU results, then I have to say your results cannot be 100% conclusive as to debunk the claim. Like why would you wish to go on your own interpretation? If one is serious about going after the possibility of OU, of which would be a very important discovery, what reasons would one have to not build as close as possible when you are going to go through the trouble of the build in the first place, if your real goal is to possibly see and OU device sit and work on the bench in front of you?

Heck, you can build 100 variants and not see anything, when 'maybe' if you had gone the direct route, then you may have not had to build all those variants.

I just find it strange that some insist on not building an accurate as possible replication when it comes to the search for the ever elusive OU claims.

Like you say " is that replicator understands how device works ".  Really?  How does the Kapanadze work?  How does the Bedini V2 work? Why does Bedini use magnets all N out? Do you think NSNSNS is better??? Etc, etc.

Mags






Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: Magluvin on November 19, 2017, 06:14:50 AM
vasik041


100% agree. You are on the good path.

Really Forest?  Well which ou devices or claims do you know how they actually work to get OU? Please share. If not, then what are you really saying?

Mags
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: profitis on November 19, 2017, 09:42:54 AM
"Heck, you can build 1000 variants and see
something, when 'maybe"

When maybe you connect the dots of principal
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: Jeg on November 19, 2017, 01:02:57 PM

Without knowledge in that field yes however if the guy has a precise manual for building from scratch then it shouldn't be hard,especially for simple devices
Sounds true. But experimenter's understanding and experience to the involved topic/device/principal theory is what counts at the end. The same simple circuit will lead to different conclusions to different experimenters and thus to different results. My point is that if 5 persons look at the same circuit, each one of them will recognize only what he is ready to recognize. And this readiness depend only to his experience.

Building a replication is not the best term. Making an attempt to replicate is better.
Regards
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: forest on November 19, 2017, 08:41:33 PM
"A DEPARTURE FROM KNOWN METHODS—POSSIBILITY OF A "SELF-ACTING " ENGINE OR MACHINE, INANIMATE, YET CAPABLE, LIKE A LIVING BEING, OF DERIVING ENERGY PROM THE MEDIUM—THE IDEAL WAY OF OBTAINING MOTIVE POWER"
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: tinman on November 20, 2017, 05:14:01 AM
Yes and no

There comes a time when you have to understand what effect the inventer is trying to achieve.

Take bedinis 1984 energizer for example.

Some got there knickers in a twist,just because my energizer did not look the same as the one depicted in the diagram bedini showed, but could not explain the difference between the two.

The thing that makes it worse,is the fact that that diagram also dose not depict the energizer that bedini had working on his bench.

The inventer also go's  on to say that there are many types of generators,and alternators that can be used to achieve the desired effect.

To many people seem to think that a replication must look like some picture posted by the inventer,when often the picture/diagram has nothing to do with the  actual machine the inventer actually made.

We should be replicating the effect the inventer specifies-not some picture that the inventer drew on a piece of paper.


Brad
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: Floor on November 20, 2017, 08:41:58 PM
Replications should be nearly identical to the original...

       In order that .....

1.  unseen and unknown....  factors which may other wise affect the replication
experiment's outcome are avoided.

2. Errors in original device / methods / processes ..... may be discovered.

3. Replication is replication,  not modification.
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: Magluvin on November 20, 2017, 11:37:26 PM
Replications should be nearly identical to the original...

       In order that .....

1.  unseen and unknown....  factors which may other wise affect the replication
experiment's outcome are avoided.

2. Errors in original device / methods / processes ..... may be discovered.

3. Replication is replication,  not modification.

 ;)   Thanks Floor. I agree 100% ;D Well said.

Mags
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: tinman on November 21, 2017, 04:25:21 AM

so you saying you know what was the inventor trying to achieve...


what about it...


your needing someone to explain the difference between the two is a testament to your ignorance......


says you.....the debunker...



aye...indeed he did, and I imagine you busying yourself, testing as many of those methods as you can, and are still coming up short.....  where you fail is you don't know what the desired effect is...



ah...now we find the great debunker trying to justify why he builds what he wants how he sees fit...  The inventor built and tested all versions and variations of his idea, all of which led to what can be considered as the final iteration of the concept... you would be wise to remember that.



wise words from one oblivious of the effect!

And bla
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: profitis on November 21, 2017, 01:22:46 PM
"3. Replication is replication,  not modification."

Some blueprints have enormous scope of error and they still work just fine.all relative
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: h20power on November 21, 2017, 11:15:42 PM
It really depends on the one doing the work. If say they are like me and are actually doing hands on experiments, funding their own work, and doing all of the research and other ground work then that person doesn't have to answer to anyone other than themselves. The one thing that drives people like me away from the forums is people acting as if we owe them something. When I went to understand what Meyer had done I did so in a way that I knew was going to be the long way around as lets face it all the information in the patents and that that can be found in the many lecture videos hasn't helped out anyone's understanding of just how that technology actually works.
Based on understanding one can build things just like what they are trying to replicate or make improvements on things they are trying to replicate. The key word is "Understanding" as once things are understood then you can see if things were done in the best way or not. I found many mistakes in what Meyer did with his technology and designed things around those mistakes I found. I also found many mistakes with the assumptions people whom have had their hands on Meyer's technology made. It was all due to a good understanding of the actual science behind the technology. Thus I can make changes to practically anything Meyer built now.


Most people in forums like these like to try and use methods they come up with to try and get me to tell them what I know and/or have learned about this technology in a forceful manor. When I don't fall for their scams or succumb to their demands they get mad and run off threatening to stop my efforts to bring out this technology which is siding with those that are currently selling energy as you can't have it both ways.


When it comes to trying to replicate any technology you must first try and gain an understanding of what it is that is being done so your first builds should be very close to the thing you are trying to replicate. You have to test them greatly leaving no stone unturned and I found that making use of the scientific method helps as it forces one to ask and answer questions. From what I have seen in the many forums I have been in most are perfectly willing to ask questions but not so willing to try and answer those questions especially if it means they will have to spend money out of their own pockets to get an answer. These people like other people to answer their questions and if a person refuses to answer their question they proceed towards bashing the person of interest in an attempt to get their questions answered.


What worked for me is the fact that I understood that I would have to be the one answering my own questions most of the time. If I needed something built just to gain more understanding about the technology I did so knowing that that money was just being spent not to have a working prototype but to gain more incite on way the technology actually works. So, once that "Ah Haw" moment happens you can start to build the technology based on what you understand about the underlying science behind the technology.


So, to answer your question one should approach and proceed with building replications in a manor that will allow them to gain an understanding of the true science behind what it is they are trying to replicate. Once you understand how it works then you can make changes to try and make things better as when starting off you should build things as close as you possible can to that which you are trying to replicate for if you don't you might introduce a lot of unknowns that you more than likely will not be prepared to deal with. Plus like always you must get the right tools for the job for the wrong tools will lead you in the wrong direction.


The faults I see others make all to often fall in those lines in that they don't want to answer their own questions, aren't willing to spend money to build things correctly or get the right tools for the job they are trying to replicate, and they aren't willing to put in the time or be committed to the task they set off to complete.
Well, this is my take on these matters.
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: shylo on November 22, 2017, 12:04:04 AM
If I could understand how they worked before replicating, I could've saved alot of time.
Why replicate , build your own.
The rules are true, but incomplete I believe.
Lenz is a key player, it can beat you, or you can make it work for you.
No matter how much you baby your batteries, they will die.
Free power dosen't exist , you have to put something in, or nothing will come out.
If the wind stops we die, If the sun stops shining we die, actually the sun makes the wind,
Free lights 24/7 no problem, but it needs wind or solar
art v
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: profitis on November 22, 2017, 04:11:11 PM
"No matter how much you baby your batteries, they
will die."

Utter garbage
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: wattsup on November 26, 2017, 03:35:28 PM
Replicating? Or, doing something is better then doing nothing?

Personally, if any @member had a DC motor turning a magnet wheel, I would recommend guys spend their next 90 days using it with as many different single pickups as possible because OU will be in the coupling method. So if you want to know where the OU is, it's in how the pickup sees that magnet passage or spin or swing. That will teach you 100 times more about coupling coils then anything else you can spend weeks trying to replicate. If someone finds a new topology in coupling of the magnet/iron/copper relationship, that will help way more then any replication. Yo do not need to replicate anything to do that and to eventually become a top level coupling specialist. It only take time and trials like any other research.

In any case, you cannot replicate what is not completely documented and proven to be OU otherwise you are not using what the particular inventor really left you and that is "how it did not work". We take the weak position that things work the way they are said to work, while we should be looking at why it did not work otherwise the inventors story would be totally different with OU already about. So in most cases replicating is just repeating the errors of the past. Why take the chance when if you know what you need to learn and work toward that will be much more rewarding in the long run.

If a good number of magnet wheel guys were working on developing crazy pick up topology and testing and taking down comparative data per coil type I figure someone will be bound to find something new fast enough. It's just that EE is so vast an ocean and it's easy to get lost without anchoring yourself to a few specific angles, you will get tossed around by any ocean current. A multi magnet wheel means you will always need to make many pick up coils, but many of one coil in fact, but which one? How can you just arbitrarily decide? Better we all spend many hours sleuthing the real single effects before making multiples. You can even make a contest with guys using let's say a same 15 pound pull NEO magnet type to see who can generate the most output. Those are the games that need to be played here and not like the annual build-offs where ego is the main motive.

If some work hard and concentrate on many trials, you will develop the coupling instinct. The more tests you do the more you will hone in on what YOU ARE LOOKING FOR and one day you will find it. Doing one build is like throwing one wormless hook in the lake when it would be better to get an idea on the water depths first.

Then, while one group works the coupling, another group challenges their works on the drive motor finding ways to increase available rpm and torque at lower energy usage. This is another avenue of where OU can hide. If you concentrate on where OU can hide and make each of those parts better, each component when brought together will produce OU for sure.

For me all of OU is coupling and that means how do these atoms really work together and how can I make them work even better. Standard pulsing cannot produce OU. Standard magnet wheel and stators cannot produce OU. Replicating is not the answer. Being smart in what you need to know is the only true base to advance. Then you use your smarts and find the solutions or ASK others. You can learn from five patents in small tests more then if you spent all that time doing one patent replication. So........ you better have a damn good reason to want to replicate anything except for the prestige, but prestige is not OU either.

I see guys building magnet wheels, deciding in advance how many magnets, distance from axis, how many pickup coils and coil types, any arbitrary drive motor, a flywheel of any size and weight, all decided way in advance as if all those variables, now fixed without any sound judgement, then expect to come to an OU result. That is the not OU R&D but more like OU Pot Shots. A shot in the dark. So what will you learn after you see the already expected drag freeze up the dc motor drive? All of that could have been worked out in the mind and by looking at youtube videos of past works of others. So why? Yeh yeh, the urge to build but still no OU and what did you learn besides it does not work when you already knew in advance it would not work but you still built it anyways. So why?

The last point is builders, replicators hate advice. They figure if they are paying with time and money, they should call all the shots and anyone trying to advise anything is just a chair OUer. Hahaha. So wrong. So our own human nature works against us everyday and no one is really serious but always able and willing to make a show of their building prowess. This whole thing is working backwards.

Lastly, one sentence of free advise. You like building so here is  one criteria you should hold near your heart and mind. Don't do anything that has been done before. If someone already did it and put up a youtube or web page showing it, then why should you do it if the OU is not there. Better you analyze what was done before and figure out where the hold backs are, fix those first then build something new.

wattsup
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: Magluvin on November 26, 2017, 05:16:46 PM
Replicating? Or, doing something is better then doing nothing?

Lastly, one sentence of free advise. You like building so here is  one criteria you should hold near your heart and mind. Don't do anything that has been done before. If someone already did it and put up a youtube or web page showing it, then why should you do it if the OU is not there. Better you analyze what was done before and figure out where the hold backs are, fix those first then build something new.

wattsup

Well this is about replicating. If one is going to confirm a former device, going off kilter from the start cant be a way to do so.

mags
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: shylo on November 27, 2017, 09:49:56 AM
Hi profits, "utter garbage", You know of some type of battery that last's forever?
art v
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: h20power on November 27, 2017, 05:12:39 PM
Replicating? Or, doing something is better then doing nothing?

Personally, if any @member had a DC motor turning a magnet wheel, I would recommend guys spend their next 90 days using it with as many different single pickups as possible because OU will be in the coupling method. So if you want to know where the OU is, it's in how the pickup sees that magnet passage or spin or swing. That will teach you 100 times more about coupling coils then anything else you can spend weeks trying to replicate. If someone finds a new topology in coupling of the magnet/iron/copper relationship, that will help way more then any replication. Yo do not need to replicate anything to do that and to eventually become a top level coupling specialist. It only take time and trials like any other research.

In any case, you cannot replicate what is not completely documented and proven to be OU otherwise you are not using what the particular inventor really left you and that is "how it did not work". We take the weak position that things work the way they are said to work, while we should be looking at why it did not work otherwise the inventors story would be totally different with OU already about. So in most cases replicating is just repeating the errors of the past. Why take the chance when if you know what you need to learn and work toward that will be much more rewarding in the long run.

If a good number of magnet wheel guys were working on developing crazy pick up topology and testing and taking down comparative data per coil type I figure someone will be bound to find something new fast enough. It's just that EE is so vast an ocean and it's easy to get lost without anchoring yourself to a few specific angles, you will get tossed around by any ocean current. A multi magnet wheel means you will always need to make many pick up coils, but many of one coil in fact, but which one? How can you just arbitrarily decide? Better we all spend many hours sleuthing the real single effects before making multiples. You can even make a contest with guys using let's say a same 15 pound pull NEO magnet type to see who can generate the most output. Those are the games that need to be played here and not like the annual build-offs where ego is the main motive.

If some work hard and concentrate on many trials, you will develop the coupling instinct. The more tests you do the more you will hone in on what YOU ARE LOOKING FOR and one day you will find it. Doing one build is like throwing one wormless hook in the lake when it would be better to get an idea on the water depths first.

Then, while one group works the coupling, another group challenges their works on the drive motor finding ways to increase available rpm and torque at lower energy usage. This is another avenue of where OU can hide. If you concentrate on where OU can hide and make each of those parts better, each component when brought together will produce OU for sure.

For me all of OU is coupling and that means how do these atoms really work together and how can I make them work even better. Standard pulsing cannot produce OU. Standard magnet wheel and stators cannot produce OU. Replicating is not the answer. Being smart in what you need to know is the only true base to advance. Then you use your smarts and find the solutions or ASK others. You can learn from five patents in small tests more then if you spent all that time doing one patent replication. So........ you better have a damn good reason to want to replicate anything except for the prestige, but prestige is not OU either.

I see guys building magnet wheels, deciding in advance how many magnets, distance from axis, how many pickup coils and coil types, any arbitrary drive motor, a flywheel of any size and weight, all decided way in advance as if all those variables, now fixed without any sound judgement, then expect to come to an OU result. That is the not OU R&D but more like OU Pot Shots. A shot in the dark. So what will you learn after you see the already expected drag freeze up the dc motor drive? All of that could have been worked out in the mind and by looking at youtube videos of past works of others. So why? Yeh yeh, the urge to build but still no OU and what did you learn besides it does not work when you already knew in advance it would not work but you still built it anyways. So why?

The last point is builders, replicators hate advice. They figure if they are paying with time and money, they should call all the shots and anyone trying to advise anything is just a chair OUer. Hahaha. So wrong. So our own human nature works against us everyday and no one is really serious but always able and willing to make a show of their building prowess. This whole thing is working backwards.

Lastly, one sentence of free advise. You like building so here is  one criteria you should hold near your heart and mind. Don't do anything that has been done before. If someone already did it and put up a youtube or web page showing it, then why should you do it if the OU is not there. Better you analyze what was done before and figure out where the hold backs are, fix those first then build something new.

wattsup


Your last points are way off as how can someone sitting on their butt give good advice on something they have no clue how it works? They haven't put in the time or spent a single dime on attempting to understand anything but their EGO likes to be heard so they make a fuss is all I see. There is a reason why no one likes to make use of the scientific method and that reason is it requires them to actually build and test something asking and answering questions as they go about trying to understand unknowns. So, people not doing anything truly need to sit it out as they haven't a clue what it is they are talking about. Making use of the scientific method will require one to get the proper testing equipment which is costly at times. You must ask and answer many questions on the data collected from your experiments failure to do so lead one in circles or give one the wrong answers but always making use of the scientific method allows one to test things out and get answers.
Like I stated in a post above people love to try and get someone else to answer questions they have as that puts the burden of actually spending money on something they think is right onto someone else. If your not willing to build, test, observer, and record your results then you have no say. Sorry bud but that's the way things go.


One thing that truly gets under my skin is someone trying to get people to do things they themselves are unwilling to do. Trust me I have seen this many times while trying to solve the work of Stanley Meyer as people will say all kinds of foolish stuff that makes no sense to those of us that are actually doing the work and observing the results. When it comes to figuring out the actual science behind Meyer's work these people actually steered people away from people like me whom where actually doing the work and in doing so made it so there is now a very large gap between what is really taking place in reality and what is only taking place between someones ears outside of reality. This divide grew and grew to the point that when I speak about this technology no one understands a word I am talking about for they have allowed themselves to be lead by these very people you claim have something useful to say. The true problem is there are just so many of these ego driven people and they will promote each others ideas even though there is no data supporting their claims. Thus if the blind lead the blind then both shall fall into a ditch, but they are also like crabs as anyone they see trying to get out of the ditch they reach up and try and pull them back down. So, I sat back and let these people run out of steam as eventually they would run out of ideas people are willing to listen to. That took about ten years of waiting but at last most of them have completely run out of steam and have thrown in the towel now.


That sad part is the path they left behind remains for others to fall into these ditches they left are but stumbling blocks for others to fall into that come after them. So, again my words of wisdom in making use of the scientific method holds as I haven't changed my tune in a very long time now. Asking and answering questions is the way to success and one must be willing to follow wherever the data leads them no matter the cost. Always remember good observations is good science.
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: AlienGrey on November 27, 2017, 06:35:50 PM
Hi profits, "utter garbage", You know of some type of battery that last's forever?
art v
yes it's called radiant energy, every thing comes from it but electrons (screw with it), even your soul is energy from the cos-mos battery ;) your problem is you don't know hoe to tap into it, that's your main objective if its not make it so.

The fact people in power don't want you to know and make any one look stupid who asks questions in not important.

Y ou want Ricity not Electricity  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

AG
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: AlienGrey on November 27, 2017, 06:42:38 PM

Your last points are way off as how can someone sitting on their butt give good advice on something they have no clue how it works? They haven't put in the time or spent a single dime on attempting to understand anything but their EGO likes to be heard so they make a fuss is all I see. There is a reason why no one likes to make use of the scientific method and that reason is it requires them to actually build and test something asking and answering questions as they go about trying to understand unknowns. So, people not doing anything truly need to sit it out as they haven't a clue what it is they are talking about. Making use of the scientific method will require one to get the proper testing equipment which is costly at times. You must ask and answer many questions on the data collected from your experiments failure to do so lead one in circles or give one the wrong answers but always making use of the scientific method allows one to test things out and get answers.
Like I stated in a post above people love to try and get someone else to answer questions they have as that puts the burden of actually spending money on something they think is right onto someone else. If your not willing to build, test, observer, and record your results then you have no say. Sorry bud but that's the way things go.


One thing that truly gets under my skin is someone trying to get people to do things they themselves are unwilling to do. Trust me I have seen this many times while trying to solve the work of Stanley Meyer as people will say all kinds of foolish stuff that makes no sense to those of us that are actually doing the work and observing the results. When it comes to figuring out the actual science behind Meyer's work these people actually steered people away from people like me whom where actually doing the work and in doing so made it so there is now a very large gap between what is really taking place in reality and what is only taking place between someones ears outside of reality. This divide grew and grew to the point that when I speak about this technology no one understands a word I am talking about for they have allowed themselves to be lead by these very people you claim have something useful to say. The true problem is there are just so many of these ego driven people and they will promote each others ideas even though there is no data supporting their claims. Thus if the blind lead the blind then both shall fall into a ditch, but they are also like crabs as anyone they see trying to get out of the ditch they reach up and try and pull them back down. So, I sat back and let these people run out of steam as eventually they would run out of ideas people are willing to listen to. That took about ten years of waiting but at last most of them have completely run out of steam and have thrown in the towel now.


That sad part is the path they left behind remains for others to fall into these ditches they left are but stumbling blocks for others to fall into that come after them. So, again my words of wisdom in making use of the scientific method holds as I haven't changed my tune in a very long time now. Asking and answering questions is the way to success and one must be willing to follow wherever the data leads them no matter the cost. Always remember good observations is good science.
Whats all  this ;)  I can't put this device in my radio or my walkman, the guy wants a device to copy to give away, if you have something post it please do ! ;) or better still send it to 'watsup' he did a lot of work on the device have you looked at his youtube site ?
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: wattsup on November 28, 2017, 12:26:37 AM
@h20power

You have it all wrong man.

@AlienGrey

I did not understand your post.

wattsup

Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: h20power on November 28, 2017, 01:31:04 AM
@h20power

You have it all wrong man.


wattsup


What do I have wrong?


I have been at this since March of 2006 and in this time I have seen many people fall flat on their faces trying to go at this technology not making use of the scientific method. Most of them have shown me quite clearly that they can't read or understand what it is they are reading on Meyer's technology. I have seen with my own eyes people showing their waveforms with only a positive voltage on it and also seen them actually tuning their waveforms to have just a positive voltage when if one actually reads the technical brief Meyer clearly states that the waveform must have an equal positive and negative voltage being applied to the water fuel cell/excitor array. I have had many of these none reading people tell me that I have it all wrong when I show my waveforms and when I point out to them just where in the technical brief Meyer states that the waveform must have both positive and negative voltages they go mute on me. These people like to go to the pictures only for their information as there sure Meyer does in fact show a lot of positive only waveforms but Meyer does this assuming that those whom are viewing those pictures have actually read the information he provided in writing for those pictures these fools love to wave at me claiming that I am doing everything all wrong. They totally ignore the fact that no one else is reaching these voltage levels I am applying to my excitor arrays and in fact no one that I know of has even reached the 4.2 kv I showed being applied to the exciter array in 2013 and I have more than doubled that since then.
I made a pdf file showing how the waveforms are supposed to look and why they are supposed to look that way but that too has been ignored by mostly everyone as far as I can tell. What is being shown in that pdf file is what I have actually learned making use of the scientific method on Meyer's technology. Only now have I learned how to increase the voltages to over 1kv per resonant cavity as I still had more to learn. People don't like these post I make as it clearly shows that what they are doing is so far off from what Meyer was actually doing that they might as well put someone else's name on it.


Meyer's technology is not for the faint hearted or the troubled minded as getting at the actually science behind all of Meyer's made up words is truly a difficult task. Meyer made up all of those fake terms to hide the technology in plain sight so that when people would read it they would have no clue to just what he had done and I must say it has worked beautifully for him as his plan truly worked until someone like me came around making use of the scientific method that would not listen to those whom are not making use of the scientific method. And if I don't listen to those whom are actually doing work but not making use of the scientific method that goes double for those that aren't doing anything at all and just have an idea in their heads about how they think it all works. If I had not done these things I'd be as lost as everyone else is on this technology and would have never solved it. But this is not to say I don't learn from other people's mistakes as I do but it is saying that most of the time I am the one that figures out that these people are making mistakes as they themselves never figure that out on their own. So, if you are saying that people with nothing but an idea in their heads need to be heard I say your wrong as an untested idea has no merit.


These people need to learn to sit these things out as if they aren't willing to test their own ideas and run around expecting others to test those ideas for them they are expecting too much. If you are not testing with real world experiments then trust me you have no say in the matter on how it all works as you have nothing real from which to base your ideas with in the first place. I have seen how these people work in that someone will say something that sounds good and then another picks up on that idea and runs with it and then hands it over to someone else to run with which somehow is supposed to make that idea factual and that is not the way it works by a long shot. Ideas have to be tested with real world experiments to see if the idea was a good one or a bad one or someplace in between. I have done this testing and observed the results and from there I ask and answer even more questions. Each failure is learned from as that is how the scientific method works and trust me I have failed plenty but I learned with each and every failure. And when I learned something I went back to reading to make sense of Meyer's made up words that were used to hide the technology and keep people from stealing his work from him. I did this over and over again until I had all of his made up words matched up with real world scientific terms. The hardest part was the science that turned out to be new to the scientific community as that had me looking over things we thought we already knew. But I don't teach anymore so people are going to have to live with what I left behind when I was in a teaching mood to study off of. This makes a lot of people mad at me as again they have ideas they wish to use with this technology and I guess rightfully so I am holding them back. But I don't care as I have a plan in place that I am following that will get this technology into the markets so that all will have a chance at getting it.


So again show me where I am wrong?







Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: wattsup on November 28, 2017, 03:05:10 AM
@h20power

I was referring to your post about my person which had nothing to do with anything Meyer related. In that you are totally wrong.

About Meyer, I have never looked deeply into his nor your works so I cannot comment.

You can always point me to where your works are published and I can have a look at it and offer you a unique perspective based on my Spin Conveyance construct that I have been developing since many years now and that I have been putting out there slowly. So if you want a totally out of the box perspective, not to figure out what he was doing but to make yours work even better, that I would agree too. But I will not run after the Meyer secrets nor can I put aside time to build Meyer based stuff.

I have however done a few youtubes using a microscope showing how water fractures showing the Atoms "shooting" which is one of six of the Atomic attributes in my SC construct.

Aim way higher then Meyer man. It's the only way.

wattsup
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: h20power on November 28, 2017, 05:19:24 AM
@h20power

I was referring to your post about my person which had nothing to do with anything Meyer related. In that you are totally wrong.

About Meyer, I have never looked deeply into his nor your works so I cannot comment.

You can always point me to where your works are published and I can have a look at it and offer you a unique perspective based on my Spin Conveyance construct that I have been developing since many years now and that I have been putting out there slowly. So if you want a totally out of the box perspective, not to figure out what he was doing but to make yours work even better, that I would agree too. But I will not run after the Meyer secrets nor can I put aside time to build Meyer based stuff.

I have however done a few youtubes using a microscope showing how water fractures showing the Atoms "shooting" which is one of six of the Atomic attributes in my SC construct.

Aim way higher then Meyer man. It's the only way.

wattsup


I didn't mention anything about you personally other than to say you where wrong in your assumption that someone not knowing anything could give useful advise on a technology they know nothing about. Just as right now you have no idea about how Meyer's technology works as you haven't taken the time to read anything about it nor have you performed any useful experiments designed to answer any questions you might have about the technology as you haven't even read the patents or technical brief fully. Thus you make a perfect example of someone not to be listened too when they try and give advice on how they think this technology works to break the bonds of the water molecules that is outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method. Would you agree with this assessment?


My point was very clear in that someone not building and testing things and also not making use of the scientific method is really not to be listened too as they aren't doing things in a constructive manor and someone not doing anything other than thinking about the technology has absolutely no say in the matter. But what I have found in forums such as these is those that do nothing but sit around thinking want the ideas they come up with in their heads taken just as seriously as those of us that are performing actual hands on experiments and observing the results. I have had some of these thinkers tell me am I sure I saw what I saw as if I didn't observe the things that I have because it doesn't fit with the idea they have thought up in their heads not having a single experiment performed on to see if the idea is valid or not. These are the types of people that I find forums like these attract mostly people whom do nothing but want to be taken seriously anyway. They run around in packs supporting each others unproven ideas and building upon them not performing a single experiment in the real world as they do so.


I posted that bit about the voltage requirements to show that what I have been doing is heading in the right direction as many have come against me telling everyone that they don't need high voltage to get this technology to work correctly. Others just look at the pictures and try and duplicate that and get really mad at me when I point them to Meyer's own words stating that there must be a positive and negative voltage of equal magnitude shown in their waveforms not just a positive one as is seen in most of the drawings.


What I find interesting is each time I'd make a discovery and share what I had learned about the technology it was immediately challenged and "so-called" debunked by the forum leaders in groups like the RWGresearch, Ionizationx, and many other forums. It got so bad that there developed a great divide in what was truth and what was fiction and guess where most people spent most of their time? The fiction section. You see in the fiction section all ideas where winners and no one ever truly challenged much of anything and the scientific method was strictly not to be used in any way, shape, or form. I saw this divide forming and was basically powerless to do anything about it. Once they gained the support of the forum members I would always be shown the door and if I refused to do banned for trying to make a stand for truth. This is one of the last forums I am allowed to post in due to these people and their land of fiction they have created to replace the truth. But now their forums have began to run dry as they have simply run out of ideas to keep pushing things forwards as they did in the past. It took a while for them to run out of steam though and in their wake they have made sure that anyone trying to figure out Meyer's technology could never be done if they followed their lead. They tell you everything not to be doing most of the time and make up entirely new meanings for Meyer's already made up meanings where are really just him re-branding things we already know in science so he could hide his technology in plain sight.


Most people I did try and work with either fell short when it came to getting the right test equipment needed for this technology or got frustrated with their results and started making things up to please their doners so that it looked like there were making progress when in all truth there were not. Others simply ran out of money as this technology can be quite costly to build things the right way and most of those I still talk to too this day as it's not their fault that they ran out of funds to complete what it is they started. But the sour taste left in my mouth by those whom rose against me stopped me from ever wanting to teach this technology again as now I will just point people to Meyer's patents, lecture videos, and written work they can find on the internet as after all that is what I had to work with. On this forum I have left a lot of things I figured out and something I got wrong along the way for people to go over but they must first drop what those pretenders have left behind and be prepared to actually make use of the scientific method. I have lead people in the right direction but I will not complete the task for them as I have seen first hand that something given freely is treated as if it has no value. Thus they must all work for it just as I had to do as then and only then will they give this technology a real sense of value.


I am no ones teacher anymore as now my mission has changed towards trying to bring this technology into the marketplace by way of mass production so that the masses can afford to have it one day. If anyone one out there has a different idea as to how they would do things differently let them start at the beginning and make their ideas come true by working towards figuring out this technology on their own with what clues I left behind and the stuff Meyer left behind.
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: wattsup on November 28, 2017, 01:30:09 PM
I didn't mention anything about you personally other than to say you where wrong in your assumption that someone not knowing anything could give useful advise on a technology they know nothing about.

Sorry but you are putting words in my mouth and actions that I never did. I never said "someone not knowing". Usually when someone talks about an effect it's because they know something about it. My previous post was about should you replicate or not and how can time be better put to use. I never talked about Meyer.

Quote
Just as right now you have no idea about how Meyer's technology works as you haven't taken the time to read anything about it nor have you performed any useful experiments designed to answer any questions you might have about the technology as you haven't even read the patents or technical brief fully.

Wrong again. I said "I have never looked deeply into his or your works to comment." Look we all know Meyer at one level or another but not at the level you hope to discourse. 

Quote
Thus you make a perfect example of someone not to be listened too when they try and give advice on how they think this technology works to break the bonds of the water molecules that is outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method. Would you agree with this assessment?

I was totally honest in my portrayal and never provided any comment on Meyer so I don't know why you keep thinking so. Please read, then take the time required to think about what you post. Between the time I posted and your last post was very short for such a long post so how much time did you actually take to re-read, edit, modify or decide it's better not to post such a reply.

Quote
My point was very clear in that someone not building and testing things and also not making use of the scientific method is really not to be listened too as they aren't doing things in a constructive manor and someone not doing anything other than thinking about the technology has absolutely no say in the matter. But what I have found in forums such as these is those that do nothing but sit around thinking want the ideas they come up with in their heads taken just as seriously as those of us that are performing actual hands on experiments and observing the results.

Sorry but I have tried several HHO trials but you know what. That damn pop when you ignite that gas just scares the shit out of me so I stopped. Could not concentrate. I tried it enough to realize it was not for me. But that does not take away any of my analytical acumen based on years of everything. That you cannot build, but you can grow.

Quote
I have had some of these thinkers tell me am I sure I saw what I saw as if I didn't observe the things that I have because it doesn't fit with the idea they have thought up in their heads not having a single experiment performed on to see if the idea is valid or not. These are the types of people that I find forums like these attract mostly people whom do nothing but want to be taken seriously anyway. They run around in packs supporting each others unproven ideas and building upon them not performing a single experiment in the real world as they do so.

Well this is becoming stale. I feel your anguish but you have the control over what and who you listen to, not anyone else.

Quote
I posted that bit about the voltage requirements to show that what I have been doing is heading in the right direction as many have come against me telling everyone that they don't need high voltage to get this technology to work correctly. Others just look at the pictures and try and duplicate that and get really mad at me when I point them to Meyer's own words stating that there must be a positive and negative voltage of equal magnitude shown in their waveforms not just a positive one as is seen in most of the drawings.

Sorry I cannot help in that without more info. Positive and Negative voltage means nothing if you do not add a "alternatively", "simultaneously", "sporadically" or any other descriptor to figure out what he is saying. Or he is just saying something without thinking about the correct term. The use of equal magnitude becomes a distraction to that one fact. You see the problems these inventors leave behind.

Quote
What I find interesting is each time I'd make a discovery and share what I had learned about the technology it was immediately challenged and "so-called" debunked by the forum leaders in groups like the RWGresearch, Ionizationx, and many other forums. It got so bad that there developed a great divide in what was truth and what was fiction and guess where most people spent most of their time? The fiction section. You see in the fiction section all ideas where winners and no one ever truly challenged much of anything and the scientific method was strictly not to be used in any way, shape, or form. I saw this divide forming and was basically powerless to do anything about it. Once they gained the support of the forum members I would always be shown the door and if I refused to do banned for trying to make a stand for truth. This is one of the last forums I am allowed to post in due to these people and their land of fiction they have created to replace the truth. But now their forums have began to run dry as they have simply run out of ideas to keep pushing things forwards as they did in the past. It took a while for them to run out of steam though and in their wake they have made sure that anyone trying to figure out Meyer's technology could never be done if they followed their lead. They tell you everything not to be doing most of the time and make up entirely new meanings for Meyer's already made up meanings where are really just him re-branding things we already know in science so he could hide his technology in plain sight.

If you are that determined, why let those people stop you? But let me correct one thing. After so many years you are spending on this, this is no longer Meyer technology, it's your technology. Once you agree to that, the rest will start to take shape. Don't push a dead cart when you can make a better one.

Quote
Most people I did try and work with either fell short when it came to getting the right test equipment needed for this technology or got frustrated with their results and started making things up to please their doners so that it looked like there were making progress when in all truth there were not. Others simply ran out of money as this technology can be quite costly to build things the right way and most of those I still talk to too this day as it's not their fault that they ran out of funds to complete what it is they started. But the sour taste left in my mouth by those whom rose against me stopped me from ever wanting to teach this technology again as now I will just point people to Meyer's patents, lecture videos, and written work they can find on the internet as after all that is what I had to work with. On this forum I have left a lot of things I figured out and something I got wrong along the way for people to go over but they must first drop what those pretenders have left behind and be prepared to actually make use of the scientific method. I have lead people in the right direction but I will not complete the task for them as I have seen first hand that something given freely is treated as if it has no value. Thus they must all work for it just as I had to do as then and only then will they give this technology a real sense of value.

Hmmmmm. All this goes way above my head man. Shit happens. It's part of the scenery. It's part of the growing process.

Quote
I am no ones teacher anymore as now my mission has changed towards trying to bring this technology into the marketplace by way of mass production so that the masses can afford to have it one day. If anyone one out there has a different idea as to how they would do things differently let them start at the beginning and make their ideas come true by working towards figuring out this technology on their own with what clues I left behind and the stuff Meyer left behind.

Yep, many people  have abdicated to the stresses so you will not be the first. But if what you have learned is truly capital and has merit and potential value for humanity, then you are basically cheating yourself while blaming others to rationalize all this doom and gloom. Sorry to be blunt but I am not the source of all those problems.

wattsup

Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: profitis on November 28, 2017, 09:18:38 PM
' So
in most cases replicating is just repeating the errors
of the past.'

OR,ridiculously improving the correctness of tomorrow
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: shylo on November 28, 2017, 11:05:27 PM
yes it's called radiant energy, every thing comes from it but electrons (screw with it), even your soul is energy from the cos-mos battery ;) your problem is you don't know hoe to tap into it, that's your main objective if its not make it so.

The fact people in power don't want you to know and make any one look stupid who asks questions in not important.

Y ou want Ricity not Electricity  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

AG
what? What has that got do with batteries?
You lost me.
Batteries can only cycle so many times before thier done.
artv
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: AlienGrey on November 29, 2017, 05:23:23 PM
what? What has that got do with batteries?
You lost me.
Batteries can only cycle so many times before thier done.
artv
I would 'respectfully' say to you if you don't know then you should watch some of the older John Badini Educational films on youtube then you would know other wise you wont ever know how to make them last your lifetime and beyond.

Have fun learning

AG
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: AlienGrey on November 29, 2017, 05:29:17 PM
@h20power

You have it all wrong man.

@AlienGrey

I did not understand your post.

wattsup
Hi are you the guy 'Rus Greese' ? not sure of the spelling if your not the sorry i'm totally confused on this one ;)
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: tinman on November 30, 2017, 04:08:11 AM
I would 'respectfully' say to you if you don't know then you should watch some of the older John Badini Educational films on youtube then you would know other wise you wont ever know how to make them last your lifetime and beyond.

Have fun learning

AG

So many claims by JB-so few working replications--in fact,not one working replication to date.
Title: Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
Post by: AlienGrey on November 30, 2017, 07:52:36 AM
So many claims by JB-so few working replications--in fact,not one working replication to date.
Oh come on the guy  was in that group his hands were tied all he could do was mechanical
gain stuff school girl mechanics.

Or are you referring to hard core Moray type sea of energy so called statically charged ions collection thingy
Akula, Ruslan setups ?

How do you think the Gray's get here the so called 'visitors' the yanks BS that don't realty exist
yes how do they get here with out vast tanks of fuel, bloody easy peasy fuel is matter and therefor energy
and all are interchangeable if you know how change one to the other. What is it you want and why ?

Have you had any contact with 'desert experimenter' lately or whatever his name (had HD problems had to put the dam thing on it's side it's getting old lost a few files(shit happens)) he seams to be a keen experimenter with a good sense of humor.

Oh well chin up any things possible because it's already been done, catch ya later praps  ;D :(

AG