Energy from the Ground - Self powered generator by Barbosa and Leal

[skribat]

and the GEET is a fake .. and Stan Meyers (hydrogen/ Plasma) is a fake .. GENEPAX is a fake .. Rossi / Industrial Heat E-Cat is a fake .. Steorn is a fake .. Kapanadze is a fake ??   (and Tesla was a madman)   all proven if not quite fully understood and

energy from the ground will be just another added to the list.  These things often take a long time to understand and develop, and as soon as it is the money comes in to snatch it away.    Governments around the world are sitting on thousands of patents in the
interest of 'National Security'  (protecting power and taxation).  It's the people playing with the fakes who get the job done.   
maybe your motives are good and well intentioned.  Like maggie thatcher it is usually the people who most believe they are right who are not ..  advise people to be cautious yes,  be constructive and guiding if you have something to contribute but the 'crusades' are over and can now be seen for what they were .. wrong. 
As for B&L and Clarence .. soon we will all know and it can be added to the list with the others.

.

[nelsonrochaa]

So, someone is faking a fake device and now many folks are going to waste over $2,000 each to attempt to replicate and you think that is OK but you have a problem with my post?

To me, that is derogatory, and so is your post if you just sit by and watch this happen.

Perhaps you don't have the background to know any better?  Fine, that is understandable.  But, I do know better.

This is fake and does not/can not work.

It is as simple as that.  If you do not like my saying that, I suggest that you do not read my posts.

Good day,

Bill

Hi ,

How you now that circuit is a fake ?
Did you prove that circuit or other variant circuit ? Did you test any of this ?
I did all the tests i need about a year ago , and with very good results.The biggest problem is when people do not think through your own head.
I did not follow to the letter the patent information to make my tests because have some "distorted information" .
Even thought the Leal Barbosa and would offer spoon-fed all the necessary information for granted?
You must read and understand the patent, moreover the patent is made of other ideas taken from other patents.
One of the main ideas was removed from Stan Meyers patent.
Investigate and you see that is true.
That's why I've always said from the beginning that this circuit could not call Barbosa & Leal circuit.
Because it is made using registered ideas on other patents.
Checks at the end of Barbosa & Leal patent the references used in other inventors.
but of course is only about my background fault when i sit and read ; yes because is very important read too .
At that time, the same criticisms and doubts have been raised by the people.
But it's normal whens people are unaware, have more cautious, about the things that are not "Conventional"
I understand, but what i see is a non constructive opinions that make people leave this forum  like Clearance did.
I think people who attend such forums do not need nanny, as some of them sticks are formed in areas covering this area of research.
What I abhor is the antagonistic way is made critical by some people.
What you have shown so far to show that the circuit is fake?
As you think it's fake, you should try and explain why you think that, if in fact these concerned about people and their money.
Not only say that is fake without nothing.
Do not be upset, sees this as constructive criticism.
Of course, I will continue to read your posts

Thanks and good day

[tinman]

Indeed TK, here is my spin on it, I marked up the main schematic with some annotations.

A lot of you experimenters out there that are supporters of this proposition need to learn basic circuit analysis.  Stop pretending that electronic circuits act "differently" just because somebody told you so.  They don't.

You got the wrong schematic MH. The little few turn coil dosnt loop back onto it self. One end go's to the ground rod's,and the other to the neutral side of the load.
When you look at the schematic below,you will see why i said the ground rods are nothing but a resistive path in the neutral side of the circuit. And this is why when Clarence puts in more ground rod's,he gets more power to the load. So now he thinks he is making more power with more ground rod's because more power gets to the load--when in actual fact,he is only reducing the resistance in the neutral side of the circuit when he adds more ground rod's.

[captainkt]

@tinman, thank you for pointing that out I thought it was just me, now the circuit might work as intended.

Regards
Keith

[tinman]

@tinman, thank you for pointing that out I thought it was just me, now the circuit might work as intended.

Regards
Keith

No the circuit will not work as described by Clarence-sorry Keith,but that is a fact.

It is good to see Level at EF is onto it. I bet it wont be long now,and he will be seen as the bad guy for asking the questions we did. Clarence will soon vacate EF as well.

Quote: Clarence, Ok, from your reply it seems you are not much interested in investigating and sharing more details on how your setup performs beyond just a short time, but from what I can gather from some of your comments it appears you have not been able to get your setup to be a continuous self runner. That is important information for people to know however before they go and invest a large sum of money in a replication, and this is the reason I asked twice about the performance now.  To tell other people to build your setup if they want to know how your setup might actually perform doesn't make sense.  You need to be fully forthcoming on what your setup can do and what it can't do, based on actual performance testing. To just give people the run around when they ask for specific test results on how your setup is performing, after you have stated more than a few times that your setup is 'working' is not a good sign at all. People should have more than wishful thinking before investing a large sum of money and time and effort into a replication.