Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[a.king21]

Steeltpu: Your comments do nothing to advance science. Give me some facts you disagree with. Show me some equations.  Stop quoting other peoples prejudices.  It does not advance reality one bit.  Most people see through whining people. For example the claim that Rick is an illegal and does not pay taxes is demonstrably false. I  recently spoke to Rick in Canada and also in the US.  No one guilty of these false allegations could move between two countries. I check everything and everyone out. I was the first to down Magnacoaster as a fraud by my thread Magnacoaster Genius or fraud or a title to that effect.
So stop posting crap and do some experiments.
I am intrigued that Rick claims to have replicated Don Smith.  I have told the forum where to look for an effect greater than resonance. I understand the process.  We should focus on that.  Does it work or not?
For those who do not know what Tesla's impulse technology is here s a still shot from Video 7 by Bedini (in which Rick was present).


We should be honoured to have some one of Rick's status here. On behalf of the decent members who want to learn I would like to apologize to Rick for Steeltpu's  and other negative people's  posts.
  Rick please do not take your bat home because of people like him.  Just ignore them please and let those of us who want to learn -progress and learn.


If you look at the scope shots you will see that these are similar to other OU devices such as the Alexander motor patent which has the impulses superimposed on the carrier wave.

[rickfriedrich]

(For those of you who don't care for the drama please note that I end this response with a very important free energy point that you don't want to miss.)

Well, if you consider these people were all my dealers and now my competition that should give you some perspective. Yes, Aaron merely benefitted from my work and all these people conspired against me after I set everything up for them. I created the ideas, functionality, did the testing and sales of the chargers which I allowed these people to be my dealers. Then at some point they, with Bedini, went behind my back and cut me out while still using my company name, label, customer service and testimonies (some of which still appear on Aaron's pages). I created the forums and helped thousands of people around the world. The people asked for kits, no rather then demanded them, and so I did what I could to give them something. They had a very good response to that service. This lead to me to create the conventions, and we had three. 2 in 2010 and one in 2011. The first one had 50 people and the second was an historic even with 400 people. The last one had less than that but was still a major event. In the 2012 Convention they invited me but called me the day before and said there was no room for me and then told everyone that I just didn't show up. But at the same moment they shut me out of all my forums. I did a lot of work for everyone and gave it my all. I got caught up in all the controversies and these guys eventually proved to everyone their bad character. I parted with them as nicely as I could after they stole from me. Remember I was the only one bringing in the money (and so they just wanted to take that from me). I also brought in many people that wanted to do business because of my work. But when John started to make his own battery killer chargers and pushing them on me to sell I had to also get way from that as the first premise of my company is battery longevity. So these guys, and the Bedini worshippers still telling these lies, merely took over my work and tried to slander me to secure their favor with everyone. But I have responded to all their lies for those who have ears to hear. I ask you: What have these guys done since I was making things happen in 2011 and earlier? What have the conventions been showing? I know because people who go tell me everything. Anything practical? What products have come out? What advancements have they revealed in free energy technology? Why did Aaron leave out of the Advanced SSG handbook sold on this forum the advanced technology? Why not include what John said in DVD7 as I just posted? These are the things I did show everyone and stress. But that crossed the line. I am slandered and attacked because of my honest work. Yes I failed some customers at times. I am not really good at business and sales and manufacturing. Some of the things I am blamed for were actually Bedini's fault, many actually. Some things are my fault. Such things happen in business, especially when you are stressed out trying to do too much. I have the weight of the world on my shoulders. Everyone expects me to do everything. But I think people ought to give me some credit for bringing about so many good things over the years. No, rather they would rather push these lies and slander paid for by rich disinfo poeple. These guys demonstrated their own lies to the world now.

For example, Tom Childs says that he witnessed me signing a NDA with Energenx when I first brought him there in late 2008 as evidenced in the time stamp photograph and John Koorn's plane ticket. Yet Gary Bedini claims I signed (there is no signature either) it in early 2007 when I formed Renaissance (it is true that he wanted me to sign an NDA but I never did). Then John claims that it was 2005. But when we were pulling away and moving away from him in 2012 he came over to the shop wanting us all to sign the NDA. My staff will tell you they laughed at him and said "Why would we sign that now after all these years, it would mean nothing and we will not do that." We never signed it. My patent lawyers explained that we co-developed the technology so they were equally my chargers. There was never any contract, NDA or anything all those years. These guys did sloppy business as EVERYONE knows. I talked to Bedini's lawyer for hours and put him in his place. They were all hype as always. Later I met with local companies and very advanced electrical and mechanical engineers who informed me of their similar experience with Bedini's tactics that they experienced 12 years earlier (that was MOR Manufacturing in post falls Idaho fyi). When Bedini took them to court for them pulling out of a deal that he merely sat on doing nothing, they did their homework on him and found a track record of pressuring people through lawyers.

These guys claim that I have illegal status in the US. They say I have pink hair. They say I operate a business without an Idaho business license when I live and work in Michigan and have such a license. They say I don't pay my taxes when I have both accountant and book keeper attending to that. So why doesn't anyone notice these lies and the conflict of interest in their testimony? Why doesn't anyone see that they do nothing to advance this tech in any practical way. They just take my work and try and erase that fact that it was my efforts that made this all happen. Do you really think there would ever have been any chargers if I had not made that happen? Or any kits? Or any meetings? They try to erase all of that. All because they worship Bedini and just side with him in his betrayal of me. Well it was good that it happened because I learned that these are all shady characters. They cheated people and took huge sums of money from people and never gave them anything. They started Energenx with Marvin's 2 million dollars and all he wanted was a free energy device. In the end I was responsible for giving him the relatively small motor. That's what he got for all his money. None of you knew these details but Energenx battled internally with lawyers over a year. I watched it all daily. They eventually settled with the motor I had made. You all see that window motor in popular videos. Steve W made that motor as he made my kits. So I helped resolve this ongoing major problem in their company with one of my kits (a deluxe model of my window B kit). Marvin was conned into this with a carefully worded contract when he started Energenx with the Bedini's. There is a lot more detail that need not be mentioned. But these were all bad people as became evident. What they did with the stock and insider trading is another matter. I really didn't understand or get involved but all the stockholders were always calling me because the bedini's would never answer them. In the end these stockholders were all defrauded and got nothing. One of them, a friend of mine, put in 1/4 million and didn't even get one of the motors that the family all got in the end. Why was that?

So these liars not only make up stuff but are completely ignorant of what was happening from day to day. Tom Childs, Aaron Murakami, and John Koorn and the like were only around every year or every few months while I was there. Yes I only met Aaron probably less than 20 times all those years. They have no ability to make any claim about me or Bedini in these matters.

But now we can all see that John was the big liar as I have shown here on this forum:
https://overunity.com/18241/bedini-window-motor-came-from-newman-how-story-changed/msg535233/#msg535233
John not only lied about me in regards to his oscillator and stan meyer (not hydrogen stan) reverse engineering it but I have proven with his own words that he fabricated the dates on his lab notes. Notice the end of DVD7 talking about the window motor that he lied about later saying was from 1971:
32:00-32:30 "It's been known ever since the Watson, Jim Watson, and the first free energy motors that we did. That when you charge them negative-wise well the normal charger can't fill in the holes. "How long did you work with Watson?' "For over two years before he did the motor. Well, remember that this motor came out of that little book that I did in the beginning, Bedini's Free Energy Generator."

Soon after this admission he even convinced Tony C to publish the lie on the front cover of the second edition of his book which claims that in 1971 (13 years early when he was only 22) John published and copyrighted the window motor book (even though he didn't even believe free energy was even possible until 1984). This is major news and shows everyone that Bedini changed his history to try and make himself look better, to extend the bogus living legend myth, and to try and erase his early support of the Newman motor.

So now Aaron is caught up in this lie. He foolishly attacked me with a funny doctored photo of me with girly baby soother put in my mouth (ironically from the very DVD7 which disproves his point) with a page on his website that showed a bedini lab note with a fake 1980 date on it to somehow try and make me look bad. However, he was so ignorant about the facts of the matter that he didn't realize that the file he shows is actually my digital file that I made when John gave me all of his lab notes to scan in 2006. I go over these details where you can see the actually see the proof I give that these several lab notes have earlier dates added in that contradict Johns unambiguous "too be honest" 1984 admissions on The Open Mind interveiw:

https://youtu.be/KJlcQc8CrRY

So now Aaron is in big trouble because he opened up a can of worms that ruins his reputation forever. He will have to admit that John was a big liar in this matter or he will have to continue on supporting this lie. He has a lot to lose financially in admitting the truth so you can evaluate his character by the fruit of his actions. He had a lot of money to gain from attacking me and siding with Bedini even though I never wronged either of them ever. He has a lot of money to attack people and one wonders what he really is doing here with his disinfo forums. Again, ask yourself why he never put the advanced information in the Advanced SSG manual. The DVD7 tesla impulse teaching that shows you how to ever multiply the output. Who is the only one who ever demonstrated and taught on that all these years??? The very one Aaron and these liars are attacking on those pages.

So yeah I have a credibility problem because of the good work I have done. Others who have done similar things have been killed or attacked in similar ways. Yes I have made mistakes and some people have been lost in the mix of this. But in the end, how much of this can you verify one side or the other? I am presenting real details you can look up for yourself. You can all now see that Bedini lied starting around 2006 about his history in a big way. And if that is the case in such a big matter, then why should he be trusted in his slander against me? And all these minions are just parroting his bitter rage. You see John was just angry with himself in the end.

Anyway, do not get distracted with these controversies. They are expected when such people want to suppress the information. John did share important things like in DVD7, but he did it in a way that was hidden in plain sight. Notice that nobody, even Aaron, noticed how important this point was. And he laughed behind the scenes about how "stupid" everyone in the free energy community was. I recorded him saying such things in the foulest of words in my last conversation with him. He spoke bad about Peter L, Aaron, Tom Childs and the like friends. If I played these recordings these supporters would be very embarrassed and everyone would hate Bedini (as many do who have been equally burned by him). But my goal has been to get past these things and do positive work. I tried to be the mature man in the room and I let these accusations go on for 5 years without responding. But so many people were stumbled by these things and bad Bedini chargers (not the Renaissance Chargers) and the bedini tesla switch, that I had to pinpoint the answers in these matters. I showed everyone in many videos the actual truth. For example, I showed some 8 hours of shop video where you see a completely different understanding of the dynamics at Energenx. You see me building the ferris wheel and John and Gary asking me the questions of what should we do here and there? So see all my saved emails (40,000) showing that I saved everything and disproved the lies.

Anyway, if I was a liar and hateful towards John I would not show you and demystify the good things that he said. So I end this on a positive note. Go pull out that old 2006 DVD7 and then you will be able to go back to that old SSG and now learn its purpose. Now you can get as much output as you want. At some point this should have been the biggest news as it was the most signification thing that John ever claimed and showed. It is a wonder of wonders why these useless forums never noticed when I did draw attention to it for years, especially the last 3 years. Again, I can learn from my enemies and promote their good points. I can even admit that Aaron has promoted some good things as well. Not that the good outweighs the bad, but now he is done for. But I find truth and good from both good and bad people. So here you have a gift that John purposely concealed in plain sight (as he repeatedly jested) to those who he deemed not worthy. Everyone missed this. But now I have articulated it. I have demonstrated it the last 5 years at meetings. And I have explained how to do it while developing the Teslean teaching on the matter. Start with Tesla figure 5 in True Wireless and Impedance phenomena in the 1891-3 three lectures. Then you will be able to make the SSG or any of my kits over the years become a prime mover that can be used to multiply the output as many times as you want. In the critical words of John in DVD7:
"So no matter how many nodes, at the right rate you can keep adding these circuits like Tesla did."
Don't say I didn't spoon feed you the most important matters.
Rick

a.king21,   you're a good researcher.   glad your experience with rick was good and don't want too discourage you but he's got a long history that isn't good.   seems EF forum isn't the only place he's seen as a snake oil salesman:


https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=jranml2m1nnjekn0oi3jgt2453&topic=3785.msg75248;topicseen#msg75248

[rickfriedrich]

This is the problem, you miss my context in your drive for OU. You guys just want to jump to the end result. I have been doing this for 15 years full time so I know what I am doing here. My context is that my kit is not to give you an instant big bang OU system in 2 seconds. This is what you all assume is the only thing you find acceptable. My context is to show people how to experience resonance and associated themes so that they can see how the subtle changes can make differences. All of you guys just want to over-simplify things and that is why you will never succeed in this research. I realized that people fail because they assume many things and don't start at the beginning. So I made this kit to teach them the basics, step by step. And they have not be disappointed because for the first time they have experienced and understood resonance. I rightly suspected that most people on these forums only had vague ideas and no real experience with resonance. So the little 20ma LEDs are perfect to see the subtle changes necessary to learn the capacitive and inductive relationships. If you don't learn this first, how do you expect to get what you are after? Now if you do not have OU then what do you really know?? If not then you have everything to learn. You are not being scientific when you so easily discard minute details. This is not about LEDs being insufficient to prove OU. As I said, you cannot prove anything over the internet with video, claims, or pictures anyway. But this is about learning how things work. Then you can move on to the advanced section of the book, or even chapter 3 on the beginner's side where you will learn about a self-running system in the sympathetic phased locked loop process.

Your statement essentially disregards this because it is not big enough for you. So if one or 1,000,000 LEDs are lit up without input it doesn't matter to you. Well that's your foolishness then. Because if you can have some patience to learn how this actually works then you can do that to any size you need with any loads. I understand that everyone just wants to buy something and really doesn't want to bother with learning anything. Ah I did my studies years ago, and I'm not willing to revisit those subjects. Just give me the product now and shut up Rick. The force of such insults actually compelled me to start giving people kits in the first place. But once I created bigger kits and showed and gave rides on the 26' boat then my whole world turned upside down and everyone turned on me. Eventually I realized that Bedini was not joking with me when he said to not do the kits and never show them anything in the meetings (just tell stories). He really was warning me not to cross that line. Well I paid dearly for doing all that still to this day. So I will never sell directly to the general public any of the Don Smith systems for these reasons. I show people how to do them however. I have shown how the Benitez systems work as well, and I have a few kits almost done along those lines. I have long shown how the Bedini systems work, even though they were not from him actually. So therefore the Newman systems, Adam's systems, Faraday, and others.

Anyway, I don't really care if some of you guys deliberately ignore what I say and ramble and complain about something else. The insults and diversions are more humous to me and illustrate to everyone else the very points I am making.

Again, I repeat, nobody wants to admit that you cannot prove anything over the internet. You keep asking for proof as if you can prove something over the internet. G avoided facing that point and thus has been caught in his game he is playing. This point destroys all the confusion on all these forums. It gets to the heart of the matter. Again, if I drive a boat around for three years in the real world it probably still would not matter for some people. But how do I prove to y'll that I did do that? I can't. So I show pictures? What can pictures prove? So I show video? What can video prove? So I show live feed for three years? That still would not prove anything. Ah, but I tell you how to do it and you do it yourself. Maybe that is the wise approach that I learned to take. Take this statement for what it's worth. Before I made the boat I had two different customers that ordered parts from me and who actually made the window motor as their own motor on their boats which they sailed around the world with. The only source of power, and anyone knows who has done that, that you need to have motors on those boats. I used to get calls from them every 6 months or so asking me to ship them various parts in different locations. Now should you believe that claim? What reason have you to believe it? You see my point. Anyone could get scores of people to say this or that for or against something along with pictures, video, etc. But we live in a world of fakery, from the highest up down to the lowest. The schools are corrupt. The governments. Businesses are greedy and pay for reports to justify their product. These forums are filled with such people as well, seeking to influence everyone in one way or another. My goal here and everywhere is to get you all to think for yourself, think sensibly, logically, honestly. I don't hear anyone else ringing that bell. Oh shut up Rick and just spoon feed us! Shut and prove that which is impossible to prove over the internet. Shut up and hand over the specific part numbers and assembly instructions to billion dollar power plant products. You owe us all that, you do. We did so much for you with our insults! You promote free energy therefore that means you ought to freely give your time, money, parts while we trash your reputation. lol Anyway, I already gave you guys motors, boat rides, fans, lawnmowers, generators, transformers instead of charging batteries, the black box insides. But that was not enough. So we have to start at the beginning and play around with LEDs until everyone gets the first steps. Once you take those first baby steps you will learn that walking and running are just the same thing. The first point/stage in the loving paths teaching is the same as the others in a way. The first Resonance kit is but the same as the full Don Smith systems as well. It's just that you should not start with the big setups as they are extremely dangerous. I really never saw anyone sufficiently warning people against doing that so I made this kit to prevent that.

Hmm lighting leds isn't too difficult a task I had a device on my front door porch light 7 years running off mains transit noise through the night in the end some of the leds died and i got fed up with unsoldering the pcbs to replace them and ran out of that type of blue led. if I wanted fre energy led's i could just copy that circuit with out huge coils like Rick is offering. No disrespect intended.

[rickfriedrich]

G,
Just as I have said that you cannot prove or disprove any of these claims over the internet, in the same way we can never really prove people's motives. I guess time will tell if you honestly "believe that a circuit setup can surely be built which can produce extra energy compared to its input we feed in." There are others here who do not believe that is an honest statement. I do not know you at all or your history. Maybe you can help them change their doubting of your "extraordinary claim which is not proved in practice" of your dealings upon subjects in this forum (as is the counter-claim). You see, the counter-claim has just as much to prove. Both are meaningless claims in this place. How can you prove it one way or another. You refuse to address this point because it completely destroys your method here.

So explain to us:
1. Why you "believe that a circuit setup can surely be built which can produce extra energy compared to its input we feed in." What reason do you have for "believing that"? Do you mean HOPE? Or do you actually have a scientific foundation/justification and rational conviction for this belief? Belief is an ambiguous word. I won't let you get away with fallacies and diversions my friend. Tell us exactly why or what you mean by these words. Because if they are more than just words, and if there is any substance to them, then we can build upon them. I know many different ways to produce OU, so it's like picking a flavor.
2. Tell us exactly why you think that something like this can be proven over the internet?
3. Tell us exactly why I am wrong for saying that you can't.
4. Tell us exactly if and prove why resonance is only a transformation of voltage/amperage and is only an accumulation matter rather than an actual gain.

How can you say "So far your setup in question does not seem to produce any extra output." Why do you say that? What "does not seem"? Not enough lights? Not bright enough? How can you judge that from some pictures? How could one say it does seem enough when all you have is pictures and statements from me? If I had big resistor bulbs, like my 750W ones at full brightness, would that "seem" enough? How could you tell if the brightness was full? Would the light meter reading be enough to convince you through a picture? If I had 18 people come on here and say what they saw should that be enough to warrant a rational conclusion on the subject? Now if you are just judging from the picture superficially as people do on these groups all day long, then I think everyone else would say if the picture was true it would "seem" to be producing more than 0.75W or 1W worth of output, especially when it is evident to everyone, including Itzu that you could add many layers of additional coils above and below those shown. This is where we all bring our actual experience into such matters which therefore do not require proving (important point). So from what you can see, how much would it take to produce what is shown? If you are going by my claim that I also have another bulb below (as you will see in a video I am uploading now) and when I added several more coils and ferrite rod/coil with more bulbs that brought the input down to 60ma or 0.72W. So we have 3/4W to work with divided by 15 3W bulbs at some brightness and 75 red LEDs at less brightness. Now I can push the red LEDs to 40ma and that was why they are perfect for this kit. They are not being pushed that hard, but from the picture you could suppose they are combined somewhere between 1 and 3W. And the bigger bulbs while not 3W, it would "seem" from the picture that they would be at least 0.5W each. That's how it seems. But these would have to be significantly lower. I'm playing this game here with you even though no one can prove anything with a picture over the internet. So you would not only have to divide the 75 bulbs into that 3/4W of power input, but also the 15 bright bulbs. Oh and also the losses in the gate driver. You are only wanting to consider the bright bulbs so even doing that would be less than 50mw each! And if we only considered the red LEDs without the bright white ones we could only allow them to have 0.01w each. So they would have to be much less than that when we consider the bigger bulbs. So from the picture it seems like your seems is unjustified. But then again, this is all a game when no picture should be believed anyway.

As for my attendee's you misunderstand. These guys asked me to come back down there from last year, and some of them have been to 5 of my meetings already. They all have the kit and can do their own measurements with their own meters. They are very good students with wide rages of professional background in engineering and physics beyond college level. This was not a lets-go-see-if-free-energy-is-possible meeting. These meetings are about engineering this technology. This was the least important demonstration as I never had time to set it up (and never even ran it in the first meeting with other guys). I'm not looking for verification or to prove OU. That old news. The search is long over G. You are 100 years too late for that. lol It's not about whether these things are possible, but what is the easiest way to do these things. So I showed many different flavors. And I show the very subtle details that make all the difference. For example, if you don't appreciate the output of a high frequency Don Smith kind of system you may just only get the output at 1 CPS and miss out on the fact that you could actually pump the same out at 26khz (which was a major point in my demonstrations when I showed how I could have about 30 identical outputs in themselves not much when I only use the energy at 1 cps. But having 30 together I am already way over the 8W input. But now multiply that by 26,000 CPS and suddenly everyone realized a major point everyone misses in these replications on these forums. Now I have 30x 26,000 times that which people think they could have because they don't know what they are doing or how the energy works. So a small system which people try and replicate seems unimpressive at first. But when you listen to what Don says, and actually do it, you will see he knew what he was talking about. So that was far more important that this LED setup. And so was the impedance demonstration with motor that had many outputs which also sent back more and more energy into the input with each added load in series with the charging battery. And then there ware demonstrations with the Don Smith Effect. Small demonstrations with major implications. Then there was the synchronous condenser... Anyway, the guys were well aware of what this kit can do and can properly judge the bulbs that they also own. Now if these guys found the kit to be useless or not showing anything, do you think they would have invited me back or come many times? Maybe you would find them complaining on these forums that the kit or the meeting was not worth it.

As for the last part of you posting here. You evade my whole point that I am repeating over and over. My point if you bother to listen, is that you cannot prove any claim over the internet with pictures, words, or video. So you are trying to evaluate things from my picture, or Itzu's pictures, etc., and I am asking why would either mean anything? What can you rationally deduce from either of us? How can you ensure accuracy or honesty? So I took you up on your baseless methodology, which is the practice of these forums, and merely told you the measurement. Now that didn't meet your requirement, why? Because another picture was not shown doing that? This was done on purpose so I could draw this out of you. See again how you assume that a picture or video can prove or disprove something. I gave you a testimony and you said that was not good enough. But why would a picture be any different? So on the basis that you do not require proper evidence that is needed for rational conviction I decided to take you up on it and give you such. So I actually fulfilled the same conditions that you have concluded in the same way on both my pictures and Itzu's testimony. I know you don't want to admit this because then your work on this forum is mostly over. This takes away all your expert analysis of so many claims here. Because you cannot prove or disprove anything here. You can only, if that was what I think it is then therefore... And as anyone with any experience in troubleshooting knows, that is a waste of time. You are much better off going to meetings in the real world and spending time with real people who really are doing something. These forums are so 90s didn't you know? The real action is in the real world. People don't waste their time here anymore. I keep telling one guy to stop trying to help these people on these forums because they just have glazed over eyes and have created a fantasy existences in cyberland.

So again, how can "The measurements made by Itsu are clearly shown and report a COP of 0.3"? Based upon what? Are you there with him? How do you know you are seeing everything? What if many more coils were added as was my point after all? This whole thing from you is hilarious! Then you say it is a difference from me, but we are not even talking about the same parts. Did he have all my coils? 2% of my coils? I mean really?? What LED did he check? Was he that guy that slipped into the meeting and put the light meter on the bulb or something? You are trying to compare two different things that you cannot verify at all? Again the assumption that proof is in a picture or claim. And the claim only seems reasonable or believable to you when it disproves OU to you. This shows you are prejudiced towards disbelieving OU claims. But you should not be prejudiced either way. You should do your own work and prove things to yourself and not fool other people here that you know what you are doing or that something can be proven with pictures or videos, or words over the internet. Your game is up now G. It's over. Find real world people to work with.

So what would be complying with your requests? Showing you more pictures? Showing a video? I have played that game 13-15 years ago and I won the debates--all of them. The skeptics ended up conceding and believing or changed the game to insist upon 3 times the output as 2 times was not enough the insisted. So I did that as well. Now I've increased that to infinite output. lol
I've had to think it through because I found that no matter what you do some people would always have an explanation. One physics prof friend of mine oversees was like that. He said he was open but he was just refuse to admit what he physically saw. Then would come out of his mouth some physics non-sense to the effect that air flight was impossible for humans while we got in the airplane and cruised around. "It's mathematically impossible, and such and such expert has shown that ..."

And this is what you end up resorting to in the end. You take my picture for grated. You concluded from that "sorry" "it seems" not enough. Yet you conclude from other pictures of someone else with other parts that such is believable. Then you ask me to measure the bulbs and I tell you an answer. But suddenly the refusal comes in when it is something you do not want to admit. Suddenly the rules have changed. Suddenly a claim is not good enough. A picture is to be believed when it supports our desired outcome, but not when it contradicts it. THAT IS CONFIRMATION BIAS. But that is true for everyone who believes or disbelieves a claim based upon all this coming through the internet.

But if that is not enough, you then resort to the classic popularity fallacy and say since your limited knowledge of people reveals that some people claim to not be able to do such things then it is not possible. So you set yourself up for the biggest fall in this last paragraph. What labs across the globe? Are you part of Total Information Awareness and know all the labs across the globe? I bet you know of no labs that I know of doing this work? What labs doing what? College level labs where they teach you this is impossible? My friend, once you get out into the real world you will actually find many labs working with this stuff. And I am not talking about all the secret government labs working on weapons systems. I have met enough of those guys and their dark programs. They laugh at that kind of juvenile statement of yours. You have to be totally ignorant of things to say such. I'm assuming that in the massive body of information on this forum there would be quotations to numerous reports from labs over the last 130 years along these lines. I have books with hundreds of references to published journals. I have thousands of patents from US and other first world countries showing these OU processes (but only a few of them for specific power generation stating OU). Start with Barrett who will bring you back to Tesla. You may not understand his math, I don't know.
Anyway, this is like a pre-teen saying, well if it was true the whole school would be talking about it on social media! Sorry, I don't believe it until enough select people, the cool kids, believe it first.
But would that not contradict your first statement that you do believe OU or the like is possible? Maybe that was just that you believe Solar or wind OU is possible and you are just playing word games with us. Either way, you're contradicted my friend. The game is up!

So you throw around the you need to prove this and that. Why do I need to prove anything? People need to prove to themselves not have others try and prove something to them. I do not need anyone to believe anything thank you. I offer services for people who ask. They ask for parts, and many times for seconds. I do what people ask for. Very few have complained out of tens of thousands of people over the last 15 years.

As for some labs that are trying to figure this out, the problem is they assume that only one coil is to be a receiver coil. And as I said, if you are going to do one secondary, then you do it as Don did with the secondary inside the primary or vice versa. Loosely coupled, not tightly. And 1/4 wave. But then you could still have multiple coils around these in all directions. You could even modify a radar system that way and still use the radar while collecting all the energy a second way. This I sometimes demonstrate or explain.
If you look at these mainstream labs, they are not trying to get OU but are merely developing products for a two coil system. They are encrypted energy transfer so there isn't a possibility of adding a second coil receiver. It is therefore a totally different system. So the MIT 2007 example only shows one coil when many more could be added. But they deceive you in the wikipedea article that all the power was transferred into the receiver coil at 40% efficiency or something. That is not how it works, and adding more coils on the other sides would have doubled and tripled the total output. Deliberately misleading the public. What was so special about that anyway. It was 120 year old news.
Your claim about labs not being able to do this is foolishness. Did you visit these guys and talk to them privately? I happen to talk to such people all over the world. Yes some labs have people that are stuck at a college level of basic understanding. But anyone working with a nonlinear reactive application sees all these things. There is a lot of existing technology over the last 100 years that defies your claim here. So I say, says who? Who are you G? Where have you been? Who have you talked to? Have you met someone in person? Like I said, when you get into the real world it is actually scary to see what is being done. What the general public knows is about 30 years behind. I don't even want to know the dark stuff. I refuse to get involved with any weapons people or other dark systems. But all these guys laugh at your types and junior claims. I have demonstrated to some of these special programs people and they are fully aware. But never mind that, just look around more and get out and talk to these guys in these so-called labs and you will find they will admit these things away from their employers. When the retire then the dive into these things on their own time. You just don't get how the mainstream is controlling the masses as peasants. But if you want to be a power company then you can use these processes. Or if you want to use it for non-power generation then you can get a patent. So for those skilled in the art you can just flip the application an you get your OU.

You are vague about what exact problem there is to solve. I gave you the point about whether Resonance is a gain or merely a transformer or accumulation problem. This will probably will not answer because it commits you to something you may not want people to know about. If you say yes then my kit follows. If no, then you are merely here to disprove all claims no matter what is revealed. So what is it with you? And what problem is there to solve? If resonance is not a gain then what problem is there to solve? No problem as we are only then dealing with losses. If no, then why bring this up as if it is a problem? Problem for who?

You specify losses energy transfer, well that is not what I am talking about at all. You did not listen to me. I said that the receiver coils are not actually getting an actual transfer of energy as you suppose. If that was the case then naturally there could be no gain because it is entirely transferred (with losses at the square of the distance) to the receiver coil. Here is how to disprove that wrong thinking instantly. If I have a secondary inside of the primary then all the radiation would be totally absorbed in the secondary. Is that not so? This you find more or less with a magnetic core transformer. That is entirely different than a resonance loosely coupled Tesla/D'arsonval/Odin coil. So the secondary gets all the goods, but then you can still have many other coils being influenced by the same radiation. This shows the energy is amplified/multiplied. I haven't added that to the kit yet because it crosses a line and makes an actual Don Smith setup. And the secondary in that case, even without 1/4 wave, will supposedly transfer 100%. So then how is anything left over for other coils be affected? I say affected because this shows you right away that the effect in the receiver coils is not an absorption but an influence like a trigger. The electrons are not transferred over and consumed, the action at a distance is merely an influence for itself in it's own local environment (even that close up). Therefore the radiation trigger signal--so to speak--is not a transfer of energy but the radiation can continue on to affect other coils more or less deflected depending... So the secondary can receive all of the radiation and other secondaries more distant as well, which will be affected according to the angle/square of the distance. Without realizing that you will be looking at this all wrong. You will think that I cannot add more layers to my setup without diminishing the output of the other loads or increasing the power input. But everyone knows this about my kit and saw that at the meeting that we actually decrease the input as we added more while the lights stayed the same or in some cases got brighter. In some arrangements we can increase the input as well, or dim the lights, when we detune the system out of resonance. So hopefully this corrects you mistakes if you sincerely didn't know that. See people, all it takes is to be mistaken on 10 to 20 things and you are locked into disbelieving even what you see. If all energy is transferred from the transmitter to the receiver(s) then naturally there could be no gain and only losses. So what would be the point in even trying these experiments? For you can't even disprove such a claim anyone on a forum. Now if you think that while the energy can be transferred that somehow the receiver can do something else to get an added gain, then that is saying just the opposite thing. These are usually mutually exclusive ideas. Those who believe in any OU gain do not usually believe that energy is actually be transferred from transmitter to receiver. So I would like you G to tell us exactly what you believe in this case. Even electron theory does not support that. However, I do not base anything on electron theory anyway.

So I have answered all the points in great detail. We will see if G wants to respond to the very specific questions. His answers will bring clarity to everything he has said on this forum so far. It will be hard to admit the answers I can see. So far we have his complete evasion of the main question about why any pro or con claim should be believed through internet only revelation. If he says yes you can believe something, as has been is assumed practice, then it reveals his adopting a needless bias towards a desired outcome. And in that case there is no more value in his words than in the most ignorant rants on the internet. If he says with me that you cannot prove or disprove anything through the internet pictures, videos, or words, then I have to ask why has he contradicted that so far? And I have to ask how can he prove this to be valid or right or rational to do (especially in our day of fakery and advanced technology)? To answer yes is to be credulous. To answer yes and believe a disproof claim is both credulous and incredulous at the same time. And this is where the skeptic is both willfully gullible and unreasonably disbelieving. Believing a counter claim of disproof without sufficient reason is also choosing to disbelieve the disputed claim without being able to actually or fairly evaluate it. Again, it is not as though people are either gullible or closeminded skeptics. They are both, always, at the same time. And the truth is not in the middle between these two, because they are equally the same and belong together. They are opposite to honesty that only settles with rational conviction. Truths of demonstration need to be demonstrated. Truths of intuition just need to be beheld and they are self-evident. But to confuse the two and deceive oneself into thinking that truths of demonstration are self-evident is a critical mistake. And that is what is happening here. People are making a matter that needs demonstration to be a matter of opinion or they judge it by their internal standard of what is self-consistent (like self-evident) with their belief system. In that case a point that needs demonstration is believed or rejected based upon what they believe is possible or not and demonstration goes out the window as not necessary. There are various levels of knowledge and certainty and we need be clear on such matters or there is no science at all.

So tell us G? Let us know. Prove to us that you want to help us. Don't leave us in the dark about these fundamental positions. Tells us where you stand on what can be proven over the internet and this forum? Tell us exactly if you think there is or can be any gain with resonance. I have given a lot of time as this is an experiment for me to see what you will do.

Rick,

I show scepticism with any extraordinary claim which is not proved in practice with measurements correctly, and this latter is not the case yet with your setup.  I never wrote that obtaining excess energy is not possible at all.  I do have an open mind and I believe that a circuit setup can surely be built which can produce extra energy compared to its input we feed in. 
So far your setup in question does not seem to produce any extra output.  Did you use your light meter for checking LED bulbs brightness in front of the 18 people?  Did you calibrate your LED bulbs in advance with measured DC input power to know what power level is involved at the certain brigthnesses of the LEDs?

If you go back and read what you wrote yesterday, please show me where is the 'measurement' word or any expression relevant in that part of your text from which I or anyone else should deduce you were writing about measurements.  This is what you wrote yesterday: 

The measurements made by Itsu are clearly shown and report a COP of 0.3 or so if I recall correctly. This is a huge difference versus your hints.  He checked LED brightness by feeding in known DC power, etc. 

You did not comply with my requests on correct measurements. 

You hint at not less than you have achieved lossless energy transfer between magnetically coupled resonant LC circuits.  The labs all over the world seek for doing that but they have not managed to solve that problem. You need to prove such energy transfer with correct measurements.  Otherwise, only those people who do  not have as much area ofexpertise as you will believe they have a COP>1 setup. 
If you disagree with this, then prove me wrong.   

Gyula

[a.king21]

Gyula:  WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!!!


Ha ha ha ha


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpoOWs8SfVo