Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[a.king21]

What I remember is that he took in too much ozone at one point when he was doing spark gaps. I can imagine if he got ill from that his wife would have had something to say about his experiments. Like I said, we generally cause our own problems and people are over-inclined to believe foul play. Same thing happened with Bedini when Gary Bedini died. Immediate some guy posts a video that there had to be something bad if John died 3 hours later. They were both very unhealthy guys, so it was only a matter of time. John certainly was not any kind of threat that needed to be taken out.
The other thing is that many people tire of this scene. They have all they need and just have to get on with life. That's kind of where I am at. I have completed all my goals and will move on shortly. Will always supervise teams of people doing this stuff, but there isn't anything more for me to do...

Well, I'd like a kit for the 4th and 5th stage in the Don Smith process.  So that's something to do.
Also a better video of Bedini's video 7 showing some examples of shuttling the energy around would be useful. (I am actually trying it out as I post ie using the extra energy to power the input as an experiment) Thinking aloud that might work in the RICK hmm..
So there's 2 things to do and I am sure the forum can ask for more that would help.
Yes I agree about the motor thing.  "They" don't like to see motors running with no input.  If you have a battery in there or something plugged into the wall, I guess that's ok.

[rickfriedrich]

As I said, if you study the rectenna technology that will help you understand these various stages from the L2 onward. This is usually on the micro size but the new technology of wireless power transmission will get bigger and bigger. Anyway, everything you need to learn is right there. There really isn't anything usual or unconventional with those processes. The rectenna tech needs to squeeze every bit it can to power it's loads so you can follow the patents over the years to see all the advancements. It's not my interest to teach on those kinds of subjects. This is something that you guys should be able to deal with on this forum. I may add some additions to the kit along these lines, but it will be a bit before I get the time.
As for video 7 we are doing that already with the resonance kit with series of parallel tank circuits with the one wire transmission. This is partly shown on the front cover of the book. With the motors I hope to get to adding that to the motor kits in 6 months or so.
Yeah, electromagnetic systems may be. IDK

Well, I'd like a kit for the 4th and 5th stage in the Don Smith process.  So that's something to do.
Also a better video of Bedini's video 7 showing some examples of shuttling the energy around would be useful. (I am actually trying it out as I post ie using the extra energy to power the input as an experiment) Thinking aloud that might work in the RICK hmm..
So there's 2 things to do and I am sure the forum can ask for more that would help.
Yes I agree about the motor thing.  "They" don't like to see motors running with no input.  If you have a battery in there or something plugged into the wall, I guess that's ok.

[gyulasun]

Rick, 

I already wrote I do not participate in your games. You are the actor on a stage you create in your posts and you
play your role you think as best fit for a goal. 
But I remain in the audience (here the reader) section and will thank and applaud you if you show extra output with
measurements. If you do not show it, then I will not applaud you and would say it was a bad performance and will
certainly not be interested in your kits. 

Gyula

[rickfriedrich]

Gyula,
This would all be a humorous game if there wasn't so many people negatively impacted by practices I am exposing in these several postings. But many people are lead to believe that they can really evaluate a claim, for or against, through a forum that exclusively reveals matters by words, pictures and videos. This is a major mistake as anyone familiar with real scientific studies knows. Your problem is that you moved beyond hypothesis level considerations to actually assuming things presented were to be believed, this that could easily have had several mistakes or otherwise, and you made conclusions for and against claims that cannot be honestly believed under the circumstances we are in in a forum. You toyed with the point I was making but you could not admit it as it ruins this game you engage in here.

Now you use the word actor. Well an actor is an hypocrite. They play a part that is not who they are. They act one way and live another. They profess one thing but do another. You professed to believe that a circuit may give you what people are after on this forum, but you refused to clarify at all what you meant. But you manifestly based all your analysis of a system upon "power" measurements so you prevent yourself from ever experiencing the benefits of most of the real systems presented in this forum. You refused to specifically and plainly respond to my question about whether there can ever be a gain in resonance. Your response was typical mainstream over-simplistic answer that still would go over many people's heads here. I tried to corner you out of your ambiguous hiding places and press you to come clean with everyone specifically about what you believe because I found you attempting to help people that appear to be open to over unity but who probably assumed you were as well. In the end we can see that you were really here to believe in anything that disproved an over unity claim. So this looks like the actor to me: who plays a part that convinces people of the character.

Even in your last statement you still keep assuming that somehow someone can actually "show extra energy output with measurements" through this forum. You couldn't explain why showing anything ought to convince anyone of any claim other than doing that in real life? It is a fantasy world that you live in and that is the world of actors (hypocrites) that imagines the cyber world to be the real world. I guess people can really get lost in their computers and video games and lose themselves as you have. Again, you say "If you do not show it" you will still make a judgement against me as if you can rightfully evaluate anything over the forum. My friend, I have show these things to real people for 15 years! But I don't play the fantasy forum games in trying to trick people into thinking that they should believe anything through words, videos, or pictures. Not only have I done many meetings all over the place where people could ride in boats (as there were two boats) and other vehicles but also numerous other setups where nothing was hidden. My point is to show people how to show themselves. Why do you so condemn this recommendation of real-world verification and insist upon cyber fantasy beliefs? I have also provided kits for people who asked for such, so that they could easily verify for themselves the hypothetical claims of others on these forums. I am not pushing my kits. The resonance kit does not make me any money and I do it merely to help people. It has been very rewarding to see the response however. I did not want my stuff to be mentioned on these forums and even told the one guy not to bother. But once I saw this here I realized that everything was chaos in all the assumptions being made. Somehow my kit was being judged because of someone else with different parts trying to similar things. I found that not only were there differences in the parts but also in various assumptions that affected the testing itself. Also, there was no way to evaluate many of the local environment or matters behind the scenes. Yet you were right there assuming that any report given was to be believed even though you were not physically present to see everything. This in itself was bad enough, but then we all learn that you do not even believe resonance can produce a real gain, and so your involvement displayed a manifest attempt to disprove the first claim on this subject. Furthermore, in contradiction with yourself, you displayed how willing you were to believe an unverifiable demonstration (that used different parts, etc.) but then you were not willing to believe an opposite claim. My method of exposing your hypocrisy in that point was deliberate to press the point for everyone to see. In the end, you proved my point that you should not believe (under the circumstances) claims for or against something that is revealed in word, video or pictures. You selectively believed a negative report and chose to disbelieve a positive report according to your bias. Perhaps many did just the opposite and that is just as wrong to do. So my video was a sort of test along those lines. These may sound like games to you but they are instead illustrations that reveal the games other people like you are playing. I know you understand exactly everything I am saying here, but I am sad that you cannot admit your error or answers the vital questions unambiguously. It is also sad that you equate all of my motives as being a game and cannot see any importance in building a proper scientific and real foundation in which to properly evaluate claims. This is highly unusual for skeptics and even with people of any training. I can imagine the hobbyist doing that but you do not make sense doing this. I cannot help you or anyone who just want's to assume without justification.

Rick, 
I already wrote I do not participate in your games. You are the actor on a stage you create in your posts and you play your role you think as best fit for a goal. 
But I remain in the audience (here the reader) section and will thank and applaud you if you show extra output with measurements. If you do not show it, then I will not applaud you and would say it was a bad performance and will certainly not be interested in your kits. 
Gyula

[rickfriedrich]

For everyone else, this does not make online commination useless for this research. This just shows you the limitations and conditions under these circumstances. We need to be accountable for our positive and negative judgments or we will be mistaken very often. This would be a perfect world if everyone stopped assuming in this way in all matters of life. Forums can be useful places to exchange ideas that are humbly presented as hypotheses and where people do not just believe what people say or show through pictures or videos. What you can assume is that there may be always room to learn more (and some of that more is mistakes in the claim or demo, or even fakery). But unless we are clear on these things people will waste so much time, money, and faith upon things they see in the unreal world of cyberland, things they believe or disbelieve without sufficient reason. Good and true claims are dismissed because they have been debunked by Mythbusters (even when they didn't have magnets on a magnet motor!). So this goes both ways.

The same sort of things and assumptions and games happened on the Energenics forum with the Don Smith Too good to be true thread. It was very dramatic. Early on you see Paul show up as all optimistic about Don and he gathers a group of guys together that over the years appear to try and replicate something. Eventually we get revelations from Paul that is supposedly primary source material about Don. We later learn that Bruce Perrault is feeding him the info from his 2001 video meeting. Now Bruce repeatedly and manifestly promoted Don and his tech as actually doing what he said (that's even caught on video). So everyone is excited that maybe they can get somewhere with Don's stuff. This progresses on until at some point Paul starts reversing. Now since this is happening over years you miss the trick unless you read through everything at once as I did. Eventually he starts sowing doubt until he comes right out and says there is nothing at all in Don Smith (as if that was even possible to do when he covered so many things that we know to be true). So how did this game work? Several different ways. First you appear to be a seeker. Then you assume that you can disprove something by claiming to not be able to replicate it with a team of people. Then you make yourself part of the inside so that people have even more confidence in you. Then you say, from the inside, that it was all a fraud. Naturally people will just think Don was busted because if these guys concluded that way then who am I to know better? The problem was that Bruce knew it was true for many years, and he was also working with guys in a private forum developing the same technology. So do you believe 2000 to 2010 Bruce or do you believe the latest Bruce? And who can even verify if it is the same person? I was only contacted by email. In the end they gave an out of context email as their entire argument against Don and they succeeded in turning thousands of people away from Don's revelations. So these games are played in many ways, which I have been carefully observing from the beginning of the internet. Don't believe the hype whether it is positive or negative. Don't assume things are as they appear in cyberworld. Some of these people who attempt to disprove things are merely trying to keep the technology to themselves. Bruce, if that really was him, wrote to me repeatedly over a year, just like Bedini complained, that no one was worthy of 'his' technology and that they would not get it because he was not going to give it. So all the claim against Don was a big lie to keep the tech in.

Now I decided to do some investigation a few years back while this was going on (after the fact on that forum however). So while I was in supposed communications with Bruce I contacted Paul. They invited me into this private radionics forum and were excited for me to share after I had replicated Carlos Benitez. But when I carefully confronted them individually about Don I figured out what was going on. In the end they tried to even tell me that there was nothing in Don even though they were doing the same systems and inviting me into their little group (which was extremely messed up in the occult btw--crazy stuff). When I let them say enough I asked them separately, how can you claim that Don's systems were all fake or fundamentally mistaken when you promote Benitez as a real system? For Don's system they say they were trying to replicate (and which they had their own working systems with long antennas) on the forum was merely the Benitez final patent as I explained in my video a few years back. Ed Gray was essentially the same as well. This is a very easy thing to do, and in a way we are partly doing that in my kit. So these guys deflected the answer and deceived the public about Don.

Now, I have replicated many of Don's systems (some of which I show and teach on at my meetings), and I bring this up as this Resonance Induction Coupler Kit was where Don first learned about over unity and is where he directed people to start with. That was why I started there in this teaching (I improved and added a whole book to the kit). Then I did the Don Smith book after Don's friend Alex passed on the first videos and extra material. My point in bringing this up is to illustrate how people can pretend to be something else on forums. All these things I also only say because you can actually verify them yourself. You can read how people contradict themselves and you can evaluate any claim by personally testing it out (provided you really know what you are doing, which is another subject...). Now I care little about what people think about me as I am no one important. But I think Don was very important to consider and that is why I mention this stuff. You see all these claims, and our evaluations of them, are in a specific dramatic context that is real or pretend history. And depending on how careful you are in your judgments and assumptions you will either walk the wide road and miss important things and maybe believe a whole bunch of lies, or walk the narrow road and enjoy the good fruits of those who planted the trees before you.