Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[rickfriedrich]

G,
I have always encouraged and allowed people to bring in any equipment to my meetings. And people have done that all the time. Unfortunately that means that sometimes people damage things.
Why say "Honestly Rick"? Why say that? You assume I wouldn't? Like I said, you have always assumed what you want here G. You have no reason to assume one way over the other. And yet you do.
If people wanted to make loops back to the supply they could do that. That is something we did at the beginning of this. It is very basic level. It is easier to just do sympathetic resonance so that the input draws no power. Why go to all that trouble when you can still power loads with no input?

The people at my meetings have seen many things much more impressive than that sort of thing. You think you know what goes on there, but you don't. All you can do is assume wrong.

Now you try and control people and tell them to demand something. The way I run my meetings is starting off by asking each person to share who they are and what they are looking for so I can shape the meeting in such a way. There is never such a negative attitude as you display here G. People do not demand anything, because they go away with more than what they expected. They don't go away with a useless toy of running a circuit that merely powers itself. We are doing with learning how to multiplying the energy out as much as desired. Sure I go over those toys as curiosities, but that is old news.

You guys can forever keep yourself stunted and acting like things are so hard to even get to the starting level. You can fool many people reading this forum. But the war is mostly over and you have lost.

G, while it may be true that it is difficult to estimate exactly how much it takes to run an LED, nevertheless my point was sufficiently made. Once you do the metered readings with these bulbs you can have a working knowledge of them where you do not have to always measure them at every second as you want to demand. For example, you can get a feel for things by feeling the heat produced by the bigger LED modules with heatsinks after a few seconds. You can do controlled heat measurements as well. Anyway, people have enough of a working knowledge to realize that you can't even power up these LEDs at all if you divide the input energy between them all as I mentioned. And you also forget the fact that they could see, and see for themselves, that adding more and more coils did not raise the input as you assume. I could add as many coils as I had and it only dropped. You deliberately fail to address that. So if Itsu was doing this right (and I haven't watched the latest videos to see) then you would see that he could add more and more coils in the same way. So if he got 1/4 of the input in each coil and then had 5 coils then there you have it.

We see again your absolute trust in someone you have never even met. You are a foolish person G. You show that you trust him 100% right now already to be able to replicate what I am doing when he told us that he never has read what I have even written or shown. So all of you are deliberately trying to make this fail and promoting something other than science here. You show your prejudice. You really think you can know someone to have such foolish trust in someone online. I really doubt that you speak truth here G. I can see through your games here. Itsu is just a tool for you. Why would people put such faith in Itsu if after all these years he has never had any success? I really can't understand why you guys would waste such time chasing after something for so many years that never worked out. At least Mario addressed that point. The time and money spent doing that does not add up. It is irrational to do that when you could just buy some solar panels and be done with it. And that is the real world G. That is what real people do if they can't figure something out. But you guys are either on here for other reasons, which seems obvious with some, or you just love to waste time in idle chat trusting someone who doesn't know what they are doing.

G, you acknowledge nothing. You have ignored my fundamental questions. You refuse to do that. You checked out when I called your bluff. Then you give it some time for people to forget my questions. Again, you have no basis for believing in OU and all that you do is apply arbitrary assumptions to disprove anything that would be favorable to OU. Show us why you think OU is possible. But you won't do that. Therefore what you say here is useless and deceives them. If you admitted the grounds for OU then you would experience it easy enough. Instead you foster the ambiguous chase after the unknown and unprovable chat about a mystery circuit that maybe will do something extra special.

" If Itsu had been to my meetings and then replicated the same, then what would you say to that?"

Honestly Rick, would you let anyone measure anything relevant to your resonant kit setup on such a meeting?  Would you let Itsu attempt looping back the outputs to replace the power supply? It could be done within 1 hour  work by using full wave diode bridges across the LC tanks of the 10 or 11 big receiver units (as per your thoughtful  calculations the many small receiver units would not be needed) and collect the DC outputs in a bigger puffer capacitor. 

This latter then would feed the gate driver IC directly, provided the DC level holds up in the puffer capacitor at least for some seconds (and hopefully for much longer),  that would already indicate the real strength of the received 8W power you claim. This way the participants on that particular meeting, say 8-10 people (or even 18), could see the performance in the real world. 
(The function generator could still be run from its own supply because the input of the gate driver needs only a few mW drive level, negligible to the claimed 8 W output. And a discrete square wave generator can be built for the job.)

I hope those participants you mentioned "as a good number of them reading this thread" have been indeed reading this post too and next time they will 'demand' the loop back attempt...   

My kind message for them: Folks, electric power going into LED bulbs cannot be evaluated numerically by the naked eye, LED bulbs are strongly nonlinear devices. Please see this post here and think the spectacular LED brightnesses over:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534508/#msg534508
   
And no offense but I would believe Itsu 100% what he would have experienced if he had been either a witness there, or if after seeing it he would replicate it and show it in his video: I would certainly believe him. Many members (who care to follow his activity) have known him for years here and on other forums.   

And why Itsu would report back a false result after his succesful replication ??  I would trust him 100% and so would several other members here too.  For he would have learned from you a wonderful circuit setup...  and the other participants present in the real world too. 

And I would really be happy that the 8 W (or even only say 4 W) is indeed present at the outputs of the satellite LC circuits while less than 1 W is consumed from the 8 W (or 4 W) output to maintain operation. Rick I would acknowledge I was wrong. 

Gyula

[rickfriedrich]

Nick,
You said anyone can be wrong, but then you say you would trust Itsu 100%. So you deny that he could be wrong. So your long-winded pint here just disproves itself. It is self-contradiction. You merely give lip service to a truth about doing real science and then toss it out the window as soon as you make it, or rather before you make it in this case.
You say, "I would trust itsu's findings, 100%" because I believe he couldn't be wrong. Yet, apart from Itsu, "Anyone can be wrong" because "he tells and shows it how it is."  This is laughable. Who are you trying to kid here man? Do you understand what special pleading means? You have just made Itsu infallible.
Why do you assume that you understand all the environment and all the parts he is using when you watch a video?
There is no video proof that is possible. You are encouraging both credulity and incredulity here.
Who makes you the standard of who is to believed and not? How can you say most videos are faked? On what grounds? Have you personally seen any of these in the real world. I have spent 15 years full time in this work, which is not doubted. I have met thousands of people and have a real-world estimation of such things. But you clowns make these sweeping statements as a mere game. You toss around assumptions like they are no big deal. Yeah, you don't want to be accountable for what you believe or disbelieve as if it doesn't matter. You want to justify creating your own illogical and unreal reality. Then you want to mock and condemn me for showing your on self-contradictions. You can't have a double standard Nick. Again, as you said "put up or shut up" Nick. Put up consistency or don't waste space.

    Guys:
   I'll second that... I would also trust itsu's findings, 100%. Regardless of the test results, being good or bad. Anyone can be wrong, but he tells and shows it how it is. Whether it's positive results, or not so positive results.  But, the proof is in the pudding, and lighting just a 10w bulb, as well as a feed back path, would help to turn the tide, for me.
   I would trust what certain people show in their videos. Not all devices are faked, just mostly... and that is why we are all so skeptical about what some people say, and what they show. Any OU type of claims need to be verified, that is what this thread is here for. Rick told me to put up or shut up, when I bring up the subject of proof. I guess he forgot where he's at.
   We are here to learn... All of us. Without long drawn out sermons, telling us how and what to believe. Thanks, but I got that one down, already. Waiting for the real self runner...before diving in, to unknown waters.

[Hoppy]

G, while it may be true that it is difficult to estimate exactly how much it takes to run an LED, nevertheless my point was sufficiently made.

Not in my opinion Rick. Your battery powering the black box and LED lamps dropped around 1V during the video. I appreciate that you were not trying to convince anyone that they were watching an OU demonstration but what exactly were you trying to point out to your viewers??

[rickfriedrich]

This is an important question. Superficial surveys that look at a few people for a few minutes allow for that to be entertained. If we merely take a mythbuster level of investigation, which is purely for entertainment purposes, we will just engage in confirmation bias. But if you spend 15 years actually reading these people enough to replicate what they have done then you can see the truth. People present these things in a way that is overly simplistic. As if it comes down to all these people being complete liars or completely telling the truth. Even liars have to tell the truth most of the time. Even people mistaken have to be correct in most things they do. Mistakes and lies are not detected because they are always surrounded with a lot of truth.
In regards to these people, they would have to be doing some trick and then live under that falsehood for all those years. But these guys didn't make verification of their claims impossible. Newman's motor is very easy to make. I have demonstrated the window motor for almost 15 years, where the batteries could be rotated around. Newman had some differences, but the idea is easy to work with and verify. It is old news now. His system was not as convenient as he insisted upon miles of wire.
As for Meyers, it is also easy to verify. You can see replications on youtube. It's not for everyone to play with hydrogen, but it is easy to see 3 times the gas production than regular electrolysis and without the mess. Meyers and the lord in the UK paid the price for pushing the tech as others have. Some of these guys had wacky personalities, but then so do many people here on this forum.  Tesla was credible but also was really off on things like eugenics. You guys assume that he didn't reveal free energy processes because you have never built his patents. Once you actually do that you will have what you are looking for.
This brings me to the patents, if any of you would spend time in patent research you would get beyond these kinds of questions. You would find many more claims of OU and which are easy to replicate. I took everyone back to Benítez 100 years ago. It is very easy to do what he did in what I call Benitez Switch 7. People never want to talk about that because it is too easy to replicate. So the trolls avoid that claim and verification of it. I have done the same thing with the motors for years.
I notice you didn't mention Bedini, who has been the biggest name in Free Energy research (who shouldn't have been). He has been now proven to be a liar. But that doesn't mean everything he claimed was a lie. Not everything he claimed to be true was a lie. The lies I have discovered were mostly in matters of claiming that he was an inventor. But his lies do give grounds to question everything he did say, and also call into question other similar claims.

Your last point is also very important. There are many systems that are in their very nature, or at a power level, that violate national security interests. So they will be scrubbed from the net as fast as you attempt to type them in. Many systems would compete with weapons systems as well.
Again, if you spend any time with patent history you will find thousands of related patents that cross this line or do not, that use these processes. So it is not a matter of if people are lying or telling the truth, but in simply understanding what these people have said, and noticing the thousands of others that have used each one of these processes over the last 100 years. The OU in such cases is not always for the end of electricity but for other types of outputs. You guys do not show any interest in considering this point. You do not wish to understand the principles of OU but merely want some little circuit that does a trick. Well I already give such little circuits. Anyway, if you take the time to actually read these guys you will be able to break down each system and recognize what is to be done and how it is to be done. Then you can see each process done thousands of times other patents and with existing technology right in your own home.

You see all such questions give the appearance that these claims were so entirely different than processes in our own existing technology. Like I said before, just study classical music instruments and you will see the same processes and gains.

I don't know, it is something I have wondered for a long time. Are they all liars Tesla, Morray, Newman, Meyers, Searl, Wagner, Hans Coeler and the list goes on and some as Searl and Meyers have done jail time but does that mean they were all liars or is there a true conspiracy to keep it all under wraps or is it human greed I don't know for sure yet after 15 years of looking into this stuff. This is part of why I don't even experiment with some things such as energy from the sky or ground because what if you did figure it out and powered your house from the ground do you really think you wouldn't just be thrown in jail for stealing power.

[rickfriedrich]

Itsu,
Short is fine, but is no virtue. You are claiming to be a replicator but you are not replicating anything here. You are doing your own thing. You are not replicating an OU claim because you are not making an OU claim. This was brought up the other day. What is the meaning of your work here? You have said you do not read what I write nor have you attempted to replicate what I have done. You guys pretend to do that but then admit to not doing that. This is all a big game. Now it is fine to experiment and try things out, but that is not the purpose of this thread is it?
You find it amazing that anyone would doubt you. Why? Are you infallible? Can any of us verify in the real world anything that you are doing? Why should we believe anything you do? You are not making an OU claim. You are making many claims, and because they are not OU claims we are supposed to believe them??? Now that is truly amazing. I saw this right from the beginning and that is why I said to A.King that you are wasting your time with Itsu. He has been at this for years and has not got anywhere because he doesn't know what he is doing. This is all but going around and around in circles. Same old assumptions. And now these guys, along with you, have made you the infallible replicator of no one's claims but your own. This is reckless.
But do not misunderstand me. It is perfectly fine to do what you have been doing in trying things out and posting videos. My objection is with your assumptions about what is implied by such videos. You expect others to believe that you know what you are doing and that they can understand your real-world environment. The only value of your input is merely for others to be able to do something to show themselves. You wish to bypass the real world and expect people to conclude prematurely. So this whole thing is a big game.
You say that anyone can make a mistake, but then take that back in saying videos can not allow for mistakes. But how so? I have watched thousands of videos that don't show the real mistakes that the videos don't show. And why would anyone be expected to trust someone in our day?
Yes it is fine to discuss things that appear to be wrong or mistaken. All agreed there. But to assume that a video proves anything is wrong. It can only give ideas to personally try. Why do you all just want to bypass reality?

Are you all so addicted to science fiction movies that you assume what is on the screen is reality?

Thanks Guys, for the trusts,  but i find it amazing that anyone would doubt any results a replicator would present.

Of course anyone can make a mistake, but thats where the video's are for so anyone can see what is being done.
If you think something is wrong it can be discussed and corrected.

Anyway i always try to keep my posts short and clear so won't comment on it any further.
Itsu