Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[lancaIV]

Mr.Friedrich, Science and combined with Fiction is ever fine ! 
     " Calculations for a Nominal Electricity Generator "https://patents.google.com/patent/US8847720B2/en
708 cm3 a 8 Gr. / cm3 ~ 6 Kg

Nominal Voltage amplified by frequency to induced Voltage

Nice claimed power densities  ! Up  to thousands of KWs  !
                          Device vibrations  ? durability,lifetime ?

Question : when and how becomes Science Fiction Science Reality  !?

[rickfriedrich]

Itsu,
I understand the context of what you did. A.King initially believed that you could replicate something. So you were merely trying to replicate what he was saying to you. That was all muddled because what was being replicated changed and wasn't clear. That is my point. It wasn't my kit that was being replicated but something else. It was A.King's claim, not my claim. It was a claim about my work, and also claims about what he did. But his claims were vague and not satisfactory to any of you. I discouraged him from doing that. But once it was in full swing I thought I would at least try and reset this whole thing while driving the points home with a sensational picture and video that proved my points. So here are some other points relating to you:

1. You have never tried to replicate my specific OU claims (and that is fine by me).
2. You have attempted to do something similar to A.King's claims (but not actual replications).
3. You have never attempted to understand any of my OU claims (again which is fine).
4. You agree with many or all of your friends that every video you post contains visuals that they can make absolute claims about.

This brings me to my somewhat ambiguous sentence you quote outside of the context. Yes that is ambiguous but is not typical in what I have shared. My point is that when I posted the picture and later video then the shift was away from A.King's initial claims to my claims. This was stated by several people and implied in just about everyone's postings. Even your postings took on a new direction soon after that as others are guiding you to do certain things resembling what I claimed and showed. But my point is that you stated with great irritation (as repeated here) that you never bothered to read anything I wrote merely because it was long. So my point is that you personally are not actually replicating any OU claim here. You are not really replicating any OU claim of A.King in these recently videos, nor can you replicate any of my OU claims when you don't even know what they are. You are merely doing your own thing. And that is fine to do. But these guys are acting like you are trying to replicate what I am doing. You are not making an OU claim yourself, and since you are doing your own thing, the question was asked by another in a way that lead me to ask the other day, what is the purpose here of your experiments? It is fine to share information on the internet, but this thread is about replicating OU claims. And since you are not making any OU claims, and not replicating any OU claims, I asked what is the meaning of your work here specifically?

What you say here would be fine if it was true:
"I never "claim" things, i just show what is happening and try to find out why, no more, no less."
That would be great. But you did make many claims with each video as you told us the details (which were claims about what you said happen in the context of things). Every detail was a claim that such and such actually happened. Each one of those claims was shared as if in a tightly controlled environment that ever reader was supposed to be fully aware of. And the massive claim was given in your previous email I responded to where you wrote that the videos speak for themselves in a way that we should be able to conclude things from them. That is the biggest claim of all. Why do you make such a claim. You say you make no claims, but you do in all these matters. But the biggest is that people should believe videos as you write: "thats where the video's are for so anyone can see what is being done." This is a big claim you don't realize. A video shows superficially what is being done. But there is no way to actually know what really is being done. I understand what you were trying to say, that we post a video and people can help each other out and correct each other, etc. But that is not what is happening with your videos. People are making conclusions based upon your videos which are claims. They are assuming they know exactly what is happening in them. And this sort of thing has been happening for years creating so much confusion on forums.

If you go back to my second posting on this thread I believe, I said that someone jesting that my picture showing the powering of many coils was as good as the wires under the table. Consider that assumption. The picture and video was disbelieved because it went against someone's assumptions and experience. But if you posted a picture or video it is believed automatically. Not because any of these people really know you at all or have every been there with you to verify anything. It is because what you show is what they want to see. So they choose to believe your conclusions and reject others that they do not want to believe. None of them should be believed anyway, and I am just pointing that out.

So if you really were just doing this without any claims that would be fine. But you are making claims all the time. Claims given without the complete picture which is impossible to convey over the internet. You can you really prove your entire environmental conditions? Can you really prove every relationship? All you can do is give ideas for people to try. That's it. Anything more assumed is encouraging credulity.

Rick wrote:
"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"

Rick,
so many words again.
What the hell do you try to say with: "You are not replicating an OU claim because you are not making an OU claim"
Its these kind of sentences which makes my head spin and stop reading.
Anyway, i am here because a.king21 was very enthusiastic about your work and asked me (among others no doubt) to start looking into this. We PMed for a while, then jumped over to this thread.

I am trying to replicate what he presented to me, and as i am no Electronics Expert i usually then present my findings on a forum like this via posts and video's to have other more knowledgeable people have a look at it and correct and/or advice me when needed.

The video's are hopefully crisp and clear and for anyone open to ask questions to follow up.
I never "claim" things, i just show what is happening and try to find out why, no more, no less.

Thats the way i work for years and i like it and i don't care if you understand or approve.

Regards Itsu

[NickZ]

   Well Rick, I looks like anyone trying to replicate any of your claims is going to get slammed by your criticisms.  Not good.
   Keep your sermons to yourself. Provide an accurate schematic, with all the proper information. Then we can do something about it. Otherwise, you are going to lose everyone here.    Are you afraid to actually make a video for us, showing exactly what needs to be done, with scope shots and readings??? As that is what it looks like, at least to me. Otherwise any small solar panel can do more that what you are showing. Which is not a self runner, and possibly not OU, either. So, maybe it's time YOU put up, or shut up.
   PS. itsu's observations on what he sees happening are not CLAIMS. They are OBSERVATIONS. You are the only one making claims, and not showing PROOF, by measurements and readings. Only sermons and excuses for not doing so.
   

[seaad]

It circulates a rumor at this thread that Rick's experiment produces more output power then needed for input.
Or have I totally misunderstood this?
Someone tell me.
Do you know anything about that Rick?
If so, how does the extra energy occurs?

Last time I asked a similar question about what and how the extra energy occurs  [the Figuera generator that time] to member Marthonman he told that he had  the ability  to search for me and shoot me.    He is banned  now.

It shouldn't take more space / rows than the extra  long posts we often can see here  to describe what causes this extra incoming effect/ power supply and how to place and dimension coils and use the Coil repeating/ amplifying? effect if any, ETC, ETC.

Regards Arne

[rickfriedrich]

That is actually a lie. Here is the most obvious example from Benitez:
"That is to say the original conditions being thus reestablished at every turn of the cylinder 38, the same phenomena will be produced indefinitely, as many times as the revolutions of the said cylinder are repeated, without having recourse to any exterior aid." I have shown others starting with Cook's 1870's patent. It is true that in more recent times it is hard to make such claims. But they are there if you understand and are familiar with the art. There are many OU kind of claims that are not specifically about electrical energy generation like Benitez here. They can be found in optics, communications, and other forms of energy generation. Nevertheless they are exactly like Benitez statement. So you don't know what you are talking about again.

Of course there are a lot of things that indicate OU. MANY THINGS. And that has been my point that people don't want to talk about. Everyone is looking for a simple thing in one sentence that does everything. You guys want the output without wanting to know these processes. You want to say OU is possible and then neglect or deny the very processes that make it possible. I will be getting into that in my presentation shortly.

You act like this is all just some deceitful scam to carefully word things so that people will get a false impression. The truth is that the patent office is all about making money and preventing perpetual motion claims. Nevertheless, if people quote sufficient authorities and demonstrate their claims, then they often get patents. You just have to aware of them and understand the words. I spend a lot of time in patent research and I can see you don't.

You are right that people read into things. But I have no reason to believe that you know what you are reading. You have done the same thing my friend, that you accuse others.

As for Tesla, you also don't know what he was doing. Tesla wasn't interested in giving free energy to the individual. He was part of the establishment and was working at the industrial level. Even though that was the norm, he still gave us the 1901 Radiant patent. So even that proves you wrong. Do you see a mains hook up there?

I can't speak for Searl. And Newman was crazy indeed. But he did what so many other inventors did, he tried to get as much money as he could in the big deal. He should have just did what I did. Get out the systems in an affordable way to 10s of thousands of people all around the world. But the goal was to make money with such people, and there was no wisdom in what they did if they really were trying to help people.

You address the impractical nature of some of these systems. And that is an important point. Just because they can do something that gives higher gain, doesn't mean that it is justified when it is too big, expensive, or unsafe. Neman and Bedini rejected my coil arrangement on my window motor because they were set in their ways. But it didn't give any lesser results and was far more practical. They didn't understand how to go beyond prototype level engineering.

It is true that people see what they want to see, just as you are doing here. But you fail to understand why many of those patents are on those websites because you fail to consider the specific processes in those patents that are essential to OU production. A patent doesn't have to have an overt OU claim to make it useful for us here. You have made big mistake in your assumptions and claims here.

As for the next paragraph it is completely nonsense. Perhaps you are just attempting to get the casual reader to come to a prejudgment with such comments. And that will work for the superficial reader. You evidence this yourself in reference to mentioning me with "Self sustaining" words. I used that very specifically in quoting from Benitez patent. Tell me then, what does the quote and many others within those long patents really mean then? You would have us believe that any amount of words would never be enough to claim OU. Nice diversion attempt here! If we apply the same rules to your own words then they become meaningless. And we are justified in making them say just the opposite. But we are not in elementary school are we???

No one is claiming perpetual motion with a Benitez setup, as parts can and do wear out. Parts are a big consideration for me. But they are minimal cost. OU does not mean infinite perpetual motion. So your post here is just a whole lot of hype. Endlessoceans of nonsense once again. There are only a few true points you mention here. I suggest you open a dictionary before you use words next time.

Stories of cold energy are true. Your denials don't change that and they don't help anyone here because you have offered no reason to think otherwise. More wasted space. Why don't you give us a demonstration to explain what is really happening rather than just saying so.

Actually, you assume wrong. My batteries are getting better over time. Thousands of customers all around the world report that also.

No, I don't attempt to prove anything over the internet. You just assume that. I have always warned people against that. I make claims which is fine to do. We all make claims. But if you actually watch any of my videos I am doing them for my customers or showing people how to do things themselves. I don't try and prove a point, but rather make a point so that people can prove it to themselves. Why is that so hard for you guys to understand the difference?

As for your assumptions that I have not shown what you mentioned about 3 batteries, I have done that in video, but more importantly I have demonstrated that at many of my meetings for two full days straight (which were about 12 hours each). Some times people even stayed in the room all night as we worked without sleep (which usually happens). Anyway, batteries are old news. People have already proven that out years ago. But I can't help you if you were not there in the real world. Or if you want a video of such when I have already done that.

All you can do here is make denials. What is the point? Does a denial contribute anything? The fact that I showed in Bedini's own words that he lied gives me credibility. It was expected of me. It was important that people learned this so that they would be less likely to waste their time, money and faith on several of his destructive processes.

No, that guys didn't say that about Don. They said that it powered the bulbs when it shouldn't have.

You may not be an agent but you are doing exactly what one would do here. You fill this forum with useless diversions which then just misleads people. You provide no support for anything you say here, so it is worse than useless. I respond to every point here.

Did I hang a carrot stick out to anyone when I showed the world how to convert billions of fans to produce free energy 14 years ago? When I made the monopole rider lawnmower that drove through a parade in 2007 was that a carrot stick? These were easy things to do with the basic circuit. When I did the same with window motor on the same lawnmower and drove around 400 people over three days, was that what you say? The next year, when I dropped that motor into a 26' boat and gave rides was that more of that? When people demanded kits and I provided them did they complain that it was just carrots? When I made chargers that recovered useless batteries all around the world, and thus solved the biggest problem in conventional alternative energy, was that useless? You don't know what you are talking about. I have done what I could with no money and very little help from anyone. I'm nobody special so what goes in is what comes out. Obviously things could have been better if I was someone else. But I am satisfied with my work over the years. And because of this work, this is why you attack me so intensely. You have a dark agenda here.

As for your last paragraph, I have the right to share what I want to. No one said you had to listen to. If you don't want it then move along. Did I force you? I have shared my testimony to give the reason for why I am doing what I am. I have also made a simple spiritual analogy about a closed circuit being like a selfish person and an open circuit being like a loving given person. That is hardly offensive or selfish. On the other hand, what you have done is lied about many things here and deliberately twisted everything. Naturally you are offended with the spiritual content as well. But my point is that unless we become honest then we can't even do basic science. So the biggest problem is overcoming prejudice, which you represent or illustrate here more than anyone I have seen yet. Unless people can overcome their assumptions then they will forever be mistaken and never arrive at anything important.

Anyway, grow up and do something constructive for once.

Just depends what you think they were lying about.  You see.....and listen carefully here.....if you read their patents VERY carefully (and they were very well worded!!) there is NOTHING in them that indicates OU.  NOTHING

But people love to read into things especially when the mind feverishly wishes for a dream.  Tesla talked about millions of horsepower and power generated but after all those years he was still hooked to the grid.  For ALL his experiments he was hooked to mains town supply. 

As far as the other inventors go, many were working with exotic materials such a radium or other isotopes.  Searl is an old buffoon who tried all sorts of magnetic motors and told fanciful stories of his one working motor which lost gravity and shot intp the atmosphere never to be seen again  LOOOOL    .   He should go to prison for that nonsense.  Newman still worked with big batteries and took thousand's of dollars in investors money  Also jail worthy.  Moray was a true scientist but also worked with exotic materials and never disclosed the contents of his tube.  Many other inventors are often associated with OU sites but the fact is their patents did not state OU.  People see what they want to see


SOME of those patents had Terms such as "self sustaining" that Rick Friedrich grabs onto.......but that does not mean OU.  Self sustaining .......for how long???  Huh.  A flashlight is self sustaining.  A rechargeable power tool that does not need to be plugged into the wall is self sustaining but for how long?  By the true definition of the term....a vehicle is self sustaining because you can fill the tank and drive 400 mile......    None of those patents said or even alluded to INFINITE self sustaining.   Yes...energy is never destroyed but it is converted into heat and light and all sort and that conversion costs you something.   


These stories about coils cooling to freezing and cold lightbulbs are nonsense.  Even large halogen loads which you run off a tesla hairpin that you can dunk into water without getting electrocuted are scalding hot on the glass....why?? because there is resistance at the filament in order to generate heat and light.


Tesla was a brilliant man and his patents on one wire transmission were cutting edge.   Rick....

You have pretty big capacity batteries with lEDS that hooked a certain way can run for days.    Your batteries are a still dropping down after all that cycling.  I find it amusing that on one hand you say that NOTHING can be proven on the internet and yet that's the very thing you attempt to do.   BTW saying that nothing can be proven on the internet is rubbish.  You sit there and conduct some very good demonstrations (yes that's a compliment) and draw some accurate conclusions and yet on the other hand when somebody asks you to take all these little black boxes and show 3 batteries being charged for the price of one or a output looped back to the source you come up with the laughable "Im sorry but nothing can be proven on the internet and btw this circuit is not perfectly tuned.    .  "back in my last seminar I showed it running perpetually blah blah blah and thousands have OU!!.  You yourself said Bedini was a liar and misled people and yet you are no different. 

You know what...Don Smith said exactly the same thing over and over and yet the few guys that took a measurement to his device always showed it as slowly running down.

You may think I am angry or a paid shill (which is laughable) but I am not the one making massive claims and keeping people on the carrot stick for how many decades now??

Oh and btw....mixing what the Bible says with your kit selling is just plain mentally ill.  Are you trying to run a church or sell a charger?  Jesus himself threw out the money changers from the temple because the things of the flesh have nothing to do with the things of the spirit.  So if you want to start a church then go do that but please read the Bible first before prostituting it.