Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[gyulasun]

Rick,

I am not your mindreader nor are the members here.  And now you deny the logical fallacy you did write, you deny your own written words everybody can see that. Not nice behaviour at all.  But this is a secondary point for me, I am 99% technical and only 1% psyhological... And I do not care if you make 100% psywar here. 

I am not surprised that you back out from the very basic calculation results I gave you from your own measured data. So far you have done like that here whenever I or others pointed out correct technical data, conclusions in connection with your setup(s) in question. 

I have not made any free energy or ou claim like you, I do not need to show you anything. And nor you nor any replicator have proved your results yet that justify your claim of 8W out vs less than 1W input. 

You wrote: "On the other hand you have deliberately left out the fact that the input is relatively the same when the output voltage and radiation is radically different."

No.  I have not been presented with correct data from which I could estimate and compare the in and the out. You return again to the increased radiation at resonance and of course you ignore why it happens.  It happens because the gate driver can pump higher current under a better impedance match condition (output pin of the driver IC you use has around 1 Ohm typical internal resistance, so it can switch the DC supply input voltage onto the TX circuit with small loss).

You also wrote: "And in place of that you may as well just be his joker mofo just mocking everyone for being here because in the end you will just say the same sort of things. Input = output. Again, where is your basis for this hyped up hope for free energy?"

I do not know what are you talking about here?  Lots of conjectures appear in your posts, not only towards me but towards everyone who asks the correct questions, this is one of your main forum tactics.

And by the way, it was you who wanted to introduce rules on this forum? I quote "The first rule of forums is to be polite."  this is what you wrote here: https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536716/#msg536716

To be polite? You would need to look into a mirror first, for you called me a foolish person and also a troll and you called other members here as liars, trolls.  Now you attempt to compare me to mofo mocking everyone, this is hilarious, LOL

Gyula

(gyulasun wrote)
I quote from your post below:
"You are arguing right out of the book and not from real world experience."
You know nothing about my background, about my real world experience. 
You also wrote:
"Obviously your explanation is mistaken if you just consider the results. You have to start with the results
and work your way backwards."
Are not these 2 sentences in logical fallacy?   

G,You are not showing us anything here, so until you do I will just go by your words. Your words show that you have not experienced this yet. And your response shows calculated misleading.
This is not a logical fallacy at all. Nice try. The results are not the conclusion and an attempt to find justification. The results are the premise. So is looking back at the rest. The conclusion we are looking for is not the mere results. It is in trying to conclude on what is happening. You have made a claim as to exactly what is happening. That is your conclusion. I have said that your claim is factually false. The results are not the output but the input and the output and considering the differences between in and out of resonance. The results of what is happening from beginning to end.
On the other hand you have deliberately left out the fact that the input is relatively the same when the output voltage and radiation is radically different. And in place of that you may as well just be his joker mofo just mocking everyone for being here because in the end you will just say the same sort of things. Input = output. Again, where is your basis for this hyped up hope for free energy?

[rickfriedrich]

Tell me something people. Why is it that I answer all the questions but you guys never do when I ask? Only a few people like G have taken the time to respond, even when he didn't want to reveal that his hope was based on nothing. All these demands but no accountability for your false assumptions and tricks and even lies. Hoppy here makes a sweeping claim that after 3 years of rotating batteries that would be enough for OU claim. And now look:

You again assume and assume and assume, but always the worst possible assumption. I responded to your question about if I tracked every moment, not that I didn't track any of it. I have video of many things that I don't show online. It is date stamped.
Now I have worked with golf cart batteries and no a great deal about loading them down. I told you that I even took the forklift motor out of my Honda conversion and first installed in the boat to actually do a proper comparison. I drove that car for a few years and then the Porsche for three years with such batteries. Also many other things with the same kinds of batteries. I am daily on the phone with technicians about loading such batteries. I know what they can put out. It isn't really that hard. So now, if you care to listen, if I am running any load at a certain amperage over a certain time I can see a battery discharge and then need to be charged. I can compare that with all the thousands of identical batteries that I have worked with in the same way. The battery is discharged. Now I rotate that bank with an identical one, but just rotating the two Anderson connectors as you will see in another picture I'll post on the website or in the videos. So then I do the same thing after some hours on the water cruising CDA lake. Go to Trojan batteries and look up their speck sheet. Tell me what you can expect out of their T-105 batteries. We see gains over these original specs very often over the years. But that is another benefit of this technology which is free energy in a way (when you don't have to buy new batteries again).
Now I also have data logging software and equipment to monitor batteries. We have used these for many years now. My industrial chargers even do that. I didn't say that I didn't log anything, or didn't meter anything, as I always had meters on my batteries.
So you are a fool to say such things and entirely reject what I said based upon your meaningless question. Yes it was meaningless because you just took license to assume whatever you wanted. You are a Troll if there ever was one.  The stupid thing about all this you are just trying to play mindgames with people here in this. I mean really, only real people in the real world can verify anything, and here you are trying to try and disprove something with mere words, that are but lies and sophistry!
On the contrary, it is your twisted account that is not lining up with reality. What do you even know about science?

So, how did you determine the amount of time you would expect, if you took no record of sailing time or calculated energy used in comparison with energy available from your battery bank(s), using properly measured power consumption measurements over time for each sailing. Note that this is a rhetorical question, so you don't need to answer this, simply because you cannot provide an answer that can convince me that you have taken any real care in collecting meaningful data to support such a bold claim  The problem Rick, is that there appears to be no real scientific method being applied by you. I'm not outright rejecting your OU claim but your account is just not adding up with me.

[partzman]

Ah Mr. Aggressive (as you urge people to be on OUR),
You can see it in the picture partly, and more in the videos. I'll show all this and more pictures on the new website shortly. It is just the SSG circuit opto sensor triggered, with some additional transistors to drive all the gates. Real simple. No spark gap. Technically is not Bedini as I'm not sure he invented anything. It is more a newman motor with what has been called BEMF charging that predates Bedini if you even look at the prior art in his patent. But I mistakenly popularized this as Bedini.

Yup, that's me!

OK, thanks for the reply and I'll  tell you why I asked.  If you place enough info on your new website, I will attempt to simulate the circuit.  Oh, oh, I see it will be a rotary generator design.  Oh well, that makes it a bit more difficult to analyze but doable.  I'm sure you are aware but perhaps not that simulators are designed around classical theory.  So, as many people have stated thru the years, "OU can never be shown with a simulator".  Wrong!!! It can and I have two examples of technologies at present not counting a sim I made of Tesla's ozone patent.

I will patiently wait.

Pm

[rickfriedrich]

Like I just wrote, you don't know what you are talking about.

Yup, that's me!

OK, thanks for the reply and I'll  tell you why I asked.  If you place enough info on your new website, I will attempt to simulate the circuit.  Oh, oh, I see it will be a rotary generator design.  Oh well, that makes it a bit more difficult to analyze but doable.  I'm sure you are aware but perhaps not that simulators are designed around classical theory.  So, as many people have stated thru the years, "OU can never be shown with a simulator".  Wrong!!! It can and I have two examples of technologies at present not counting a sim I made of Tesla's ozone patent.

I will patiently wait.

Pm

[rickfriedrich]

Gyulasun,
You revealed your psywar when you deceived everyone with your "surely" line. We all can see this now. That was why you took so long to respond to that. It was an easy thing to respond to if it was an honest statement. It completely invalidated you to answer one way or the other. If you actually gave grounds for saying "surely" then I would have built upon that and lead you to the green pastures you "surely" expect to be there. But no, that would compromise your mission here. The mission to enforce absolute conformity to mainstream theory. You are the gatekeeper here, and I ruined that mission now. But if you revealed that there was in fact not scientific or probable basis for this misleading "surely" hype, which is what you ended up doing, then it would show everyone that the statement was misleading them, and also that you inconsistently overbelieve things. I guess you opted not to give any grounds for OU and instead made yourself not credible. Again, that is all in the context of your constant insistence upon your claims that are completely inconsistent with OU possibilities. For someone who is "surely" expecting OU you actually "surely" assume in everything that it can't be there. This is your constant circle. This is now the context of everything you say to anyone here. It is assumed in your circle reasoning with me below.

I didn't back out of anything. I responded to the first part only because that is separate. I responded to others because they were short. Nice try. You took weeks to respond to things, and now you play this game and tell people I am backing out. You are not being technical at all, it is called sophistry, and that is using technical jargon deceitfully. You are perfectly aware of what you are doing.

You have made many claims. Maybe you don't realize it. Everything that is a truth of demonstration needs to be demonstrated. You have demonstrated nothing here but what I have exposed. I notice how quick you fired back after I did that. Must not let people see that. Must quickly rush out many more words to deflect the damage done. Well this only looks worse Gyulasun. Covering up dishonesty just keeps making it worse. You did yourself better by backing out earlier.

Notice how you again avoid the point. You just assumed that the input would have to correspond to the output voltage and radiation. But it actually doesn't. There is substantially no input difference between running the tank with 9V out of resonance and with running in resonance. That has been my point all along. It's kind of basics man. So you gave all this hoopla for nothing when this is the case. So all the focus on coils and whathaveyou boils down to the fact that there is significant radiation difference in and out of resonance without a corresponding difference input.

Again, the point I was making was the way your presented this in a crafty way as to mislead the readers to assume that the input would be substantially different. I mean, if we are talking about 144 times the difference, or even if it was 50 times, we would then have to see that reflected in the input dropping that much. So if we are talking about 0.72W input in resonance, it would have to go down to 0.005W input for the non-resonance @ 144 times the radiation and voltage. Or at least 0.014W if it was 50 times. But this is not the case. And no matter how many deflections about what you think is happening in the devices, we are always talking about output and input comparisons. It is typical for such people to get hung up in the inbetween and ignore the beginning and end conclusions. This is ignoration elenchi Gyulasun, deflecting the whole point. You just can't admit that resonance is a gain even when you see more radiation. You have to assume that the input/output would be proportional either way. (Now I'll save a point here for a new post.) But the numbers on not linear no matter how much you want them to be.

So much for your "surely" expectation hope. You assume there is no hope for OU in a circuit. Yes you said I a circuit. It wasn't hope in some atomic OU solution, but in these very things. I show you such a way and you just insist upon a limited theory that claims that hope is folly. There is no coming back from this Gyulasun. You can repeat the diversions all you want. Your fallacy is pinpointed. It was a diversion from the point at hand. And while this is being revealed you should "surely" be excited about the implications here. Your hope is being realized. But maybe that is not your hope after all. Maybe it was just hype so that people who actually believe in OU would feel comfortable with all your expert surmising's.

But I am not so convinced that you disbelieve in OU. You never can tell what people really believe, as we can see in your case. And this is why all these forums are running in a useless way because you cannot prove anything through the forum. All this is doing is showing just how much people want to suppress this technology. That is the only reason I have prolonged this as I have. This is very important for everyone to see the desperation to control these forums and keep people paying for their energy. Keep up the good work Gyulasun.

As for polite, I am speaking with jest here. But I am calling out deceptions as they are.

Rick,
I am not your mindreader nor are the members here.  And now you deny the logical fallacy you did write, you deny your own written words everybody can see that. Not nice behaviour at all.  But this is a secondary point for me, I am 99% technical and only 1% psyhological... And I do not care if you make 100% psywar here. 
I am not surprised that you back out from the very basic calculation results I gave you from your own measured data. So far you have done like that here whenever I or others pointed out correct technical data, conclusions in connection with your setup(s) in question. 

I have not made any free energy or ou claim like you, I do not need to show you anything. And nor you nor any replicator have proved your results yet that justify your claim of 8W out vs less than 1W input. 

You wrote: "On the other hand you have deliberately left out the fact that the input is relatively the same when the output voltage and radiation is radically different."

No.  I have not been presented with correct data from which I could estimate and compare the in and the out. You return again to the increased radiation at resonance and of course you ignore why it happens.  It happens because the gate driver can pump higher current under a better impedance match condition (output pin of the driver IC you use has around 1 Ohm typical internal resistance, so it can switch the DC supply input voltage onto the TX circuit with small loss).

You also wrote: "And in place of that you may as well just be his joker mofo just mocking everyone for being here because in the end you will just say the same sort of things. Input = output. Again, where is your basis for this hyped up hope for free energy?"

I do not know what are you talking about here?  Lots of conjectures appear in your posts, not only towards me but towards everyone who asks the correct questions, this is one of your main forum tactics.

And by the way, it was you who wanted to introduce rules on this forum? I quote "The first rule of forums is to be polite."  this is what you wrote here: https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536716/#msg536716

To be polite? You would need to look into a mirror first, for you called me a foolish person and also a troll and you called other members here as liars, trolls.  Now you attempt to compare me to mofo mocking everyone, this is hilarious, LOL

Gyula

G,You are not showing us anything here, so until you do I will just go by your words. Your words show that you have not experienced this yet. And your response shows calculated misleading.
This is not a logical fallacy at all. Nice try. The results are not the conclusion and an attempt to find justification. The results are the premise. So is looking back at the rest. The conclusion we are looking for is not the mere results. It is in trying to conclude on what is happening. You have made a claim as to exactly what is happening. That is your conclusion. I have said that your claim is factually false. The results are not the output but the input and the output and considering the differences between in and out of resonance. The results of what is happening from beginning to end.
On the other hand you have deliberately left out the fact that the input is relatively the same when the output voltage and radiation is radically different. And in place of that you may as well just be his joker mofo just mocking everyone for being here because in the end you will just say the same sort of things. Input = output. Again, where is your basis for this hyped up hope for free energy?

(gyulasun wrote)
I quote from your post below:
"You are arguing right out of the book and not from real world experience."
You know nothing about my background, about my real world experience. 
You also wrote:
"Obviously your explanation is mistaken if you just consider the results. You have to start with the results
and work your way backwards."
Are not these 2 sentences in logical fallacy?