Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[a.king21]

[
Vortex1:  But proof has been offered.  You stubbornly refuse to believe it as a possibility.  Consider the distance of the mr16s from the transmitter and remember the inverse square law.  You immediately have a closed mind approach to the evidence offered. Rick has repeatedly said you cannot prove anything over the internet. All you can do is exchange ideas. That is what this forum is for.  Anyway Rick has put his device forward for the 1 watt challenge in either one of his posts or videos (  i can't remember which).  That is what should be debated. Furthermore those members who are in the US can go to one of his meetings and verify matters for yourselves.  Now THAT come nearer to verification. Also members can be courteous. Courtesy gets you much further than insults. Fortunately Rick can give as much as he gets thrown at him. 

[rickfriedrich]

Stefan,
I appreciate your moderating the forum.
While I will probably not have the time to contribute here very much anymore I think that this whole thing will continue to go on and on. As I wrote, I am just about to launch the new website which I think you will like. It is a new idea and totally opensource. I trust that people will debate the core details on the free energy cheat sheet. While the move will hopefully be towards debating ideas rather than personalities, I trust some will continue to attack, and probably all the more. I was considering starting a forum for going over each point on the cheat sheet, which are Principles of Free Energy Science, I decided just to let the existing forums battle it out. It will be good to change the focus to the core issues and off the secondary or non-existent ones. If anyone makes any significant contributions to the points I will be glad to add them to the associated page that is dedicated to that point. This way a science can begin grow rather than this unorganized mad rush to look for some mysterious circuit. Tesla began this science in 1890, in those famous three lecture demonstrations, but as he later said, he was not able to change that establishment. Bearden produced an attempt to show the principles and concepts but that was far too convoluted and had little practical worth. He was not willing to break it down for the common person and when I asked him about that he showed no interest in doing that. I've been thinking about this for 15 years now. What is needed is this principles approach with illustrations, demonstrations, products mentioned that have been used for the last 100+ years, patents, etc. This will take a lot of work to do right. Not sure if anyone is willing to help as most are lost in attacking people or chasing after fictional proofs. I'll let everyone know the website when I am ready. I don't want people clicking pages and finding no content. Some of that will be happening on some pages for a while.

Rick

I have put now a few more members on moderation as they have been attacking Rick.
This way I can better see, who posts what and if these are slander or defamation postings with notechnical analysis, I will not let it get through and will be deleted...

Regards, Stefan. ( Admin)

[Void]

Consider the distance of the mr16s from the transmitter and remember the inverse square law. 

Hi a.king. Actually from the screen shot posted here, it appears there are coils beside coils beside coils, each coil acting to pass the energy through
to the next coil until the load is reached.

Rick has repeatedly said you cannot prove anything over the internet. All you can do is exchange ideas.

That is actually a red herring. People have not been saying 'proof' is required at this point. Only saying a reasonable demonstration
showing proper power measurements or a demonstration showing a self-looped setup would be needed before some/most people
here with experience at this sort of thing would be bothered to go to all the effort to try to replicate it. For 'proof', people would
need exact details for replication, and then multiple people would have to independently replicate and see if they could get OU results.
Before going to that stage a reasonable and proper demonstration would be required first for most people here,  I think. Seems like a perfectly
reasonable and relatively easily doable approach to me anyway. Many people have spent a lot of time and effort in the past trying to replicate
claimed OU circuits which turned out to not be OU, some actually having very poor efficiency, time and time again. All indications so far is it is
the same with this setup as well, for the reasons previously stated here.

All the best...

[vasik041]

This is a letter of protest, and although one man's opinion, I know that it is shared by many.

Stefan do you realize what you are doing? You have gagged two of the very brightest guys you have had on this thread, partzman and gyula. I know these guys are very experienced in electronics, one I know personally and I know his long experience (over 50 years) as well as his exemplary work history and inventions. Apparently you did not take my pm seriously, instead you pander to the likes of RF who actually has provided no technical offering worthy of serious study but lots of talk, hence the protests by the above mentioned.

I am posting my pm sent to you priorly on 7/19/2019 also here in the interest of free speech and so that others can see my opinion on your actions, which you have now, it appears, persisted in.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now you call anyone who disagrees with what is outrageously being claimed without proof a Naysayer with a capital N

Considering your new version of free speech, I wonder how quickly you will delete this.

Regards

Well said Vortex1!

[Hoppy]

Excellent post Vortex1!