Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[rickfriedrich]

G,
Unfortunately your response makes it a little involved to separate your words from mine in how your replied. And bad for you that you did not specifically answer my repeated questions but gave only partial commitment. Probably no one on this forum cares about your analysis of anyone's claims while you refuse to tell us what you really believe and why you believe it. And that is you playing a game, not me. I am pointing out your game which I have seen so many do long before you. I am not new to this my friend.

Notice you say I "make it impossible for the forum members to ascertain what is the truth on the COP of your setup." NOTICE EVERYONE, that G means THROUGH THE FORUM, but not to yourselves in the real world. So G is committing to his credulity and incredulity in affirming, and that in the way of almost an attack against me for drawing attention to it's absurdity, that you can prove or disprove something through testimony, videos, pictures or words. He refuses to admit the impossibility of that critical position he maintains. He does not justify that assumption. He diverts on to secondary matters that come AFTER that is established. How dare I take the carpet out from under his feet!!! lol Again, what does anything matter if you are just going to believe or disbelieve a report you cannot verify? And again, why not just admit this and verify to yourself? Because such people are not here to do that but to put doubt into others or maybe to datamine as I said. You can never really know one's motives but you can observe the fruit and their evasions. Of all people, you guys even fault me for this, I am thorough and do not run from questions. But I will demand that you start at the beginning and admit the facts of reality. We cannot prove or disprove anything through this Forum. We can only develop hypothesis and test them out ourselves in the real world. No amount of people coming on saying this actually works and here is a video showing it, or this doesn't work, and here is a video showing, can create honest rational conviction about such matter. This is more important to realize than anything else on this entire forum. Believe me (lol) at least on this point based upon my years of experience doing this with people all over the world. I say that as I am sort of a counselor for people and have helped many people who have lost faith and money and time playing this game. (Many years ago I also helped people out of cults, and before that worked for some years as a counselor with people who were mentally challenged.) "Don't believe the hype" of the lists people. Learn how to detect fallacies. Especially prestige jargon fallacies...

Again G, what is my setup? As one guy has mentioned, there were many setups. So maybe my pictured setup at the meeting or in the Saturday video I just uploaded. These are fluid setups that can do many things. Yes it is indeed impossible for anyone to evaluate the COP of that system if you are not physically present. Even then you could look at the power of each bulb or you could look at half or 1/8th of them and get a good estimate maybe. But after you are over 1 then probably people would realize that it was much higher. Again, you miss the point that this is not the final setup, it is just a learning tool to show you how tuning can affect things, and to demonstrate the great mistake people think about radio transmission in thinking that all the power enters into one receiver coil in the nearfield. It shows you on the basic level that you can add as many coils in that entire area without raising the input draw, but actually lowering it the more coils are added. Never even mind the effects of adding ground connections to each coil. That would take a while to set up. You are looking too much towards a magical parts setup and are ignoring the themes approach I am doing. My attendees, while finding some of these demonstrations sensational, are more impressed with learning how to do these things themselves than merely trying to copy one model. So if you want to do the easiest model, then just do the fan conversion and move the diode over and charge a battery. There is your OU shown in five minutes. Oh but Rick that is old news! Obviously it is not settled. Oh Rick we are not satisfied with 2 outputs for one input, we require 3 times the energy. Well, I'll give you that if you concede that it is really 2 times first. Hey, where did they go?

Do I ridicule anyone who is asking me? I am ridiculing the idea that people assume you can prove anything from a testimony on this forum. Don't you get it man? Without this truth then any and every wild claim is proven. And also every and any claim is disproven. And that is the chaos on all these forums. This is what you are directly contributing to. And now when I pinpoint it you say it is ridicule for another reason. Don't you get it? I have given exactly what you want for 15 years in many ways. But that approach was lacking because a proper context was not insisted upon and when people came to the parts with their own biases they naturally over and under assumed things and it resulted in chaos. And I am not really sure what I have failed to mention even in that regard. Yes I could give you the exact bulbs (ebay) used, wire lengths (harbor freight), etc. But this is not over and if necessary we can list all that. However, I am not about to make everything in my kit on this forum anymore than any of you are going to work for free.

Why on this one point, after refusing to respond to the actual key points, do you get all legalistic on me and jump on my question to you? Will you not answer even that question? What if the bulbs were all at 0.5W? Is that question an evasion? No actually you will not walk with me in that hypothetical question? And my point was that whatever answer I gave, under the conditions you stated for belief in OU confirmed on this forum, you would have to accept without prejudice. So let's say they average all together at 0.5W each, because they you know they would all be at least slightly different (with slight movement they can be more or less, especially the bulb off the ferrite core coil). You make your biggest point that I asked you a question and then accuse me of evading the question. This is sophistry my friend. This is deflection and your refusal to comply with your own bias methodology of concluding for or against something based on things shown through this forum rather than only doing that in the real world. Nice try but your fallacy is clearly seen by everyone. Anyway, I already gave you the numbers so why focus on my question that you refuse to answer? Why not focus on when I said I can make this all go negative. Or now you can read what Thaelin wrote about what I showed in Lodi CA last summer. In such cases if the input is zero then COP is infinite whatever load is run. You see that is chapter 3 in my book, which is still on the basic level side of the book (section 1)! If I have 1mw output or 50W output, what does it even matter if I have zero input. If you want to understand that study Barrett as I said. You won't do that of course. Or admit to doing that. I say this because you are manifestly committed. I hoped for better.

As for measuring the bulbs, it is a little more tricky on the tank side of things because of the 1.25MHz frequency than on the DC side of measurements. And you even have to consider what light meter you use that has to compare a DC measurement with constant current and no pulsing and a hf pulsing. So yes, measuring capacitors is good to do. But guess what my friend. This only gets worse for you. Because the bulbs are not meant for high frequency and really are only responding to what amounts to like a low frequency in the same way as a diode (which an LED is a diode) that is not rf rated cuts off the wave and only little dribbles may get through. This is one of the most frequent reason why people fail on Don Smith replications, because they don't have the right diodes. Anyway, we are still charging up caps inside the bulbs, so you could look at their voltage over time with your scope and do the math. I have all the equipment and do that for many years now. But as I wrote in a few posts back, I do provide the avarmenko plug for the one wire experiments where a cap can be charged up over time. So you have to have diodes and caps that are for rf or you have very limited results. And that was my intention to have dumbed down parts to keep things safe and also for people to even be impressed with non-rf loads so that when they move on they really are in for a treat. So yes I realize all the limitations of using bulbs and have a proper understanding of how to evaluate them. Elsewhere in commercial products I deal with all that with the correct parts, etc. You have to properly lower the frequency so that the low frequency parts can actually respond in their fullest way, and you also have to deal with impedance matching. But I am showing none of that, just some basic stuff here. It is enough to make the points I am making. So if I did all the frequency conversion and grounding I would have to use higher wattage bulbs as I would have a lot more energy to deal with. But my point in the kit is not how much power can be created as you guys are only wanting to deal with, but how to learn the relationships of the coils with themselves in a way that you can see the subtle differences. You don't care to pay attention to that even though I stated that many times. Or to respond to almost anything I have said.
I find it ironic that you state in contradiction: "If you do not measure it at each bulbs, then you simply do not know." So if you do not measure, personally, here in the real world, then you simply do not know. Is that not fair enough? You see, you prove again and again, that when you disagree with something that you resort to my true point which is self-evident, that you cannot prove what you do not see for yourself (in these matters). But I claim each bulb is on average measured 0.5W under the circumstances without the frequency conversion proper way of doing this. So then what? Without grounding, or frequency conversions for optimum loading, will these numbers be enough? If I show pictures and video, will that be enough? If I have another person, or 18, or 100, or all the labs you know say this, how can any of it be proven to you? Why should you ever be convinced for or against a claim like this? Hasn't even the whole world been wrong many times? And yes again, we don't need to look at the light at all, we can just measure the caps charging and discharging over time (just make sure you have the right caps). Welcome to my work with measuring batteries and capacitors all day long... I find it humorous that you make so many assumptions about me. It's good for people to see this now so they can move past all these games.

Notice the only real answer to my major question for you is: "So the real or average power is nowhere near what you imply in your text." You do not want to answer the simple question if resonance is a gain. Instead you equivocate the question to the word "power" as if the only thing that is of value is "power" measurements. So again we are all wanting know G, is there any real gain with resonance? We can deal with the phasing later. In the end can there be any gain at all, or will it always come down to a transformer or accumulation process? You divert the subject to a side point about what you think is happening within the tank instead of plainly answering the question. Can there be any gain resulting from this oscillation? It is evident that you do not want to commit to this as YOU ARE EVADING THE QUESTION. Maybe you don't want others to know you really do believe that. In fact you implied that in a circuit you expected to find some gain or something one day. But you never answered me if that was a hope or if you had any concrete reason for that sentence. So here I make that question more specific. And let me tell you people, if he every does commit to that answer, unless he just says I don't know, he will be either done with this Forum or will have to accept so many things. Now I have explained that you can use the cap as a fuel cell at the same time that it is functioning as a series tank circuit. Stan M did this many years ago, and this is rather easy to do once you condition the plates to become a capacitor. So you can easily get at least 3 times the gas production of electrolysis for the same input. Now you can also draw electrical energy off of that with the Don Smith effect idea (or what people call the Tesla Hairpin circuit). Now people don't show this, but I say to you you can also have the coils be used as a transmitter to do the very things we are doing in this setup. And as we have the frequent saying around here, if you are going to impulse a coil you may as well... push a magnet, and you may as well... (about 7 things we are up to now). Oh but now my friends. G tells you the phase angle doesn't allow you to do anything with gains created within the tank circuit but maybe act as the various filters. Nope, don't make that cap a Stan M. high voltage resonance fuel cell! Oh boy, here comes the POWER POLICE to stop you. If there is no "power" measured in the fuel cell then we can't consider it because only the power meters show you our bias, I am what our books say, I am what we tell you you have to pay for--boy this doesn't come out right Haha the game is up G, Stan showed this stuff 20 years ago. Some of you know me that I just have to do it. Make the conglomerate of taps, kind of like showing all these coils just because, showing how, at the same time we split water (to "power" some loads), and power an electrical load which runs or "powers" the tank input itself, and then put a motor with duty cycle on it to use the coils to pulse a motor (to "power" some other loads), and then we also use that fluxing to influence distant coils (in this setup in discussion, which "power" some bulbs that all MUST be combined to be less than 0.75W to satisfy G underunity claims), and then I'll make the L1 transmitter with the right wire to create a heater in a core so I can "power" some loads with heat (probably not), and then ... So you see everyone, G is right, the phase relationships are such that this is only an apparent gain but cannot actually be used to "power" anything while it is oscillating. We don't see "power" measured in the bare tank circuit he says. Why is the G? Maybe because "power" is the wasted energy measured in regards to a certain kind of closed looped load. You think??? Well, throw in a resistor and the power measurement will still be more than the input (which is one of our tests in the kit). But rather than use a resistive load directly as these guys limit themselves in doing with nonlinear analysis, why not move to the reactive side as Barrett points out you need to do to do the Teslean processes. Why not then indirectly power resistive loads in the ways I just mentioned. All of these humorous additions are no joke and can be easily be done at the same time while getting the same outputs from each of them as if they were done alone (more or less as some of them would effect each other in a minor way). I don't usually do all possibilities, but I sometimes do these setups that are crazy like that. You call can see my various motors with several different processes at the same time. This is just an extension of that. Now G will not thank me for sharing all that and opening up some real doors, and I doubt he will say anything confirmatory or positive about anything I write. So I will at least say I appreciate him being polite about this. And hopefully he and everyone can read appropriately my humor into everything I am writing. This is done with a style that drives the truth home.

Again, I will stress that G's whole argument is that most of the things done and claimed on this forum cannot happen because we are limited to this paragraph which ends up meaning that only power measurements are acceptable to evaluate what you have, and that means you will only get under unity experiences WHEN YOU MEASURE THAT POWER WITHIN THE PRIMARY TANK CIRCUIT!!! Notice I mentioned that if we create power INDIRECTLY outside of the goods, the source charge of the tank, then we can use the meters. But when we try and put a meter on the source itself we get nothing. And in order to get any power measurement we have to add resistance that will usually dampen the effect. But don't throw away your power meters yet folks, because we can indirectly power other loads as I mentioned. Ah too bad though, because Kirchhoff is holding a gun to us telling that we cannot include those other body associations in our calculations because the loop always has to equal up to what?? So if you do power loads from water splitting, run electrical loads as well, or power through the motor or receiver coils, that is not part of the loop so the boundary conditions are set only in a very narrow way. So these are not allowed because we are only dealing with a closed system of a single loop that would not be fair to expose the game. Tom Bearden rightly wrote: "We produce power (rate of energy dissipation) electrical engineers rather than energy transport engineers." Hopefully everyone can see now the difference with my extended humor.

Oh I forgot to mention in the last paragraph that we have shown for years that if you try and measure "power" transfer in the negative impulse charging YOU WILL NEVER get consistency with your power meters measuring the charging battery (over time) with what you measure powering loads from it over time. The reason is because the battery is charging itself up from the environment (the energy converges into the load) and the input side is merely a trigger event and not an amperage or power process. This is why so many of you dismissed the SSG because you measured no power. But power resistive loads all you want from the battery while showing now power charging the battery. WOW! But this is outside their college level junior teaching. They can't accept true negative resistance.

Now there are many things that I could tear apart within that paragraph. Here is one: "You have a voltage gain and voltage is not power or energy in itself." Who says that "power" and "energy" are the exact same thing? G does. Voltage is real potential and is not what G and these guys think it is. It is not my interest to insist upon words or try and claim exactly what voltage is here, but it is easy to see for yourself how you can translate this reading of voltage gain to an actual gain in the real world (provided you don't kill the source charge as these guys do automatically). Anyway, power is not the same as energy. There is energy without power just as the charging of my batteries shows no power reading but can show power readings of indirect loads run off the battery. That is because there is no power reading of a source itself. It is only when you kill the source charge that you read the power rate of dissipation. Let that be forever settled!!!

So in essence, G is saying that within these resonance processes we only have a V I transformer action. He didn't want to say it that obviously but wanted to engage with most of you in the prestige jargon fallacy so that you would not all understand exactly what he was saying. This protects him from admitting clearly that, yes Rick, there is no useful gain coming from resonance but a merely adjustments of volts and amps, and/or an accumulation of oscillations for various applications where that is need for tuning, etc. No free energy here folks. Move on. Don't you talk about Stan now! Leave those motors out of it! Forget those many receiver coils! Resonance tanks are but filters or just for tuning into radio stations according to the college texts. Do not confuse yourself about Q or multiplication words. This is just apparent. You can't actually get any rf burn because it is not really 1300V people. That 25ma input is not circulating anymore because it is transformed lower to 0.00017A and what is that going to do to you? But is it even correct to say that we have amperage at all without a load?

Anyway, the big mistake of all these people is killing the source charge with a closed loop circuit, disregarding many body networks, so that these processes cannot be used to any benefit. I've said enough on that already but it applies also to what he is saying here. We are going to use this magnetic and dielectric fluxing in an open sense rather in their closed sense. They can put their power meters on the indirect loads but they won't even stay around to observe them. They are not part of the circuit being measured so they will already have left the room. They will fall apart and would not know what to do beholding such. It is just fascinating for me to watch their faces twitch and contort when you show them these things. It is premium entertainment. So far this has been not so dramatic as it could be.

There is no justification for saying "power" measurement should be considered the only standard of what is beneficial. Says who? Again, almost everything on this forum would be foolishness if that was the case. And the previous claim that he expected some circuit to give some extra results is a flat out deception to say. Notice no clarification of that statement is given here. He just ignored my essential questions and proceeded to spew out mainstream theory. Explain to me G, how could that line from you be sincere at all in light of these statements? I guess he will never respond to that which exposes him in these ways. So essentially we have a guy coming here to act like he is open to overunity but is really here to deny it all, and when pressed admits that only power measurements can be used to evaluate such matters. Well, measure the power indirectly in the external loads. Oh wait a minute! Where did he go? G, come bring your power meter over here on the output of the motor! Can you put another one on the hydrogen output? And a few more here and there? Where did he go? He moved onto another forum guys because the game is up.

Now the closest thing to admitting my main point is G saying, "Of course any setup shown in a video can be faked, this can be true." Wow that seems like a good sentence. But then he moves away from that with: "How about to minimize this possibility?" It is either one or the other. How can one minimize the possibility when any video can be faked? These are opposites. There is no way to make the fact that any video can be faked more minimized. So it is clear that G holds faith in his ability to judge testimony in these forms as credible. He cannot fully commit to this fact because he wants to disprove things here and has convinced many of you that he is really able to so evaluate claims here. But no one is. Only to yourself, and even you may make mistakes. And if you think that I am being unrealistic here, then take a couple of years to study the history of science and you will understand my perspective. How much evil has resulted from this sort of mischief?

As far as charging caps (as is done already in the LED bulbs) and combining them together, I already said that was one option. But I don't bother with that when I can get the input down to zero anyway. But it is an important thing when we go from the L2 to the final load.

Yes I remember when RomeoUK did that, and I think he was using one of my coils. He gave some good points here and there for those who have ears to hear. Anyway, these are fun things to do but unnecessary when we can bring the power down to zero and continue using our loads as we want. There seems to be this mad rush to merely make something self-running without doing anything else useful. It is relatively easy to make systems do that.

Ah, I already brought that up about self-looping. That is 15 years old for me. We did that first with the motors back then. In this Resonance system we do it with 1/4 wave or harmonics or with just making a loop of the power wire from the battery as Don did. There are several ways to do it.

Then G ends this with his closed loop of the main point of contention. He clearly does not believe what he stated that all videos could be faked:
"You can say a self running setup can also be faked and this is true but if you show a certain start-up procedure we could agree on in advance, openly on this forum, then faking could be minimized at least."

G, I have spent a lot of time exposing fake videos over the years. Once you know how the true process works you can figure out where the faking takes place. But just how could faking be minimized? Who are any of you that I, or anyone, should trust any number of people? Who would be the judge to determine if faking is happening or not? And what benefit would any of you have if these two guys get something from me (which they already have) and share with you when you do not believe what they already shared, and when no one should conclude on anything like this over the internet?

What you are trying to do is distract from the real issues G. I have turned them over again and again and you divert and evade. You appear to admit my point but then take it back right away and suggest the opposite that an absolute fact could be somehow not absolute. That is real confusion.

Folks, get out of the fantasy land of these people want to indoctrinating you into paid for by special interests groups making you dependent upon them. Call these people out on their hype and fallacies. Insist that they tell you exactly what they believe. Turn over these foundational points until you laugh so hard that you can't sleep (which happened to one of you last night). Understand the important themes and apply them that all these important people from around Faraday to Dollard have been sharing. Don't be overwhelmed by prestige jargon or diverting fallacies as we see here. Figure out first how to believe and when to believe. The schools today teach you merely what to believe because it is easy to manage fools.

What more is there to say? I'm not saying anything knew, I'm just passing on what I saw on some video on another forum

Rick,

I do not participate in your game you are playing here. You try to create a situation which would make it impossible for the forum members to ascertain what is the truth on the COP of your setup. And you try to ridicule any member  here who dare to ask about the real performance of your setup. 
Of course you did neglect my point from my Reply #568 when I wrote you had not written measured results in your text but a conditional question ("would 0.5W on the bulbs be acceptable to me on these bigger bulbs"?). 
And then on the following day you already referred to your own conditional question as a fact that you had already answered my measurement request, as if you had already stated the 0.5W as measured.  Yes, 0.5W for 8 bulbs would be very good for you  because 4W is already gives COP>1  BUT what if the brightness involved is less than 0.5W for each bigger bulb? If you do not measure it at each bulbs, then you simply do not know. 
You wrote this on gain for your setup:
"Anyway, if resonance is a gain in the sense that a series tank circuit is actually a "multiplication" or
"amplification of voltage" WHILE AMPERAGE REMAINS THE SAME AS INPUT AMPERAGE, or parallel tank circuits are  a "multiplication" or "amplification of amperage" WHILE VOLTAGE REMAINS THE SAME AS INPUT AMPERAGE, then the gain is seen as the voltage or amperage divided by the input amount. So if I have 9V at 25ma input and 250V at 25ma circulating with the regular frequency generator I then have 27 times gain. And if I add the gate driver and have 1300V with the same 25ma then I have 144 times gain. This follows the idea of the gain in Q or quality factor for the both parts (cap and inductor) combined (if one of them has a low Q it brings down the combined as I deliberately did with the cap to keep things safe)."

The problem is you do not consider the phase angle between the 1300V coil voltage and the coil current: In a resonant LC circuit they never happen simultaneously but nearly with 90 degree phase difference, coil current lags coil voltage. So the real or average power is nowhere near what you imply in your text. There is no any instant  when the current has a high peak amplitude whenever the 1300V peak to peak voltage is also present across the coil. You have a voltage gain and voltage is not power or energy in itself.
And when you consider the phase angle, then power should be estimated by P=VxIxcos(phi) where V and I the RMS values and phi is the phase angle. And when the loaded Q remains relatively high then the phase angle may remain close to 90 degree so its cos(phi) value will reduce the power value significantly. (i.e. suppose phi=88° then cos88°=0.0348 will be the multiplier in the power formula). Of course you will not care about this fact.  But the phase angle in AC power estimation is one of the key factors. This is why careful power measurements should be done.  Obviously the measurements at 1.15 MHz can be very difficult, this is why I mentioned DC current and voltage measurements for the LED bulbs after a full wave rectifier.  Power loss in the diodebridges can be easily estimated.
Of course any setup shown in a video can be faked, this can be true. How about to minimize this possibility?
How about rectifying the output of all the 8 (or your choice) bigger receiver units (omit the LED bulbs from their output) and collect the 8 (or any you choose) DC outputs into a common puffer capacitor of say 10 milliF or more as desired?  Then this DC voltage could feed your gate driver IC and also a low power square wave generator to drive the input of the gate driver. The 8 (or more) receiver units should be able to maintain the charge level in the puffer capacitor the gate driver IC and the square wave generator is consuming because you hinted at a COP of at least over 10.  (Based on your text: "So we have at least 8W of measured power with 0.75W or less input.")   
This claimed COP value would surely serve the use of a DC/DC converter to have a stable DC supply available from its output to fully replace your regulated power supply.  Even one single 3W LED bulb could be run off one of the bigger receiver coils separately to show certain brightness.  The input of this converter would receive energy from the big puffer capacitor, closing the loop. This is what I suggested to RomeroUK years ago and he then showed a video in which he carried his running mot-gen setup looped via a DC/DC converter with himself while walking...   
I wonder whether you are going to consider my looping suggestion or write about again my scepticism or about bent scepticism  . You can say a self running setup can also be faked and this is true but if you show a certain start-up procedure we could agree on in advance, openly on this forum, then faking could be minimized at least.
I would kindly suggest building this self running setup for members a.king and benfr because they have the original coils set. 
Gyula

[rickfriedrich]

I actually have self-runner videos online and all the stuff people are asking for. It doesn't matter because only the fake videos get millions of hits. Videos are not good enough. This is my point folks. How can you prove them. Bedini and I posted that window motor running for 20 minutes off of one audio amp cap while producing a good bit of torque. That video is still viewed. It is impressive and was just with the bedini/cole circuit. It created a stir in that day. I showed many things like that, but it was never enough. Anyone doing this stuff has had various kinds of visits and has suffered for doing this. But probably most of it is self-inflicted lol. Most of the rest of that is imaginary paranoia from being in a camp of wild conspiracy theorists (see my latest video on that point--which btw was the first video youtube flagged for not being able to find advertisers due to the content). In the end John Bedini deleted all my forums with tens of thousands of emails showing this stuff and thus proving to be a gate keeper himself. I'm not sure what all the lines are exactly but I know some of them. We cannot make a powerful purely magnet motor unless we lease it and be a power company as at least one guy did. We can make a Howard Johnson type one, like his train that we had, that doesn't do any real power. You are dealing with a mofia of sorts so you are dealing with their control. Ultimately the biggest threat is the spiritual one. This is the point which most conspiracy theorists have fallen trap to. The trap is to feed you just enough truth to make you think you are smart but all the while keep you from walking with God in true holiness of heart and life. Get you chasing after everyone's evil deeds and making you proud that you figured something out. Let me tell you, if you are spiritually dead, then that is right where they want you. Full of sin, bias, distraction. Then you are no different.
Anyway, showing a video self-running is not really as big of a deal as you thing. Depends on what kind of system. The one that comes to mind that would give you a visit is the magnet motor. Think about the chaos that would result around the world over night? It would destroy the credibility of all the physics departs in the colleges. That would destroy the schools credibility and reveal the fact that the schools are bought and paid for. It would destroy the idea of the 'professional'. So even apart from the changes and expectations that would immediately result in relation to OU becoming common knowledge (which is huge in itself), all these other points would be very problematic. So even though it is relatively easy to do few people are willing to do it. But me showing 0 or 4ma @4v input and powering 50W of loads really isn't a big deal and is kind of old news. But any sensational video ends up making people crazed and makes them try to merely copy the setup exactly rather than try and understand what is going on. You can see an example like that with the 2001 Don Smith video from Bruce's meeting where a guy is asking him for parts and Don tries to bring this point I am making about the themes approach. You have to understand some things right or you can't make these things work as you will contradict it.

I have a very serious point to make sir....


What happened to Romerouk after he showed that self runner?  Do you remember?
I'll remind you....he was visited by MIB and threatened with his life and he was too ill to work for months after that.
What happened to Tinman after he showed OU on youtube?  His videos were taken down and he was visited by MIB.
What happened to Dave Lawton after he replicated Stan Meyer and disclosed you had to charge the capacitors for over 12 hours to condition them?  He was visited by MIB who seized all his documents.
What happened to Thane Heinz students after they replicated his trafo and showed it on youtube? I rang them up in Canada and they were terrified and denied OU (they didn't know who I was  ie if I was a government agent).
I also spoke to Lutec years ago and they were terrified and denied OU to me.
If Rick shows me a circuit - I will build it but you will never get a video. PERIOD.
This is not a game and Rick knows the line not to cross.  Re-read his posts.  He says so.
So please devise a test where the line is not crossed but satisfies the EE in you.  If me and benfr replicating but not showing a video is fine, then I am OK with that.
Kind regards...


EDIT:  How could I forget... What happened to Wesley (Stivep) and Kapanadze when they were together on a plane?  Both were poisoned on the plane and nearly died........  There is even a video Wesley took of kapanadze in an ill state.

[rickfriedrich]

Since I had to fly there I only shipped a few boxes. I used my friend's stuff and the scope was limited. I don't remember that point about being worried about the scope being damaged but oddly enough I had an Amish man call me up to day and ask me the same question when he was wondering what scope to buy. I really don't think about that unless I am doing like 50kv or something. But this guy called the manufacturer and they told him supposedly that he could damage a scope with over 300V. I told him that I would always use the 10 times probe when working with those voltages, but that sometimes it was on 1x and I never had any noticeable damage. This guy was asking these very questions because he wanted to know if he needed a 1000x probe. Anyway, I think I may have said something about the high voltage as we did have the coil that did 5000V and maybe I only had my 100x probe (which don't be fooled in thinking that will go more than 2500V or you will pay to learn the hard way). So I think it was in relation to the probe and not the scope if I recall.

Carol:
     The scope was used as a meter to read the high voltage probe. Had he kept going, the output would have exceeded what the scope is capable of. Like what I did to my Tek scope. Very nice scope but not any more.

[rickfriedrich]

He, I, had the oscope across the transmitter coil. I had made a big coil on a six inch pvc coupler (the thin walled one as there is also a slightly bigger thick walled one) with 123 turns of #18 wire with 1' pigtails on the ends. In order to match that coil with the frequency of the smaller coils with an available cap, we used 5nf caps for the small coils and 300 something pf with an adjustable cap I show in the last video, and ran it at 180kHz. That produced between 4500 and 5000+V. The former when I tuned it to match the small coils, but it's peak was 5k. You could feel it ten feet away. Especially at the Canadian meeting where I put it on a round table. It represented about 900W of power if you know how to use this.

Now I am even more confused.  What high voltage?  I thought he was lighting up LEDs?  And you and he both have said the power input to the primary coil was going down.  So where was he measuring high voltage?



Respectfully,
Carroll

[rickfriedrich]

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...

A.king,

Yes I also remember what happened to Romero like you (but with small modification: he got ill when he was tinkering extensively with Kapanedze-like setups and close to high voltage like Nelson). ...
Gyula