Tom Bearden and Oil?

[Aaron]

@Farmhand

What's the deal with this J.L.Naudin ?

We need to experiment and discover these things ourselves. No one will come to you're house to build you a MEG or any other device.

I seen in a borderlands science video where Peter Lindemann and Eric Dollard say Peter has a 108 % OU generator. But it is the working efficiency they are calculating not the actual total efficiency. However they still give it and OU figure of 108%. Hmmm.

Anyway if any I repeat any of these guys were going to prove OU they would have already done it already. Everything is implied.

Totaly reprehensible and dishonest. By hiding the source of thier inspiration or idea, to keep it to themselves and claim anothers work for themselves without giving credit to the original inventors is holding everybody back for personal ego and money.

Of course I said that I can't verify any of the claims but that is one
claim that is fairly popular.

Some people are simply funded to replicate promising technologies and
if they're based on other people's ideas then so be it - they get a patent.
Anyone can search the patent databases of some names that may have
come up recently and see this and research the train of thought that
went in to it and you can see the motives behind their website(s) -
basically leeching other people's ideas - in the patent world - patent
trolls in one respect or another.

You're right on the money - unfortunately most people are not willing to
do what it takes to build things themselves and want a handout.
Thankfully, there are a lot of people in this community that do build and
share the results.

I can understand that some people don't have a background in this and
may not have the funds - but where there's a will, there's a way.

You could always ask for clarification on what is said in the Borderlands
videos if anyone has time to answer.

I'm not so sure about people would have already prove OU if they could.
Maybe they have and people are willfully blind to wanting to see it or
unconcsious of it.

Any decent SSG is easily COP 1.05.

For example, there is some thread
here and someone that seemed to be earnestly trying to figure out if
there is anything to the claims is showing all of his tests, videos, etc...
He was doing his best to appear objective but stated that the best he
can get was almost COP 1.0 but nothing more and therefore, at best it
is at 100% or at least almost. From his vids, it looks like he really did put
a lot of time and effort into his builds with the multi coils, etc...
So for sake of example, let's pull his claims back from 99.9~100% recovery
to just 95% or even 90%. All the while he is saying he can't see any
gain, that wheel is spinning in front of his face while he is recovery almost
as much as he is putting in. IF his calculations are correct, he is at
1.05 to 1.20 easily.

How many people have honestly gotten a leather strap, hooked it to
2 spring loaded scales and wrapped that around a shaft with a disc
on it with a known diameter in order to calculate exactly how much
mechanical power there is? Peter shows this in his original Electric Motor
Secrets - that is the time tested old school method that is a correct
way to take mechanical power measurements.

I'd bet less than 1 out of every 100 people that has ever built any
variation of an SG, SSG, etc... have never done such a test to add the
mechanical power to their battery recovery.

After I mentioned that if they are recovering almost everything to the
batteries, what about adding the mechanical power - he stopped posting!
It is a very valid point but some people are not interested in facts, they
want to preserve what their belief system already is because it is more
comfortable that way.

The TUV tests showing 5.0 or so on Bedini's energizer are simply
dismissed as the Peukert effect by skeptics. But those skeptics
do not do the real tests themselves but proclaim themselves to be the
experts on knowing how to test this. The batts will be better for
resistive loads and not inductive loads if charged with negative energy
but still - Swapping batts back and forth until but ADD all
the mechanical power - if anyone comes up with less than 1.0 cop
they're drinking bad kool aid.

YouTube - ‪Self Running Bedini Oscillator‬‏
I've had that up for a while - it is WAY over 1.0 cop. The voltage can
be charged up, will drop and then rise up to match the pressure of
what can come from the output and will just stay there indefinitely.
Not good for anything other than to prove the principle that you can take
the output and "close the loop" - it is pseudo closing - the front does
NOT know the output is being preferentially taken as the main source of
power before the front side power is taken. That is why it is pseudo closed
because if it was closed so that the it is a closed system, both caps
would wind down fast. In this demo, there are resistances in the coil,
voltage drops on the transistor (or so people are lead to believe), etc...
so there is of course dissipation in this circuit so it is under 100%
efficient - YET - it is able to feed itself so that it comes up to
synchronization with the free environmental input.

Transistors can actually run on voltage and not current but that is a
different topic.

This works because what Tom Bearden says is CORRECT.

The source dipole is not being killed, period, and those that take that
to heart can get the same results in many different applications. The
principles that Bearden shares can be taken to the bank. And these
principles apply even when you get to bigger and bigger scales with
even bigger and bigger results.

Anyway, I'm not arguing with you Farmhand, I respect you and your
contributions highly. I'm just posting what I believe and what I know
to be true.

And for Zooty's slanted logic - I respect The Dude as well, very much
as a matter of fact. But if Darcy took my response as being
against scrutiny, when in fact I believe I have clearly pointed out that
it is the insults to Bearden I have a problem with, I think I ought to
post why and clear it up and for Zooty to tell me the post was
condecending - he seems to be in the camp that wants to ignore
and not focus on the facts and logic I believe I am posting with and
wants to aim everyone's attention at at something else to put focus
on something else that is distracting. That is the politicians way of
dealing with facts - pointing a finger of one hand in one direction while
the other hand is in the pocket thumbing through the next distraction
that they want to pull out.

In any case, I want to bring it back to the topic of this thread and
the posts that have been posted.

It is interesting to me that when someone insults someone else based
on nothing but speculation and denies they are insulting someone
and one more more people defend that person who is stating these
insults yet have an issue with me defending that person who isn't
even here to defend himself, those are the people that I think are the
ones that need to be seriously scrutinized.

When people can't deal with the facts and are incapable of focusing on
any particular issue, they resort to other insults. GB wants to claim this
forum is a front for affiliate programs - it is not but what a detour away
from the issue of him insulting Bearden - insulting me and this forum. And
Zooty can't focus or deal with the facts so he wants to say I'm anal
retentive - I already said that I simply have no tolerance for BS'ers and
when people have attention deficit disorder when it comes to facts and
have to drift off into attacking the person that is putting it to them
straight - in both cases - neither were intellectually honest about what
was posted and what wasn't.

And thinking that because I don't personally know Bearden that
disqualifies my argument that he shouldn't be insulted based on
pure speculation - that goes right to the heart to show what kind of
morals that person is operating on.

I agree - there are those that take credit for other people's work.
I was recently a victim to this. Before putting out my plasma ignition
package, I was putting in video title screen thanking one particular
individual for his own contributions - went to google to search to make
sure I spelled his last name right and come to find out he claimed he
invented my circuit and applied for a patent. When common criminals
stoop to these levels, some people may not be so motivated to want
to share anymore. So maybe those crooks are paid to deter people
from wanting to post anything else because they put a bad taste in
their mouths.

[Aaron]

@Zooty

vZooty - to you and anyone else that has a problem with GB
being gone - that is his choice - he has NOT been banned. I personally
enjoyed his posts when he came here (other threads) - I like the topic and found
his posts stimulating - even up to very recently, one of his references
was pointed out to me by someone I respect and found that very
stimulating as well. Just because people aren't doing cartwheels all over his
posts gloating about his references doesn't mean they aren't paying
attention or aren't understanding his references.

In my personal opinion, he isn't welcome here if he is going to insult
Bearden but he isn't banned and you're not banned either.

I stand by my claim that GB blatantly slammed Bearden by stating he is
either a sell out or a fraud, which is unacceptable and has nothing to do
with scrutiny. It is right there in GB's post. That IF in GB's paragraph
is the equivelant to a retorhical question. That IF was a "rhetorical
condition".

I said the proper use should be SINCE since he qualified in the first
sentence as a fact that Bearden and oil support each other:

if
Show Spelled[if] Show IPA
–conjunction
1.
in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that: Sing if you want to. Stay indoors if it rains. I'll go if you do.
2.
even though: an enthusiastic if small audience.
3.
whether: He asked if I knew spanish.

As a correction - IF can be used without it being a condition without
having to use SINCE - The second definition is EVEN THOUGH - , which
is the obvious usage of IF since GB qualified the fact that Bearden is
supported by oil.

I could care less who thinks this is beating a dead horse or is just
anal retentive - anyone that thinks GB did not blatantly insult Bearden
is not being intellectually honest with themselves. And I think it is
just as wrong for anyone to not have a problem with GB doing so.

[Farmhand]

I think we are all only human and will have indescressions(spelling). Maybe we should all cut each other a bit of slack.

The way I see it it is not the responsibility of anyone to prove anything to anybody. That is kind of impossible anyway, people will believe what they want. People must rely on thier own intuition to explore alternative energy.
And there is nothing wrong with using others idea's, that's what evolution of technology is all about, which come's after the concept. Tesla when not confined by contracts loved to tell and show his stuff. Because he enjoyed his work. A lesson to us all. Passion - Determination - Fulfillment.

Also by showing the work we get idea's and inspirations from others.
I listen to Tom Bearden talk and I hear him making complete sense. I don't see why there needs to be a problem. The oil companies can only controll what people want from them. If we want oil they can control that, if we want solar energy from commercially made solar panels they can control that. Or LPG.
They are in the energy buisness.

I don't care if Tom is funded by an oil company or not because it doesn't affect me. He made sense when I listened to him and I learned a lot by the way he explained the charge carriers and stuff. Thanks Tom.

Cheers

[thedude]

for me it was scrutiny

My distinction between scrutiny and insult is ACCURATE, I showed
The Dude that there is a difference and what it was and that GB
INSULTED Bearden and had NOTHING to do with scrutiny.

What is it with you and some others that seem to be unable to focus
clearly on any particular point that I make and
drift from one point to another? This has been my issue from the
beginning and it repeatedly gets twisted and contorted.

Your arguing the semantics of your debate. I'm not engaging in it with you. You actually do seem to be the only one taking full measure of the "insult".

Make mine scrutiny Aaron. Theres a fine line between total objection and scrutiny. I'm not hear to argue anything other than it makes no sense to tell others what to believe. Kindly suggesting that people are in error in there OPINIONS, and then carrying on, will go much farther to enforce your OPINION.

Arguing continuously and vehemently on matters of opinion will only make bigger divides to occur between the members here.

Aaron, if your unable to state conclusively that Bearden has never hidden any technology from us. Then your argument might be worth championing. I honestly don't think that anyone but Bearden knows this.

We should treat this subject like science, and if we can't, from here on we should make up our own individual minds and quit the debate that no one can prove. Its senseless and destructive. When the owner of a discussion forum tells you your not welcome. What would you do Aaron?

I wish to honour and respect Tom Bearden. Is he really dead? Its a loss if so, no matter how you slice it.

[boguslaw]

Tom Bearden concept of not killing dipole is totally CORRECT. If you do not believe check Ismael Aviso last videos - he is uncovering part of his secret. Though rememebr this is still not overunity - just very efficient use of source which when compared to actual usage show COP>1 of circuit (actually about 130%)

[aljhoa]

Back EMF GAIN - Transistor Vs. Switch

To make this phenomena more clearer lets have a look at the following pictures:

1. On this picture we see a simple setup were we use a transistor as a switch.

2. Now in this picture we still use a transistor but to switch off the transistor, we connect it to the other pole of the battery. This is the principle of the Bedini circuit or my self oscillating resonant circuit. Notice the bulb gets brighter then before when the current is switched off. What has changed? By doing this we have increased the size of the blocking layer of the transistor making it a harder obstacle for the back spike to overcome.

3. And now finally we replace the transistor with a physical switch. Notice the bulb gets even more brighter then before when the current is switched off. What has changed? By doing this we have increased the resistance even more than the blocking capability of the transistor making it a even more harder obstacle for the back spike to overcome.
YouTube - ‪TheGuru2You's Channel‬‏

Free Energy Power Generator
YouTube - ‪Free Energy Power Generator‬‏
On page two of Comments:
"Youtube deleted this video from my channel claiming it has inappropriate content! TheGuru2You"

http://free-energy-info.co.uk/PJKbook.pdf

Al

[dllabarre]

Have you people lost your common sense?

You're arguing over semantics.
Don't forget, English isn't the primary language of everyone here and sometimes the true meaning of what someone is saying gets lost in translation. Some people don't know the correct word to use or sometimes use a word incorrectly or we take the wrong meaning.

Please everyone DROP IT!!!

Let's get back to the Love of searching/testing/finding free energy.

[gravityblock]

Aaron I give up, you win. As for leaving this forum, you'll have to ban me, i'm not going anywhere.

On second thought, I'm not going anywhere either. Peace.

GB

[Aaron]

Tom Bearden

This has nothing to do with semantics. Saying Tom Bearden is either
a sell out or a fraud is not scrutinizing him - that is an insult and
semantics doesn't even apply. It is very black and white and
trying to turn it into anything other than what it is, is completely
disingenuous. Dismissing it as a language barrier issue is ridiculous.
There are many people here that do not speak English as their primary
language but trying to skirt around the issue and claiming that calling
someone a fraud isn't an insult, especially when it is clearly written by
someone that is OBVIOUSLY VERY ADEPT at the English language,
is ridiculous.

Since when is calling someone a fraud, especially when it is not based
on any evidence whatsoever, not an insult - we're getting into 1984
territory where language is being rewritten.

And that isn't even what semantics means. That deals with something having
different meanings. Now if someone wants to argue if a free energy machine
gives free energy because it gets free input from the environment or
someone wants to argue that it is not free because you have to put
something into it to get it going - now THAT would be an example of semantics,
which we have seen discussed here and other places plenty of time.

If anyone wants to believe that insulting someone is scrutinizing them,
they are taking it upon themselves to create a whole new definition for
for that word. I am going by what the actual DEFINED meaning of the
language says and there are definitions for a reason - so we can communicate
and know what things mean in context. I'm not making up definitions out
of convenience to suit my posture on it. The only way it is semantics
is if calling someone a fraud is not an insult and if anyone believes that
is not an insult, I would highly question the ethics behind that kind of
belief.

Darcy, I'm not telling you are error of your OPINION - I'm saying you are in error
stating that an insult is scrutinization - but at least you have admitted
that it is your opinion that GB scrutinized him. What I stated as far as
the definitions however are not my opinion - they are spelled out very
explicitly in the common English dictionary.

Darcy, I cannot say that Tom Bearden has not hidden a technology from
anyone. However, what does that have to do with anything? That doesn't
mean he is a sellout or a fraud.

I have my own projects that I don't share and I have no obligation to.
That doesn't mean I'm controlled by big oil or anyone else for that matter.
I'm entitled to make a living with my own work as anyone else is. Many
people work on these things as a hobby and have another means to earn
income. I walked away from a health food store that I owned that was
very established so I could do what I do now full time. So, this isn't a
hobby for me. Nor is this a hobby for a handful of others that I know.

Why some people think they are automatically entitled to someone else's
work is beyond me. I'm not talking about you - I'm talking about people
that gripe that someone isn't giving out enough when they can't even
appreciate or apply what they have already been given.

I'm sure Tom Bearden probably does know things he can't discuss but
so do a lot of people. There are members here that are bound by
NDA's with the companies they work for. They can't share things that are
under those agreements. Bearden was also a consultant to the Pentagon
he probably has a whole pile of
restrictions that prevents him from discussing all kinds of things.
So perhaps he is simply an honorable man that stands by his oaths.

Also, if Bearden is holding back, it could be for an number of reasons
that probably nobody will ever be able to prove - there isn't even any
evidence and certainly not enough to justify calling him a sell out or
a fraud.

According to Inquorate - a point I brought up but nobody seemed to
want to even explore it is that Inquorate said that only Bedini and Stiffler
has shown any provable overunity devices.

Therefore...

Bearden is aligned with Bedini - Bearden has supported and promoted
Bedini for many, many years - Bedini's technology constitutes an entire
50% of all the verifiable free energy machines that Inquorate knows of.
So seeing that Bearden is promoting someone that has HALF of the known
verifiable free energy technology - would common sense not state that
by virtue of this fact, that Bearden has already qualified himself to be
one of the LEAST suspicious people in this entire field seeing that he is
supporting an entire HALF of the known legitimate free energy devices,
according to Inquorate?

[thedude]

I'm not going to make any more comment with regard to this thread other than it should be closed, because the root of the debate will ultimately resound upon nothing but opinion and little proof.

But that is only MY opinion. lol

Sorry if i managed to fuel the debate Aaron.

Love and light to all the debaters!

[Inquorate]

I've been enjoying the english lessons. Very primary school.

I'll bite. What other devices that are proven >1 are part of the public record? How many of those have been replicated? I ask in genuine earnestness.

As for Bearden, we have covered the facts and there are differing opinions on the interpretation of those facts from individual to individual. That's ok with me.
However as emotions aren't facts perhaps they can be set aside.

[Farmhand]

I've been enjoying the english lessons. Very primary school.

I'll bite. What other devices that are proven >1 are part of the public record? How many of those have been replicated? I ask in genuine earnestness.

As for Bearden, we have covered the facts and there are differing opinions on the interpretation of those facts from individual to individual. That's ok with me.
However as emotions aren't facts perhaps they can be set aside.

How do you define OU ?

Because in an exciter type arrangement the Led's that are being lighted remotely with no wire connection are external to the system and are being lighted by excited energy from the environment, they must be.

The energy that is exciting the Led's never actually go's into or out of the circuit doing the exciting.

We need to have a detailed explanation of how you define OU ? In my opinion an OU device needs to have extra energy actually come into and out of the device that is powered, this energy should be able to be stored or used directly. If extra the energy cannot be stored it is just highly excited energy.

If an exciter qualifies then I have one, but I cannot measure the energy required to light an LED remotely or a "neon" or several neons with no wire's, it may only take an increadibly small amount of power to actually light the LED or neon at HF.

How is it measured ?

Cheers

[Aaron]

over 1.0 cop devices

Now I haven't said there is anything wrong with you believe there are
just two. Just that using that as an example - Bearden is promoting
50% of the real thing from your perspective of what is really overunity.

If you count joules of energy expended on the input and you count
joules of energy in total work done on the output, not including
the free environmental input (definition of cop), then...

Energy Citations Database (ECD) - - Document #20845857
Tokamak fusion reactor has been said have shown overunity by many
credible sources. I believe there are more than one of these reactors
around the world that this has been done in.

Velijko's mechanical oscillator is over 1.0 - many people have replicated
them. Count all the joules of work expended to put into it and calculate
joules of work in mechanical motion done from that input and it is more
than the input.

An average 40 gram super ball raised to a meter and dropped will
exhibit a COP of over 7.0. Anyone can verify this. Take a rubber ball
and weight it - simple math says how many joules are expended to lift
it to a certain height - and let go, add up the height of the initial
lift + every successive bounce and see how many joules of energy are
required to lift that weight to the total height that the ball bounced and
it is more joules of energy than was input on the initial lift. Anyone that
says it isn't over 1.0 because the ball doesn't bounce higher each time
is clueless as to what input joules compared to output joules means.
Anyone with any degree of honesty can do this experiment. It is over
1.0 cop by the 2nd to 3rd bounce. Joules of work is joules of work and
if there are more joules in work exerted than what was required to lift
the ball to begin with, that is over 1.0 cop. If you can get a coil to
bounce on one side of the 0 line like a ball does on the floor, you'd have
something interesting - perhaps biasing a coil's bloch wall in one direction
does something along these lines

The Ainslie circuits - I spent thousands of hours on countless experiments
on all kinds of variations with that and Glen did even more. We were NOT
given all the information in the beginning and that was a complete farce.
However the circuit does have merit. I got cop 2.0 as a fairly standard
result - but of course the skeptics will blame it on the peukert effect or
something. But the peukert effect in the battery on a low draw does NOT
explain the same heat for less measurable energy going in.
Glen got better I believe. But the most interesting to me
is that while the timer circuit was dissipating energy (warming up),
with my own mods, that I disclosed 100%, the mosfet and resistor side
of the circuit cooled up to 2 degrees Celsius below the ambient temperature
of the room, which is a different thing altogether and is serious reverse
entropy.
Anyway, both Glen and I did replicate over 1.0 with a lot of data to back
it - we didn't come close to cop 17.0 like Ainslie claimed but over 1.0
is over 1.0.

That self running oscillator I showed is over 1.0 cop - those aren't tiny
little filter or flash caps, those are big 33,000 microfarads that fill
themselves up while running the circuit simultaneously. It isn't a practical
device demonstrates a self-ordering process indisputably. There are
no replications - I don't want people to waste time on something that
has no practical use but I have plenty of witnesses that have seen it
do what I show in the videos.

Jeff Wilson's Tesla switch has a verifiable over 1.0. It even ran throughout
the entire conference last October and kept itself charged up while
powering a load. Those batteries aren't showing just a voltage charge,
their actually charged to capacity. Many people analyzed this at the
conference as it was right there in the open.

Bedini's Big Wheel ran in front of hundreds of people powering a giant
wheel the entire time and the batteries remained virtually untouched.
It produced a LOT of mechanical work and kept itself charged up. Everyone
was allowed to analyze it up close to see how it was put together -
I don't believe anyone successfully replicated because they didn't apply
the exact directions that he has stated in the forum.

There are more, these are the most blatant examples in my opinion from
most things posted in the forum.

[Aaron]

note

I intentionally left out Stiffler's work and Bedini's SG circuits - the
big wheel one is not the same as an SG circuit.

[sucahyo]

I don't care who paid Bearden. What I see is wether Bearden help me learn the reality or not.

I am convince that electronic based implementation of "free energy" require current, to destroy dipole no matter how small, and may possibly require decent amount of current to show the magic. The magic is what being captured at output. Destroy the source dipole, but gaining on destination dipole rebuilding.

Zero current can not move motor, can not power coil, can not produce impulse, and it is impossible to do in solid state. Zero current is not needed and is not how to do it.

You have to destroy the dipole to get more energy. The key is how to get more output to compensate.