Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 514775
  • *Total Topics: 15317
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims  (Read 197779 times)

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1350 on: July 17, 2019, 07:16:02 PM »
Yeah, but was any of it really JB's?  ::)

Nah, don't need to cos Rick said so. Got all JB's stuff.  8) ;D

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1350 on: July 17, 2019, 07:16:02 PM »

Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1351 on: July 17, 2019, 07:34:39 PM »
H,
This is not what I am saying. Efficiency of a motor is not the same as unity. You have your circuit loop with the motor in the circle requiring so much energy from the input. It is outputting so much work over time as a result. The work resulting is compared with the input given and that is where you have the understanding of COP. Ratings of some of these motors in sometimes given as 96% around so that really isn't much to worry about. If we had 80% efficient motors then that would be more of an issue in these considerations. But practically speaking, if it takes a certain amount of energy over time to do a certain amount of actual work, then if I have 1.5 times the work done (or specifically 1.5 times the total work done--which would include the losses on the primary side of the system--so heat production as included). 1.5 is just an arbitrary figure to make it more obvious than 1.01 would be.

How are you measuring work done?

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1352 on: July 17, 2019, 08:47:01 PM »
Usual ways. But I consider all types of work, not merely electrical. Here is what I just wrote at OUR along those lines however. It is just one paragraph of what I wrote:

"Yes there are different kinds of loads that are more or less appropriate. Any of the bigger LED bulbs have capacitors that can be measured and easily calculated. So once a proper filter like that really smooths out the output to a constant current condition, that is the only place where you can properly measure power. Because power meters will never accurately measure or predict the energy of an impulse because impulse is entirely different than constant current and is nonconservative and results in gains when there is a suitable collector/load. So this is why metering is conditional as to where you place the meter. If your load is directly impulsed then the meter reading will not match the total work that can be done. That is an interesting observation which we have shown countless engineers with their very meters--even when they have the best meters in the world. So scientists would rather measure a constant current loop, and that is what I have been saying. You can monitor the input power, and any and all final loops with loads when they are constant current. But to measure elsewhere in addition will only show that power meter measurements do not reveal actual energy flows and that they can't predict the amount of work that can be done. This is absolutely critical to understand and that is why so many have failed in this research. They just assume that the power measurements are always indicative of output possibilities. But power measurements are only good for a closed loop to indicate how fast you are killing the associated source charge. And yet a power meter can measure some power on a completely open system that does not discharge the source charge, so that is another thing to deal with. The point is that you just need to properly evaluate what actual work is being done in the real world without depending exclusively on power meters. It is just one circular argument because it needs to be proved that such meters are absolutely authoritative in that way. If they are so assumed, as so many do, then naturally this whole forum is a waste of time. So the first principles of free energy research are the associated ideas that distinguish constant current, closed looped, linear and nonlinear resistive processes from impulse or resonance open nonlinear reactive systems. These are fundamentally different even though we do what Kron's lifelong search resulted in, that the two are done together. The environmental inputs are not measurable as they are directly from the aether. As such they will never be acceptable even if you have later outputs after such processes that are measurable gains. I hope you understand this. I have never advocated a no meter testing, but metering has to be more carefully understood in this context. We can always run loads directly and consider the work done. In that case the load itself is a negative resistor where the energy converges into the load. Or we can take that load and loop it with a resistive load in a constant current loop to satisfy the need for metering. Without making that distinction then you fail to understand OU claims and systems. So even if metering shows no or little reading to a negative resistor, it can be helpful to show everyone that it is a limited tool that can only be used under a special case condition (even if that is what people are only used to)."

How are you measuring work done?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1352 on: July 17, 2019, 08:47:01 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MoFo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1353 on: July 18, 2019, 01:34:14 AM »

Because power meters will never accurately measure or predict the energy of an impulse because impulse is entirely different than constant current and is nonconservative and results in gains when there is a suitable collector/load.


I am convinced  ;)

Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1354 on: July 18, 2019, 09:42:56 AM »
Rick,
Thanks for your reply but how do you measure work done. For example how did you determine that your big electric boat was running OU and what instrumentation did you use?

What is your opinion on the use of oscilloscopes for measuring pulsed and complex waveforms?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1354 on: July 18, 2019, 09:42:56 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1355 on: July 18, 2019, 10:20:27 AM »
C'mon this thread is going nowhere.
Here is what you guys should concentrate :1. Can we use resonant circuit like Tesla did to impress as much power on antenna ?2. Can the power radiated from antenna be larger then the input power to the tank circuit ?3. Can the antenna be loaded with resistive load ?4. Can the antenna output be directed to that resistive load and converted to work ?The end is the radio transmitter with the output converted to heat for example !

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1356 on: July 18, 2019, 07:28:15 PM »
Well I wrote out a response but when I tried to upload a picture it deleted my post. So I'll just say, reread what I wrote already. I use meters like everyone else. On the boat, etc. I'll post boat details on the new website showing that I first did my forklift motor from my Honda EV conversion where I installed it and ran it with the Curtis controller at max 350A @ 132V golf cart batteries to maintain 7MPH, then replaced that with my system, yes another window motor on the water AG. I never ran it more than 24V off the same batteries, and at 50A I was driving it around 5MPH. It was a 10,000 pound 1979 boat. Always had meters on it, and just rotated it around. Didn't do anything special to show everyone that even the basic system was practical. So on efficiency I was doing much better than regular systems. No power consumption I had zero for three years. Also for a few years before that when it was in the rider lawnmower.

I use oscopes for many reasons and measuring complex waveforms results in complex discussions. That's my opinion. I have already answered the limitations of trying to measure non-existent current processes to try and conclude nothing substantial is happening. The scope and probe become their own loop in a circular argument of sorts. However, limited measurements can be made and software can and does predict nonlinear reactive processes. So once you learn that you can create endless free energy systems...

Rick,
Thanks for your reply but how do you measure work done. For example how did you determine that your big electric boat was running OU and what instrumentation did you use?

What is your opinion on the use of oscilloscopes for measuring pulsed and complex waveforms?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2019, 10:21:48 PM by rickfriedrich »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1356 on: July 18, 2019, 07:28:15 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1357 on: July 18, 2019, 07:58:09 PM »
That's right, but you don't have to do such an involved system to experience OU. You guys just latched on to this and missed the intention of my kit because you were just guessing about it.

So if you are going to do a circuit like Tesla did, then you have to actually read Tesla and do what he did. I don't see that hardly at all. You are going to have to not miss one detail from his lectures and patents. There is little evidence that people are paying attention to his details. Those details are part of the principles of free energy. Tesla said certain things were a must while most people ignore such comments and make something different. For example, do they just have a spark gap without going to the meticulous detail of perfecting it with proper magnetic quenching? Why is that important, isn't just a matter of pulsing? No, Tesla emphatically taught on the importance of a fast rate of change and that the faster the better. This is a principle mostly ignored. While cutting short the arc is more efficient, he is not so concerned with that as much as who the gains are from the fastest rates of change. He gave a lot of detail along those lines and that was fundamental to understanding his one wire system and even the so-called Hairpin circuit.

So you can't even begin to do Tesla without understanding what he was doing and why the details mattered. I'm not directing this at you Forest in saying all this, just speaking in general. We are looking for a very sharp impulse. Secondly, a resonance circuit properly done. Thirdly with proper grounding, and understanding fully what that means. Fourthly, proper L1 L2 relationships. Fifthly quarter wavelengths. Now read the details, sometimes only said once, and you can expect the same results. This will actually show you not to do the power transmission system he patented. It will just take you back to an easier way to experience OU. Follow what he said about one wire systems and the fast rate of impulsing and you will get what you are looking for without needing wireless. This I have long said and demonstrated for years.

As for radio systems you want a loosely coupled L1/L2 where the secondary is independent of the primary. You only want a situation where the primary is not affected by the secondary(s). This is the same as the Don Smith Effect where the primary side of the capacitor is not affected or dampened by the secondary side. So it is unlike a phase lock loop tesla coil that tracks the secondary and adjusts the primary. Or at least any L3 coil from that point on is not hard linked to the L2/L1 system. What you are after is what I mentioned the other day, and it is not what people are looking for. This is why I set up my kit to help people learn this on a very small scale. So when you do this, this results, but when you do that, something different happens. Itsu was starting to see some of that. There is a lot more going on in the near field then people realize. But ultimately you won't be fooling around with satellite coils (well that is not true as the whole world is rapidly moving in that way with rectenna tech taking over soon) but will be doing Tesla L1/L2 coils which will multiply the energy. You just have to learn the difference between the two different types of coupling while never loading down the primary...

C'mon this thread is going nowhere.
Here is what you guys should concentrate :1. Can we use resonant circuit like Tesla did to impress as much power on antenna ?2. Can the power radiated from antenna be larger then the input power to the tank circuit ?3. Can the antenna be loaded with resistive load ?4. Can the antenna output be directed to that resistive load and converted to work ?The end is the radio transmitter with the output converted to heat for example !

Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1358 on: July 18, 2019, 08:08:38 PM »
Well I wrote out a response but when I tried to upload a picture it deleted my post. So I'll just say, reread what I wrote already. I use meters like everyone else. On the boat, etc. I'll post boat details on the new website showing that I first did my forklift motor from my Honda EV conversion where I installed it and ran it with the Curtis controller at max 350A @ 132V golf cart batteries to maintain 7MPH, then replaced that with my system, yes another window motor on the water AG. I never ran it more than 24V off the same batteries, and at 50A I was driving it around 5MPH. It was a 10,000 pound 1979 boat. Always had meters on it, and just rotated it around. Didn't do anything special to show everyone that even the basic system was practical. So on efficiency I was doing much better than regular systems. On power consumption I had zero for three years. Also for a few years before that when it was in the rider lawnmower.

I use oscopes for many reasons and measuring complex waveforms results in complex discussions. That's my opinion. I have already answered the limitations of trying to measure non-existent current processes to try and conclude nothing substantial is happening. The scope and probe become their own loop in a circular argument of sorts. However, limited measurements can be made and software can and does predict nonlinear reactive processes. So once you learn that you can create endless free energy systems...
Thanks Rick. Just two more questions please and I'll leave you in peace:-
Do have a record of the total sailing time over the three years?
Did you ever top up the battery bank(s) and if so, how frequently?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1358 on: July 18, 2019, 08:08:38 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1359 on: July 18, 2019, 08:37:19 PM »
No.
"No power consumption I had zero for three years."
[Must be too tired to notice, I had typed "On" instead of "No". Then I had the nerve to quote it as it has said "No".  :o ]

Thanks Rick. Just two more questions please and I'll leave you in peace:-
Do have a record of the total sailing time over the three years?
Did you ever top up the battery bank(s) and if so, how frequently?

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4005
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1360 on: July 19, 2019, 12:52:11 AM »
Rick,

I return to the gain at resonance question. You wrote https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536614/#msg536614 this:

Quote
"G, I guess the first point to make is that the question of when and where am I referring to gain. What you are doing in in all of this is referring to an unloaded tank circuit. Obviously gain is when something is actually being used as such. Now there is real potential and that is real energy even though you guys only consider power measurements as real. Now you can talk all you want about the phase angle, which I said is important, but that capacitor is charging up to the voltage across it and so is the inductor. It is not transmitting a 9V output as it does when out of resonance. The gain is seen in the total environmental effect. That was one of my points where you can see that there is real gain in a tank circuit, and that is why it is called multiplication and amplification. You can measure the radiation differences and see for yourself if you know how to do that."

Because you did not consider important details I gave on the real explanation on voltage gain in series LC circuits involved in your setup, I repeat it here.

"In my answer #1130 I gave to Nick I described why the use of a gate driver enhances the resonant voltage and current:

...the output pin of the IC has a much lower output impedance (around 1 Ohm) versus the 50 Ohm output of the function generator so the same 10 V output from the IC is able to drive a higher current into the series LC TX circuit. The 50 Ohm of the FG simply limits the maximum current in the LC circuit the same 10 volt would drive into the series  LC circuit, compared to the 1 Ohm of the gate driver IC. "

Rick, this is a physical and measurable fact: a much higher coil current is pumped into the series LC circuit at resonance from the gate driver than from the function generator (at the same output voltage levels), this is as simple as that. 
No disruptive discharge happens. Notice that a function generator is able to provide square waves with fast rise and fall times, comparable to that of a gate driver, just study the specs of your FG. The gate driver can of course be faster than the FG because at resonance it pumps current into resistance and not reactance, the latter always slows down switching speed.  For FGs you can find 40-50 ns rise and fall times or lower (depends on the make), for gate drivers this can be 20-30 ns or even less, also depends on the type. 

Regarding your sentence "It (i.e. the coil) is not transmitting a 9V output as it does when out of resonance." 
I agree with this but the question is why that happens?  Well, it is obvious: the coil current dramatically decreases in a series LC circuit when it is out of resonance. In the out of resonance state the AC impedance of a series LC circuit goes up to the several kOhm range and higher, so the driver IC can pump much less current into a high impedance. So it is obvious that there is a radiation difference between the resonant high coil current and the off tuned low coil current cases. 

I agree that power is not = to energy. I did not write or imply that, so why mention it to me?

However, if you write voltage is energy, then it is your unique science I disagree with. 

It is interesting that you have not stated that current is also energy.  For it is the current that creates magnetic field around a coil afterall... but 'conventional' science does not state that current is energy either.

So, the stronger EM field around the coil of a series LC circuit is created by the much higher current at resonance versus the field at off resonance. And the stronger EM field can only contain and represent the equivalent of your 0.75 W or so DC input or whatever other DC input involved. 
The gate driver does a much better impedance mathing needed for efficiently driving the low impedance series LC circuit, the 50 Ohm output of an FG (or any resistance you insert into the series LC circuit) can only ruin the matching.
Gyula

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1360 on: July 19, 2019, 12:52:11 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1361 on: July 19, 2019, 05:17:04 AM »
Gyulasun,
I can see you worked hard on this one. Nice job!  8) Almost everything you write here is out of context or just a basic level understanding of how all this work. You are arguing right out of the book and not from real world experience. You, through Itsu, may have a setup doing one thing, but it isn't what I am doing. You can do all that in college and limit yourself to one set of relationships. Then you can argue in a circle within the circle you have drawn for yourself to only experience. But I have stepped outside of that Lorentz truncated circle and find more to the story. I actually start with the fact that I have measurable 8W with a limited number of coils. I don't need to do any gymnastics to deny that and have 3/4W input. That is was just what happened without any tuning and rushing a video. If it is zero or negative then what? Obviously your explanation is mistaken if you just consider the results. You have to start with the results and work your way backwards. Again, you argue merely in a circle to perpetuate an conservative dogma. How do you hope to realize your hope of a circuit producing any gains if you argue thus? This is why I said that was just misleading hype. We all know the mainstream theories here Gyulasun. The point of being here is to expand our minds beyond that when we see contradictory results like these and then consider what is really happening in the tank, and external to it. Consider what Barrett said and proved with real evidence. Consider what he also wrote in 1991 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305636853_Tesla's_nonlinear_oscillator-shuttle-circuit_OSC_theory_compared_with_linear_nonlinear-feedback_and_nonlinear-element_electrical_engineering_circuit_theory
This also shows you the difference in relation to Tesla. What you are fixated on inside your circle is a single body symmetry that has fixed relations and you suppose it can have no extra influence on other bodies. But that just isn't the case in a resonant tank is it? And in my case is it obvious that I can add more and more coils (about 500) without raising the input or lowering the other outputs (if properly positioned). So now I add 45 more big coils and bulbs at 1/2W each (30W total), with 440 small coils and bulbs (26W) and I'm just getting started, because the input has gone down more and I haven't even done the full tuning.

The point is that I can't make your hand move coils around and force you to see what you don't want to see because of your circle reasoning. I have tried to provide a different context for you to explore according to your "surely" expect hope. But that doesn't sound like expectation, but rather, it can't be more than conservative. I gave the historical context which most people are long aware of. This includes the financial motivations of Rockefeller via Morgan to keep this from the public. Followed by Tesla's context along these lines. Now I'll quote Benitez to show another example similar to what we are looking at here:

This invention relates to a new utilisation of the high frequency currents or electrical oscillations, by means of which a constant production of electrical energy can be secured, under unusually simple, economic and practical conditions. ...
Therefore it is only question of reversing the connections of said batteries from time to time and to repeat the same procedure, in order to obtain a continuous production of electrical energy. ...
Obviously, if such electric power instead of being stored by said condenser had been simply rectified, and directly applied to the charge of one of the above mentioned batteries, such power would only produce a very small effect on these accumulators, and the whole discharge of the other battery would never cause the complete charge of the second group. On the contrary, if same said power is stored by said condenser 48, and this condenser is properly connected to an oscillatory circuit in which one of said batteries can be joined, and furthermore if by means of a rectifier the high frequency currents produced in such oscillatory circuit are forced to pass from the positive to the negative pole through said battery of accumulators, it is obvious to state that it is always possible to secure by these means, the number of amperes required by said accumulators in order to get them charged in a given time. That is to say, with a small number of coulombs stored by the condenser 48, it is possible to produce on the oscillatory circuit a great number of amperes, if same said small number of coulombs are forced to pass and repass through said circuit, thousands or millions of times per second, just as was explained with the water analogy." Carlos F. Benitez, 1918 British Patent 121,561 New Process for the Generation of Electrical Energy.

Was Tesla, Benitez, Smith, Rick all lying to everyone about the real amplification of a tank circuit output? You many not realize how to do that, but can you say his testimony is a lie? I have demonstrated several years ago an earlier Benitez system that is easy for everyone to do. It is very similar, and the oscillations can be seen in your oscilloscope, as well as the fact that the batteries can be rotated. Benitez is verified as accurate. It is interesting that the skeptics never go after his patents and almost everyone but Peter and me have ignored him. Now the Resonance kit is a model of this last patent that is quoted above and does the same things. If what you said was true there would be no gain from a nonresonance condition to a resonance. Obviously there is a gain in resonance. Just ask any musician and they will laugh till they roll on the ground if you say no.

Now we do the Benitez system above, to a lesser degree, in chapter 2 with one wire system. But the same thing applies with wireless. And we can do the wireless in addition to this above patent. According to you, the tank would only output to the battery what would be output without the tank, because resonance is not a gain at all. 1,250,000 cycles per second of 1300V is not doing anything more than 12V@60ma would do. Of course resonance is just for tuning into radio stations, and music is flat. But with the wireless we are doing something else still.

If I have any radiation detector I can see what the inductor radiates in and out of resonance. In fact the difference of input is minimal in or out of resonance, but the radiation is phenomenally different. The way you word things contradicts that. You have an art in not finishing the context so that the reader gets the opposite impression. Sure you don't actually say it, but the way you argue implies it (otherwise there is no point in saying any of it). Or maybe this is just all a test to see if anyone is paying attention. The input does not change substantially, or proportionately to the radiation and voltage between in and out of resonance. This is a nonconservative relationship, obviously. Now if I was ringing the bell instead of a forced oscillation then that would be even more obvious. But again, all we have to do is compare the input with the output and see what the difference is: Input is about the same in or out of resonance, yet output massively different. hmmm, about the differences between 9V and 1300V. There's that 144 times the difference, and is what we see in radiation difference. Sounds like confirmation to me. Electrical resonance is just as much of a gain as piano resonance is no matter if you can't tune a string, or measure with a meter, or position with a coil. It is experimentally observable just as with a piano. You agree with the radiation difference, but you deliberately leave out the most obvious detail (which is implied by other things you say elsewhere) that the input does not correspondingly change to be 144 times different.

So all your reasoning is a bunch of hoopla. And it becomes merely a prestige jargon fallacy for those who do not understand these things. It took some time to craft those words. I don't have time to do this with the rest. Everyone can see again that you just have to consider the input and output in and out of resonance without understanding much else. You see that is what I am about. Not talking over people's heads. I show them the real world and use words they can clearly understand. I fill out the context and walk with them till they get it. Maybe irritated by that, but they hug me in the end.  ;D You have just argued in a circle quoting the text book against your hope of more, have been special pleading to pick out whatever Itsu does one time and conclude on that, and have deliberately left out obvious facts that completely change everything. All this with mild prestige jargon so that those that don't understand just get discouraged, those that do don't pay attention to the details and just commit confirmation bias by the crafty missing context left out (the mind automatically concludes in the silence that the input must change). Well done! This is why I say this is mostly psychological.

Again, if you had shared this on electroboom's youtube channel or on a regular electronics forum, I would understand your insistence upon textbook circular quotation. But there has to be more than one person here on this forum that actually believes in OU and is willing to try these things out? Some of you guys claim to have OU, unless that was just a game as well. Does everyone here agree to believe what the textbooks tell you?

I suggest then you move up to Barrett's textbook then. If you are looking for mathematical justification he will open your mind. If you are looking for evidence and application of the same, he is also your man. He points you right back to the beginning, and then also to Tesla.

Rick,

I return to the gain at resonance question. You wrote https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536614/#msg536614 this:

Because you did not consider important details I gave on the real explanation on voltage gain in series LC circuits involved in your setup, I repeat it here.

"In my answer #1130 I gave to Nick I described why the use of a gate driver enhances the resonant voltage and current:

...the output pin of the IC has a much lower output impedance (around 1 Ohm) versus the 50 Ohm output of the function generator so the same 10 V output from the IC is able to drive a higher current into the series LC TX circuit. The 50 Ohm of the FG simply limits the maximum current in the LC circuit the same 10 volt would drive into the series  LC circuit, compared to the 1 Ohm of the gate driver IC. "

Rick, this is a physical and measurable fact: a much higher coil current is pumped into the series LC circuit at resonance from the gate driver than from the function generator (at the same output voltage levels), this is as simple as that. 
No disruptive discharge happens. Notice that a function generator is able to provide square waves with fast rise and fall times, comparable to that of a gate driver, just study the specs of your FG. The gate driver can of course be faster than the FG because at resonance it pumps current into resistance and not reactance, the latter always slows down switching speed.  For FGs you can find 40-50 ns rise and fall times or lower (depends on the make), for gate drivers this can be 20-30 ns or even less, also depends on the type. 

Regarding your sentence "It (i.e. the coil) is not transmitting a 9V output as it does when out of resonance." 
I agree with this but the question is why that happens?  Well, it is obvious: the coil current dramatically decreases in a series LC circuit when it is out of resonance. In the out of resonance state the AC impedance of a series LC circuit goes up to the several kOhm range and higher, so the driver IC can pump much less current into a high impedance. So it is obvious that there is a radiation difference between the resonant high coil current and the off tuned low coil current cases.  [Rick adds: what about the full context you purposely leave out so your readers are mislead?]

I agree that power is not = to energy. I did not write or imply that, so why mention it to me?

However, if you write voltage is energy, then it is your unique science I disagree with. 

It is interesting that you have not stated that current is also energy.  For it is the current that creates magnetic field around a coil afterall... but 'conventional' science does not state that current is energy either.

So, the stronger EM field around the coil of a series LC circuit is created by the much higher current at resonance versus the field at off resonance. And the stronger EM field can only contain and represent the equivalent of your 0.75 W or so DC input or whatever other DC input involved. 
The gate driver does a much better impedance mathing needed for efficiently driving the low impedance series LC circuit, the 50 Ohm output of an FG (or any resistance you insert into the series LC circuit) can only ruin the matching.
Gyula

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1362 on: July 19, 2019, 08:29:39 AM »
Gyulasun,
I'm still bothered by this post in another point I didn't mention. All this talk about frequency generator is all but an ignoratio elenchi fallacy of missing the point. My post and setup has nothing to do with a frequency generator, so all this comparison with a FG and gate driver was meaningless different subject. I have many FG's and I understand how they work and all the details. It's a bit condescending don't you think, to keep trying to educate me as if you assume I don't know anything. This is rather foolish when you then make such major blunders. So comparing the impedance matching of FG to gate drivers may relate to someone else but not me. I have shown that the fast rate of change results in higher outputs with both my motors and this kit. This is exactly what Tesla said and demonstrated. Obviously you don't believe either of us. Remember, I used the metered power supply to run either of these, and see how using the FG with the same power gives lower results, like producing 250V with 9V input. But when I add the gate driver I get 1300V with the same input approximately. This has a faster rate of change. I only say all this because these are the parts in the kits. I also have other drivers down to 4ns and lower that I don't talk about. But one of my students came to the last meeting with a bag of such parts blown out and a sad puppy dog look as he shared with us how he blew up these expensive parts. But not without first seeing incredible results. Yes, so faster rate of change means more gains. It depends on the parts. His were still higher resistance than mine so there was heat. You have to look at the resistance to speed ratio and decide. The ideal parts are not on the regular supplier websites, like most of the good stuff.

Anyway, you don't acknowledge any gains in impulse and rate of change as determining the amount of gains, as well as oscillating energy as a gain, with higher Q and higher CPS as determining the amount of gains. So I suggest get to the bench and begin testing some time. All this talk about FG has nothing to do with what the benefit of the gate driver really is. You compared the FG with the gate driver when I was comparing running the gate driver when the tank was out of resonance and when it was in resonance. Both were close in input amperage (voltage always the same). 

Like I wrote last, this whole post was half mistaken and the other half out of context. But if someone just breezed through it they may assume that it sounded authoritative. But this shows us more than every that you have no clue about these things, are purposely missing the point, diverting from the point as if you are addressing it, circle reasoning by merely putting your claim in your conclusion, and failing to complete the a point in a context so that it sounds like you were making a point when none was made. I had to read over this many times because I didn't expect that from you. The missing point was that the input was about the same when the tank was in or out of resonance. And that was my point from the very beginning that you wouldn't address. You can't accept that oscillatory energy is a gain as Benitez wrote and made a whole system exactly 100 years ago on. We found out that he also was in France and wrote two of these there as well. Why would he do that if it didn't produce gains? Do you really think he would have made all of those patents in two countries when it didn't work?

One more  point is that I showed in the video that the added grounding changed the output even more. The input did not increase as well.

Rick,

I return to the gain at resonance question. You wrote https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536614/#msg536614 this:

Because you did not consider important details I gave on the real explanation on voltage gain in series LC circuits involved in your setup, I repeat it here.

"In my answer #1130 I gave to Nick I described why the use of a gate driver enhances the resonant voltage and current:

...the output pin of the IC has a much lower output impedance (around 1 Ohm) versus the 50 Ohm output of the function generator so the same 10 V output from the IC is able to drive a higher current into the series LC TX circuit. The 50 Ohm of the FG simply limits the maximum current in the LC circuit the same 10 volt would drive into the series  LC circuit, compared to the 1 Ohm of the gate driver IC. "

Rick, this is a physical and measurable fact: a much higher coil current is pumped into the series LC circuit at resonance from the gate driver than from the function generator (at the same output voltage levels), this is as simple as that. 
No disruptive discharge happens. Notice that a function generator is able to provide square waves with fast rise and fall times, comparable to that of a gate driver, just study the specs of your FG. The gate driver can of course be faster than the FG because at resonance it pumps current into resistance and not reactance, the latter always slows down switching speed.  For FGs you can find 40-50 ns rise and fall times or lower (depends on the make), for gate drivers this can be 20-30 ns or even less, also depends on the type. 

Regarding your sentence "It (i.e. the coil) is not transmitting a 9V output as it does when out of resonance." 
I agree with this but the question is why that happens?  Well, it is obvious: the coil current dramatically decreases in a series LC circuit when it is out of resonance. In the out of resonance state the AC impedance of a series LC circuit goes up to the several kOhm range and higher, so the driver IC can pump much less current into a high impedance. So it is obvious that there is a radiation difference between the resonant high coil current and the off tuned low coil current cases. 

I agree that power is not = to energy. I did not write or imply that, so why mention it to me?

However, if you write voltage is energy, then it is your unique science I disagree with. 

It is interesting that you have not stated that current is also energy.  For it is the current that creates magnetic field around a coil afterall... but 'conventional' science does not state that current is energy either.

So, the stronger EM field around the coil of a series LC circuit is created by the much higher current at resonance versus the field at off resonance. And the stronger EM field can only contain and represent the equivalent of your 0.75 W or so DC input or whatever other DC input involved. 
The gate driver does a much better impedance mathing needed for efficiently driving the low impedance series LC circuit, the 50 Ohm output of an FG (or any resistance you insert into the series LC circuit) can only ruin the matching.
Gyula

Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1363 on: July 19, 2019, 10:11:03 AM »

If I have any radiation detector I can see what the inductor radiates in and out of resonance. In fact the difference of input is minimal in or out of resonance, but the radiation is phenomenally different. The way you word things contradicts that. You have an art in not finishing the context so that the reader gets the opposite impression. Sure you don't actually say it, but the way you argue implies it (otherwise there is no point in saying any of it). Or maybe this is just all a test to see if anyone is paying attention. The input does not change substantially, or proportionately to the radiation and voltage between in and out of resonance. This is a nonconservative relationship, obviously. Now if I was ringing the bell instead of a forced oscillation then that would be even more obvious. But again, all we have to do is compare the input with the output and see what the difference is: Input is about the same in or out of resonance, yet output massively different. hmmm, about the differences between 9V and 1300V. There's that 144 times the difference, and is what we see in radiation difference. Sounds like confirmation to me. Electrical resonance is just as much of a gain as piano resonance is no matter if you can't tune a string, or measure with a meter, or position with a coil. It is experimentally observable just as with a piano. You agree with the radiation difference, but you deliberately leave out the most obvious detail (which is implied by other things you say elsewhere) that the input does not correspondingly change to be 144 times different.

You appear to ignore the factor of 'time' in your rationalisation of resonance. Yes, of course there is a big difference between 9V and 1300V but most importantly what is the relationship between input to output energy levels. Time is an essential factor in energy calculation! That is why I asked you if you had recorded the full duration of your actual sailing time over the three years you quoted. You answered 'no' to this question, which tells me that you are missing one of the most important bits of data in order to seriously claim that your boat was running efficiently, let alone OU. Its also why I asked you about your view on the use of oscilloscopes as measuring instruments. In electrical terms, work done is inextricably related to time.

Offline MoFo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1364 on: July 19, 2019, 11:02:06 AM »
You guys are kidding yourselves, resonance is the shuffling of a specific quantity, nothing more.

take 30ml of water, in a closed pipe, arrange on a pendulum, the water moves to one end, the pendulum moves, as does the water, the same 30ml of water returns: Zero Zeta, no resistance.

Time to wake up nubes, I am a Paid Debunker

 

OneLink