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: 514297
  • *Total Topics: 15303
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 7
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 20

Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims  (Read 190774 times)

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1410 on: July 20, 2019, 08:19:17 PM »
Mario,
I am thinking about putting together a collection of many pictures and videos of the boat that I have not shown online. Kind of like people do on EValbum where I showed my Porsche EV conversion. I found some old files and will see what I can do. The big 1979 26' Reinell EV conversions (as I did two different motors to compare) evolved from the rider lawnmower. I started with a huge monopole model and later used the other motor that was more suitable for vehicles. Then I added two more 60 pound coils to it and put it in the old boat after I had first tested it with my forklift motor I had in the EV Honda. I later made a smaller commercial model of the motor and ran that on other boats... The idea of doing boats came from two different customers who had bought parts from me and made their own very large motors (bigger than mine) that they had on their big sale boats as their only electrical supply and means of moving when there was no wind. These guys travelled around the world and I would ship one of them parts here and there as they needed them.

I have usually used the cap dump when I have rotated the batteries around like that, unless I add something else to the front end.  In the first lawnmower I used 5 very big paralleled caps. I'll have to check (as I still have them) but I believe around 80,000 uf and at least 100V. I had a very big SCR, which I still have as well. But usually I used higher voltage, at least 450V for my setups, and tried to have flash or fast switching. After the first motor I used higher voltage.

Hi Rick,
if I may ask, with the setup on your boat (or similar setups you've used), did you charge the batteries straight negatively with conversion on the input side of circuit or did you charge the batteries with cap dump. If cap dump, at how many volts did you dump the cap?
thanks,
Mario

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1410 on: July 20, 2019, 08:19:17 PM »

Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2371
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1411 on: July 20, 2019, 08:26:20 PM »
For people with maybe not so much experience in 'over unity' experimentation,
I will try to explain and demonstrate here in a simple and straightforward way why just
looking at the brightness of bulbs (LED or otherwise) can't tell you anything too meaningful
or definite about how a circuit is really performing.

A picture was posted here of Rick F. lighting what looks like about 11 or 12 LED bulbs (I think
they were stated as being LED bulbs) and the stated input power to his setup was 0.864 Watts.
It was implied that lighting 11 or 12 of those bulbs fairly brightly at less than 1 Watt input power
was something that should be considered quite impressive and an indication of possible over unity (OU).

Please see the three attached photos.
Photo 01:  Picture of Rick F. lighting what looks like about 11 or 12 bulbs at a stated 0.864 Watts = 864 mW input power.

Photo 02:  My comparison of lighting a single LED bulb quite brightly.
Can you tell how much power this bulb is consuming from just looking at how bright it is? Of course you can't.
I had spots in front of my eyes from looking at this bulb when I was setting it up to take a photo of it. :)
It was very bright when looking at it directly.

Photo 03:  Measurement of the power consumption of my single LED bulb.
3 Volts x .02 Amps = 0.06 Watts = 60 mW

If I were to light 14 of my LED bulbs at the same time, the total power consumption of my setup would be:
14 x 60 mW = 0.840 Watts =  840 mW

I hope this simple comparison test clarifies why people are (and should be) quite skeptical of any type of circuit
arrangement supposedly being over unity without proper measurements being shown.
Don't be fooled by any max or 'equivalent' power ratings which may be specified for a given LED bulb.
Those numbers can be quite misleading.

What matters is the actual power consumption of each LED bulb being lighted while connected in the circuit setup.
You can only determine that by doing proper measurements. My rough comparison test shown in the photos below
seems to indicate that Rick's results shown in that photo do not appear to be anything too unusual,
and only if proper measurements are taken could the actual efficiency of the setup be determined with any degree of certainty.

Hope this clarifies some things. :)


Offline popolibero

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1412 on: July 20, 2019, 08:38:25 PM »

Rick,


where these the voltage ratings of the caps or did you actually dump 100 or even 450V into the battery?!! I thought batteries get ruined with such high voltage dumps,


Mario


Mario,
I am thinking about putting together a collection of many pictures and videos of the boat that I have not shown online. Kind of like people do on EValbum where I showed my Porsche EV conversion. I found some old files and will see what I can do. The big 1979 26' Reinell EV conversions (as I did two different motors to compare) evolved from the rider lawnmower. I started with a huge monopole model and later used the other motor that was more suitable for vehicles. Then I added two more 60 pound coils to it and put it in the old boat after I had first tested it with my forklift motor I had in the EV Honda. I later made a smaller commercial model of the motor and ran that on other boats... The idea of doing boats came from two different customers who had bought parts from me and made their own very large motors (bigger than mine) that they had on their big sale boats as their only electrical supply and means of moving when there was no wind. These guys travelled around the world and I would ship one of them parts here and there as they needed them.

I have usually used the cap dump when I have rotated the batteries around like that, unless I add something else to the front end.  In the first lawnmower I used 5 very big paralleled caps. I'll have to check (as I still have them) but I believe around 80,000 uf and at least 100V. I had a very big SCR, which I still have as well. But usually I used higher voltage, at least 450V for my setups, and tried to have flash or fast switching. After the first motor I used higher voltage.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1412 on: July 20, 2019, 08:38:25 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1413 on: July 20, 2019, 08:39:23 PM »
Brad,
I've been to his home two different times, a long time ago mind you, but he was doing well as far as I could see. How do you know he is broke?

As for these guys being hooked to the grid that is a point to consider. If you have the ability why not use the technology. We tried to get Bedini to at least make an electric bike but all he wanted to do was have gas Harley's and hotrods. He gave the impression to people that he was running the shop with his systems but he never did. Mind you it would have been a big ordeal to get the three phase all done, but there wasn't anything being run at all. In all those years I was the only one that ran his machines now and then, otherwise they were collecting dust. That is why I always tried to show people practical systems actually being used. Now one of the things Bearden said to me while we were walking through his garage was that he wasn't a bench guy and didn't have anything to show me. That was 2005 and I found that strange and assumed he wasn't running his home off of this tech. I didn't get into that subject but rather what would it take for the whole country to be changed over (another subject). I don't know who these guys really were, or what their motivations were for doing what they did, and not using what they had, but we never got what they promised in 1984. They were about teasing the public with mixed information and not about using it. Bedini told me not to do the kits and I thought he was just joking around. He said to just talk and that is enough. I did my own thing and in the end I guess I went too far in what I showed.

Tom is also broke,and still hooked to the grid  ::)
Brad

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1414 on: July 20, 2019, 08:54:20 PM »
The high voltage is not a problem, it is the current. I moved from high uf to low. And you regulate the rate of change impulsing of the cap dump to be gentle enough, but to also allow for the ability to rotate the batteries around.
Regular cap dump pulse chargers ruin batteries over time.

Rick,
where these the voltage ratings of the caps or did you actually dump 100 or even 450V into the battery?!! I thought batteries get ruined with such high voltage dumps,
Mario

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1414 on: July 20, 2019, 08:54:20 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1415 on: July 20, 2019, 09:14:44 PM »
Void,merci beaucoup for the well done measurement and comparison !
I think this is a point where also Itsu get his satisfaction !



Offline popolibero

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1416 on: July 20, 2019, 09:27:09 PM »

Rick, thanks. So are you saying the cap dump turn on time shouldn't be as fast and abrupt as possible? Also, when negatively charging (diode) the additional gain is to be found in the battery. If we use a small cap, even high voltage, where do you think the gain is entering the system, the small cap or the battery, and if the battery, can we still consider it positively charged?
Sorry for these basic questions, but after all the confusion and after many experiments there is still uncertainty, especially after JB and Peter recommended big caps in the latest guide...


Mario

The high voltage is not a problem, it is the current. I moved from high uf to low. And you regulate the rate of change impulsing of the cap dump to be gentle enough, but to also allow for the ability to rotate the batteries around.
Regular cap dump pulse chargers ruin batteries over time.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1416 on: July 20, 2019, 09:27:09 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1417 on: July 20, 2019, 10:04:16 PM »
This is what happens when people are so intent on disproving someone that they end up doing the very thing they are accusing others of. They forget to read the title of the video. hmmm I wonder what they WHOLE point of the video was? BUT FIRST NOTICE SOMETHING. THIS ALSO CONFIRMS MY POINT:

Notice Void has 10ma (0.01A) on his supply and the other meter reads 20ma. So which is it? How can anyone go from a picture to conclude these things exactly? This is assuming you can prove something over the internet.

But consider, is it ever right to believe an OU claim based upon a picture and video with words? The critics exception to that is when they will make a conclusion upon one part of such picture or video which somehow they decide is worthy to believe and that they are able to absolutely know the full context of. Further, while they reject a video or picture purporting to show something, because you can't determine such things with a video, etc., they make an exception for themselves while making a video or picture that makes an equal claim of their own.

The problem with his analogy is that my bulbs don't even come on until 6V, and only at 7V can they show any significant brightness. I have to get them to 7.4V @ 0.07A to get them to be at the 1/2W brightness they were at. Now they were slightly different brightness from each other, especially the one connected to the ferrite rod, so this is their average. And remember, these are not hf parts. This was 1.1MHz. Now the little LEDs on the smaller coils when combined are more than the input as well. That is obviously not the focus, but they also have to be added into the mix. They too have a minimum in which they will come on...

The point that is also forgotten is that I can keep adding more and more coils without affecting the input as G doesn't believe. If I had shown everyone, as I actually did at the meeting, the effect of adding more and more coils, then you would understand that. I eventually filled up the table and showed that anywhere I placed the big or small coils (most anywhere as there are some adverse relationships) that the input would stay the same or even go down without changing the other outputs (again some places no). If we had had the time we had another 50 coils I could have added. But the point was seen and we moved on to other demonstrations. This was not a point that these guys hadn't experienced already.

So Void is once again void of context who usually ends up proving the very thing he set out to disprove  :o  Some could wonder if he was doing this on purpose.  ;D

This was why I didn't show side by side, because I wanted to see these kinds of reactions that only prove my more important point. It is far more important for people to learn to be scientific than to even have OU. And I mean being honest. There is no science in thinking you can prove a truth of demonstration over the internet or video. Such credulity is the ruin of all science and all of society. Then the incredulity comes in with credulous disproofs of credulous claims. It's just madness!

Anyway, I was waiting for someone to do this sort of thing. That was perfect Void. Bravo! We have "Confirmation of" my most important "claims" on this thread. Now maybe this will be settled with at least you guys.

The other thing it shows, is just how much people take liberties to assume about what they see and what they read about what others have shared. They assume they know the context. But how can you if you are not there? This is the deeper matter, and implied by thinking you can prove something like this over video. Again, I care far more about people living a life where they forsake the confirmation bias methodology than I do about all technology combined. I really don't care if you have free energy if you run reckless with your judgments and perversions of reality. What good is free energy if you are dishonest about your reasoning? And it this case such a reckless methodology only keeps you from seeing the truth. And that applies to both sides here. If I, or those who believe in OU, just want to believe I have something I really don't, what good does that do? I have seen both sides do this. This is why I say this is 90-95% psychological. And a side point is that we need to see the good in our supposed failures in experiments. All results are telling us something we can learn from. If we don't have that attitude then we are probably in a state of confirmation bias. It is an ugly thing to see a skeptic disbelieve something that is obviously true to them. But it is just as ugly to believe something is true that is manifestly not.

For people with maybe not so much experience in 'over unity' experimentation,
I will try to explain and demonstrate here in a simple and straightforward way why just
looking at the brightness of bulbs (LED or otherwise) can't tell you anything too meaningful
or definite about how a circuit is really performing.

A picture was posted here of Rick F. lighting what looks like about 11 or 12 LED bulbs (I think
they were stated as being LED bulbs) and the stated input power to his setup was 0.864 Watts.
It was implied that lighting 11 or 12 of those bulbs fairly brightly at less than 1 Watt input power
was something that should be considered quite impressive and an indication of possible over unity (OU).

Please see the three attached photos.
Photo 01:  Picture of Rick F. lighting what looks like about 11 or 12 bulbs at a stated 0.864 Watts = 864 mW input power.

Photo 02:  My comparison of lighting a single LED bulb quite brightly.
Can you tell how much power this bulb is consuming from just looking at how bright it is? Of course you can't.
I had spots in front of my eyes from looking at this bulb when I was setting it up to take a photo of it. :)
It was very bright when looking at it directly.

Photo 03:  Measurement of the power consumption of my single LED bulb.
3 Volts x .02 Amps = 0.06 Watts = 60 mW

If I were to light 14 of my LED bulbs at the same time, the total power consumption of my setup would be:
14 x 60 mW = 0.840 Watts =  840 mW

I hope this simple comparison test clarifies why people are (and should be) quite skeptical of any type of circuit
arrangement supposedly being over unity without proper measurements being shown.
Don't be fooled by any max or 'equivalent' power ratings which may be specified for a given LED bulb.
Those numbers can be quite misleading.

What matters is the actual power consumption of each LED bulb being lighted while connected in the circuit setup.
You can only determine that by doing proper measurements. My rough comparison test shown in the photos below
seems to indicate that Rick's results shown in that photo do not appear to be anything too unusual,
and only if proper measurements are taken could the actual efficiency of the setup be determined with any degree of certainty.

Hope this clarifies some things. :)

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1418 on: July 20, 2019, 10:11:03 PM »
I wanted to capture this response also so if it gets deleted we can preserve it.

Void,merci beaucoup for the well done measurement and comparison !
I think this is a point where also Itsu get his satisfaction !

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1418 on: July 20, 2019, 10:11:03 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1419 on: July 20, 2019, 11:18:09 PM »
Mario,
These are not really basic questions and there is nothing to be sorry about.

The cap charging and discharging is a whole science in itself. Of course for people just limiting themselves to linear processes they will assume condensers are linear. If I ever get around to the new Benitez kit that will be the point to look at. This is why I gave a hint in mentioning step charging... I'm still trying to come up with short terminology for classifying all the important phenomena about capacitors as a principle. Tesla spent a lot of words on this. He was not one to waste words either. Understanding the principles of free energy relating to capacitor charging and discharging is one of the most important as it relates to a good number of systems. I'm trying to think of a percentage, but it is probably 10-25%. Several of Don Smith's systems depend upon this. The batteries are kind of overlapping that somewhat, as they have similar responses. Of course Impulse and Resonance are key ingredients in this principle as always...

While people are still looking for free energy, I am focused on tuning it. I don't want a battery rotating system over or under charging. For the public we have code for the Arduino circuit that allows for basic monitoring of a battery periodically to determine if it needs to slightly discharge it so as to not over charge.

So yes, not as abrupt as possible or you will get more than you want, or it could even do damage. While I share a lot of information, I don't get into my proprietary research on all the details of ideal charging.

The additional gain is to be found on the entire path. That is why I have mentioned the third stage process. Gain of course is that which is useful as far as most people consider things. We don't care about the wire, but the wire and terminal size and characteristics make a difference because the energy is convergent. The gain in the battery is found in the battery over time. Even after the system is turned off it can continue to charge for extended periods of time. So rest is one gain that would not be expected. This is the opposite of constant current which is what man does contrary to nature.

The theory is that the whole path becomes a negative resistor where the energy converges into everything in the path. The impulse opens that door, and the current follows after that event. So a capacitor charges up as a result, but it copies the energy and discharges current after it's impulse event. So the negative event comes before the regular current flow. The Impulse gives you the benefits, but the current gives you a positive charge. Early on I realized that I could impulse a small cap into a bigger cap and the energy did not add up. The same thing is true when we have a tiny capacitor charging a big battery. It doesn't add up at all. The video AG linked to some weeks ago of the fake disproof of the fan kit gave the exact opposite claim. The liar said he couldn't even charge a tiny cap to 1V over many minutes. But I think most people here know that is not true at all. Now the secret is in considering why this all happens and what to do. I'm still deciding how much I want to say along these lines and more importantly how to properly word the principle.

Yeah, you can see big caps most of the time. Earlier pictures just before I got into this show even 3 1F caps I believe, and that would have a place for certain things. But it would do real damage to a fair size battery. Of course I started to see over time that Bedini was just a battery killer who really never did take the time to do experiments himself personally. He always had someone else do things from everything I witnessed and all the people I have spoke to during his whole career. That is fine if you take the time to properly pay attention to those you are copying or your staff who is doing the actual testing. John had very little to do with the battery chargers, and even the ones he made later on on his own he didn't test. After all, always promoted the worst battery killer of all, the Bedini Switch as it should be called (and not the Tesla Switch). You can't push current around in batteries without damage real fast.

As for the battery bible, that does not apply to this technology. Some of the that teaching gets into those manuals. There is some good things in there, but there isn't enough practical information to help people do things right. It reveals a lack of personal experience or an attempt to give people second best or worse. The context is that these are revelations from a god, the legend himself, who invented sliced bread and everything that came after it.  8) So everything is gold to be oohed and awed about. There is no proper context. There is a lot of content, but the need is not fulfilled. The most important thing that could have been added from the Bedini teaching is what we showed in video 7 as mentioned. Why was that left out? But my point is that these forums and such guides just create so much wasted time in people trying out what someone has shown without the proper understanding of the principles of free energy. So people bring into the replication of some parts their own context and hope to magically have some 'good' results. This what you get from storytelling teaching that is not principle based. Worship the living legend methodology. The thing is, that you still have things like DVD7 and several good things mentioned in documents, etc., but in the end you have to judge it all by the total effect it had on people. And that effect was long ago calculated. The effect was for people in general to fail, while only those who were 'worthy' would be able to sift through all the nonsense, stories, and personality fits, and figure out the true points. It was a game played out, with the expectation that most people would not succeed. It also appears that several things were intentionally given to the public to create failure, like the Tesla Switch to destroy their batteries. And of course what we find here with the big caps may have been along those lines. But also in his later insistence of not using neo magnets to distance himself from me and try and make me look like I was doing something wrong. But that just was also him limiting people from using neos which are fine to use, obviously. Trying to make battery chargers on his own, that were not doing the same thing as I was doing with my chargers, may be an example. I don't have time to review those manuals for the SG book to go over everything that could be mentioned. My point is that context and methodology is everything. What method you choose will determine your outcome.

Rick, thanks. So are you saying the cap dump turn on time shouldn't be as fast and abrupt as possible? Also, when negatively charging (diode) the additional gain is to be found in the battery. If we use a small cap, even high voltage, where do you think the gain is entering the system, the small cap or the battery, and if the battery, can we still consider it positively charged?
Sorry for these basic questions, but after all the confusion and after many experiments there is still uncertainty, especially after JB and Peter recommended big caps in the latest guide...


Mario

Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2371
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1420 on: July 20, 2019, 11:44:12 PM »
Notice Void has 10ma (0.01A) on his supply and the other meter reads 20ma. So which is it? How can anyone go from a picture to conclude these things exactly?

Hi Rick, I truly am very embarrassed for you.
Anyone with even a basic understanding of using meters will understand that an ammeter which
only displays its current reading to two decimal places will display 0.01A from 10mA right up to a current
measurement of just under 20mA. :) This is why I was using my analog DC ammeter, which I have
tested compared to my digital ammeters and I know it is reasonably accurate as I have calibrated it recently.

The problem with his analogy is that my bulbs don't even come on until 6V, and only at 7V can they show any significant brightness.

I did not claim the LED bulb I tested with is the exact same bulb you are using. :)
Most any modern LED bulbs are all high efficiency and various LED bulbs with different voltage
ratings available these days should all perform at similar high efficiencies. My demo and explanation was not meant
to be an exact replication part for part, but just to show that LED bulbs which should have the same ballpark
efficiency as the LED bulbs you used can glow very brightly with only a relatively small power consumption,
and this can be confirmed if someone actually puts in the effort to measure the actual power consumption
of the LED bulbs in some sort of reasonable way, as Itsu was doing, for example.

Rick, I won't respond to the rest of your excuses and deflections and general hooey, as I am just too busy right now. :)
I think my demonstration speaks for itself. Without actual power measurements done in some sort of reasonable way,
no conclusions can be drawn about LED bulb power consumption. You will be 'in the dark' so to speak, and just guessing.


Void,merci beaucoup for the well done measurement and comparison !
I think this is a point where also Itsu get his satisfaction !

You are welcome!


P.S. Itsu: Please stick around. Your efforts have been very much appreciated around here over the years. :)

All the best...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1420 on: July 20, 2019, 11:44:12 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1421 on: July 20, 2019, 11:58:50 PM »
One does tend to wonder why there are only 14 LEDs lit in that famous photo, since there are plenty more coils and plenty more LED bulbs lying around.


Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2371
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1422 on: July 21, 2019, 12:54:02 AM »
One does tend to wonder why there are only 14 LEDs lit in that famous photo, since there are plenty more coils and plenty more LED bulbs lying around.

Hi TK. Well, I only counted 11 LED bulbs glowing and one LED bulb that seemed to be connected
but didn't appear to be glowing, in the screen shot of Rick. There might have been one or two more I couldn't see. :)

The bottom line of course is anyone with any understanding of electronics at all will know that you
can't reliably estimate output power on bulbs (of any type) by just looking at their brightness and
taking a guess at their power consumption. :) That at least should be a given in this forum at this point. :)

Also, some cheap LED bulbs can have some inefficient circuitry/components in them for matching
their nominal operating voltage to the voltage of the LED or LEDs inside the bulb, but when you connect such
bulbs up to a high frequency driver circuit, it can bypass any voltage regulating/current limiting circuitry
and cause the LEDs to light up even more efficiently than if you power them with their nominal voltage normally.
The LEDs them self will of course be operating at their typical high efficiency regardless however. Unfortunately, I suspect
that such things will be lost on Rick however, given his various comments here already.


Rick, this is not some 'war' that a person must try to 'win' at all costs using all manner of deflection and excuses,
etc. For at last some people here it is about facts and reality. What is really true, and what is not?
Not about 'winning' or 'losing'. If something is really true, it will be able to stand up to close scrutiny and proper testing
methodology. If you or someone else can demonstrate over unity in a reasonable way showing proper testing methods,
then great, you are in the right place. There are usually people here (or there were) who will be willing to put in the effort to
try to confirm or negate by replicating the circuitry or approach and put it through proper tests. The goal being to determine, 
'how is the setup really performing'?

Reality, what a concept! :)

All the best...



Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1423 on: July 21, 2019, 01:08:45 AM »
Wow, you are really just digging deeper and deeper. You must be a comedian.  :P You just can't help twisting reality. You have to tell a Void to cover up. Tell me how your picture shows that it is just under 20ma? It actually shows 22ma, unless you are looking sideways at it so that the angle makes it not 22ma but 19.999.  :o

So you can't even properly evaluate your own picture. Then you have to resort to another Void.

I am glad you are starting to feel your embarrassment.

This brings up the question, because your meter is obviously wrong, then why would your voltage reading be assumed to be correct. Maybe it is 12V? Maybe your analogue ma meter is turned way down? I'm just saying. So far you have been void of truth, especially in this last response. I actually didn't even remember the exact reading on the meter and actually assumed that you would not Void about that. But just to be sure I clicked back to look at the image, and I was just amazed  ::) Apparently you didn't bother to look. Or maybe you were just hoping no one would look back at the picture. Better go and photoshop that picture. Oh wait, I included a close up of it for everyone.

You won't admit my point at all. You just deflect entirely. You have not shown us anything here but that you are void of truth in your attempts to attack. And now you just prove my point. Again, my point is that you can't prove anything in pictures or video. I was waiting for this.

You say that:
"My demo and explanation was not meant to be an exact replication part for part". Or was it? For:
"just to show that LED bulbs which should have the same ballpark efficiency as the LED bulbs you used".
And you don't call that a Void assumption? Not at all the same load. The ones I have are very common. But again, they only start to come on at 6V, and were at 1/2W brightness. You assume I didn't measure. But I had shown all of you the measurements then you wouldn't have said all the things you have said over the last month. You would probably have just dismissed it in the ways you guys always do, and then I would have lost the opportunity to witness all the fallacies and deflections, etc. This gave the perfect opportunity to expose the games being played on this and other forums. It brought out the deeper issues as to why these forums don't work for any good. It brought out the confirmation bias. 

You won't address what I have to say because you can admit anything true here. You actually deflect and now will have to hide your face for a good while  :-[

You are right about one thing: "I think my demonstration speaks for itself." Once again Void of truth.

So tell me what is Void from your last statement? "Without actual power measurements done in some sort of reasonable way, no conclusions can be drawn about LED bulb power consumption."
I mean, I have done my power measurements. But what is missing from your statement--where's the Void? Again, it is my point:
"Without actual power measurements done in some sort of reasonable way," and reasonable as in the real world only, and not with the idea that such can be transferred over the Internet, "no conclusions can be drawn about LED bulb power consumption." But you did not do any of that. It was not even a "reasonable" power measurement, nor was it demonstrated in the real world to anyone who you were trying to convince. Just because you use the right words does not mean you understand or exercise reasonableness. You have been Void of the reason of my video, and Void of reason about what you have been saying. But at least you showed us your work finally. And yes, it speaks for itself!  ;D


Hi Rick, I truly am very embarrassed for you.
Anyone with even a basic understanding of using meters will understand that an ammeter which only displays its current reading to two decimal places will display 0.01A from 10mA right up to a current measurement of just under 20mA. :) This is why I was using my analog DC ammeter, which I have tested compared to my digital ammeters and I know it is reasonably accurate as I have calibrated it recently.

I did not claim the LED bulb I tested with is the exact same bulb you are using. :)
Most any modern LED bulbs are all high efficiency and various LED bulbs with different voltage
ratings available these days should all perform at similar high efficiencies. My demo and explanation was not meant to be an exact replication part for part, but just to show that LED bulbs which should have the same ballpark efficiency as the LED bulbs you used can glow very brightly with only a relatively small power consumption, and this can be confirmed if someone actually puts in the effort to measure the actual power consumption of the LED bulbs in some sort of reasonable way, as Itsu was doing, for example.

Rick, I won't respond to the rest of your excuses and deflections and general hooey, as I am just too busy right now. :)
I think my demonstration speaks for itself. Without actual power measurements done in some sort of reasonable way, no conclusions can be drawn about LED bulb power consumption. You will be 'in the dark' so to speak, and just guessing.
You are welcome!

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1424 on: July 21, 2019, 01:18:55 AM »
Wow, it is famous now.
There was maybe 90 coils, not 14.
I already explained why if you read. One does tend to wonder why people wonder when they don't bother to read what is written or look at the actual picture to see.
Come to think of if, I remember why in the meeting, it was because we only had that many capacitors.

One does tend to wonder why there are only 14 LEDs lit in that famous photo, since there are plenty more coils and plenty more LED bulbs lying around.

 

OneLink