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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

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: 524080
  • *Total Topics: 15602
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 9
  • *Total: 10

Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims  (Read 254937 times)

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4063
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #585 on: June 17, 2019, 04:45:12 PM »
Rick,

I do not participate in your game you are playing here. You try to create a situation which would make it impossible
for the forum members to ascertain what is the truth on the COP of your setup. And you try to ridicule any member 
here who dare to ask about the real performance of your setup. 
Of course you did neglect my point from my Reply #568 when I wrote you had not written measured results in your
text but a conditional question ("would 0.5W on the bulbs be acceptable to me on these bigger bulbs"?). 
And then on the following day you already referred to your own conditional question as a fact that you had already
answered my measurement request, as if you had already stated the 0.5W as measured.  Yes, 0.5W for 8 bulbs would be
very good for you  because 4W is already gives COP>1  BUT what if the brightness
involved is less than 0.5W for each bigger bulb? If you do not measure it at each bulbs, then you simply do not know. 

You wrote this on gain for your setup:

"Anyway, if resonance is a gain in the sense that a series tank circuit is actually a "multiplication" or
"amplification of voltage" WHILE AMPERAGE REMAINS THE SAME AS INPUT AMPERAGE, or parallel tank circuits are  a
"multiplication" or "amplification of amperage" WHILE VOLTAGE REMAINS THE SAME AS INPUT AMPERAGE, then
the gain is seen as the voltage or amperage divided by the input amount. So if I have 9V at 25ma input and 250V at
25ma circulating with the regular frequency generator I then have 27 times gain. And if I add the gate driver and have
1300V with the same 25ma then I have 144 times gain. This follows the idea of the gain in Q or quality factor for
the both parts (cap and inductor) combined (if one of them has a low Q it brings down the combined as I deliberately
did with the cap to keep things safe)."

The problem is you do not consider the phase angle between the 1300V coil voltage and the coil current: In a
resonant LC circuit they never happen simultaneously but nearly with 90 degree phase difference, coil current lags
coil voltage. So the real or average power is nowhere near what you imply in your text. There is no any instant 
when the current has a high peak amplitude whenever the 1300V peak to peak voltage is also present across the coil.
You have a voltage gain and voltage is not power or energy in itself.
And when you consider the phase angle, then power should be estimated by P=VxIxcos(phi) where V and I the RMS
values and phi is the phase angle.
And when the loaded Q remains relatively high then the phase angle may remain close to 90 degree so its cos(phi)
value will reduce the power value significantly. (i.e. suppose phi=88° then cos88°=0.0348 will be the multiplier in the power formula).

Of course you will not care about this fact.  But the phase angle in AC power estimation is one of the key factors.
This is why careful power measurements should be done.  Obviously the measurements at 1.15 MHz can be very difficult,
this is why I mentioned DC current and voltage
measurements for the LED bulbs after a full wave rectifier.  Power loss in the diodebridges can be easily estimated.

Of course any setup shown in a video can be faked, this can be true. How about to minimize this possibility?

How about rectifying the output of all the 8 (or your choice) bigger receiver units (omit the LED bulbs from their output)
and collect the 8 (or any you choose) DC outputs into a common puffer capacitor of say 10 milliF or more as desired? 
Then this DC voltage could feed your gate driver IC and also a low power square wave generator to drive the input
of the gate driver. The 8 (or more) receiver units should be able to maintain the charge level in the puffer capacitor the
gate driver IC and the square wave generator is consuming because you hinted at a COP of at least over 10. 
(Based on your text: "So we have at least 8W of measured power with 0.75W or less input.")   

This claimed COP value would surely serve the use of a DC/DC converter to have a stable DC supply available from its output to fully replace your regulated power supply.  Even one single 3W LED bulb could be run off one of the bigger
receiver coils separately to show certain brightness.  The input of this converter would receive energy from
the big puffer capacitor, closing the loop. This is what I suggested to RomeroUK years ago and he then showed a video
in which he carried his running mot-gen setup looped via a DC/DC converter with himself while walking...   

I wonder whether you are going to consider my looping suggestion or write about again my scepticism or about
bent scepticism  :) . You can say a self running setup can also be faked and this is true but if you show a certain
start-up procedure we could agree on in advance, openly on this forum, then faking could be minimized at least.

I would kindly suggest building this self running setup for members a.king and benfr because they have the original coils set. 


Gyula

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #585 on: June 17, 2019, 04:45:12 PM »

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3889
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #586 on: June 17, 2019, 05:04:18 PM »
Rick
Within plenty of your long videos ,which  one is the best to watch to understand concept ? English is not my native language and watching few 1hour long videos is too much for me
Can you explain how you move the phase angle between voltage and current in output resonant circuit to get output power independent of input resonance ?

Offline Thaelin

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1004
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #587 on: June 17, 2019, 06:00:12 PM »
  Hi all:
    I have to chime in here as I was one of them in attendance. I went to Lodi, Ca for his two day work shop. I went to see one thing and found another as well. I sat there in disbelief as he added more and more output coils drawing a load and the input stayed the same. Just the output wattage was going up.
    What is in the book is what was setup. He had to stop adding more output coils due to not wanting to blow the scope used for the readings.


Not much more I can say. No video, no pictures other than the ones I took, just live right in front of all of us.


thay


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #587 on: June 17, 2019, 06:00:12 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #588 on: June 17, 2019, 06:22:23 PM »
Yes I entirely agree Mr. Frederik. But as you can see my points are foundational and almost everyone is wrong about them. So until they are agreed to then people will just be making assumptions one way or another without sufficient reason. This leads to deceptions wasted time, money, and faith. I spend a lot of time picking up the pieces of countless people wrongly harmed by these practices on these groups. So while you all want OU and want to brush past these foundational points I say to you that you will never get anywhere while you practice the bias/prejudice principle which will lead you to premature conclusions.

I have provided a tool for people to experiment with in the kit. I am not open sourcing this kit freely on this forum. I have shared a lot in so many ways over the years, but I do have to earn a living. Anyway, it is opensourced in the way that people can play order it and learn many things from it. As I said, I have explained the points, and even given videos, and people can make their own systems. No, they can't judge my systems without having my systems.

As for the specifics, you have to start with the other foundation point in my questions about resonance. Can resonance be a gain in a series or parallel tank circuit (where the voltage or amperage is multiplied or amplified) in the context of the systems we are focusing on here (that is where we are tapping into the environmental effects produced by the amplified oscillations in the tank)? If you don't bother to benefit or extract that oscillatory energy gain from the tank then I can see where you think it is nothing real and it is merely apparent gain. And I guess that is the point that people need to experience. But my fundamental question is whether resonance is merely a transformer effect or accumulation effect as people imply or state when they disbelieve OU possibilities. This is perhaps the most important question for this entire forum don't you think? I would be surprised if it has not been brought up already. Establishing one way or the other will help people settle the question about these kinds of systems and claims. For if it is merely a transformer or accumulation process then where would any gain come from? And this is exactly how people think. So I am trying to bring out the real issues here. It is not about any data or facts actually, all of which cannot be proven to be real over the internet. It is about whether people know one way or the other the answer to this question. The example claims from Tesla are illustrative where he said he was able to have a large 2" steel bar become so resonantly triggered with mere drops of water at it's resonant frequency until it vibrated so violently that it broke in two. Or that he had a small pocket vibrator placed on a 10 story building frame that soon brought the whole structure into violent shaking threatening to destroy it all like the 2" wide steel bar. Where these merely accumulations of energy building up so that all resulting action was merely additive of input energy given? 1 to 1? Or did a small input at the natural frequency trigger a huge result? This everyone needs to experience. But if resonance is merely a transformer or accumulatory action then Tesla himself was fundamentally deceived and a deceiver in his core teachings. Anyway, this is the context of any such experiments. Any numbers thrown around are pointless unless you build a proper foundation.

The problem is that you will never get most people to commit to building upon an honest foundation. Those wanting free energy are so desperate to get it that most really don't care about such things. And unfortunately they then can engage in bias and over-believe claims or the own results. On the other hand, those wishing to disprove OU claims and concepts for whatever reasons, while many times appearing to be professional and sound, nevertheless contradict themselves and deviate from these points I am making.

So what I am doing here is setting up standards and protocols so as to make it easy for everyone to spot and disregard frequent fallacies. And it is far more important to me for everyone to have a sound foundation and methodology than whether anyone on this forum gets free energy. For this also affects everything else in your life. What you go into something with is what you come out with.

As for what goes in between, I suggest you read all of what I have even shared over the last few days. I have also drawn attention to specific things of that nature in relation to what I have shared about DVD7 and about this resonance process. But again, you may not like the fact that I am teaching from a themes approach rather than urging people to look to some set of parts for their salvation. You guys on the groups are messed up. You think that if you give people some parts and tell them to do something with them that hopefully they can come up with some result as if they have not assumptions. I have witnessed countless electrical engineers automatically dampen out the critical phenomena appearing in a system because of their assumptions and experience only to then claim "see there is nothing special here!" They don't even realize what they are doing. It's like the blindfolded man touching different parts of the elephant and concluding different things about what he is touching. What you go into with is what you come out with. But understand the key themes and then you can make most any parts work for you. I don't see you appreciating that point I have been making. What you suggest is too mechanical and it just hasn't worked over all these years. I started out with such assumptions and realized after witnessing the effects of that approach for many years that unless people know where to begin and get a feel for the themes and ends sought after, they will wrongly interpret their results. They will actually think they are getting bad results when they actually are demonstrating something else. For example, people negatively charged their batteries and many people assumed their batteries were ruined because when they later tried to recharge them (after being discharged) the conventional charger would not charge them up as before. If they kept it there long enough it would eventually charge them and convert the battery back to positive. But because they didn't know that the not only were mistaken about this result but missed a huge opportunity to benefit from an actual good result they were unaware of. And that was because of lack of information or ignoring details in the mad rush for free energy. So if you post some numbers and parts the same sort of thing happens. Then you get people mixing in their assumptions and there is no benefit in the end.

As for the factual level, I have found it far more persuasive to show existing technology people have had in their homes over the last 100 years. Starting with the many patents and also signaling out real commercial products that actually use these processes. So you separate the final purpose of the actual product and focus in on one or more unique processes that show the point. This is a hobby of mine which I get into more or less in my meetings. The patents are an excellent way to start and illustrate that approach, while real-life examples of existing products drives the points home. I find that there is little point to try and create something new when we have so much to work with already. In our case here were are looking at a transmitter and receiver in which there are countless examples over the last 100 years. Again, as I have repeatedly stated, you can take these products and continue to use them as they were intended, and you tap energy from them in another way that people have ignored as part of the losses. For example, I tap a plasma column that is for the creation of appealing light that only draws 8W continuous. I still run it as intended and without making it change at all. It still does exactly the same thing. But now I use it as an energy pump and power other loads (like what I did with the motors charging batteries for free). This is a dipole and I can collect a lot of energy from this as Don Smith showed in one of his patents. But coming back to my previous point, if I assume various things I will get almost nothing out of it (as most people experience). So I have to teach by the themes approach to get them to look beyond the specific parts and understand the idea to be realized first so then you use the parts as tools for a specific end in a specific context. The mainstream college level person will not be able to even agree to the themes presented, and would never be able to follow the instructions to make it do anything special because they have been so rooted in bias and so full of assumptions and pressures to conclude prematurely that it doesn't matter what you tell them to do or even show them. They would be in a state of cognitive dissonance and just block it out with the result that they would then conclude that the opposite is proven. They have been deeply manipulated for their entire lives and are as much brainwashed as the victims of the craziest cult you could think of. It is very powerful. You say, no way, if you demonstrated something they would surely concede to the results. Haha, I have seen one case where a 60 year old man in Germany, I believe a respected scientist, throw a fit and run out of the meeting like a 2 year old brat after we demonstrated some things. But here I am not talking so much of demonstrating things but of giving people instructions as you request. Believe me, they will find a way to kill all the unique effects no matter how much you tell them. They will make an open system closed. They will measure only the constant current and disregard the impulse energy (that is, they will measure after the switch is turned on and before the switch is turned off). They will dampen the resonance. They will make two bodies into one and tie the grounds together. They will disregard the reactive and focus only on the resistive. And the fact that they have so much existing technology and cannot recognize how to tap more energy off of what they have shows their limitations. After years of helping such people I have seen a better way. It is like good old repentance. You can argue matters back and forth and try to convince someone of a matter but you can never force someone to admit something (however I have figured out to force someone to admit it to themselves even if they don't admit it externally). But if they get humbled and find God then they can become a new creation and then you find them all open and reasonable. So in this area something like that needs to happen. Usually you have establish a credibility thing with them where you play their game of authorities. They have to come to the place where they are actually willing to consider things opposite to their assumptions. But since they have been trained only to gratify their assumptions it is almost impossible to help them out of the cult that has gripped their soul.

There are many examples to look at and consider specifically. First thing to ask however, are there common products that are not capturing and using a lot of potential energy while we use them for another purpose. Come to grips with that question first. For example, impulse motors? Take my fan kit video. I take billions of fans in computers or larger that produce a given CFM for a given amount of energy input. Are these fans state of the art? Are they not as efficient as they can be? What if I move around one diode (and add in a second diode because there are two transistors) and now charge a load like a second battery while I have the same cfms and same input? What does that tell you about the mainstream world? I have been showing this for about 14 years now to tens of thousands of people and still it is not changed mainstream beliefs. They don't want people to realize what that implies. They do not want people to get any electrical benefit from what they only want people to have in a motor. So it is believed that all of the energy is being used to power the magnetic action. Yet we can have equal electrical output from this process.
Examples:
1. Free electrical output that ignored in motors.
2. Free electrical output from all types of dipoles, anything from magnetostriction rods like radar or sonar to plasma columns.
3. Ignored inductor fluxing from resonance tank circuits.
4. Ignored capacitive fluxing benefits from resonance tank circuits in making the capacitor a water cell (Stan M)(key is to condition cell into a capacitor). Combined with points 2 and 3 allows for a very high output OU system.
The list goes on and on. If you have ears to hear and eyes to see you can now go off with the parts you have at home to prove these things out to yourself. The diagrams are all over this forum for years. The problem isn't missing diagrams or in lacking ideal parts, but is with the bias principle and that this forum is completely lacking in any foundation. I told Stefan years ago that you need to make these lists completely different. You start with working systems and work the other way, rather than start with all these well-maybe-there-is-something-here approach where then everyone jumps in with their opinions and sloppy ideas. There is no sense that people have the themes rightly understood. So if you did this right there would be no way trolls and disinfo people could prevail. This is why I see these forums as worse than useless as people are purposely cycled and spit out as overwhelmed and confused.

Anyway, as I read you I still think you are too focused on an over-simplistic parts approach to this problem. I have given enough details for people to do that if they want, but I know exactly what will result if I play that game. My goal here is for you to all overcome your bias, I care little if people have free energy. This is only of small importance to your entire life. Maybe you will accidentally stumble upon a result with a given set of results and then you will hold those parts as almost a sacred deity. Woe to you if it is ever stolen or goes out of tune because you don't understand why or how it works to be able to replicate it again. That is not an exaggeration. But what if you understand that themes and can then use thousands of parts to make the goods happen? This is what I teach now. This is exactly what Don said. This is what he did with the nonlinear simulation software and designed all of his models with and which required very little adjustment when made in the real world. Yes this is all mathematically predictable. So while college level teaching prejudices you to think these gains are impossible, with a slight of hand they contradict themselves in allowing students to work with the software that shows overenergy flows in circuit relationships (but only as a negative thing to suppress as it destroys the semiconductors). This is the joke of all jokes. But the students are so mystified by the central dogma that you cannot get anything more than from your input that they don't even realize that they do actually in the very software they use or some of the experiments that they engage in. And some people are just laughing at this fact. Then you leave college and get a job using that software to troubleshoot such problems. One day an old man comes along and draws attention to these contradictions and perhaps the technician realizes that he has been demonstrating this his whole career! So if you are looking for an example, just create your own and you will find that there are almost infinite combinations of things that will demonstrate this. Like I said, this list is so 90's all this is old news. You guys laugh at Don Smith and stumble over a few things he has said, but he spelled these things out in the 90's. The proud stumbled and the humble guys on the other side of the world made it all work. People just don't get it. So that is what I have written so much on the foundational problems. All this will force you to be very detailed and accountable in your thinking and words. Take it or leave it. I have done what I can to help. I will never attempt to prove anything over the internet. I give you recommendations to try. I point out facts you already know. You can let this help you or you will be offended by something I write and ignore everything else. It's up to you. It's kind of like the story of Aristotle talking to a guy who denied his own existence and he replied he will just go and talk to someone who actually exists. There is no point doing anything more.
So you have your content given here. Start at the real beginning and let's see if any of you can do real science. Like I said, I deal with real technicians all over the world who make real products and admit real 'anomalies'. I don't care what colleges say when they are bought and paid for by special interests. I will watch and see what you can do from here. If I get time I will try and hold people accountable to these self-evident foundations. What more do I need to say or do than lay a proper foundation that gives you almost infinite options to test these things out for yourselves. I can't prove to you anything, because only you can prove something to yourself. So forsake the 2 dimensional view of parts and always consider the total environmental effects on any process. Look beyond your prejudices and realize that there will always be more to learn about what you think you are observing. A little study of history will drive that truth home to you. So don't over-simplify and don't needlessly over-complicate. You can pick any of the 4 points mentioned above, or many more.
All the best!

Dear Rick,

The assertion and the counter-assertion are both useless, as long as there is no possibility at all to carry out any proof here.
In order to accomplish this, a factual analysis of the basic effect must first be generated, where a hypothesis is given about the properties and origin of the effect. Subsequently, the hypothesis is confirmed by the presentation of an experiment, either in theoretical nature or as a practical implementation. Then others can jump on this bandwagon and perform the experiments themselves to confirm or disprove the claim/hypothesis. This is simply a typical scientific approach.

I respect your work and the many hours you put into this project. But what is really missing between the many words you write here is a factual concise discussion of the physical conditions and the assumption of how the overunity effect arises. Also missing is the circuit diagram of a circuit that produces this effect. Why don't you just provide it? This would be valuable because then the discussion goes to a factual level. With the circuits that users Itsu have tried so far, the effect could not be proven. This only leads to the conclusion that they do not correspond to what you are using or that the experiment was not performed the way you are doing it.

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #589 on: June 17, 2019, 06:28:24 PM »
This makes me very happy and it is many statements like this that have kept me in this work. There are humble souls all around the world that just want to get down to it, and if they can just be honestly directed they can succeed in these things. This has been a long process for myself to also be demystified from all the disinfo and distractions. But after years of interaction with good experimenters I have come to improved teaching on these matters. I still have a solid 2 months more work to better refine my teaching and fully illustrate my points, so it is a work in progress. I learn from everyone, even from G ;)
Thank you,
Rick

Hi Rick.
I'd like to thank you. In the last 15 months I followed all your videos and ordered Dons Book and also the Resonance kit. Struggled a long time with all the amazing informations (because of my lack of english language), but after some weeks I had the first success!!
No doubt anymore. It is all real and I can see it clearly directly on my table. 15 years of hope and failures again and again..and now success! I am very happy. Hope to overcome the next step and get a working Don device. Best regards..Markus

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #589 on: June 17, 2019, 06:28:24 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #590 on: June 17, 2019, 06:44:37 PM »
Not sure who you are (I don't do well with not reading people's actual names), but thanks for the posting. Yes, it may seem strange to say, but my goal was not to give the highest outputs possible for the kit, but a big agenda of mine is to keep people safe. The kit can already produce rf burn and I specifically avoided mention of connecting to actual ground because that can result it too much power. So I used 50V low Q caps as well. My goal is to have you see the very sensitive relationships. Of course we also made the kit with the identical parts of the original kit Don learned these things from, and where he said to start. So I am a true student of Don's and have not only replicated many of his claims but have also been able to fulfill his dream in making the book completed as he always wanted. Anyway, you rightly should be able to make many better systems. My other students have used more expensive and much faster gate drivers in the 4 nanosecond range with both this kit and the motor systems to show much more improved effects. I love to see people run with all this stuff. They have also made much higher Q coils (which you can see some of my bigger coils in the video I just uploaded).
As for everyone else, probably 99% of my customers are not going to be on these forums. They privately email each other after they meet at meetings and associate in the real world. These forums are really an outdated 90's thing that doesn't work anymore, and such people don't have time for all the distractions as they are actually building upon proper foundations. I mention this as so many people on these forums just assume that everyone has not succeeded in replicating and using this technology. But in fact not only are larger Don Smith systems used all around the world, but the process are being used right in some of the products you use already. It is a marvel that people cannot see what is right in front of them.


Hello !  :) I have the schematics.  There are around (at least ) 50 different setup shematics that you will come to as following the several experiments the kit will drive you through. I paid 100 usd for them and I have already stated HOW GRATEFUL I am to Rick for the golden experiments packed inside. He knows that, as I'm sometimes asking him questions which he has ALWAYS taken the time to answer. So you see, what' s really missing is YOU helping him. Now if you read carefully the figures Rick is listing you will be able to start this research with a physical exercise...I have , at the beginning during this thread, mentionned the Resonant induction coupler kit with a few indications that allow one not having bought the kit to discover the effect. This is why I ws able to "rebuild from chinese cables and caps" several other competitor kits to Rick, and all demonstrated how to light a 3.8 V with an input between 0.78 and 2.2 V. , therefore indicating to me I have understood at least the first few methods Rick is teaching us. Notice the word : teaching. So yes, I have replicated the kit with several inductors and capacitors. I have at least 4 or 5 concurrent versions that work, of which one better than the kit ! (ie LED brighter with lesser input). And including one that never works with my FG (2000V 47 uF caps if I recall) topping at 60mhz. I guess the inductance doesn't "cross" capacitance at that frequency...(have to try more ?), to use such terminology.
WHEN I ASKED ITSU WHY HE WOULD NEVER LIGHT HIS SMALL LED AT 1,2 MHZ AT 2 V BUT THAT IT WOULD BE LIGHTED UP BRIGTHLY AT 1.25 MHZ WHEN I TRIED TO EXPLAIN HIM THIS IS THE VOLTAGE MULTIPLICATION EFFECT IN RESONANCE, MY QUESTION REMAINS STILL ...RESPONSELESS (including by "mr smart" Gyula). Too bad : I have offered here even without the consent of Rick, but in the total sharing of the spirit of his work to help the world, the object of a first exercise in his kit that many if not all of you are incapable of analyzing properly !. I am no EE, and do not even know the difference between AC and a frequency generator at 60 HZ ! So guys, before tauntering others like I saw so many times (too many...), just be humble and GO TO THE BENCH ON YOUR OWN !
Final word also for a few posts (they will recognize themselves) about Rick too long, too this, too mmh what is worth your contribution blah blah... To each of them : Before having the audacious yet lost approach to ask Rick what he has done, I ask you the question : have you done the millionth of what he did for free in free energy ? Yes ? Spell your name, that I may run a google-compare with Your name !
To this other guy out tbere telling Rick he has gone farther than him in this research : if you have done better and are interjecting about this right now in this forum it is the proof you have never shared anything in comparison to Rick. Which amounts a massive underuniy system ! Zero sharing ie zero value ie zero gift (to me they are the same thing). Continue the same stuff : you will be able to take it with you to a much more useful place !...

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #591 on: June 17, 2019, 07:11:31 PM »
One of these days I will delete all my videos and start over again and do proper videos that I carefully do. So far I just made fast videos as I don't have the time. They are ok but not satisfactory to me as they are. So it may seem strange but I don't think much of my own videos. I agree with many of my critics, but under the circumstances they serve some purpose.
I don't know what particular concept you are referring to in the first sentence.
The second point is more involved and I have found a good place to find examples and teaching on that subject from practical real-world examples is with the rectenna technology. I spent many hours going over these details with my students and I like to use existing technology as a way of explaining these things. My point is to show you how you can go from the L2 or receiver coil onward. This includes the impedance matching and 1/4 wavelengths that are not part of my kit.
I am sorry but I have existing products that are proprietary that I am not going to just give away the details of this that relate to answering your question. That pertains to actually changing the phase angle... I have shared some of that at my meetings however. Give it another year with people getting used to the kits and I will add more options as I have time to properly teach on these things. But I have included an avarmenko plug in the kit for people to be able to gate out the energy from a series tank circuit through a one wire transfer to therefore charge a capacitor. All that is already part of the teaching of the kit. I also provide a variable capacitor so that if you detune a receiver coil you can also adjust the capacitor so that it can remain in resonance.
Everyone is wanting to jump to the conclusions and I can see that the foundation is still not settled yet. In the end no one really wants to be on this forum. They just want to have something given to them and be done with it. While I have done just that for many people over the years I also see more of a need to teach people how to make parts around them do what they want. But this is painful to get people to think for themselves and overcome their prejudices.
Reading your last phrase I may not entirely understand what you mean by "independent of input resonance". I will just mention here that, unlike the kit where we have equal coils and work with the same frequencies, in the real products you have primary and secondaries with different frequencies that are in 1/4 wave relationships.

Rick
Within plenty of your long videos ,which  one is the best to watch to understand concept ? English is not my native language and watching few 1hour long videos is too much for me
Can you explain how you move the phase angle between voltage and current in output resonant circuit to get output power independent of input resonance ?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #591 on: June 17, 2019, 07:11:31 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #592 on: June 17, 2019, 07:24:01 PM »
Hey Thaelin,
Thanks for the input. Yes, that was a small meeting so I didn't think anyone from there would be on here. You have been on the old groups years ago so you can appreciate my points on the foundation here. Even your testimony could be fake and I want to stress how important it is for people to only allow something to be proven to themselves in the real world. We can develop only an hypothesis on these forums or with videos and pictures and testimony. People can be mistaken. Testimonies can be paid for, etc.
If you were in the room during the lunch hour you would have realized that I was not planning on showing the phase conjugation with the coils. It normally would take me some hours to set that all up to do that. So when I got it in place over lunch I changed the plan and decided to show that. And we added all the ferrite inductors with loads that we had on hand and each dropped the input as the frequency was reduced on the primary till it went as low as the power supply would allow. This is what I have sometimes done in my meetings when I was playing around with something and the people got to see something really special. Like when I was up all night in Goshen and was messing around with showing one motor powering another motor and then that powering a third motor which charged a battery, I decided to show the inverted motor concept that I have shown again. I showed it because people were walking in and I decided to go over it then. 

  Hi all:
    I have to chime in here as I was one of them in attendance. I went to Lodi, Ca for his two day work shop. I went to see one thing and found another as well. I sat there in disbelief as he added more and more output coils drawing a load and the input stayed the same. Just the output wattage was going up.
    What is in the book is what was setup. He had to stop adding more output coils due to not wanting to blow the scope used for the readings.


Not much more I can say. No video, no pictures other than the ones I took, just live right in front of all of us.


thay

Offline a.king21

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1613
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #593 on: June 17, 2019, 07:31:06 PM »
Rick,........
.... This is what I suggested to RomeroUK years ago and he then showed a video
in which he carried his running mot-gen setup looped via a DC/DC converter with himself while walking...   

I wonder whether you are going to consider my looping suggestion or write about again my scepticism or about
bent scepticism  :) . You can say a self running setup can also be faked and this is true but if you show a certain
start-up procedure we could agree on in advance, openly on this forum, then faking could be minimized at least.

I would kindly suggest building this self running setup for members a.king and benfr because they have the original coils set. 


Gyula


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


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


EDIT:  How could I forget... What happened to Wesley (Stivep) and Kapanadze when they were together on a plane?  Both were poisoned on the plane and nearly died........  There is even a video Wesley took of kapanadze in an ill state.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 09:22:08 PM by Grumage »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #593 on: June 17, 2019, 07:31:06 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline citfta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 896
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #594 on: June 17, 2019, 07:55:06 PM »
  Hi all:
    I have to chime in here as I was one of them in attendance. I went to Lodi, Ca for his two day work shop. I went to see one thing and found another as well. I sat there in disbelief as he added more and more output coils drawing a load and the input stayed the same. Just the output wattage was going up.
    What is in the book is what was setup. He had to stop adding more output coils due to not wanting to blow the scope used for the readings.


Not much more I can say. No video, no pictures other than the ones I took, just live right in front of all of us.


thay

Can you please explain the statement I have high-lighted.  You are saying the input power did not go up as he kept adding more coils.  I have no problem understanding that part.  But how was a scope being used in such a way as to possibly damage it when measuring the output power?  I have used scopes for over 50 years and I don't understand how the scope was put in danger by adding more output coils.  It is strange statements like this that make confusion for those of us with real electronics experience.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Offline Thaelin

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1004
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #595 on: June 17, 2019, 08:24:11 PM »
Carol:
     The scope was used as a meter to read the high voltage probe. Had he kept going, the output would have exceeded what the scope is capable of. Like what I did to my Tek scope. Very nice scope but not any more.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #595 on: June 17, 2019, 08:24:11 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3889
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #596 on: June 17, 2019, 09:08:38 PM »
I agree about Q factor, but there is slight problem here : why Q factor is a gain , energy gain ?  What is your theory ?

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3889
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #597 on: June 17, 2019, 09:14:24 PM »
cifta
My blind guess....(wonder how much I missed the point )  - the input was kind of combined series and parallel resonant circuit working *together* with output resonant circuits in *secret* mode , so the  power (to leds) was full or partly real at output yet the voltage in input circuits raised when each output coil was added. The same I saw explained by Ruslan Kulabuhov. That's reasonable explanation of scope damage

Offline citfta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 896
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #598 on: June 17, 2019, 09:16:58 PM »
Carol:
     The scope was used as a meter to read the high voltage probe. Had he kept going, the output would have exceeded what the scope is capable of. Like what I did to my Tek scope. Very nice scope but not any more.


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



Respectfully,
Carroll

Offline citfta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 896
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #599 on: June 17, 2019, 09:30:20 PM »
Hi Forest,

We both posted at the same time I see.  If your explanation is correct that means we have only been told part of the story.  Because all I keep reading is that the input current kept going down when more secondary coils were added.  I don't remember anyone saying anything about the input voltage going up.  Maybe I missed that or it was conveniently not mentioned.

If in fact the input voltage rises as the secondary coils are added that would make perfect sense for a tuned resonant circuit.  What I mean is that as coils are added the total inductance is being raising which is shifting the frequency response and thus the input signal will see a higher inductance and thus a higher voltage will be needed to overcome the increase in inductance.  We get that from the old school saying about inductors and capacitors :  ELI the ICE man  which is a convenient way to remember that voltage leads current in an inductor  and current leads voltage in a capacitor.   The inductive reactance must be very high for Rick to be afraid of blowing a scope connected to a high voltage probe.   No wonder he is afraid of people getting hurt messing with his circuits.

Thanks for your input.

Respectfully,
Carroll

 

OneLink