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

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

Plug Heater

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 Members: 83427
  • *Latest: 912jdp

  • *Total Posts: 511585
  • *Total Topics: 15234
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 9
  • *Guests: 19
  • *Total: 28

Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims  (Read 116838 times)

Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4339
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1125 on: July 11, 2019, 06:47:08 PM »
Rick,
How do you measure the source battery capacity before and after a long demonstration to confirm no loss or perhaps a gain in stored energy? As you know battery terminal voltages are not a reliable indicator of battery capacity. Also, Do you demonstrate your procedure for this to your students before and after demos?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1125 on: July 11, 2019, 06:47:08 PM »

Offline AlienGrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2924
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1126 on: July 11, 2019, 07:12:58 PM »
Rick,
How do you measure the source battery capacity before and after a long demonstration to confirm no loss or perhaps a gain in stored energy? As you know battery terminal voltages are not a reliable indicator of battery capacity. Also, Do you demonstrate your procedure for this to your students before and after demos?
I hate to be a cynic  ;D but unless you have a device that's capable of eather delaying the
humble electron to the finishing post than your grab circuit your never going to achieve much and that's a fact! Because that's what it amounts to.

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1127 on: July 11, 2019, 08:49:22 PM »
Yes, that is part of the morning talk/demo of the battery chargers and inverter demo. Two of my industrial chargers do actual resistive load measurements with 4 or 6 power settings. There is no other way to properly determine what a battery can put out. So don't be deceived that you can know the true AH capacity of a battery with a CCA car battery tester that puts a 100A resistive load over 10 seconds. The charger loads down the battery to 8V on a 12V battery (and the equivalent for the 24V and 2V models) but only measures to 10.5V what the actual AH are. It gives volts and Amps over time minute by minute. Then it does that one or more times and gives a % gain reading as well. This has been done by at least 20 companies around the world that have constantly used these machines 24/7 for about 12 years now. They do it for a business to restore thousands of batteries. The AH reading will of course be at the particular C rate of the load settings, so you still have to put those numbers into the online calculator to compare what the manufacturers specs are at the stated C rates (usually they should have 2 C rates listed). That means they will have maybe a C 20 rate and a C 8 or 5 rating. And the differences as we mentioned are relating to Peukert's law.

So years ago on my many monopole groups I tried to get people to get used to doing at least 10 full cycles before they do any experiments. That way the new battery can stabilize and they can also appreciate what the battery can really put out. Also what it takes to charge it. What we found, as a side note, was that the maximum efficiency was when you only charge the battery up to say 85-90% as the last percentage too more energy. We saw many people want to have their batteries rest at 14V and were charging them to 16V or higher under charge. Anyway, they were able to learn the battery curves and many things by that experience. It made them aware of how sulfated batteries can have voltage but no capacity, and how new batteries can have some changes in the first few cycles. Also that starter batteries cost a lot more than true deep cycle batteries for the amount of lead/real capacity.

Your comment about terminal voltages is only partly true so it is a mistake to say that. Once you have established what you batteries and system is doing then the voltage reading can properly be used as a reference indicator based upon a properly controlled environment. You guys are still playing with hobby toys and assume we just make ignorant measurements over 5 minutes. Well that was what Bedini did, but not what I do. Some of the engineers I have worked with are at the top of the ladder and experience in their line of work and have the best equipment available, which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Of course that is totally unnecessary but if you want all the functionality then that is what you get. Some of the Midtronics battery capacity analyzer systems actually do make a short load tests after you load in all the numbers. I would never trust them to be accurate, which they are not for what we are doing, so we always to full charge and discharges to determine the actual capacity.

As for demonstrations, there is no way to properly demonstrate enough cycling of the batteries to give someone an exact sense of the actual capacity of the batteries. The goal is not to prove OU by means of the meetings, but to show how to prove it to yourself many ways. More and more of the people have systems already and just are looking for more advanced information. In the earlier years when people were more interest in just seeing an OU system we would take more time to do that. But now people are more interested in setting up systems and learning how to get maximum output. There are many things that have to be covered. For example, when I do the inverter demonstrations I go over the basics of voltage drops. So they see that and we go over the basic math and that means. For example, I'll do a demonstration of 3000W of big incandescent bulbs with a KWmeter circuit breakers and inverter. On a set of 12V golf-cart batteries the voltage drop will very quickly drop below the 10.5V minimum. So we go over how that doesn't mean the batteries have discharged very much at all. They have to learn these basics to be able to use this technology and know how to estimate what a system is doing. This takes several hours to do, and if I don't do this then they will not properly understand any demonstrations. Showing an OU system will not mean much for most people if they don't know how to evaluate it. I'm doing a video right now where I will talk about how Gerard deceived a customer of mine that I just met with yesterday in Canada. I'll explain some things in that video I'll upload tonight.

Rick,
How do you measure the source battery capacity before and after a long demonstration to confirm no loss or perhaps a gain in stored energy? As you know battery terminal voltages are not a reliable indicator of battery capacity. Also, Do you demonstrate your procedure for this to your students before and after demos?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1127 on: July 11, 2019, 08:49:22 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline partzman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1128 on: July 11, 2019, 09:34:23 PM »
Rick,

With all this talk about the finer points of LABs, your claims of 'easy' OU, and your having knowledge of many ways to accomplish such , I propose a reasonable test for you to perform to verify your claims that would convince critics like myself to accept what you are saying and teaching!

Take 1 (one) LAB of your choice and any circuit of your choosing that you have developed over the years.  Power the input of your circuit with this single LAB and take the excess output from the same circuit that you claim produces OU and use it to replace the assumed smaller amount of energy drawn from the LAB.  IOW, the LAB is the summing point of energy consumed by your circuit and the energy produced by your circuit.  This should be relatively easy to do and would be a great teaching tool at your seminars.

Regards,
Pm


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1129 on: July 11, 2019, 11:24:05 PM »
AG,
We have done that with the Bill Fogal arrangement. This is a charge barrier technology.
But you are not correct in assuming that is the only thing we can do. All we have to do is spin electrons and have a means of collecting the effects. That is easy to do in different ways.

I hate to be a cynic  ;D but unless you have a device that's capable of eather delaying the
humble electron to the finishing post than your grab circuit your never going to achieve much and that's a fact! Because that's what it amounts to.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1129 on: July 11, 2019, 11:24:05 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline AlienGrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2924
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1130 on: July 12, 2019, 12:07:33 AM »
AG,
We have done that with the Bill Fogal arrangement. This is a charge barrier technology.
But you are not correct in assuming that is the only thing we can do. All we have to do is spin electrons and have a means of collecting the effects. That is easy to do in different ways.
Rick, Thanks for the reply, that doesn't surprise me would ESR i have come across that befor would you like to explain a little more please ?

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1131 on: July 12, 2019, 01:16:09 AM »
P,
I appreciate your suggestion. I'll make a few points as a response:

1. While it is true that LABs are really more complicated that people realize, it is also true that people can experience free energy with them without really knowing all the details mentioned. You guys are only after one kind of system that is self-running. That is fine, but you need to appreciate first something less than that, that is very easy. A claim that is easier to verify is a fan charging another battery while it is running. All the energy is used up in the Kirchhoff loop and the excess is free energy. I know that is old news, but skeptics don't want to admit that.

2. Yes I know many ways to do OU but I will not get into most of them because such are either not practical for one or more reasons or they will get people into trouble. What you are suggesting is a non-battery system, and that crosses a line. I suppose if you added enough parts to make it big, complicated, and expensive then that may be fine. But small simple systems like that are not allowed for the general public. This would be me taking one of the AC motors I just showed in this video: https://youtu.be/2amFnvh9zqg  and making them run themselves (which is easy enough to do when you understand how this energy works). There are thousands of these running all around the world. But no one will ever sell them to the general public. All I'll say is that if you rewire it inside and add three of the right capacitors then you can do that. I've been in many trades over the years and grew up hearing stories about people doing that. These are rumors all over the US and Canada and elsewhere. But they are real. I don't expect anyone to believe that.

3. The thing that everyone has to realize is that the input battery is part of the system. Some of the energy goes back to the input battery. That is why using a power supply does not give the same results. I can't really get into that in a few words here, but there are several important reasons why a battery is necessary in the energizer setups. Now I'm explaining how to have such a battery just stay charged. You can either do the two or three battery bank setups where the batteries can be rotated or just remain charged. I decided a few years back to show both of these. I got in enough trouble for doing that. That is good enough for anyone to provide all of their electrical needs. But to remove the batteries is an entirely different system.

4. What I show at my meetings is more important than that because it shows you how to multiply the output as many times as you want.

Rick,
With all this talk about the finer points of LABs, your claims of 'easy' OU, and your having knowledge of many ways to accomplish such , I propose a reasonable test for you to perform to verify your claims that would convince critics like myself to accept what you are saying and teaching!
Take 1 (one) LAB of your choice and any circuit of your choosing that you have developed over the years.  Power the input of your circuit with this single LAB and take the excess output from the same circuit that you claim produces OU and use it to replace the assumed smaller amount of energy drawn from the LAB.  IOW, the LAB is the summing point of energy consumed by your circuit and the energy produced by your circuit.  This should be relatively easy to do and would be a great teaching tool at your seminars.
Regards,
Pm

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1131 on: July 12, 2019, 01:16:09 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3978
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1132 on: July 12, 2019, 01:27:22 AM »
Hi Nick,

This was the core of my earlier post where I finished it yesterday:

...
In the present setup discussed here the receiver coils are very close to the TX coil, within a small fraction of a wavelength.
This inherently involves mutual coupling not only between the TX and RX coils but between the RX coils too. So basically adding
more and more receiver coils would demand more TX power if the TX (antenna) circuit were a parallel LC circuit. But the TX circuit here is a series LC circuit driven from a function generator or from a gate driver IC. 
Consider the impedance behaviour of parallel LC and series LC circuits in the function of frequency.
...

And this was the core of your latest answer to me:

 
   ...
   As itsu has shown a slight decrease in input power, while adding more coils onto the main coil, what makes this possible is the question at hand. And how many other coils can also tap into that near field, while dropping the input even lower, to actually obtain a higher output, than the input. Of course, that is still to be seen, replicated and shown. Whether one believes it, or not, is up to each person's discretion.


First I continue with well known things: the impedance of a parallel LC circuit is high at resonance (several tens of kOhm and higher) and the impedance of a series LC circuit is low (from a few Ohms down to a fraction of an Ohm), the latter depends mainly on whether the coil is wound with relatively thin or thick wire, whether has a lossy core or the core has very little eddy current and hysteresis losses, and  whether the tuning capacitor is of relatively good quality. Practically the DC resistance of the coil can dominate the series LC circuit impedance at resonance when there is no any other coil coupled to it.

Now let's consider this: our gate driver IC drives the series LC TX circuit at its resonant frequency and we couple a parallel LC circuit to it (also resonant at the same frequency). Induced voltage appears across the coupled LC circuit and if now we load this parallel LC circuit, the induced voltage amplitude will be reduced. However what is also very important here is that due to the mutual electromagnetic coupling between the two LC circuits, they influence each other's resonant impedance like this: the moment our load appears across our coupled LC circuit, this reflects back to the TX series LC circuit in the form of an increased series resistance. They influence each other's resonant frequency of course but we retune and fine tune them as needed for best energy transfer, changing also the coupling factor by the distance. If we do not retune the LC circuits, then the AC impedance of the small off tuned LC TX circuit also increases even though we have not loaded the coupled LC circuit yet. This is why I mentioned above the impedance behaviour of series and parallel LC circuits in the function of frequency. 

When the resonant impedance of the TX circuit increases from say its original 1 Ohm example value to a 3 Ohm transformed back impedance, then naturally the gate driver IC can drive less current into the same TX circuit than it could in the previous unloaded coupled circuit case. This is important to understand: more and more coupled coils will increase the series impedance of the series LC TX circuit higher and higher. 
This process manifests measurably across the TX coil and capacitor: their resonant voltage amplitude gradually decreases, say from the initial some kV to as low as some hundred volts or lower. 
In return for this, the AC current taken out from the output pin of the driver IC will decrease according to the increasing number of the satellite coils and a decreasing AC current involves a decreasing DC current draw by the driver IC from its DC supply.  This process inherently involves a decreasing input power draw by the gate driver IC of course, hence the EM field the TX coil creates around itself will also decrease gradually.   

If there is a trick or two here which still maintains the high level of oscillations in the LC circuits close to each other, then it has not been revealed. The so called DS effect whereby electrons are taken from the Earth via a ground wire and the useful output gets enhanced is not proven yet for us to give the COP > 1 claim so it remains a claim.  A.king21 recently reported his measured results of the effect of grounding: it increased output power by some milliwatts if I recall correctly.  Also, a quarter wave trick is mentioned, with no proof yet for us.  Of course, members tell lies in forums, in videos etc. so nothing can be proved by these... 

We may need to clarify what a gate driver IC does?  It does the same what a function generator, FG (set to square wave output) does: it switches a given (adjustable) voltage amplitude onto a load at one moment and takes it away at another moment (square wave amplitude and frequency). Both the FG and the IC output pin have a low output impedance (normally 50 Ohm for an FG and much less than that for gate drivers) so when the voltage is taken away the low impedance remains. In fact the low output impedance is present all the time regardless of the voltage amplitude between the 'hot' output and the negative supply rail or common ground. 

Let's suppose (for simplicity) the DC resistance of TX coil is again 1 Ohm I already wrote above as an example. When we drive this series LC by an FG at the resonant frequency, the 50 Ohm impedance of the FG comes in series with this 1 Ohm to form a closed circuit via the series LC components. Suppose the FG is set to 10 Vp unloaded output voltage and you connect the series LC at resonance across the FG output. So you load down the 50 Ohm output of the FG practically by 1 Ohm. The 10 Vp reduces to a much smaller output voltage i.e. to 0.196 Vp (voltage division between 50 and 1 Ohm). And a peak AC current of 0.196 Amper will be maintained in the series LC circuit. 

Now what happens when you use a gate driver to drive the series LC TX circuit? A decent gate driver can have an output impedance of around 1 Ohm. So it would drive a load of 1 Ohm, represented by the series LC TX circuit at resonance when no coupled satellite circuits are present. If the driver IC is fed from 10 V DC, its unloaded output voltage changes between quasi zero and 10 V peak voltage (a normal 50% duty cycle square wave) when driven from an FG.  If we load the output pin of the IC by the 1 Ohm resonant AC impedance of the TX circuit, the output voltage would drop to 5 V peak voltage due to the voltage divison between the 1 Ohm internal and 1 Ohm load impedance. And a peak AC current of 5 amper will be maintained in the series LC TX circuit.  Confront this to the case of the same TX LC circuit when driven by the FG that has the 50 Ohm output impedance.
This last two paragraph answers the question I kindly asked twice from A.king21 about 6 weeks ago, see here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534887/#msg534887 

but he gave no answer. This was my question: "So what is it which insures a larger EM field from the transmitter coil when a gate driver is used?

There would be some more to add but this post is already too long,  I hope I answered your questions and if you do not understand something, please ask.

Gyula

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1133 on: July 12, 2019, 01:44:55 AM »
The Fogal arrangement creates a tank that he was oscillating around 500MHz and more. In the right position with the semiconductor (transistor in his case) it effectively blocked current flow while the amplifier was running normally. Depending on how you look at it you will describe the process accordingly. It does relate to some of the things we have considered here...

Rick, Thanks for the reply, that doesn't surprise me would ESR i have come across that befor would you like to explain a little more please ?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1133 on: July 12, 2019, 01:44:55 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1134 on: July 12, 2019, 01:59:40 AM »
If you were meaning these comments then that is what we are doing with the motors energizers and the many Don Smith magnetic resonance systems. Some of the theory is in the book. The basic idea is that if you impulse electrons electrically then they will respond with a magnetic impulse first, followed by an electric impulse after. And if you magnetically impulse electrons they will first respond with an electrical impulse followed by a magnetic impulse. This is relatively easy to do and is being done all the time. It is just a matter of realizing this and setting up a good collection system. The resonance tank system creates a lot of such spin for free, and also at high CPS. Once you get that then it is game over. Then you will laugh and say, I now see why you wrote what you did to G.

"But you are not correct in assuming that is the only thing we can do. All we have to do is spin electrons and have a means of collecting the effects. That is easy to do in different ways."
Rick, Thanks for the reply, that doesn't surprise me would ESR i have come across that befor would you like to explain a little more please ?

Offline a.king21

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1568
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1135 on: July 12, 2019, 03:03:52 AM »
G:  I would prefer it if you would direct your technical questions to Rick. I do not have a permanent lab at my disposal and Rick is far better placed to answer your questions. My valuable time is spent verifying what I need to move on with other experiments. If you choose to disbelieve me that is absolutely fine and i will concede that you know better.
Itsu:  I can't remember the cold electricity circuit and it is not important to me if anyone verifies it or believes it. 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1135 on: July 12, 2019, 03:03:52 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1136 on: July 12, 2019, 04:04:08 AM »
G,
I appreciate the time you put into typing all this out. Many words do promote clear and proper communication. Less words create ambiguity.

Nice attempt of understanding what is going on. But this wouldn't explain input going to zero, because then you would have to have zero EM field as you suppose. You are not considering everything that is taking place. Or rather, everything that can take place once proper spacing/placement is achieved and other factors. As I said, (A) you can make the secondary coils decrease while the input also decreases (as you mention), (B) you can make the input increase while other coils are added, or (C) you could make the input decrease while additional outputs are added without decreasing the existing outputs. The latter can be done carefully until the input is zero or even negative. Increasing or decreasing the system resistance is not the explanation. I understand that you claim you have not experienced that and thus do not believe it. But it is not very hard to see for yourself how you can add loads that decrease the input while the loads do not decrease.

There is more going on here than your standard coupling here. And that is where people just assume it is the same sort of thing. Resonance coupling has a gain over regular magnetic coupling. The tank is a real "amplifier" and the secondaries become their own transmitters as well. Once that is understood it really opens doors for you. People assume that there is a firm coupling so that the same energy is just transferred back and forth so that everything is in balance in regards to input and output. Naturally anything contradicting that is automatically disbelieved and special proof is required for that when no special proof is expected for confirming disprove claims. One video shows Itsu doing A and or B and that is believed but if another video shows C then it is needing more proof.

As for the DSE that is easy to see that the load is doubled or replicated as Don showed. While we do not need to focus on that it still is relevant. And quarter wave length gains are not a matter of needing proof but simply a matter of using them. People can say well I disbelieve such and such and content themselves to not opening their eyes to what is in front of them. I'm not saying that is the case here, but only saying that the onus is on either claimant. No one has the monopoly on science, no matter how popular an idea is. I mean come on didn't we all used to believe that the earth was round before the flat earthers convinced us even more of that  :o

When the resonant impedance of the TX circuit increases from say its original 1 Ohm example value to a 3 Ohm transformed back impedance, then naturally the gate driver IC can drive less current into the same TX circuit than it could in the previous unloaded coupled circuit case. This is important to understand: more and more coupled coils will increase the series impedance of the series LC TX circuit higher and higher. 
This process manifests measurably across the TX coil and capacitor: their resonant voltage amplitude gradually decreases, say from the initial some kV to as low as some hundred volts or lower. 
In return for this, the AC current taken out from the output pin of the driver IC will decrease according to the increasing number of the satellite coils and a decreasing AC current involves a decreasing DC current draw by the driver IC from its DC supply.  This process inherently involves a decreasing input power draw by the gate driver IC of course, hence the EM field the TX coil creates around itself will also decrease gradually.   

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1137 on: July 12, 2019, 04:25:18 AM »
Nick,
I'm not following you. You have this or are asking what size coils do you need to have to do this? Not sure if you mean the same thing here with the words secondary coil and receiver coils.
A full circuit with proper loading is found in the rectenna technology. These will have proper impedance matching and frequency conversion to run DC loads. That is mainstream science already. All of the setups so far, like Itsu's or mine have not used proper or efficient filtering. We are only using a fraction of the actual energy that could be used because the capacitors, diodes, and/or loads are not meant for RF. So everything after the receiver coil (and in a way the coil itself) is already given in the rectenna tech. So that is what you would do. Just consider the many patents on the subject. The thing to examine is the gains in a resonance tank circuit, and it's effects on the local environment that can benefit from such gains and radiation. You are wanting a loop system, and that is fine. I'm just pointing to the easiest way for you to do that.

   Rick:  Ok, so I have an air coil tuned to 1.2MHz. It's connected to two 12v batteries providing 24v DC to the driver circuit. This Tesla type of secondary coil then provides an output of about 4000v, at 1.2MHz.  What size do the receiver coils need to be?   Like I said, a schematic with all the component values, coil sizes and details would be nice.
   Gyula: Thanks for the reply. Yes, I am aware of the normal coupling issues with far and near field of a radio transmitter.
But, the idea here is to find the anomaly, and not the normal situation with transmitting radio waves.That was really my question.
  Remember what Wesley has mentioned, concerning transmitting electrical signals world wide. To be received and converted to use able electrical power, with little to no losses in signal. Millions of dollars invested in that updated Tesla type of technology.
There must be something to it... as we all know about signal losses over great distances. But, it's what we don't know, that may be important, in this case. Perhaps using a higher input, and placing the receiver coils further away may help. Or not?
   As itsu has shown a slight decrease in input power, while adding more coils onto the main coil, what makes this possible is the question at hand. And how many other coils can also tap into that near field, while dropping the input even lower, to actually obtain a higher output, than the input. Of course, that is still to be seen, replicated and shown. Whether one believes it, or not, is up to each person's discretion.

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1138 on: July 12, 2019, 04:58:42 AM »
Void,
And that is the question. What is really happening in the near field. We don't even have a quarter wave length of distance. And yet quarter wavelength relationships really matter in the near field. We have both capacitive and magnetic relationships here. Not just with coils but many other objects, including our bodies. A lot of radiation is measured around the transmitter, and placing 500 loaded coils around it still produces radiation beyond them. Even placing a proper secondary inside of the primary, or around it (where all the radiation passes through it, will still allow this radiation to go beyond it to other coils and beyond them. This is a matter of fact of basic observation. This is all rather involved and it is perplexing to people who want a tidy simplistic model that conforms to the presumptuous law of conservation. This is why I made the kit as I did with the sensitive LED to learn these relationships in the near field. People really don't have any experience with these things because they are either doing radio in the far field and never even think about getting anything but weak signals they are amplifying, or if they work in the near field it is with one receiver coil that has an encrypted connection (which doesn't allow for the gains we are dealing with). And actually, what I am saying here is the very near future technology that will be in all your homes with the new rectenna tech that will be together with the internet monitoring of everything (ie, internet of things). WIFI powering and interacting with everything in a Smart (actually the dumbest thing ever) existence. Your clocks and gadgets and probably everything over $1 will have it's own IP and be powered this way. Things will be far more 'efficient' in this way at a sacrifice of your privacy and the every present risk of being hacked or just things not working. Total information awareness and total dependence upon his technology for everything. This is the new currency and the next new world order...

Hi Nick. There is a difference in the way things work and the way they should be analyzed
between the near field around coils and antennas, and the far field. The near field can roughly be
described as the space around a coil or antenna where self sustaining EM radiation hasn't fully formed.
Placing receiving coils within the near field of a 'transmitter' coil will cause loading on the transmitter coil. The further away the receiver coil is away from the transmitter coil, the less power can be drawn from the transmitting coil. Receiving antennas are normally well in the far field range of an RF transmitter, and do not load down the transmitter. The power the transmitter is consuming is lost in the driver circuitry and the EM radiation from the antenna whether there are any receiving antennas or not. At quite low frequencies, a coil will not radiate much EM radiation, so you are mainly concerned with the near field.

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1139 on: July 12, 2019, 05:38:27 AM »
This first part is true. And misconceptions do happen all the time. You have a circuit that is not running efficiently and the output is low. But then you tune it properly and it produces a higher output. But all that is within the Kirchhoff loop rule. Once we are dealing outside of that primary loop, and experiencing gains beyond the death circle then we are dealing with another matter in reactive loops that can result in additional gains. This is the dirty little secret everyone wants to avoid. Again I bring up the billions of DC brushless motor fans around the world. They are given an efficiency rating that can be in the mid to high 90s in some cases. So if you move a single diode and charge a battery at the same time you still have the same efficiency, input energy, and CFMs produced/consumed on the motor death (because it kills the source charge) loop. But now you have another battery being charged, or capacitor, or bulb running, etc. Now it is easy to see that the gains on this reactive loop are much more than the few % left to make up 100%. So efficiency only goes so far. The reactive loop as properly loaded (which is never done in mainstream) is free energy and the combined loads in motor and battery are above unity or 100%.

The same is true with these RF systems in the near field, even when non-RF parts are used on purpose to keep the output safe and low for the amateur. 90 coils loaded down produced many times more light than should have been possible. And 500 coils could have been used, each of which can lower the input without lowering the loading of each bulb.

The secret of this is understanding the principles of free energy. The first is the 'Selfish Circuits or Loving Giving Paths' principle of open/reactive loops in addition to closed single body loops. Once you create and use the reactive loop in the fan you have a many body system that has a gain. Once you make a resonance tank circuit you have a many body system rather than one. The key is to also use that as I am doing with many receivers or many turns secondary. Each secondary must be arranged to be just like the reactive loop in the fan, and not as part of the death loop of Kirchhoff. You can couple these receiver coils as a single body and experience that under unity dynamic most of you assume as only possible, or you can make it a reactive loop/receiver that is like the fan and allows for a more independent relationship with the primary body and thus has an independent gain above the primary body efficiency. Direct coupling is mostly under unity, but loose coupling allows for a many body network or system to experience real gains as T. W. Barrett said 30 years ago and as Kron finally realized long before him: "A network with the simultaneous presence of both closed and open paths was the answer to the author's years-long search." Once you guys get this first point you can begin nonlinear reactive engineering.

Hi a.king21. I have been busy with various other things and still am, so I haven't seen any of Itsu's test videos here, but I will point out a common misconception in circuit arrangements such as you described, which is the assumption that input power consumption should go up and down in direct relation to the amount of output power being delivered to the circuit load.

That is not always the case however. In AC circuits we have the concept of impedance matching. Changing the output configuration by adding or removing coils or changing coil windings or loads, etc., for example, changes the impedance matching between the input circuitry and the output circuitry. This will cause the efficiency of the overall AC circuit to change. If a change is made to a circuit arrangement which increases the overall circuit efficiency of the circuit, you can potentially deliver more overall output power to your load(s) while seeing a drop in input power consumption.
This is due to increasing the circuit's efficiency by improving the input to output impedance matching.

However, such an increase in efficiency tells an experimenter nothing about whether the circuit is anywhere near COP =1, or not. That can only be determined by properly measuring the overall circuit efficiency. Since making such efficiency measurements can sometimes be tricky in AC circuits, the only really half decent reliable test of whether an OU experimenter may be anywhere near COP =1 or better, is to try to self loop the circuit. Such a test setup bypasses any potential mistakes in measurements or mistakes due to incorrect assumptions or the experimenter potentially overlooking other important factors which are throwing off their measurements. There are numerous ways that experimenters can potentially be mislead by just looking at measurements alone (especially at lower power levels), so a self-looping  arrangement becomes the only real practical benchmark way to separate the wheat from the chaff. We have all seen where experimenters thought they were onto something really special only to find that it all falls apart when they try to self-loop
their circuit arrangement. :)

The first law of 'over unity' testing:
If you haven't tested your circuit arrangement using a self looping arrangement and left it to run for a reasonable length of time (depends on power source being used and total power consumption), then you are not in any sort of reasonable position to attempt to draw any definite conclusions about the circuit COP.

 

OneLink