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 Members: 83569
  • *Latest: jank

  • *Total Posts: 515149
  • *Total Topics: 15321
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 8
  • *Total: 9

Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims  (Read 199879 times)

Offline partzman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1155 on: July 12, 2019, 06:19:33 PM »
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.

RF,

Respectively, you are correct.  The test I proposed does cross a line and a very important one at that!  It is the line of TRUE OU.  On one side we have everything that is conservative that is, COP<1 and on the other side is the undeniable proof of COP>1.

When you incorporate multiple batteries in your work, this opens up the possibility of many incorrect assumptions and calculations to appear and thus raises question of the validity of any OU claims made.

If you truly are producing OU, then your device should be able to bootstrap charge a battery or capacitor totally by itself.  If not, then it is not OU.  It really is that simple because then nothing then depends on analysis, only the results.

Regards,
Pm




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1155 on: July 12, 2019, 06:19:33 PM »

Offline AlienGrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2936
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1156 on: July 12, 2019, 07:00:07 PM »
Hi AlienGrey,

Thanks for the answer, will try to digest evostars's video(s) on the schematic later.  Back then he dealt with it I did not
follow his activity. I know that the circuit originates from Nelson. 
I would have questions on that circuit: your notice of "it works very well" means exactly what? 
And is the output power taken from L3C4 parallel circuit?

Gyula
Well yes, but you would have to stick very rigidly to it's construction guide lines  the two video's are on you tube,
I have chatted with Nelson but the original was some what different and smaller than ''master ivo's'' version. I only made the device as far as L1 and L2 goes it can more or less instantly charge a 2.2uf cap (2x 4.7uf 350v) instantaneously to over 500 volts and is lethal.  AG
ps
But I suggest if you want any further details you really should contact Nelson, him self as he is the man!
AG

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1157 on: July 12, 2019, 07:10:56 PM »
Yeah, it really depends on what you are wanting to do. I think there is some mad rush to try and prove something out in five minutes, and that if you can't do that then it's assumed you have nothing. Obviously a system without a battery would show that but batteries take some time to know. There are a lot of mistakes people make as we have talked about already. The 4AH battery, as someone mentioned, is easier to see things faster, but it is also a bottleneck because of its size. We are not merely dealing with the inverse Peukerts law in this respect. When I went from charging a 12AH 12V battery to charging a 48V bank of 2000AH batteries I got a COP of over 200 and over 200 times the charging energy over the smaller battery while the input and motor stayed the same. Obviously that is not relating to Peukerts law. Even though that is amazing, it still was not a practical use of such a big bank. It is more practical to charge them faster with much less COP.

Like I said, it depends on what you want to do. You guys are still trying to experience OU whereas many people already have that experience and just want to improve upon their options. So it is more about what you specifically want to do with particular loads than merely trying to prove OU these days. Some people just want free air flow so they will do a fan. Others want a motor for an electric vehicle. Others want generators for electricity.

The batteries need to be considered as a unique collector negative resistor. The size will determine the amount of energy collection just like the Heaviside capacitive collection system Don Smith patented. Now lithium take advantage of a different benefit, and that is low esr. They will respond faster and will give better results than LABs of similar capacity ratings.

What I do in the meetings to show instantly the output is take my little window motor and run it at a few hundred ma at 12V and show various bulbs light up while with or without charging another battery. So you have the energy being used to run the motor, just like the fan, and now you can see the 100W module light up and even get hot. Even if it is the same amount of power as the input, you then have double the energy seen right away. This is good for basic tuning so that you don't have to make very long observations on the effects of charging batteries. Of course these loads are different, but at least it gives you a fair estimation of the amount of excess energy. The reason I like the fan demo is because the CFMs can be shown to be the same with or without the load on the reactive loop. So whatever is done on that loop is free energy. It is above or over unity without any self-loop. OU is not self-running, these are different ideas. It is extra loading that was thought to be impossible. It is a non-conservative experience. It does show that saying Kirchhoff is a universal is for the birds. Kirchhoff is only relating to steady state closed loops and has nothing to do with the gains from loosely associated reactive loops with their loads.

LEDs can be personally measured and compared with light meters, etc. You can't do much with video. But you can when it is really obvious. If you have a 100W module very bright and hot to the touch, but the input battery stays the same for an hour then it is obvious without a light meter, etc. I may have some other video of other meetings we did in Germany where we did hook up the scope to that box (as shown in the picture). There were skeptics at that meeting that did bring their equipment and measured it.

Rick,
Thanks for your reply ref measuring battery capacity. So, it becomes very difficult indeed to determine a system COP when loads are just a small fraction of a batteries rated A/hr (inverse Peukerts Law). Therefore, for example, how to determine how long a given number of constant current fed very low power LED lamps running as a load on a system powered from a say a 12A/hr, 20A/hr or 40A/hr LA source battery should stay illuminated in order to declare the DUT is running OU.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1157 on: July 12, 2019, 07:10:56 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1158 on: July 12, 2019, 07:17:42 PM »
AG,
That is very true. So when you can rotate batteries around then what does that mean about how much energy has to be produced?

Hoppy, does LA have a double meaning when dealing with LA batteries ie Losey Accumulators as 50% in charging is lost so bang goes your theory !  you need a less losey way to store the energy!

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1159 on: July 12, 2019, 07:36:38 PM »
If you were following what I have been saying over the last 3 weeks you would see that I agree with that. I do not try and prove anything with a video. But this means that you cannot disprove anything with a video as well.
The big difference with your setup and mine is that you were using 300ma to power three tiny leds and I was using 60 and 80ma powering 90 LEDs and also that I could have easily 500. I also had witnesses who are actually reading this forum right now. But again, you can't prove anything over the internet, which is what I titled the video showing this.

I just asked one question.

But I'm sure the readers here will note that almost everything you say about my demonstration also applies to yours.


Is this system OU?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNzbc-N-e9c

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1159 on: July 12, 2019, 07:36:38 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1160 on: July 12, 2019, 07:41:54 PM »

Like I said, it depends on what you want to do. You guys are still trying to experience OU whereas many people already have that experience and just want to improve upon their options. So it is more about what you specifically want to do with particular loads than merely trying to prove OU these days. Some people just want free air flow so they will do a fan. Others want a motor for an electric vehicle. Others want generators for electricity.

Thanks again Rick for your detailed reply. However, it has not really explained how, that if I was a student of yours, how you could satisfy me that a given system of yours was running OU, given battery vagaries we have discussed. As an example, take a multiple coil and LED system like demonstrated in the video you posted and assume that I just want to experience an OU demo from you as my tutor. Also, assume that I'm not a complete rookie and that I have a good conventional grounding in electrical principles and measurement. Take me through the stages you would take to demonstrate an OU system to me at the bench so to speak, not by video.

Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2371
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1161 on: July 12, 2019, 08:20:18 PM »
Lead acid batteries in good condition are generally taken to have a charge and discharge efficiency of roughly around 85%,
but could be as low as 50% efficiency or possibly even lower depending on the exact Lead Acid battery type and the battery
condition. However, if a claimed OU circuit setup has a COP of say >= 2, then you should be able to self-loop
and completely do away with any battery at the input. You may be able to do that with an even lower COP.
If the battery is claimed to be an essential part of the OU setup, then you should still be able to self-loop
as long as you leave the circuit running in self-looped mode for a reasonable length of time in comparison to
the battery capacity.

Overall very straightforward. Some people avoid such straightforward test setups for obvious reasons however. They prefer
hand waving and rationalizations and excuses and incomplete and/or improper or at least questionable measurements and
assumptions to try to help further their cause. ;)

Second law of OU circuit testing:
If a person refuses to put in an effort to self-loop a circuit setup under test in a reasonable way, which they are claiming is OU,
which should be quite straightforward and easy to do in most cases, then chances are very high they are just blowing smoke. 


Is that too honest? :)


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1161 on: July 12, 2019, 08:20:18 PM »
Sponsored links:





Offline AlienGrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2936
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1163 on: July 12, 2019, 10:03:57 PM »
AG,
That is very true. So when you can rotate batteries around then what does that mean about how much energy has to be produced?
I have no experience in battery shuffling. I have in my case some solar panels charged with an FET controlled charger and i only have the one battery and it doesn't like it and at over 140 Euros each time I think I will be buying Ni or a high farad capacitor battery bank next time round.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1163 on: July 12, 2019, 10:03:57 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1164 on: July 12, 2019, 10:10:57 PM »
That's a good point Nick. I'll remember that. I guess that video was pointless then.
But I don't think so. Meters have their place and can show many valuable things. However, always remember that what you put in is what you will get out, and I'm referring to energy here, but assumptions. The meter is made to do something specific and does not notice everything.
Any readings can be wrong

Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2371
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1165 on: July 12, 2019, 10:59:31 PM »
For anyone who cares at all about reality, here is a recap of the essentials in OU circuit testing.
These laws were derived from many years of practical experience and have been proven many times over to be true and immutable laws.

First law of 'over unity' circuit 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 (i.e., the supposition of COP > 1).

Second law of 'over unity' circuit testing:
If a person refuses to put in an effort to self-loop a circuit setup under test in a reasonable way, which they are claiming is OU,
which should be quite straightforward and easy to do in most cases, then chances are very high they are just blowing smoke. 

Third Law of 'over unity' circuit testing:
Ignore the above two laws at your own peril. All else is folly.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1165 on: July 12, 2019, 10:59:31 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline a.king21

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1611
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1166 on: July 12, 2019, 11:32:55 PM »
A.king21,

You are joking again,  right?    Cold electricity is like the holy grail in free energy and you can't
remember the circuit but you asked me to "check it out"?:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536322/#msg536322

Itsu
Your comment to me on another forum is insulting.  I don't need to prove cold electricity to you or anyone else. This is for each person to determine for themselves. It was a DSE circuit.

Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2371
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1167 on: July 13, 2019, 12:19:46 AM »
I for one would love to see a reasonable demonstration of 'cold electricity' or 'negative electricity'.
I can't say I have ever seen a demonstration of such concepts which looks reasonable to me, but I have an open mind.
Nothing would be more cool (no pun intended) than to be able to power a load without depleting the power source and while the circuitry and
load remains cold or gets colder or forms frost as the circuit operates, and I am not talking about a refrigeration type circuit.  ;-)


Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2371
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1168 on: July 13, 2019, 12:20:46 AM »
It was a DSE circuit.

What is a DSE circuit? Don Smith ???? circuit?

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1169 on: July 13, 2019, 12:21:33 AM »
Void,
Well I can think of one other person whose words I don't understand. I really don't think anyone sees me as being nonsensical.
Notice you say "pretty much". Obviously it is not "an essential requirement".
First of all, why is electrical energy the only form of energy that is acceptable to you people? Why are other forms of energy production any less? Again, if I power a fan normally, which requires all the input to do that, and now I produce some electrical or some light in addition to that, why is that not OU? Why not just say only self-looping circuit is worthy of any consideration. Why call that OU?

Secondly, I am not against self-looping. That is fine. But you are over-reaching here. You are trying to claim too much.

Thirdly, I understand perfectly well that most people don't know what they are doing. So you are just arguing from what you think is a practical level. I am just saying that demonstrating free energy is a lot easier than you assume it is. You guys don't use term free energy here for some reason. That's fine, whatever you want to call it. More than normal, more than unity, nonconservative. Someone runs a motor, and then after adding a load on the reactive side they produce more output. The end of the story without any sell-looping. That is not insignificant. You guys do not want to admit that.

You say: "One of course does not use self-looping to measure the COP, just to determine if the COP might really be greater than 1." That's all fine but that still is all that it is. What you are really saying is that self-looping is the ONLY thing that matters. And that simply is not true. You guys are not proving your point here. I have long proved otherwise. While many people have self-loop setups, many thousands do not and still have OU.

Again, I do not disregard self-looping. Spend a little more time to actually ready what I write and stop misrepresenting me as saying nonsense. Just because you insist upon self-looping does not mean that 1. I must agree with that, or 2. That I don't believe in self-looping.

Also, if I rotate the same batteries around for years then that is a different kind of self-looping that you guys also reject. You are therefore trying to control what other people do for whatever reason. But you don't get to make up some rules here. It is not about words but about actually getting more work done than is thought to be possible. If I have a fan that takes 29W to run, and now I run it the same speed but also power other loads, then I have done that. That has nothing to do with self-looping. If I have a 26' boat and I run it for three years where it is not self-looped, but I merely stop it for a second and rotate around the big Anderson connectors to swap the batteries around then I think that is what we are all after??? This is not the self-loop you desire but it is the same end result. So you guys don't really know what you are saying by insisting in a certain form of things. I do because I have been doing all these ways, self-looped, battery rotation manually, battery rotation automatically, and also producing every form of energy as an output for many years now. I'm not at the place you guys are at where you supposedly have not experience OU yet. That was 15 years ago and many of us have long moved on to actually using this energy in every way...

You keep saying "nonsense" but it is obvious to everyone that you are just trying to convince people of something by repeating the same word. How is one to respond to that? That actually makes no sense.

You bring up the fact that so many people fail. Well why have you guys attacked and mocked me for driving home the truth that you cannot prove or disprove any OU claim over the internet? That is the most significant error contributing to all this confusion on these forums. You give license to false claims and suppression to real claims. Why not admit this? Instead you guys go on this trip to push this arbitrary requirement. That is not the problem. The problem is about dealing with prejudgment and ignorance. The ignorance is not with the people who do not understand electronics, but also with those who only know mainstream theory. Both of you guys make equally bad mistakes. The later just assumes half of electrical reality is the whole story. Welcome to the history of science where the same people continue to perpetuate perpetual motion arrogance! They know everything and condemn anyone who questions that.

Now look at your circular statement here that amounts to nothing: "If a person can't understand why this is so important, and it really should be obvious why it is very critical, then IMO they should take up a new hobby." This is beyond circular, it is silly. You say if a person doesn't understand why something is important, because they are unaware of it, they should somehow know that they should take up a new hobby. That's really sound reasoning, actually Void of reasoning  ;D If they don't understand why something is so important how are they supposed to know? Silly! But you beg the question here. Why is it so important? It may be convenient for you. It may be what you want. But there are other options to benefit from free energy processes that are different than self-looping. I have proven this now, so the case is closed here. All you can do is make nonsensical statements like this all the while saying I am saying nonsense. Usually name calling in such cases reflects what the person is doing themselves.

Anyway, you have not made any point here to justify your claim. Just that it would seem more convenient for what you are after. The fact is that while I have done what you demand to be the only way, I find that it is not the only way to do that and is not the best way. It is far better to have the system maintain itself rather than try and close more loops and shuffle current around. That really goes against an OU system anyway. The end of the matter is that you can have OU without self-looping.

Hi Rick. If you only knew just how nonsensical your statements are here...
I actually already clearly explained why setting up a proper self-looping circuit arrangement is pretty much an essential requirement before anyone can be in any position to reasonably suggest that they are getting a COP > 1 with their circuit setup.
Undeniable Fact:  Most people who experiment and search for OU are not anywhere near experts on power measurements on complex AC circuits or even on basic AC circuits for that matter, and people in these forums often make all kinds of mistakes in their measurements and in their assumptions, and also often overlook one or more important factors which may otherwise be throwing off their measurements. Self-looping the output power of a device to loop back to assist or fully provide the input power to the claimed COP > 1 device is therefore a very important step to rule out measurement errors, etc. Such a self-looped arrangement doesn't completely rule out external factors affecting the results, but if the self-looping testing is set up properly and reasonably it can go a long way towards eliminating being mislead by measurement errors and incorrect assumptions. One of course does not use self-looping to measure the COP, just to determine if the COP might really be greater than 1.
Rick, from seeing a number of your videos in the past, it doesn't surprise me at all that you are completely missing the great importance of a self-looped test setup in this area of experimentation, and that you responded back with a bunch of nonsense. BTW, I was just kidding about the part about this being 'a law', but really this testing requirement should be an absolute given in this area of experimentation after all the many years of people posting nonsense in these forums and on YouTube. There is just no question about the great importance of trying to implement circuit self-looping in regards to any circuit setup which an experimenter thinks might be exhibiting a COP > 1. If a person can't understand why this is so important, and it really should be obvious why it is very critical, then IMO they should take up a new hobby. They are most likely only going to end up misleading them self and possibly others as well who are also naïve and gullible, unless their intention is to mislead others and try to separate other people from their money. There are number of people like that out there as well.
In probably most cases, examination of a claimed COP > 1 circuit arrangement which may drag on for months and months here due to experimenters making incorrect measurements and/or making incorrect assumptions or missing other important factors influencing their results, could quickly be analyzed as to its real performance by simply taking a little bit of time to determine a reasonable and proper way to self-loop the circuit setup and then observe how it really performs.  :)


 

OneLink