Rick, Rick, Rick... What are we going to do with you amigo?
You refuse to listen to reason.

Let me try saying it in a different way, but I know I am probably wasting my time:
If a person really has something unusual, they should be able to demonstrate it in a reasonable
and clear and concise way.

Some people are under the mistaken notion that if someone is a PH. D. in Physics,
they must automatically have a good practical knowledge in electronics or mechanics.
That is not necessarily the case at all however.

Dr. Stiffler made a very obvious mistake in his approach. He ignored the first and second laws
of 'over unity' testing as outlined above, and in my opinion he lead himself and others down the garden path.
He could have easily avoided doing that and saved himself and various other experimenters a lot of
wasted time and effort if he had simply heeded the first and second laws of 'over unity' circuit testing.
A self-looped arrangement would have quickly shown that his circuit arrangements were not capable
of self-sustaining, and therefore probably not showing a COP >1.

Well that's a good start. Like I said, I'll be posting a new website shortly that will go over a lot of things.
The problem is that you guys are set in your ways in several things. I have burst some of those bubbles but it may take a few more days to sink in. What I am trying to do is get you to take the first steps. The first step would be to tell us what you already know about OU. Why not tell us why you are hear, I mean why you suppose OU is worthy of investigation. I always start off my meetings with such introductions. Then I can try and help people from where they actually are. Here we have a Ham guy. Over there an EE. A physicist sitting there. What's your experience? OK, we don't need to cover some things because you all know such already. But since you wanted to learn this, I'll see how we can adapt the study around that. That's kind of what happens. So tell us exactly what reasons you have for believing or not believing in OU, or why you think it is probably or possibly true. What is your context?

You see I have been at this a long time dealing with many people and have realized what the obstacles in the way of learning/experiencing these things are. If you guys have not experienced this yet then how do you know what you are even looking for? I guess it is impossible to disprove OU is possible. So what can we start with? If G would answer me on this as well then wouldn't it be better that we learned the reason why he or anyone believes that OU is possible? If there is no context then this is just an impersonal game that will probably go nowhere. It just then continues to be the forum of trying to disprove OU as it always has been despite Stephan's intentions.

As for the multiple coil setup, I would not recommend making so many coils for the purpose of proving OU. Like I said, start with the Loving Paths teaching and take your typical closed loop circuit to your local "professional" to explain to you what Unity means exactly in that circuit. It has a motor in it so ask them what is possible to expect with this circuit. He tells you the brushless motor is 96% efficient. You ask him if there is any more energy that you can get out of this circuit? He says, the rest is just lost as heat. Now you know this RF guy on OU.com who brought to your attention what T. W. Barrett said in 1991 that we can harvest reactive loops as Tesla did for additional gains. So you open up the one selfish loop of the flyback diode to add an additional load in series with that now loving giving path. This is a big transformer with capacitor across the primary and another fully loaded motor across the secondary. You return to the professional and have him remeasure the primary loop and also the two other loops with his meters. He notices a major problem. He then throws a fit and runs out of the room never to be seen again! You stand there perplexed as you remember what he had said the day before. The meters showed that all the voltages and current added up on the front loop but now additional power was measured in the second and third loops. The motor was running the same, but the second motor was also running. This didn't add up. So you video it, and take a picture with the professional's meters and report it to the OU.com crew. But you are in fear of rejection because it would appear to contradict the policies of the forum. Because for 1. No OU claim is to be accepted at any costs and the purpose there is to try and disprove any such claim. And 2. Nothing but a self-looped system is of any value. But you do see that you have something. It just doesn't fit in with the skeptics arbitrary demands. Two outputs for one input is not acceptable. Then you say to yourself, "well, who really cares about what they say, they haven't even got this far yet. I'll just use this extra power while they continue to pay full price!

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.

Void,
If anyone is to make any OU rules don't you think that it should be those who have actual experience with OU???

Yes LABs can have such efficiency. So if we can rotate batteries round continuously then what does that mean? Means you have 2.5 times more output than input. You make a calculation error here by saying 2. You would have to have 2.5 times. And if you have only 80% charge in a charging battery then that would mean you really have 2 times the output given your first point. No one likes to admit that. So it is rather significant even when people cannot not fully rotate their batteries around. In fact, if I were to sell a system on the general market that was a battery rotating system I would get very little sales. But if I make it just more efficient, say 25% better than anything else, using this system, then it would/does really sell. OU doesn't sell as probably less than 10% of the population believes it.

You need to realize that the batteries are connected electrically to each other so you can't just feed them directly into each other. Of course we did many different models years ago that back popped the batteries as you guys are still after. But that was not the best or proper or easy solution. I have shown a better easier way. Also, battery rotation is actually a self-looping. So end of story. Well, we turn off the motor for a split second to rotate the batteries. So I guess that is not a constant self-looping.

I'm not sure who these "some people" are, but it's not me. I gave rides on my boat all day long and had it for three years. And I get customers calling me up, who are actually reading this exchange here, who bought my big motors years ago, and who are still charging many batteries with them. But not all people need to do a self-loop. What if I didn't charge a battery but powered another motor and that powered another motor, etc. What if I had a whole chain of motors running with one input?

We have a standing joke in my meetings. People on these forums would not care if I showed a 30KW system so long as the 30W input was not self-looped. That is more important to people than multiplying it out 10,000 times. Wouldn't it be funny if that's what people demanded on an OU forum?

Again I ask, are you in a position to know how OU works? You are the one who makes the rules and yet your name is Void!  All this talk but what have you built? What experience do you have? Again, I am not here to prove anything to anyone, just as you are not trying to prove anything to me. People share ideas for others to try in person. You are trying to control others and tell them what can be done and mocking people. Nameless Void, what have you accomplished all this time on this forum? What is your fruit? It seems you are the one blowing smoke. That is your fruit. Void words.

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?

Void,
You walked right into that last post. And did you say below that you "have an open mind" 

As for cold, we have had many experiences along these lines over the years. We have often cold boiled batteries where they measured with real meters colder than room temperature. This was experienced repeatedly over years at all times in the charging process when batteries started at room temperature. Obviously something you have to experience for yourself. This was with different charging rates as well. If the input of the charger was 30A to a golf-cart bank then the batteries should have been warmer than ambient. So this is actually very important. We have also sometimes seen freezing take place in rare cases with the motors. But that is another story. Welcome to negative energy engineering.

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.  ;-)

Obviously such people realized that your Void presumptions were nonsense. Because obviously OU is more than just self-looping. What if people want another form of output? What if I have a primary OU system that is powering another that is not self-looped because it doesn't need to be in that case and which is producing another useful form of energy? Is this not OU? You are just rambling nonsense because you have no experience in these things and real-world systems. I talk to engineers and people at the cutting edge of technology all around the world about all forms of energy production and trying to help solve existing problems. There are so many situations that do not require self-looping and yet are OU in fact. So this is just foolish. What if people only need hybrid systems where they already have continuous but limited power source and just need an amplification while needing a motor to run as well? Anyway, your are just trying to limit reality and control what people think and do. You are taking this forum far to seriously. It is just a bunch of guys trading ideas. You are making it out to be something way more. If you wasted time on someone's claim that is your fault and not some person making a claim. The problem is not what is not shown but the problem I have been putting my finger on, PRESUMPTION, ASSUMPTION, PREJUDICE. Why don't you peach against that? It is because you live by that. Spend your time telling people not to believe claims for or against OU. Don't tell us how to be Void and presumptuous like this.

Some people are under the mistaken notion that if someone is a PH. D. in Physics,
they must automatically have a good practical knowledge in electronics or mechanics.
That is not necessarily the case at all however.

Dr. Stiffler made a very obvious mistake in his approach. He ignored the first and second laws
of 'over unity' testing as outlined above, and in my opinion he lead himself and others down the garden path. He could have easily avoided doing that and saved himself and various other experimenters a lot of wasted time and effort if he had simply heeded the first and second laws of 'over unity' circuit testing. A self-looped arrangement would have quickly shown that his circuit arrangements were not capable of self-sustaining, and therefore probably not showing a COP >1.

Hey B,
This is good to hear. As for your situation there are a thousands things I could say. This is probably best to call me up so we can go back and forth on the details. The first thing probably is to go back to what you had initially and make careful observations. The second thing to consider is that the old setups could have partially damaged transistors. I have almost certainty that many people who got poor results had such because they had that. It is easy to forget to hook the charging battery. And the switching can still work but it is now possibly damaged. Or some experiment was done it was damaged. I have worked with many people only to find that was the case. Because almost everyone thinks everything is ok unless it is a full smoked transistor. The next thing is to realize that the trigger coil setups were problematic in that the impedance keeps changing with batteries. So unless you get things right on as in the video it will wander off (as you can see when the second 100W was added input battery voltage went up and he had to adjust the pot slightly).

Now I am not disclosing anything about the ideal setup other than what I have shared on this thread by pointing to the sources where you can see your options. This is something people have to work for. My policy is that I don't give out part numbers (for one reason as that people end up buying them out) and this ideal system actually crosses the line. All I planned on doing was giving the basics so that people can multiply the outputs enough times for their needs.

Stay tuned as I will do a completely free, literally using that word in the domain, website like I did with potentialtec.com over the years. I will see about adding more detail there if it is appropriate.

One thing to look at with those old setups is placing a 100W LED module in series with the charging battery and tell me if it really lights up or is relatively faint. Or check the collector and emitter with the scope when you are charging a sulfated battery with little capacity. Tell me what the voltage is? We are looking to see the effects of suitable impulsing. This is all before the other questions. Well looking again at what you wrote that should be fine. You can remove the capacitors with the inductors and try some different arrangements... Again, you can call sometime and we can go over exactly what you have there.

Hi Rick,
I have a question about series impedance in pulsemotor setups and would be very happy, if you can give me a tip what I can do. My situation is, that I was able to replicate the zero voltage process, that my Voltage on the source battery stands still a long time, and my motor runs the hole time and Lights were on. No doubt, I know it works. It was simply trail end error with different impedance, and after a lot of hours I had it. After that I was switching complete to the resonance kit and never tried the zero voltage process on pulsemotor setups again.
In the last two days it was my goal, to do it again with different small fans and bedini style motors from old days and also transformers and coils from scrap, but I struggled more then I was exepted. I had some outputs and LEDs for free, but didn't find the perfect matching anymore. Had tried to use one of the free outputs (secondary transfomer side) to loop back via rectifier to the source battery, but in my understanding it is not the right way.
My Question is: is there some tricks, that helps to find a good impedance matching. In resonance kit it is no problem for my, to get many outputs for free. You showed the tuning via variac, so I had tried small variable transformers from model railways. It helps but was not the best for my small Fans. 
Some things I have also tried:
- Tryed to reach Zero Voltage over the loads (AC and DC). I know this is only a indication that should help, not exact measurement.
- Added the biggest Transformers with large Wire diameter first, then the other Transformers that had -for example- higher Coil resistance.
- Added one transformer and matched it best I can, then I moved to the next one and also tryed to tune it.
- Used big 110AH Battery on the end.
- Used small 7Ah as Source.
- I used good low resistance labratory cables to connect everything.
- Tryed to add capacitors on every impedance that matches the frequency of the negative pulse (I used online calculator).
- If neon bulb (protection over transistor, I don't know the exact word for that) lits to much, I removed the last added impedance or tried to tune it better with capacitor in parallel.

Is there something more, that I can do to find a better matching? Can I tune the impedances via oscilloscope? Do you have shown something like that in one of your videos? If so, I can't remember, where I can find it.

Thanks a lot for all your posts, Videos and comments Rick !!!! .

No, actually I have no idea what circuit you are talking about. Messed up my cctv? Sorry, I can't recall. Can you give me more details?Just about any High Voltage E-field emitter will do that though, with these crappy unshielded USB extension cables. I can whip up something for you in a few minutes if you really need a CCTV/WIFI disruptor.  I have lots of devices I don't dare operate inside the house, the EEEE being one of them. Yes, it is still in the wings waiting for the right time to debut.

It was the circuit from the Ukrainian Government's Agricultural institute based in Kiev. It was a replication of only a part of a Don Smith circuit.  It kept blowing bulbs and they concluded that this required further study.  It was performed by a PHD student for his exams and supervised by the appropriate professor.