Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 514830
  • *Total Topics: 15318
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 16

Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims  (Read 198159 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1185 on: July 13, 2019, 04:46:18 AM »
   TK:   
   Good to see you here. And you're showing a good refresher course of input to output calculations. Something that most of us can learn something from.   Your rig appears to show OU, but if so, can it be made to self run? As that is the final show down.
    Any readings can be wrong, so the loop back is always the part that fills the missing link. 
    Thanks for showing your previous videos. Perhaps you'd like to join in on this project?                                                                                                                                 NickZ
       
   
Thanks for the flowers, but I'm trying to retire. Sometimes I just cannot restrain myself though.

Loop back to self-power is good, but don't forget the Daisy Chain. Can the output of the OU system power another identical unit, which in turn could power a third identical unit, with even a tiny bit extra to run an external load at each stage? This should be even easier than self-looping for an OU device with electrical inputs and outputs.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1185 on: July 13, 2019, 04:46:18 AM »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1186 on: July 13, 2019, 04:59:08 AM »
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.
Ah... but your system depends on the Function Generator to operate, and someone needs to retune the FG fairly frequently as load characteristics change, right? My system is self contained and _all_ the input power is accounted for. People forget that _all_ necessary components of a system must be included in the power calculations. If the FG is necessary for your system to operate, you need to include the INPUT power to the FG as part of the system's total input power. This is true regardless of whether or not significant power can be transferred through the gate driver's internal capacitances (and you might be surprised how much can be). By all rights you should also include your breakfast in the input power, since you are retuning the thing constantly and it won't perform without your retuning.

(And of course we all know and appreciate that current is not power, right?)

And please don't tell me you believe that _only_ three tiny LEDs would light up in my system. In further vids I show it powering incandescent bulbs and motors with real, not reactive, power -- while the three tiny LEDs and their receiver are just sitting on the table, brilliantly lit. No FG involved, no manual tuning of the transmitter required.

So I ask again: Is it OU? Seriously, it seems to me that if you can claim that your system is OU, then you should be able to acknowledge that mine is too. Conversely, whatever reasons my system _isn't_ OU... apply to yours as well, don't they?

(500 LEDs on minuscule power? No big deal at all, just ask Pirate Bill ! )

Offline baudirenergie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1187 on: July 13, 2019, 05:58:40 AM »
Tinsel,
why you here on this tread? To play around with words and show you are the big deal, because you have proven in 2013 some resonant miscalculations on paper and now think we are all idiots and didn't realize this newby miscalculations, that you have shown?
You miss the point. Please, go back and read the tread completely and ask the right questions, if you wish more informations to the topic, I am pretty sure, you will understand it. Hope it will be also open a door for you and your next experiments.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1187 on: July 13, 2019, 05:58:40 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1188 on: July 13, 2019, 05:58:51 AM »
T,
I don't think you realize what I'm saying or where I am coming from. I've been talking about reactive loops in most of my posts. I don't think you will disagree with much of what I have shared by the sounds of it. I don't have a problem with your measurements, but I have been trying to make a point on this forum that you can't prove anything by a video. And yes, what you did is exactly what I am doing in a different way. I only try and go over things people are asking about. They are really not for the general public. Nor do I put any quality effort into them, which I will probably do soon when I get more time. I'm my biggest critic. Well some guys here come close to that.
So I like what you say first paragraph.
Phase shift is very important to understand.
I didn't have time to go over the other videos as I spent a lot of time posting here and talking with some of you guys on the phone who are posting here.
As for making conclusions about shown measurements I am not convinced of any video or pictures. But I can replicate things for myself and I am not closeminded. I appreciate Tinman's attempts. I would have seen that video when it came out but would have to refresh myself.

I didn't say OU can't be self-looped. See all my posts today saying that over and over again. My point is the 'Void presumption' that OU is only when something is self-looped is a false claim. It is not self-evident or demonstrated. I have shared that you can have OU without looping just as you can with it. For example, you can have it do other work, and even be other forms of energy. I work with many people not only in research but in real systems in many applications. So when these guys insist upon it is just immature. It is simply said because they want this particular setup. They are still trying to prove OU to themselves and they want it to be this way before they believe it. They have different conditions than what is real. Like I said, OU is not 200% energy production. It can be 110% or anything above unity. Of course people can mean whatever they want with words. I don't really care about words, I accept people for what they mean. I grew up in the most multicultural city in the world Toronto and do not let differences of language get in the way. I know people have baggage and key words set them off. Understood. Anyway, my point is that if we have what I call the death loop, the loop that destroys the source charge, and all the power is accounted for in that loop according to Kirchhoff and then we have the reactive loop where we measure more power that is powering more loads, then we have OU whether it is looped back or not. Is that so hard for people to admit? Put it in your own words, people know what I mean by the fan example. And this is where I am telling people to start, because it is easier to see this than trying to do a self-loop. These are fine, and both are really the beginning to this research. What I am trying to do is show people how to multiply the reactive loops like Tesla's shuttle circuits which I have been showing for many years now. It seems you may know what I am talking about. So I wish you all the best in doing that.

Haha Mylo days. No, I exposed him. That was me mocking him. He was using forced air. But we did have the Howard Johnson train. We tested it and as far as I could see it was about equal in as it was out. It may have been possible to make a loop. But all such systems were merely perpetual without any ability for a real load. The real system was just never going to be allowed. Some guys are doing it and leasing them out in certain countries (not US).

Anyway, can you share some details about yourself more specifically. No one of these skeptics wants to admit why the believe OU or disbelieve it. So far G has given two sentences that say he expects a circuit to show extra gains or something like that. But I would love to know what was the reason for saying that. Do you have any basis for believing in OU? What have you experienced? I'm trying to build a foundation for these guys here but no one wants to admit anything. So far it is all just mainstream circles. I'm not sure from your second last paragraph if you are merely thinking that I don't believe in those things or if you are referring to yourself in that. It's a little unclear about what you are believing yourself.

No, that's not the "big difference" at all.  The "Big Difference" is that I provided good, repeatable measurements and I showed all my work to derive the result. I've shown the power in the reactive loop of my apparatus is many times over the input power. Later videos in that particular series demonstrate the Transverter, an apparatus to convert the reactive power VARs into real power in Watts, to drive motors, incandescent bulbs and high voltage spark gaps, while simultaneously powering LEDs.  And I present my work in fully replicable manner. I do not expect anyone to accept "proof over the internet" -- just assemble the circuits, follow the protocols and see what happens.

OK, so maybe that's not what you mean by OU, and maybe you don't like reactive power, even though that is what your system is based on.  And Itsu is perfectly correct about the phase shift, as I also explained in later vids in that series.

But you didn't even say a word about the other two videos I asked about. The Partzman Bifilar Transformer produces clear and unambiguous OU measurements, even taking into account the phase difference between current and voltage through the load, and shows input power decreasing as a further load is added by inductive pickup. Is it OU?
And the TinMan Bifilar LED circuit shines its 4 LEDs brilliantly with ZERO CURRENT indicated on meters monitoring both legs of the input power. Zero milliamps, even zero microamps. Is it OU?

I'm just trying to figure out what kind of OU you are selling, Rick, since it can't be self-looped, it can't be daisy chained, it can't be accumulated in a battery or a capacitor, and the properly measured outputs never actually exceed the inputs. All three of the demonstrations I've provided illustrate different aspects of inductive wireless power transmission, resonance phenomena and measurement protocols and pitfalls. And all three provide OU measurements, exhibit behaviours similar to your device and make various points that relate directly to your system.
I know you've been doing this a long time. In fact the first time I remember you is from the Mylow days. Where is that video clip of Bedini standing in the background, and someone who looks a lot like you in the foreground, spinning a "Mylow Magnet Motor" and shouting out "IT WORKS! IT WORKS !!!" Oh well... we all make mistakes.

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1189 on: July 13, 2019, 06:30:53 AM »
Well, one of my students even showed one of the receiver coils replacing the FG so that is no big deal. That is only providing a logic input to the gate driver. The driver is where the power is on that kit. Now the kit was not for proving OU, even though that is a secondary purpose. It was to get a safe and simple resonance experience, which is lacking for most people in this research I found. I'm sure you can appreciate the need to learn the subtle relationships, and that is what that was about. I am teaching on Resonance and Impulsing and related subjects. The key is to learn these things at a safe level before you play with real power and endanger yourself.  :-\ So this is not some final system but the barebones beginners tool. The real deal is doing several more things and is just two coils. Well that is one of many different systems.
Power is the wasted energy measurement. The rate at which you are destroying the source charge. Such a negative perspective!  ::) While I use meters all the time, once a system is set up I don't need to prove to myself that it is OU with a meter. It either runs or it doesn't. I either ran my boat for three years or I took the 5L engine out prematurely.

I'm very glad that you can see that you could run other loads. That is good to know. No, I didn't know there were more videos because you didn't say anything. I have mostly got ridicule on this thread so I didn't now what you were doing with the link.

Reactive is not power. But reactive loops (bodies) can be engineered to run loads that can have power measurements with the right means to do that as we see with Tesla.

I didn't carefully look at your video yet. Like I said, there wasn't enough information to make any conclusions. I would have to be there to fully know the environment. But there wasn't anything really unusual about what was shown to me. It wasn't unbelievable. I wasn't paying attention to your paper scraps but looking at other things in the video. But like I said, I don't conclude much from videos otherwise I would have to believe Mythbusters  :o My videos don't prove anything. But many customers see what I do and do the same for themselves. That is what they are for. That's why I don't do what these guys expect here. I'm not doing videos for skeptics but for people who already know these things. Anyone who wants something proven needs to come to a meeting if they want to put their meters on something. That happens from time to time. But really people need to prove things to themselves. That is real science. You can't do science through forums. They are just a means to share ideas, not prove ideas. I can only prove by appealing to what people already know. But these are truths of demonstration, which cannot be video or picture or word demonstrations. It has to be in the real world so we know all the environmental influences. Like Mylo and his forced air. I'm so glad you brought that up as I almost mentioned that the other day here. Or Mike with the hidden small 12V battery in the little black box running the window motor trying to copy what we did running the window motor for 20 minutes off an amplifier cap. Yes I exposed many faked videos. Sadly people would rather be entertained with fake videos because they are sensational rather than care about the plain truth.

No 500 LEDs on miniscule level.

Ah... but your system depends on the Function Generator to operate, and someone needs to retune the FG fairly frequently as load characteristics change, right? My system is self contained and _all_ the input power is accounted for. People forget that _all_ necessary components of a system must be included in the power calculations. If the FG is necessary for your system to operate, you need to include the INPUT power to the FG as part of the system's total input power. This is true regardless of whether or not significant power can be transferred through the gate driver's internal capacitances (and you might be surprised how much can be). By all rights you should also include your breakfast in the input power, since you are retuning the thing constantly and it won't perform without your retuning.

(And of course we all know and appreciate that current is not power, right?)

And please don't tell me you believe that _only_ three tiny LEDs would light up in my system. In further vids I show it powering incandescent bulbs and motors with real, not reactive, power -- while the three tiny LEDs and their receiver are just sitting on the table, brilliantly lit. No FG involved, no manual tuning of the transmitter required.

So I ask again: Is it OU? Seriously, it seems to me that if you can claim that your system is OU, then you should be able to acknowledge that mine is too. Conversely, whatever reasons my system _isn't_ OU... apply to yours as well, don't they?

(500 LEDs on minuscule power? No big deal at all, just ask Pirate Bill ! )

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1189 on: July 13, 2019, 06:30:53 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Jeg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1393
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1190 on: July 13, 2019, 11:45:01 AM »
Rick
I also have an impedance relative question.
You have kindly shared the rule on how to arrange impedances in a series reactor chain matching, or else the bottleneck effect appears. Does that rule also involves the primary? Don't we have to consider primary as the first reactor of the chain?

Thanks
Jeg     

Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1191 on: July 13, 2019, 12:46:53 PM »
I have mostly got ridicule on this thread so I didn't now what you were doing with the link.

Really ??? I don't think so. You have been treated fairly well, given the many long posts you have delivered and the disrespect aimed at one or two posters on this thread! Strong disagreement should not be confused with ridicule. Our beliefs and experiences are varied and that should be respected. You have put yours on record, which is all that can be achieved in a forum environment.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1191 on: July 13, 2019, 12:46:53 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1192 on: July 13, 2019, 05:34:39 PM »
I was treated so bad that the moderator called me up and apologized for what was happening. So take that up with him. I have treated everyone with appropriate respect. I have called people out on lies but have also used appropriate humor showing good spirit and not being affected by the abuse. This is not a serious thread and so I adapt to the mood. There is a difference between strong disagreements and ridicule, slander, lies and purposeful insult. There are many examples of both. Yet, even after that I have no problem answering people's questions as if they never said such things. It doesn't bother me what abuse is hurled at me because I care about everyone here and I see past the fallacies and evasions and insults. I can learn from everyone at all times. You make out like long posts are a bad thing being tolerated. These are all answering questions very specifically. Yet most of you will not answer my questions that are fundamental to all these discussions. But the refusal to answer does give every reader the answer.

Really ??? I don't think so. You have been treated fairly well, given the many long posts you have delivered and the disrespect aimed at one or two posters on this thread! Strong disagreement should not be confused with ridicule. Our beliefs and experiences are varied and that should be respected. You have put yours on record, which is all that can be achieved in a forum environment.

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1193 on: July 13, 2019, 07:23:42 PM »
Thank Jeg,
First point: The negative series impedance chain only has the bottleneck when limitations I mention when you are doing the untuned basic level that I show with the open parts. Of course when you are doing the ideal ways there would be no bottlenecking as everything would be in perfect balance. The basic level is just using parts off the shelf you have laying around. Still gives a lot of gain, but you have to watch the reflections and therefore be prepared to change out your semiconductors often while you learn this. Don't bother soldering them into a board, just put them on a terminal strip.

Secondly: We actually have one option called the MICK where we put another inductor (no special values in that) between the input positive and charging negative terminal and the motor for some added benefits. Makes it resemble my Benitez Switch 7 model more. So in that case that would be the first reactor in the chain. But yes, also the motor.

The thing is that there are many things that can be done and considered. There are 1000 changes or improvements I could make to these motors. There is no end to improving little things here and there. But my point is always been to do what is easy and focus on the points that matter. It is relatively easy to multiply many reactive bodies with their respective loads to accomplish the nonlinear reactive Tesla systems where energy can be multiply and shuttled around in different ways. Often people ask what is your circuit or system, and what can I answer to that. There are many options and many different systems. If you look at the 50 or so diagrams of Tesla's one wire systems you will see some of the many options. When you realize how they can be combined together, which is implied by several of them, then you can see how one prime mover can just be added to, while it also can be maintained under perfect balance or equilibrium. And that brings us back to that Kron page and the ideal transmission line...

Rick
I also have an impedance relative question.
You have kindly shared the rule on how to arrange impedances in a series reactor chain matching, or else the bottleneck effect appears. Does that rule also involves the primary? Don't we have to consider primary as the first reactor of the chain?
Thanks
Jeg   

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1193 on: July 13, 2019, 07:23:42 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4005
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1194 on: July 13, 2019, 09:06:38 PM »
Rick,

You have 'demanded' answers from me on certain questions while you avoid  some of my questions to answer, so fifty-fifty... 
And I note that I prepared most of this answer this morning,  so your last but one post of #1192 above did not exist.   8)

Anyway, this is what I wrote back then in my reply to you: https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535318/#msg535318 
Quote
I show scepticism with any extraordinary claim which is not proved in practice with measurements correctly, and
this latter is not the case yet with your setup.  I never wrote that obtaining excess energy is not possible at all.
I do have an open mind and I believe that a circuit setup can surely be built which can produce extra energy
compared to its input we feed in. 
So far your setup in question does not seem to produce any extra output.  Did you use your light meter for checking
LED bulbs brightness in front of the 18 people?  Did you calibrate your LED bulbs in advance with measured DC input
power to know what power level is involved at the certain brigthnesses of the LEDs?


So why I believe that extra enegy is possible to obtain from a device / circuit is that not everything has been discovered in science and there can be unknown anomalies to be discovered and utilized.  And what I put in bold above is what you neglected to answer.  It is ok that 18 people were present but if they watched the brigthness of the LEDs by their naked eye it is not science Rick. 


Your other question to me has been: "is there any real gain with resonance?" and you said twice that I avoided answering it. 

First I note that back then when you appeared in this thread with your first post, the actual ongoing topic was in connection with your resonance kit.  I stress this and will explain the why later on below.

Well, in fact I included my answer on the gain in question when I answered here :
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535273/#msg535273  I quote my answer, first I quote your text for which I answered:
Quote
Quote

from https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535253/#msg535253
These bigger coils naturally have higher Q which translates to higher actual gain.
And yes, resonance IS A GAIN. Don't let people fool you about that.


But you need to clarify what you mean on gain: voltage, current, power, energy gain?
I would agree with voltage or current gain in resonant LC circuits.
If you claim power (or energy) gain too, then you would need to demonstrate it by measurements.


So this was my answer on gain in resonant LC circuits used in your setup shown in the video.

Here is what is your stance on gain in resonant LC circuits:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535303/#msg535303 
Quote
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). So as some textbooks would imply without prejudice, the Q at a given frequency will determine your gain IF YOU LET IT DO THAT FOR YOU AND DON"T KILL IT WITH MAINSTREAM CIRCUITRY THAT DESTROYS THE PROCESS. So it can be seen here that what you go into this will be what you get out. If you expect this to be merely a transformer process then the word resonance and words like gain, are deceptions and meaningless. 
         
  and I continue quoting you from your reply#550:
Quote
Now this is a gain of not only efficiency but of useable energy. Why? Because of something the college textbooks will not want to admit. That the circulating current in series tank circuit is equal or more to the input current while the voltage is amplified. Most admit that it is a voltage amplification or multiplication but they avoid stating the other part about the amperage because they want to give the wikipedea idea that this is merely a transformer process where voltage goes up and amperage goes down. Essentially equating resonance with transformer processes. The mistaken notion is further stated as merely a building idea where the oscillations merely accumulate the energy over time. On the contrary, the circulating amperage is at least the same as the input amperage, while the circulating voltage is multiplied. Now the radiation from the inductor is real and can be used as such (as we can see with hundreds of coils all around). The electrical can also be used as we see with the one wire output and several other methods.

In my answer #1130 I gave the other day to Nick I described why the use of a gate driver enhances the resonant voltage and current: 

the output pin of the IC has a much lower output impedance (around 1 Ohm) versus the 50 Ohm output of the function generator so the same 10 V output from the IC is able to drive a higher current into the series LC TX circuit. The 50 Ohm of the FG simply limits the maximum current in the LC circuit the same 10 volt would drive into the series  LC circuit, compared to the 1 Ohm of the gate driver IC.

And now comes the question of the phase angle between the current and voltage in a resonant LC circuit you have not given a straigth answer. I mentioned this to you here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535367/#msg535367
Quote
 

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=V x I x cos(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 diode bridges can be easily estimated.

Here is your answer from https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535396/#msg535396

Quote
So again we are all wanting know G, is there any real gain with resonance? We can deal with the phasing later.


and you then simply brought in Stan Meyer's HHO setup to explain away the phase angle issue. In Meyer's setup the reactive current between the plates of the capacitor is submerged in water is used for water splitting as part of a resonant LC circuit. Yes, this is possible that you utilize capacitive current, here the phase angle does not matter between capacitor current and the resonant voltage across the coil from the resulting HHO point of view. But in your resonance kit you simply have no any means to reuse reactive current in your LC circuits. This is why I stressed above the ongoing topic have always been your resonant kit setup and not another setup.  And you stormed at me on my bad science...  :o   

Here is what you wrote to me: https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535396/#msg535396
Quote
Can there be any gain resulting from this oscillation? It is evident that you do not want to commit to this as YOU ARE EVADING THE QUESTION. Maybe you don't want others to know you really do believe that. In fact you implied that in a circuit you expected to find some gain or something one day. But you never answered me if that was a hope or if you had any concrete reason for that sentence. So here I make that question more specific. And let me tell you people, if he every does commit to that answer, unless he just says I don't know, he will be either done with this Forum or will have to accept so many things. Now I have explained that you can use the cap as a fuel cell at the same time that it is functioning as a series tank circuit. Stan M did this many years ago, and this is rather easy to do once you condition the plates to become a capacitor. So you can easily get at least 3 times the gas production of electrolysis for the same input. Now you can also draw electrical energy off of that with the Don Smith effect idea (or what people call the Tesla Hairpin circuit). Now people don't show this, but I say to you you can also have the coils be used as a transmitter to do the very things we are doing in this setup. And as we have the frequent saying around here, if you are going to impulse a coil you may as well... push a magnet, and you may as well... (about 7 things we are up to now). Oh but now my friends. G tells you the phase angle doesn't allow you to do anything with gains created within the tank circuit but maybe act as the various filters. Nope, don't make that cap a Stan M. high voltage resonance fuel cell!

One more thing on the phase angle issue: you neglect Itsu's recent tests on measuring average power in resonant LC circuit. Also when TK again referred to the neccessity of considering phase angle, all your answer was: "Phase shift is very important to understand." 

Rick you have bad science if you do not consider the phase angle between current and voltage in resonant LC circuits you showed in your video when estimating real or average power in them and eventually at the outputs of the RX units. And the EM field created around your TX coil can only include the same energy content the LC circuit includes, so when you utilize the EM field by the loaded satellite coils, they can receive so much too. This is why your claimed extra output should be proved, it is bad science if you only mention the electrons coming from the ground wire or mention sympathetic resonance etc.  All your coils dissipate and so do your LED bulbs. 

Itsu measurements and Seaad circuit simulations clearly showed a real performance of less than unity, TK's videos with measurements also reveal power relations in resonant LC circuits.  You asked why I accept them and not accept your claims (I have double standard):  well this is very simple, you have not provided any detailed measurements like they have had.  (Please do not start it again on faked videos, lies from forum members etc. ) 

Gyula 

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1195 on: July 13, 2019, 09:59:44 PM »
G,
I am honored that you have taken the time to do something along these lines. I haven't read it yet but wanted to say thank you. Hopefully it will be a good post.
I haven't avoided anyone's questions. I have written a whole book worth of replies to people. You have said I didn't respond to you when I did. Maybe not in the way you expected. There were many questions I asked you that were rather fundamental. They may appear to be negative but really they would be very helpful for everyone if you answered them. You bowed out after these questions were asked and then came back a week later and never answered them.

Rick,
You have 'demanded' answers from me on certain questions while you avoid  some of my questions to answer, so fifty-fifty... 
And I note that I prepared most of this answer this morning,  so your last but one post of #1192 above did not exist.   8)
Gyula

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1195 on: July 13, 2019, 09:59:44 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline NickZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4574
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1196 on: July 13, 2019, 10:08:23 PM »
   I have politely asked repeatedly for a current diagram or schematic that clearly shows all the component values, wire sizes, coil sizes, capacitors, led values, and any other important information. I'm still waiting...   I was referred to the Rectenna tech. Why?  Is there no clear diagram?
   Although it seams that Rick's set up is rather simple, and should be easy to replicate. But, there are many questions unanswered. There are no pictures of what the device should actually look like, no videos showing scope shots readings, or voltage points, (that we can see). No step by step building advice. Like do this, then do this, then do that, etz...   No wonder no one can obtain the same results. That information can be placed on a single post on this thread. Why is it not being made available???
    And, why does Rick not measure the output??? Or follow any of the simple tests that forum members have asked for?
Why Rick?   How many coils does it take to be able to see and measure OU. One, three, ten?
   Does the input drop to 0?  Where is that shown?   Build it... and they will come...   or something like that.
   Well, I wouldn't want to get hurt building such a dangerous device the "wrong way". 
   So I guess that, I'd better wait and see...

Offline itsu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1197 on: July 13, 2019, 10:37:28 PM »
I got my 10 satellite coil ready, all with their own pcb containing a FWBR (4x bAT46 Schottky) a 220uF cap and a 10K resistor, see picture.

The first tests will be to measure the input power into the big coil and adding satellite coils to see how they impact the input and what their combined output will be.

I tried to maintain for the increasing number of coils their voltages the same, like 1st coil 45V, 2 coils both 36V, 3 coils 30V, etc.

I then used the P=U²/R formula to calculate the power across the 10K resistor and add those together.

The data can be seen in the spreadsheet below in both numbers and a graph.
Sorry for not having the same colors for data and graph.

It shows that the input power gradually decreases when adding more and more coils.
The battery voltage increases slightly (less load), the current decreases (less load) and the HV decreases (lower Q?)


The combined satellite coils (1 to 10) show a fairly even load but never reach a level higher then the input power.

My guess is that the input power will flatten as more coils are added, but the lines will never cross.

The current probe in the ground line never showed anything above 0 mA (average).

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih5yq6SjXdw

Diagram included
     
Regards Itsu

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1198 on: July 13, 2019, 10:47:09 PM »
G,
Rather than doing one long post I will break this up because who knows how long this will take, and they are separate topics.

This indeed is the line of interest. So you have just downgraded your statement to mean that you have no reason whatsoever to believe OU exists. All you have done then is said what everyone on earth would have to say, because you cannot prove otherwise. You cannot prove the law of conservation is a universal.

So here is your anticlimactic downgrade shift:
"can surely be"
and now:
"there can be"
We can add to that "is possible".

So this is unfortunate to hear. For the words "can surely be" is based upon positive evidence not mere hope as the words "there can be" mean. As I suspected there was no rational reason for you to believe OU was possible.

And this statement appeared to all of us differently, that you were saying that because you had substantial reason to believe it. Like some form of gain somewhere. I was hoping to draw this out of you so that you could share that and we could build upon it. But now we see it was just the mere possibility. So you may as well say that "there can be" pink unicorns (unicorns actually exist) because we cannot be at all places in the earth at once to know that there isn't. Not the best analogy but you get the point.

My point is that the way you wrote this is rather misleading when you could have just said what you finally wrote today. Just said I hope it exists, and who knows because we probably haven't learned everything yet. But this "surely can be" makes it appear to everyone that you have a solid reason for believing it is possible.

You see G, that is not scientific to do what you did here. I put this back in your face because you end this section with saying I am not scientific. And you have to know that I don't do science over the chat forums because you can't do science in relation to one person or another with videos. You said "surely can be" in reference to OU and in the context of scientific questions and answers. But it really was just a completely baseless hope. What grounds for hope are there, because a mere possibility in the face of all your insistence upon everything that OU is based upon is surely not a surely can be.

You are very precise in your wording because of your training, and that is the only reason I jumped over this and am now going into this detail. If it was most other people here I would just say well that's because they speak ambiguously and loosely. But "surely can be" gives the impression to everyone here that you are on the side of OU because of some substantial reason. I mean really, you are rigorous in applying your theories. I don't find you to say such things and mean mere hope with absolutely no grounds for the hope.

It actually gave me hope that if you shared this substantial reason for your "surely can be" that we could build upon it as I mentioned. But instead it says to me that you merely pacified everyone, because if they learned that you really have no reason to believe in OU then they would be less likely to consider your analysis. So it is basically like someone looking for spiritual help to consult an expert agnostic (not atheist by analogy because you do not disbelieve OU). I think people would rather consult someone who already believes in OU. The belief would be real and not mere hope. Belief is based upon tangible reasons, like processes that make OU possible, gains seen that amount to the same, or analogies from biology, chemistry, mechanics or music. Maybe you saw a piano as a real gain and thought that it would make sense that in electrical matters there could be the same gain. But no. Nothing like that. We just have G coming into this with 100% mainstream theory who will apply that theory to everything he measures, the tools he measures with, and everything he assumes.

Well I'm glad that is finally settled. It is really important to know where someone is coming from. What if we found out that everyone on this forum was merely hopeful of OU but assumed mainstream theory was universal? Maybe that would explain why it just goes around in circles.

Anyway, this is what I wrote back then in my reply to you: https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535318/#msg535318
I show scepticism with any extraordinary claim which is not proved in practice with measurements correctly, and this latter is not the case yet with your setup.  I never wrote that obtaining excess energy is not possible at all.  I do have an open mind and I believe that a circuit setup can surely be built which can produce extra energy compared to its input we feed in. 
So far your setup in question does not seem to produce any extra output.  Did you use your light meter for checking LED bulbs brightness in front of the 18 people?  Did you calibrate your LED bulbs in advance with measured DC input power to know what power level is involved at the certain brigthnesses of the LEDs?"
So why I believe that extra enegy is possible to obtain from a device / circuit is that not everything has been discovered in science and there can be unknown anomalies to be discovered and utilized.  And what I put in bold above is what you neglected to answer.  It is ok that 18 people were present but if they watched the brigthness of the LEDs by their naked eye it is not science Rick. 

Offline NickZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4574
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #1199 on: July 13, 2019, 11:21:32 PM »
   Itsu:   Thanks for all that information, and the schematic. That helps me at least, to understand what is being done here.
   I don't know if Rick would agree on your build, or not, but it would help if he would let us know just what is not being done right, in order to see what he says is possible, such as more out than in.
   Thanks again,                         NickZ

 

OneLink