G,
There was no way to make your first statement in saying "seem". How could it seem to you a negative result when you just asked about meters? If I were to judge that picture and videos as you and others judge other videos and pictures then it would seem to be extra output. I do not go by videos and pictures, and did not intend to prove anything to any of you or youtubers over the internet, nor to my students.

We were actually looking at the relationships. These guys have already proven to themselves these things, at least some of them. On one private forum with all of them one of them actually has many coils and bright bulbs running in the same way on the cover picture. Needless to say I don't need to prove anything to him.  But these guys know this kit and these bulbs enough to know that they were much brighter than they would be if we divided up the input energy. The science point was that the bulbs were not getting dimmer with each added coil, either of the big or small one. I started stacking the big coils on top of each other with the same result.

Sometimes when I placed them in certain places the power the results got worse, as we find with Itsu, where his input and output goes down, or where his input goes up with adding coils. But we moved the coils so that wouldn't happen. The point was that I could keep adding coils and the input would go down while the lights stayed the same or got a bit brighter. If I had wanted to make this some proof time I would have spent all night setting that up to do more of what I did in California, or where the input went way down in Indiana to 0.004A @ 4V, or O or negative.

Now I did show the light meter and many other meters and explained that you could use it. There were many demonstrations and that was one was about how many coils could be added while the lights stayed the same. When I placed the coils in all the space around the transmitter then they could see that I really could add as many coils as could fill up that space. And I already gave you the numbers when you divide the input 0.72W into 15 big bulbs and 74 small bulbs. The light would be a mere flicker and yet the lights were blinding and what you would have with 0.5W on the big ones and roughly 20ma on the smaller ones. I did it enough that it was evident to all. I was not trying to make a scientific OU claim here. Again, it was about showing the relationships on a large level. Obviously it didn't seem like under unity to them, or to anyone looking at the photo or video, or even to you.

What you are trying to do is discredit me because I didn't do what you wanted me to do. And this was not purposeful at my meeting because I did not know you at all and it wasn't my intention to use the light meter. I have about 2 months worth of information to share in three 11 hour days, so I have to pick and choose what gets done according to what people want/need. Not one of them needed that demonstration as they can do that at home themselves, and they were competent to judge the bulbs (most of them came to several meetings already so I try not to repeat the same things). I explained that at a previous time.

Now when I did the video I purposely did that however, because it is important to bring this out for various reasons. I ended up proving my point to all of you, even though I cannot prove OU over the internet as the video was titled, I did prove my point with the video: that people will believe or disbelieve such a video claim according to their bias. Not me however, I don't do that as that is very destructive to yourself and others. I made the video with just enough light to make it obvious or seem to be OU to make you guys squirm. Then I forced my point home by doing that. That you cannot believe OU over the internet. But I also left out the light meter test so as to give you grounds to disbelieve the video and still prove my more important point. Yes it is more important that you learn to stop this unscientific practice of confirmation bias than it is to believe in OU because of a video.

Again, you manipulate the boundaries to your own advantage. And that is exactly what the mainstream people do. The draw a circle and say you can only be inside of the circle. We will not consider outside the circle. You say that because I didn't do one meter reading that it was not science: "it is not science Rick." What makes that not science? When you go to the lab day after day, is it not science because you didn't do one experiment yet? This is a fallacy and you need to withdraw that claim here. I have seen you do that once so let's see you do that again.

Again, you are telling me it is not science if I don't satisfy you in what you want to see. That makes no sense. If I said some exact claim about the brightness of each bulb and failed to show it then you can say that was a guess and not science. But I didn't do that. Instead, the guys had enough experience to know what those bulbs do. Again, if you divide up the input into 15 then these big bulbs have a very faint glow. So yes it was demonstrated to them without a meter, just like me running the boat for three years didn't need a meter (but I always had 4 or 5 different ones anyway).

What you are doing is looking for a loophole. You say it was not science but it actually was. I demonstrated that I could add as many coils in that area with the results that I predicted and repeated to everyone's satisfaction. They even helped set it up. The secondary point would be the amount of light abundantly exceeded the input energy. But lest you think I was just being sloppy or ignorant, I spent hours going over technical details about all kinds of meters. I have hundreds of meters that cost a lot of money. And we have professors, physicists, EEs and nuclear engineers at those meetings. There were only a few hobbyists. I have to have something for everyone and that is what I did.

You have to learn to differentiate between lab testing and real world applications. You guys don't have real world experience with this technology because you don't understand it yet and haven't experienced it yet. But I am dealing with people in the real world. Not just hobbyists but research teams and top engineers. They are not looking for some 5 minute meter test but how to adapt such systems to their needs. They want to see real devices, like boats running in water, or how to maximize the gains. It is not really about the if that you guys are still speculating about, it is about the what, how, and how much. But that is in the real world with real people and not in this fantasy cyberland where people are selective in what they want to believe and where they have double standards.

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 inputpower to know what power level is involved at the certain brigthnesses of the LEDs?
 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. 

Nick,
Your humor never ceases to amaze me. You have been anything but polite. OK, maybe when asking that question. Anyway, I have given you many things to work with already, and I said I will have to wrap up these various points before I can consider satisfying your every whim in this respect. Again, I am working on a big presentation that will lay the groundwork for this. But it is important to settle some of these points here and not just pass over things.

There are many claims that have been made. The resonant tank circuit with a gate driver. G has brought that subject up in a lengthy post and I am working on it bit by bit. Or you can do an impulse motor like a fan which is old news, and which you brought up. I have videos on it with the exact details you are asking about. So stop with all the alarmism will you!
Why doesn't Rick do a reality show and we see him brushing his teeth or eating his food.  You are just making up stuff. I did do that. You are just writing this to convince others that I haven't. This is getting old. Next it will be, why didn't Rick make a video yet, or produce a kit, or demonstrate publically, or bother to appear on this forum to answer any and every question. Why why why does Nick try and fool people on this forum?

"Where is that shown?" Nick, in the real world!

   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...

Rick,

This is an international forum with members from many countries where English is not spoken. English is the second language for me (and I have a 3rd and 4th language knowledge too but becoming rusty on them because I do not use them as often as I used to in the past.).
So you should not ride on high horse with English grammar semantics here because you are blessed with good English and you certainly make a very good philosopher too. 
I do not know if you speak another language or languages beside the English, if you do, then you may as well have some problems with semantics (no offense intended) and would understand this problem.
I do think many members here did understand what I wanted to express and they do not care whether I had written "can surely be" or "there can be".  Rather, they also focus on the technical pieces of information. 

Gyula

@Itsu:
I note you are using the IXDD614P mosfet driver. This driver incorporates an "enable" pin 3 which can be used for all kinds of neat stuff, like audio modulation for example. You could send music to a pickup coil and instead of it having a useless load, use a speaker! You could call it "radio" !

But even more significant is the high impedance clock input. This means you can make your system "autoresonating" simply by using a small antenna and a couple of diodes (to clamp the voltage from the small antenna.) The FG will provide an initial "kick" that doesn't even need to be particularly close to the resonant frequency, and then the antenna/diode can provide enough signal to the driver input pin to take over and automagically boost the frequency into self-resonance. The FG can be disconnected at that point. Sometimes the initial kick can be provided by a simple toggle switch. All that is needed is a single impulse to get the tank ringing, then the pickup antenna takes over at the ring (resonant) frequency. And the system will stay tuned as the environment changes, within limits.

Of course you may or may not want to do this. Since the gate driver will provide nice fast rise and fall times of the current to the transmitter coil, and it will always be in exact resonance, the voltage in the coil-cap tank can rise to quite high levels. You will of course get greater range to your receivers and you may even see the odd CFL bulb light up in the area. And et cetera.

But is it OU?     

I'm still trying to figure out what kind of OU we are talking about here. I've given three examples that I think are showing similar things to what you are talking about, but apparently you don't have time to look closely at what I presented or to think about it very much. Are they OU, by your definition, or not? I am not talking about proving anything, just take what is presented at face value (since anyone can replicate it and all necessary info is provided) and give a yes or no answer, and if "no" tell why not and why your system doesn't have the same issues.


And perhaps all this talk about Joules and Watts and other dead heads is too confusing for the unwashed masses. So consider this hypothetical:I have a battery and a load compatible with the battery. The battery starts out fully charged. I connect them, and run the load until the battery is so depleted that the load does not run any more at all.

Now I connect my black box in between the battery and the load. Voila! The load starts running again, and runs and runs and runs for a long time, maybe even longer than it ran the first time from the fully charged battery! But it does eventually stop.

No, there is no battery in my black box, just a few common electronic components, and of course it won't work at all without some kind of battery or capacitor connected to the input.

Is this OU, by your definition, or not? Please, no walls of text.

G,
I guess the first point to make is that the question of when and where am I referring to gain. What you are doing in in all of this is referring to an unloaded tank circuit. Obviously gain is when something is actually being used as such. Now there is real potential and that is real energy even though you guys only consider power measurements as real. Now you can talk all you want about the phase angle, which I said is important, but that capacitor is charging up to the voltage across it and so is the inductor. It is not transmitting a 9V output as it does when out of resonance. The gain is seen in the total environmental effect. That was one of my points where you can see that there is real gain in a tank circuit, and that is why it is called multiplication and amplification. You can measure the radiation differences and see for yourself if you know how to do that.

Now I am not going to go over the changing of the phasing because that deals with proprietary systems I am not going to talk about. If you really understand more than the basics you mention, if you really get what is going on, then you can run loads without drawing energy... But at this basic level, the point to focus on is the practical results. All you are doing is attempting to requote mainstream theory that selectively focuses on certain things while failing to consider the full environmental effects. I'll return to that point again.

You can add a resistor in the mix to make a parallel LCR and measure some power that way. While another identical resistor in series with circuit will allow you to compare the differences and see some gain. However, we need to still consider the radiation output.

Power is not = to energy.

I believe I responded to your statement to Nick. It depends on what you are doing and how you look at things...

The problem is that it does translate to real output despite you denying it. It is a matter of observation not to determine by formula. When I resonate a physical object is it just an equation difference or does the whole piano come alive, including the soundboard? In the real world we see real gains with resonance.

Voltage is energy and real potential and while the cap voltage is high it really is useful energy. You may not use it, just like you may not have ears to hear the vibrations of a piano, but the radiation is there, and it is intense. It is also a very good pump to draw in electrons. And once you understand all the other processes that are not taught in college, then you can combine this to create a real energy pump without loading down this tank. You can mirror that with other reactive parts like L2 while drawing in more electrons from the air or ground. You want to limit yourself to the basics of phasing while missing the whole point here. You are stuck on first base and can't go to second base because you don't look around to find it and realize you have to turn 90 degrees...

I care about every fact in all of this. Even when they are shared in a narrow context that is out of context.

No I didn't bring in Stan's cell to explain away but to show that you can still have a tank circuit doing something practical while it is still a resonant tank being used for electrical purposes. And the coil can still be a transmitter as well. My point is multiple outputs. I do such things with the motors all the time, but it can be done with the water cell. The total output is in everything you influence. It is not a mere derivative of the input power and what you measure there. That is only the wasted energy and how fast you kill the source charge. If you measure all the outputs then it is like considering all the piano strings vibrating in addition to the primary. And just like my fan example, I not only use the fan normally, but now I am running other loads (which even on many basic models can allow for battery rotation and continuous running).

Stan's water cell is not only used for splitting water, but can create electrical output at the same time. But the voltage gains are absolutely used at their raised levels. So this shows you that the cell is really charged and the voltage can do real work. A good 3 times more splitting of water than regular electrolysis. So you can see that the voltage gains translate to real results in the oscillating tank while still being able to function as producing electrical output. But I say that the coil can also be used as a transmitter as well. And if you're real creative you can drive a motor off of one end of it as well  If you know me, I'll probably show that at some point just because that is expected of me...

I understand your point but remember you don't have my kit and keep assuming many things. Just when you assume I didn't address something, then I say it is already covered. There are many tests in the kit, even on the beginners section. The advance section, which is the majority of the book, opens up endless doors when you consider two wire systems, one wire systems, wireless, and combining all three of these in all the possible tesla systems. Mind you I am not steering away from your one point here about the basic tank. However, you are over simplifying the whole environmental effect. It's like you just want to talk about the feet and not consider the rest of the body when talking about the person. It's like being stuck in 2D and missing out on 3D. You just have to see it in the real world and not just focus on some mathematical model.

Your nothing buttery fallacy science is bad because it assumes everything is just a part of it or one aspect of it. It is selective, limited, and not realistic. It is not wholistic. For someone who is "sure" OU is doable for no actual reasons, you are clearly set on your limited models that would make OU impossible. At some point you just have to come onto my boat and take a ride for the summer and see for yourself. You'll see then that the power meter is only showing the killing of the source charge and telling you nothing about the other battery charging up. Or just look again at the video because the lights can't be that bright at 0.04W  haha I can't prove it to you but you know that its truer than your hope of OU as stated earlier. I'm not going to go any further to try and over explain or prove any of this. It can only be done in the real world. People need to see these things for themselves. It's not a big deal if Itsu doesn't get it and does something else. People are experiencing this in a practical way just like they do with pianos. With each freely ringing oscillation (which is not happening with FG) we have real voltage rise which corresponds to real charging up of capacitors to high voltage, which translates to real radiation, which can influence many many coils to resonant with their own electrons and grounding. Or we can go to chapter two and have our one wire output and do many things with that... Oh and still have that as a wireless influencer (transmitter).

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

You have a voltage gain and voltage is not power or energy in itself.

Of course you will not care about this fact.

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...     

G,
That is a clear diversion from my point. I notice that is the first time you did not quote what I wrote. Everyone knows here what surely means. It is not merely possibility. This is the only example where you have done this. And you took a very long time to finally come clean on this. So now we know you have zero experience with OU and that you only hope it is real because of some anomaly. It is obvious why you didn't just answer me about this. Because not only did you imply otherwise, which is totally uncharacteristic of you to do in anything else, but you avoided answering this for many weeks. You could have just simply said I don't believe in OU but it may be a possibility because we haven't figured out everything yet. Instead you twisted it to sound like you had some substantial reason for believing it. Again, if it wasn't a problem statement that you didn't want to admit or be corrected on then you would have just responded. I find this kind of thing to be sneaky and hiding intentions. And I have pointed out several other examples of deliberate misrepresenting things. You are an intelligent person so these things are not accidents like they may be with some of these other guys. I'm just saying I notice these kinds of things more than I care about insults.

Rick,
This is an international forum with members from many countries where English is not spoken. English is the second language for me (and I have a 3rd and 4th language knowledge too but becoming rusty on them because I do not use them as often as I used to in the past.).
So you should not ride on high horse with English grammar semantics here because you are blessed with good English and you certainly make a very good philosopher too. 
I do not know if you speak another language or languages beside the English, if you do, then you may as well have some problems with semantics (no offense intended) and would understand this problem.
I do think many members here did understand what I wanted to express and they do not care whether I had written "can surely be" or "there can be".  Rather, they also focus on the technical pieces of information. 

Gyula