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

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

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: 512797
  • *Total Topics: 15261
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 15
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims  (Read 161891 times)

Offline a.king21

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1611
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2040 on: August 13, 2019, 09:38:17 PM »
I posted this on OU.com but apparently it needs to be repeated here.


Aking,

Those small changes in voltage mean NOTHING!  You seem to know almost nothing about battery chemistry.  Voltage level of a battery is a very rough approximation of what is going on with the battery.  A few degrees of change in the room temperature can make a difference in the battery voltage.  And conversely a minute charge current of only a few milliamps will not raise the temperature of a battery.  The only accurate way to gauge what is going on within a battery is to use a battery analyzer which measures the capacity of the battery and the internal resistance of the battery and gives a much more accurate reading of the charge level of the battery than just a voltage reading.


It is statements like yours and others from Rick that make those of us with real electronics experience just shake our heads.  I am not meaning to put you down but you really need to take the time to properly learn about electronics and in this case battery chemistry if you want to be taken seriously.  I don't at this point see any hope for Rick but I am hoping that with enough time you will wake up to the real world so that you can seriously study and work toward OU if it is possible.  I believe it is, but have yet to find it.  Unfortunately I have seen enough of Rick's word salad to know he is not leading you in the right direction.  I at one time was also led down the garden path by Rick's mentor John Bedini and his cohort Erron.  My own research and study and years of experience helped my to see they were leading me in the wrong direction.



Respectfully,
Carroll
If you read my post fully I concluded that it  was a good start.  I added that the batteries would have to be rotated  for at least one month to be sure.  Do you not agree with that analysis?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2040 on: August 13, 2019, 09:38:17 PM »

Offline SeaMonkey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1285
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2041 on: August 13, 2019, 09:40:00 PM »
Quote from: RickFreidrich
Again, it really doesn't matter what is shown, demonstrated, etc.,
because you guys all have an agenda here to silence and disprove OU.

It is far easier for someone to be deceived than it is for that someone to
admit they've been deceived.  Those who are deceived often develop a
very strong emotional attachment to their erroneous beliefs and will
tenaciously cling to them even in the face of Truth.

Deceptions should be temporary and not permanent.

The only AGENDA at work here should be that of the Scientific Method
as it was intended to be implemented.  Finding TRUTH.

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6561
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2042 on: August 13, 2019, 11:23:54 PM »
https://opensource.org/osd-annotated


Rick
 I bring you flowers and you bring me venom
 I asked if you would allow a demonstration of your technology at your customers lab
I heard there were motors there ,
   When you made the comment a few pages back that those were your motors
 I figured you would allow a demonstration there .
 And for clarity we weren’t even talking about demonstrating those motors we were talking about your other claim ....the simple motor Modification in you’re 37 minute video?




  I called the lab ..I find out about the motors, that you have them now or sold them ...? I asked about the motors and how they worked and what they did , would seem the 1 1/2 months was all  they were ever used for and it was felt The batteries were quite a nuisance .
 So The machines were sitting there collecting dust .
 No idea what all that other stuff you wrote is about ??


 I posted hear what I was told  I did ask permission first before I posted here
I did not add about the 45 W solar panel that was also on the job site
 But I posted what I was told ...2000Watt output for 1 1/2 months The machine and batteries are on the job all day and the machine charge the batteries at night
 And yes the man was happy to get the power on and just use electricity to run the job and be done with back-and-forth machine transportation every day
 I thought you would be very happy with this ...the only problem is it was hearsay


I felt an actual demonstration would be a wonderful thing to see ? All information would have been shared ..(  Open sourced )And anyone could replicate what was demonstrated.


For the life of me I am clueless as to why you’re calling me a liar and an Antagonist or whatever you’re calling me ?


 I believe the man at the lab and that is why I suggested more investigation of this ?
 


 And please read the definition of open source above !

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2042 on: August 13, 2019, 11:23:54 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2043 on: August 14, 2019, 01:26:46 AM »

Ramset confirmed it


No,you were wrong.
Ramset confirmed it
[/font][/size]
I had nothing to do with anyone being moderated.  Another Tinman wrong assumption.
That is because in my book when you have no input you do not need to measure.  ::)


Rubbish.


WAS I?
Let's examine Itsu's results:-



" Post by Itsu on OUR :  concerning the charging of a battery using the HV of the big coil, it went nowhere, so i removed the 3 satellite coils surrounding the big coil.

Now some more HV is available to charge the battery as the charge current went up from 2.2mA to now 6.53mA.
The voltage went up in a few hours from 12.83V to now 12.87V.

Hopefully this extra power is enough to start "conditioning" the battery.

By the way, the input to the big coil / gate driver is now 12.59V @ 12mA (was 7mA with the 3 satellite coils).

Itsu
Running overnight, the charge battery is now at 12.92V (@ 6.48mA) and the primary battery at 12.56V (@ 12mA).

Itsu "

So let me see:  In put battery went from 12.59 volts to  12.56 volts a loss of -0.03 volts.

The charging battery went up from 12.83 volts to 12.92 volts a gain of               + 0.09 volts

You also detected that the battery did not increase in temperature.  That means it was charged by cold electricity as a battery should increase it's heat signature when charged.

So we have an overall gain of +.06 volts.

These are your figures according to your highly scientific test.

Obviously the batteries need rotating for at least a month to ensure the results are accurate..  But it's a good start....



You are looking stupid Brad....

The only one looking stupid here a.king is you,as you seem to think that V across a battery is some sort of indication of a batteries state of charge.

You also think that because the batteries temperature did not rise-with a mere 7mA of current flowing through it,it was charge by the mythical cold electricity.

And then we have the old Friedwick time delay trick,where very large batteries must be used,and rotated for many months.

You two are clasic Bedini nuts.


Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline a.king21

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1611
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2044 on: August 14, 2019, 02:08:14 AM »
The only one looking stupid here a.king is you,as you seem to think that V across a battery is some sort of indication of a batteries state of charge.

You also think that because the batteries temperature did not rise-with a mere 7mA of current flowing through it,it was charge by the mythical cold electricity.

And then we have the old Friedwick time delay trick,where very large batteries must be used,and rotated for many months.

You two are clasic Bedini nuts.


Brad


I did not ask anyone to do a replication. I was merely looking for additional ideas to extract real power from reactive power. So I discovered that the RICK could be used to charge batteries.  I was not sure abut the output because as you say it is small. None the less some energy was extracted.  So far no-one has suggested any further experiments. How about using your considerable experience to assist the process of investigation and experiment rather than to condemn every experimental attempt?


At least I have shown that the resonance induction coupler kit can also be used as an experimental and safe battery charger. Itsu was really fearful of trying the experiment at first because he feared the voltage.  I told him it would  be OK so he tried it and lo and behold nothing was damaged and it worked.
I also suggested that it could be used to recharge non-rechargeable batteries,, but that experiment was not tried.


So it's obvious you are against all experiments because the great Tinman knows all the answers.


Well the good news is that you cannot stop me or anyone else from experimenting and trying out new ideas.
It is called "research", my friend. ;)







Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2044 on: August 14, 2019, 02:08:14 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2045 on: August 14, 2019, 02:37:47 AM »

I did not ask anyone to do a replication. I was merely looking for additional ideas to extract real power from reactive power. So I discovered that the RICK could be used to charge batteries.  I was not sure abut the output because as you say it is small. None the less some energy was extracted.  So far no-one has suggested any further experiments. How about using your considerable experience to assist the process of investigation and experiment rather than to condemn every experimental attempt?


At least I have shown that the resonance induction coupler kit can also be used as an experimental and safe battery charger. Itsu was really fearful of trying the experiment at first because he feared the voltage.  I told him it would  be OK so he tried it and lo and behold nothing was damaged and it worked.
I also suggested that it could be used to recharge non-rechargeable batteries,, but that experiment was not tried.


So it's obvious you are against all experiments because the great Tinman knows all the answers.


Well the good news is that you cannot stop me or anyone else from experimenting and trying out new ideas.
It is called "research", my friend. ;)

A.king

I will try and get a video together this weekend for you.
Thats the best i can do ATM.


Brad

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7931
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2046 on: August 14, 2019, 07:50:03 AM »
Hi baudirenergie. The issue is whether these type of setups might be 'OU' or not, however. 
Energy in inductive switching spikes which normally may be dissipated in windings in the fan
or in other components in the fan such as diodes, can be redirected to pulse a secondary battery, but this still
in no way in itself necessarily indicates anything about OU. I have experimented quite a bit with using inductive
switching spikes in pulse circuits to pulse secondary batteries and unfortunately, no OU. In all my experiments
I have found that the energy is coming from the source battery driving the pulse circuit. Even if you are swapping
the batteries back and forth, the batteries start to run down if you leave it all running long enough.
If there are special exceptions to this where such an arrangement shows possible indications of actually being OU, I have
not ever seen a convincing demonstration of it anyway.

This is the point which some people here have been trying to get across here.
It is an incorrect assumption to think that because you can direct energy from inductive switching spikes,
or similar, to charge a secondary battery or batteries, that this somehow indicates 'OU'.
Such an arrangement actually in no way necessarily at all indicates OU.

Only by doing a proper comparison of average output power to average input power, or by self-looping such
a setup in some way and leaving the self-looped setup running for a suitably long enough time, can you understand
what the real performance of a given setup is in regards to efficiency. If using a battery to power a self-looped setup,
then the suitable run time needed to determine if the circuit might be OU or not depends on the current draw from the battery
in comparison to the battery's Amp-hour rating.
 
If some people are not understanding and acknowledging the above points, which should all be givens at overunity.com,
then they are only demonstrating that they don't really understand what they are doing.  Sorry, but there is no nicer way to
say it. That is just the plain reality of the situation.
Sure these motors have some ohmical losses, they are only 95 to 97 % efficient in their best building types...
But let´s just use an example:Take a 12 Volts 7 Amphour battery that is fully charged and then contains 84 Watthours of energy.
Now power one of the Fanmotors from Rick.
My friend has the same  and they draw about 0.37 Amps in the normal mode unmodified.
that is about 4.44 Watts.Now if you run this on the 84 Wh battery this would give you about 19 hours run time.
Now when he had modified the motor as Rick did with removing the snubber diodes and using fast diodesto redirect the BackEMF pulses to a second 12 Battery, which was charged this way, the motor drew only then 0.35 to 0.36 amps and had the same torque,measured via a airflow meter.
So now do you agree if the motor now runs longer than 19 hours and also a few hours on the earlier empty second battery which was charged up and then will also run the same
motor also for another  few hours ?
So what do you call this now ?  OU or hyperefficient ?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2046 on: August 14, 2019, 07:50:03 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7931
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2047 on: August 14, 2019, 09:01:24 AM »
Hi Brad, You need to read more carefully. :) I did not state anywhere that the voltage across the coil remains the same polarity. ;)
I stated that the voltage across the coil when the magnetic field collapses is
the same polarity as the original applied voltage Vi, so it acts to try to keep the current flowing in the same direction
in the coil that it was flowing in before Vi was cut off. It is not of a polarity that is in opposition to the original applied voltage Vi,
so it is definitely incorrect to call it 'Back EMF' or 'Counter EMF'. Exactly as I wrote in my previous comment. ;)
Brad was correct, that the voltage gets reversed... !! but not the current through the coil. You mixed that up...


Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2048 on: August 14, 2019, 03:56:52 PM »
Sure these motors have some ohmical losses, they are only 95 to 97 % efficient in their best building types...
But let´s just use an example:Take a 12 Volts 7 Amphour battery that is fully charged and then contains 84 Watthours of energy.
Now power one of the Fanmotors from Rick.
My friend has the same  and they draw about 0.37 Amps in the normal mode unmodified.
that is about 4.44 Watts.Now if you run this on the 84 Wh battery this would give you about 19 hours run time.
Now when he had modified the motor as Rick did with removing the snubber diodes and using fast diodesto redirect the BackEMF pulses to a second 12 Battery, which was charged this way, the motor drew only then 0.35 to 0.36 amps and had the same torque,measured via a airflow meter.
So now do you agree if the motor now runs longer than 19 hours and also a few hours on the earlier empty second battery which was charged up and then will also run the same
motor also for another  few hours ?
So what do you call this now ?  OU or hyperefficient ?

There is no doubt that !some! motors can be made more efficient with some simple modifications.
The question is-->how efficient was it in the first place?

Herein lies the problem Stefan--we just cant seem to get any base line efficiency numbers from Rick(or anyone) as to the actual efficiency of those fan motors.

We have heard Rick say that the guy i got them off said they are around 94% efficient,but that is nothing more than hearsay.

claiming OU is very easy,but actually being able to present the required data to back up those claim's seems out of Rick's reach. This is data that is critical toward our research into OU.
No one enjoys having there time wasted,and as you know,a lot of us here have spent a lot of our time and own money replicating claimed OU devices. The difference most time's is we have a clear schematic or diagram to go by,but in Rick's case,information is very scarce.

So,i would start out first getting actual efficiency measurements of the fans in question.
To do this,you will have to calculate differential pressures on each side of the fan,and know the actual flow rate of the fan at a set RPM. This can be calculated if the blades size and pitch on the fan is known,along with the RPM. This will then give you an accurate CFM figure. Once that is obtained,then you will need the differential pressure across the fan. These values can then be used to calculate the energy required to move that volume of air at that pressure. Waving one of those little plastic CFM meters around like Rick dose will give you a very inaccurate reading,and will not give you the differential pressure needed to make the calculations.

The simplest way at this point in time is to measure RPM to P/in in standard mode,and then again in modified mode. Stick with the RMP per mW value's,and leave those cheap air flow meters out of it,as they will give you all sorts of readings depending on as to how you hold them in the stream of air.


Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2048 on: August 14, 2019, 03:56:52 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6561
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2049 on: August 14, 2019, 04:18:05 PM »
Apparently resident metrologist Is making a movie showing some very interesting things
 will hopefully be ready in the near future

Offline seaad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2050 on: August 14, 2019, 04:35:58 PM »
There is no doubt that !some! motors can be made more efficient with some simple modifications.
The question is-->how efficient was it in the first place?


So,i would start out first getting actual efficiency measurements of the fans in question.
To do this,you will have to calculate differential pressures on each side of the fan,and know the actual flow rate of the fan at a set RPM. This can be calculated if the blades size and pitch on the fan is known,along with the RPM. This will then give you an accurate CFM figure. Once that is obtained,then you will need the differential pressure across the fan. These values can then be used to calculate the energy required to move that volume of air at that pressure. Waving one of those little plastic CFM meters around like Rick dose will give you a very inaccurate reading,and will not give you the differential pressure needed to make the calculations.

The simplest way at this point in time is to measure RPM to P/in in standard mode,and then again in modified mode. Stick with the RMP per mW value's,and leave those cheap air flow meters out of it,as they will give you all sorts of readings depending on as to how you hold them in the stream of air.


Brad

What about an old decent Prony Brake.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prony_brake

Arne

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2050 on: August 14, 2019, 04:35:58 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2370
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2051 on: August 14, 2019, 04:45:47 PM »
Sure these motors have some ohmical losses, they are only 95 to 97 % efficient in their best building types...
But let´s just use an example:Take a 12 Volts 7 Amphour battery that is fully charged and then contains 84 Watthours of energy.
Now power one of the Fanmotors from Rick.
My friend has the same  and they draw about 0.37 Amps in the normal mode unmodified.
that is about 4.44 Watts.Now if you run this on the 84 Wh battery this would give you about 19 hours run time.
Now when he had modified the motor as Rick did with removing the snubber diodes and using fast diodesto redirect the BackEMF pulses to a second 12 Battery, which was charged this way, the motor drew only then 0.35 to 0.36 amps and had the same torque,measured via a airflow meter.
So now do you agree if the motor now runs longer than 19 hours and also a few hours on the earlier empty second battery which was charged up and then will also run the same
motor also for another  few hours ?
So what do you call this now ?  OU or hyperefficient ?

Hi Stefan,
No, this in no way indicates over unity. It more likely indicates that the circuit change you describe above
which was made to the fan motor may have improved the fan motor's overall efficiency a little, but this
in no way necessarily indicates over unity. Just a possible improvement in the fan motor's efficiency.

All the best...



Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2370
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2052 on: August 14, 2019, 04:55:24 PM »
Quote
Quote from: Void on August 06, 2019, 04:33:43 PM
Hi Brad, You need to read more carefully.  I did not state anywhere that the voltage across the coil remains the same polarity. 
I stated that the voltage across the coil when the magnetic field collapses is
the same polarity as the original applied voltage Vi, so it acts to try to keep the current flowing in the same direction
in the coil that it was flowing in before Vi was cut off. It is not of a polarity that is in opposition to the original applied voltage Vi,
so it is definitely incorrect to call it 'Back EMF' or 'Counter EMF'. Exactly as I wrote in my previous comment.


Brad was correct, that the voltage gets reversed... !! but not the current through the coil. You mixed that up...

HI Stefan. In my quote which you included in your reply, and which you were replying to, I made it clear that I never stated that the voltage across
the coil did not change polarity. Again, I never stated that anywhere. What I stated about inductive switching spikes versus
BEMF/CEMF is correct. :) 


Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2053 on: August 14, 2019, 05:49:18 PM »
Stefan,
Very good observations. These guys will never admit to anything being OU unless it is self-running, which means one would have to have 2 times the work done than normal (depending on how you define efficiency, COP, etc.). They will never agree to how efficient a motor is so that no matter how much gain you have they will just call it more efficient. That is why they insist upon self-running to be OU. And that is why I gave this very basic setup to draw out this debated point. I gave the lowest output example, and easiest to do (as well as universally found). You can see that they stack the deck with their definitions and expectations. They will never agree that these fans are that efficient, nor will they mention a pulse motor that is highly efficient (even if they have one) because they will not want to admit any OU ever. That is the point here. No matter what you do, say, show and even prove (in the real world of course) they will always show their incredulousness.

My points were:
1. Simply to show that you take billions of these useful fans that are in countless computers and run them for less energy,
2. While charging another load also. You can call that a useful hack. But these guys will not give me any credit for that. They also try and say others who copied me did it first.

The debate is:
3. Whether we are just making the circuit more efficient with the reduced input while the mechanical (air flow) is maintained. And,
4. Whether the extra output gain is free energy over unity or just more efficiency.

Another point is
5. That all these manufacturers are not doing this, and that tells you that they didn't think it was possible or didn't want people to have more output. So it is a significant discovery that could immediately result in reducing energy costs around the world when you consider billions of fans. So Chet should start there with implementing the gains that could be done like this.
6. It also may indicate that such modifications are suppressed because they don't want people to consider OU systems. This opens a door they don't want opened, and neither do these guys here.

Now people can debate about point three all they want but it is a real gain over the normal circuit. So at least admit it. But point 4 proves the Loving Paths teaching. That was the whole point of showing this. It is not an ideal example of course, but that is why I started with this basic introduction. The flyback phenomena is completely characteristic of the path which depends on topology as Barrett wrote. These guys will never admit such things because they just want to oversimplify electronics with basic vector math and symmetry relationships. They are not willing to look at real world experiences. They will always assume that a resistive element in a circuit will have the same energy effects as an inductive or capacitive element. But the whole point Tesla made as shown by Barrett, was you have an entirely different electrical experiences with nonlinear reactive systems when using inductive and capacitive elements and loads over resistive. These guys cannot understand that because they only think in terms of linear resistive systems.

For example, they will boil everything down to a single loop steady state experience that is predictable with Kirchhoff's loop rule. They don't want secondary reactive loops as the Loving Paths show. Therefore, everything in that simplistic loop comes from the input. Naturally the assume that has to be the case no mater what else you add. It can only be more of the same. But, have they considered:

7. The total environmental effect of a circuit with a pulsed inductance? No, because they only look at the parts from a conventional perspective and the loads as originally intended.

8. The total environmental effect with changing environments. No, because they assume that the environment can have little or no impact upon these circuit parts. They want to think they are in a closed system here. At least they will admit (if you force them to) that external thermal changes and altitude may effect the output.

But this point is everything and is the basis of free energy systems. A solar panel is nothing without such changing environment. If you treated such a panel as they did these circuits then people would laugh at you. The solar circuit depends upon external environmental relationships that benefit the system. In the same way, the reactive loop with inductive and/or capacitive elements allows for additional environmental gains not experienced without them or with resistive shunting. They can't explain that so they just disbelieve it and just flat out deny it no matter what they see. 100 years ago they would say the same thing about solar panels. Because they can't measure the input energy they don't believe there can be any real gains.
Now it is true that their meters will show something because the meters will have minimal field interactions in that environment, but they will not be indicative of the total work produced by other loads because the meters are merely indicating what is happening to THEM and not the loads. In such cases the energy is coming directly from the ether or the source of all energy (whatever you wish to call it). It is the same place or source where the energy comes from when a dipole is produced in a battery or generator. Think about, mechanical and chemical processes do not create electricity. They may be an instrumental cause but the source of the energy is the ether in all cases. That is what all physics will show when you keep asking the questions. So in this case we are dealing directly with the source charge. The inductor becomes a source gate to the ether, and the output is completely dependent upon the environmental elements suitably connected or placed. If you place a tiny capacitor there you will get very little benefit. If you had a battery there you will get much more. If you add a massive battery bank there you will get massive results. This is a nonlinear experience. And the triggering factors also effect the amount of gain experienced. So the rate of change, impedance matching, and resonance in the primary side and reactive and load side greatly affect this nonlinear system's COP. This nonlinear change is verified in the fact that the motor runs just the same while the load is added and changed with different gains experienced according to different loads. It proves what Barrett wrote about Tesla' shuttle circuits. Of course Barrett already proved that with many well-known examples going back 70 years now. But this is much easier to see, and that is why I started to show this 14 years ago to over 100,000 people on campuses all across the USA. It is not ideal, as the rate of change and basic circuitry is not as good as the one I usually work with. But it shows the points.

As for Void and these others, all they can say is that they claim they have not seen such and such. This is classic agnosticism. Just because they have not experienced something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is like a white child growing up around white people assuming that only white people exist. The problem is that we need to be more open, especially at considering nonlinear science. This is why I ask these guys the fundamental questions. They refuse to admit their assumptions and foundational electromagnetism theory because it will turn out like G that they do not believe OU is possible. They assume only linear systems exist. They actually need to prove and justify their assumptions. They cannot argue from ignorance, which is what they are doing essentially. That is why all they do is attack constantly. By attacking a position they hope to prove their argument from ignorance. Anytime an important point is made they go berserk with fallacies and personal attacks because they have zero foundation and will reveal zero foundational theory of their own. They only want to destroy others and don't want to expose their own foundation, or lack thereof.

As for the argument made here about swapping batteries back and forth and eventually running down, that completely diverts from the point at hand and misleads everyone (as they always do). No one was ever saying that this particular setup was a perpetual battery rotating setup (as many others are). Like you said, if you can get some extra energy and runtime then that is free energy you didn't have before. But void demands that OU be defined as self-running so he tries to change the meaning of words. Then he severely attacks me for saying otherwise. He fills pages with this false definition and personally attacks for me differing. Such immature behavior does no one any good.

Void and others say they find "that the energy is coming from the source battery driving the pulse circuit." But they never justify that claim. Only I have to justify my claims, as indeed I have. But they never feel the need to prove their own claims. And then they insult me at the same time for insisting upon them telling us why. The truth is they just assume this. They didn't find this to be the case. They have just mixed up instrumental causes with efficient source causes because they don't know basic philosophy. The input battery or power supply is only a trigger to make this additional effect happen. It is also just an instrument and is not the ultimate source of the electrical energy. This is basic physics. Just because Void doesn't understand these things doesn't mean his words have any meaning.

As for rotating batteries around, thousands of people have done that over the years. I did it with public demonstrations with fans, boats, generators. Chet recommended a Lab and it turns out that they did that a least 1.5 months with 2000W loads. Like I said, this is all old news. The debate is not about whether this is possible but about doing this without motors and batteries.

You can see in Void's next sentence where he assumes again that in order for their to be OU you have to have continuous battery rotation. But that is just him trying to change the meanings of words. Just because he wants self-running doesn't mean that OU = self-running. While self-running is OU, OU is not self-running. Void doesn't use correct language just as he didn't use proper working meters.

His next paragraph he claims that it is merely an assumption while not showing why it is. He is not willing to reveal or justify his claim, which is just a baseless assumption. And that is the extent of all the hype from these guys here: their views are true because they say so. Like I wrote, then while all the hatred for me if it is just a word-game like this? What point is actually made by that paragraph? None actually. The point is to make another assumption without ever revealing his actual theory or any justification for it. A is true because A is true. The energy comes from the input because it comes from the input. Wow, super intelligent reasoning here. But why is that so? Merely repeating baseless tautologies is a waste of time.

As for metering, this is what has been done. Airflow metering and power metering over time. And the main point is that the additional loop is nonlinear. That is, as the load changes the amount of work being done changes while the input energy from the primary battery decreases and the mechanical work stays the same. I think everyone admits this so it proves my points perfectly: The Loving Path reveals a nonlinear load output according to the topology and size of the load, etc. This is the basis for free energy. The amount of solar panels will determine how much loading you can get from the sun.

The output from the fan is not all the possible output either. When we consider the EMP coil teaching I have shown over the years we can get additional gains. Furthermore, if we add additional reactive loops we can get even more. Once we open this door we can see what Tesla was up to and the sky is not the limit!


Void wrote:
"Quote from: Void on August 06, 2019, 04:24:43 PM
Hi baudirenergie. The issue is whether these type of setups might be 'OU' or not, however. 
Energy in inductive switching spikes which normally may be dissipated in windings in the fan
or in other components in the fan such as diodes, can be redirected to pulse a secondary battery, but this still in no way in itself necessarily indicates anything about OU. I have experimented quite a bit with using inductive switching spikes in pulse circuits to pulse secondary batteries and unfortunately, no OU. In all my experiments I have found that the energy is coming from the source battery driving the pulse circuit. Even if you are swapping the batteries back and forth, the batteries start to run down if you leave it all running long enough.
If there are special exceptions to this where such an arrangement shows possible indications of actually being OU, I have not ever seen a convincing demonstration of it anyway.

This is the point which some people here have been trying to get across here.
It is an incorrect assumption to think that because you can direct energy from inductive switching spikes, or similar, to charge a secondary battery or batteries, that this somehow indicates 'OU'.
Such an arrangement actually in no way necessarily at all indicates OU.

Only by doing a proper comparison of average output power to average input power, or by self-looping such a setup in some way and leaving the self-looped setup running for a suitably long enough time, can you understand what the real performance of a given setup is in regards to efficiency. If using a battery to power a self-looped setup, then the suitable run time needed to determine if the circuit might be OU or not depends on the current draw from the battery in comparison to the battery's Amp-hour rating.
 
If some people are not understanding and acknowledging the above points, which should all be givens at overunity.com, then they are only demonstrating that they don't really understand what they are doing.  Sorry, but there is no nicer way to say it. That is just the plain reality of the situation."

Stefan wrote:
Sure these motors have some ohmical losses, they are only 95 to 97 % efficient in their best building types...
But let´s just use an example:Take a 12 Volts 7 Amphour battery that is fully charged and then contains 84 Watthours of energy.
Now power one of the Fanmotors from Rick.
My friend has the same  and they draw about 0.37 Amps in the normal mode unmodified.
that is about 4.44 Watts.Now if you run this on the 84 Wh battery this would give you about 19 hours run time.
Now when he had modified the motor as Rick did with removing the snubber diodes and using fast diodesto redirect the BackEMF pulses to a second 12 Battery, which was charged this way, the motor drew only then 0.35 to 0.36 amps and had the same torque,measured via a airflow meter.
So now do you agree if the motor now runs longer than 19 hours and also a few hours on the earlier empty second battery which was charged up and then will also run the same
motor also for another  few hours ?
So what do you call this now ?  OU or hyperefficient ?

Offline rickfriedrich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #2054 on: August 14, 2019, 06:14:41 PM »
Brad,
You have just proved my point that you foolishly denied your last few posts:
That you can't prove claims over the Internet. What is the meaning of Hearsay:
"information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate"
Well that is what all these forums are about. Until you do these things yourself you cannot substantiate any claim. And just because you personal do does not mean that translates over to others. It applies to everyone. You readily accept this here with the owner of a big company that sells millions of fans, but you then deny it with anti-OU claims where you gladly accept hearsay. You can't have it both ways. I already told you I didn't buy it from the owner, I bought it from Digikey.

But the efficiency of the motor is not the issue. You insist it is, but it isn't. You fail to understand what is claimed and you refuse to share why you believe what you do. You will not open yourself up for verification because you only want to attack and try and prove by a negative.

Let's apply your own words to yourself:
"claiming [ANTI-] OU is very easy,but actually being able to present the required data to back up those claim's seems out of [BRAD'S] reach."

No one forces anyone to do anything here Brad. You are spending time here because you know it is true and you are desperate to silence it. If all this was just silly then you would just give it a passing notice. But we have 156,000 views now (most of which happened) in two months and this shows how important this truth is.

My information has been given tens of thousands of times over the last 15 years. You guys say you don't even read what I write so it is your fault if you do that.

No, you don't start half-way into the debate. You start with the foundations and you justify each point. What is the electromagnetic theory? What is possible and what is not? Why? You can't just assume these things and then insist upon them, and then attack people for not doing the same. That is what you do Brad.

You don't understand how to do experiments Brad. This was simply a comparison experiment. You are always diverting from the point to insist upon something else that is unrelated. I just changed one variable because that was a true controlled experiment that everyone could do very easily. You will do your ignoration elenchi diversions. The point is not about the actual efficiency of the fan, but about showing how it can easily be showing extra gains. But in the end, all of this on this forum is just hearsay and one has to do all these things for themselves.

The little meter doesn't give you inaccurate readings at all. And the point is, that it gave the same readings on both fans. It is not about the total CFMs but about the same position showing the same air flow. Or you can do the same rpm when you have the same fan in the same room with no additional air flow in the room, etc. Do you not understand the differences here? I know you do and this proves to everyone how desperate you are to try and divert from the facts here.

So your last paragraph shows my point exactly. This is what I usually have done over the years. It really doesn't matter. You disregard the meter because you are trying to make yourself superior to others. And this is disgusting Brad. Especially when you blunder so much.

There is no doubt that !some! motors can be made more efficient with some simple modifications.
The question is-->how efficient was it in the first place?
Herein lies the problem Stefan--we just cant seem to get any base line efficiency numbers from Rick(or anyone) as to the actual efficiency of those fan motors.
We have heard Rick say that the guy i got them off said they are around 94% efficient,but that is nothing more than hearsay.
claiming OU is very easy,but actually being able to present the required data to back up those claim's seems out of Rick's reach. This is data that is critical toward our research into OU.
No one enjoys having there time wasted,and as you know,a lot of us here have spent a lot of our time and own money replicating claimed OU devices. The difference most time's is we have a clear schematic or diagram to go by,but in Rick's case,information is very scarce.
So,i would start out first getting actual efficiency measurements of the fans in question.
To do this,you will have to calculate differential pressures on each side of the fan,and know the actual flow rate of the fan at a set RPM. This can be calculated if the blades size and pitch on the fan is known,along with the RPM. This will then give you an accurate CFM figure. Once that is obtained,then you will need the differential pressure across the fan. These values can then be used to calculate the energy required to move that volume of air at that pressure. Waving one of those little plastic CFM meters around like Rick dose will give you a very inaccurate reading,and will not give you the differential pressure needed to make the calculations.
The simplest way at this point in time is to measure RPM to P/in in standard mode,and then again in modified mode. Stick with the RMP per mW value's,and leave those cheap air flow meters out of it,as they will give you all sorts of readings depending on as to how you hold them in the stream of air.
Brad

 

OneLink